lakerace's Xanga

Tuesday, September 19, 2006

Tue, 19 Sep 2006 08:45:17 GMT

Minimum wage hike claims first casualty

(Note: The following commentary first appeared as an Op-Ed in the August 31 issue of The Detroit News.)

I am one of the first casualties of Michigan's new minimum wage law.

I am a 21-year-old economics major at Hope College who last year worked part-time at the college's Office of Career Services for $6 an hour. On Oct. 1, however, it will be illegal for the school to pay me an hourly wage less than $6.95 an hour. So my boss called me last week and told me that her budget was tight and, because of the wage increase, my job would be cut.

I would have liked to continue working at $6 per hour, and Hope College was willing to pay me that. But the state of Michigan says I do not have the right to work for that amount of money. Hope College and I are not allowed to negotiate a contract that is satisfactory to both of us.

In my study of minimum wages, I have concluded that minimum wage laws always cause unemployment among the very groups they are supposedly trying to protect.

Our nation’s first federal minimum wage law was passed in 1918 and applied only to women. Employers had to pay women in Washington, D.C., at least $71.50 per month for their labor. What happened next is that many women found themselves out of jobs.

One of the casualties of that minimum wage law was Willie Lyons who, like me, was 21 years old. She worked happily as an elevator operator at the Congress Hall Hotel. She had been paid $35 a month plus two meals a day.

When the minimum wage law passed, however, the Congress Hotel could no longer afford to keep her. She wanted to work at the old wage, just as I do, but the new law made that illegal. Instead, the Congress Hotel hired a man at $35 a day plus meals. Like me, Willie Lyons became unemployed by a "compassionate bill" supposedly designed to protect her.

The good news is that Willie Lyons regained her liberty of contract. She testified before the U.S. Supreme Court in Adkins v. Children’s Hospital (1923) and pointed out that she liked her job, her employers liked her, and she resented being ousted from her job by the new minimum wage law.

The Supreme Court agreed and struck down the federal minimum wage law (although a later court let such laws stand). In writing for the majority in the case, Justice George Sutherland wrote, "freedom of contract is the general rule and restraint the exception, and the exercise of legislative authority to abridge it can be justified only by the existence of exceptional circumstances."

Sutherland graduated from the University of Michigan Law School. I wish our Michigan legislators had studied Justice Sutherland before they passed a law that took my job.

#####

Adam Folsom, a senior and a George F. Baker scholar at Hope College in Holland, Mich., is the son of former Mackinac Center Senior Fellow in Economic History Dr. Burton W. Folsom. The Mackinac Center is a research and educational institute headquartered in Midland, Mich.

Tuesday, August 29, 2006

Tue, 29 Aug 2006 22:54:27 GMT

How math lessons have changed through the years or the dumbing down of America

1. Teaching Math In 1950
A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is 4/5 of the price. What is his profit?

2. Teaching Math In 1960
A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is 4/5 of the price, or $80. What is his profit?

3. Teaching Math In 1970
A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is $80. Did he make a profit?

4. Teaching Math In 1980
A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is $80 and his profit is $20. Your assignment: Underline the number 20.

5. Teaching Math In 1990
A logger cuts down a beautiful forest because he is selfish and inconsiderate and cares nothing for the habitat of animals or the preservation of our woodlands. He does this so he can make a profit of $20. What do you think of this way of making a living? Topic for class participation after answering the question: How did the birds and squirrels feel as the logger cut down their homes? (There are no wrong answers.)

6. Teaching Math In 2006
Un hachero vende una carretada de maderapara $100. El costo de la producciones es $80.

Thursday, August 24, 2006

Thu, 24 Aug 2006 09:55:20 GMT

Do we really want Democrats in charge?
By Larry Elder
Thursday, August 24, 2006

Sixty percent of Americans, according to recent polls, consider Iraq a mistake. Given the unpopularity of the war, Democrats expect to capture one, if not both, chambers of Congress this fall. Assuming this happens -- and I still don't believe so -- will Americans be better off?

Sure, anti-war candidate Ned Lamont beat Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., in the Democratic primary. But look at Lamont's "strategy" for the war in Iraq. He calls for a "phased pullout" of troops. A "phased pullout"?

Sen. Lieberman, who disagrees with President Bush on virtually every domestic issue, understands the stakes in Iraq, even if his party members fail to. "I am convinced," wrote Lieberman, "almost all of the progress in Iraq and throughout the Middle East will be lost if [U.S.] forces are withdrawn faster than the Iraqi military is capable of securing the country."

During the recent war between Israel and Hezbollah (and Lebanon and Syria and Iran), we justly criticized the Lebanese government for the lack of will or ability to police its southern border. Yet many Democrats want us to leave Iraq and abandon the Iraqi military and police that show the will, if not the ability so far, to police and protect their own country.

Lamont's "phased pullout" would send yet another signal to the enemies to simply wait us out. Osama bin Laden considers America impatient, lacking resolve and unwilling to sacrifice. Recall that our hasty pullout from Vietnam, and subsequent failure to abide by promises made to the South Vietnamese, resulted in a bloodbath in Southeast Asia that left 3 million or more dead.

For insight into the Democrats' brand of appeasement foreign policy, look no farther than former President Jimmy Carter. Just a few months into his presidency, he urged Americans to reconsider our "inordinate fear of communism." Carter kissed then-Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev on the cheek. Brezhnev invaded Afghanistan.

Carter, a staunch Bush critic, helped to usher in the "Iranian Revolution" of 1979 by leaning on the Shah of Iran to "release political prisoners." To show their gratitude, Iranians seized 90 hostages at the U.S. embassy, holding 52 of them for 444 days, before releasing them minutes after Ronald Reagan took office. At the time of the hostage crisis, Carter sent what some called a believer-to-believer letter in longhand to the Ayatollah Khomeini. The letter praised the ayatollah as a "man of God."

The other major Democrat line of attack accuses the Republicans of fiscal irresponsibility. This is their strongest and most persuasive argument. For it is true that this president, with the approval of the Republican-run legislature, ran up bills at a rate faster than any president since Lyndon Baines Johnson. Even if we exclude the cost of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, homeland security and Katrina relief, the Republican Party turned its back on their alleged "limited government" philosophy.

But the Democrats' primary criticism is to call Republicans too stingy. About the monstrous expansion of Medicare with the prescription bill for seniors, Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., said, "Because the administration and the Republican leadership refused to provide the funds needed for an adequate drug benefit, more and more seniors are facing the ridiculous 'donut hole.' That's the huge gap which leaves enrollees with major out-of-pocket costs."

About No Child Left Behind, another unwarranted expansion of the federal government in education, Democrats, along with the National Education Association, call it insufficiently funded. "The law requires Washington to pay for it," said NEA President Reg Weaver, "and the fact is that Washington is not keeping that promise. As a result, our parents' tax dollars are getting steered away from the classroom and going towards boosting the profits of testing companies, instead of going towards their children's education."

Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California and other House Democrats recently released a six-pronged "New Direction for America" agenda for change: Real security and immediate phased pullout in Iraq; higher minimum wage; more affordable college; energy independence and lower gas prices; affordable health care; and something called "Retirement Security and Dignity," which calls for shoring up private pensions.

Notice anything missing? Not one word about North Korea. Not one word about Iran. And virtually every one of the six Democrat initiatives requires greater federal government intrusion, higher taxes and contempt for the private sector to compete and innovate. In short, "fiscal irresponsibility."

Americans, despite our uneasiness with the war in Iraq, nevertheless realize the consequences -- in the war against Islamofascism -- of an abrupt abandonment. And the next time you hear a Democrat attack Republicans for "reckless spending," ask the following question: "Aside from defense, where should government cut back?"

The silence will be deafening.

Thursday, August 24, 2006

Thu, 24 Aug 2006 09:52:59 GMT

Since it has become apparent that governments around the world aren't really going to do anything about the threat posed on airplanes by Islamic terrorism, the airline passengers have taken control of things. Sadly, the TSA (and its counterparts all over the globe) don't want to engage in racial profiling.

But the people who have to fly on these airplanes...that put their lives on the line and actually want to live until they reach their next destination, are beginning to take action. Two recent incidents illustrate this perfectly. The first involves a situation that took place on a flight last week from Spain to the UK.

Two Muslim students were acting in a suspicious manner. The news coverage doesn't say exactly what they were doing, but it was enough to bother the passengers...and that's when it started. Some of the passengers informed the flight crew of what was taken place, then a bunch of the passengers stormed off the plane. The suspicious fliers were removed from the plane at gunpoint and the flight was on its way. The kids turned out to be clean, but who cares. Since nearly every airplane hijacker in the last 30 years has been an Arab Muslim, these passengers were simply playing the odds.

The second case involves something that took place yesterday. A Northwest flight from Amsterdam to India was escorted back to the airport by Dutch F-16's and 12 passengers were arrested for suspicious behavior. These passengers were of Middle Eastern origin and were passing around a cell phone on the plane, something that's not allowed. The other fliers weren't having it, so the plane was sent back and those in question were marched off by air marshals.

The message from government regarding airline security has been clear: because of political correctness, they are not going to do anything to prevent a repeat of 9/11. It's nice to see the passengers taking the matters into their own hands.

Saturday, July 29, 2006

Sat, 29 Jul 2006 10:33:59 GMT

Pacifists versus peace
By Thomas Sowell
Friday, July 21, 2006

One of the many failings of our educational system is that it sends out into the world people who cannot tell rhetoric from reality. They have learned no systematic way to analyze ideas, derive their implications and test those implications against hard facts.

"Peace" movements are among those who take advantage of this widespread inability to see beyond rhetoric to realities. Few people even seem interested in the actual track record of so-called "peace" movements -- that is, whether such movements actually produce peace or war.

Take the Middle East. People are calling for a cease-fire in the interests of peace. But there have been more cease-fires in the Middle East than anywhere else. If cease-fires actually promoted peace, the Middle East would be the most peaceful region on the face of the earth instead of the most violent.

Was World War II ended by cease-fires or by annihilating much of Germany and Japan? Make no mistake about it, innocent civilians died in the process. Indeed, American prisoners of war died when we bombed Germany.

There is a reason why General Sherman said "war is hell" more than a century ago. But he helped end the Civil War with his devastating march through Georgia -- not by cease fires or bowing to "world opinion" and there were no corrupt busybodies like the United Nations to demand replacing military force with diplomacy.

There was a time when it would have been suicidal to threaten, much less attack, a nation with much stronger military power because one of the dangers to the attacker would be the prospect of being annihilated.

"World opinion," the U.N. and "peace movements" have eliminated that deterrent. An aggressor today knows that if his aggression fails, he will still be protected from the full retaliatory power and fury of those he attacked because there will be hand-wringers demanding a cease fire, negotiations and concessions.

That has been a formula for never-ending attacks on Israel in the Middle East. The disastrous track record of that approach extends to other times and places -- but who looks at track records?

Remember the Falkland Islands war, when Argentina sent troops into the Falklands to capture this little British colony in the South Atlantic?

Argentina had been claiming to be the rightful owner of those islands for more than a century. Why didn't it attack these little islands before? At no time did the British have enough troops there to defend them.

Before there were "peace" movements and the U.N., sending troops into those islands could easily have meant finding British troops or bombs in Buenos Aires. Now "world opinion" condemned the British just for sending armed forces into the South Atlantic to take back their islands.

Shamefully, our own government was one of those that opposed the British use of force. But fortunately British prime minister Margaret Thatcher ignored "world opinion" and took back the Falklands.

The most catastrophic result of "peace" movements was World War II. While Hitler was arming Germany to the teeth, "peace" movements in Britain were advocating that their own country disarm "as an example to others."

British Labor Party Members of Parliament voted consistently against military spending and British college students publicly pledged never to fight for their country. If "peace" movements brought peace, there would never have been World War II.

Not only did that war lead to tens of millions of deaths, it came dangerously close to a crushing victory for the Nazis in Europe and the Japanese empire in Asia. And we now know that the United States was on Hitler's timetable after that.

For the first two years of that war, the Western democracies lost virtually every battle, all over the world, because pre-war "peace" movements had left them with inadequate military equipment and much of it obsolete. The Nazis and the Japanese knew that. That is why they launched the war.

"Peace" movements don't bring peace but war.

Thursday, July 27, 2006

Thu, 27 Jul 2006 11:46:45 GMT

var sWinHTML = window.opener.sWinHTML; document.write(sWinHTML); window.print(); More of John Kerry's retroactive campaign promises
By Ann Coulter
Wednesday, July 26, 2006

On Sunday, John Kerry said of Israel's war against Hezbollah, "If I was president, this wouldn't have happened," adding, "we have to destroy Hezbollah."

But wait a minute -- Hezbollah didn't attack us on 9/11! Wouldn't fighting Hezbollah distract us from the urgent task of finding Osama bin Laden?

Democrats can't come out and admit that they refuse to fight any war in defense of America, so they utter the "Where's Osama?" incantation to pretend that they'd be doing something. To wit: dedicating the entire resources of the U.S. military to locating Osama bin Laden.

Thus, in the third presidential debate, Kerry complained about the cost of the war in Iraq, saying the war was "the result of this president taking his eye off of Osama bin Laden."

After making the capture of Osama bin Laden their sole objective in the war on terrorism, now Democrats expect us to believe they would have been fighting every other Muslim jihadist on the planet like mad -- just not one of the main sponsors of Islamic terrorism, Saddam Hussein. But they'd be merciless with every other mass-murdering, Islamic terror-sponsoring lunatic.

Israel's recent tussle with Hezbollah reminds us how absurd the Democrats' fixation on Osama is. America has been under attack from Muslim extremists for nearly 30 years. Not just al-Qaida and certainly not just Osama bin Laden.

Here's the highlights reel for anyone still voting for the Democrats:

November 1979: Muslim extremists (Iranian variety) seized the U.S. embassy in Iran and held 52 American hostages for 444 days, following Democrat Jimmy Carter's masterful foreign policy granting Islamic fanaticism its first real foothold in the Middle East.

1982: Muslim extremists (mostly Hezbollah) began a nearly decade-long habit of taking Americans and Europeans hostage in Lebanon, killing William Buckley and holding Terry Anderson for 6 1/2 years.

April 1983: Muslim extremists (Islamic Jihad or possibly Hezbollah) bombed the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, killing 16 Americans.

October 1983: Muslim extremists (Hezbollah) blew up the U.S. Marine barracks at the Beirut airport, killing 241 Marines.

December 1983: Muslim extremists (al-Dawa) blew up the U.S. Embassy in Kuwait, killing five and injuring 80.

September 1984: Muslim extremists (Hezbollah) exploded a truck bomb at the U.S. Embassy annex in Beirut, killing 24 people, including two U.S. servicemen.

December 1984: Muslim extremists (probably Hezbollah) hijacked a Kuwait Airways airplane, landed in Iran and demanded the release of the 17 members of al-Dawa who had been arrested for the bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Kuwait, killing two Americans before the siege was over.

June 14, 1985: Muslim extremists (Hezbollah) hijacked TWA Flight 847 out of Athens, diverting it to Beirut, taking the passengers hostage in return for the release of the Kuwait 17 as well as another 700 prisoners held by Israel. When their demands were not met, the Muslims shot U.S. Navy diver Robert Dean Stethem and dumped his body on the tarmac.

October 1985: Muslim extremists (Palestine Liberation Front backed by Libya) seized an Italian cruise ship, the Achille Lauro, killing 69-year-old American Leon Klinghoffer by shooting him and then tossing his body overboard.

December 1985: Muslim extremists (backed by Libya) bombed airports in Rome and Vienna, killing 20 people, including five Americans.

April 1986: Muslim extremists (backed by Libya) bombed a discotheque frequented by U.S. servicemen in West Berlin, injuring hundreds and killing two, including a U.S. soldier.

December 1988: Muslim extremists (backed by Libya) bombed Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, killing all 259 on board and 11 on the ground.

(Then came an amazing, historic pause in Muslim extremists' relentless war on America after Ronald Reagan won the Cold War by doing the opposite of everything recommended by Democrats, depriving Islamic terrorists of their Soviet sponsors. This confuses liberals because they don't understand the concept of terror sponsors, whether it's the Soviet Union or Iraq.)

February 1993: Muslim extremists (al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya, possibly with involvement of friendly rival al-Qaida) set off a bomb in the basement of the World Trade Center, killing six and wounding more than 1,000.

Spring 1993: Muslim extremists (al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya, the Sudanese Islamic Front and at least one member of Hamas) plot to blow up the Lincoln and Holland tunnels, the U.N. complex, and the FBI's lower Manhattan headquarters.

November 1995: Muslim extremists (possibly Iranian "Party of God") explode a car bomb at U.S. military headquarters in Saudi Arabia, killing five U.S. military servicemen.

June 1996: Muslim extremists (13 Saudis and a Lebanese member of Hezbollah, probably with involvement of al-Qaida) explode a truck bomb outside the Khobar Towers military complex, killing 19 American servicemen and injuring hundreds.

August 1998: Muslim extremists (al-Qaida) explode truck bombs at U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, killing 224 and injuring thousands.

October 2000: Muslim extremists (al-Qaida) blow up the U.S. Navy destroyer USS Cole, killing 17 U.S. sailors.

Sept. 11, 2001: Muslim extremists (al-Qaida) hijack commercial aircraft and fly planes into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania, killing nearly 3,000 Americans.

America's war with Islamic fanaticism didn't start on 9/11, but it's going to end with 9/11 -- as long as Americans aren't foolish enough ever to put a Democrat in the White House.

Thursday, July 20, 2006

Thu, 20 Jul 2006 08:58:56 GMT

A popular Des Moines Barber shop had a new robotic barber installed.

A fellow came in for a haircut. As the robot began to cut his hair it asked him, "What's your IQ?" The man replied, "130."
So the robot proceeded to make conversation about physics, astronomy, investments, philosophy, history, and so on. The man listened intently and said, "This is really cool."

Later, another gent came in for a haircut and the robot asked him as it began the haircut, "What's your IQ?" The man responded, "100." So the robot started talking about football, baseball, T.V. programs, the latest movies and so on. The man thought to himself, "Wow, this is really cool."

Later on, a third guy came in to the barbershop. As with the others, the robot barber asked him, "What's your IQ?" The man replied, "70" The robot then said, "So, I understand you Democrats are really excited about Hillary running for president?"

Monday, July 17, 2006

Mon, 17 Jul 2006 09:31:31 GMT

"Headlines from the Year 2029!" sent to me by a listener.

Ozone created by electric cars now killing millions in the seventh largest country in the world, Mexifornia , formerly known as California. White minorities still trying to have English recognized as Mexifornia's third language.
Spotted Owl plague threatens northwestern United States crops and livestock.
Baby conceived naturally. Scientists stumped.
Couple petitions court to reinstate heterosexual marriage.
Last remaining Fundamentalist Muslim dies in the American Territory of the Middle East (formerly known as Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and Lebanon).
Iran still closed off; physicists estimate it will take at least 10 more years before radioactivity decreases to safe levels.
France pleads f or global help after being taken over by Jamaica.
Castro finally dies at age 112; Cuban cigars can now be imported legally, but President Chelsea Clinton has banned all smoking.
George Z. Bush says he will run for President in 2036.
Postal Service raises price of first class stamp to $17.89 and reduces mail delivery to Wednesdays only.
85-years, $75.8 billion study: Diet and Exercise is the key to weight loss.
Average weight of Americans drops to 250 lbs.
Japanese scientists have created a camera with such a fast shutter speed, they now can photograph a woman with her mouth shut. (Hummmmmmmmm) Now that's just wrong!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Massachusetts executes last remaining conservative.
Supreme Court rules punishment of criminals, violates their civil rights.
Average height of NBA players now nine feet, seven inches.
New federal law requires that all nail clippers, screwdrivers, fly swatters and rolled-up newspapers must be registered by January 2036.
Congress authorizes direct deposit of formerly illegal political contributions to campaign accounts.
IRS sets lowest tax rate at 75 percent.
Florida voters still having trouble with voting machines
http://boortz.com/nuze/index.html

Monday, July 17, 2006

Mon, 17 Jul 2006 09:30:51 GMT

IS THIS GOING TO BE ENOUGH TO FINALLY WAKE US UP?

What you're seeing in the Middle East right now -- the fighting in Lebanon and in Gaza -- are the direct and predictable result of Israel's demonstrations of weakness. You do not show any sign of weakness to Islamic fascists. They will revel in it, and will then attack to press their perceived advantage.

Israel pulls it's citizens and settlements out of Gaza. This Israel does as a show of good faith and an inducement to the so-called "Palestinians" to react with a concession of their own and move toward a lasting negotiated peace. After the Gaza pull out Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert remarked that Israel was "tired" and wanted to work harder for peace. Another sign of Israeli weakness. "We're tired. Please leave us alone."

So ... Islamic terrorists in Gaza build a nice little tunnel and use it to attack Israel. They kidnap an Israeli soldier. Hezbollah Islamic fascists in Lebanon conduct a similar attack from the North. They kill several Israeli soldiers and kidnap two. These were clear-cut acts of war against Israel, and Israel is responding.

Newt Gingrich says that we and the rest of the world have to come to terms that we're in the middle of what he calls World War III. OK, he and I have a bit of a disagreement on that. I believe that the Cold War was World War III, and we won. Small point, so I'll bow to Gingrich on the World War III category.

It's been said that this World War, sometimes called the War On Terror, has an enemy that is difficult to define. Nothing could be further from the truth. We know who the enemy is in this world war: it is the savages who practice radical Islam. We know exactly who they are and we know exactly where to find them: Iran, Syria, Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the West Bank and Gaza strip. Let's also be sure to mention the Wahabbis of Saudi Arabia and a good number of professors in American colleges and universities. This isn't rocket science...it's never been more clear exactly who the enemy is and where to find them.

So what should we do? It's time for the United States, Israel and whoever else values freedom and our way of life to eliminate radical Islam once and for all. The time to speak of toleration, negotiations and appeasement is past. Israel tried this route, and we clearly see what it bought them. Nothing but misery and death at the hands of the wonderful, peaceful religion of Islam.

Radical Islam needs to be eliminated from the face of the Earth. This must be done militarily, not through any more failed negotiations. Anything short of total annihilation of Islamic fascism is unacceptable. The radical Islamic government in Iran should be toppled and its leaders exterminated. Same with Syria. Israel should be fully unleashed and supported in an effort to eliminate Hamas and Hezbollah. It's time for them to breathe their last breath and be rewarded with their 72 virgins -- or 72 white grapes, as the case may be.

Unfortunately, that's not what's going to happen. The pro-appeasement forces in the United Nations, Europe and the American Democratic Party will call for a halt in the fight before the enemy has been erased. Once again Israel will have come close to destroying her enemies, only to be sold out by the world community. Too bad.

Inside Israel we have leftists marching and demanding an end to Israel's military moves. The appeasement left is pulling out the same mantras perfected by the left in this country. They're detailing the deaths of women and children, and calling for even more negotiations. Never mind that the negotiating has been going on for more than 50 years. Any rational observer can quickly see that the radical Islamist position on negotiations is that you negotiate to buy time, you kill to take the advantage.

One idiot protestor in Israel told a reporter "I think that Israel should negotiate with Hezbollah and Hamas and release Palestinian prisoners in exchange for the hostages. This way this story will come to an end." Yes --- Israel has it's share of leftist idiots too.

This world cannot exist in peace and prosperity as long as we approach radical radical Islam with a politically correct, Mr. Nice Guy hand-off game plan. Israel realizes what's at stake here, Americans need to be reminded.

http://boortz.com/nuze/index.html

Friday, June 30, 2006

Fri, 30 Jun 2006 12:59:59 GMT

The Fruits of Wrath

By Mike S. Adams

Jun 30, 2006

Author’s Warning: This commentary includes offensive quotes from racist homosexual activists at Georgia Tech.

When I began the process of looking for a plaintiff to sue the Georgia Institute of Technology (Georgia Tech) I had hoped to see the day that a federal court would throw out their unconstitutional speech code. The code went so far as to prohibit any speech that would "malign" another individual – whatever that means.

Now, three months after a suit has been filed against Georgia Tech, the school has enacted a new speech code. This one prohibits any speech that is threatening, harassing, intimidating, or "otherwise injurious." The new code is entirely too broad. That is why the suit will proceed as planned.

Under their first illegal speech code, Georgia Tech created a remarkably poisonous atmosphere for free expression by punishing two students – Ruth Malhotra and Orit Sklar, the co-plaintiffs in the case - for engaging in constitutionally protected political protest. But now Georgia Tech officials are making matters worse by standing aside as their students create entire organizations designed to malign individual students; namely, the two aforementioned co-plaintiffs.

For example, Georgia Tech students have formed “Conservatives and Liberals Against Malhotra (CLAM)” – a group comprised solely of homosexuals and their allies.

Here’s how they describe themselves:

“This is a group and forum for students in any political sphere who see what Ruth Malhotra is doing on campus as divisive and degrading to our Georgia Tech community.”

And here is a further explanation of the group’s mission:

“It is important that we respond to Malhotra's bigoted blather. This fat ugly (b-word deleted) is getting so desperate (not to mention the fact that she badly needs plastic surgery). Malhotra has a record of fighting Georgia Tech to advance herself, and this isn't the first time she has taken legal action against the school. Just try googling her name. Everyone knows that Malhotra and her ilk are a complete freak show -- setting up tables on Skiles Walkway and ranting against whatever strawman or other minority they decide to hate today. Even the Republicans on campus are embarassed [sic] by their crap. Malhotra wants the right to follow gay students around campus and yell obscenities at them, and now she is forcing the Institute to spend its money to defend against her bull (s-word deleted) lawsuit. Malhotra needs to shut the (f-word deleted) up and realize that the point of Georgia Tech is to be the best research and engineering school in the country, not to advance her dead end political ‘career’."

Of course, CLAM offers no facts to support the contention that Republicans (note: they say “plural” but only one effeminate Republican male seems to be opposed) are embarrassed by Malhotra. They can’t even spell the word “embarrassed” and don’t seem to be embarrassed about it. Furthermore, they believe (like Donne Warwick, perhaps) that they are able to read Ruth’s mind and discern a secret desire to scream obscenities at gay people.

And, of course, members of CLAM were also among those responsible for passing out Hostess Twinkies in the dorms at Georgia Tech. This was accompanied by suggestions that Ruth (a student of Asian descent) is “yellow on the outside, white on the inside” and a “Twinkie (b-word deleted).”

These racist liberals are hardly in a position to call anyone a “racist” or “intolerant.” But they can freely express themselves at Georgia Tech – even holding rallies on campus - for two reasons:

The constitution allows these gay activists to be intolerant racists even when they are ostensibly fighting for “civil” rights. The constitution does not protect a gay activist from showing his, her, or its ass. The other reason is that the habitually dishonest and racially insensitive Georgia Tech President applies the speech codes selectively at his school. Despite their valuable contribution to Georgia Tech, Asians are not protected by the speech code until they commit their first act of homosexual sodomy.

Nonetheless, some people are confused about Georgia Tech’s rapid decline since Wayne Clough took over in 1994. And they can’t understand why the campus gets more hostile the more they pander to the sodomites.

You can get information on joining Dr. Adams email list by logging on to www.DrAdams.org. Information on the Georgia Tech lawsuit can be found periodically on http://www.alliancedefensefund.org.

Mike Adams is a criminology professor at the University of North Carolina Wilmington and is a regular columnist for Townhall.com. Log on to Dr. Adams' website (www.DrAdams.org) for information on upcoming speeches and to order signed copies of his first book.