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 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:

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?