The Last Bastion Of Democrats

Kurt  Schlichter
Kurt Schlichter

This week we found out that 40% of Americans are irredeemably racist – isn’t that the takeaway from Hillary’s ad and her speech about how anyone voting for Trump is one step away from pulling a hood out of the hamper and firing up a cross? Then we found out that a bunch of bitter virgins sitting at keyboards who occasionally take a break from viewing My Little Pony-themed porn to tweet about their Nordic heritage are the major driver behind Donald Trump. Has anyone actually met a member of the Alt Right in real life? I haven’t, but then I don’t cruise Doritos-strewn basements.

It’s all a lie, and that’s to be expected from a malignant and corrupt monster like Hillary Clinton and her coterie of suck-ups and henchpeople in and out of the media. But it’s more than just a run of the mill, lie du jour like her straight-faced insistence that Comey’s devastating closing argument about her myriad email crimes was, in fact, an exoneration. This is the kind of lie that poisons a political culture, that does real and lasting damage, but what the hell do the progressives care about that? They have been destroying America’s political rules, norms and customs for decades, with the pedal fully to the metal during the last eight years. The only silver lining has been that President Mom Jeans would have caused even greater damage if he didn’t love golfing so much.

Hillary’s racism lie, in which she linked Republicans to the kreepy klown kar her party created and in which her senatorial mentor Robert Byrd served as a Grand Imperial Cyborg Wizard Dragon or something, was not just your typical leftist slander against normal Americans. It was an attempt to marginalize fully 40% of the electorate desperate enough to avoid her no-doubt catastrophic reign by voting for Donald Trump. She and the left want to write this entire chunk of the electorate out of any voice in their own governance by authorizing her progressive supporters to disregard any duty to consider, represent or respect those alleged troglodytes. When these aspiring fascists babble about “crushing Trumpism,” what they are really saying is that they wish to permanently disenfranchise anyone on board the Trump Train instead of the Clinton Express to Venezuela.

 But there is no such thing as “Trumpism” – to credit The Donald with an ideology is ridiculous. Instead, there is simply raw opposition to progressivism, which right now has coalesced around a billionaire adolescent, and that opposition is what they truly seek to crush.

We have already seen a preview of how she will rule for the benefit of the connected and favored – just look at Hillary visiting Louisiana. Oh wait, she’s didn’t – she was fundraising in Hollywood. She cares nothing for those waterlogged Louisianans because Louisianans, wet or dry, will never vote for her. And so they must be punished – this is her clumsy object lesson on the price of opposition to her rule. And there will be more of it. There will be two Americas under Hillary, the connected one and the enemy. Guess which America you and I will be part of?

This election cycle is already proving to be a preview of the Clinton presidency. She’s shamelessly lying, with a mainstream media covering for her with various levels of discomfort – some talking heads seem a bit embarrassed when trying to explain how Hillary isn’t really lying to their faces when she’s obviously lying to their faces, while others don the gimp suit to revel in the luscious contempt she shows for them. She is effectively announcing that she will be unaccountable, and she will be unaccountable by all normal political remedies.

It’s the abnormal remedies we should worry about. Once upon a time, presidents did not so blatantly pick and choose among their citizens, dividing them into the favored and disfavored so obviously and so cruelly. They did not openly insist that they would bypass the Congress by executive fiat and through unelected judges to effectively pass laws the people’s representatives rejected. They did not promise to restore unconstitutional laws that made criticizing them a crime. And the media did not openly admit their commitment to supporting their favored president by ignoring blatant corruption. The political coalition currently in power did not openly conspire to effectively exile a huge chunk of the electorate from participation in their own governance.

Abnormal actions spark abnormal reactions; when you throw out the rule book it becomes a very different game. Do they think the disenfranchised, many of whom defended this country in war, are just going to sit back and quietly accept that they no longer have any voice in their own lives, that they must obey the commands of hateful liberal bullies who delight in inflicting petty abuse and insults upon them? Or will there be a reaction? When you ignore the rules and customs and norms and laws, you should not be surprised when your opponents likewise ignore the rules and customs and norms and laws. And then what?

Because Hillary’s towering hatred for normal Americans is dwarfed only by the yawning chasm that is her wisdom deficit, she cannot see the fetid swamp at the bottom of the slippery slope she is rushing down. She will do something stupid, believing that people will simply obey her from habit as if the old legitimacy that made obeying the law habitual still applied. She is going to keep pushing, until at some point, someone is going to tell her “No.”

She will try to confiscate guns or attempt to eliminate dissident Christianity by eliminating tax deductions for churches or decide to thrill her pals in San Francisco by ruining the Lone Star state’s economy by banning fracking, and someone like Governor Greg Abbot is going to tell her “No. No, we aren’t doing that here in Texas. Your rules no longer apply here. Not unless you can enforce them. And trying to do that would be a very bad idea.”

And then that vindictive fool and her allies will have to decide what they will do when mere words and decrees are no longer enough to disenfranchise her opponents.


Snowflake Freakout

Social Justice Warriors Predictably Freak Out Over University Of Chicago's 'No Safe Space' Policy
Christine wrote about this yesterday, but the administrators at the University of Chicago are my new heroes. They straight up told the class of 2020 that there will be no safe spaces, no trigger warnings, no uninviting of speakers because some people are averse to diverse opinions. It’s a refreshing sign to see this higher education institution disembowel the political correctness culture in their sphere, though it has infested our college campuses. Well, to no one’s surprise, the social justice warriors’ blood pressure went through the roof when the news broke. Emily Zanotti of Heat Street had more on these precious liberals losing their hair over UoC declaring that they’re for academic freedom. What horrible people, right?

One student told DNA Info that the administration was asking students to “check their compassion and their experiences at the door.” Another, the head of the campus sexual assault survivors network, said that this was simply the latest failure by the college to cater to interest groups.“The administration has a huge problem with transparency, and they have been slow to address issues related to sexual violence, disability injustice, police discrimination and many more,” she said.

Vox posted an op-ed accusing the college of “exercising power” over its students, calling trigger warnings “pedagogical imperatives.” The piece also defended students who shouted down or ousted controversial speakers from other campuses, saying that they “challenge” academic professors and “hold us accountable” for their institutional biases.

The New Republicwhined that the University of Chicago was “attacking academic freedom” by telling students to think more critically about shutting down speakers and shutting off conversation.

Zanotti also found some tremendous tweets from this meltdown:

Well, a) yes, you have the right to be offensive; b) It’s not the Milton Friedman Institute For Screwing The Third World; it’s the Hugo Chavez Institute—and they’ve thoroughly and brutally screwed over Venezuela; c) it’s conservatives that have been the victims of your precious political correctness agenda, so dear wee lads—they’re going to be able to express themselves without having the fear of torches and pitchforks showing up outside their dormitory.

I hope the university of Chicago stands their ground. I hope they don’t cave, and I hope other liberal institutions smash this incorrigible anti-American (and anti-intellectual), progressive agenda to dust. Liberals and conservatives can express themselves without fear of harassment. That’s not controversial. The whole world thinks your safe space nonsense is a joke. Moreover, the fact that you feel like a no safe space policy is going to create a scene akin to the atomic bombing of Hiroshima is also utterly laughable.

Yes, liberals will remain the dominant force on campus, or at least until the alumni start paying taxes and get jobs, but conservative at UoC can feel somewhat better I guess that an administration won’t be kowtowing to a rather vicious anti-free speech agenda.

I wish you well in your studies, freshman.

“Poking fun at other people’s beliefs, while it may seem frivolous and offensive, is a non-negotiable right. It is a principle that underpins free speech, the basis for progress.”
maajid nawa
free speech

Tanning Your Privilege

I was home sick on Friday. So in my misery I decided to think up a ridiculous thing that mindless, brainless, zombie Liberals could be “offended” by that was utterly ludicrous.

I came up with White people getting a Tan.

And wouldn’t you know it, The Huffington Post obliged (several months ago apparently).

Swedish company Emmaatan came under fire on Friday for selling a dark-colored self-tanner called “Dark Chocolate,” after pictures were posted to its social media pages that featured white models with skin that appeared to mimic black skin. With other products that have names like “Caramel” and “Dark Ash Onyx,” some black people argued that Emmaatan was yet another example of white people appropriating black features. 

Image result for emmatan dark chocolate

The Owner of the Salon in Teen Vogue: “I’m a small tanning business in Sweden and I’ve been working with beauty for 2 years in August. I’m a hard working owner of emmaatan and love working with beauty cause I get to appreciate all types of looks and figures. I’m in [shock] for the response I’ve gotten and may have responded and commented the wrong way because I expect Ppl to know how Spraytan works . I’ve got a lot of feedback and mostly been called “black face” and racist. Ppl looks at my pic I’ve posted and without a blink assuming we desire to look black, I understand why it might seem that way and I apologise for the miss understanding,” Alm wrote.

“My color isn’t going for black it’s going for a natural golden tan when you wash it off. I never want my customers to look unnatural or too dark since we usually have a lighter skin tone . You also have to understand I have ppl with dark and pale skin tone and therefore look darker or lighter. I love all skin types and that’s why I think ppl should be able to choose for what they feel good in, as long as you respect ppl around you. I understand a lot of you don’t agree with the tan industry but I don’t want you to think we want to go for a crazy black tan, we don’t!”

In a statement posted by Emmaatan via their Instagram, the company’s owner Emma Patissier apologized for “the misunderstanding.” But she insisted that her products weren’t designed to mimic black skin, she wrote: “I never want my customers to look unnatural or to [sic] dark since we usually have a lighter skin tone.”

So in this case, because it’s the Leftist SJW whacko agenda, “intent” and “misunderstanding”is not good enough to get you off the hook with them.

Image result for emmatan dark chocolate
But when they use it as an excuse you MUST buy it because it’s the truth, right?🙂
Like SUNY Binghampton and their “Stop White People” training course.

“For those who were familiar with the hashtag used in the title, it was understood not to be literal,” writes Rose, reaffirming what he stated in his previous message to the public. “Nonetheless, the program should not have been so titled. Out of context, it is offensive and alarming. That was not the intent.

Well, that’s ok, then, it’s not like you were spewing racist assumptions about white people.

Forgive and Forget when they say it. But when you do it, well, there is no forgiveness and they never forget. Funny how that works out.🙂

So Let’s all get mad and upset about Tanning instead. Then we’ll move onto the next target of outrage.

Rose’s first statement said he had “no indication that this particular program was inconsistent with the respectful environment we hope to support and sustain,” adding that the hashtag is “commonly used ironically.”

Isn’t it ironic that they don’t understand irony?🙂

But they can go banana fruit cake crazy about a Tanning!

Jessica ( [..] i think the fundamental issue here is that whiteness is a privilege and blackness is not. [..] This is black face. No matter how you spin it. This is bottled blackness, made for the appropriation of privileged white consumers.

This is why we have a Liberal Zombie Apocalypse in 2016.


Snowflake Alert

University of Chicago class of 2020, get ready for a college experience filled with debate, discussion — and possibly discomfort.

In other words, reality.

Conservative cheered and liberals frowned. Over at Vox, Emily Crockett writes about safe spaces and what they mean:

“For me as a black woman, it’s really nice to just go out with other black women sometimes,” said Sabrina Stevens, an activist and progressive strategist. “I have to do so much less translation. When you’re black around white people, you have to explain every little thing, even with people who are perfectly nice and well-meaning.”

White people are stupid and insensitive, after all. But she’s not racist…🙂

One college administrator has taken a bold stance against the demise of free speech on America’s campuses, warning newly admitted students that they will find no “safe spaces” at his school.

John Ellison, Dean of Students for the College at the University of Chicago, welcomed students to campus with a warning, but not the kind typically issued at a university.

“Academic freedom means that we do not support so-called ‘trigger warnings,’…[or] intellectual ‘safe spaces’.”   

“Our commitment to academic freedom means that we do not support so called ‘trigger warnings,’ we do not cancel invited speakers because their topics might prove controversial, and we do not condone the creation of intellectual ‘safe spaces’ where individuals can retreat from ideas and perspectives at odds with their own,” Ellison writes in the letter, a copy of which was obtained by Intellectual Takeout.

Indeed, UC has been praised for its stance on free speech ever since a faculty committee released a commitment to freedom of expression last year, a policy that has since been adopted by several other schools.

Accordingly, Ellison touted UC’s free speech policy as one of its “defining characteristics,” saying this is “captured in the university’s faculty report on freedom of expression.”

“Members of our community are encouraged to speak, write, listen, challenge, and learn, without fear of censorship. Civility and mutual respect are vital to all of us, and freedom of expression does not mean the freedom to harass or threaten others,” he continues. “You will find that we expect members of our community to be engaged in rigorous debate, discussion, and even disagreement.”

Acknowledging that ”at times this may challenge you and even cause discomfort,” Ellison nonetheless insists that “fostering the free exchange of ideas reinforces a related university priority—building a campus that welcomes people of all backgrounds.”

As colleges across the country wrestle with balancing academic freedom and open discourse with student health and safety, University of Chicago Dean of Students John Ellison told incoming freshmen in a letter what they should expect on campus.

“Our commitment to academic freedom means that we do not support so-called ‘trigger warnings,’ we do not cancel invited speakers because their topics might prove controversial, and we do not condone the creation of intellectual ‘safe spaces’ where individuals can retreat from ideas and perspectives at odds with their own,” the letter said.

Trigger warnings — used to alert students of sensitive material that might be uncomfortable, offensive or traumatic to them, such as discussions about race and sexual assault — and safe spaces, designed to shelter students from certain speakers and topics, have become more common and controversial on campuses across the country.

According to a survey of more than 800 college educators by the National Coalition Against Censorship, a majority — 62 percent — said they think trigger warnings have or will have a negative effect on academic freedom. Only 17 percent reported favorable views of trigger warnings, meaning that they have or could have a positive effect on education and classroom dynamics.

And while formal policies on trigger warnings are rare — fewer than 1 percent of respondents said their institution had one — 15 percent said students had requested trigger warnings in their courses, and 12 percent said students complained about the absence of such warnings, according to the report from the coalition of more than 50 national nonprofits supporting First Amendment principles.

At the University of Chicago, fostering the free exchange of ideas helps build a welcoming campus, Ellison told students in the letter, which accompanied a book titled “Academic Freedom and the Modern University: The Experience of the University of Chicago” by John Boyer, a university dean and professor, a university spokesman said.

The letter included a link to a university report issued by its Committee on Freedom of Expression, established in 2015 to articulate the university’s policy on free expression.

“It is not the proper role of the University to attempt to shield individuals from ideas and opinions they find unwelcome, disagreeable, or even deeply offensive,” the report states. “Although the University greatly values civility, and although all members of the University community share in the responsibility for maintaining a climate of mutual respect, concerns about civility and mutual respect can never be used as a justification for closing off discussion of ideas, however offensive or disagreeable those ideas may be to some members of our community.”

The university is preparing students for the real world and would not be serving them by shielding them from unpleasantness, said Geoffrey Stone, chair of the committee, law professor and past provost at the U. of C.

“The right thing to do is empower the students, help them understand how to fight, combat and respond, not to insulate them from things they will have to face later,” Stone said.

While the university doesn’t support, require or encourage trigger warnings, it does not prohibit them, he added. Professors are still free to alert students to certain material if they choose to do so.

Jane Kirtley, a media ethics and law professor at the University of Minnesota, called U. of C.’s move “refreshing.” She said colleges should resist setting limits on what views and opinions are acceptable to air in open forum and should encourage students to discuss things they find uncomfortable.

“If universities are not providing platforms for people to be offensive, then I don’t think that they’re doing part of their job,” Kirtley said. “If listening to Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton is going to make your blood pressure go up 400 points, then fine, don’t listen to them. But that doesn’t mean you can say we can’t have Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton speaking on campus because it would be offensive to even know they were talking.”

Another Midwestern institution has followed the University of Chicago’s lead. In 2015, the board of trustees at Purdue University in Indiana endorsed the principles articulated in the U. of C. report.

“Our commitment to open inquiry is not new, but adopting these principles provides a clear signal of our pledge to live by this commitment and these standards,” board Chairman Tom Spurgeon said in a statement at the time.

Purdue last week held a free speech panel moderated by faculty and administrators, and featuring student skits, as part of its orientation program to make incoming students aware of First Amendment principles and how to use their own voices to speak out against ideas they disagree with, said Steve Schultz, legal counsel for the university.

“We want them to be aware they will see things on campus, be involved in situations where others will inevitably say things they may not agree with, and we want them to know that’s OK,” he said.

The debate over freedom of expression and safe spaces has played out at other universities in the Chicago area and across the country.

Earlier this month, DePaul University denied a request to have conservative commentator Ben Shapiro give a speech at the university, citing security concerns, after his talks had sparked protests on other campuses. And in May, a protest disrupted and forced the cancellation of an appearance by Milo Yiannopoulos, a conservative blogger with Breitbart News Network.

In a statement to the Tribune after the Shapiro cancellation, DePaul spokeswoman Carol Hughes said: “DePaul University’s Office of Public Safety determined, after observing events which took place when Mr. Shapiro spoke elsewhere, that it was not in a position to provide the type of security that would be required to properly host this event at this time.”

In 2014, former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice backed out of giving the commencement speech at Rutgers University after student protests centered on her involvement in the Iraq War during the George W. Bush administration.

That same year, after a debate over sexual assault on campus was scheduled, students at Brown University organized a safe space on campus with counselors, bubbles, Play-Doh and pillows. The space was designed to give students who might find the discussion troubling a place to recuperate, The New York Times reported.

And last year, a Northwestern University professor who wrote a controversial essay on how colleges police faculty-student relationships sparked a national debate over academic and sexual freedom. After the publication of the essay by communications professor Laura Kipnis, two students filed Title IX complaints contending that Kipnis created a “chilling effect” on their ability to report sexual misconduct. Kipnis, who was cleared after an investigation, made clear that sexual abusers should be punished but also chided the university for its ban on faculty members dating students, arguing that such policies treat students as vulnerable children.

Northwestern also waded into controversy last year when it proposed moving some Campus Inclusion and Community offices into the Black House, the social and academic epicenter for black students, professors and staff on campus for decades.

The backlash was swift and strong. Many said the purpose of creating the Black House in the late 1960s was to give black people on campus a dedicated place to share experiences unique to them.

Northwestern later abandoned its plans.

Northwestern officials declined to comment for this story, but in a January editorial in The Washington Post, President Morton Schapiro cited the Black House controversy as an experience that helped convince him that “safe spaces” were necessary on the Evanston campus.

“I’m an economist, not a sociologist or psychologist, but those experts tell me that students don’t fully embrace uncomfortable learning unless they are themselves comfortable,” Schapiro wrote. “The irony, it seems, is that the best hope we have of creating an inclusive community is to first create spaces where members of each group feel safe.”

Colleen Crane, a University of Michigan lecturer in social work, supports the use of trigger warnings in some cases.

Crane included a trigger warning on her syllabus for a course that involved 16 hours of discussions on personal trauma, in part to prepare students to have the same kind of talks with potential patients.

“A trigger warning gives a pause and reflection for the student in that classroom,” Crane said. “I think it’s kind of important to remind people that the content can be triggering, and to almost prepare yourself mentally, emotionally and physically to be discussing this in the context of a classroom.”

Crane said that in some cases the warning helped free students who wanted to share personal stories. But she said she’s also received several evaluations from students who said they still didn’t feel prepared for how agonizing and distressing the class sessions would be.

But college professors are not responsible for students’ emotional health, according a report issued by American Association of University Professors. That responsibility lies with counselors and other mental health experts.

“Some discomfort is inevitable in classrooms if the goal is to expose students to new ideas, have them question beliefs they have taken for granted, grapple with ethical problems they have never considered, and, more generally, expand their horizons so as to become informed and responsible democratic citizens,” an AAUP committee wrote in a 2014 report on the issue. “Trigger warnings suggest that classrooms should offer protection and comfort rather than an intellectually challenging education. They reduce students to vulnerable victims rather than full participants in the intellectual process of education.” (Campus Reform and Chicago Tribune)

But Liberal like “victims”. They thrive on “victims”. They self-perpetuate them.

#Stop White People

The State University of New York (SUNY) at Binghamton is now offering a course called “#StopWhitePeople2K16” as part of routine training for residential assistants.

Nothing screams tolerance and diversity like a university workshop designed to target white people.

The university’s residential assistant training schedule lists “#StopWhitePeople2016” on its roster, with the mission of giving RA’s an “overview of disabilities in Higher Education.”

The presenters of the course, Ciaran Slattery, Nicholas Pulakos, and Urenna Nwogwugwu, are all RAs at the state-funded college, which describes itself as New York’s highest-ranking public college. They state their purpose is to “help others take the next step in understanding diversity, privilege, and the society we function within,” presumably the “white” society they plan to “stop” at the event.

The three RAs claim they will give “#StopWhitePeople2K16” course attendees the “tools” to respond to “uneducated people” with “‘good’ arguments.” You know, the people who preach mutual respect, equality under God, and constitutional freedoms. Those people.

They also state they will help other RAs at the state-funded college “hopefully expand upon what they may already know”: that white people are cancer, of course.

Get a load of the course description:

“The premise of this session is to help others take the next step in understanding diversity, privilege, and the society we function within.”

I developed a micro-aggression just reading that nonsense. (Todd Starnes)

The hilarious fact that they are, in and of themselves RACISTS, is almost as hilarious as the fact that if you presented that to them their brains would be totally incapable of processing such thoughtcrimes and they’d just consider you “uneducated” and probably say something condescending and sanctimonious.

“We verified that the actual program content was not ‘anti-white’,” said Brian Rose, vice president for student affairs.

Orwell’s work is done.

“The terrifying implication here is not that students on campus think it is appropriate to call an event by that name, but that the university seems to endorse it as a proper part of a RA training,” wrote Howard Hecht in the Binghamton Review. “If Binghamton University is going to endorse ‘stopping’ someone due to his or her skin color, without any explanation for why he or she must be ‘stopped,’ would that not be a real example of racism on campus?”

The training session obviously did not invent the phrase “stop white people.” The line is a popular one among social media users and is used to critique alleged ignorance of white privilege, ranging from jabs at overtly offensive behavior to jokes about petty subjects like white people dancing — the class’ name was probably a reference to this cultural meme. 

Thanks to the SUNY Binghamton class, the hashtag #StopWhitePeople was trending on Twitter Wednesday. Although, while many posted about SUNY Binghamton, many users ignored the news story in favor of unrelated posts with the hashtag. The trending topic also led to an angry backlash from people upset about the potentially divisive interpretations of the hashtag. 

Ya think?

Racism as “civil rights”. Wow! Orwell’s work is done. Their brains are overcooked mush and they have no clue that it is.

Binghamton University has not commented on it, but the Daily Caller points out the school’s official R.A. guide encourages “an environment where interaction between people of different cultural and ethnic backgrounds as well as the sharing of divergent opinions and beliefs are respected and welcomed.”

So when the course attendees  are given the “tools” to respond to “uneducated people” with “‘good’ arguments” that would be the people with divergent opinions and beliefs, right? 🙂

In other words, White People, Conservatives, and Religious People (or just ANYONE who disagrees with them at all). The Un-Persons of the Liberal “tolerance” and “diversity” cult.

From Binghamton Review


Bayou Bullshit

Remember the charges of “flying over” and “not caring enough” during Katrina?

The FEMA Trailers and the $2500 Debit cards?

Well, Louisiana suffered major flooding that the state’s capital that has more than 106,000 residents and households to register for assistance from the Federal Emergency Management Agency. More than 60,000 homes were damaged, officials said, and 13 people were killed.

No outcry from the Media and the Leftist like Katrina. Hmmm…

But Obama was too busy vacationing at Martha’s Vineyard (remember the cracks about Crawford, Texas or Kinnebunkport,ME??) to be bothered.

Hillary doesn’t care.

The Media let it slide. After all, they are their side.

Trump went down there, not for a photo-op, and was criticized by the Leftist for it.

Typical. But don’t worry, they aren’t biased.🙂

Hillary Clinton, Trump’s Democratic opponent, said Monday that she too plans a trip to the flood site. Her campaign said in a statement that she would come to the state at an unspecified time in the future.
“This month’s floods in Louisiana are a crisis that demand a national response,” she said. “I am committed to visiting communities affected by these floods, at a time when the presence of a political campaign will not disrupt the response, to discuss how we can and will rebuild together.”
I’ll be there when I feel like it. Right now, you aren’t important enough for me.

So what difference does it make, anyways?

playing through

The people finally shame our Dear Leadr in a pity Photo-Op stop and what does he do?

He lectures them on his Agenda!

President Obama can’t be bothered to cut his vacation short to do his job as residents of Louisiana grapple with disastrous flooding, but his administration does have time to send an offensive memo.

The Washington Times reported that the Obama Department of Justice sent a 16-page guidance to Louisiana residents on Tuesday who are receiving federal disaster assistance, warning them not to engage in “unlawful discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin (including limited English proficiency).”

The memo states that the guidance’s frameworks “highlight the importance of complying with nondiscrimination requirements of civil rights statutes, addressing the needs of the whole community, and ensuring equal opportunity to access recovery efforts.”

Louisianans are struggling to help themselves and their neighbors with food and shelter in a disaster that has seen the deaths of 13 people as well as the damage of over 40,000 homes, but the Obama administration thinks a lecture on diversity is most important.

Some were rightfully offended by the inappropriate memo, including The American Conservative’s Rod Dreher, who said in a post on Thursday: “E]verywhere you look you can find black folks and white folks loving on each other, helping each other through this crisis.”

Dreher referenced Obama’s refusal to leave his vacation in his rebuke of the “long bureaucratic memo” sent to Louisianans by the “Department of Justice and many other agencies of the executive branch overseen by He Who Cannot Be Troubled to Leave Martha’s Vineyard.”

The memo cited instances they deem discriminatory from previous disasters such as Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005, including “numerous media reports [that] showed images of African Americans stranded on roofs in New Orleans.”

The guidance claims the images “exposed significant inequalities in access to emergency response and recovery efforts”

The memo also referenced a renter who preferred to rent to “two white females” in an ad directed to disaster evacuees. Funny, I don’t remember a memo going out about the Claremont Colleges students who put an ad out where they refused to room with white people…

While Drehrer said that Louisianans need to “own our mistakes” when it comes to discrimination, he noted that during this disaster, the last thing they needed was a lecture that ignores the way the community has come together including people of all races.

Drehrer cited a local man named Jimmy who told him in an email that “not many things get me seething, but this does,” and called the Obama administration”dividers instead of uniters.”

The email went on to say: “Look no further than this ‘guidance’ press release telling us in the middle of it to be sure not to be racist, y’all. Meanwhile, our President enjoys golfing and Martha’s Vineyard and sunny skies. No visits, not even that reviled [George W.] Bush flyover. Just politically motivated, radically laced memos.”

Nice job Obama, way to miss the mark yet again! (

But a bullsit bulleye for ticking off Agenda items. And the media will no doubt be gushing over his “compassion” and “sensitivity”.


Social Justice Warriors Beware

From Chicks on The Right:

I’ll be curious to see how the raging lunatic SJWs take this news (or if they’ll simply ignore it).

They’ll ignore it. Thoughtcrimes are always ignored. Facts not on the Agenda, doubly so.

According to this, the scholarly journal “The New Atlantis” published a research study about sexuality and gender. The study basically debunks EVERYTHING popular opinion has told us about human sexual orientation and gender identity being innate. Bottom Line: The argument that “I was born this way” does not hold up under scientific scrutiny –

The belief that sexual orientation is an innate, biologically fixed human property—that people are ‘born that way’—is not supported by scientific evidence.


Likewise, the belief that gender identity is an innate, fixed human property independent of biological sex—so that a person might be a ‘man trapped in a woman’s body’ or ‘a woman trapped in a man’s body’—is not supported by scientific evidence.


Only a minority of children who express gender-atypical thoughts or behavior will continue to do so into adolescence or adulthood. There is no evidence that all such children should be encouraged to become transgender, much less subjected to hormone treatments or surgery.


Non-heterosexual and transgender people have higher rates of mental health problems (anxiety, depression, suicide), as well as behavioral and social problems (substance abuse, intimate partner violence), than the general population. Discrimination alone does not account for the entire disparity.

Oh gee, denying your biological makeup in favor of your FEEEEEEEEELINGS leads to mental health problems? Who could have guessed?

In this clip, the editor of the journal interviews the top researchers on this study, Dr. Paul McHugh and Dr. Lawrence Mayer, both of Johns Hopkins University –


“Science is never settled.” Dr. McHugh – you are my new favorite person!

Note how Dr. Mayer points out that there just isn’t enough long-term data for how transgenderism – particularly in children – affect people over the course of their lives. Yet people are insisting that children AND adults can just “feel” that they were born in the wrong body and they have to go through all these mental and physical hoops to get there, as well as forcing the rest of society to deny what is right in front of our faces!

We’ve talked about medical and scientific professionals’ findings on this subject before and, more often than not, we get quite a bit of blowback from the left about it. This is just adding one more scientific source that says “Biology doesn’t work like that.” And certainly not on the scale that social justice Tumblrinas would have you believe (you spend enough time on Tumblr, you’d swear that EVERYBODY in the world is LGBTQIAAXYZWTFBBQ).

I’m not surprised that these researchers came to these conclusions. I think I’m more surprised that The New Atlantis actually published it (admittedly, this is the first I’ve heard of The New Atlantis. But then again, I don’t keep tabs on the eleventy-skillion scholarly journals that exist out there). Politically correct academia doesn’t typically make it a habit of publicly admitting findings that are going to hack off their Cult of Social Justice masters. So, I have to applaud The New Atlantis for having the brass ones to actually do this.