Speak No Evil

  • Hampshire College is cracking down on free expression after veterans protested its decision to remove the American flag from campus, forcing activists to petition the White House for redress.
  • Hampshire President Jonathan Lash announced via email Tuesday that “no protestors [sic] will be allowed to come on campus” and that “media are prohibited from speaking directly to students.”

Hampshire College is cracking down on free expression after veterans protested its decision to remove the American flag from campus, forcing activists to petition the White House for redress.

On the eve of Veteran’s Day, Hampshire students upset over Donald Trump’s election burned an American flag that had been lowered to half-staff on a campus flagpole, prompting a national controversy that was only inflamed by the school’s response.

“No protestors [sic] will be allowed to come on campus.”   

But they make $15/hr!! 🙂


While Hampshire College President Jonathan Lash initially expressed disappointment with the students, he also announced that he would not be replacing the flag, asserting that the decision would help to “focus our efforts on addressing racist, misogynistic, Islamophobic, anti-immigrant, anti-Semitic, and anti-LGBTQ rhetoric and behaviors.”

Meaning anything and anyone who disagree with our Agenda.

After all, it’s the freedom of LIBERAL PROGRESSIVE Speech, not “hate speech” which is defined as any speech that is counter or in opposition to Liberal speech.

In response, hundreds of veterans and local residents held a protest on campus over the weekend to demand that the banner be restored, with many demonstrators suggesting that the college should have its federal funding withheld until it complies.

Now, Lash has issued another ukase, this time decreeing that “no protestors [sic] will be allowed to come on campus” and that “media are prohibited from speaking directly to students.

“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”
George Orwell

Campus police will also have an increased presence on campus to ensure both compliance and student safety, he continued, adding that the administration would also “monitor social media about any other events that are planned and report any concerns to campus police.”

“If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face – forever.” – George Orwell

“It’s discouraging to hear Jonathan Lash make an announcement to not talk to the media.” A student from Hampshire College told Campus Reform. “In order for Hampshire to be heard during this time, it’s important students speak out against what’s happening. It’s important we stand up for our school. It’s important to not let the radical minority be the only voice heard during this time.”

But it is VERBOTEN! This is is Free Speech after all! 🙂

This student has asked to remain anonymous for fear of retribution, but others have found a way around Hampshire’s restrictive policies, creating a White House petition to “remove all federal funding from Hampshire College until they choose to fly the American Flag on their campus.”

The petition had secured nearly 2,000 signatures by press time, still far short of the 100,000 that it needs by Christmas in order to elicit a presidential statement.

“It is our belief that the school should not receive tax dollars in any form,” the petition reads. “They have chosen to step away from our country in a very bold and clear statement. As such they should not receive support from the country they no longer are choosing to support.”

MassLive reports that students attending Hampshire College receive $7.2 million in federal funding, which accounts for about 14.6 percent of the school’s net $64 million in revenue, and that the school also received $690,386 in federal grants during FY 2014.


Five Stages

Ever since the elections, our media, schools, workplaces and houses of worship have presented a steady stream of stories showcasing the stages of grief: denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance. 

Liberal-progressive snowflakes are wallowing in denial, anger and depression. They cannot work, attend class or take exams. They need safe “healing” spaces, Play-Do, comfort critters and counseling. Too many throw tirades equating Donald Trump with Adolph Hitler, while too few are actually moving to Canada, New Zealand or Jupiter, after solemnly promising they would. 

Nouveau grief is also characterized by the elimination of bargaining and acceptance – and their replacement by two new stages: intolerance for other views and defiance or even riots. Sadly, it appears these new stages have become a dominant, permanent, shameful feature of liberal policies and politics. 

The Left has long been intolerant to alternative viewpoints. Refusing to engage or debate, banning or forcibly removing books and posters, threatening and silencing contrarians, disinviting or shouting down conservative speakers, denying tax exempt status to opposing political groups, even criminalizing and prosecuting climate change “deniers” – have all become trademark tactics. Defiance and riots were rare during the Obama years, simply because his government enforced lib-prog ideologies and policies. 

Liberals view government as their domain, their reason for being, far too important to be left to “poorly educated” rural and small-town voters, blue-collar workers or other “deplorable” elements. Liberals may not care what we do in our bedrooms, but they intend to control everything outside those four walls.

They are aghast that over 90% of all US counties and county equivalents voted for Trump. They’re incensed that President Trump and Republicans in Congress, 33 governor’s offices and 69 of 99 state legislatures nationwide will likely review and reform policies, laws and regulations on a host of issues. 

Above all, they are outraged over what might happen to their “dangerous manmade climate change” mantra. It was supposed to be their ticket to endless extravaganzas at 5-star venues in exotic locales – their trump card for controlling the world’s energy, economy, livelihoods and living standards. 

That is why they demand that only their “facts” be heard on the “consensus science” supporting policies they say are essential to prevent a “disastrous” 2º C (3.6º F) rise from 1850 levels, when the Little Ice Age ended (and the modern industrial era began). It’s why the Paris climate agreement tells developed nations to keep fossil fuels in the ground, roll back their economies and reduce their living standards – while giving $100 billion per year to poor countries for climate mitigation and reparation. 

That, in turn, is why developing countries eagerly signed the Paris accord, bringing it into force and effect just before this year’s climate confab in Marrakech. They would not be required to reduce their fossil fuel use or greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. And they – or at least their governing classes – would receive trillions of dollars over the coming decades. Countless thousands were thus in jolly spirits as they flew giant fuel-guzzling, GHG-spewing jetliners into Morocco for the historic event. 


But then, on the third day, news of the US elections brought misery and mayhem to Marrakech. Event organizers had tolerated credentialed Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow representatives handing out Climate Hustle DVDs and discussing Real World climate science and energy development. But when CFACT erected a Donald Trump cutout and shredded a copy of the Paris accord, they sent armed police to forcibly end the educational event and boot the impudent non-believers out of the hallowed conference. 

Marrakech may have marked the zenith of the religious-political climate movement. President-Elect Trump has long held that there is likely “some connectivity” between human actions and the climate – but he has also said it is a “hoax” to say humans are now causing catastrophic global warming and climate change. He also says he has an “open mind” on the issue and will be studying it “very closely.” 


Here are a few important facts and probing questions that he could raise, to get the ball rolling. 

1) The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was formed to detect and assess possible human influences on global climate systems, amid many natural forces. However, it soon began looking only at human influences. Now it claims warming, cooling and weather are driven only by human emissions. How and why did this happen? How can you ignore the powerful natural forces, focus solely on air emissions associated with fossil fuel use – and call it solid, honest, empirical, consensus science? 

2) Your “dangerous manmade climate change” thesis – and the computer models used in support of it – implicitly assume that fossil fuel emissions have replaced dozens, perhaps hundreds, of powerful natural forces that have driven climate change and extreme weather events throughout Earth and human history. What caused the ice ages and interglacial periods, Medieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age, Anasazi and Mayan droughts, and other major climate and weather events – before fossil fuel emissions took over? 


Where did all those natural forces go? Why are they no longer functioning? Who stole them? When did they stop ruling the climate: in 1850, 1900, 1950 … or perhaps 1990, after the IPCC was established? 

3) You claim climate and weather patterns are already “unprecedented” and increasingly cataclysmic. But even as plant-fertilizing CO2 levels continue to climb, average global temperatures have risen barely 0.1 degrees the past two decades, amid a major El Niño. Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets are growing at record rates. Seas are rising at barely seven inches per century. It has now been a record eleven years since a category 3-5 hurricane struck the US mainland; the previous record was nine years, 1860 to 1869. The 2016 US tornado count was the lowest on record. Where are the unprecedented cataclysms? 

4) Your computer models begin with the assumption or assertion that increasing levels of carbon dioxide will cause rapidly, dangerously rising global temperatures, and more extreme weather events. But if this assumption is wrong, so are your models, projections and scenarios. It’s garbage in / garbage out. And in fact your models have been wrong – dramatically and consistently, year after year. When will you fix them? When will they factor in data and analyses for solar, cosmic ray, oceanic and other natural forces? 

5) The manmade climate cataclysm community has refused to discuss or debate its data, methodologies, analyses and conclusions with those whom you call “skeptics” or “deniers.” 97% consensus, case closed, you say. What do you fear from open, robust debate? What manipulated data or other tricks are you trying to hide? Why are you afraid to put your cards on the table, lay out your supposed evidence – and duke it out? Do you really think taxpayers should give you one more dime under these circumstances? 

6) The FDA and other federal agencies require that applications for drugs, medical devices and permits for projects include extensive raw data, lab and project methodologies, and other information. Your modeling and other work is largely paid for with taxpayer money, and used to determine public policies. Why should you be allowed to hide your data and methodologies, treat them as proprietary, refuse to share them with Congress or “realist” scientists, and refuse to engage in a full peer-review process? 

7) EPA’s “social cost of carbon” scheme blames everything imaginable on fossil fuels – but totally ignores the huge benefits of using these fuels. Isn’t that misleading, disingenuous, even fraudulent? 

8) America already produces more ethanol than it can use. Now EPA wants it to blend another 1.2 billion gallons into our gasoline. Why should we do this – considering the land, water, environmental, fuel efficiency and other costs, rampant fraud in the RIN program, and impacts on small refiners? If we replace all fossil fuels with biofuels, how much land, water, fertilizer and energy would that require? 

9) Wind turbines are land intensive, heavily subsidized and exempted from most environmental rules. They kill millions of birds and bats. Their electricity is expensive and unreliable, and requires fossil fuel backup generators. Why should this industry be exempted from endangered species laws – and allowed to conduct fraudulent mortality studies, and prevent independent investigators from reviewing the work? 

Mr. Trump, keep an open mind. But keep exercising due diligence. Trust, but verify. And fire anyone who lies or refuses to answer or provides the climate equivalent of shoddy work and substandard concrete. 



Streaming Liberalism

How dare you cost Liberals Tax Money!! That’s an unholy sin! You must be punished!

The intrigue of the Netflix drama “House of Cards” soon might pale next to the turmoil brewing over whether consumers should pay a tax to watch Netflix and other video streaming services.

Pasadena city officials are mulling whether to tax subscribers of Netflix, Hulu and other video streaming using an existing municipal utility tax code that initially was designed for taxing cable-television users. Sacramento and dozens of other California cities have similar codes that might enable them to consider the tax.

That follows similar so-called “Netflix taxes” that already have gone into effect in Pennsylvania and Chicago. More levies elsewhere could be coming as state and local agencies try to generate more revenue, especially to replace revenue lost from consumers who became “cord cutters” by dropping cable TV and switching to video streaming.

How dare you try to save money or make choices that hurt Liberal Tax Addicts!!

“The trend seems to be more toward taxation than non-taxation,” said Paul Verna, senior analyst at the research firm eMarketer.

But the move is fraught with doubts and confusion. For starters, the Internet Assn. — the trade group whose members include Netflix — is not happy about the tax effort and is campaigning to curb it. The group also hinted that it might pursue legal action in some cases.

“We’re not leaving anything off the table,” said Robert Callahan, the Internet Assn.’s California executive director. “There are a number of questions we have about the legality of this.”

There’s also confusion about whether city officials can unilaterally impose a tax on streaming services or whether a specific Netflix tax should be subject to voter approval.

In Pasadena, for instance, City Finance Director Matthew Hawkesworth said he can decide whether to levy the city’s 9.4% video tax on streaming services based on a revised utility tax code that was approved by voters in 2008. That code says video-programming suppliers can face a tax “whatever their technology.”

But the California Taxpayers Assn. consumer group says not so fast.

“Our stance is you can’t do this without a public vote” on a tax on video streaming, said David Kline, the group’s spokesman.

“The law is very clear in California that if the local government wants to expand or increase a tax, it requires a vote of the public,” Kline said.

Then there’s the question about how and when such a tax would be collected by Netflix or the other providers and then relayed to a city’s coffers.

For example, Netflix could look for account holders with addresses in Pasadena. But what if the account holder simply switches to a relative’s address outside the city to avoid the tax? Or, as Kline theorized, “What if someone goes on vacation out of town and uses Netflix at their hotel? Are you still going to tax them?”

Even Pasadena is struggling with that question, Hawkesworth said. “That is the part we’re trying to understand. It could be based on the address designated on the account, but I don’t know that for sure.”

In addition, Netflix would have to keep track of different city tax rates for different subscribers in California.

There are roughly 45 California cities with utility tax codes that might allow for a Netflix tax, including Sacramento, Culver City, Glendale and Santa Monica. The cities’ video tax rates range from 1% of the bill to 11%.

Netflix has 47 million U.S. subscribers, and its standard plan costs $9.99 a month. So a 10% tax would add another dollar to the bill. Hulu, with 12 million subscribers, charges $5.99 to $11.99 a month depending on the service.

Netflix spokeswoman Anne Marie Squeo said the Los Gatos, Calif., company has serious reservations about the tax issue.

“It’s a dangerous precedent to start taxing Internet apps and websites using laws intended for utilities like water and electricity,” Squeo said. “It is especially concerning when these taxes are applied to consumers without consent and in a manner that likely violates federal and state law.”

Pasadena and some of the other California cities that are weighing such a tax have hired MuniServices, a unit of PRA Group Inc., to help them navigate the issue.

MuniServices spokeswoman Nancy Porter declined to discuss the effort in Pasadena or any city specifically, but said in general, the cities are asking such questions as: “If a consumer unplugs from cable television and gets the same service from Netflix or HBO Go, should that service be taxable?”

Asked why he was considering the tax for Pasadena, Hawkesworth said, “My job is to put all the options on the table for the city manager and elected officials to make good, informed decisions about how the city can collect revenue.”

Netflix and the rest of the streaming industry “has proven itself fairly sustainable, and it’s incumbent on us to say, ‘Does this apply [to a tax] or doesn’t it apply?’ ” Hawkesworth said.

Pasadena, with a population of 142,000, expects to collect $2.3 million from its video utility tax — mainly for cable TV — this year. That’s up from $1.9 million in 2013 because of additional subscribers.

But the city is projecting overall budget shortfalls in coming years, starting with a $7.6 million deficit in 2018, so it’s looking for additional revenue sources.

And Liberals never cut spending. They just increase Taxes. 😦

Regardless, one big reason the Internet Assn. objects to a Netflix tax “is the precedent of having what you do online being taxed as a utility,” Callahan said.

“That is a slippery slope we think is dangerous,” he said. “Today, it’s because I’m paying for Netflix, and the next day, it’s for the music I download online and the next day, it’s for social media I use. If you’re treating Internet websites and apps as utilities, there’s no limit as to how far they can take it.”

That’s already partly the case in Pennsylvania. On Aug. 1, the state’s 6% sales tax was extended to streaming services such as Netflix and to digital downloads of music, e-books and ringtones. The tax is levied on users with accounts having a Pennsylvania billing address.

Chicago last year imposed a 9% tax on streaming media services under an existing “amusement tax” typically applied to concerts and sporting events.

The 4,000+ murders in the city aren’t amusing. 🙂

But that tax is being challenged in court by the Liberty Justice Center legal group on grounds the tax is unconstitutional under state and federal laws. In the meantime, Chicago residents are forking over the tax money.

Critics also contend that taxing Netflix and other streaming services amounts to double taxation because the user typically already is paying local taxes for Internet access for their computer and for phone-carrier access for their smartphone.

Of course, the same double taxation already applies to goods bought on Amazon.com and some other e-commerce sites. Amazon initially was free of state sales tax but now Amazon purchases are subject to sales tax in 28 states, including California.

Because governments want MONEY! They are addicted to it.

Regardless, the factors at play in taxing Netflix and other streaming services “make for a situation where everything is up in the air,” eMarketer’s Verna said. “The cities are taking matters into their own hands, and then there’s going to be a lot of fallout.

“As these battles play out and get more media attention, and lobbying attention on both sides escalates, it’s anybody’s guess who wins,” Verna said.

Image result for zombie Money, need money

Go To Hell

While liberals and progressives were sorry to see him go and I was much more sad to see the deaths of Florence Henderson and Ron Glass over the weekend that a Dictator that has been there my entire life.

Fidel Castro. May he rot in his own hell.

I was born during the Cuban Missile Crisis. That was the world I was born into.

Thanks, Fidel. I won’t miss you.

But Liberals will. They love oppressive Communist Dictators.


And of course, it’s all about HIM. 🙂

But I’m more in tune with our President-Elect:

“Today, the world marks the passing of a brutal dictator who oppressed his own people for nearly six decades,” the statement read. “Fidel Castro’s legacy is one of firing squads, theft, unimaginable suffering, poverty and the denial of fundamental human rights.”

“Though the tragedies, death and pain caused by Fidel Castro cannot be erased, our administration will do all it can to ensure the Cuban people can finally begin their journey toward prosperity and liberty,” the president-elect added.

Sen. Marco Rubio (a Cuban American): “President Obama issued a pathetic statement on death of dictator #FidelCastro with no mention of thousands he killed & imprisoned,” he wrote on Twitter Saturday morning.

Fidel Castro seized power promising to bring freedom and prosperity to Cuba, but his communist regime turned it into an impoverished island prison. Over six decades, millions of Cubans were forced to flee their own country, and those accused of opposing the regime were routinely jailed and even killed.

Sadly, Fidel Castro’s death does not mean freedom for the Cuban people or justice for the democratic activists, religious leaders, and political opponents he and his brother have jailed and persecuted. The dictator has died, but the dictatorship has not. And one thing is clear, history will not absolve Fidel Castro; it will remember him as an evil, murderous dictator who inflicted misery and suffering on his own people.

The future of Cuba ultimately remains in the hands of the Cuban people, and now more than ever Congress and the new administration must stand with them against their brutal rulers and support their struggle for freedom and basic human rights.

His brother Raul  and Liberals everywhere are standing in the way.



YES,PLEASE. That’s 55 Electoral Votes the Democrats won’t get then. 🙂

And many those Celebrities and Race-Baiters who threatened to move to Canada if Trump won, then said “just kidding” would go with them…

As disgraced Democrat John Edwards liked to say, “There are two Americas.” There’s an America where people love this country, want it to be successful and believe in using tried and tested means like capitalism, conservatism, the Constitution and Christianity to make that happen. Then there’s an America where this country is shameful, deserves to be brought down a peg and all the old values that served us in the past need to be disgraced and destroyed. These views are becoming increasingly difficult to square. 

Take Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama, for example. Are there any meaningful areas of agreement you have with them politically as conservatives? Do you agree with them on abortion, gay marriage, Obamacare, the Constitution, controlling the border, taxes, states’ rights, spending, judges, school choice, etc., etc.? Those disagreements might be mostly irrelevant if liberals were content to live how they want in states they control while leaving everyone else alone. Instead, liberals have worked incessantly to create an all-powerful centralized government that they believe should marginalize and prey upon people who don’t share their political beliefs. The idealized liberal world is one where you do the work, they take your tax dollars and give that money to people who don’t work as hard as you in exchange for keeping the Left in power. That unworkable liberal philosophy is inexorably marching the country towards bankruptcy and ruin. 

…Which brings us to California and the “Calexit.” Inspired by Britain’s “Brexit” from Europe, a group called Yes California wants to put leaving the United States on the ballot for Californians in 2018. If liberals want California to secede, then conservatives should say, “Godspeed, Libs!” Of course, there are some caveats. Any nuclear weapons and military equipment should stay in the United States. Buy your own military hardware for your new nation. Additionally, large swathes of California aren’t liberal. Roughly half the physical area in California went for Trump over Hillary, for instance. Split the state in two and let the liberal half form its own nation while the conservative “new California” stays in the United States. Given the raw size of California and the deep political differences, the state should be split in two whether there’s a “Calexit” or not.  

That begs an obvious question. The Yes California group has an argument about why Californians should leave the United States, but why should the rest of us want it to happen? 

Well, if you believe that liberalism is destroying the country, getting rid of California would put a big thumb on the scale for conservatism. California has 55 electoral votes that are automatically in the liberal column every presidential election. Spreading those electoral votes across the other states, or, even better, having California leave while a smaller, more conservative California stays in the country would make it much more likely Republicans would be elected. That might literally be the difference between the country having a bright future and going down the tubes. Additionally, California has two liberal senators and 39 out of 53 of its House members are Democrats. You want to cement in Republican control of the House for the foreseeable future? That shift would probably do it. 


That alone would be worth getting rid of California, but there are also economic considerations. For one thing, we wouldn’t need to pay California residents Social Security or Medicare any longer. Given that we’re talking about a state with 36 million people where 11% of the population was over 65 in 2015 with that number projected to rise to 18% in 2030, the amount of money saved would be staggering.  

Then there’s the state’s enormous debt,

“Stanford’s PensionTracker.org launched last fall, initially listing local agencies, and last week added data for every state. California ranked seventh highest nationwide for debt-per-household when viewed through rose-colored glasses ($15,618); and third-highest in the nation when viewed through skeptic’s glasses ($77,700).

“I was a little surprised that the unfunded amount per household is as high as it is,” said Joe Nation, public policy professor at Stanford and director of the data project.

All told, California’s public pension systems are $281.5 billion short, including pension bond debt. Through Nation’s lens, they’re nearly $1 trillion in the hole – or $946.4 billion.”


Like Detroit, Puerto Rico, and Greece, California is headed for bankruptcy and by the time it’s done, the bill will likely be over a trillion dollars. If we could wash our hands of that problem, it would be good news for the country. 

So, if California wants to say, “Hasta La Vista, Baby,” conservatives across the country should welcome it and do everything they can to facilitate a happy split. (Townhall)


The country’s first “racist” white guy. 🙂

Of course we all know about the original Thanksgiving Day story with the Pilgrims and Indians, and many have heard that it was President Abraham Lincoln who made it a federal holiday, but did you know that President George Washington issued the very first Thanksgiving Proclamation in the United States of America on October 3, 1789?

Below the is the text of the proclamation as well as an image of the original proclamation signed by President Washington:

By the President of the United States of America, a Proclamation.

Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor; and—Whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me “to recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness:”

Now, therefore, I do recommend and assign Thursday, the 26th day of November next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favor, able interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquillity, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed; for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted; for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and, in general, for all the great and various favors which He has been pleased to confer upon us.

And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations, and beseech Him to pardon our national and other trangressions; to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our National Government a blessing to all the people by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all sovereigns and nations (especially such as have shown kindness to us), and to bless them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us; and, generally, to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as He alone knows to be best.

Given under my hand at the City of New York the third day of October in the year of our Lord 1789.

Go. Washington

Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy