Danger, Will Robinson!

Thomas Sowell
Thomas Sowell (2015)
Two Warnings

When Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed a joint session of Congress on March 3rd, it was the third time he had done so. The only other person to address a joint session of Congress three times was the legendary British prime minister Winston Churchill.

The parallels between the two leaders do not end there. Both warned the world of mortal dangers that others ignored, in hopes that those dangers would go away. In the years leading up to World War II, Churchill tried to warn the British, and the democratic nations in general, of what a monstrous threat Hitler was.

Despite Churchill’s legendary status today, he was not merely ignored but ridiculed at the time, when he was repeatedly warning in vain. Knowing that his warnings provoked only mocking laughter in some quarters, even among some members of his own party, he said on March 14, 1938 in the House of Commons, “Laugh but listen.”

Just two years later, with Hitler’s planes bombing London, night after night, the laughter was gone. Many at the time thought that Britain itself would soon be gone as well, like other European nations that succumbed to the Nazi blitzkrieg in weeks (like France) or days (like Holland).

How did things get to such a desperate situation, with Britain alone continuing the fight, and struggling to survive, against the massive Nazi war machine that now controlled much of the material resources on the continent of Europe?

Things got that desperate by following policies strikingly similar to the policies being followed by the Western democracies today, including some of the very same notions and catchwords being used today.

Just recently, a State Department official in the Obama administration said that Americans have remained safe in a nuclear age, not because of our own nuclear arsenal but because “we created an intricate and essential system of treaties, laws and agreements.”

If “treaties, laws and agreements” produced peace, there would never have been a Second World War. The years leading up to that monumental catastrophe were filled with international treaties and arms control agreements.

The Treaty of Versailles, which ended the First World War, imposed strong restrictions on Germany’s military forces — on paper. The Washington Naval Agreements of 1922 imposed restrictions on all the major naval powers of the world — on paper. The Kellogg-Briand pact of 1928 created an international renunciation of war — on paper.

The Munich agreement of 1938 produced a paper with Hitler’s signature on it that British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain waved to the cheering crowds when he returned to England, and said that it meant “Peace for our time.” Less than a year later, World War II began.

Winston Churchill never bought any of this. He understood that military deterrence was what preserved peace. With England playing a leadership role in Europe, “England’s hour of weakness is Europe’s hour of danger,” he said in the House of Commons in 1931.


Today, with the Obama administration “leading from behind” — in practice, not leading at all — we see in Ukraine and the Middle East what that produces.

As for disarmament, Churchill said in 1932, “Alone among the nations we have disarmed while others have rearmed.”

Today, the United States has that dubious and reckless distinction. Our pacifists, like those in England during the 1930s, argue that we should disarm to “induce parallel” behavior by others. In England between the two World Wars, the rhetoric was that they should disarm “as an example to others.”

Whether others would follow that example was just as dubious then as it is today. While Russia and China increased the share of their national output that went to military spending in 2014, the United States reduced its share. Churchill deplored the “inexhaustible gullibility” of disarmament advocates in 1932. That gullibility is still not exhausted in 2015.

“Not one of the lessons of the past has been learned, not one of them has been applied, and the situation is incomparably more dangerous,” Churchill said in 1934. And every one of those words is more urgently true today, in a nuclear age.

I am Woman

Kurt Schlichter:

Forgive me if I’m confused, but there seems to be a huge disconnect between what our would-be elite overlords are telling us about women and what they actually think. Apparently coherence and consistency are sexist, and probably also racist and homophobic, making the pooh-bahs of the establishment and their media gimps the most tolerant people in the world.


So, Hillary has some serious sads because Trump interrupted her in the debates. That’s sexist you know, because women are both just as good and tough and stuff as men and, simultaneously, little delicate flowers that we must treat like fine china. Apparently you go go go gurl until someone is mean to you and then you run run run gurl to the menfolk in the media to protect you. You can be anything you want to be except as tough and capable as a man, right Hillary?

You pathetic hack. I expect your vapid supporters, to the extent they actually consider things beyond your mind-numbing clichés, probably expect your whining about sexism is going to make Putin pause. But those of us who actually reside on this planet know that the bullies of the world have already got your number – it’s 33,000, as in the emails they have of yours they have that you tried to Bleach Bit into oblivion. They see you as weak because you are weak. You’re frail and you’re stupid and you allowed yourself to be humiliated by that dank bro clown of a husband in front of the entire world.

Respect? You haven’t earned it, you bizarre robot. Can anyone imagine Margaret Thatcher whimpering like you do? She was the Iron Lady; you’re the Grinning Hummel, a neurotic first wife who would be whining to some therapist if she didn’t have the media oiled-up and at her creepy service.

So the next freakout du jour involves Trump calling out some chunky, homicidal ex-Miss Universe, whose entire job was supposed to be not getting chunky during her reign, for getting chunky during her reign. So wait, we can’t hold women to the same standards as men? Her job was to be thin. She didn’t do it. Oh no, her boss pointed out that this woman had failed the one thing she committed to do, and he’s the villain?

There’s another organization that fat shames people for failing to meet their commitment to stay within weight standards – the military. Why do you hate our troops, Hillary? Oh right, you’re a liberal. Anyway, do women need an exception there too, Hillary? Sergeant Hester didn’t need special treatment, but then she wasn’t some gender studies major intent on getting ahead through grievance mongering instead of actual achievement.

Why do liberals have such low expectations for women? Oh right, because their pro-woman agenda is as phony as their global warming scam. They’re the hippie in Forrest Gump, smacking around the heroine and blaming it on LBJ. Just ask Juanita Broaddrick.

You better put some ice on that.”

But will people see it that way? The sad fact is that some people love cultivating fake sexism as a bludgeon to beat on their opponents. That’s the Democrat way – try to turn opposition into immorality. And among a certain part of the population, it will work – those are the people who were perfectly happy while Bill Clinton treated his succession of women like trash and Hillary came behind with a garbage pail and a push broom. Broken, shattered women are collateral damage in their struggle, a struggle that is most assuredly not for equality but about something else – unaccountable supremacy. Hillary and her ilk are saying precisely the opposite of “Women are just as good as men,” which some suckers still think is the point of liberal feminism. What they are saying is “Women are whatever we need them to be at the moment, and the second they stop being useful we’ll wad them up and throw them away.”

How do the women feel who don’t whimper when challenged, who don’t run for some man to protect them, who respond to interruptions and rudeness with toughness and firmness instead of pathetic fussiness? I don’t know – I don’t presume to speak for women, unlike liberals, but I can’t imagine they are impressed. Toughness – the ability to fight on any battlefield against any foe without backing down – isn’t a male or female characteristic. It’s a characteristic of leaders. And Hillary sure as hell has shown that she’s anything but a leader.

Doing You a Favor

Since I was, and am sick, I skipped the Debate last night. So, no comment.

Thus, Thomas Sowell:

Back in the 1960s, as large numbers of black students were entering a certain Ivy League university for the first time, someone asked a chemistry professor — off the record — what his response to them was. He said, “I give them all A’s and B’s. To hell with them.”

Since many of those students were admitted with lower academic qualifications than other students, he knew that honest grades in a tough subject like chemistry could lead to lots of failing grades, and that in turn would lead to lots of time-wasting hassles — not just from the students, but also from the administration.

He was not about to waste time that he wanted to invest in his professional work in chemistry and the advancement of his own career. He also knew that his “favor” to black students in grading was going to do them more harm than good in the long run, because they wouldn’t know what they were supposed to know.

Such cynical calculations were seldom expressed in so many words. Nor are similar cynical calculations openly expressed today in politics. But many successful political careers have been built on giving blacks “favors” that look good on the surface but do lasting damage in the long run.

One of these “favors” was the welfare state. A vastly expanded welfare state in the 1960s destroyed the black family, which had survived centuries of slavery and generations of racial oppression.

In 1960, before this expansion of the welfare state, 22 percent of black children were raised with only one parent. By 1985, 67 percent of black children were raised with either one parent or no parent.

A big “favor” the Obama administration is offering blacks today is exemption from school behavior rules that have led to a rate of disciplining of black male students that is greater than the rate of disciplining of other categories of students.

Is it impossible that black males misbehave in school more often than Asian females? Or Jewish students? Or others?

Is the only possible reason for the disparities in disciplining rates that the teachers and principals are discriminating against black males? Even when many of these teachers and principals in black neighborhoods are themselves black?

But Washington politicians are on the case. It strengthens the political vision that blacks are besieged by racist enemies, from which Democrats are their only protection. They give black youngsters exemptions from behavioral standards, just as the Ivy League chemistry professor gave them exemption from academic standards.

In both cases, the consequence — unspoken today — is “to hell with them.” Kids from homes where they were not given behavioral standards, who are then not held to behavioral standards in schools, are on a path that can lead them as adults straight into prison, or to fatal confrontations with the police.

This is ultimately not a racial thing. Exactly the same welfare state policies and the same non-judgmental exemption from behavioral standards in Britain have led to remarkably similar results among lower-class whites there.


The riots of lower-class whites in London, Manchester and other British cities in 2011 were incredibly similar to black riots in Ferguson, Baltimore and other American cities — right down to setting fire to police cars.

One of the few bright spots for black children in American ghettos have been some charter schools that have educated these children to levels equal to, and in some cases better than, those in affluent suburbs.

You might think that this would be welcomed by those who are so ready to do “favors” for blacks. But you would be dead wrong. Democrats who have been in charge of most cities with sizable black populations, for decades, are on record opposing the spread of charter schools. So is the NAACP.

That is a de facto declaration of moral bankruptcy in both cases, just as in the case of the Ivy League chemistry professor. In all three cases, it is a question of promoting one’s own special interests, while offering “favors” to blacks.

The Democrats’ special interest is in serving the teachers’ unions, which oppose charter schools and support Democrats financially. The NAACP’s special interest is in serving the same donors — and in keeping ghetto schools controlled by racial activists, as part of their turf.


Moral Narcissism Part 2

By Richard Kirk

I Know Best:  How Moral Narcissism Is Destroying Our Republic, If It Hasn’t Already, by Roger L. Simon, New York: Encounter Books, June 14, 2016 (296 pages, $25.99, Hardback)

Why do few people change their political views “even in the face of literally earthshaking world events” like 9/11?  Roger Simon’s answer to that question is “moral narcissism.”  His book explains the nature and consequences of this malady that was largely spawned by members of the “Least Great Generation” – folks, including the author (1943), born during or shortly before World War Two.  These are radical wannabes that include John Lennon (1940), Tom Hayden (1939), Abbie Hoffman (1936), and Gloria Steinem (1934).

An illustration of moral narcissism not employed by Simon is the Seinfeld character Elaine – a woman whose sense of moral worth is derived from opinions that coincide with fashionable progressivism (Greenpeace activism, contempt for pro-lifers, contempt for her boyfriend’s “Jesus fish,” contempt for Christian music radio presets, contempt for women wearing fur coats).  Despite a largely self-centered, shallow, and promiscuous life, Elaine is convinced she’s a “good humanitarian” and proves it by self-consciously complimenting her waitress on “doing a great job.”

The examples provided by Simon, unfortunately, aren’t fictional and have had disastrous, perhaps fatal, consequences for the nation – fashionable anti-capitalist Marxism (espoused by thousands of well compensated professors as well as Pope Francis); a nostalgia for racism that stokes racial hatred by inventing micro-aggressions that supposedly explain and thus excuse black criminality; climate change ideologues who declare the issue settled (a ridiculously anti-scientific assertion) and who label anyone who dissents from the media-enforced consensus (even MIT’s premier climatologist, Richard Lindzen) a “denier.”

Radical environmentalism is another arena where moral narcissism flourishes – a movement whose DDT ban, spawned in 1962 by Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring, led to hundreds of thousands of malaria deaths in Africa.  Then there is the non-judgmental, all-religions-are-equal view of Islam that blames Western imperialism for causing terrorism – a pat-oneself-on-the-back brand of “tolerance” that ignores or chooses to remain ignorant of Islam’s bloody, expansionist history prior to the era of Western imperialism.

The primary goal of moral narcissism is not “to do” good, but rather “to feel” good about oneself for having “the right opinion” – i.e. opinions promulgated by those who deem themselves superior by virtue of their “enlightened” views.  These moral mandarins consist primarily of left-wing politicians, leftist academicians, the mainstream media, and almost all the entertainment industry.  As with Seinfeld‘s Elaine, it isn’t how one lives one’s life that counts; it’s the political and moral slogans one mouths.  Indeed, the moral stature gained from being politically au courant serves as absolution for what used to count as personal moral failings – an arena where non-judgmentalism is demanded by political correctness, at least with respect to ideological soul mates.

Sympathy for Fidel Castro boosts one’s moral standing, since Castro supposedly believes in a utopian socialist state where folks contribute according to their abilities and receive according to their needs.  Never mind that the dictator lives “a lifestyle, including yachts and private islands, that would be the envy of George Soros, while his citizens suffer in penury under constant surveillance, the specter of imprisonment looming.”  Identifying with various victim groups and spouting politically correct mantras likewise “allows Hillary Clinton to go from undergraduate Alinskyite to Chappaqua plutocrat with a net worth in the tens of millions without missing a beat.”  The destructive consequences of leftist policies for minorities aren’t what matter.  What matters is that Hillary and the current narcissist-in-chief feel morally superior to rubes in flyover country.

Just when you think Simon is becoming tiresome (as he does when repeating polling statistics about gay marriage), he provides a critical insight in chapter 24 that should have been placed near the book’s beginning: “Moral narcissism … is a way of explaining away evil, blaming all ills on social causes and therefore pushing back the necessity of examining the human soul or one’s own, of not seeing the possible darkness within[.] … [M]oral narcissism obscures reality and therefore threatens democracy. That not everything is perfectible, that there is evil in the world, and that evil is likely to remain forever.”  In short, self-scrutiny is replaced with verbal orthodoxies promulgated by an American nomenklatura eager to secure moral status, financial perquisites, and a stream of personal indulgences by endlessly repeating politically correct slogans that are overwhelmingly destructive when applied to the real world – slogans that promise financial and personal retribution for “bigoted” dissenters.

One major mistake in Simon’s analysis is his wrongheaded O’Reillyish attempt to appear “fair and balanced” by briefly pointing to moral narcissism on the right – as if opposition to gay marriage or to abortion on demand were in the same league as vacuous shibboleths like refusing to acknowledge radical Islamic terrorism.  Far from being rewarded for the former views, believers are ostracized and punished by the dominant P.C. culture.  Moreover, no serious Christian or Jew would use these moral views to evade self-scrutiny.  Simon’s brief foray into narcissistic equivalence has the effect of putting serious, self-sacrificial morality in the same category as a self-deluding political ruse that rejects any morality existing outside the self – as if principled abolitionists would be biased “moral narcissists” not very different from slaveholders who mouthed the slogan “popular sovereignty.”

This same confusion infects Simon’s final chapter, which presents his self-proclaimed “bias” as a neocon-libertarian, someone who favors intervention abroad and libertarian lassitude at home.  The latter part of that equation does, indeed, represent a degree of “moral narcissism” on the author’s part, allowing him a small measure of expiation from colleagues in the fields of literature and entertainment for the grievous sin of rejecting, for the most part, the self-inflating worldview they embrace with a frantic death grip.

Despite these lapses, Simon’s book is well worth the time taken to understand the head-snapping moral contradictions that permeate the worlds of George Soros (chapter 21!), Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama.

Moral Narcissism Part 1


V. Saxena reports that liberals often say one thing but act in an entirely different manner. What you have observed is what author Roger L. Simon calls moral narcissism.

In a review of Simon’s latest book, “I Know Best: How Moral Narcissism Is Destroying Our Republic, If It Hasn’t Already,” American Thinker contributor Richard Kirk explained that moral narcissism is the belief that “it isn’t how one lives one’s life that counts; it’s the political and moral slogans one mouths.”
Consider for instance the ill-informed millennials who proudly tout Che Guevara as a hero over his desire to form a socialist utopia, but then ignore how he enslaved the Cuban people in a totalitarian state and then murdered God knows how many of them.

But moral narcissism extends beyond just a differentiation between words and actions. According to Simon, it also offers “a way of explaining away evil” that pins “all [of society’s] ills on social causes.”

Now think of “Black Lives Matter,” a Democrat-championed organization that blames the usually justified consequences faced by black criminals on white racism and supremacy, regardless of the facts.

As a result, Ferguson thug Mike Brown shall forever remain innocent in the minds of the most hardheaded liberals, as accepting his culpability would mean admitting that it was not racism that killed him; it was his own decisions.Moral narcissism is in many ways nothing but an attempt to hide from one’s own shortcomings and failures. Rather than admit their own lack of drive and opt for change, for example, far too many liberals pine for handouts instead.

  • “I deserve food stamps!”
  • “I deserve welfare!”
  • “I deserve free tuition!”
  • “I deserve this!”
  • “I deserve that!”

Sound familiar? It should, as we hear this exact rhetoric from liberals all the time. Instead of admitting that they need to change and better their own lives, many liberals invariably play the blame game, claiming that society screwed them over and thus owes them.

Except that society owes neither them nor their special friends (illegal immigrants, drug dealers, promiscuous women, etc.) nothing but a cold, hard dash of truth — the truth being that they might want to talk to a therapist about their clear-cut moral narcissism! (Federalist)

Another Example:

On Monday, Donald Trump gave a speech on terrorism and immigration in which he said:

We want people to come into our country, but they have to come in legally, through a process…. No one has a right to immigrate to this country.

Now, Hillary Clinton says there is such a right, at least if a tweet from her campaign headquarters can be taken for a policy pronouncement.

Shortly after Trump’s speech, the Clinton campaign in Ohio tweeted out the story of a Libyan who came to the Unites States on a student visa in 1994, was not able to renew it, and simply stayed in the country illegally. He didn’t exactly live in the shadows, settling in Dayton and founding the Islamic Federation of Ohio and the Islamic Center for Peace. After two decades, he received permanent residency in 2015. In the story, headlined “Donald Trump would have kicked my family out of the country,” the man’s son, whose name was given as Mohamed G., wrote, “There was no way that I could let a person that disrespects my father and other immigrants win the White House.”

On Monday, the Clinton Ohio campaign tweeted Mohamed G.’s picture with Trump’s quote, “No one has the right to immigrate to this country.” The campaign added the comment: “We disagree.”

The same day, the main Hillary Clinton campaign twitter account, @HillaryClinton, retweeted the “We disagree” tweet.

The world right to immigrate to the United States does not appear in the section on immigration on Clinton’s campaign website, nor does it appear in her major pronouncements on the subject. And perhaps a single tweet, although clear in meaning, is not policy. But it is something Clinton might be asked about, perhaps even at the first debate Monday night.(Byron York)

Naw, the Media will be throwing Nerf balls at Clinton, and all-out Armageddon at Trump.

And besides, if Trump brings it up its because he’s a racist! 🙂

America, what a country. 🙂



But Liberals don’t understand satire…

The National Association of Scholars (NAS) has introduced a new contest, and is inviting readers submit satirical, politically correct subtitles for classic literature works.

The “Update the Classics: Add a PC Subtitle” contest was announced September 19, and features the example submission, Tom Sawyer: Lessons in Whitewashing.

“Add a politically correct subtitle to the book of the week, and win the admiration of contrarians everywhere.”   

“Add a politically correct subtitle to the book of the week, and win the admiration of contrarians everywhere,” the instructions state. “Winners will add a subtitle that transforms the book into something today’s sensitive yet resentful students can’t resist.”

The inspiration for the competition, NAS explains, came from a request by students at Columbia University for “trigger warnings” when studying mythology, particularly for tales involving rape.

Last year, in an op-ed for the student newspaper, four Columbia undergraduates wrote that the university has an obligation to provide trigger warnings to students, even for Greek mythology or romantic poetry.

“Ovid’s ‘Metamorphoses’ is a fixture of [Literature Humanities], but like so many texts in the Western canon, it contains triggering and offensive material that marginalizes student identities in the classroom,” the students argue. “These texts, wrought with histories and narratives of exclusion and oppression, can be difficult to read and discuss as a survivor, a person of color, or a student from a low-income background.”

NAS says it finds such disparagement of classic works to be regretful, hence the competition to humorously draw attention to the “progressive content” in the works.

For example, the organization suggests that a social justice reading of Crime and Punishment could focus on the story of a student so burdened by loans that he eventually kills his lender.

“Bernie Sanders should take note. What better case for free college?” NAS remarks cheekily.

Another example submission suggests that “those tired of the jargon-filled tomes on ‘intersectionality,’ the idea that all oppression is linked, generally by capitalism, should try The Merchant of Venice. Members of two different ethnicities feud over money, demonstrating the capitalist origins of racial tension.”

According to the contest rules, NAS will propose a classic book (or series of books) as the subject for a satirical subtitle each week. Readers can enter submissions either on Twitter with the hashtag #PCSubtitle and the NAS Twitter handle, @NASorg, or else through the form on the contest page.

Winners will be announced weekly on the NAS website.

We regret that the classics have been so maligned. Human traits transcend time and custom, and classics have stood the test of time because they teach lessons that resonate in all times and places.

In fact, we believe that if we squint hard enough, we can find in the classics some progressive material that should appeal to social justice warriors too. We can bring the classics up to date. A group of artists, dedicated to giving old books fresh covers, have done their part. Their project, “Recovering the Classics,” strikes us as worthwhile but a mere facelift. We want to go deeper. In the spirit of our satirical “trigger warning contest,” we suggest proposing new politically correct labels for classic works, in order to demonstrate the progressive content buried deep inside each one.  

Classic books, if you search this way and that for long enough, can teach you lots of up-to-date, politically correct lessons. Take Crime and Punishment. A stressed-out student, dogged by debt, is driven to the extremes of mental illness until he finally kills his lender. Bernie Sanders should take note. What better case for free college?

Sometimes the title alone hints at good progressive lessons. To make those themes explicit, we recommend re-subtitling Our Man in Havana: Fidel Castro’s Legacy of Liberation and Reform and Fahrenheit 451: Projected Earth Surface Temperature in the 22nd Century.

Will you help us build our collection? Every new politically correct subtitle will help rescue a classic from the dustbins of discarded volumes.

Each week we’ll propose a classic book—or a slate of classics—that needs a new PC subtitle. Send in your recommendations, and each week we’ll select a winner to announce on our website, along with runners-up. Share your submissions on Twitter with the hashtag #PCSubtitle and the NAS Twitter handle @NASorg. You can also fill out the form at the bottom of this post. 

This week’s assignment is Jane Austen. Pick any Austen book and let us know your new subtitle. Here’s our suggestion:

Pride and Prejudice:  Finding Safe Spaces for Queer Folks Under Heteronormative Tyranny. #PCSubtitle @NASorg

Timothy Street| September 19, 2016

I Ernestly recommend that all the subtitles submitted be collected in a suggested reading list : “A Farewell to Alarms”


John J Stephan| September 19, 2016

Title for PC Manual on teaching English lit without Shakespeare:

As We Like It

Now That’s Just Silly…

Mispronouncing A Name Is Now A Microaggression

Mispronouncing A Name Is Now A Microaggression

Pronouncing a student’s name incorrectly is now a microaggression and an act of erasing someone’s identity, a new campaign is asserting. The “My Name, My Identity: A Declaration of Self” campaign was launched in 2015. Among other things, the campaign claims that a teacher mispronouncing a name can cause “anxiety and resentment” in the student, and even “hinder their academic progress.”

Really, now?

CNS News has more:

According to ‘My Name, My Identity: A Declaration of Self,’ a national campaign launched in 2015 by the Santa Clara County, Calif. Office of Education (SCCOE) and the National Association for Bilingual Education, a teacher who mispronounces a student’s name can cause that student “anxiety and resentment”.

I guess we should be happy they didn’t say it was “racist”. At least not yet. 🙂

“Mispronouncing a student’s name truly negates his or her identity, which, in turn, can hinder academic progress,” according to Yee Wan, SCCOE’s director of multilingual education services.

Rita Kohli, assistant professor of education at the University of California at Riverside, says it is a sign of “microagression” when a teacher mispronounces, disregards, or changes a child’s name, because “they are in a sense disregarding the family and culture of the student as well.”

Look, as someone with an odd last name with a lot of letters, I get it. It’s annoying when people don’t say it right. (For the record, it’s pronounced ROO-sell.) My first day of college orientation, my RA was taking attendance and called out “Christine Roo-say-lay,” which was a brand new way of mispronouncing my last name. After I figured out that I was indeed the person she was attempting to call, I politely informed her that I wasn’t nearly as Italian as she was trying to make me, she apologized, and tried again to pronounce it properly. She didn’t get it quite right, but that’s okay! She wasn’t doing it on purpose. Nearly all of my professors throughout all four years of college pronounced my last name wrong at first–if they even tried–on the first day of class. And again, it’s okay. Intent is kind of the key thing here that this campaign seems to entirely ignore.

So is it a microaggression that I have to constantly spell my last name, which ISN’T hard because people constantly misspell it?

Nobody pronounces a name wrong on purpose, and if they do, that’s not a microaggression–that’s a full-blown, regular-old aggression.

Or just being a jerk. That’s an old-fashioned term, I know.

To be frank, any student so sensitive that an incorrect vowel sound sends them into a full-blown anxiety issue that impacts their school work needs more specialized attention than a national campaign can probably provide. Sure, it’s not fun having an odd last name, but that’s something that’s going to stick around for the entirety of a person’s life–unless they choose to “erase” their own identity by changing their name themselves. I recognize that not everyone is going to be familiar with French Canadian-sounding names, and it’s a far better choice to simply educate people so they don’t make the mistake again rather than claim to be microaggressed.

America is a melting pot full of people with names as varied as “Smith” to “Wieciorkowska.” To expect people to automatically know how to pronounce them all is simply not realistic. Let’s cut it out with the new victimhood classes.

But, for Liberals, you have to be a “victim” of something. Everyone must be a “victim” so they can classify you, pigeon hole you, and try and make you dependent on their “solution” to the “problem” of your “victimhood”.

You have to have someone else to blame that they can exploit.

And just in case you thought they forgot their favorite word:

“A tiny act of bigotry,” is how former teacher and education blogger Jennifer Gonzalez succinctly put it in 2014. In a post titled  “How We Pronounce Students’ Names and Why It Matters,” Gonzalez wrote, “Whether you intend to or not, what you’re communicating is this: Your name is different. Foreign. Weird. It’s not worth my time to get it right.”

Check: You’re a Bigot!

Now we just “You’re a racist” to complete the circle…

Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy

Political Cartoons by Mike Lester

Political Cartoons by Robert Ariail

Beauty is only Racist Skin Deep

The era of white imperialism may have, for the most part, come and gone, but fair skin tones and Caucasian facial features continue to be upheld as the beauty norms in countries around the world. Here are just a few examples of beauty products — both mainstream and, well, not so mainstream — that continue to shamelessly uphold notions of white, light-skinned supremacy.

1.Lactacyd White Intimate


“Sweat and excessive friction from tight clothing can darken the skin around the intimate area, causing self-consciousness, decreased confidence or intimacy inhibition,” the product description reads. So, following the logic of the product’s creators, based in the Philippines, dark skin, around the “intimate area” especially, not only repels men, but will decrease your confidence, too. Do you really need an explanation for how shaming darker skin tones and upholding white skin as aesthetically superior is racist?

2. Seoul Secret beauty pills



Thai skincare company Seoul Secret came under fire in January this year when it advertised skin whitening pills under the tagline “white makes you win.” It also advertised with a video showing a prominent Thai model slowly turn black as she claims she could lose “everything she has worked for” without “the whiteness [she has] invested in.”

The Guardian reported that skin whitening products were widely used in Asian countries, and the skin whitening pill was an alternative to creams that caused skin irritation. However, other parts of Thai society have fought the stigma against darker skin with a new magazine called Tan, which celebrates sun-kissed skin. And let’s not forget that in 2014, darker skinned model Maeya Nonthawan won the Miss Thailand World pageant.

3. “Nude” Bras

In 2014, the editorial board of the University of Oklahoma’s newspaper sparked controversy when it deemed nude bras a modern extension of white privilege, garnering routine criticism from opponents of “political correctness.” But think about some of the “nude” colored products you own, from concealer to lingerie.

Imagine this: you are a young African American woman who has run to the local department store to grab a “nude” colored bra to wear under a sheer outfit, say a game-day dress or a work interview blouse. But when you get to the store there is no “nude” lingerie, at least not for you. Bras in slightly different shades of pale peach abound, but there are few to no options for darker-skinned women and they aren’t advertised as nude-colored. How would it make you feel that the fashion industry and society at large has based its ideal of nude on Caucasian people? That the color of your skin doesn’t count as “nude?”

For example, whenever you’ve had a minor cut or scrape and gone to reach for a Band-Aid, have you every used one that wasn’t made for light-skinned people? We guess probably not because flesh-colored Band-Aids for darker-skinned people don’t seem to exist.

The fashion and beauty industries continue to define the color “nude” as a shade that excludes darker, nonwhite skin tones, solidifying our society’s collective understanding of “nude” as the color of white skin.

Fine, make bras in different colors, but why does that have to be “white privilege” and “racist” by assumption?

One Month Later, Here's How That Nude Lingerie for Women of Color Is Doing

Find a market niche and serve it. But why does it have to be “racist”?

2011: University of Colorado faculty leaders may consider whether the use of black face paint at sporting events is school spirit or racially insensitive and reminiscent of “blackface” costumes.

The Boulder Faculty Assembly’s diversity committee has raised the concern that, on multiple occasions, “blackface” costumes have been displayed at sporting events and on Pearl Street during Halloween.

But students who have worn black body paint to past football games say they’re simply showing school spirit and supporting the Buffs, whose colors are black and gold.

Members of the Boulder Faculty Assembly received notification Thursday of a resolution, still in its draft stage, that calls on the campus community to “vigorously address” the unacceptable behavior. The assembly is scheduled to discuss the measure at a meeting next month.

CU junior Chris Scully, a chemical engineering junior, and a group of his friends painted their faces and bodies black and wore blue and pink wigs to the CU-Georgia game in October.

Buffs fans, via Facebook, declared the game a “blackout,” encouraging those supporting CU to wear black and show a unified front for the night game at Folsom Field.

“We were not doing it to be racially insensitive,” Scully said. “We wanted to have fun and support the school.”


Arizona State University’s Sun Devil Athletics posted a message Monday asking fans not to paint their faces at any sporting event, a notable request ahead of ASU Football’s annual “blackout” game this weekend.

ASU fans wear all black during the annual blackout game as a way to show team spirit for the players when they wear their all-black uniforms. This year’s is against University of Colorado Boulder this Saturday, and they’re promoting #BlackOutBuffs.

Last year, the game sparked controversy when a few fans wore black face paint to the game, which some said too closely echoed blackface, a form of theatrical makeup widely regarded as racist.

During the backlash in the weeks after that game, the African-American student coalition at ASU and other leaders called for a ban on all face paint. In the end, ASU asked fans not to paint their faces for any games but did not ban its use.

2016: Millikin University in Illinois have been told by administration that if they wear face paint to an upcoming event, they will be punished for “cultural appropriation.” The face paint was part of a longstanding university tradition.

The warning was issued by Nicole Rowlett, the Greek Advisor for the university’s Office of Inclusion and Student Engagement (because apparently that’s a legitimate position nowadays).

From Daily Caller:

It is a tradition for Tau Kappa Epsilon (TKE) and several other fraternities at Millikin to paint their faces and bodies with the colors of their houses during their annual Plunge/Bid Day event. TKE’s colors, for instance, are red and gray.

But this year, according to a letter from Millikin’s Office of Inclusion and Student Engagement (OISE) obtained by Campus Reform, TKE members have been warned against the face-painting practice and other forms of dress-up because it can be disrespectful to other cultures.

“Members of [TKE] are prohibited from wearing black and red paint, wigs/and or clothing items that mimic or depict an ethnicity or culture,” the letter by OISE Greek Advisor Nicole Rowlett says. “Failure to comply with the expectation will result in immediate removal from the event, and additional student conduct sanctions.”

So what culture are they appropriating? Nicole doesn’t say, but I’m guessing Native Americans? That’s stupid. Everybody from every culture since the beginning of time has worn face paint.

I guess Cave Men would be offended.

Screen Shot 2016-05-17 at 11.21.32 AM copyTriggered.


Triggering intensifies.

SOMEBODY GET ME TO A SAFE SPACE NOW. (Pics Website: Total Frat Move)


So PC stupidity not limited to the last few years.


Image result for body paint native american
Image result for body paint native american

Beauty is Racist

From the same hyper-SJW whacko types that brought you tanning is racist. Now, it’s beauty products.

Yes, you read that correctly. Beauty Products.

“The racial over-reaction…without first checking the facts of the situation is a stark example of how political correctness has warped the mindset of highly educated university administrators. Frankly, these are the people responsible for educating our sons and daughters, but they seem incapable of applying reason or common sense,” Whitewater senator Stephen Nass (Vice-Chairman of the Senate University and Technical Colleges Committee) said.

  • The students were wearing facial product that was darkly colored.
  • condemned officials at the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater for declaring a picture of two students getting a facial as “a disturbing racist post.” 

Two University of Wisconsin-Whitewater (UWW) students were reprimanded last week in a campus-wide message by Chancellor Beverly Kopper for posting a picture to Snapchat wearing dark exfoliating masks that Kopper called a “disturbing, racist post.”

The image, posted to UWW’s Snapchat, shows two students in a dorm wearing dark facial skin care treatments. Kopper said that the students had no negative intentions with posting the photo and had expressed remorse, but “These are serious issues that must be addressed.”

“[T]hey need to drop these clowns on any Martin Luther in the hood so they can receive a universal beating.”  

“This post was hurtful and destructive to our campus community. While social media can certainly bring about positive change, it can also be a place that deeply hurts and harms others,” Kopper said in the campus-wide message.

“I think they’re taking it too far. They’re just trying to be innocent,” UWW student Nicole Rindy told WTMJ-TV

Following the posting of the photo, Kopper held an event called Pizza with the Chancellor, which drew about 80 students. The event, she promised, was the first of many.

“[The students] shared with me some truly upsetting stories about their experiences on campus, including the use of racial slurs and microaggressions,” Kopper said after the event.

“Feeding us isn’t going to solve it. Having more ‘pizza parties’ isn’t going to solve it,” Ju’Jaraw Singleton, a Black Student Union (BSU) member told WTMJ-TV.

Whitewater senator Stephen Nass issued a statement on Thursday condemning the officials at UWW for overreacting.

“The students shared a picture on social media showing them with the facial product on their faces and the material just happened to be black in color. The posting contained no racist statement,” Nass said.

This didn’t stop people from taking to Facebook to reprimand the school and the students for racism.

“I swear! I’m not surprised, look at their student body…over 9,000 white students and less than 500 black students….Of course racists and plain stupidity will be all in this student body,” said Alise Patterson.

“I’m so sick of shit like this…they need to drop these clowns on any Martin Luther in the hood so they can receive a universal beating,” Vincent Perez posted.

“WTF is wrong with you kids?” said the mother of a minority student at UWW. “Do I need to worry about his safety & the safety of his diverse circle of friends?”

In an interview with WTMJ-TV, Matthew Wade, a BSU member, suggested that, “[the students] need to have some sort of educational course.”

Kopper confirmed to Nass that the students will face no disciplinary actions, but called the picture, “a teachable moment.”

Along with Pizza with the Chancellor, Kopper enlisted the help of Tom Rios, the Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs, to form a group that will meet with students, research the issues, and work on developing an action plan to improve faculty and staff diversity

“The racial over-reaction…without first checking the facts of the situation is a stark example of how political correctness has warped the mindset of highly educated university administrators. Frankly, these are the people responsible for educating our sons and daughters, but they seem incapable of applying reason or common sense,” Nass said.

Chancellor Kopper did confirm to Nass that the university re-evaluated the situation this afternoon.  The Chancellor now confirms the students did nothing wrong and will face no punishment.

“UW-Whitewater failed to fully review the picture and its context prior to issuing a racially charged statement this morning.  The official statement misled students, parents, and the public by confirming that a racist event had occurred, even though it really hadn’t,” Nass said.

But that hardly stops SJW “outrage”…


A white, blond-haired Kansas State University student has been expelled from school after Snapchatting a photo of herself and a friend wearing black clay face masks with the caption “Feels good to finally be a nigga.”

Remember, kiddies, that black people can use that “slur” but White people can’t because THEN and ONLY THEN is it “racist”. 🙂

The young woman, Paige Shoemaker, posted the image to her Snapchat story, meaning it could be seen by any of her followers, on Tuesday night. But the trouble started when a fellow student, Desmund Weathers, posted the image to Twitter, where it swiftly went viral — prompting public outcry, a formal response from the university, and a Facebook apology by Shoemaker on behalf of herself and her friend, Sadie Meier.

Welcome to Kansas State University. Where breakfast in the morning is some K-State Family with a side of Racism.

Des: But I’m supposed to walk into my classes feeling completely comfortable with people on our campus who think like this?
The saddest part is I guarantee there are going to be so many people trying to defend her.
Then they want to allow “Conceal and Carry” on campus and I’m not supposed to be afraid for my life?
Yeah, it’s not like they are Muslims, or anything… 🙂

“We clearly understand that what was said and done was completely disrespectful,” she wrote, in part, in her Thursday post, since shared more than 1,300 times. “I did want to inform everyone that it was NOT ‘black face,’ but it was a L’Oréal clay facial mask. The signs that were thrown also is an inside joke between our friends that represents ‘West Coast is the best coast.’ We never intended for the picture to offend anyone.”

But wasn’t “no intent” what got Hillary off? 🙂

Shoemaker added, “We accept that there will be people who won’t forgive us, but something had to be said. Ask anyone who knows us, we are the most accepting and least racist people. We know that we will ride up and learn from this mistake. We will be better. … We know what we did was wrong.”

We will forever be cowed into silence by SJW’s and we will be good little slaves from now on. Ever fearful that their wrath will burn us again if we so much as even look cross at you.

Kansas State University interim associate provost for diversity Zelia Wiley addressed the situation with a post to the school’s website on Thursday. “On Sept. 15, the university received notice that a derogatory social message and photo was sent out via social media. The involved person is not currently enrolled at the university. It is our understanding the second individual in the photo is not associated with the university,” Wiley began. “This racially offensive photo with a derogatory message has upset the K-State family and is not in concert with our principles of community. Such messages on social media are harmful to all.”

She concluded, “As members of the K-State family, we should always visualize and work toward a safe, welcoming environment for our community. I and other members of the CCRT [Campus Climate Response Team] welcome the opportunity to speak with our affected students and employees as we continue create a culture of inclusion for the entire K-State family.”

Shoemaker, speaking on camera to local news station WGAL, said, “Well, I would’ve been a senior” before being kicked out of school. She then added, about her use of “nigga” in the caption, “That word just kind of happens in our friend group, ’cause we know … we’re a big family, so that word does not offend anyone in our group.”

Civil rights journalist Shaun King was among those who retweeted the image, without comment, spurring a lengthy dialogue on oppression, blackface, and racist intent.

“We then took the picture thinking that it would be okay. Our intent was NEVER to offend anyone.–Paige

But wasn’t “no intent” what got Hillary off?

In addition to getting booted from school, the young woman’s former sorority, Zeta Tau Alpha, made it clear she was no longer in the sisterhood. “While she did join the Beta Upsilon Chapter at Kansas State University in 2013, she has not been a member since spring 2015 and is no longer affiliated with the organization in any capacity,” a Facebook post noted about Shoemaker. “Her words and actions certainly do not reflect the values and principles of Zeta Tau Alpha. Our Creed teaches us to look for the good in everyone and to seek understanding in order to gain true wisdom.”

Hope the destruction of this life is worth your SJW piece of flesh…After all as eurweb.com said, “*Paige Shoemaker may have gotten a little too comfortable with her white privilege.” and forgot her place in the world, under the boot of the SJWs.

For the Children

Well , I saw my first Hillary campaign ad yesterday.

It was obnoxious, classless, and manipulative. It was also nothing but a personal attack.

But what else would you expect but a new low in ads from Democrats.

The end justifies the means.

The Democrat zombies will love it. They’ll be cheering and eating it up.

Using children as political weapons AGAIN…gee, that’s original.

How about your philandering Husband?

How about the “lying” families of Benghazi??

How about the socialist destruction of their children’s future??


How about the media could catch Hillary shooting someone on tape and they would defend, deflect, and discredit??


Didn’t think so.

How about how awful she would be for the country?


Just more “Vote for me, the other Guy is a *Bleep* asshole”

I like the implied accusation that Trump hits woman. That was a nice touch. Oh, and even more *Bleeps*.

But not a Bleach bit *bleep* anywhere in sight.

Well, it’s not a surprise.

When the ends justify the means any morals or ethics go out the window.

And it’s only going to get worse.

Remember this gem from 2011:

Since this ad was not originally targeted to Arizona I’m guessing that that report that said we’d be a “purple” state made her want to air it here.

Lucky us. All those California Liberal zombies invading and investing our state with their disease because they’ve ruined theirs.

Going to be a long 6 weeks.

Hate is Such a Strong Word

Kurt Schlichter:

There is one key fact to understand about Hillary Clinton, one unarguable truth that explains all of her terrible policy positions and her dishonest, self-defeating behavior. Everything she believes leads to this conclusion. Everything she does, even the stupid things that have hamstrung her, stem from it.

Hillary Clinton hates you.


She doesn’t dislike you. She is not irritated with you. She does not merely prefer the company of others, though she certainly does prefer the company of those who will either pay her or suck up to her.

She hates you.

You’re deplorable. You’re irredeemable. With a wave of her limp, clammy hand, this sick old woman dismisses you from the company of those whose opinions have value, whose interests matter, who have any moral claim to participation in self-governance. You are less than nothing. You are vermin to be, at best, driven from society.

Will Hillary Clinton ever be your president?

No, and she makes no excuses and offers no denials that a Hillary Clinton presidency means the division of the country into those people she considers worthy and those people she does not. Did she visit red state flood victims in Louisiana? No. Sure, she was sick, but she could have powered though a visit, right? Of course, but she chose not to. Why? Because she hates us.

We failed to submit to her libfascist ideology. We failed to buy our way into worthiness with cash. We failed to choose to be Hillary dhimmis. We failed to win the victory over ourselves and learn to love Big Mother.

Hillary pushes hateful policies that we resist, even politically toxic ones, because we resist. Do you really think Hillary believes the cause of crime is too many conservatives with AR15s? Do you think Democrat Chicago’s kill count is news to her? She doesn’t care about crime. She cares that we are defying her by our bitter clinging, so she pursues policies to disarm us even though they hurt her politically because she is so driven by hate that she cannot pass on an opportunity to try to humiliate us and bring us to heel.

She lies to us knowing that we know she is lying to us. Sure, it’s easy because she has her drooling pack of rear-sniffing media poodles covering for her every lie. But she lies even when she doesn’t need to. She catches pneumonia; okay, people catch pneumonia and telling the truth might have even gotten her a little sympathy. Yet she would rather lie to our faces than miss an opportunity to disrespect us.

Her hate makes her stupid. Well, stupider – remember, this is the woman who managed to flunk the D.C. bar exam.

And her hate makes her dangerous. If you refuse to bend a knee, if you insist on defying her, if you refuse to play your assigned role as a supporting character in the creepy psychodrama that is her life, then you are worse than nothing. You are the enemy. We’re all the daddy she could never please, the husband who humiliated her, the world leaders who snickered at her ridiculous reset button. Psychologically, she can’t confront them, so her warped mind assigns their wrongs to us. There’s the root of her smoldering hate.

Hey Hillary, we aren’t the ones Richarding bimbos.

But as misguided as it is, her hate is real. She said it herself – the enemy she is most proud of fighting is you. Not al-Qaeda. Not Gadhafi. Not Saddam Hussein before it became unfashionable.

You. Fellow Americans who have committed the unpardonable sin of refusing to submit to her will. And you know it because she has told you again and again in word and deed.

She will never be the president of all Americans – in fact, her venomous hatred of her fellow citizens seems to be making it less and less likely that she will ever be the president of any Americans. But if she wins, just imagine it. Imagine her hatred backed up by an energized federal government packed with her partisans.

Will the Justice Department check her? No, it will be a club to bludgeon her enemies into submission – and we know who her enemies are, don’t we?

Will the IRS check her? No, the IRS uproar will be not a cautionary example of government gone rogue but a template for the future.

Will the FBI check her? Get real. Comey is too busy counting his 30 pieces of silver while wearing a loincloth made from the pelt of his legendary integrity.

She hates us. We are deplorable. We are irredeemable. And so neither she nor her loyal minions have any self-imposed moral limits on what they may do to us to ensure that we are utterly crushed. Take away our rights? Strip away our livelihoods? Prevent our participation in our own governance? It’s open season on us, all because she hates us.

Except real Americans don’t react well to being told to shut up and slink away while the elite decides how things are going to be. Hillary Clinton is, at this moment, managing to lose to an immensely flawed guy who is essentially a walking, talking middle finger to her and the smug jerks like her who presume to look down on us.

But there is still a good chance that she will slip through, that there will be a President Hillary Clinton. And then all bets are off.

All bets are off because Hillary Clinton is both a hateful woman and a stupid one, and these twin character flaws could well be the wedge that rips our country apart into the red deplorables and the blue, well, plorables. My new novel People’s Republic speculates on where Hillary’s mindless hate might lead our country, and here’s a hint: it is not a happy place.

Let’s hope America chooses the lesser of two evils, and if it instead chooses Hillary, let’s hope I’m wrong about the result. But I fear I’m not. Because one thing is absolutely indisputable.

Hillary hates you.



Bidding War


Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez Derek Hunter:

Votes always have been for sale. Not all votes, but a lot of them. Some people have the principles to reject offers of “free government stuff” in exchange for their support on Election Day, but many don’t.

These votes have been the bread and butter of the Democratic Party for decades, but more and more the Republican Party has been swimming in those waters. It is a dumb play. No Republican will ever out-bid a Democrat.

Say what you will about George W. Bush, but he wasn’t a conservative. Remember “No Child Left Behind?” It meant more government involvement in education, and it was written with Ted Kennedy, but Democrats still complained it didn’t spend enough. Bush caved to the concept, but it wasn’t enough because no amount is ever enough for Democrats.

Bush’s Medicare prescription drug benefit spends billions per year for something the private sector could provide more efficiently because the call went out – there was a problem among a small segment of senior citizens and government had to “do something” to address it.

With the government, the solution almost always is worse than the problem. That’s because Washington uses a shotgun for a sniper mission. Like Obamacare, which, in the name of “doing something” about the handful of Americans who were chronically uninsured, created a law that has affected everyone – most for the worse.

But the question that is never asked by people who aren’t conservative is whether the sniper mission should take place at all.

Here’s a simple idea: If you can’t afford to have a kid, don’t. Getting pregnant is as easy to avoid as being hit by a train. If you don’t want to be hit by a train, don’t play on the tracks. It’s not going to chase you through a field, or into your house. If you don’t want to get pregnant…

If that’s a bridge too far, there are plenty of options available to prevent it from happening. It’s no one else’s fault if you aren’t responsible enough to handle that, and it’s no one else’s responsibility if you fail to.

So when Donald Trump proposed his plan for paid maternity leave this week, he wasn’t putting forth a conservative plan; he was trying to buy votes from women, a demographic with which he’s doing poorly.

But he’s offering our money to buy those votes, and he’s still putting forth only a half of a progressive loaf.

Once a person buys into the progressive concept that this, or anything, is something the federal government should “do something” about, you’ve lost the battle. Conservatism has lost.

Why would anyone who supports the concept of a government entitlement support Trump’s plan over Hillary’s? Trump offers less, in both time and money, than what Clinton is proposing. But how much it costs and who pays for it are irrelevant to those who support the concept. Those who want the government to provide them with benefits don’t give a damn what it costs or whether the money comes from tax hikes, tax credits or a magic unicorn – they just know they’re getting “free stuff” and that’s enough.

Trump ceded the point to Hillary. He agreed the federal government has to “do something” about this. And in spite of whining from supporters or spin from a sycophantic Sean Hannity, it’s neither smart politics or remotely conservative.

Women who don’t like Trump aren’t going to vote for him because he’s offering six weeks of paid maternity leave. If that’s the key to their vote, Hillary’s plan offers more – and if that is the kind of issue that motivates a voter, she probably was going to get that vote anyway.

The New York Times immediately declared Trump’s plan “miniscule,” Cosmopolitan demanded to know why it didn’t apply to men. Some is not enough because nothing is ever enough to those outlets and their readers.

If someone cares about what they get, they’re going to vote for the person who will give them more. No one will ever out-bid a Democrat because Democrats bid with other people’s money and have no concern for the constitutionality or cost – financially and societally – of what they propose.

That Trump bought into this concept at the prodding of his daughter, Ivanka – a lifelong Democrat who didn’t even change her party ID to be able to vote for her father in the New York primary – shows he’s a progressive, not a conservative.

Progressives are generally thought of as Democrats, but many are Republicans. They believe the power of government can and should be used to change society to what they deem it should be. John McCain is a progressive Republican, and Trump is in that same mold. No, they don’t agree on everything, but they agree in concept that using government power to change the behavior of individuals is valid.

The tax code is a prime example. Part of Trump’s plan calls for tax credits and subsidies – a progressive concept Republicans all too often advance. “Live how we think is best for you, do what we deem ‘good,’ and you can keep more of your own money.” That’s not conservative. That’s subtle government control.

It’s a nudge to get people to act in a government-approved way. “You don’t have to do anything if you don’t want to, but if you do you get to keep more of what you earn…”

Tax credits are the most widely used instrument of progressive government control, but right behind are entitlements. Trump’s plan marries the two in a naked play for votes.

You can tell yourself Donald Trump offering half versions of Democratic Party plans is a smart election ploy all you want, but don’t fool yourself into thinking it is or that it will work. Or that it is in any way conservative.

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

Deplorable Birther Me

It's Happening: Trump Walks Out to 'Les Mis' Theme, "Welcome Deplorables!"
“Do you hear the people sing?  Singing the song of angry men?  It is the music of the people…Who will not be slaves again!  When the beating of your heart… Echoes the beating of the drums… There is a life about to start… When tomorrow comes.”

This was the introduction to Donald Trump’s speech Friday night, accompanied with chants of “USA! USA!”  

The background screen was filled with an image from the historical musical with the caption “Les Deplorables.” Trump also greeted the crowd by saying, “Welcome to all of you deplorables!”

Especially those that remember for a FACT that Hillary Clinton’s people started the “birther” meme back in 2008 when she was going after then-Senator Obama.

The Liberal Media has been working itself into a frenzy lately playing word games like saying since Hillary HERSELF didn’t say it, it didn’t happen or simply it never happened despite the evidence to the contrary.

Liberals never let facts get in the way of their Agenda. The End justifies the means, after all. So lying is an acceptable means.

So the same outlets that reported the story in 2008 are now denying it vehemently with great gusto and partisan passion in 2016 because now SHE is running.


Bloomberg’s John Heilemann—the co-author of the 2008 campaign book Game Change—and MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough also confirmed that Hillary Clinton’s campaign was behind mainstreaming the birther theories.

“Hillary Clinton Didn’t Tell The Truth About Her Emails And She Didn’t Tell The Truth About Her Campaign’s Role In Pushing These Rumors In 2008.” – Jason Miller,Hillary Campaign Manager

PATTI SOLIS DOYLE: There was a volunteer coordinator, I believe in late 2007, I think in December, one of our volunteer coordinators in one of the counties in Iowa. I don’t recall whether they an actual paid staffer, but they did forward an e-mail that promoted the conspiracy.


WOLF BLITZER: The birther conspiracy?


DOYLE: Yeah. Hillary made the decision immediately to let that person go. We let that person go.

Read Mark Penn’s 2007 memo to Hillary Clinton on Obama’s “lack of American roots” here: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2008/08/penn-strategy-memo-march-19-2008/37952/

Smith and Tau wrote in the Politico piece:

Just when it appeared that public interest was fading, celebrity developer Donald Trump has revived the theory that President Barack Obama was born overseas and helped expose the depth to which the notion has taken root—a New York Times poll Thursday found that a plurality of Republicans believe it. If you haven’t been trolling the fever swamps of online conspiracy sites or opening those emails from Uncle Larry, you may well wonder: Where did this idea come from? Who started it? And is there a grain of truth there?The answer lies in Democratic, not Republican politics, and in the bitter, exhausting spring of 2008. At the time, the Democratic presidential primary was slipping away from Hillary Clinton and some of her most passionate supporters grasped for something, anything that would deal a final reversal to Barack Obama.

Tau and Smith detailed in a lengthy four-page-long investigation how in April 2008, when Clinton was slipping in her battle against Obama for the Democratic nomination for the presidency, “Clinton supporters”—as they say—circulated an anonymous email chain that pushed the theory.

“Barack Obama’s mother was living in Kenya with his Arab-African father late in her pregnancy. She was not allowed to travel by plane then, so Barack Obama was born there and his mother then took him to Hawaii to register his birth,” the email that Clinton supporters circulated read.

Those anonymous people were hardly the only ones. In fact, as Joshua Green reported in The Atlantic in August 2008, a March, 19, 2007 strategy memo from longtime Clinton adviser Mark Penn proves that the Clinton campaign itself was pushing the conspiracy theory. Penn, in the memo, advocated that Clinton target Obama’s “lack of American roots.”

In fact, Clinton’s 2008 campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle confirmed that Penn wrote the memo via Twitter on Friday of this week—and also appeared on CNN to confirm that he did while working for the campaign and that he was fired for it.

During her CNN appearance with Wolf Blitzer, Doyle made it clear that Penn was a staffer and was fired by Clinton herself for spreading the rumor:

BLITZER: Someone supporting Hillary Clinton was trying to promote this so-called Birther issue? What happened?

DOYLE: So we — absolutely, the campaign nor Hillary did not start the Birther movement, period, end of story there. There was a volunteer coordinator, I believe, in late 2007, I believe, in December, one of our volunteer coordinators in one of the counties in Iowa — I don’t recall whether they were an actual paid staffer, but they did forward an email that promoted the conspiracy.

BLITZER: The Birther conspiracy?

DOYLE: Yeah, Hillary made the decision immediately to let that person go. We let that person go. And it was so, beyond the pale, Wolf, and so not worthy of the kind of campaign that certainly Hillary wanted to run.

That’s not all. In fact, former Washington, D.C., McClatchy newspapers bureau chief James Asher on Twitter directly confronted Clinton questioning why her close friend and adviser Sidney Blumenthal was personally pitching him the story on Obama’s birthplace back in the 2008 election.

The former D.C. bureau chief for McClatchy claims that a representative from the Clinton campaign approached him about investigating the Obama “birther” claim in 2008. The new claim is casting doubt on the Clinton’s denial that her campaign was the first to raise questions about President Barack Obama’s place of birth.

In a recent tweet, former bureau chief James Asher said that in 2008 Sidney Blumenthal, a longtime Clinton staffer and confidant, told him “face-to-face” that Obama was born in Kenya.


Even, Mr. “thrill up my leg” Chris Matthews:

Not only that, though, but as MSNBC’s Chris Matthews detailed back in 2008, Hillary Clinton herself refused to put the rumors to bed.

“Hillary Clinton seemed to pass up an opportunity to once and for all put to rest the false rumor that Barack Obama is a Muslim,” Matthews said on his show on March 3, 2008.

Matthews said that Clinton was “going after him [Obama] on this Muslim issue” and that it was clear she had given up on “a clear chance to dismiss these bad stories being pushed by bad people that he‘s not the religion he clearly [is] to try to disturb people. She had a clear opportunity on ’60 Minutes’ to clear that up and she didn‘t take it.”

But we also know that the Liberal Media doesn’t care about the facts.

I was in an airport waiting for a flight yesterday and the banner on the bottom of the CNN news cast was about how Trump Lied. On my connecting flight 2 hours later, CNN was STILL again or still arguing that it was a lie.

Liberals are impervious to facts when facts conflict with their Agenda.

If you report that they started it in 2008, now in 2016 you’re the “birther” or “a convert” to being a birther.

Why? Because they say get to say what is true at that moment, and if it changes, it changes. The Facts are only the facts as long as the serve the Agenda.

And you are not allowed to disagree with that.


<<knock knock>>

Who’s there?

The Thought Police… 🙂


PC Threat

David Limbaugh: Many, including me, have lamented that political correctness, especially on university campuses, is undermining free speech. That’s true, but I’m not sure that political correctness is the only culprit or that free speech is the only casualty.

Most of us have heard about “white privilege,” “trigger warnings,” “microaggressions” and “safe spaces.” Let me provide rough definitions from an online dictionary and other websites. I’m sure that I could be accused of a microaggression for failing to be more precise, but I’m trying.

White privilege is the notion that whites have an advantage in getting societal benefits in Western countries, to the disadvantage of nonwhite people under the same social, political or economic circumstances. Trigger warnings are communications warning that the content of a text, video, etc., might upset or offend some people, especially those who have previously experienced a related trauma. Microaggressions are subtle but offensive comments or actions directed at a minority or other non-dominant group, often unintentionally or unconsciously reinforcing a stereotype. The original idea of safe spaces was that educational institutions should not tolerate anti-LGBT violence, harassment or hate speech. Therefore, certain places were designated as safe for all lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender students. The term has been expanded to protect all minorities.

Last year, just a few days before Halloween, there was a firestorm involving these concepts when a Yale University professor responded to an email sent to students by the university’s Intercultural Affairs Council. The council had advised students not to wear costumes that would “threaten (the) sense of community” there.

Some students and faculty members took umbrage to the email because they considered it patronizing and also unnecessary because, in their view, it “had no applicability to the culture and the actual history” at Yale. But when professor Erika Christakis — who was also an associate master of Silliman, one of Yale’s residential colleges — took exception to the email in her own email to Silliman students, many students, sadly, didn’t receive Christakis’ message with good cheer. Christakis wrote, “Have we lost faith in young people’s capacity — in your capacity — to exercise self-censure, through social norming, and also in your capacity to ignore or reject things that trouble you?”

Instead of applauding her for vouching for their maturity, they interpreted it as inviting insensitivity to the experience of minorities. Some 700 people, including students, faculty and alumni, fired off an open letter in response to Christakis’ email, saying, “In your email, you ask students to ‘look away’ if costumes are offensive, as if the degradation of our cultures and people, and the violence that grows out of it is something that we can ignore.”

Christakis’ husband, Nicholas, who was the master of Silliman, made the mistake of meeting with students and not sufficiently throwing his wife (and himself) under the bus for her email. Nicholas met with a large group of students, who surrounded him in the residential college quad. The encounter was captured on four videos, totaling some 24 minutes, and I watched the entire thing (titled “Yale Students and Nicholas Kristachis” on YouTube). To me, it is appalling and horrifying.


Christakis calmly, respectfully and cordially responded to one student after another, most of whom treated him with utter contempt and disrespect, used invectives, and demanded an apology for his wife’s email. Several rebuked him for not remembering their first names from his previous interactions with them. When he acceded to their demands to say he was sorry for hurting their feelings and the pain it had caused them, they were unmoved. When they further demanded that he also acknowledge that the email created “space for violence to happen” and apologize for it, he drew the line, saying, “That I disagree with.”

One student then said, “It doesn’t matter whether you disagree.” Another launched into an endless rude diatribe, and when Christakis tried to calmly respond when she’d paused, she cut him off, saying he shouldn’t get to speak.

You will have to watch the video to get the full flavor of how hateful it was, how unreasonable the mob of students was and how patiently and calmly Christakis tolerated their bullying.

Shortly thereafter, about 1,000 students conducted a “March of Resilience” against an “inhospitable climate for people of color on campus.” Then a smaller group submitted a list of demands to the university’s president. It said the school must immediately implement “lasting policies that will reduce the intolerable racism that students of color experience on campus every day.” Among other specific demands were that all undergraduates be required to take courses in the “Ethnicity, Race, and Migration” program, that mental health professionals be permanently established in each of the four cultural centers with discretionary funds, that the annual operational budget for each such center be increased by $2 million and that the Christakises be removed from their positions as master and associate master of Silliman College.


Believe it or not, despite the fact that there were no documented examples of racism giving rise to their complaints, the university surrendered and granted most of their demands.

Much has been written about the danger to free speech such events represent. There is no question that is the case. But I am far more concerned with what they reveal about the state of race relations in this country — at least on college campuses — and the messages we are sending to young people, namely:

–They are too fragile to deal with perceived, let alone actual, adversity.

–If a charge of racism is leveled against a “non-minority,” it must be presumed valid, and the accused won’t even be allowed, in some cases, to explain or deny it.

–Any perceived slight must be addressed, and all demands must be satisfied, no matter how unreasonable.

–We must be forever obsessed with race, gender and sexual preferences.

–Rudeness and disrespect will not be punished but will be rewarded.


The atmosphere on many college campuses on these issues is toxic. Those engaging in the indoctrination don’t appear to seek improvement in race relations and don’t appear to seek resolution.

Is it not obvious that a flagrant contradiction underlies these complaints? Those crying “racism” and “sexism” demand that they be treated equally and nondiscriminatorily, yet virtually every demand they make screams just the opposite. How can we be colorblind and color-obsessed at the same time?

Many people don’t have the courage to address these issues, because they fear the mob would descend on them if they dared to challenge its claims. Yes, but if we keep pretending that the mob’s claims are true and rolling over, things will only get worse. When can it possibly end?







More Global Warming Crap

“Scientists who have recently attempted to detect an anthropogenic signal in regional sea level rise trends have had to admit that there is ‘no observable sea-level effect of anthropogenic global warming’,” Richard points out, listing four peer-reviewed studies published this year that have all come to the same conclusion.

In a paper published on May 18, Hindumathi Palanisamy at the Laboratoire d’Etudes en Geophysique et Oceanograhie Spatiales (LEGOS) in Toulouse, France and her co-authors explain that “sea level is an integrated climate parameter that involves interactions of all components of the climate system (oceans, ice sheets, glaciers, atmosphere, and land water reservoirs) on a wide range of spatial and temporal scales….

“Since 1993, sea level variations have been measured precisely by satellite altimetry. They indicated a faster sea level rise of 3.3 mm/yr over 1993-2015. Owing to their global coverage, they also reveal a strong regional seal level variability that sometimes is several times greater than the global mean sea level rise,” the researchers state.

“Considering the highly negative impact of sea level rise for society, monitoring sea level change and understanding its causes are henceforth high priorities.”

Comparing sea level changes between 1950 and 2009 in the Indian Ocean, South China and Caribbean Seas, Palanisamy’s team found that the “tropical Pacific displays the highest magnitude of sea level variations.”

the remaining residual sea level trend pattern does not correspond to externally forced anthropogenic sea level signalHowever, by studying “sea level spatial trend patterns in the tropical Pacific and attempting to eliminate signal corresponding to the main internal climate mode, we show that the remaining residual sea level trend pattern does not correspond to externally forced anthropogenic sea level signal.”

Another group of scientists led by Mohammad Hadi Bordbar from the Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research in Kiel, Germany also concluded in a study published in April that the recent sea level trends in the tropical Pacific “are still within the range of long-term internal decadal variability.

“Further, such variability strengthens in response to enhanced greenhouse gas concentrations, which may further hinder detection of anthropogenic climate signals in that region,” the study found.

So what you’re saying is that the horror stories you’ve been cooking up about us all drowning from Global Warming haven’t happened but they may not have happened because of Global Warming.

Think about that for a second…. 🙂


Run Down

I wonder what excuse The Left will come up with for that… 😦

What caused that hatred, Reverend?  YOU DID!

Real Simple.

The suspect “struggled violently” with the officers “for several minutes,” police said, as patrons exit the store to checkup on the officer lying on the ground next to the squad car. In the video, the suspect appears to exchange punches with one of the officers before they both tumble to the ground. 

You know if they’d shot him it would have been their fault.

As it is, I’m going to wait and see who cheers for this dirtbag.

The suspect, identified as 44-year-old local resident Marc LaQuon, was arrested and taken to a county jail, Howard said. He was charged with three counts of attempted first-degree murder, five counts of aggravated assault, one count of resisting arrest and two counts of criminal damage. It is unclear if LaQuon has obtained a lawyer or entered a plea.

The two officers who were struck sustained serious but life-threatening injuries, police said. The third officer, who was able to jump out of the way, sustained some injuries during his struggle with the suspect.

“As a Department, we are very fortunate these officers were not killed or more seriously injured,” said Phoenix Police Chief Joe Yahner. “We are living in uncertain times, and this is yet another reminder of how important it is to stay vigilant, and to watch out for one another.”

Because The Left is coming for you, Barbara… 🙂

Twitter comment: “why don’t u guys say BLACK suspect? You would if it was a white cop.

you know the answer. The suspect was turning his life around and such a good man where is 1st grade photo

So what if he appears to be a Black Panther activist, the Black Lives Matter crowd have already denied they knew him. Hillary anyone? 🙂

Thanks Obama, and The Left for making race relation so much “better”. 🙂

Oh, and in case you’re thinking he a poor oppressed black man, apparently (but as yet unconfirmed)

Marc LaQuon Payne

Director of Marketing

Phoenix, Arizona
But his business face book page has no posts since 2015…hmmm…

The Left’s new secret hero…
Thanks again Obama


Discussing #NeverTrump

Townhall: For NeverTrump Republicans, Election 2016 presents nothing but intolerant options.

Hillary Clinton is corrupt and stiff.

Gary Johnson is marginal, but libertarian.

Jill Stein is a true believer (albeit a socialist).

But Donald Trump? He’s a boorish, opportunistic, alt-right hatchet man ready to make deals and ruin our country!

Well …

What can we do to get the conservatives who still call themselves #NeverTrump … to vote for Trump?

I get where they’re coming from. I was not a Trump supporter during the primary. He was not my sixteenth choice for president (I was never going to pull the lever for Jim Gilmore, Lindsey Graham, Jeb Bush, George Pataki, etc), but Donald Trump hovered towards the middle of the pack for me. Now he’s the top dog.

With less than two months left before Election Day, here are 10 tips for getting NeverTrumpers in your circle of connections on board.

1. Do not shame NeverTrumpers with arguments like: “If you don’t vote for Trump, then you are voting for Hillary.”

Look, it’s not their fault that the front-runner candidates are Clinton, Trump, Johnson, and Stein. If they choose not to vote, they are choosing not to vote. How can anyone accuse a NeverTrumper of voting for anyone?

It’s a losing game to push conscientious voters to do something that would violate their conscience. A vote for Trump has to look like something they want to do, a decision that will further their underlying long-term goals.

Besides, I know about facing two unpalatable choices. In California, Prop 14 has created top-two jungle primaries, which has left me choosing between left-wing Democrats.

I chose not to vote. Part of the voter franchise is the right not to vote! So, forget the “You’re voting for Hillary” rant.

2. List for NeverTrumpers the net positives about Trump’s campaign.

One distinct positive about Trump is his outreach and support for the Remembrance Project. Why not rely on this connection to get friends on board?

Trump brought immigration to the forefront, along with a searing focus on national sovereignty, security, and sanctity. The Remembrance Project is a hard-core non-profit demanding secure borders and a policy that puts Americans first. We need to feel pride in our country. We needed a healthy dose of nationalism in this country once again, and Trump doled out the treatment.

Donald Trump was the only candidate who responded to the group’s pleas.

He knows the parents who lost their beloved children to illegal aliens. I came face to face with this horrific destruction in June, when an illegal alien named Johnny Sanchez set fire to an abandoned Los Angeles warehouse and killed five Americans.

Today, it’s clear to me that Trump means to win and to govern.


I shared this connection with a staunch NeverTrumper, a famous and well-respected conservative. He conceded the value of that Trump’s cherished respect for those families.

3. Show how Trump has hastened the much-needed demise of destructive political correctness, and has some solid conservative ideas.

Let the NeverTrumper know that it’s okay, even respectable, that they have not been vocal Trump supporters.

Anyone can look over my previous articles, blog posts, letters, and recordings.

I wanted anyone else but the Trump a rodeo clown, a Democrat, everything but presidential material.

Give me some credit. I never thought he was racist.

He was funny, if not un-serious.

At least at the outset.

I am supporting Donald Trump, not just because he is the Republican nominee, and not just because he has the best (and getting better) chance of defeating the corrupt and crooked Hillary Clinton.

I like his policies on taxes, military, and the Second Amendment. I liked his list of potential Supreme Court nominees. I do not believe he poses a pre-eminent threat to conservatism, either.


He is an invigorating tonic for public discourse. I didn’t have a big problem with an undercard and mainstream debate. I did object to 10 people competing for attention on one stage. But that’s a major media problem for another team. During the earlier debates, presidential candidates savaged Hillary Clinton and each other as well as the media

4. Yes, you can trust Trump to govern as a conservative.

He has sacrificed business contacts. His image, his brand has endured an unprecedented assault from the left, from the media, from every special interest and big government establishment front out to get rich at everyone else’s expense. And he has made the left-wing “mainstream media” look like the bought-and-sold corrupt frauds that they are. The outreach to the Remembrance Project has not brought him free press, either.

5. If your NeverTrumper was a Carson supporter, point out Carson’s endorsement and leadership in the Trump campaign.


6. If your NeverTrumper is a Cruzer, acknowledge that Cruz had every right not to endorse Trump. Share your appreciation for Cruz’s efforts in the U.S. Senate, like fighting for free Internet and defunding sanctuary cities. Tell him that you hope Cruz gets re-elected to the U.S. Senate and runs for president in eight years.

7. If your NeverTrumper is a Johnson supporter, ask him to explain that Libertarian candidate’s support for a carbon tax, Obama’s executive amnesty, and wavering on religious liberty. Ask him—but do not argue—to explain why Johnson boasts about agreeing with Bernie Sanders 73 percent of the time.

8. If your NeverTrumper is—God forbid—voting for Jill Stein, walk away. Rejoice that Hillary Clinton has lost another LIBERAL voter.

9. Talk about all the swing states. Clinton is now plummeting, and Trump is ascending. Trump is gaining in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio, and Florida.

Trump has already sewn up Iowa and North Carolina, too.

10. Tell them how Donald Trump is continuing to savage Clinton’s corruption, health, and integrity without holding back. NeverTrumpers want a conservative fighter. Show them how Trump is taking down the Democratic nominee and the party with her.

These are the ten ideas that worked with me.

Let’s get more conservatives on board and Make America Great Again!

And if that doesn’t work try the old Liberal hoary of “It’s for the Children”

Think of the generations of children destroyed by a vast Left-Wing Activist Supreme Court that will be around for the next 40 years. 🙂


More Tolerance

More from the “tolerance” and “diversity” crowd.

Absolute Disgrace: 9/11 Memorial At Occidental College Destroyed By Vandals

It’s the 15th anniversary of the 9/11 terror attacks that claimed almost 3,000 American lives. It’s a day for reflection, remembrance, and a coming together as a nation. If there’s any day for us to unite, it’s today. That wasn’t the sentiment exhibited by some at Occidental College, where the local Young America’s Foundation chapter had their 9/11 memorial vandalized (via YAF):

Today is meant to be a day of respect and remembrance for all the victims and heroes of 9/11. Last night, our club sponsored a memorial for the 2,997 who died exactly 15 years ago. Students of all backgrounds came out and planted 2,997 American flags in our quad here at Occidental.At midnight early this morning, vandals crushed, snapped, and threw in the garbage every single flag. Not one was left in the ground. Not only did they destroy the memorial, they put posters and flyers up that shamed the victims of 9/11.

Most of Occidental was asleep at 1 A.M. but not fifteen of us. Students rallied together to get those flags out of the garbage and up in the quad. This is beyond politics, this is about those lives that were so tragically taken.

Later that morning, a few of us stood guard at the memorial. Four Occidental students came up and snapped a few flags right in our faces. When we confronted them, those cowards got away as fast as they possibly could.

We had thought the storm had passed, however, we were very wrong. This morning, students woke up to another lazy attempt at vandalism. Hundreds of flags kicked and smashed, and fifty or so back in the trash. Of course, we put them back in the ground.

We ask that all students respect the memorial for the remainder of its time in the quad. If you try to destroy it, we will rebuild it.

Katie wrote about a professor taking down 9/11 memorial posters at Saddlebackk College on Friday. It’s the liberal rot that permeates college campuses. It’s a disgusting display of disrespect to the victims of this attack, the first responders who put their lives on the line (some sacrificed their lives in the process), and their families. Only liberals would act in such a manner with regards to the worst terror attack to ever come to our shores. Maybe these cowards were trying to make their ultra-liberal professors proud. There is a disconcerting narrative emanating from the Left with regards to radical Islam, that it’s somehow still more dangerous than fanatical Christianity; it’s not. Islamic terrorists control wide swaths of land, have influence in various political systems (like in Lebanon), and have or had a wide network of terrorist training camps. Far right Christian groups don’t have any of this. It’s a false equivalency.

Radical Islamic terrorists attacked us on 9/11. They killed scores of Americans. We must remember these people. Moreover, what does busting up 9/11 memorials  accomplish besides making you look like petulant fools? All I can say that it was a dark day for Obama’s alma mater.

While disappointing, YAF program officer Amy Lutz commended the efforts by the conservatives at Occidental for doing their part to remember what today means for millions of Americans

“It’s a shame that leftists would target such a heartfelt memorial, but this is just further evidence that the 9/11 Never Forget Project is more important than ever,” said Lutz. “Kudos to the conservatives at Occidental for bringing this important memorial to their campus.”

15 Years Later

I can sum up where we are as a country 15 years after nearly 3,000 people were slaughtered by terrorists and continued to be killed by Omar Mateen and others…


is the prejudice, hatred, or bigotry directed against Islam or Muslims.

it’s not just a matter of microaggressions or the perception of mistreatment, although these can take a serious toll — hate crimes against Muslims are at an alarming high. American Muslims are now approximately six to nine times more likely to suffer these kinds of attacks. (VOX- a very liberal site).

They are the victims.

The 10’to 100’s of thousands killed by Islamic terrorists in the last 15 years are moot.

Orlando. San Bernadino. Fort Hood. Et al.

Our Leaders can’t even say “islamic terrorist”. You can’t say it without being labelled a bigot.

Twitter: RIP to all the victims and RIP to all the muslims who lost their lives in the aftermath because of islamophobia. #NeverForget

That is where we are 15 years later. Afraid to even mention the real enemy so we fight within ourselves over the words.


Twerking in the Girl’s Room

A Minnesota school is allowing a partially clothed boy to “twerk” in front of female classmates while they changed their clothes for physical education and sports events, prompting a federal lawsuit alleging violations of the Minnesota Constitution, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, federal law and the U.S. Constitution.

It’s not the first such case brought by lawyers with the Alliance Defending Freedom, which already has filed cases against school districts in Illinois and Ohio over the same issue, which is the Obama administration’s attempt to rewrite the federal Title IX law concerning education.

The law bans discrimination based on sex in public schools, but Obama is interpreting “sex” to also mean “gender identity” to allow boys who say they are girls to enter girls restrooms, lockers and showers.

That’s exactly the scenario in the Virginia, Minnesota, School District, where officials adopted the Washington redefinition to allow “Student X,” a boy, to enter girls’ facilities at will.

The lawsuit was brought by ADF on behalf of multiple female students and their parents.

It notes under the district’s policy the boy “dances to loud music with sexually explicit lyrics in the locker room while ‘twerking,’ ‘grinding,’ and lifting up his skirt to reveal his underwear,” according to the lawsuit.

The boy also “commented on girls’ bodies while in the girls’ locker room, including asking Girl Plaintiff F her bra size and asking her to ‘trade body parts’ with him both while he and Girl Plaintiff F were in the girls’ locker room and outside the locker room in the gym.”

And when several girls obtained permission to use a different locker room, he followed them there to change, the lawsuit explains.

Alliance Defending Freedom alleges Student X engaged in inappropriate and sexually suggestive behavior – leaving some girls in tears.

Among the allegations:

  • Student X commented on girls’ bodies while in the girls’ locker room, including asking Girl Plaintiff F about her bra size and asking her to “trade body parts” with him;
  • Student X danced to loud music with sexually explicit lyrics while twerking, grinding and lifting up his skirt to reveal his underwear;
  • Student X would dance in a sexually explicit manner “dancing like he was on a stripper pole” to songs with suggestive lyrics including “Milkshake” by Kelis.

The school told girls who felt uncomfortable they should consider using a secondary locker room in the basement of the elementary school.

“Plaintiff B and nearly half the junior varsity squad changed in the secondary locker room in hope that their privacy would not be violated,” the lawsuit states.

Midway through the season, Plaintiff A was told she could use a vacant boys’ basketball locker room – for privacy. But it wasn’t long before the transgender student showed up in that locker room.

“One on such occasion, Student X walked into the boys’ basketball locker room while Girl Plaintiff A was in her underwear and removed his pants while he was near her and other girls who were also changing,” the lawsuit states. “This incident deeply upset Girl Plaintiff A. It signaled to her that there was no place in the school where she could preserve her privacy under the new policy.”

ADF Attorney Matt Sharp told me the school district turned a blind eye to complaints raised by the girls and their parents.

“The school was very unsympathetic,” Sharp said. “This is showing what we have been warning for months now. When you strip away student privacy, there’s going to be consequences for that.”

School officials did not return a WND request for comment.

As a result, the lawsuit states, the girls are suffering “anxiety, stress, humiliation, embarrassment, intimidation, fear, apprehension and distress.”

Some of the girls likely will transfer to other public schools, homeschool or go to private schools, for which their parents will have to obtain additional employment to subsidize, the complaint explains.

The lawsuit also names the Departments of Education and Justice as complicit in the change of the definition of “sex” as well as threats to withhold funding from the school district.

“School policies should promote the rights and safety of every student, but that’s not what Virginia Public Schools is doing – and it’s certainly not what the departments of Education and Justice are doing,”” said ADF Senior Counsel Gary McCaleb. “No child should be forced into an intimate setting, like a locker room, with someone of the opposite sex. Telling girls that their privacy and modesty don’t merit a private and secure changing area is an attack on women.

“The school district should rescind its privacy-violating policies, and the court should order the DOE and DOJ to stop bullying school districts with falsehoods about what federal law requires.”

Added ADF Legal Counsel Doug Wardlow: “Federal bureaucrats cannot simply write letters to redefine the meaning of a federal law to serve their own political ends. The Department of Education went beyond what it is legally and constitutionally allowed to do, and the DOJ is out of bounds in enforcing the DOE’s false interpretation of the law. In fact, several federal courts have already rejected the DOE’s interpretation of Title IX.”

The core of the Obama administration’s argument is that Congress, when it adopted Title IX in 1972, intended for boys to enter girls restrooms and girls to enter boys’ facilities when it banned discrimination based on “sex.”

That interpretation was never argued prior to the Obama administration’s campaign for transgenders.

ADF said: “The DOE and DOJ base their threats against school districts on the agencies’ inaccurate interpretation of Title IX, a 1972 federal law intended to protect women from invidious discrimination and that flatly prohibits schools from discriminating ‘on the basis of sex.’ Contrary to what the DOE and DOJ are saying, Title IX’s existing regulations specifically state that a school receiving federal funds can ‘provide separate toilet, locker room, and shower facilities on the basis of sex’ without putting that funding at risk.”

ADF-allied attorney Renee Carlson is serving as local counsel in the case, Privacy Matters v. United States Department of Education, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.

The case asks for injunctions to halt the schools’ permission for boys to use girls’ showers and for the court to retain jurisdiction in the case to see that its orders are carried out.

“The policy denies Girl Plaintiffs access to educational programs – including classes, athletics, private locker rooms and private restrooms – which, in turn, excludes Girl Plaintiffs from educational programs and activities in violation of Title IX,” the lawsuit contends.

Besides the cases already brought by ADF, there are other cases over the issue. WND reported last month a federal judge in Texas blocked the president’s order to open public school restrooms and shower rooms according to “gender identity” and allow boys who believe they are girls to use girls’ facilities.

U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor of Fort Worth found that the Obama administration did not follow proper procedures in creating the directives. Further, he said the guidelines contradicted existing statutes and regulatory texts, the Dallas Morning News reported.

The judge pointed out, “It cannot be disputed that the plain meaning of the term sex as used in [existing law] when it was enacted by DOE following passage of Title IX meant the biological and anatomical differences between male and female students as determined at their birth.”

The U.S. Supreme Court already has stepped into the issue, blocking a court order in Virginia that gave a girl who identifies as a boy the right to use boys’ restrooms. The order will stand until the Supreme Court decides whether to accept the case.

The decision in Fort Worth came in a case brought by Texas and about a dozen other states. Texas officials said the administration’s demand “hold a gun to the head” of school districts, threatening them with the loss of funding.

But don’t worry, Liberals are obsessed with preventing bullying. 🙂