Marquette Warrior

Monday, October 14, 2019

“Deplorables:” The Bigotry Behind the Impeachment Attempt

Marquette Doesn’t Know the Difference Between Adjectives and Adverbs

Sunday, October 13, 2019

Just in Time for Bernie

Friday, October 11, 2019

From Dan O'Donnell: Bill Penzy is a Massive Hypocrite

Saturday, September 28, 2019

Just Another Example: Intelligence Bureaucrats Spying on Trump

At the bottom of the first page of this memo (page 6 of the PDF document) Deputy Attorney General (DAG) Rod Rosenstein proposed wearing a recording device into the Oval Office to spy on President Trump, since “he was not searched when he entered the White House.”

This is Rosenstein’s conversation with Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe.

Not that it hasn’t long been obvious, but government bureaucrats were doing all they could to undermine Trump.

The pretext was “Russian collusion,” but the real reason was the aversion of the “Deep State” to a candidate (and then president) who might upset a lot of apple carts.

Labels: , , ,

Thursday, September 12, 2019

Marquette: Intolerant Leftist Tearing Down Posters for Conservative Speaker

Campus leftists at Marquette, like their cohorts on virtually every other campus in the nation, can’t tolerate views with which they disagree, so when the Young Americans for Freedom invited conservative spokeswoman Rachael Campos-Duffy to campus, what happened was not surprising.

Members of the organization posted flyers advertising the event all around campus. This is the flyer:


Nobody familiar with the campus political scene will be surprised with what happened next. At least one campus leftist went around tearing down the posters, and then went on Instagram to brag about it.

Click Image to Enlarge
The person in the Instagram post is unidentified, but we hope someone is able to identify him, and report him to Student Affairs.

Unfortunately, Student Affairs has a record of very lenient dealings with leftist students who vandalize things.

When members of the feminist group Empowerment vandalized an anti-abortion display mounted by Marquette Students for Life, the vandals received a mere slap on the wrist. The guilty students were required to write a three page paper explaining how they had how they had “acted irresponsibly.” One student on the panel refused to do that, saying “it’s finals week.” So did one other student. Both were put on university probation for a semester. Not suspension, but mere probation.

We will see what comes of this, but the odds are that campus bureaucrats don’t think ripping down a poster advertising a conservative speaker is a big deal. Had the speaker been a leftist, it would play out very differently.

Labels: , , , ,

Friday, August 09, 2019

Media Doubles Down on Trump/Charlottesville Lie

You Can Hear it if You Really Want To

Thursday, August 08, 2019

Racism, “White Supremacy” and the Official Narrative

Wednesday, July 17, 2019

Hillary’s E-Mail Server: Getting the Facts Straight

OK, this is rather old news. But it’s never too late to get the facts straight, even on an old issue.

What advantage was there to Hillary Clinton in putting e-mails on her own server?

Labels: , , , ,

Tuesday, July 09, 2019

Did it the Easy Way!

Hispanics Favor Census Citizenship Question, Deny Trump “Too Tough” on Immigration


For the left, anybody who wants to control the border must be a racist. And Donald Trump’s desire to ask about citizenship status on the 2020 Census is also racist.

Of course, white leftists pride themselves on being very sensitive to racism. But what do Hispanics, the “racial group” (actually not a racial group, but let’s play the game) think?

The Center for American Political Studies at Harvard asked them, in an online poll that included 2,182 respondents, including 282 Hispanics.

Not Very Politically Correct

Asked “Should the census be able to ask whether people living here are us citizens?” Sixty-seven percent of the entire sample said “yes,” and only 33% said “No.”

But even a majority of Hispanics said “yes:” 55% did, as opposed to 45% who said “No.”

Even More Politically Incorrect

The survey also asked “Do you think President Trump is too tough, too lenient or just right in dealing with illegal immigrants caught trying to cross the border?”

Among the entire sample, 42% said “too tough,” 24% said “too lenient,” and 34% said “just right.”

But among Hispanics, the results were very similar: 46% said “too tough,” 30% said “too lenient,” and 24% said “just right.”

Thus Hispanic opinion was a bit more polarized, with 4% more saying “too tough” but also 6% more saying “too lenient.”

Bottom Line

Taken at face value, both Hispanics and the entire sample show a majority favoring Trump’s policies, or policies even more strict.

But it is a well-known artifact in polling that, when given three alternatives, people tend to choose the middle option (“just right” in this case). It seems “safer.” But this only applies when people don’t have a strong, clear opinion.

If the nation’s Hispanics were convinced that Trump’s policies are too harsh, or that asking about citizenship is a racist attack on their group, nothing would prevent them from expressing that.

We have yet another case where the white Social Justice Warriors and their pet ethnic activists don’t represent the group they claim to.

Labels: , , , , , ,

Bladensburg Cross: Victory for Religious Freedom



From the Family Policy Alliance, a press release about the Supreme Court and the Bladensburg Cross:
Last week the Supreme Court released a 7-2 opinion that not only protected a 94-year-old World War I war memorial that is in the shape of a Cross, but it also took major steps to secure religious freedom for all.

What happened?

As a way of memorializing those who died defending freedom in World War I, a 40-foot Latin Cross was erected in Bladensburg, Maryland in 1925. The Cross stood relatively unmolested until several years ago when a group of atheists decided that merely viewing the Cross was offensive.

The Fourth Circuit ruled that the cross was an unconstitutional means of “government establishing a preferred religion” under an arbitrary legal test known as the Lemon test. The arbitrary nature of this test was highlighted in 2005 when the Supreme Court issued rulings on two different sets of religious monuments or displays on the same day and came to opposite conclusions.

What did the Court say?

In last week’s opinion, the Supreme Court not only reversed the decision of the Fourth Circuit in order to save the Bladensburg Cross, but it also took a hard look at the Lemon test. The Court spent the majority of its opinion discussing all the problems with the test itself. Justice Gorsuch further pointed out in his concurring opinion how it hasn’t been useful in deciding anything having to do with deciding whether government is “establishing a state religion” – not when it comes to religious displays, mottos, monuments, religious accommodations, religious subsidies or tax exemptions, religious expression in public schools, regulations of religious speech, or interference in internal church affairs.

So how would the Court have us deal with these sorts of challenges going forward?

Essentially, the Court will presume the constitutionality of long-standing monuments and traditions based on our history. This is a much simpler and much clearer way to deal with these issues.

Justice Gorsuch eloquently extended and clarified the Court’s rule this way:

“What matters when it comes to assessing a monument, symbol, or practice isn’t its age but its compliance with ageless principles. The Constitution’s meaning is fixed, not some good-for-this-day-only coupon, and a practice consistent with our nation’s traditions is just as permissible whether undertaken today or 94 years ago.”

What does this mean going forward?

It opens a lot of doors to proactively advance legislation that protects our timeless history and beliefs. Prior to the Court’s recent ruling, when we worked on religious liberty legislation, we were inevitably asked about the Lemon test – which was normally just a way to try to kill whatever bill we were working on.

Now Lemon can’t be used as a threat to your religious liberties. We can work on laws that protect student and educator rights in schools, doctors’ religious conscience beliefs, tax exemptions for religious organizations, religious displays, and internal church decisions without the threat that the Court will arbitrarily use Lemon against the expression of our faith in these realms.

This decision could spell the beginning of the end of ridiculous lawsuits that certain groups who are bent on removing any reminder of God from our culture bring against many small towns or groups they view as vulnerable.

We are thankful for the Court protecting religious freedom in this case, and we look forward to working with state legislators and allies to advance policies that allow religious freedom to flourish for all.
Those hostile to religion (and this increasingly includes Democrats) tend to take the position that the Constitution requires anything invoking the Christian religion must be sanitized from the public square.

Of course, Judaism or Islam are different matters. The National Menorah on the White House Ellipse has never been particularly controversial.

But Jews and Muslims vote Democratic. Christians vote Republican.

But banning anything religious, while allowing anything not religious, and even allowing things contrary to a lot of people’s religious convictions (such as funding abortions or flying the gay pride flag over a state capital) is to discriminate against religion.

Which frankly, is what a lot of people want to do.

But not a majority of the current Supreme Court.

Labels: , , , ,

Sunday, June 16, 2019

Paul Joseph Watson: Politically Correct Prudes Aren’t Funny

Friday, June 14, 2019

Another Bogus Racial Grievance

Yes, it’s the “Central Park 5,” five thugs who attacked a jogger in New York’s Central Park, raping her and beating her nearly to death.

Now a Netflix documentary claims they were coerced into confessing. The notion is supported by the fact that one of the guilty thugs, not before linked to the crime, has come forward, been linked to the crime by DNA, and claimed to be the only offender.

But the evidence shows that the five were clearly guilty.

Some of the facts the Netflix documentary will not tell you:
[Attacker] Raymond Santana confirmed his accomplices’ testimony. “He was smackin’ her, he was sayin’, ‘Shut up, bitch!’ Just smackin’ her…I was grabbin’ the lady’s tits.”

[Attacker] Kharey Wise admitted that this “was my first rape.”

Melody Jackson, whose brother was friends with Wise, corroborated Wise’s claim. She said that while Wise was incarcerated at Riker’s Island, he told her by phone that although he didn’t personally rape Meili, he is guilty of having restrained her legs as Kevin Richardson “f**ked her.”

Even more telling is that Melody Jackson relayed this exchange with Wise to the authorities only because she believed that it would assist Wise’s defense. Evidently, she thought (ludicrously) that insofar as Wise admitted to not having forcefully penetrated Meili himself, this would somehow exonerate her friend.

While Santana was in a police vehicle and before he had even been arrested, he abruptly shouted out that “I had nothing to do with the rape!” He added that he had only fondled her “tits.”

At this juncture, the police weren’t even aware that [victim] Meili had been raped.

Two friends of his informed authorities that the day after the attack Korey Wise told them that he and the other four of the Central Park Five were responsible for beating and raping Meili. And when a detective presiding over the case and a prosecutor took Wise back to the blood-soaked scene of the crime, he said that he knew that she had been bleeding. But because it was dark, he had been unaware of just how much blood she had lost.

Thus, he attested once more that he had been present the night Meili was bludgeoned.

Wise also informed police that a person whose name he thought was “Rudy” stole Meili’s Walkman radio. Her radio had been stolen—only at this point, the police had been unaware of this.

Kevin Richardson also told someone that he and his friends had raped a woman.

Tellingly, Richardson was able to show investigators exactly where the attack on Meili occurred. So too did Santana direct them to the location of the crime.

Ann Coulter reminds us of but another inconvenient fact that puts the lie to the narrative that the CP5 confessed to these crimes because Big Bad Blue Men scared them into doing so. “Far from trembling and afraid…the suspects were singing the rap song, ‘Wild Thing’ for hours in the precinct house, laughing and joking about raping the jogger. One of the attackers said, ‘It was fun.’”

One of the other many teens who had been out “wilding” and who was among the ten or so kids to have been arrested that night relayed to the police that he heard Santana and another male teen laughing over having made “a woman bleed.”

Another one, prior to being questioned, told police that he knew “who did the murder.” This is proof that, at the very least, the pummeling that Meili endured was witnessed by multiple people and that its severity was such that it was assumed it was fatal.
People naïve about DNA testing in 1989 might assume that the lack of DNA evidence against other suspects exculpates the Central Park 5. But it does’t. Such testing was vastly less sophisticated in 1989, and assaults that today would leave usable DNA all over the place didn’t in 1989.

Fits the Narrative

As with the case of Michael Brown, or the Covington Catholic Kids, people quickly adopt and fail to question a narrative that fits their preconceptions.

The idea that huge numbers of innocents blacks are locked up because of racist cops and prosecutors is a narrative many love. It gives them a glow of warm self-righteousness.

But the idea that there is a problem of crime and violence in the black community isn’t so nice. It’s good for the ego to be the defender of poor, oppressed black people. It’s more complicated if the problems come from within the black community.

Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Thursday, May 30, 2019

Harvard Caves to the Mob

Monday, May 20, 2019

We Didn’t Want That Investigated!

Wednesday, May 01, 2019

Union Goons Occupy Marquette Administration Building

We’ve blogged on the attempt of the Service Employees International Union to unionize adjunct (non-tenure track) faculty at Marquette.

Today, the campaign escalated. A somewhat bland e-mail sent to some Marquette employees alludes to what happened:
From: Bontempo, Jessica On Behalf Of Pogodzinski, Joel
Sent: Wednesday, May 1, 2019 7:21 PM
To: Pogodzinski, Joel
Subject: Zilber Hall Lobby Activity
Importance: High

Dear Zilber Hall colleagues:

We know many of you are aware that some non-tenure-track faculty and graduate students occupied the lobby of Zilber Hall today to bring attention to their effort to form a union. Acting Provost Ah Yun met with this group multiple times today and committed that Marquette would follow the law with respect to any union organization and election activities.

To ensure business operations can continue as usual if protestors [sic] choose to occupy the Zilber lobby for multiple days, we have taken the following steps:

• Protestors will be asked to stay in a designated area of the lobby to ensure elevators, stairwells and pathways into offices are kept clear.
• Access to the fourth floor elevators and stairwells will require MUID badge access, which has been granted to all Zilber Hall employees. If for some reason your MUID is not working, please contact Chris Gatzke in MUPD . . . .
• If a meeting scheduled on the fourth floor includes an individual who is not a Zilber Hall occupant or ULC member, they will have to be met on the first floor and brought upstairs by someone with MUID badge access to the fourth floor.
• MUPD will have a presence in the Zilber lobby – please contact MUPD if you need assistance.

We know that some of you were confused or felt unsettled at certain points during the day, and we are hopeful that the above measures will alleviate the stress and provide assurance that the safety and security of our colleagues is of utmost importance. Thank you for your patience and your dedication to Marquette.

Best, Joel Pogodzinski
Senior vice president and chief operating officer

Dr. Kimo Ah Yun
Acting provost and executive vice president for academic affairs
A more blunt assessment of the situation comes from a source in Zilber Hall:
The professional SEIU goons occupied parts of Zilber this afternoon and demanded the provost’s time. He agreed to meet with them. Apparently (see below) that wasn’t enough. What a surprise! Prior to their meeting(s), the pro-SEIU goons were chanting and pounding in the stairwells. The whole building was shaking. I’m sure they’re proud of that. But their point?

I had a meeting that required me to take the steps after they had moved out of the stairwell and into their meeting. Mud ALL OVER the steps. Clearly deliberate. Do they realize they just added a huge extra task to the poor cleaning crew’s duties? Do they care? Of course not.

Now we employees — and MUPD — are supposed to accommodate them as they lay about the Zilber lobby disrupting university security resources in their zeal to secure more tuition dollars for themselves. That’s social justice!

This is the absurdity of the Left attempting to accommodate its own Frankenstein monster.
This kind of behavior is a good reason for Marquette to oppose unionization. It is true that if the union gets majority support, Marquette has pretty much no choice but to recognize the union. The exception would occur if Marquette claimed an exemption from labor law on the grounds that it’s a religious institution. Given the dubious nature of the school’s “Catholic mission,” such a claim would reek of hypocrisy.

Marquette could, however, make it clear that certain bad consequences might follow from unionization. For example, if a union increases the costs of hiring adjuncts, or imposes rigidities in the use of adjuncts, fewer adjuncts will be hired.

So Marquette doesn’t have to roll over and play dead in the face of the campaign.

We have little faith that Marquette will act in a principled way, but perhaps the mere threat of higher costs and less flexibility in hiring will cause them to oppose the union. But we would not want to predict.

Labels: , , , , ,

Thursday, April 25, 2019

Media Lie: Trump Called Klan Types “Good People”

Labels: , , , , , ,

Saturday, April 20, 2019

The Bunny Laid an Egg