fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
JoeyLincolnMK8 said:
If you don't care, why are you reading this thread, let alone commenting?
Way to go, Ted! Hope you're proud of yourself...
- Thread starter fossten
- Start date
If you don't care, why are you reading this thread, let alone commenting?
Vitas
Dedicated LVC Member
Per a report on CNBC this morning, latest indication is that the Senate will confirm Alito 62 – 38, and that there is significant pressure on Democrats after Kennedy’s gutless badgering, causing Mrs. Alito to cry.
Leftocrat backlash again.
Leftocrat backlash again.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Reprinted from NewsMax.com
Friday, Jan. 13, 2006 11:00 a.m. EST
Ted Kennedy's Club Discriminated
When Ted Kennedy tried to chastise Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito for his one-time membership in a group opposed to admitting more woman and minorities to Princeton, the pot was calling the kettle black:
Sen. Kennedy still belongs to a social club for Harvard students and alumni that was thrown off campus nearly 20 years ago after refusing to allow female members, an investigation by the Washington Times reveals.
According to the membership directory of the Owl Club, Kennedy updated his personal information as recently as September 7. Ironically, the Owl Club, long reviled at Harvard as "sexist,” was evicted from the campus in 1984 for violating federal anti-discrimination laws authored by Kennedy.
At Alito’s confirmation hearings, Kennedy brought up the nominee’s alleged membership in Concerned Alumni of Princeton (CAP), and said the nominee’s "affiliation with an organization that fought the admission of women into Princeton calls into question his appreciation for the needs for full equality in this country.”
When asked about the senator’s membership in the Owl Club, Kennedy spokeswoman Laura Capps told the Times there was "absolutely no comparison between the Owl Club and an effort to exclude women from Princeton.
"It’s a social club. It’s like a fraternity.”
But according to the Times, Harvard views organizations such as the Owl Club quite differently from fraternities and sororities, which are considered a form of housing and therefore are not coeducational.
Kennedy’s hypocritical attack on Alito over his membership in CAP would come as no surprise to readers of the blockbuster new book "Do As I Say (Not As I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy.”
Author Peter Schweizer discloses that while Kennedy has fought for the estate tax and spoken out against tax shelters, he has repeatedly benefited from an intricate web of trusts and private foundations that have shielded most of his family’s fortune from the IRS.
One Kennedy family trust wasn’t even set up in the U.S., but in Fiji.
Schweizer also reveals that while Kennedy has championed the development of alternate energy sources, he opposed a plan to build a wind-power generating facility to provide clean, cheap power to Cape Cod.
The reason: The wind turbines would be positioned off the coast from the Kennedy compound in Hyannis, in one of the family’s favorite yachting and sailing areas.
Friday, Jan. 13, 2006 11:00 a.m. EST
Ted Kennedy's Club Discriminated
When Ted Kennedy tried to chastise Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito for his one-time membership in a group opposed to admitting more woman and minorities to Princeton, the pot was calling the kettle black:
Sen. Kennedy still belongs to a social club for Harvard students and alumni that was thrown off campus nearly 20 years ago after refusing to allow female members, an investigation by the Washington Times reveals.
According to the membership directory of the Owl Club, Kennedy updated his personal information as recently as September 7. Ironically, the Owl Club, long reviled at Harvard as "sexist,” was evicted from the campus in 1984 for violating federal anti-discrimination laws authored by Kennedy.
At Alito’s confirmation hearings, Kennedy brought up the nominee’s alleged membership in Concerned Alumni of Princeton (CAP), and said the nominee’s "affiliation with an organization that fought the admission of women into Princeton calls into question his appreciation for the needs for full equality in this country.”
When asked about the senator’s membership in the Owl Club, Kennedy spokeswoman Laura Capps told the Times there was "absolutely no comparison between the Owl Club and an effort to exclude women from Princeton.
"It’s a social club. It’s like a fraternity.”
But according to the Times, Harvard views organizations such as the Owl Club quite differently from fraternities and sororities, which are considered a form of housing and therefore are not coeducational.
Kennedy’s hypocritical attack on Alito over his membership in CAP would come as no surprise to readers of the blockbuster new book "Do As I Say (Not As I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy.”
Author Peter Schweizer discloses that while Kennedy has fought for the estate tax and spoken out against tax shelters, he has repeatedly benefited from an intricate web of trusts and private foundations that have shielded most of his family’s fortune from the IRS.
One Kennedy family trust wasn’t even set up in the U.S., but in Fiji.
Schweizer also reveals that while Kennedy has championed the development of alternate energy sources, he opposed a plan to build a wind-power generating facility to provide clean, cheap power to Cape Cod.
The reason: The wind turbines would be positioned off the coast from the Kennedy compound in Hyannis, in one of the family’s favorite yachting and sailing areas.
mach8
Well-Known LVC Member
JoeyLincolnMK8 said:
People who realize the courts have hijacked our votes and now make the laws in this country, instead of enforcing them.
If I recall the thing this club did that was so dicriminatory, that was brought up, was to publish an article which went on about blcks wanting special treatment just because they were black, gays wanting special treatment just because they were gay, women wanting special treatment just because they were women........
Who here supports that? Liberals speak up and illuminate us as to why this should be.
No one should get special treatment. We have a pending bill in Michigan that would remove the quota system from colleges that used federal funds. It is not a reversal of Affirmative Action, just a needed modification.
I support the removal of unfair quotas used by the government, employers and educational instituted while keeping the rest of the laws in place.
I support the removal of unfair quotas used by the government, employers and educational instituted while keeping the rest of the laws in place.
mach8
Well-Known LVC Member
Quotas have not been legal in California colleges for some time, but the scoff laws in charge of these institutions still find ways to do it. It's OK to discriminate against students who worked hard for good grades and can score well on the SAT's and other test.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
barry2952 said:
ALL RIGHT, WHOEVER IS CO-OPTING BARRY'S ACCOUNT, KNOCK IT OFF! IT'S NOT FUNNY!
WE ALL KNOW THAT BARRY HATES BUSH, SO WHY WOULD HE AGREE WITH HIM ON EVEN ONE SINGLE ISSUE?
Just because you blindly follow party rhetoric doesn't mean everyone does. I used to vote Republican before King Bush came along.
I also hate Ted Kennedy because he is an extememist on the other side of the isle, just like you. You and Ted are so much alike, it's scarey.
I also hate Ted Kennedy because he is an extememist on the other side of the isle, just like you. You and Ted are so much alike, it's scarey.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
barry2952 said:
Ha ha, I've got to hear this, especially since YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW ME, yet you hate me.
How am I like Ted Kennedy?
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
barry2952 said:
You say that assuming that Ted still has a mind, considering that he's a fall-down drunk.
So that's all you've got? That's your best shot? Come on, give me more comparisons.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
I love this. You left wing wacko fiberals have no answer to this thread, so once again, you hijack the thread in order to make personal attacks on me. Only now you back away in a cowardly fashion because you don't have the balls to follow up your lame insinuations with real facts.
Same old liberals, same old tactics.
Same old liberals, same old tactics.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Stunning insight...
Reprinted from NewsMax.com
Alito's Open Mind Offends Democrats
David Limbaugh
Friday, Jan. 13, 2006
Senate Democrats, visibly frustrated over their inability to extract a confession from Judge Samuel Alito that he would definitely vote to overrule Roe vs. Wade, further jeopardizing a woman's "right" to terminate her baby's life, have resorted to abject smear tactics.
Though Alito's record, demeanor and reputation bespeak of an extraordinarily humble, decent, ethical and scholarly man, senators Kennedy, Schumer and Co. have strained to convince us he is an unethical rogue, among other things.
Aside from their pathetic attempts to taint him with the now familiar Vanguard, Concerned Alumni of Princeton and 10-year-old strip-searching red herrings, Alito's circumspection over the abortion question drives them batty. It really frosts them that – in the words of Saint Theodore – "He didn't back away one inch from his [1985] statement that a woman's right to make her own reproductive decision is not protected under the Constitution."
Sen. Chuck Schumer was similarly exasperated, pressing Alito on how he could answer without hesitation that the right to free speech is in the Constitution but demur on whether the "right to choose" is.
But with an equal absence of hesitation, Alito enlightened Schumer that the right to free speech and press, as distinguished from the so-called right to an abortion, were expressly guaranteed in the First Amendment.
This dubious constitutional "right" ultimately owes its genesis to certain nebulous language of Justice William Douglas in the 1965 case of Griswold vs. Connecticut. In Griswold, Douglas divined that "specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance. Various guarantees create zones of privacy."
It's much harder for me to comprehend Schumer's failure to see a dramatic distinction between the two sets of "rights" – those of expression versus that of abortion – than Judge Alito's recognition of the distinction. If anyone should have registered incredulity in that exchange, it is Judge Alito.
Indeed, it's counterintuitive to categorize a woman's "right" to abortion as flowing from her right to privacy since that formulation ignores the right of the baby, let alone the father. But couching this "right" in terms of privacy allows its proponents to perpetuate the illusion that a woman's decision to terminate innocent life growing inside her is as purely exclusive to her and inconsequential to anyone else as, say, her decision to undergo plastic surgery.
But apart from their angst over Alito's Neanderthal view of the "constitutional right to privacy," the senators seem convinced he is lying in professing he would approach the Roe precedent with an open mind.
They wouldn't hesitate to impose their pro-abortion policy views if sitting on the Court. So they have difficulty believing that justices who are personally pro-life would subordinate their personal preferences and be guided by dispassionate principles of constitutional interpretation.
I think it is entirely believable that Alito could write in 1985, as an executive branch advocate, that Roe should be overturned yet testify in 2006 that as a Supreme Court justice, he would approach abortion cases with an open mind.
The most ardent originalist scholars and judges generally have a deferential respect for Supreme Court precedent. They regard it as a monumental matter to overturn longstanding decisions, even if wrongly decided originally.
Equally significant, those with a restraint-oriented judicial philosophy are naturally predisposed against being predisposed on issues that might come before them. Engrained in them is the idea that the judiciary functions in a passive role. Before ruling on a matter, they await a real "case or controversy" between actual litigants.
It is against their philosophy even to flirt with considering how they might decide any case until it has come before them, they've become informed on the facts and law, and heard the arguments of the advocates.
I have little doubt that Judge Alito is personally against abortion and, as a matter of policy, probably believes it should be illegal, perhaps with certain exceptions. I further believe that he still thinks, like most legal scholars, that Roe was wrongly decided or wrongly reasoned.
But as a strong supporter of Judge Alito, and one who would like to see Roe overturned and the legality of abortion referred back to the several states, I think there's a good chance -- but am hardly sure -- that Judge Alito would vote to overturn it. I honestly don't think he knows, either, because he has no idea how such a case might eventually come before him.
The only ones who think they know for sure how Judge Alito would rule are the scoundrels interrogating him, as they readily project onto him their own willingness to rewrite the Constitution to conform to their policy agenda. Because of the flaws in their character and principles, they are apparently blinded to the gems in his.
Reprinted from NewsMax.com
Alito's Open Mind Offends Democrats
David Limbaugh
Friday, Jan. 13, 2006
Senate Democrats, visibly frustrated over their inability to extract a confession from Judge Samuel Alito that he would definitely vote to overrule Roe vs. Wade, further jeopardizing a woman's "right" to terminate her baby's life, have resorted to abject smear tactics.
Though Alito's record, demeanor and reputation bespeak of an extraordinarily humble, decent, ethical and scholarly man, senators Kennedy, Schumer and Co. have strained to convince us he is an unethical rogue, among other things.
Aside from their pathetic attempts to taint him with the now familiar Vanguard, Concerned Alumni of Princeton and 10-year-old strip-searching red herrings, Alito's circumspection over the abortion question drives them batty. It really frosts them that – in the words of Saint Theodore – "He didn't back away one inch from his [1985] statement that a woman's right to make her own reproductive decision is not protected under the Constitution."
Sen. Chuck Schumer was similarly exasperated, pressing Alito on how he could answer without hesitation that the right to free speech is in the Constitution but demur on whether the "right to choose" is.
But with an equal absence of hesitation, Alito enlightened Schumer that the right to free speech and press, as distinguished from the so-called right to an abortion, were expressly guaranteed in the First Amendment.
This dubious constitutional "right" ultimately owes its genesis to certain nebulous language of Justice William Douglas in the 1965 case of Griswold vs. Connecticut. In Griswold, Douglas divined that "specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance. Various guarantees create zones of privacy."
It's much harder for me to comprehend Schumer's failure to see a dramatic distinction between the two sets of "rights" – those of expression versus that of abortion – than Judge Alito's recognition of the distinction. If anyone should have registered incredulity in that exchange, it is Judge Alito.
Indeed, it's counterintuitive to categorize a woman's "right" to abortion as flowing from her right to privacy since that formulation ignores the right of the baby, let alone the father. But couching this "right" in terms of privacy allows its proponents to perpetuate the illusion that a woman's decision to terminate innocent life growing inside her is as purely exclusive to her and inconsequential to anyone else as, say, her decision to undergo plastic surgery.
But apart from their angst over Alito's Neanderthal view of the "constitutional right to privacy," the senators seem convinced he is lying in professing he would approach the Roe precedent with an open mind.
They wouldn't hesitate to impose their pro-abortion policy views if sitting on the Court. So they have difficulty believing that justices who are personally pro-life would subordinate their personal preferences and be guided by dispassionate principles of constitutional interpretation.
I think it is entirely believable that Alito could write in 1985, as an executive branch advocate, that Roe should be overturned yet testify in 2006 that as a Supreme Court justice, he would approach abortion cases with an open mind.
The most ardent originalist scholars and judges generally have a deferential respect for Supreme Court precedent. They regard it as a monumental matter to overturn longstanding decisions, even if wrongly decided originally.
Equally significant, those with a restraint-oriented judicial philosophy are naturally predisposed against being predisposed on issues that might come before them. Engrained in them is the idea that the judiciary functions in a passive role. Before ruling on a matter, they await a real "case or controversy" between actual litigants.
It is against their philosophy even to flirt with considering how they might decide any case until it has come before them, they've become informed on the facts and law, and heard the arguments of the advocates.
I have little doubt that Judge Alito is personally against abortion and, as a matter of policy, probably believes it should be illegal, perhaps with certain exceptions. I further believe that he still thinks, like most legal scholars, that Roe was wrongly decided or wrongly reasoned.
But as a strong supporter of Judge Alito, and one who would like to see Roe overturned and the legality of abortion referred back to the several states, I think there's a good chance -- but am hardly sure -- that Judge Alito would vote to overturn it. I honestly don't think he knows, either, because he has no idea how such a case might eventually come before him.
The only ones who think they know for sure how Judge Alito would rule are the scoundrels interrogating him, as they readily project onto him their own willingness to rewrite the Constitution to conform to their policy agenda. Because of the flaws in their character and principles, they are apparently blinded to the gems in his.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Reprinted from NewsMax.com
Democrat Duplicity
Geoff Metcalf
Saturday, Jan. 14, 2006
Hypocrisy is a revolting, psychopathic state. – Anton Pavlovich Chekhov
Watching the Judge Samuel Alito Senate confirmation hearings should be sufficient to cause any self-respecting maggot to gag. The mean-spirited, cruel vitriol of Senators Kenney, Biden, Durbin, Leahy et al. exceeds even congressional standards for acrimony.
In the wake of making the nominee's wife cry, we should probably expect the frustrated Democrats to start pulling wings off flies and stealing toys from children.
Despite the mean-spirited, petty, partisan grousing on the Senate Judiciary Committee about the current Supreme Court nominee, the conventional wisdom is that Judge Alito WILL be confirmed to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor ... and it is right and proper that he should be.
The usual suspects on the left are scared spitless.
Alito has (not surprisingly) said he would maintain an open mind if/when faced with the inevitable question of abortion. Sen. Dick Durbin said the nominee's work product and testimony suggested otherwise, with a "mind that, sadly, is closed in some instances." HEL-LO?!?
The Durbin diatribe is classic "pot calling the kettle black" stuff. If there was ever a group that flat-out did not want to be confused with ANY facts that contradicted their preconceived opinions and prejudices, it is the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee.
Alexander Theroux, a novelist, poet and essayist, observed that "Hypocrisy is the essence of snobbery, but all snobbery is about the problem of belonging." The ever-present denial of the Democrats is that they don't belong.
# They don't belong to the majority (which still galls them).
# They don't belong to mainstream thought.
# They flat-out "don't get it"!
# They are so self-satisfied with their dogma, they are incapable of acknowledging that they don't resonate with 'most' people.
Sen. Chuck Grassley was right when he said, "Your critics are grasping at any straw to tarnish your record." Duh!
Smarmy rhetoric notwithstanding, the bottom line here is the the Dems don't like Alito and don't want him confirmed.
He is a Republican (strike one), he is a constitutionist (strike two), and he is a Bush nominee (strike three).
However, the empirical reality is (and despite the itching and moaning, they have to know this) he WILL be confirmed. Failing evidence that he has had an illicit sexual relationship with a gay, black, Jewish, handicapped young boy or has been covertly performing illegal abortions, he gets confirmed.
The 'loyal opposition' (which is anything but) has even resorted to crashing parties. A recent press event was interrupted by desperate Democrats whining for another opportunity to impose their bulk in front of cameras. Smarmy Schumer, Distressed Durbin, Corpulent Kennedy and 'Leaky' Leahy shouldered their way into a pro-Alito event to scrape at scabs and kick over rocks. Their pitiful charges about some Princeton club Alito belonged to turned into an abbreviated tempest in a teacup.
Recognizing that eventually, inevitably, Judge Alito WILL be on the Supreme Court, it is beyond counterintuitive for Senate libs to continue their perpetual screeds.
Politics is supposed to be the art of compromise. These sycophant, snarling Democrats just don't recognize the potential consequences to their pettiness. And (sadly) the myopic Republicans are too 'lofty' to exploit the obvious and exact a cost.
'Leaky' Leahy said, "A number of us have been troubled by what we see as inconsistencies in some of the answers." Bullfeathers! There are no inconsistencies ... and saying it doesn't make it so.
Durbin tried to get Alito to 'rule' that Roe v. Wade was "settled law" and he failed.
The Dems are throwing stuff at the wall in the hope that 'something' might just stick ... maybe? I don't think so.
The latest manufactured kerfuffle over membership in some Princeton club has eve caused Joe Biden to again reveal the depth of his duplicity. Biden has now dissed Princeton as a university despite previous comments that were hugely laudatory.
The American Bar Association (which, according to the Democrats, is the gold standard ... when it agrees with Democrats) is satisfied with Alito. However, for the usual suspects this is another classic case of "facts that contradict a preconceived opinion or prejudice."
Somerset Maugham once noted: "Hypocrisy is the most difficult and nerve-racking vice that any man can pursue; it needs an unceasing vigilance and a rare detachment of spirt. It cannot, like adultery or gluttony, be practiced at spare moments, it is a whole-time job."
Granted, liberal Democrats are well acquainted with vices, such as adultery and gluttony (Kennedy does not appear to be a man without vice.) However, the disingenuous duplicity of their hypocrisy is really something to behold.
Democrat Duplicity
Geoff Metcalf
Saturday, Jan. 14, 2006
Hypocrisy is a revolting, psychopathic state. – Anton Pavlovich Chekhov
Watching the Judge Samuel Alito Senate confirmation hearings should be sufficient to cause any self-respecting maggot to gag. The mean-spirited, cruel vitriol of Senators Kenney, Biden, Durbin, Leahy et al. exceeds even congressional standards for acrimony.
In the wake of making the nominee's wife cry, we should probably expect the frustrated Democrats to start pulling wings off flies and stealing toys from children.
Despite the mean-spirited, petty, partisan grousing on the Senate Judiciary Committee about the current Supreme Court nominee, the conventional wisdom is that Judge Alito WILL be confirmed to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor ... and it is right and proper that he should be.
The usual suspects on the left are scared spitless.
Alito has (not surprisingly) said he would maintain an open mind if/when faced with the inevitable question of abortion. Sen. Dick Durbin said the nominee's work product and testimony suggested otherwise, with a "mind that, sadly, is closed in some instances." HEL-LO?!?
The Durbin diatribe is classic "pot calling the kettle black" stuff. If there was ever a group that flat-out did not want to be confused with ANY facts that contradicted their preconceived opinions and prejudices, it is the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee.
Alexander Theroux, a novelist, poet and essayist, observed that "Hypocrisy is the essence of snobbery, but all snobbery is about the problem of belonging." The ever-present denial of the Democrats is that they don't belong.
# They don't belong to the majority (which still galls them).
# They don't belong to mainstream thought.
# They flat-out "don't get it"!
# They are so self-satisfied with their dogma, they are incapable of acknowledging that they don't resonate with 'most' people.
Sen. Chuck Grassley was right when he said, "Your critics are grasping at any straw to tarnish your record." Duh!
Smarmy rhetoric notwithstanding, the bottom line here is the the Dems don't like Alito and don't want him confirmed.
He is a Republican (strike one), he is a constitutionist (strike two), and he is a Bush nominee (strike three).
However, the empirical reality is (and despite the itching and moaning, they have to know this) he WILL be confirmed. Failing evidence that he has had an illicit sexual relationship with a gay, black, Jewish, handicapped young boy or has been covertly performing illegal abortions, he gets confirmed.
The 'loyal opposition' (which is anything but) has even resorted to crashing parties. A recent press event was interrupted by desperate Democrats whining for another opportunity to impose their bulk in front of cameras. Smarmy Schumer, Distressed Durbin, Corpulent Kennedy and 'Leaky' Leahy shouldered their way into a pro-Alito event to scrape at scabs and kick over rocks. Their pitiful charges about some Princeton club Alito belonged to turned into an abbreviated tempest in a teacup.
Recognizing that eventually, inevitably, Judge Alito WILL be on the Supreme Court, it is beyond counterintuitive for Senate libs to continue their perpetual screeds.
Politics is supposed to be the art of compromise. These sycophant, snarling Democrats just don't recognize the potential consequences to their pettiness. And (sadly) the myopic Republicans are too 'lofty' to exploit the obvious and exact a cost.
'Leaky' Leahy said, "A number of us have been troubled by what we see as inconsistencies in some of the answers." Bullfeathers! There are no inconsistencies ... and saying it doesn't make it so.
Durbin tried to get Alito to 'rule' that Roe v. Wade was "settled law" and he failed.
The Dems are throwing stuff at the wall in the hope that 'something' might just stick ... maybe? I don't think so.
The latest manufactured kerfuffle over membership in some Princeton club has eve caused Joe Biden to again reveal the depth of his duplicity. Biden has now dissed Princeton as a university despite previous comments that were hugely laudatory.
The American Bar Association (which, according to the Democrats, is the gold standard ... when it agrees with Democrats) is satisfied with Alito. However, for the usual suspects this is another classic case of "facts that contradict a preconceived opinion or prejudice."
Somerset Maugham once noted: "Hypocrisy is the most difficult and nerve-racking vice that any man can pursue; it needs an unceasing vigilance and a rare detachment of spirt. It cannot, like adultery or gluttony, be practiced at spare moments, it is a whole-time job."
Granted, liberal Democrats are well acquainted with vices, such as adultery and gluttony (Kennedy does not appear to be a man without vice.) However, the disingenuous duplicity of their hypocrisy is really something to behold.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
RRocket said:
The latest example of what you're asserting is Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who was treated with deferential respect by the committee, including all the Republicans. In fact, she's the most wacko judge on the court, but she was confirmed at a vote of 96-3. Your assertion is completely wrong, proven so by the evidence.
The fact of the matter is that the standard is different when the nominee is a conservative, and the Democrats can't handle the fact that they aren't in power, so they are trying to smear a good man in order to block his confirmation. It's pathetic because they have no arrows in their quivers, and they look like buffoons.
*owned*
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Reprinted from NewsMax.com
Tuesday, Jan. 17, 2006 10:06 a.m. EST
Ted Kennedy to Drop Club Membership
After ripping Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito for what Senator Ted Kennedy called "troubling” ties to a social club at Princeton University, Kennedy is distancing himself from his own curious ties to a club at Harvard University.
As previously reported by NewsMax, Kennedy is a member of The Owl Club, a social club for Harvard alumni that bans women from membership. Ironically, the Owl Club, long reviled at Harvard as "sexist,” was evicted from the campus in 1984 for violating federal anti-discrimination laws authored by Kennedy.
According to the Boston Herald, Kennedy was questioned on his status as an Owl Club member by Boston TV station WHDH. Kennedy said, "I’m not a member; I continue to pay about $100.”
However, according to the membership directory of the Owl Club, Kennedy updated his personal information as recently as September 7.
When told by the TV reporter that the Owl Club discriminates against women, Kennedy said, "I shouldn’t be and I’m going to get out as fast as I can.”
This, of course, is not the first time Kennedy has been trapped in a web of hypocrisy. As noted in the best-selling book by author Peter Schweizer, "Do As I Say (Not As I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy" [Check out NewsMax's FREE offer for this book - Go Here Now].
Kennedy has a long history of hypocrisy.
Ted Kennedy has fought for the estate tax and spoken out against tax shelters. But he has repeatedly benefited from an intricate web of trusts and private foundations that have shielded most of his family's fortune from the IRS.
One Kennedy family trust wasn't even set up in the U.S., but in Fiji.
MonsterMark
Dedicated LVC Member
Alito vs Kennedy
Was there no more disgraceful event as the one put on by Kennedy to have ever occurred in politics???
From Newsmax…
Tuesday, Jan. 17, 2006 10:06 a.m. EST
Ted Kennedy to Drop Club Membership
After ripping Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito for what Senator Ted Kennedy called "troubling” ties to a social club at Princeton University, Kennedy is distancing himself from his own curious ties to a club at Harvard University.
As previously reported by NewsMax, Kennedy is a member of The Owl Club, a social club for Harvard alumni that bans women from membership. Ironically, the Owl Club, long reviled at Harvard as "sexist,” was evicted from the campus in 1984 for violating federal anti-discrimination laws authored by Kennedy.
According to the Boston Herald, Kennedy was questioned on his status as an Owl Club member by Boston TV station WHDH. Kennedy said, "I’m not a member; I continue to pay about $100.” [With a statement like that, he should run for President.]
However, according to the membership directory of the Owl Club, Kennedy updated his personal information as recently as September 7. [snip]
Was there no more disgraceful event as the one put on by Kennedy to have ever occurred in politics???
From Newsmax…
Tuesday, Jan. 17, 2006 10:06 a.m. EST
Ted Kennedy to Drop Club Membership
After ripping Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito for what Senator Ted Kennedy called "troubling” ties to a social club at Princeton University, Kennedy is distancing himself from his own curious ties to a club at Harvard University.
As previously reported by NewsMax, Kennedy is a member of The Owl Club, a social club for Harvard alumni that bans women from membership. Ironically, the Owl Club, long reviled at Harvard as "sexist,” was evicted from the campus in 1984 for violating federal anti-discrimination laws authored by Kennedy.
According to the Boston Herald, Kennedy was questioned on his status as an Owl Club member by Boston TV station WHDH. Kennedy said, "I’m not a member; I continue to pay about $100.” [With a statement like that, he should run for President.]
However, according to the membership directory of the Owl Club, Kennedy updated his personal information as recently as September 7. [snip]