The United States Senate voted to pass a defense bill today that would require young women to sign up for a potential military draft for the first time in U.S. history. The vote was 85-13 in favor of the National Defense Authorization Act, a $600 billion defense spending bill that had a host of other controversial provisions in it, including prohibiting the closure of Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and denying the Pentagon’s attempt to close military bases.
Republicans were divided about whether the U.S. should require women to register for the draft when they turn 18. Sen. Ted Cruz told Politico it was a “radical change that is attempting to be foisted on the American people,” while Sen. John McCain said “a large bipartisan majority on the Armed Services Committee agreed that there is simply no further justification to limit Selective Service registration to men.”
The Senate and the House will now meet to compare and resolve differences between the two versions of the defense spending bill. The House version does not have the female draft requirement in it.
Source
I love this. I am loving it. It's about time women did their fair share and not heap burdens upon men and men only. Let's send a "atta boy" to Senator John McCain and tell him he's right. The burden should not be upon men and men alone. On the other hand,I am disappointed in Senator Ted Cruz for taking the position he did. Perhaps we should remind him that selective service is a burden that is already heaped upon men whether they like it or not so requiring women to fulfill the same requirements that men are forced to do is not much of a stretch. The country can handle it.
Showing posts with label Senator John McCain. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Senator John McCain. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 14, 2016
Saturday, April 30, 2016
Gynocentrist Carly Fiorina
Do men count with this VP? Apparently not. Gynocentricity to the left of me gynocentricity to the right. Here I am. Trump is starting to look better and better.
Saturday, July 27, 2013
Tell McCain not to let go
DOJ disregards McCain, McCain fails to react
by Robert O'Hara
(July 25th, 2013 Washington D.C.) As reported by AVFM News on June 28th, Arizona Senator John McCain sent a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder concerning the May 9th “blueprint” letter, sent to the University of Montana as a settlement agreement to what can only be described as a hysterical witch hunt by the DOJ. McCain pointed out several serious concerns regarding expanding the definition for sexual harassment, the virtual re-writing of law without involvement of the legislative branch and the erosion of due process for those accused of sexual harassment. McCain’s letter, sent out on June 26th, imposed a deadline of July 17th for Holder to respond.
It has now been over a week past that deadline and the DOJ has yet to respond in any way to McCain’s letter.
AVFM News made several calls and email inquiries to both the DOJ and John McCain’s office for comment regarding the letter and the past deadline but was unable to receive a statement from either. However, Chris Thomson, University of Montana’s Men’s Issues Group founder, did receive a letter from Dr. Sandra Stover from the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights in response to his request that the DOE “expediently respond to Senator McCain’s query dated June 26, 2013 concerning apparent improper proceedings of the Department of Justice.”
She stated in her reply:
“OCR and DOJ’s May 9 resolution agreement and letter to the University of Montana require that the University take steps to prevent sexual harassment from creating a hostile environment for any student, and to eliminate and redress any hostile environment that arises. The agreement and letter are entirely consistent with the First Amendment, and did not create any new or broader definition of unlawful sexual harassment under Title IX or Title IV.”
This is not true. The May 9th resolution agreement broadly defined sexual harassment as “any unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature” including “verbal conduct.” And that this “need not be subject to objective definitions.”
Thomson sent the following counter response to Dr. Stover’s email which includes McCain‘s exact questions posed to the DOJ in his June 28th letter:
“Ms. Stover;
To begin, thank you for addressing the queries I have as a father of four sons who will enter the Montana University System in coming years. As concisely as possible, I respectfully resubmit Senator John McCain’s queries as the July 17, 2013 date has passed and, to my knowledge, there has been no formal response from the DOE.
Therefore:
1. From what source does DOJ claim its authority to revise Court-approved Title IX jurisprudence through the settlement with the University of Montana rather than by judicial, regulatory, or legislative means?
2. How do you specifically define “unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature”? Having promulgated a new regulatory standard regarding the definition of sexual harassment, how does DOJ plan to ensure consistent application of that standard to avoid undesirable outcomes, including vexatious litigation?
3. To what extent does the broad nature of the new and judicially untested “unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature” standard, increase the risk of a wrongful conviction.
4. Could the following scenarios constitute “unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature” and demonstrate reasonable grounds for filing a sexual harassment complaint under the new definition:
a. A professor assigning a book or showing a movie that contains content of a sexual nature.
b. A student who makes a joke of a sexual nature to a friend and is overheard by another student.
c. A student asking another student on a date.
d. A student listening to music that contains content of a sexual nature overheard by others.
e. A student giving another student a Valentine’s Day card.
f. A student or professor using masculine terms for generic pronouns (e.g., “Each student must bring his own laptop to the exam.”)
5. What safe harbors are available to students and teachers so that they can be assured that innocent behavior is not investigated and punished?
His email, dated July 21st, has yet to receive a reply.
A broad coalition of groups led by The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education is exerting greater pressure for action against the May 9th blueprint. In an open letter dated July 16th including numerous signatories from the ranks of civil libertarians, attorneys, and academics FIRE charged:
“The blueprint mandates a shockingly broad definition of sexual harassment—“any unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature,” including “verbal conduct”—and rejects the inclusion of a “reasonable person” standard, endangering academic freedom and freedom of expression on campus. The blueprint also requires university employees to report protected speech for mandatory investigation, allows for punishment before the completion of an investigation, and instructs UMT to keep records of the names of all students and faculty accused of “sexual harassment,” even if no wrongdoing is found.”
It is unclear why McCain, in light of increasing controversy, has uncharacteristically failed to respond to the DOJ’s delinquency in answering his inquiry regarding the basic protection of constitutional rights on U.S. campuses. AVFM will continue to cover this story.
Source:click here
Let's ask McCain
I'm serious let's contact him and tell him not to let up. That we men are a voting bloc too.
by Robert O'Hara
(July 25th, 2013 Washington D.C.) As reported by AVFM News on June 28th, Arizona Senator John McCain sent a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder concerning the May 9th “blueprint” letter, sent to the University of Montana as a settlement agreement to what can only be described as a hysterical witch hunt by the DOJ. McCain pointed out several serious concerns regarding expanding the definition for sexual harassment, the virtual re-writing of law without involvement of the legislative branch and the erosion of due process for those accused of sexual harassment. McCain’s letter, sent out on June 26th, imposed a deadline of July 17th for Holder to respond.
It has now been over a week past that deadline and the DOJ has yet to respond in any way to McCain’s letter.
AVFM News made several calls and email inquiries to both the DOJ and John McCain’s office for comment regarding the letter and the past deadline but was unable to receive a statement from either. However, Chris Thomson, University of Montana’s Men’s Issues Group founder, did receive a letter from Dr. Sandra Stover from the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights in response to his request that the DOE “expediently respond to Senator McCain’s query dated June 26, 2013 concerning apparent improper proceedings of the Department of Justice.”
She stated in her reply:
“OCR and DOJ’s May 9 resolution agreement and letter to the University of Montana require that the University take steps to prevent sexual harassment from creating a hostile environment for any student, and to eliminate and redress any hostile environment that arises. The agreement and letter are entirely consistent with the First Amendment, and did not create any new or broader definition of unlawful sexual harassment under Title IX or Title IV.”
This is not true. The May 9th resolution agreement broadly defined sexual harassment as “any unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature” including “verbal conduct.” And that this “need not be subject to objective definitions.”
Thomson sent the following counter response to Dr. Stover’s email which includes McCain‘s exact questions posed to the DOJ in his June 28th letter:
“Ms. Stover;
To begin, thank you for addressing the queries I have as a father of four sons who will enter the Montana University System in coming years. As concisely as possible, I respectfully resubmit Senator John McCain’s queries as the July 17, 2013 date has passed and, to my knowledge, there has been no formal response from the DOE.
Therefore:
1. From what source does DOJ claim its authority to revise Court-approved Title IX jurisprudence through the settlement with the University of Montana rather than by judicial, regulatory, or legislative means?
2. How do you specifically define “unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature”? Having promulgated a new regulatory standard regarding the definition of sexual harassment, how does DOJ plan to ensure consistent application of that standard to avoid undesirable outcomes, including vexatious litigation?
3. To what extent does the broad nature of the new and judicially untested “unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature” standard, increase the risk of a wrongful conviction.
4. Could the following scenarios constitute “unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature” and demonstrate reasonable grounds for filing a sexual harassment complaint under the new definition:
a. A professor assigning a book or showing a movie that contains content of a sexual nature.
b. A student who makes a joke of a sexual nature to a friend and is overheard by another student.
c. A student asking another student on a date.
d. A student listening to music that contains content of a sexual nature overheard by others.
e. A student giving another student a Valentine’s Day card.
f. A student or professor using masculine terms for generic pronouns (e.g., “Each student must bring his own laptop to the exam.”)
5. What safe harbors are available to students and teachers so that they can be assured that innocent behavior is not investigated and punished?
His email, dated July 21st, has yet to receive a reply.
A broad coalition of groups led by The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education is exerting greater pressure for action against the May 9th blueprint. In an open letter dated July 16th including numerous signatories from the ranks of civil libertarians, attorneys, and academics FIRE charged:
“The blueprint mandates a shockingly broad definition of sexual harassment—“any unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature,” including “verbal conduct”—and rejects the inclusion of a “reasonable person” standard, endangering academic freedom and freedom of expression on campus. The blueprint also requires university employees to report protected speech for mandatory investigation, allows for punishment before the completion of an investigation, and instructs UMT to keep records of the names of all students and faculty accused of “sexual harassment,” even if no wrongdoing is found.”
It is unclear why McCain, in light of increasing controversy, has uncharacteristically failed to respond to the DOJ’s delinquency in answering his inquiry regarding the basic protection of constitutional rights on U.S. campuses. AVFM will continue to cover this story.
Source:click here
Let's ask McCain
I'm serious let's contact him and tell him not to let up. That we men are a voting bloc too.
Thursday, June 27, 2013
Fight back against Dear Collegue
From SAVE Services:
On May 9 the federal government issued a decision that expands the definition of sexual harassment and removes free speech on campus. This has triggered 100 critical editorials.
On June 26 Arizona Senator John McCain sent a letter to the Department of Justice challenging its recent settlement with the University of Montana.
We fully support the senator's efforts, and we'd like to see more lawmakers follow suit. That's where you come in.
Urge your senators to join with Sen. McCain to restore free speech on college campuses. Call 1-866-220-0044.
Thank you for helping college students all across the country.
teri
Teri Stoddard, Program Director
Stop Abusive and Violent Environments
www.saveservices.org
From Senator John McCain's website
June 26, 2013
Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator John McCain (R-AZ), Ranking Member of the Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, today condemned the proliferation of settlement abuses orchestrated by President Obama’s administration. To expose this practice, Senator McCain sent two letters to separate Obama administration officials.
In the first letter, sent to the Department of Justice, Senator McCain expressed concern that the civil rights division under Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez has circumvented the regular rulemaking process and congressional authority by redefining long-standing legal precedent through a settlement agreement with a single university.
In that letter, Senator McCain wrote, “Without congressional authorization or even any formal agency rulemaking, Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez and a group of lawyers in DOJ’s Civil Rights Division have single-handedly redefined the meaning of sexual harassment at all universities and colleges across the country that receive public funding.”
June 26, 2013
The Honorable Eric Holder
Attorney General of the United States
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20530
Dear Attorney General Holder:
I am writing to request more information on the settlement reached between the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the University of Montana-Missoula with regard to the enforcement and application of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (“Title IX”). Without congressional authorization or even any formal agency rulemaking, Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez and a group of lawyers in DOJ’s Civil Rights Division have single-handedly redefined the meaning of sexual harassment at all universities and colleges across the country that receive public funding.
Given that the interpretation of Title IX has such a widespread impact on the well-being of young students, it is troublesome that significant changes to nationwide sexual harassment policy were unilaterally dictated by DOJ – through a settlement – rather than through congressional or regulatory action. In short, Assistant Attorney General Perez and DOJ have used a settlement to effectively change the law, avoiding public accountability for their actions.
The Civil Rights Division, led by Assistant Attorney General Perez, ignored years of Supreme Court jurisprudence regarding Title IX when it decided to unilaterally make its new standard. Whereas the Supreme Court held in Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education that sexual harassment must be “so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it effectively bars the victim’s access to an educational opportunity or benefit,” Assistant Attorney General Perez on his own volition, unauthorized and unchecked by Congress, has issued a much broader definition that may compromise the constitutional rights of students and teachers.
According to the Civil Rights Division’s Letter of Findings, DOJ now defines sexual harassment as “any unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature.” DOJ also requires that universities immediately take actions against students accused of harassment before the completion of any investigation. DOJ’s new interpretation of sexual harassment and its suggested disciplinary procedures are direct hindrances to students’ and teachers’ First Amendment rights as well as their right to due process.
On June 6th Professors Ann Green and Donna Potts, members of the Committee on Women in the Academic Profession of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), wrote a letter to Mr. Perez expressing deep concerns about the broadness of DOJ’s new interpretation of sexual harassment. The letter asserted that the new definition “eliminates the critical standard of ‘reasonable speech,’ and, in doing so, may pose a threat to academic freedom in the classroom.”
Given that the new Title IX sexual harassment standards and suggested disciplinary procedures raise great concerns about the security of constitutional rights, please provide the following information by July 17, 2013.
1. From what source does DOJ claim its authority to revise Court-approved Title IX jurisprudence through the settlement with the University of Montana rather than by judicial, regulatory, or legislative means?
2. How do you specifically define “unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature”? Having promulgated a new regulatory standard regarding the definition of sexual harassment, how does DOJ plan to ensure consistent application of that standard to avoid undesirable outcomes, including vexatious litigation?
3.To what extent does the broad nature of the new and judicially untested “unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature” standard, increase the risk of a wrongful conviction?
4.Could the following scenarios constitute “unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature” and demonstrate reasonable grounds for filing a sexual harassment complaint under the new definition:
a.A professor assigning a book or showing a movie that contains content of a sexual nature.
b.A student who makes a joke of a sexual nature to a friend and is overheard by another student.
c.A student asking another student on a date.
d.A student listening to music that contains content of a sexual nature overheard by others.
e.A student giving another student a Valentine’s Day card.
f.A student or professor using masculine terms for generic pronouns (e.g., “Each student must bring his own laptop to the exam.”)
5.What safe harbors are available to students and teachers so that they can be assured that innocent behavior is not investigated and punished?
Thank you for your attention to this important matter.
Sincerely,
John McCain
Ranking Minority Member
Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
To find your Senators click here
We've got a Senator's attention,I suggest we do not waste this moment but instead lobby against the "dear colleague" letter. This is our chance. Let's not let it slip away.
Also it would be a good idea to contact Senator McCain and thank him for tackling this issue. That could go a long way down the road for us so let's do it.
On May 9 the federal government issued a decision that expands the definition of sexual harassment and removes free speech on campus. This has triggered 100 critical editorials.
On June 26 Arizona Senator John McCain sent a letter to the Department of Justice challenging its recent settlement with the University of Montana.
We fully support the senator's efforts, and we'd like to see more lawmakers follow suit. That's where you come in.
Urge your senators to join with Sen. McCain to restore free speech on college campuses. Call 1-866-220-0044.
Thank you for helping college students all across the country.
teri
Teri Stoddard, Program Director
Stop Abusive and Violent Environments
www.saveservices.org
From Senator John McCain's website
June 26, 2013
Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator John McCain (R-AZ), Ranking Member of the Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, today condemned the proliferation of settlement abuses orchestrated by President Obama’s administration. To expose this practice, Senator McCain sent two letters to separate Obama administration officials.
In the first letter, sent to the Department of Justice, Senator McCain expressed concern that the civil rights division under Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez has circumvented the regular rulemaking process and congressional authority by redefining long-standing legal precedent through a settlement agreement with a single university.
In that letter, Senator McCain wrote, “Without congressional authorization or even any formal agency rulemaking, Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez and a group of lawyers in DOJ’s Civil Rights Division have single-handedly redefined the meaning of sexual harassment at all universities and colleges across the country that receive public funding.”
June 26, 2013
The Honorable Eric Holder
Attorney General of the United States
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20530
Dear Attorney General Holder:
I am writing to request more information on the settlement reached between the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the University of Montana-Missoula with regard to the enforcement and application of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (“Title IX”). Without congressional authorization or even any formal agency rulemaking, Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez and a group of lawyers in DOJ’s Civil Rights Division have single-handedly redefined the meaning of sexual harassment at all universities and colleges across the country that receive public funding.
Given that the interpretation of Title IX has such a widespread impact on the well-being of young students, it is troublesome that significant changes to nationwide sexual harassment policy were unilaterally dictated by DOJ – through a settlement – rather than through congressional or regulatory action. In short, Assistant Attorney General Perez and DOJ have used a settlement to effectively change the law, avoiding public accountability for their actions.
The Civil Rights Division, led by Assistant Attorney General Perez, ignored years of Supreme Court jurisprudence regarding Title IX when it decided to unilaterally make its new standard. Whereas the Supreme Court held in Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education that sexual harassment must be “so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it effectively bars the victim’s access to an educational opportunity or benefit,” Assistant Attorney General Perez on his own volition, unauthorized and unchecked by Congress, has issued a much broader definition that may compromise the constitutional rights of students and teachers.
According to the Civil Rights Division’s Letter of Findings, DOJ now defines sexual harassment as “any unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature.” DOJ also requires that universities immediately take actions against students accused of harassment before the completion of any investigation. DOJ’s new interpretation of sexual harassment and its suggested disciplinary procedures are direct hindrances to students’ and teachers’ First Amendment rights as well as their right to due process.
On June 6th Professors Ann Green and Donna Potts, members of the Committee on Women in the Academic Profession of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), wrote a letter to Mr. Perez expressing deep concerns about the broadness of DOJ’s new interpretation of sexual harassment. The letter asserted that the new definition “eliminates the critical standard of ‘reasonable speech,’ and, in doing so, may pose a threat to academic freedom in the classroom.”
Given that the new Title IX sexual harassment standards and suggested disciplinary procedures raise great concerns about the security of constitutional rights, please provide the following information by July 17, 2013.
1. From what source does DOJ claim its authority to revise Court-approved Title IX jurisprudence through the settlement with the University of Montana rather than by judicial, regulatory, or legislative means?
2. How do you specifically define “unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature”? Having promulgated a new regulatory standard regarding the definition of sexual harassment, how does DOJ plan to ensure consistent application of that standard to avoid undesirable outcomes, including vexatious litigation?
3.To what extent does the broad nature of the new and judicially untested “unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature” standard, increase the risk of a wrongful conviction?
4.Could the following scenarios constitute “unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature” and demonstrate reasonable grounds for filing a sexual harassment complaint under the new definition:
a.A professor assigning a book or showing a movie that contains content of a sexual nature.
b.A student who makes a joke of a sexual nature to a friend and is overheard by another student.
c.A student asking another student on a date.
d.A student listening to music that contains content of a sexual nature overheard by others.
e.A student giving another student a Valentine’s Day card.
f.A student or professor using masculine terms for generic pronouns (e.g., “Each student must bring his own laptop to the exam.”)
5.What safe harbors are available to students and teachers so that they can be assured that innocent behavior is not investigated and punished?
Thank you for your attention to this important matter.
Sincerely,
John McCain
Ranking Minority Member
Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
To find your Senators click here
We've got a Senator's attention,I suggest we do not waste this moment but instead lobby against the "dear colleague" letter. This is our chance. Let's not let it slip away.
Also it would be a good idea to contact Senator McCain and thank him for tackling this issue. That could go a long way down the road for us so let's do it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)