In League with Liberals

(RedSkirt also here. BlueSkirt response.) I received an email from a friend some time ago, commenting on this story about an upcoming League of Women Voters event, and I quote:

"Bankoff was quick to point out that while the League of Women Voters never promotes or endorses particular candidates in races on either the national or local stage, the organization does develop policy statements on specific issues.

Nationally, the League of Women Voters has made climate change a priority issue."

Incredible. So, if the LO(Liberal)WV makes every plank in the Democratic Party's platform "issues" for which they "develop policy statements" that concur with the plank, that's not endorsing the Democratic party.....I challenge the LOWV to find even one issue that they support that is only a Republican issue....

Also, why wouldn't the LOWV invite at least ONE speaker who would challenge global warming???

I challenge the League to at least add this film to their festival, since in the Winnetka Talk they pay lip service to the concept of debate. To add insult to injury, for a special treat they offer a slide show recap of Al's movie, that ignorant, pompous Goracle of a hypocrite.

And I challenge the League to invite a global warming skeptic to appear on just one panel. Note the exclusively pro-greenie lineup. At least read this post please, liberal League ladies.

The non-partisan nature of the League of Women Voters is a TOTAL fraud. Around here the League leadership is virtually indistinguishable from the Democrat party apparachiks. They are the Democrat election judges, the poll watchers, the campaign workers.

Debate, what debate? The local League-sponsored debates are a farce. They usually put their members, who just happen to be candidates, front and center and lob them softball questions, which reflect their priorities--perhaps about their community service, or what's special about Wilmette. In the round of questions, when it's anyone else's turn (who dares to run without their imprimatur) they hit them first with divisive or bizarre questions. Typically gun control comes up, and at one village board debate an election cycle ago a candidate was asked about health, housing, you name it benefits for gay, lesbian, bisexual or trans-gendered residents of Wilmette. In the school board debates it might be taxes or school prayer.

And they may employ the neutral facade of enlisting moderators from neighboring towns, but it's an incestuous Dem bunch around here. Similar tactics are employed in other locales-- a less than even-handed approach. More here. Typically the League allies itself with the "local" newspaper, which is no guarantor of impartiality either. (That's one reason I started this blog. I know about too many letters to the editor that never saw the light of day at election time, and then there are always the stories never written.)

Nationally the League is just as transparently liberal. The League says they are for voting reform, yet oppose photo IDs. And of course they support provisional ballots, which are an invitation to fraud by political machines, overwhelmingly Dem and urban.

The League says they are for lobbying reform, but hailed the toothless Dem bill as a success.

The League says they are concerned about civil liberties, but our life and liberty at risk from terrorists are not their concern. They whine about imaginary abuses, and are silent while terrorists coldly target us.

These useful idiots for terror don't advocate for women when it counts. No, they view global warming as the greater threat. This has LIBERAL written all over it. And we might add gullible to the title as well. (Though that's redundant, but let's point out the obvious to the clueless.)

The League of Gullible, Liberal Women Voters.

NOTE: This column was written before he Goracle won the Nobel. Thoughts on that here.

UPDATE: I notice BlueSkirt does not deny the LOWV is a liberal group, rather than non-partisan as it proclaims. And as BlueSkirt shifts the argument to other groups, I would just add that the LOWV is essentially a monopoly on debates at the local level--an especially pernicious force hostile to true democracy-deserving of challenge everywhere.

And yes, I agree that we should not treat all viewpoints equally. C-SPAN is bad enough proposing to host a holocaust denier in the interests of fairness, but Columbia University is a disgrace to host a terrorist head of state and holocaust denier, giving him an Ivy League forum. And no balance there at all. I didn't hear any squawks from liberals on that one. In fact, Columbia is all too typical of the liberal-dominated universities in this country, who purport to be interested in truth and the spirit of inquiry-NOT.

FoxNews has Democrats on all the time. Yeah, they're not all flaming liberals, but then most Democrats aren't flaming liberals. (Though most of their leadership is.)

And BlueSkirt illustrates my point on the close-mindedness of the Left when she defends scientists who refuse a debate with creationists. Aside from the merits of the case for intelligent design, Blue Skirt describes the scientists as having "studied the historical record". Well, as far as I know, pursuing science is a series of testing hypotheses, not dusty, established "fact". Granted there are scientific facts that are pretty much beyond dispute, but the theory of evolution is not one of them. (Hint--lots of stuff happened a long time ago--there are gaps in our knowledge.) There are still black boxes of assumptions yet unplumbed in the realm of science.

Getting back to global warming, there is no scientific consensus, as noted by an eminent MIT professor of atmospheric science. Recently, a retired citizen and blogger found errors in NASA's numbers on temperature, on which global warming alarmists had largely based their case. NASA has now corrected their numbers.

And presumably the League thinks we should all still have a vote, a questionable assumption I know. They should at least try to persuade us through honest debate.