The IUSB Vision Weblog

The way to crush the middle class is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation. – Vladimir Lenin

Archive for the ‘Academic Misconduct’ Category

Univ of Maryland survey on Fox News makes us ponder who is more dishonest, leftist academics or elite media journalists – UPDATED

Posted by Chuck Norton on December 18, 2010

First the news, then the analysis… [and see the update below!]

UPDATE IV Breaking! – Famed Economist Dr. John Lott dissects fraudulent University of Maryland “study” on Fox News

Via The Blaze

The University of Maryland released a study claiming that regular viewers of Fox News are the “most misinformed” when it comes to knowledge of American politics.

The UMD-commissioned study — “Misinformation and the 2010 Election: A Study of the US Electorate” — looked to judge how likely viewers of various news outlets were to believe false information (note: the study did not actually measure any sort of actual misinformation presented by some media outlets). According to the study, Fox viewers were “significantly more likely” to believe the following “misinformation”:

–Most economists estimate the stimulus caused job losses (12 points more likely)

–Most economists have estimated the health care law will worsen the deficit (31 points)

–The economy is getting worse (26 points)

–Most scientists do not agree that climate change is occurring (30 points)

–The stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts (14 points)

–Their own income taxes have gone up (14 points)

–The auto bailout only occurred under Obama (13 points)

–When TARP came up for a vote most Republicans opposed it (12 points)

–And that it is not clear that Obama was born in the United States (31 points)

FNC has since fired back at the report, defending the content of its broadcasts and judgment of its viewers while simultaneously dismissing the study and its conclusions.  Via the New York Times:

In a statement, Michael Clemente, who is the senior vice president of news editorial for the network, said: “The latest Princeton Review ranked the University of Maryland among the top schools for having ‘Students Who Study The Least’ and being the ‘Best Party School’ – given these fine academic distinctions, we’ll regard the study with the same level of veracity it was ‘researched’ with.”

Mr. Clemente oversees every hour of objective news programming on Fox News, which is by far the nation’s most popular cable news channel.

For the record, the Princeton Review says the University of Maryland ranks among the “Best Northeastern Colleges.” It was No. 19 on the Review’s list of “Best Party Schools.”

I am going to show you the depths of planning that these academics had to go through to get these results. Before we do that let us examine what a REAL polling and survey research organization like the Pew Research Center  (2) has to say.

According to Pew the most informed newspaper readers are those who read the Wall Street Journal. The most informed radio listeners are those who listen to Rush Limbaugh. And this year the most informed television viewers were the audience of Sean Hannity.

Asked a series of four questions to test their knowledge about politics and current events, just 14% of the public got all four correct – as many got all four wrong (15%). Two-in-ten got three correct, 26% two and 25% one. Regular readers, viewers or listeners of most media sources outscored the general public.

People were asked which party currently controls the House of Representatives  (Democrats), to identify the post held by Eric Holder (U.S. attorney general), which company is run by Steve Jobs (Apple) and which country has an active volcano that disrupted international air travel earlier this year (Iceland).

Overall, seven-in-ten Americans know that Democrats have a majority in the U.S. House of Representatives. No media audience did poorly on this question, and 90% or more of the Hannity, Limbaugh and O’Reilly audiences got this right.

Far fewer know that Eric Holder is the attorney general. Just 22% got this question right. Wall Street Journal readers and Hannity viewers performed best on this question, with 56% of each audience answering it correctly.

About four-in-ten (41%) know that Steve Jobs is the head of Apple. Wall Street Journal (85%) and New York Times (80%) readers are especially likely to know this. Six-in-ten know that the volcanic eruption that recently disrupted international air travel is in Iceland. Journal (82% correct) and Times (81%) readers also did especially well on this question.

Examining the bogus Univ of Maryland survey –

Most economists estimate the stimulus caused job losses (12 points more likely)

OK lets tackle this one. We know that the stimulus according to an analysis by the Federal Reserve created almost exclusively temporary jobs and some government jobs at an average cost of 400,000 per job. It was promised that unemployment would not rise above 8% if the stimulus was passed and yet it went to 10%, and over 17% if you use normal methods and not the government formula. The stimulus which failed resulted in added uncertainty in the economy which undoubtedly cost jobs. If that money had been used as tax cuts it would have helped create jobs. But the question here is “most economists”.

Most people know what an issue is and might not know what a specific group thinks about it. For example: “Most economists” did not see the mortgage collapse coming. “Most economists” thought that the stimulus package would help much more than it did, “most economists” were surprised by month after month of unexpected, unexpected, unexpected, unexpected bad economic news. “Most economists” have a very poor record of predictions as any examination of government projections shows that most of them are not just wrong, but not even close, because they almost exclusively use static Keynesian models.

This  also depends on what group of economists you ask and if most of that group were to agree on the question.Fox News does not bring on much Keynesian economic ‘talent’. Most economists and financial analysts that appear on Fox are either Austrian School, or followers of Hayek, Friedman, or a mix like Mankiw. These are people whose predictions come true far more than the ones that the AP or Reuters use.

Fox News analysts mostly said that the stimulus wouldn’t work, “most economists” that appeared in the elite media said the opposite, look who ended up being right. The same can be said about the opening affects of ObamaCare, the flat-lining of the economy due to uncertainty etc etc.

It would be fair to say that most of the economists that the viewers have been exposed to might feel the way the respondents answered and if that is the case the answers makes perfect sense and by no means makes them ignorant people.

[It only makes sense that if you poll a group about a subset of people that they are least exposed to that they would get more incorrect answers about that particular subset.- Editor]

Most economists have estimated the health care law will worsen the deficit (31 points)

Again according to “most economists” that like static Keynesian models that do not take into account game theory or what is known as the “adverse selection spiral”, then I could see the Univ of Maryland’s point. But the problem is that even Obama’s own Medicare Actuary agrees with conservative economists and have said that it will raise costs. So far the analysts at Fox have been more accurate on the opening effects of ObamaCare [We have been cataloging the statements of people on both sides of this debate if anyone doubts it I will be happy to start producing the quotes, but most of them are already published on this web site so be sure to see our “Health Law” category – Editor]. Remember what we told you above, most economists of what group of economists surveyed? If I surveyed Austrian School economists how would most of them have answered?

– The economy is getting worse (26 points)

I found this one to be pretty amusing. Some indicators go up in a month and some go down. This question greatly depends on who you ask and/or what indicator you wish to look at. The Keynesian economic growth formula can be artificially inflated with government deficit spending. Since government spending in the Keynesian formula is treated the same as consumer spending and investment spending all the government has to do is take out a loan or print up cash and whaaalla – instant short term economic growth.

Even with an artificially inflated growth rate of 1-1.5% the truth is that we need REAL private sector economic growth of over 1.5% just to break even with people coming of age and entering the workforce. They may call the inflated 1.5% government economic growth number an improving economy, but in economic reality we are still taking on water. Fox viewers know this. Elite media viewers have been told every month for almost two years (up until August/September) that things were getting better and “summer of recovery” etc.

– Most scientists do not agree that climate change is occurring (30 points)

This one really got me to laugh. All scientists agree that climate change is occurring. Climate is always changing, the question is what is changing, how, and does man have much to do with it. In that regard there are growing numbers of scientists and people that reject AGW alarmism.

–The stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts (14 points)

The keyword here is ANY. Every Democrat package has targeted tax cuts. Tax cuts that are so targeted it means you don’t get them. A tax cut if you outfit your home in solar panels and other green tax breaks etc. They did pass a payroll schedule reduction, but that was just a reduction in the deduction tables, the tax rate you pay was the same so come April 15th you had to pay more or get a smaller refund.

–Their own income taxes have gone up (14 points)

This depends on how it is measured. Remember those changes in the deduction tables we mentioned. Well those who have started doing their taxes are writing bigger checks or getting smaller refunds as a result, so they think that their taxes are going up.

–When TARP came up for a vote most Republicans opposed it (12 points)

Where Univ of Maryland…. in the House or in the Senate? Most Republicans in the House did oppose it. Here is the final vote in the House on TARP I – with 91 Republicans for and 108 against. Here is Tarp II – with 19 voting for and 156 voting against. It would seem that Univ of Maryland only looked at the Senate vote.

–And that it is not clear that Obama was born in the United States (31 points)

Again this depends on how it was asked. Do I believe that Obama was born in the United States? Yes I do because I saw the newspaper announcement and that seems like pretty good evidence. Is it CLEAR that he was? That depends, some of his own relatives say he was born in Kenya so why isn’t it clear to them? Some may believe that he was born here but are not completely CLEAR because he has not released his long form birth certificate. The question in this regard is so vague that it is useless for scientific purposes. Clearness implies transparency and Obama has not delivered on that. As far as I know no host or anchor at Fox has pushed a story and claimed that Obama is not a citizen. The study doesn’t show us that this every happened on Fox.

It is because of the vagueness and the nature of the questions that this survey could never withstand the peer review process and was just released as it was. The ideas of being asked about what a subset of a group of people think (like the “most economists” question) would be laughed at. It is better and more scientific to ask direct questions about issues, not what they think some subset might think of them.

This is exactly why far left journalists aren’t trusted by people because of spin that becomes dishonest, just like this “survey”. If you think this scholarship is shoddy, wait till you see the status of climate science.

UPDATE I – Flashback 2007 – Rasmussen Poll:

Democrats in America are evenly divided on the question of whether George W. Bush knew about the 9/11 terrorist attacks in advance. Thirty-five percent (35%) of Democrats believe he did know, 39% say he did not know, and 26% are not sure. Republicans reject that view and, by a 7-to-1 margin, say the President did not know in advance about the attacks. Among those not affiliated with either major party, 18% believe the President knew and 57% take the opposite view.

If I worked for the University of Maryland I would present it this way:

Democrats are twice as likely to be misinformed conspiracy theorists (35%) than the populace at large (18%) with 26% of Democrats not sure how misinformed they are. Republicans, most of whom watch Fox News, reject such uninformed views 7-1. On knowledge of great historical events Fox News viewers are far more informed than Democrats who watch CNN or MSNBC.

UPDATE II Big Journalism reports that money for the study came from the Tides Foudation and George Soros. Of course to the informed that is no surprise whatsoever.

It is a big problem with medical academics being paid to conduct studies and writings with a predetermined conclusion. Sometimes the writings are pre-written and the academic just puts his name to it for a check. Then we found out about the millions that eco-groups, Marxist groups, George Soros/Tides, alternative energy companies, governments, and investment banks like Goldman Sachs (they want to trade the carbon and get a fee for each trade) have been pumping billions into alarmist scholarship propaganda. Now this.

UPDATE III – “How the World Works” tests claims from the “study” and the University of Maryland Study assumes that SOME government claims about the stimulus etc are gospel. They did not actually go out and survey economists. But when you look at the actual government report that the Maryland Study cites (a CBO report) the report admits that economists it used were in conflict about the multiplier/job effect:

Posted in 2012, Academic Misconduct, Campus Freedom, Indoctrination & Censorship, Chuck Norton, Dirty Tricks, Journalism Is Dead, Leftist Hate in Action | 1 Comment »

IU School of Journalism Humiliated by Bogus Bill O’Reilly Study

Posted by iusbvision on March 3, 2009

Common sense would tell anyone, that if you are going to take on Bill O’Reilly with a full frontal assault there are a few things that you should keep in mind. Don’t spin, don’t engage in the ridiculous, don’t make half cocked assertions, and don’t try to mislead the folks. To sum that all up one could say above all, don’t be a pinhead.

Unfortunately two professors with the IU Bloomington School of Journalism decided not to make good use of common sense when they posted their “study” attacking Bill O’Reilly on the internet. O’Reilly had a ball with these two professors and Indiana University on his program. Odds are by tomorrow night the segment will be archived on YouTube forever.

The two professors who produced this unscholarly document are Mike Conway and Maria Elizabeth Grabe. I just finished reading the study and it is such an ideological hit piece that I was laughing while I read it as it was so ‘over the top’ ridiculous. It used every dirty trick used by a radical ideologue that one would typically see on an unregulated internet message board.

Let us begin with the very first deception in the study:

O’Reilly employed the name calling device almost once every seven seconds.

What didn’t come out till later is that Prof. Conway and Grabe included political labels such as “Democrat and Republican” as name calling devices. Is this what you have in mind, or is that the narrative that comes to mind when you see the term “name calling device”?

Perhaps someone should remind Conway and Grabe that words mean things and in the world of journalism, context is everything. When one distorts context or fails to use it in good faith it creates a story that gives a “false light” and if the story meets certain criteria it is considered “false light libel”.

Other example of “name calling propaganda” cited by the study is when O’Reilly chastised a journalist for using a “buried headline”. Burying the lead is one of the most common forms of media bias.

I wrote a paper on “burying the lead” bias. For example: A Washington Post article told how law enforcement working for the Bush Administration had improperly used the Patriot Act to obtain the private records of about two dozen American citizens and The Post told us that the Attorney General was not ruling out criminal charges. The unwritten narrative was clear; the Bush Administration is criminally violating your privacy. Many paragraphs deep into the story it told you that these mistakes had been caught by the Inspector General, whose job it is to find these kinds of errors and these two dozen mistakes were out of over 1500 legal uses of the Patriot Act that year, or an error rate on the new law of slightly over 1%. In light of those facts it changes your attitude of the story doesn’t it?

There is no way that Conway and Grabe could not have understood what O’Reilly was talking about when he used the term “buried lead” as burying the lead bias is one of the most talked about bias techniques in journalism. The only reason to simply refer to this as “name calling propaganda” is because they wanted to impress their far left peers by publishing a ‘study’ to damage Bill O’Reilly.

Another example of name calling they counted is when O’Reilly used the term “Kool-Aide Drinkers” when used in conjunction with far left or far right ideologues. “Kool-Aide Drinkers” is a term commonly used term for people who are hardcore political ideologues who believe that their side can do no wrong and the other side can do no right. Anyone who engages in political or cultural discourse becomes familiar with these types of people very quickly. This term can also fall into the same category as shtick or a shows techno-babble. While the term “Kool-Aide Drinker” may seem like pejorative name calling at first glance, it is merely a mildly entertaining term that describes a group of people that almost everyone has had to deal with at one time or another. When viewed in context it is not in the same class as calling someone a jerk or an ass without dealing with their argument as this study clearly implies.

Like any radical leftist arguing on an internet message board, Conway and Grabe compared Bill O’Reilly to whom else …wait for it….because this is just too predictable… you guessed it, a Nazi propagandist who they describe as:

His broadcasts became heavily anti-Semitic and he was one of the few apologists for Adolf Hitler and the reign of terror brought about by the Nazi party in Germany.

Mini Update – The Nazi propagandist they referred to is Father Coughlin who was a far left advocate of “social justice” and redistribution of wealth, a view that is common among leftist academia. Ironic isn’t it?


Coughlin had a well-developed theory of what he termed “social justice,” predicated on monetary “reforms.” He began as an early Roosevelt supporter, coining a famous expression, that the nation’s choice was between “Roosevelt or ruin.” Later in the 1930s he turned against FDR and became one of the president’s harshest critics. His program of “social justice” was a very radical challenge to capitalism and to many of the political institutions of his day.

Coughlin’s magazine was called “Social Justice”. He later turned against FDR because he believed FDR didn’t go far enough in the government take over of society and the economy.

When someone makes any kind of comparison to a monster like a Nazi, the comparison becomes what is commonly referred to as a Reductio ad Hitlerum.

A Reductio ad Hitlerum is rationally unsound for two different reasons: As a wrong direction fallacy (a type of questionable cause), it inverts the cause-effect relationship between why a villain and an idea might be criticized; conversely, as guilt by association (a form of association fallacy), it illogically attempts to shift culpability from a villain to an idea regardless of who is espousing it and why. Specific instances of Reductio ad Hitlerum are also frequently likely to suffer from the fallacy of begging the question or take the form of slippery slope arguments, which are frequently (though not always) false as well.

Any comparison to a Nazi propagandist creates a very nasty negative narrative whether it is explicitly stated or not. This is why the far left uses these kind of arguments to the point of being silly on internet message boards, and now IU Journalism School studies. If they can reduce you to a Nazi then no matter how accurate what you say is no longer matters; you can’t be credible because you are like the Nazi.

According to this study here is another example of Bill O’Reilly’s evil propaganda:

Testimonial [testimonial propaganda] involves a respected person endorsing or rejecting an idea or person. For example, in a segment about the new Pope, O’Reilly (4/19/05) referred to him as a good friend of the late Pope John Paul. Thus, through suggested friendship, the former Pope is called on to testify to the legitimacy of the new Pope. Testimonial can also be achieved through negative connotation when someone with a bad reputation is presented as endorsing a person or idea.

Vile propaganda technique or perhaps a newsworthy detail? The fact that Cardinal Ratzinger was a close friend of the former Pope is newsworthy just as if it were said that Ratzinger was a philosophical enemy to the pope or if they genuinely didn’t like each other.  What if Jennifer Aniston came to my birthday party and the South Bend Tribune reported it.  Was The Tribune reporting it to call on to my legitimate star power to make it appear that she was endorsing me for propaganda value; or just reporting a newsworthy fact? What do you think? I report, you decide.

There is so much ammunition in this ‘study’ but I will wrap up with this:

Criminals and terrorists were consistently presented as evil in that they endanger human life, but evil was also achieved through moral violation. Here are a few examples: University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill was described as following a Nazi philosophy, hating America, justifying murder, and as a traitor who comforts the enemy (3/2/05;2/7/05; 2/1/05). Illegal aliens were described as dangerous, out of control, causing chaos, and threatening the American way of life (4/7/05; 4/26/05; 4/25/05).

For example, Martin Luther King, Jr. was described (1/17/05) as a hero because he had noble goals in opposing violence and correcting injustice.

Remember how I stated above that in journalism context is everything? The statements above become priceless when viewed in context.

Ward Churchill was a professor who stated the people who died on 9/11 were “little Eichmann’s”. Adolf Eichmann was the man who designed Hitler’s “final solution” for the Jews.  The case Churchill made was clear. Our 3,000 dead were more then just a legitimate target, they deserved it for furthering capitalism and free enterprise which Ward Churchill loathes. Ward Churchill and others who spoke out with such nonsense were used by Al-Jezeera and Al-Qeada for propaganda purposes. That propaganda gives aid and comfort to the enemy. Isn’t it interesting that Conway and Grabe see no hypocrisy in using a Nazi reference against Bill O’Reilly but make out the man who refers to our dead as “little Eichmann’s” as the victim of mean ole Bill O’Reilly.

Now one must ask, why did Bill O’Reilly say that the illegal alien problem was “dangerous, out of control, causing chaos”? We certainly need to ask that very important question because obviously Conway and Grabe simply didn’t care. Bill O’Reilly has covered story after story of criminal illegal aliens who have killed people, raped and driven while intoxicated. These criminal aliens had long records and were never deported. Such a situation indeed is dangerous, out of control and causes chaos in the lives of the victims.

As for the last example of Bill O’Reilly’s evil propaganda cited by this ‘study’, the Martin Luther King example quoted above, is just too much. Conway and Grabe had already reached the point of being laughable before they tossed this in. May I see a show of hands of those who do NOT believe that Dr. King was a hero? Apparently, according to the IU School of Journalism, pointing out this self evident truth is engaging in propaganda on par with Nazi monsters. I wonder what the IU Black Faculty & Staff Council will have to say about that?

The study had referenced communications theorist Carl Hovland. I found that to be most amusing because Hovland is known for what is sometimes called “attitude change propaganda theory”. One form of this is when only some of the facts are given or those partial facts are misrepresented with an attitude that deliberately creates an unspoken narrative in the reader’s mind (O’Reilly the Nazi propagandist or like the Washington Post example above). This study, which plays so fast and loose with the facts, context and definitions is a quintessential example of Hovland’s theory in practice.

Is the state of academia so bad and so partisan, that they have reduced themselves to writing preposterous propaganda to each other to help keep themselves convinced? Congratulations Mike Conway and Maria Elizabeth Grabe, you just managed to get in my upcoming book.

UPDATE – O’Reilly hit IU again today (3-3-09) on his program. Considering the ammunition Conway and Grabe gave him who can find fault with it? Amy Adams’ comments were featured on The Factor during the IU segment. She told O”Reilly how radical many of the J school profs are. The alumni will not be pleased with this situation, but I suppose it is better that they know the kind of silly propaganda that some professors are trying to peddle as scholarship these days.

For our Florida readers: Bill O’Reilly will be speaking in Palm Beach at a fundraiser for the charity Be sure to attend if you can to support a good cause.

Posted in Academic Misconduct, Campus Freedom, Indoctrination & Censorship, Chuck Norton, Journalism Is Dead, Other Links | 9 Comments »

Profiles in Ideological Bias: When Law School Deans and Justices Lie

Posted by iusbvision on June 27, 2008

What would you say if someone tried to tell you that the Framers understood that you have a Natural, God given right to freedom of speech, religion, and conscience; that you had freedom from unnecessary search and seizure, BUT BY NO MEANS did the Framers ever intend to enumerate or imply a right to self defense? .. And then proceed to argue that almost nothing in any of the Framers writings indicates otherwise?

Any honest student of American history would say that anyone making such a silly argument may need to see a doctor.

Well guess who made such an argument; Justice Stevens did just that in his dissent in yesterdays Heller decision saying:

Specifically, there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the

common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution.


You heard it right no right to self defense either enumerated or implied in the constitution and nothing in common law previously indicated that you have any right to defend yourself.

Ok who buys such an argument may I see a share of hands?

Such an argument speaks volumes about how leftist judges treat the power of the state over the sovereignty of the individual.

Of course there are hundreds of pieces of evidence that indicate very directly that the Framers intended that the ownership of small arms in defense of themselves, their liberty, and the state was not just a right, but an obligation of most good citizens. Justice Scalia pointed to dozens of such pieces of evidence in the Heller ruling and the Amici gave hundreds of examples in their briefs to the court. I have perhaps 100 examples of such in my own data archive.

The revisionist history did not stop there. Today’s Los Angeles Times has an op-ed from Erwin Chemerinsky, the UC Irvine Dean of the School of Law:

The Supreme Court’s invalidation of the District of Columbia’s handgun ban powerfully shows that the conservative rhetoric about judicial restraint is a lie. In striking down the law, Justice Antonin Scalia’smajority opinion, joined by the court’s four other most conservative justices, is quite activist in pursuing the conservative political agenda of protecting gun owners.

If the terms “judicial activism” and “judicial restraint” have any meaning, it is that a court is activist when it is invalidating laws and overruling precedent, and restrained when deferring to popularly elected legislatures and following prior decisions.

Never before had the Supreme Court found that the 2nd Amendment bestows on individuals a right to have guns. In fact, in 1939 (and other occasions), the court rejected this view. In effectively overturning these prior decisions, the court both ignored precedent and invalidated a law adopted by a popularly elected government.,0,6464156.story

The 1939 case that Dean Chemerinsky is referring to is US v. Miller. In Miller the court was asked if the prohibition from owning short barreled shotguns in the National Firearms Act was in violation of the Second Amendment.

The court ruling made it clear that historically good citizens not only had a right, but had an obligation as good citizens to maintain infantry small arms in their homes (just as Mr. Heller in this case wanted to keep a firearm in his home).

The Miller ruling shows that citizens have a right to own small arms that have a military purpose. The question decided, and the question put to the court, is whether or not a short barreled shotgun has a military purpose. No one even argued that the Second Amendment does not affirm a right to own military small arms by individuals, indeed the court was not even asked that question. So Chemerinsky’s statement that the court in Miller rejected the Second Amendment view delivered in Heller is not only mistaken, but rather quite the opposite.

If you don’t believe me, go read the decision for yourself as it is in plain English.

If the court in Miller wanted to say that the Second Amendment does not guarantee an individual right to keep and bear arms, but only guarantees a subset of the people ( a militia) to be able to keep arms, then the court would have said that Mr. Miller and his comrades were not members of a militia so the Second Amendment did not apply to them, thus you had no right to own any weapon whatsoever, but the court did not even come close to anything resembling such an argument and anyone who reads the decision can see that plainly.

Indeed the majority of the Supreme Court states just this in yesterday’s opinion:

Miller did not hold that and cannot possibly be read to have held that. [empasis added – CN] The judgment in the case upheld against a Second Amendment challenge two men’s federal convictions for transporting an unregistered short-barreled shotgun in interstate commerce, in violation of the National Firearms Act, 48 Stat. 1236. It is entirely clear that the Court’s basis for saying that the Second Amendment did not apply was not that the defendants were “bear[ing] arms” not “for . . . military purposes” but for “nonmilitary use,” post, at 2. Rather, it was that the type of weapon at issue was not eligible for Second Amendment protection: “In the absence of any evidence tending to show that the possession or use of a [shortbarreledshotgun] at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.” 307 U. S., at 178 (emphasis added).

“Certainly,” the Court continued, “it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.” Ibid. Beyond that, the opinion provided no explanation of the content of the right. This holding is not only consistent with, but positively suggests, that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms (though only arms that “have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia”). Had the Court believed that the Second Amendment protects only those serving in the militia, it would have been odd to examine the character of the weapon rather than simply note that the two crooks were not militiamen.
Justice Breyer in his dissent pointed to ordinances at the times of the Founders for firearms and ammunition storage to prevent fire hazards as a defense to his notion that the Second Amendment allows any and all local regulation by the local government – even gun bans. Saying that local regulations and the Second Amendment are not inconsistant and this is an example why the DC gun ban would have been perfectly fine according to the Founders. Laughable arguments like this and this joker is on the Supreme Court of the United States…. amazing.
So what is it that possesses people to quite frankly lie through their teeth about a ruling that anyone can plainly look up, read, and understand? It is testimony that for too many people in power, the ends justifies the means and if lying to students, abandoning the public trust given to you and lying about easily proven history to enforce your ideological views is what is needed, than so be it.

I have noticed another tactic as used by the revisionists as well, and that is to deliberately try to confuse quotes from the founders when it comes to references to the organized militia (which could be the National Guard) and the unorganized militia of the people which is often what the founders repeatedly referred to when addressing the arms in civilian hands issue as the whole body of the people. Ironically US Code also defines and distinguishes the difference between the organized and the unorganized militia as well.

Be sure to read my original analysis of Heller here:

Chuck Norton


WSJ – Leftist Justices In Denial of History and the Law

Supreme Court Binds Second Amendment to States


Posted in Academic Misconduct, Campus Freedom, Indoctrination & Censorship, Chuck Norton, Other Links | 1 Comment »