Fake Morality

Liberals constantly stake a claim to some religion-free moral high ground, which is laughable considering liberalism’s ideology is immoral at its core. Since November of last year, leftists have been too blinded by inane hatred for Trump to see the irony.

Since Liberals are a emotion-driven ends justifies the means kind of ideology that means that they have actual morals or ethics because the ends justify whatever means are necessary.

Sure, there are liberals out there who lead decent lives and you can find some on the other side who don’t. Difference is, though, the longer a liberal remains liberal, the harder it is for them to see the light…the truth…that all their ideology does is cover them with a cloak of morality.

Narcissism.

The false sense of morality gives them license to live a life filled with double standards.

Not mention Double Think and Doublespeak.

Inclusion is Exclusion.

Diversity is Exclusion.

Free Speech is Censorship.

Freedom is Slavery.

Fear is Hope.

Hate is Love.

What’s wrong is wrong, right? No. Their skewed perception of right and wrong allows them to believe it’s okay to do wrong, but it’s not okay for those on the right, both religious and secular. Which is why they found it perfectly acceptable for recent women’s marches, supposedly protesting a decade-old nasty Trump joke, to chant obscenities through a microphone and put on a display of vulgarity, filthy enough to make even Trump blush.

As a wise person once said: “There are none so blind as those who will not see.”

There is no one more deaf than those who will not listen.

Image result for yoda quotes

Enough already with the fake moral outrage.

Clear and simple, liberals hate Trump because he beat Hillary Clinton. Period. End of story. They are so overcome by anger and hatred, they fail to realize that until recently, Trump could have been their candidate.

I say “until recently” because Trump is transitioning…transforming…changing. Prayer works, and Trump’s blanketed…covered with it. Surrounding himself with some incredibly adept advisors doesn’t hurt either.

Another huge factor in this evolution is that with each fake news report or violent riot or piece of leaked information – Trump is becoming less like a liberal and more like Ronald Reagan.  Who Trump was during the primaries is not who he is today.

Liberals can’t handle that this immoral man received a moral mandate to do what is right for America.

And, by gosh, he’s doing it, despite the snotty-nosed brats who continue to throw tantrums and wet their pants every time Trump takes positive action to restore America to her former greatness.

Trump made no pretense about who he was and is doing exactly what he said he would do versus the self-serving candidates liberals typically choose, who put on a mask of morality every election cycle.

Though, in fairness, Obama did say exactly what he was going to do and stuck rigidly to it even after his term in office to this day. People had chosen to ignore it then.

That’s why their beloved former Sen. Harry Reid had no problem telling a bold-faced lie about Mitt Romney’s taxes during the 2012 presidential election. Years later, an unrepentant Reid justified his actions during a news interview where he refused to acknowledge wrongdoing saying, with an arrogant grin, “Well, they can call it whatever they want, Romney didn’t win, did he?”

Winning is everything to a Liberal. The ultimate means to an end. They will DO ANYTHING to win. Thus, morals and ethics (like rigging a primary or an election with illegal voters) are right out the window in their quest for ultimate power.

The Washington Post gave three “Pinocchio’s” to the left’s “Coolest Prez, ever,” Obama, who made a campaign promise that insurance premiums would decrease under Obamacare. Obama was also responsible for this fish tale: “If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep doctor. Period. If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away. No matter what.”

The Agenda is The Agenda. The Narrative is the Narrative. Say anything to advance it. Anything.

But we’re not supposed to notice the duplicity, we’re supposed to dwell on the good intentions of a party devoid of conscience.

The Left sure does.

Folks, this really isn’t about politics. I’m genuinely concerned some of our liberal friends are drowning in an ideology every bit as dangerous as Eve’s apple. Every time they take a bite, they are tempted to believe it’s okay to lie and hate and suppose they are morally superior to everyone else — for absolutely no reason at all. (Susan Stamper Brown)

Other than their own power-mad, deluded, need to control everyone and everything at all times.

Their pure and absolute Narcissism.

veto

 

 

The Oscar Bash

Predictably, The Democrat Party Convention last night took shots at The President.

Kimmel didn’t wait long to bash Trump, saying, “I want to say thank you to President Trump. Remember last year when it seemed like the Oscars were racist? That’s gone, thanks to him.” Later, he said Trump would tweet about the Oscars “during his 5 a.m. bowel movement.”

Gee, I will remember that if & when we get another Liberal Democrat President. Be as rude and disrespectful in public as you want to be and everyone will clap and cheer… 🙂

He said many people had told him to address the political divides in the U.S., saying he would not be able to do that. “There’s only one Braveheart in the room,” he said, in reference to Mel Gibson. “And he’s not going to unite us either.”

And Mel’s Career was trashed for a long time by… 🙂

But hey, it’s just the Liberals being Tolerant, after all.

intolerant

Even the Brits beforehand were getting into the loving mood:

David Harewood, who starred as the director of the CIA in Homeland and went on to appear in the acclaimed BBC drama The Night Manager, said he endorsed any Oscar winners who took the opportunity to criticise the President.

“Any attempt to bash Trump is good,” he said. “It’s going to be a fun night. Definitely get your recorders out for some fun speeches.”

Gee, what would have happened if we did this to Obama? Oh, yeah, I remember, you’d be called a RACIST! 😦

Cara Speller, the British producer of Pear Cider And Cigarettes, which is nominated for best animated short film, said artists had a “responsibility to speak out”.

“I won’t be doing that. Other people will put it much better than me,” she said. “But I think that’s great and I think it’s important actually. Our very way of life is being threatened and curtailed.”

She, of course, is speaking fondly of authoritarian socialism. 🙂

Then there’s Jodie Foster, who is a clueless sheeple.

Speaking outside the Beverly Hills headquarters of the United Talent Agency (UTA), which cancelled its Oscars party to stage the protest, Foster, star of The Silence of the Lambs,  Taxi Driver and The Accused, said: “This year is a very different year and it’s time to show up. It’s time to engage.

“We know the first attack on democracy is an assault on free expression and civil liberties and this relentless war on truth.”

Guess who’s been assaulting free expression for decades and continues to do so unabated with their war on truth, Mrs Foster?

PEOPLE JUST LIKE YOU!! 🙂

Doublethink is still thriving in the Leftist mind.

CNN: Given that, those who watch the Oscars can’t convincingly feign shock over being subjected to liberal opinions. If you’re a conservative who hasn’t given up on the show already over those political overtones, it’s likely because you don’t much care, sort of enjoy being offended or just want to know what Rush Limbaugh and “Fox & Friends” will be griping about Monday morning.

But ultimately, ABC just wants the whole thing to be a Capitalist success (The Los Angeles Times reported that ABC has sold out its ad inventory — at healthy price increases from last year — and that media buyers are braced for political speeches being a part of the telecast) and get some better ratings. 🙂

So in the end the anti-capitalists are hoping for a capitalist success.

Nothing says Liberal doublethink better.

 

 

Segregation is Diversity

Is U-M’s Students4Justice Demanding a Segregated Space on Campus?

In response to racist and anti-Semitic emails sent to College of Engineering students last week, Students4Justice, a student organization at the University of Michigan, coordinated a sit-in at the Michigan Union on February 9. The sit-in sought to bring attention to the organization’s list of demands for the University, which criticizes the school’s “dedication to ‘defend’ the right to Freedom of Speech” and supposed lack of concern for student safety. Among the list of demands, Students4Justice called upon the University to express solidarity with students of color, streamline the bias incident report system and increase African-American enrollment.

One of Students4Justice’s  particularly astounding demands outlines a plan for the University to “create a permanent designated space on central campus for Black students and students of color to organize, and do social justice work.” The author of the list of demands specifies that the space would be separate from the Trotter Multicultural Center, which the University plans to relocate to Central Campus with a price tag of ten million dollars, because the proposed space would be “solely dedicated to community organizing and social justice work specifically for people of color.”

The same organization that criticizes the University for failing to create “an environment that engages in diversity, equity and inclusion,” is calling upon the University to undermine these ideals by facilitating a sort of de facto segregation? One where space and resources are designated for students based solely on the color of their skin?

To advocate for the ideals of diversity, equity and inclusion, while simultaneously calling upon the University to sanction these spaces on campus is both unprincipled and laughably regressive. The establishment of such a space is exclusionary and inequitable in its intent, and incompatible with the goals set forth by the University at its Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) plan launch.

Students4Justice’s demand follows a nation-wide trend of university groups calling for racially assigned spaces on their campuses, with the most notable example of California State University, Los Angeles’s decision to establish separate dorm housing for black students. Proponents of self-segregation argue that these spaces allow marginalized students to share their experiences with students with similar backgrounds and therefore ease racial tensions on campus. However, current studies indicate that participation in racially designated organizations often fosters sentiments of zero-sum competition, where one ethnic group benefits at the expense of another. One particular study, conducted by Harvard social psychologist Jim Sidanius, found that membership in ethnically-oriented student groups heightened sentiments of victimization and hostility toward inter-group relationships.

If Students4Justice genuinely wants to foster an inclusive and diverse campus, then it would be best to avoid propositions that seek to divide and separate students. The ugly history of racially designated public spaces should remain in our past—revisiting it would only fulfill the dreams of our most depraved members of society.

MORE: Black students demand segregated spaces from white students

Amazing Grocery Games

This is one of the more brilliant satires I have read in a very long time. Brilliant.

What If Grocery Stores Worked Like Public Schools?

Eric Schuler fee.org

One of the most important things to consider when buying a house is the quality of the grocery district.

As the name implies, the grocery district determines which public grocery store you and your family get to use. District maps are drawn by the government to ensure each grocery store has an appropriate number of patrons based on its capacity. Most residents are assigned to the public grocery store that is closest to their home.

Groceries are paid for primarily by local taxes. If residents go to their local public grocery store, they get their weekly groceries without any additional out-of-pocket cost. However, they cannot get groceries from a public grocery store that’s outside of their district.

In most purchasing decisions, people are not limited to a single provider in their jurisdiction.

In theory, all of the public grocery stores are supposed to provide equal access to high-quality food. Indeed, this is largely why government got involved in the grocery business in the first place. Politicians believed that access to food was a fundamental right and they were concerned that a free enterprise model would inadequately serve poor people. After all, there is not much profit to be made selling to those of lesser means. Or so it was argued at the time.

Unfortunately, it’s clear that wide disparities still exist in the public system of food distribution. Poorer neighborhoods tend to have public grocery stores that offer bad service, limited selection, and occasionally even unsanitary conditions. It’s not uncommon to find food well beyond its sell-by date.

Meanwhile, in richer neighborhoods, public grocery stores are typically high quality. Most approximate the quality and selection that existed in chains like Fred Meyer, Trader Joe’s, or Albertsons before the system of public food distribution was implemented.

This is why it has become essential to consider the quality of the grocery district when looking for a place to live. Live in a good district, and you’ll get diverse, healthy food for your family. Live in a bad district, and your family’s well-being is likely to suffer.

Critics argue that this system is especially harmful to poor people. In most purchasing decisions, people are not limited to a single provider in their jurisdiction. If they don’t like the bank or the mall that’s closest to them, they can drive to one that’s a little farther away that they like better. But in groceries, if they don’t like the public store that’s in their district, the main solution is to move elsewhere. If they can’t afford to move to a better grocery district–and many cannot–then they are likely to be stuck with a bad public grocery store.

One other option for residents in low-quality grocery districts is private grocery stores. In most areas, there’s no law preventing people from getting their groceries from private providers instead of the public system. However, since people utilizing the private system do not get a refund for the taxes they paid into the public system, they effectively end up paying twice. This naturally makes the private solution less accessible to families of lesser means.

Of course, no one thinks this public grocery system is ideal–especially since it retains the very inequality it hoped to eliminate. But while everyone agrees there is a problem, there is little agreement on the possible solutions.

It remains to be seen which reforms will be tried next, but history suggests that we should not be too optimistic.

The Real World

The system described above probably sounds absurd. But, in many respects, it is the system we use to provide education in the US.

Education is important. It might be too important to leave to the government.

One often hears that education is too important to leave to the whims of the market. Yet food is even more important; it’s a prerequisite before education can be considered. In spite of this, the (relatively) free market in food seems to work quite well.

Consumers get a wide variety at a low cost. Even people that have niche dietary requirements like gluten-free or vegan have products suited to them. And while complaints about the quality of public education are rampant, one rarely hears objections about the quality of the grocery stores. In the latter case, people don’t have to complain; they just take their business to someone who will serve them better.

As a consequence, the inequality that exists with respect to grocery stores is actually much smaller than the inequality that exists in education. Whether you’re in a poor area or a middle-class area, the local Walmart is pretty much going to be the same Walmart. Even the gap in offerings between Walmart and, say, Whole Foods, is not so severe. One could still easily purchase the ingredients for a healthy diet in either establishment. But in public education, the difference between good schools and bad can be night and day. It could mean the difference between children graduating or dropping out, progressing or falling behind.

So perhaps it’s time to turn the conventional wisdom on its head. Education is important. It might be too important to leave to the government.

The Soda Rebellion

Soda companies, supermarkets report 30-50 pct. sales drop from soda tax

Supermarkets and distributors, citing drops in sales due to Philadelphia’s sweetened-beverage tax, say they are planning for layoffs.

Two months into the city’s sweetened-beverage tax, supermarkets and distributors are reporting a 30 percent to 50 percent drop in beverage sales and are planning for layoffs.

The next day:

The finance director projected $2.3 million in receipts from the first month of the tax — but controller Alan Butkovitz says early returns are not close to that. He acknowledges there are likely to be late payments made through the week and into next week, but he doesn’t expect it to amount to what the city had hoped.

“Based on the numbers that are in so far, it’s about $600,000, so that is alarming,” Butkovitz said. “People gotta start thinking about plan B because receipts that are this dangerously low-level means we may be facing a crisis in a few months.” (CBS Local)

The  Day after that the City Claims: PHILADELPHIA (CBS)–New figures released by the city this morning show the Philadelphia beverage tax brought in nearly $6 million in its first month.

That’s more than twice what the city projected but less than what it needs to collect each month to fund Mayor Jim Kenney’s ambitious anti-poverty program.

“Nothing is 100 percent complete in the first month,” the mayor said. “This is all smoke and mirror misleading and it’s hurting our kids and it’s scaring people. So if they can lay their head on the pillow at night and know they’re trying to stop our kids from being educated, I guess they’ll have to live with themselves.”

So we definitively have Agenda Politics at work and the truth really won’t matter.

One of the city’s largest distributors says it will cut 20 percent of its workforce in March, and an owner of six ShopRite stores in Philadelphia says he expects to shed 300 workers this spring.

“People are seeing sales decline larger than anything they’ve seen up to this point in the city,” said Alex Baloga, vice president of external relations at the Pennsylvania Food Merchants Association.

 

In response, the city questioned the legitimacy of the early figures and predicted that customers responding to the initial sticker shock by shopping outside the city would return.

 

“We have no way of knowing if their sales figures and predicted job losses are anything more than fear-mongering to prevent this from happening in other cities,” said city spokesman Mike Dunn.

Mayor Kenney harshly rebuked reports of coming layoffs late Tuesday night.

“I didn’t think it was possible for the soda industry to be any greedier,” Kenney said in an emailed statement. “ … They are so committed to stopping this tax from spreading to other cities, that they are not only passing the tax they should be paying onto their customer, they are actually willing to threaten working men and women’s jobs rather than marginally reduce their seven figure bonuses.”

The 1.5-cent-per-ounce tax on sweetened and diet beverages is funding nearly 2,000 pre-K seats this year as well as several community schools. The city hopes it will bring in $92 million per year for the education programs and to in part fund renovated parks and recreation centers.

 

To hit its annual target, the city needs to collect $7.6 million a month in tax revenue. The first collection was due Feb. 21 but collection information won’t be available until next month.  Early projections from the city’s quarterly manager’s report predict only $2.3 million will come through in the first collection. Dunn says that figure is expected to rise and the city still anticipates hitting its goal for the year.

The city predicted a 27 percent sales decline industry-wide as a result of the tax but early returns from some beverage sellers show higher losses, fueling a resurgence of the anti-soda tax coalition that fought vigorously against the tax last summer.

Bob Brockway, chief operating officer of Canada Dry Delaware Valley, which distributes about 20 percent of the city’s soft drinks, said sales were down 45 percent in Philadelphia. The company will lay off 20 percent of its workforce the first week in March. The distributor is a subsidiary of Honickman Affiliates, owned by Harold Honickman, who helped lead the opposition to the tax last summer.

The 35 jobs on the line include managers, sales people, and drivers, Brockway said. Sales are up about 20 percent in the suburbs, but that hasn’t helped the business break even, he said. On the whole, the company’s sales are down about 30 percent, Brockway said.

 

“We don’t anticipate people coming back,” he said.

The tax, passed in June, went into effect Jan. 1 and is levied on distributors, who have passed it on to retailers.

Jeff Brown, CEO of Brown’s Super Stores, which manages six ShopRite stores in the city, said beverage sales were down 50 percent from Jan. 1 to Feb. 17 compared with the same period in 2016. More concerning, he said, is a 15 percent dip in overall sales at city stores.

“People didn’t change what they drink,” Brown said. “They changed where they’re buying it.”

 

Since January, Brown said, he has had to cut 6,000 employee hours, he said. He said he suspects he will lose about 300 people, which amounts to one-fifth of his total workforce voluntarily and through layoffs in coming months.

To keep customers, Brown has ordered more tea and lemonade powders, which are tax-exempt. He’s stocking shelves with lower-quantity sugary drinks, which are easier to sell than the two-liter bottles or 12-packs.

Day’s Beverages, an independent soft-drink distributor, has seen a steep decline in Philadelphia offset by a 50 percent boost in Camden, Wilmington, and Bensalem, owner David Day said.

Day also distributes to 18 other states, but Philadelphia makes up 30 percent of his market.

 

His carry-out business has ballooned since the tax, he said.

Day is a registered distributor with the city and required to remit a monthly payment on any taxed beverages that go on to be sold in Philadelphia. He sent payment in last week for deliveries he made throughout Philadelphia. But Day doesn’t tax people coming in to buy soda directly from his warehouse.

“We’re one block out of Philadelphia, in Delaware County, and you can’t imagine how many stores are coming to our warehouse and picking up our soda. I don’t care what they do — they’re coming here as a cash-and-carry. Our doors are open to everyone,” he said. “We don’t police where it’s going.”

Danny Grace, head of the Teamsters union, representing many of the drivers, said members have seen pay cut by as much as 70 percent because they’re moving fewer products. “Many of them have quit as a result,” Grace said. He did not provide specific figures.

The tax, upheld in December, is under appeal in a case expected to start April 3 in Commonwealth Court. In the meantime, a wave of discontent has swept the industry.

About 50 sales people, drivers, and industry lobbyists flooded City Council chambers to speak to members before their weekly meeting Thursday.

The Pennsylvania Food Merchants Association, in conjunction with movie theaters, restaurants, and supermarkets, is mounting a new “Ax the Bev Tax” campaign this week. Participating businesses will hang up signs encouraging people to call their elected representatives.

Some legislators in Harrisburg weighed in this month, with an amicus brief calling on the court to overturn the tax.

Within City Hall, legislators are taking a wait-and-see approach. Some Council members have encouraged patience.

Dunn said the administration predicts shoppers will return as they did after an initial falloff at the inception of the amusement and liquor by-the-drink tax. Distributors could see better sales numbers, too, since some stores stocked up on pretaxed merchandise, he said.

“Initially people are upset and drive over the city line, but then they do the math and realize the cost of gas or the pure inconvenience doesn’t make it worth it,” Dunn said.

J. Del Conner is one of the 210 distributors registered with the city. He owns Dr. Physick soda, a tiny beverage-maker that sells about 500 cases a year. The soda is named after Conner’s great-great-great-grandfather, a Philadelphia pharmacist who introduced carbonated water into fruit syrup as a way to help relieve gastric disorders.

Conner usually sells about 10 cases a month in winter but didn’t send any money to the city this month.

“So far in January and February we’ve had no sales,” he said. “Zero.”

The Deep State Coup

Had an interesting day yesterday. I mentioned the coming Constitutional Crisis and/or Civil War coming and how The Left is going to precipitate it and the response from the leftists was basically, ‘what you going  to do exterminate us or put us in concentration camps?’.
A moderate conservative I know said the same thing.
So no one wants to avoid it. Least of which the Never Trumpers who would rather see the country burn, The Democrats who want it to burn because it’s not theirs anymore, and the Career Bureaucrats just want to save their own piece of their pie regardless of what is good for the rest of us it does or doesn’t do.
The Deep State is sacrosanct.
Victor Davis Hanson: Trumps’ critics, left and right, aim to bring about the cataclysm they predicted. A 1964 political melodrama, Seven Days in May, envisioned a futuristic (1970s) failed military cabal that sought to sideline the president of the United States over his proposed nuclear-disarmament treaty with the Soviets. Something far less dramatic but perhaps as disturbing as Hollywood fiction played out this February. The Teeth-Gnashing of Deep Government Currently, the political and media opponents of Donald Trump are seeking to subvert his presidency in a manner unprecedented in the recent history of American politics. The so-called resistance among EPA federal employees is trying to disrupt Trump administration reform; immigration activists promise to flood the judiciary to render executive orders inoperative. Intelligence agencies had earlier leaked fake news briefings about the purported escapades of President-elect Trump in Moscow — stories that were quickly exposed as politically driven concoctions. Nearly one-third of House Democrats boycotted the Inauguration. Celebrities such as Ashley Judd and Madonna shouted obscenities to crowds of protesters; Madonna voiced her dreams of Trump’s death by saying she’d been thinking a lot about blowing up the White House. But all that pushback was merely the clownish preliminary to the full-fledged assault in mid February. Career intelligence officers leaked their own transcripts of a phone call that National Security Advisor–designate Michael Flynn had made to a Russian official. The media charge against Flynn was that he had nefariously talked to higher-ups in Russia before he took office. Obama-administration officials did much the same, before Inauguration Day 2009, and spoke with Syrian, Iranian, and Russian counterparts. But they faced no interference from the outgoing Bush administration. No doubt the designated security officials of most incoming administrations do not wait until being sworn in to sound out foreign officials. Most plan to reset the policies of their predecessors. The question, then, arises: Why were former Obama-administration appointees or careerist officials tapping the phone calls of an incoming Trump designate (and Trump himself?) and then leaking the tapes to their pets in the press? For what purpose? Indeed, Trump’s own proposed outreach to Russia so far is not quite of the magnitude of Obama’s in 2009, when the State Department staged the red-reset-button event to appease Putin; at the time, Russia was getting set to swallow the Crimea and all but absorb Eastern Ukraine. Trump certainly did not approve the sale of some 20 percent of North American uranium holdings to Russian interests, in the quid pro quo fashion that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did, apparently in concert with Bill Clinton and the Clinton Foundation — and to general indifference of both the press and the intelligence community.
Why were former Obama-administration appointees or careerist officials tapping the phone calls of an incoming Trump designate and then leaking the tapes to their pets in the press? In addition, the Wall Street Journal reported last week that career intelligence officers have decided to withhold information from the president, on the apparent premise that he is unfit, in their view, to receive it. If true, that disclosure would mean that elements of the federal government are now actively opposing the duly elected president of the United States. That chilling assessment gains credence from the likelihood that the president’s private calls to Mexican and Australian heads of state were likewise recorded, and selected segments were leaked to suggest that Trump was either trigger-happy or a buffoon.
Oddly, in early January, Senator Charles Schumer had essentially warned Trump that he would pay for his criticism of career intelligence officials. In an astounding shot across his bow, which was followed up by an onslaught in February, Schumer said: “Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you. . . . So even for a practical, supposedly hard-nosed businessman, he’s being really dumb to do this.” Schumer was evidently not disturbed about rogue intelligence agencies conspiring to destroy a shared political enemy — the president of the United States. What surprised him was how naïve Trump was in not assessing the anti-constitutional forces arrayed against him. Trump-Removal Chic The elite efforts to emasculate the president have sometimes taken on an eerie turn. The publisher-editor of the German weekly magazine Zeit raised the topic on German television of killing Trump to end the “Trump catastrophe.” So did British Sunday Times columnist India Knight, who tweeted, “The assassination is taking such a long time.” A former Obama Pentagon official, Rosa Brooks, recently mused about theoretical ways to remove Trump, including a military coup, should other avenues such as impeachment or medically forced removal fail: “The fourth possibility is one that until recently I would have said was unthinkable in the United States of America: a military coup, or at least a refusal by military leaders to obey certain orders.” The Atlantic now darkly warns that Trump is trying to create an autocracy.
Former Weekly Standard editor in chief Bill Kristol suggested in a tweet that if he faced a choice (and under what surreal circumstances would that happen?) between the constitutionally, democratically elected president and career government officials’ efforts to thwart or remove him, he would come down on the side of the revolutionary, anti-democratic “deep state”: “Obviously strongly prefer normal democratic and constitutional politics. But if it comes to it [emphasis added], prefer the deep state to the Trump state.” No doubt some readers interpreted that as a call to side with anti-constitutional forces against an elected U.S. president.
Hollywood stars such as Meryl Streep equate the president with brownshirts and assorted fascists. A CNN reporter announced that Trump was Hitlerian; another mused about his plane’s crashing. Prominent conservative legal scholar Richard Epstein recently called for Trump to resign after less than a month in office, largely on grounds that Trump’s rhetoric is unbridled and indiscreet — although Epstein cited no indictable or impeachable offenses that would justify the dispatch of a constitutionally elected president. Earlier, Republican columnists David Frum and Jennifer Rubin had theorized that the 25th Amendment might provide a way to remove Trump from office as unfit to serve.
The New Republic published an unfounded theory, based on no empirical evidence, alleging that Trump suffers from neurosyphilis and thus is mentally not up to his office. Former president Barack Obama — quite unlike prior presidents Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, and George W. Bush, who all refrained from attacking their successors — is now reportedly ready to join the efforts of a well-funded political action committee to undermine the Trump presidency. The Police Need Policing Fake news proliferates. House minority leader Nancy Pelosi and Representative Elijah Cummings recently attacked departing national-security advisor Michael Flynn by reading a supposed Flynn tweet that was a pure invention. Nor did Trump, as reported, have a serious plan to mobilize “100,000” National Guard troops to enforce deportations. Other false stories claimed that Trump had pondered invading Mexico, that his lawyer had gone to Prague to meet with the Russians, and that he had removed from the Oval Office a bust of Martin Luther King Jr. — sure proof of Trump’s racism. Journalists — including even “fact-checker” Glenn Kessler of the Washington Post — reposted fake news reports that Trump’s father had run a campaign for the New York mayorship during which he’d aired racist TV ads.
Celebrities and writers have attacked Trump’s eleven-year-old son Barron as a sociopath-to-be. Nor is the Trump family immune from constant attack. Daughter Ivanka Trump was recently cornered on an airline flight, while traveling with her three young children three days before Christmas, and bullied by a screaming activist passenger. Her private fashion business is the target of a national progressive-orchestrated boycott. Celebrities and writers have attacked Trump’s eleven-year-old son Barron as a sociopath-to-be or as a boy trapped in an autistic bubble. First Lady Melania Trump sued the Daily Mail after it trafficked in reports that she had once been a paid escort — a lie that was recently recirculated by a New York Times reporter. Trump advisers Steve Bannon and Sebastian Gorka are routinely smeared as anti-Semites and fascists. One Trump critic berated Gorka as a Nazi sympathizer for wearing a commemorative medal once awarded his father for his role in the resistance to the Communist takeover of Hungary. What has the often boisterous Trump done in his first month to earn calls for his death, forced removal, or resignation? Dangerous Style or Substance? The stock market is reaching all-time highs. Polls show business optimism rising. The Rasmussen poll puts Trump’s approval rating at 55 percent. Compared with Obama in 2009, at the same point in his young administration, Trump has issued about the same number of executive orders. For all his war on the press, Trump has so far not ordered wiretaps on any reporter on the grounds that he is a “criminal co-conspirator,” nor has he gone after the phone records of the Associated Press — Barack Obama’s Justice Department did both, to little notice in the media.
Trump’s edicts are mostly common-sense and non-controversial: green-lighting the Keystone and Dakota pipelines, freezing federal hiring, resuming work on a previously approved wall along the Mexican border, prohibiting retiring federal officials from lobbying activity for five years, and pruning away regulations. His promises to deport illegal aliens with past records of criminal activity or gang affiliation have, by design, sidestepped so-called dreamers and the illegal aliens who are currently working, without criminal backgrounds, and with some record of lengthy residence. In his executive order to temporarily suspend immigration from seven war-torn Middle East states, Trump channeled Barack Obama’s prior targeting of immigration trouble spots. At first, Trump’s order was poorly worded and clumsily ushered in; then it was reformulated. It is supported by the public but nonetheless earned a hysterical response from federal judges who seemed to invent new jurisprudence stating that foreign nationals abroad enjoy U.S. constitutional protections. On more substantive reforms, such as repealing Obamacare, reforming the tax code, and rebuilding infrastructure, Trump awaits proposed legislation from the Republican congressional majority.
By all accounts, Trump’s initial meetings or phone calls with British, Israeli, Japanese, and Russian heads of states have gone well. Trump has had fewer Cabinet appointees bow out than did Barack Obama. Most believe that the vast majority of his selections are inspired. The nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch was a widely praised move. The defense secretary, retired general James Mattis has echoed Trump’s earlier calls for European NATO members to step up and meet their contracted obligations to the alliance. Clearly in empirical terms, nothing that Trump in his first month in office has done seems to have justified calls for violence against his person or his removal from office. What then accounts for the unprecedented venom? 1) As we saw from his recent free-wheeling press conference, Trump’s loud, take-no-prisoners style is certainly anti-Washington, anti-media, anti-elite, and anti-liberal. He often unsettles reporters with bombast and invective, when most are accustomed to dealing with career politicians or fellow liberal officeholders who share their same beliefs. As part of Trump’s art-of-the-deal tactics, he often blusters, rails, and asks for three times what he might eventually settle for, on the expectation that critics of his style will be soon silenced by the undeniable upside of his eventual achievements. This is a long-term strategy that in the short term allows journalists to fault the present means rather than the future ends. Trump’s unconventional bluster, not his record so far, fuels the animosity of elites who seek to delegitimize him and fear that their reputations and careers can be rendered irrelevant by his roughshod populism.
He also has reminded the country that some of the mainstream media and Washington–New York elite are often mediocre and boring. 2) The Democratic party has been absorbed by its left wing and is beginning to resemble the impotent British Labour party. Certainly it no longer is a national party. Mostly it’s a local and municipal coastal force, galvanized to promote a race and gender agenda and opposed to conservatism yet without a pragmatic alternative vision. Its dilemma is largely due to the personal success but presidential failure of Barack Obama, who moved the party leftward and yet bequeathed an electoral matrix that will deprive future national candidates of swing-state constituencies without compensating for that downside with massive minority turnouts, which were unique to Obama’s candidacy. The Democratic party bites its tail in endless paroxysms of electoral frustration — given that the medicine of broadening support to win back the white poor and working classes is deemed worse than the disease of losing the state governorships and legislatures, the Congress, the presidency, and the Supreme Court. 3) Usually conservative pundits and journalists would push back against this extraordinary effort to delegitimize a Republican president. But due to a year of Never Trump politicking and opposition, and Trump’s own in-your-face, unorthodox style and grating temperament, hundreds of Republican intellectuals and journalists, former officeholders and current politicians — who shared a common belief that Trump had no chance of winning and thus could be safely written off — find themselves without influence in either the White House or indeed in their own party, over 90 percent of which voted for Trump. In other words, the Right ruling class is still in a civil war of sorts.
It is no accident that many of those calling for his resignation or removal are frustrated that, for the first time in a generation, they will have no influence in a Republican administration or indeed among most Republicans. For some, the best pathway to redemption is apparently to criticize Trump to such an extent that their prior prophecies of his preordained failure in the election will be partially redeemed by an imploding presidency. It is no accident that many of those calling for his resignation or removal are frustrated that, for the first time in a generation, they will have no influence in a Republican administration or indeed among most Republicans. Yet, in private, they accept that Trump’s actual appointments, executive orders, and announced policies are mostly orthodox conservative — a fact that was supposed to have been impossible. 4) Since 2000, what might have been seen as irrational and abnormal has become institutionalized and commonplace: record U.S. debt approaching $20 trillion, chronic trade deficits, an often destructive globalization, Hoover-era anemic economic growth, polarizing racial identity politics, open borders, steady growth in the size of government, sanctuary cities, unmet NATO obligations abroad, crumbling faith that the European Union is sustainable and democratic, and a gradual symbiosis between the two parties, both of which ignored the working classes as either demographically doomed or as a spent force of deplorables and irredeemables (or both). Trump’s efforts to return politics to the center — enforce existing laws, complete previously approved projects, rein in government regulations and growth, recalibrate U.S. alliances to reflect current realities, unapologetically side with friends and punish enemies — were viewed as revolutionary rather than as a return to conventionality, in part because they threatened status quo careers and commerce. Trumpism is more or less akin to the Gingrich-Clinton compromises of the early 1990s or to what Reagan often did rather than what he sometimes said. But what was then bipartisan and centrist today appears revolutionary and nihilistic. For now, chic Trump hatred and sick talks of coups — or worse — hinge on economic growth. If Trump’s agenda hits 3 percent GDP growth or above by 2018, then his critics — progressive shock troops, Democratic grandees, mainstream media, Never Trump Republicans — will either shift strategies or face prolonged irrelevance. But for now, ending Trump one way or another is apparently the tortured pathway his critics are taking to exit their self-created labyrinth of irrelevance. (NRO)

English is Racist

Yes, you heard it hear first. SJW Progressives at the University of Washington in Tacoma have decided for their “inclusive” writing course (s) that English in of itself is inherently Racist!

So the language you speak and think in is Racist. You are Racist. The words you speak are inherently racist.

So if you’re White you’re born racist and the language you learn is Racist. So you’re just a dirty Racist out of the box.

The Progressive’s Original Sin. And they are here to cleanse you of it, and any capacity for rational or critical thought along the way.

The UW Tacoma Writing Center has taken significant steps towards standing against racism in the field of writing. With its new antiracism and social justice statement, the Center starts a conversation on the discrimination and alienation that often go unnoticed in academia. As the statement urges, “there is no inherent ‘standard’ of English,” and with this in mind, the Center aims to ensure that through compassion and careful consideration, staff do not inadvertently embrace racist practices.

The writing center works from several important beliefs that are crucial to helping writers write and succeed in a racist society. The racist conditions of our society are not simply a matter of bias or prejudice that some people hold. In fact, most racism, for instance, is not accomplished through intent. Racism is the normal condition of things. Racism is pervasive. It is in the systems, structures, rules, languages, expectations, and guidelines that make up our classes, school, and society. For example, linguistic and writing research has shown clearly for many decades that there is no inherent “standard” of English. Language is constantly changing. These two facts make it very difficult to justify placing people in hierarchies or restricting opportunities and privileges because of the way people communicate in particular versions of English.

Because we all live, work, learn, and communicate within such racist systems, the consultants in the writing center assume that a big part of our job is to help students become more critical of these unjust language structures as they affect students’ writing and the judgment of that writing. In particular, being aware of racism as structural offers students the best chances to develop as writers and succeed on their own terms in an inherently racist society.

Furthermore, by acknowledging and critiquing the systemic racism that forms parts of UWT and the languages and literacies expected in it, students and writing center consultants can cultivate a more socially just future for everyone. Just avoiding racism is not enough because it means we are doing nothing to stop racism at large, and it amounts to allowing racism to continue.

Spearheaded by Writing Center Director Dr. Asao Inoue—who is also an associate professor in the School of Interdisciplinary Arts & Sciences and director of university writing—the statement is very much influenced by Inoue’s research on racism in writing assessments. In his 2015 book, Antiracist Writing Assessment Ecologies: Teaching and Assessing Writing for a Socially Just Future, Inoue considered the many ways in which racism becomes apparent in academia, as well as proposed that only through the acknowledgment of structures of racism could they begin to be dismantled. Dr. Inoue, who has received two Outstanding Book Awards—the first in 2014 for Race and Writing Assessment and again in 2017 for Antiracist Writing Assessment Ecologies—from the Conference on College Composition and Communication, has dedicated his career to the study of rhetoric and composition, in order to better understand and work to solve racial inequity in academia.

Every student, regardless of their background, comes to college with a different collection of experiences, said Dr. Inoue. “The anti-racism statement is a document that took over a year to collaboratively create with writing center professional staff and student writing consultants. It was officially put up and incorporated in our work in the fall of 2016, so we are just beginning.” Dr. Inoue contends that in order for something to become anti-racist, there must first be an earnest discussion of how racism has produced certain standards of education or systems themselves. As a result of the pervasiveness of racism, Inoue argues, its presence must be acknowledged on a systemic level, and thus this statement was born.

“It is a founding assumption that, if believed, one must act differently than we, the institution and its agents, have up to this point,” said Inoue. While overt racism is usually easily identified, more elusive are microaggressions, forms of degradation which manifest on a subconscious and casual level. As the statement reads “Racism is pervasive. It is in the systems, structures, rules, languages, expectations, and guidelines that make up our classes, school, and society,”

Ultimately, the statement exists in the hopes that by understanding racism and imparting students with a critical thought process, that they may be better prepared not only to develop as writers but also to achieve their highest possible level of success.

Dr. Jill Purdy, vice chancellor of undergraduate affairs and an advocate for the writing statement, notes that it “is a great example of how we are striving to act against racism. Language is the bridge between ideas and action, so how we use words has a lot of influence on what we think and do.”

The writing center consultants and staff promise to listen and look carefully and compassionately for ways that we may unintentionally perpetuate racism or social injustice, actively engaging in antiracist practices. For instance, we promise to:

  • be sensitive to our language practices (what we say or allow to be said) and other microaggressions that may make some people feel uncomfortable or feel in some way inferior;

  • openly discuss social justice issues as they pertain to the writing at hand;

  • emphasize the importance of rhetorical situations over grammatical “correctness” in the production of texts;

  • be reflective and critical of the practices we engage in;

  • provide students ways to be more aware of grammar as a rhetorical set of choices with various consequences;

  • discuss racism and social justice issues openly in productive ways;

  • advocate for the things that will make our Center safe, welcoming, productive, proactive; (Orwell is proud of you, my son…)

  • challenge conventional word choices and writing explanations; (ed: Censorship)

  • conduct on-going assessments of the work of the writing center, looking specifically for patterns or potential inequalities or oppressive practices that may be occurring in the Center. (but not against white people, Christians , Cisgender Males)

We also realize that racism is connected to other forms of social injustice, such as classism, sexism, heteronormative assumptions, etc., in similar ways. We promise further to do our best to compassionately address these issues as they pertain to student writing as well.

But don’t worry, The Thought Police aren’t watching you, you racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, transphobic, bigot! 🙂

You are inherently Evil and it is our Holy Duty to beat that out of you so you become a mindless snowflake who responds without hesitation,deviation or even any thought at all to your Zombie Groupthink.

ego

Agree to Hate

America seems to be in big trouble. Not only are there demonstrations that at times turn violent and destructive, differences are impacting families and friendships that previously have weathered many divisive elections. It may not yet be a red vs blue civil war, but anger is real. Disagreement has given way to distance and heated dissension.

Daniel J. Boorstin, the University of Chicago American historian, wrote: “Disagreement produces debate but dissent produces dissension. Dissent (which come from the Latin, ‘dis’ and ‘sentire’) means originally to ‘feel apart from others.’ People who disagree have an argument, but people who dissent have a quarrel. People may disagree and both may count themselves in the majority. But a person who dissents is by definition in a minority. A liberal society thrives on disagreement but is killed by dissension. Disagreement is the life blood of democracy, dissension is its cancer.”

That cancerous dissension is on display almost every day. On the extreme left, many demonstrators seem unhinged in support of never-ending resistance. They rally around the word “Resist” while failing to explain or to stand for what they are for. Reporters write about the reprehensible growth of Muslim hate groups, but what of the exploding nature of organized Trump hate groups. Anger unchecked against any person or group is truly a low-brain function where disagreement over issues take a back seat to name-calling and taunts of anyone daring to support their target. Should not an attack on a person just wearing a Trump shirt or hat be a hate crime? Of course!

Signs and shouts of “Nazi,” “bigot,” and “tyrant” are common. A Google search of “Trump is a Nazi” gives you 41,100,000 hits, well ahead of “Hitler was a Nazi” at 21,700,000 hits. But then Hitler was a Nazi and had a 75-year head start! To be fair and balanced, President Obama did fairly well in the “Nazi” sweepstakes with 33,100,000 hits. Poor Hitler loses to both with little chance of catching up!

And over the weekend at a Sci-Fi Convention he was referred to repeatedly as a mental case – because that’s the latest Liberal meme.

With such open anger, most of those who voted for President Trump are staying silent, but some are not.  In response to the predictable comments in Hollywood attacking Donald Trump at the Grammys or at other award ceremonies, Joy Villa, a self-described singer-songwriter, courageously took to the Grammys’ red carpet wearing a “Make America Great Again” dress with a train emblazoned with President Trump’s name. The Trump supporters seething as they watched rich artists demean their candidate were quick to reward Miss Villa. Her album sales exploded 18,106,633 percent within hours of wearing her “Make America Great Again” dress.

We are living in a world that rewards disagreements with television coverage! Commercialized news and political cable shows can’t help themselves. Footage of aggressive demonstrations is irresistible eye candy for the 24/7 TV news cycle demand for violent displays. The demonstrators are getting coverage, but we’re not moving closer together, just further apart.

 

Singer-songwriter Emmylou Harris calls for civility: “As citizens, we have to be more thoughtful and more educated and more informed. I turn on the TV and I see these grown people screaming at each other, and I think, well, if we don’t get our civility back we’re in trouble.”

When a fire is raging in an area where it can do little real damage, you let it burn itself out. Anger is hard to maintain for months. President Trump would be wise to let freedom of speech reign. Keep his focus on policy priorities and working with those on the left willing to find some common ground. But “we the people” need to collectively call for more responsible civil dialogue.

We are losing sight of civility in government and politics. Debate and dialogue is taking a back seat to the politics of destruction and anger and control. Dogma has replaced thoughtful discussion between people of differing views. James McGreevey

Martin Luther King, Jr. said, “Hate begets hate; violence begets violence; toughness begets a greater toughness. We must meet the forces of hate with the power of love.”

President Thomas Jefferson said, “I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend.” Most responsible Americans on both sides of our political divide reject hate. It’s time to “love” our neighbor, our fellow citizens, no matter what their political persuasion.

 

But whether we like it or not, Donald Trump was elected our President. Any President faces daily challenges that can impact the safety and future of America. The blanket rejection and promise to resist every move is a recipe for chaos, not sound decision-making. Care enough to strongly confront Trump’s policies where you must, but support him where you can. Diverse perspectives and courageous disagreements are treasured in a functioning republic. Dissension unchecked is a cancer.

Yes, elections have consequences, but soon there will be new elections. Let’s join together to give President Trump a chance to lead and let the mid-term election be his report card.

Liberals will never give him that chance. period.

becausehouse-divided

Progressive Music

 

Spring Lake Park High School junior Kia Muleta has been playing the clarinet since fifth grade. Kia wants more diversity in her band music. She is often the only black student in band, where most of the music was composed by white men.

Evan Frost/MPR News

There’s a bulletin board at the front of the band room at Spring Lake Park High covered in portraits of the composers who wrote this year’s music selection.

The bulletin board isn’t new, it’s there every year. What’s new are the faces: Instead of primarily white men, there are faces of women and composers of color.

This is intentional. The band directors at Spring Lake, outside of St. Paul, Minnesota, have pledged to include at least one piece by a female composer and one by a composer of color in each concert, for each of the school’s bands.

“We made a commitment this year to only buy music from composers of color,” says Brian Lukkasson, one of the directors.

 

Spring Lake Park High School band teachers have made a point of incorporating both modern and classical composers of color into their lesson plans.

Evan Frost/MPR News

He says it’s been hard, but not because those composers aren’t writing for band. They are.

“It’s really hard to find music because there’s just not a lot of composers of color that are being published,” Lukkasson explains.

Composers of color and women are shut out of the canon, and often stereotyped, so Lukkasson usually has to network with his colleagues to find their music.

Like Viet Cuong, a Vietnamese-American who wrote the piece “Diamond Tide,” inspired by the scientific process of melting a diamond.

“I really, really want other students of color to be able to feel like they are welcomed and appreciated anywhere,” says Kia Muleta, one of Lukkasson’s students, “that they don’t have to check themselves at the door.”

Muleta is a junior, she’s been playing the clarinet in since fifth grade and she says the students sitting around her are usually white. She is black. And she says it bothers her that the composers they used to play were usually white.

“There’s a kind of an ideological segregation of who can and cannot be in band, based on who the composers are, and what the music is like.”

This year they’re playing “Of Honor and Valor Eternal,” a tribute to the Tuskegee Airmen, African-American military pilots. It’s by Ayatey Shabazz, a black composer from Mississippi. Shabazz says his grandfather knew one of the airmen, and stories he heard as a child inspired the composition.

 

Band teacher Brian Lukkasson leads a discussion with his class about the perspectives of the composers they play, focusing on composers of color in the civil rights era.

Evan Frost | /MPR News

“The more you practice talking about race, culture and ethnicity the more comfortable you are,” says Nora Tycast, one of the other band directors at Spring Lake. She and her students wrote to Shabazz to ask about the composing process.

Kia Muleta says the mix of composers on the bulletin board may seem like a small thing, but it’s not to her. She says new faces up front are a signal difference is welcome here.

They aren’t “talking” they are narcissistically shouting . So you can’t talk about race & culture if it’s White, you say…you racist! 🙂

problem

 

You keep using that word…

 

So I’ve been trying to come up with a meaningful and concrete definition of “fascism”. The clearest ones I came across were from Urban Dictionary (believe it or not) and Websters. The Urban Dictionary states the following:

“Fascism

The only official definition of Fascism comes from Benito Mussolini, the founder of fascism, in which he outlines three principles of a fascist philosophy.

1.”Everything in the state”. The Government is supreme and the country is all-encompasing, and all within it must conform to the ruling body, often a dictator.

2.”Nothing outside the state”. The country must grow and the implied goal of any fascist nation is to rule the world, and have every human submit to the government.

3.”Nothing against the state”. Any type of questioning the government is not to be tolerated. If you do not see things our way, you are wrong. If you do not agree with the government, you cannot be allowed to live and taint the minds of the rest of the good citizens.

The use of militarism was implied only as a means to accomplish one of the three above principles, mainly to keep the people and rest of the world in line. Fascist countries are known for their harmony and lack of internal strife. There are no conflicting parties or elections in fascist countries.”

Webster defines Fascism as:

“a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition”

To provide contrast, Google defines “Capitalism” as (Investopedia and Webster have similar definitions):

“an economic and political system in which a country’s trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, ***rather than by the state***”

Keep in mind these aren’t sources partial to the left or right. Now, the clearest distinction I know of between “left wing” and “right wing” is that the left leans more socialist whereas the right leans more capitalist.

From this we may confidently conclude that fascism, contrary to popular belief, is in fact a left-wing political philosophy. So any person who favors capitalism to socialism cannot be considered “fascist”. Keep this in mind before you label everyone you dislike as “fascist”.

understand

The left’s “anti-fascism” fascism to go along with it’s Diversity is Exclusion, Freedom is Slavery and Free Speech is Censorship. 🙂

But then again we are dealing with Zombies. So since Fascism is bad, and anyone who is a Left-Wing Zombie is Bad, there fore anyone who isn’t us is a “fascist”, right? 🙂

 

A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing

I have made my annual migration to the world’s largest Doctor Who Convention this weekend. Which is a joyous occasion. Despite being in LA-LA Land, California- the Granola State- where what isn’t fruits and nuts is flakes.

With largely British Labor (socialist) supporters.

So on one panel and in a guest reception there are few Trump (and Kelly Ann Conway) jokes, mostly just just harmlessly sheepish “alternate facts” quips and the like.

It was so sad that people actually voted for Trump because they hated Hillary. How could that possibly be!? 🙂

I felt like a Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing.

What would happen if they knew there was an evil bigoted, homophobic,racist, islamophobe in their midst?

<<Dramatic sting music>>

Would I violate their “safe space” (as one of the attendees mentioned about California and the other other sheep giggled to themselves about it).

I am not curious to find out though. This Wolf knows not to rile up Zombie Sheep.

Zombies have no memories of their former life. You wont see the undead trying to wash windows or do your taxes. All they know how to do is swarm and feed. Max Brooks

That’s the thing about zombies. They don’t adapt and they don’t think. Literally, you could have a zombie on one side of a chain link fence and you could be on the other side and they could be trying to get to you and six feet down could be an open door and they will not go through that door in the fence. That’s why they’re so scary. Max Brooks
I am outnumbered.
Because as we have seen over the past few months, liberals don’t really appreciate the values the say, they are creatures of emotions and “feelings” and those are mercurial at best.
So I don’t my flesh rendered from the bone by some Zombie Sheep in the name of “tolerance” and “diversity”.
Nor do I wish to be banned from my pilgrimage by being burned at the stake as a heretic.
So I will quietly enjoy myself. Be amused by the hypocrisy as always. And let sleeping sheep lie. Literally, lie. (don’t you just love English…)
Image result for conservative wolf in sheep's clothing

Image result for snowflake riot
“What it does is illustrate that they can be dealt with. But you can’t beat ’em. They’re not gonna be shamed. They’re not going to be shamed into stopping the coverage of conservatives as they do it. It’s going to continue. No matter what kind of shame you think they suffer in a contest like that — no matter how much money they lose, no matter how many of them get fired, no matter how many magazines or TV stations or newspapers get shut down — they are not gonna change. They are hard-core, leftists”–Rush Limbaugh (2012)
So it’s onto Day 2. Gotta get more Sheep Cloak out and blend in with all the other Zombies and not let them smell my White Privilege and my phobias and that stench of “racism” that just oozes out of my very being  (In their less than humble opinion)… 🙂
Engage Cloak.

The Shadow War

You knew a Grand Narcissist like King Obama would not take well to being deposed and ‘disrespected’.

He is a hard core ideologue for the cause. HIS Cause. The Left’s cause.

And the ends Justify the means.

Canada Free Press:Patience, strength and prayer will be needed to keep President Trump safe from any of the community organizer’s hidden boobytraps. Driven by an undying hatred of America, he had eight long years and ‘insider’ help to plant them.

His spies are everywhere and their loyalty is to the Cause.

“When former President Barack Obama said he was “heartened” by anti-Trump protests, he was sending a message of approval to his troops. Troops? Yes, Obama has an army of agitators — numbering more than 30,000 — who will fight his Republican successor at every turn of his historic presidency. And Obama will command them from a bunker less than two miles from the White House. (NY Post, Feb. 11, 2017)

This is Tribal Guerrilla Warfare. They are the Indians, and we are the Evil White Man and they aim to scalp us all.

American Thinker: On February 11, 2017, Paul Sperry, of the New York Post, reported on Barack Obama’s plans to continue his efforts to fundamentally transform our country.

Obama supports the demonstrations against President Trump and supports the efforts of “Organizing for Action,” a 501(c)(4) entity to attack the Trump presidency.  Sperry reported:

    … OFA activists helped organize anti-Trump marches across US cities, some of which turned into riots. After Trump issued a temporary ban on immigration from seven terror-prone Muslim nations, the demonstrators jammed airports, chanting: “No ban, no wall, sanctuary for all!”

    Run by old Obama aides and campaign workers, federal tax records show “nonpartisan” OFA marshals 32,525 volunteers nationwide. Registered as a 501(c)(4), it doesn’t have to disclose its donors, but they’ve been generous. OFA has raised more than $40 million in contributions and grants since evolving from Obama’s campaign organization Obama for America in 2013.

    OFA, in IRS filings, says it trains young activists to develop “organizing skills.” Armed with Obama’s 2012 campaign database, OFA plans to get out the vote for Democratic candidates it’s grooming to win back Congress and erect a wall of resistance to Trump at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue.

    It will be aided in that effort by the Obama Foundation, run by Obama’s former political director, and the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, launched last month by Obama pal Eric Holder to end what he and Obama call GOP “gerrymandering” of congressional districts.

    Obama will be overseeing it all from a shadow White House located within two miles of Trump. It features a mansion, which he’s fortifying with construction of a tall brick perimeter, and a nearby taxpayer-funded office with his own chief of staff and press secretary. Michelle Obama will also open an office there, along with the Obama Foundation.

Obama is not content to act as traditional former presidents, such as both presidents Bush, to retire and not comment on the conduct of the current president.

He is actively engaged to oppose the policies of President Trump.  The civility during the inauguration was all for show.

There is a political civil war in progress.  The Opposition Party of the Democrats/MSM does not accept Trump as the legitimate president.  It opposes  his Cabinet appointees on party lines and criticizes every move he makes.  Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer has announced that the Democrats will oppose Supreme Court nominee Gorsuch by demanding sixty (60) votes to confirm.

The Hollywood/Entertainment wing of the Opposition Party viciously attacks Trump as Nazi, as Hitler, at every opportunity.  It viciously attacked Kelly Conway, the first woman to run a winning presidential campaign, in the sick, demented  “Fatal Attraction” skit of Saturday Night Live.  Imagine running such sick skits against a liberal woman.

The Opposition Party smells blood because Trump fired General Flynn and failed to support him.  Schumer is calling for an independent prosecutor to do a criminal investigation of Flynn.  The Democrats want to derail Trump’s agenda by tying him up with the “Russia” issue.

The Office of Government Ethics (OGE) recommended discipline of Kellyanne Conway over her innocent remark about buying Ivanka Trump’s clothing.

Obama did not fire Hillary for using an unsecured email server, nor counseled her, nor did any Democrats call for an independent prosecutor when the FBI’s James Comey found that Hillary did not have “intent” to violate the laws.  But Conway and Flynn, who clearly had no intent to violate any laws, are attacked by the Opposition Party, and with little support from Republicans.  In fact, Republican Jason Chaffetz referred the Conway matter to the OGE.

The Republicans and Trump had better realize quickly that the Opposition Party is out to destroy the Trump presidency.  Trump should have supported a loyalist like General Flynn.  Hopefully he will support Conway and tell the OGE to investigate Hillary.

problemvalentines

Old Again

Still playing by their 1984, Alinsky & Nazi Playbook.

Diversity is Exclusion.

Tolerance is Intolerance.

The End Justify The Means. 🙂

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”–Josef Goebbels

Alinksy Rule 5: Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It’s hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.

Rule 6: A good tactic is one your people enjoy. “If your people aren’t having a ball doing it, there is something very wrong with the tactic.”

Rule 11: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it. Don’t try to attack abstract corporations or bureaucracies. Identify a responsible individual. Ignore attempts to shift or spread the blame.

Orwell: The horrible thing about the Two Minutes Hate was not that one was obliged to act a part, but that it was impossible to avoid joining in. Within thirty seconds any pretence was always unnecessary. A hideous ecstasy of fear and vindictiveness, a desire to kill, to torture, to smash faces in with a sledge hammer, seemed to flow through the whole group of people like an electric current, turning one even against one’s will into a grimacing, screaming lunatic. And yet the rage that one felt was an abstract, undirected emotion which could be switched from one object to another like the flame of a blowlamp.

valentines

 Proving once again that irony will never die, through their Resistance Movement, American Leftists have embraced George Orwell’s 1984. Let’s start with the biggie, let’s open with how truly Orwellian it is for the Left to pretend they are on the side of 1984’s angels.

After all, Orwell’s seminal work is a cautionary tale aimed directly at the king of all Leftists, Josef Stalin, at the immorality of stripping one’s individualism in service to the State — this includes the horrors  of an all-powerful central government (that knows what’s best for us), speech and thought policing, endless wars, and the elimination of the family and gender differences.

We conservatives are not without our flaws, but we most certainly are not the ones running around portraying a centralized federal government as the solution to every problem, policing language, brutalizing thought-apostates, seeking the destruction of religious faith, spewing anti-science nonsense about gender-fluidity, or doing everything possible to eliminate the nuclear family — including the replacement of the father with a government check. We are also not the ones ginning up endless race and gender wars based on viralized lies and hoaxed hate crimes

And if you’re looking for Big Brother, for a 24/7 television-monster relentlessly dedicated to destroying Thought Criminals, or anyone who dares threaten the power of central government, what do you think our national news media is? Have you noticed how our media ceaselessly hounds an individual until he or she says what the media demands they say? Have you heard of CNN? And if you’re looking for a Two Minutes Hate… click here.

It would be a few years before I read the novel, but I first saw Michael Radford’s brilliant film version of the Orwell classic the same year it was produced, in 1984. At the time, as engrossing as it was, the dystopian events depicted seemed preposterous. Here we were in the middle of Reagan’s golden-era. It is Morning in America and I’m supposed to worry about words being placed off limits, guys in dresses peeing next to my daughter, and the Christian Gospels being portrayed on 24/7 cable news s as bigotry?

Are you kidding me!?

No, Orwell wasn’t.

Nevertheless, I’ve saved my favorite irony for last… Where the Left got Orwell exactly correct.

Anyone who’s actually read 1984 knows that The Resistance (or The Brotherhood) is a honey trap, a creation of the Party used to snag Thought Criminals and lure potential troublemakers out into the open. In other words, there is no Resistance movement as-advertised, there is no organization dedicated to liberating the Individual. There is only the Party, there is only Big Brother.

Now take a good long look around and what you’ll see is the deeply-disturbing spectacle of the American Left using their own Resistance movement in the exact same way Big Brother did — to out dissenters, to crush the souls of dissenters, to make violence against dissent, to make an example of those who think in ways unapproved by the Party, to silence, humiliate and punish Thought Criminals. 

On giant, flat-screen monitors throughout the world, in-between their never-ending propaganda and lies and Fake News, the Big Brother of 24/7 cable news regularly presents a Two Minutes Hate with President Trump in place of Emmanuel Goldstein.

And you better believe that the all-powerful, all-seeing, all-knowing Party/Big Brother/Resistance is closely watching … watching to see if your hate is sincere enough, if you hate as much as you are required to hate, if you truly believe that 2 + 2 = Freedom Is Forcing a Christian to Bake a Gay Wedding Cake… and if you don’t,  you will be whisked off to the Ministry of Love where Room 101, and your personal destruction, awaits.

The good news is that we are still America, which means that the violence, intolerance, serial lies, and hate being spewed by the Resistance, will only backfire. (Daily Wire)

free-speech1

The First to Fall

Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals:

Rule 3: Whenever possible, go outside the experience of an opponent. Here you want to cause confusion, fear, and retreat.

Rule 4: Make opponents live up to their own book of rules. “You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.”

Rule 5: Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It’s hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.

Rule 6: A good tactic is one your people enjoy. “If your people aren’t having a ball doing it, there is something very wrong with the tactic.”

Rule 7: A tactic that drags on for too long becomes a drag. Commitment may become ritualistic as people turn to other issues.

Rule 8: Keep the pressure on. Use different tactics and actions and use all events of the period for your purpose. “The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. It is this that will cause the opposition to react to your advantage.”

But most especially:

Rule 11: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it. Don’t try to attack abstract corporations or bureaucracies. Identify a responsible individual. Ignore attempts to shift or spread the blame.

The Political Assassination of Michael Flynn

By

If we are to believe the Trump White House, National Security Adviser Michael Flynn just resigned because he lied about his conversations with Russia’s ambassador to the vice president. As White House senior counselor Kellyanne Conway told NBC’s “Today Show” on Tuesday: “Misleading the vice president really was the key here.”

That sounds about as credible as when the president told CIA employees that the media had invented the story about his enmity toward the spy agency, not even two weeks after he had taken to Twitter to compare the CIA to Nazis. It’s about as credible as President Donald Trump’s insistence that it didn’t rain during his inauguration. Or that millions of people had voted illegally in the election he just won.

The point here is that for a White House that has such a casual and opportunistic relationship with the truth, it’s strange that Flynn’s “lie” to Pence would get him fired. It doesn’t add up.

It’s not even clear that Flynn lied. He says in his resignation letter that he did not deliberately leave out elements of his conversations with Ambassador Sergey Kislyak when he recounted them to Vice President Mike Pence. The New York Times and Washington Post reported that the transcript of the phone call reviewed over the weekend by the White House could be read different ways. One White House official with knowledge of the conversations told me that the Russian ambassador raised the sanctions to Flynn and that Flynn responded that the Trump team would be taking office in a few weeks and would review Russia policy and sanctions. That’s neither illegal nor improper.  

What’s more, the Washington Post reported Monday night that last month Sally Yates, then the acting attorney general, had informed the White House that Flynn discussed sanctions with Kislyak and that he could be susceptible to blackmail because he misled Pence about it. If it was the lie to Pence that sunk Flynn, why was he not fired at the end of January?

 

A better explanation here is that Flynn was just thrown under the bus. His tenure as national security adviser, the briefest in U.S. history, was rocky from the start. When Flynn was attacked in the media for his ties to Russia, he was not allowed by the White House to defend himself. Over the weekend, he was instructed not to speak to the press when he was in the fight for his political life. His staff was not even allowed to review the transcripts of his call to the Russian ambassador.  

There is another component to this story as well — as Trump himself just tweeted. It’s very rare that reporters are ever told about government-monitored communications of U.S. citizens, let alone senior U.S. officials. The last story like this to hit Washington was in 2009 when Jeff Stein, then of CQ, reported on intercepted phone calls between a senior Aipac lobbyist and Jane Harman, who at the time was a Democratic member of Congress. 

Normally intercepts of U.S. officials and citizens are some of the most tightly held government secrets. This is for good reason. Selectively disclosing details of private conversations monitored by the FBI or NSA gives the permanent state the power to destroy reputations from the cloak of anonymity. This is what police states do.  

In the past it was considered scandalous for senior U.S. officials to even request the identities of U.S. officials incidentally monitored by the government (normally they are redacted from intelligence reports). John Bolton’s nomination to be U.S. ambassador to the United Nations was derailed in 2006 after the NSA confirmed he had made 10 such requests when he was Undersecretary of State for Arms Control in George W. Bush’s first term. The fact that the intercepts of Flynn’s conversations with Kislyak appear to have been widely distributed inside the government is a red flag.

Representative Devin Nunes, the Republican chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, told me Monday that he saw the leaks about Flynn’s conversations with Kislyak as part of a pattern. “There does appear to be a well orchestrated effort to attack Flynn and others in the administration,” he said. “From the leaking of phone calls between the president and foreign leaders to what appears to be high-level FISA Court information, to the leaking of American citizens being denied security clearances, it looks like a pattern.”

Nunes said he was going to bring this up with the FBI, and ask the agency to investigate the leak and find out whether Flynn himself is a target of a law enforcement investigation. The Washington Post reported last month that Flynn was not the target of an FBI probe.  

The background here is important. Three people once affiliated with Trump’s presidential campaign — Carter Page, Paul Manafort and Roger Stone — are being investigated by the FBI and the intelligence community for their contacts with the Russian government. This is part of a wider inquiry into Russia’s role in hacking and distributing emails of leading Democrats before the election.

Flynn himself traveled in 2015 to Russia to attend a conference put on by the country’s propaganda network, RT. He has acknowledged he was paid through his speaker’s bureau for his appearance. That doesn’t look good, but it’s also not illegal in and of itself. All of this is to say there are many unanswered questions about Trump’s and his administration’s ties to Russia.

But that’s all these allegations are at this point: unanswered questions. It’s possible that Flynn has more ties to Russia that he had kept from the public and his colleagues. It’s also possible that a group of national security bureaucrats and former Obama officials are selectively leaking highly sensitive law enforcement information to undermine the elected government.

Flynn was a fat target for the national security state. He has cultivated a reputation as a reformer and a fierce critic of the intelligence community leaders he once served with when he was the director the Defense Intelligence Agency under President Barack Obama. Flynn was working to reform the intelligence-industrial complex, something that threatened the bureaucratic prerogatives of his rivals.

He was also a fat target for Democrats. Remember Flynn’s breakout national moment last summer was when he joined the crowd at the Republican National Convention from the dais calling for Hillary Clinton to be jailed.

In normal times, the idea that U.S. officials entrusted with our most sensitive secrets would selectively disclose them to undermine the White House would alarm those worried about creeping authoritarianism. Imagine if intercepts of a call between Obama’s incoming national security adviser and Iran’s foreign minister leaked to the press before the nuclear negotiations began? The howls of indignation would be deafening.

In the end, it was Trump’s decision to cut Flynn loose. In doing this he caved in to his political and bureaucratic opposition. Nunes told me Monday night that this will not end well. “First it’s Flynn, next it will be Kellyanne Conway, then it will be Steve Bannon, then it will be Reince Priebus,” he said. Put another way, Flynn is only the appetizer. Trump is the entree.

He’s the sitting Peking Duck for the Preying Mantis of “Tolerance” and “Diversity”?

Divide and Conquer.
The Disloyal opposition from within and without.
upchuck

Typical

No I don’t mean Gov. Moonbeam being $12B in debt and crying for Federal money to fix the infrastructure he’s ignored to kiss the ass of Illegals…

typical

Robert Gehl reports that for being America’s first black president, there’s quite a lot that Barack Obama simply didn’t do that would help many African Americans.

He didn’t improving working conditions, he didn’t tackle crime in America’s biggest cities, and he almost completely ignored one the most important historical legacies of black culture in America.

Well, Donald Trump is trying to change that. He is drafting an executive order expected to help struggling Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU).

 

These schools have been a cornerstone in raising education standards and providing quality post-secondary education for thousands of black students. But due to competition, poor management, and a lack of endowments, many of these schools have had to close.

When Trump was in a meeting called by Omarosa Manigault, one of his advisors, he expressed disappointment that HBCUs were suffering so much. Trump was also moved at how poorly HBCUs fared under the Obama Administration. This piqued his interest, the Root reports, when a consultant told him “he could go down as one of the greatest presidents in modern history, and that his support of HBCUs was badly needed.”

Trump asked what he needed to do, and Omarosa —a Howard alum—reportedly said that she was working on an executive order, ostensibly to come out during Black History Month.

Though details are scarce, sources who speculate that the White House Initiative on HBCUs, housed under the Education Department under Obama, might be moved to be run out of the White House.

 

Omarosa, who had no comment on the report, did say, “I can, however, reinforce the president’s commitment to support historically black colleges and universities, as well as school choice, as he stated throughout the campaign.”

Barack Obama gave a commencement speech back in May at Howard University, considered the top black college in the country. The day before his speech, Johnny C. Taylor Jr., president of the Thurgood Marshall College Fund, an organization that advocates for HBCUs, said that Obama gets failing marks from most of the leaders of the country’s 100-plus institutions.

“Giving a speech at the end of an eight-year term during [which] the schools were permanently damaged doesn’t make up for it,” he said.

Maybe President Trump can fix that.

But don’t expect the Democrats or The Teacher’s Unions to do anything but hinder it.

villa

Head explodes from the Doublethink overload and the Thoughtcrime Alerts.

The dress was designed by Andre Soriano, a Filipino immigrant who came to our shores in search of the American dream.

“I’ve never been in the political area,” Soriano told The Hollywood Reporter. “However, it’s just so crazy that people are getting beat up because they voted for Trump.”

Mr. Soriano was inspired to create his masterpiece after watching the “Nasty Woman” protest in Washington, D.C.

“I am an American,” he told THR. “I moved here from the Philippines and I highly believed in the trueness of what this country can bring. It’s about bringing people together, that’s the message.”

It’s worth repeating that Mr. Soriano came to America legally.

Unfortunately, the red, white and blue dress is not available at Nordstrom’s, Sears or TJ Maxx. Sorry, fashionistas.

Liberals suffered a near melt-down on social media. Much of the vitriol is simply too vile to share in a family-friendly column.

I reached out to the Centers for Disease Control but they did not have any data on how many Grammy watch parties were ruined by triggered liberals.

Likewise, I cannot confirm reports that Staples Center set up emergency safe spaces for overly-sensitive, auto-tuned celebrities.

I will say this about Miss Villa – she’s got moxie – either that or she’s slap crazy.

Wearing a Donald Trump dress at the Grammys? Sweet mercy, America. That’s like showing up at a PETA protest eating a cheeseburger. (Todd Starnes)

Now THAT’s Marketing… 🙂

 

 

Scorched Earth

Folks…that Executive Order could have been written perfectly and Hobart would have still issued the stay and the 9th Circuit Court would have still upheld it. The situation is at exactly the same point it would have been if the order had been written by Ruth Bader Ginsburg and then issued thru President Trump. It’s scorched earth time. You know that.–Dennis Miller

The Left won’t settle for anything less than total destruction and then total control. It’s their way or burn it all down.

house-divided

And the Democrats want it to burn…They haven’t been this mad or crazied since we took their slaves away.

democrats-in-the-past

The following is a Thoughtcrime.

Thoughtcrime does not entail death: thoughtcrime IS death. (1.2.42-43)

The Party takes loyalty seriously, and does not tolerate any acts of subversion – even if they are mere thoughts.

 

Robert Gehl reports back in 1857, in a landmark decision, a Supreme Court packed with Democrats determined that not only was Dred Scott not a citizen, not only that he was property – but that black people might actually benefit from slavery.

It wasn’t until Republicans pushed through the 13th Amendment in 1865 that slavery was finally abolished in America. Democrats in the south tried to scuttle the new law with Jim Crow laws and other rules designed to keep blacks enslaved, but eventually that went down as well, writes Bill Federer at WorldNetDaily.

On Feb. 5, 1866, Republican Rep. Thaddeus Stevens introduced legislation to give former slaves “40 acres and a mule,” but Democrats opposed it, led by President Andrew Johnson. On April 9, 1866, Republicans in Congress overrode President Johnson’s veto and passed the Civil Rights Act of 1866, conferring rights of citizenship on freed slaves.

To force Southern states to extend state citizenship rights to former slaves, Republicans in the U.S. House passed the 14th Amendment, May 10, 1866, as did the Senate, June 8, 1866. One hundred percent of Democrats voted against it.

The 14th Amendment was adopted by the states on July 28, 1868.

Republican Rep. John Farnsworth of Illinois stated, March 31, 1871: “The reason for the adoption (of the 14th Amendment) … was because of … discriminating … legislation of those states … by which they were punishing one class of men under different laws from another class.”

This Democrat affinity for racism continued through the 19th century and into the 20th century.

Republican President Theodore Roosevelt stated Dec. 3, 1906: “White men are lynched, but the crime is peculiarly frequent in respect to black men. … Governor Candler, of Georgia, stated … ‘I can say of a verity that I have, within the last month, saved the lives of half a dozen innocent Negroes who were pursued by the mob, and brought them to trial in a court of law in which they were acquitted.’ As Bishop Galloway, of Mississippi, has finely said: ‘The mob lynches a Negro charged with rape will in a little while lynch a white man suspected of crime. Every Christian patriot in America needs to lift up his voice in loud and eternal protest against the mob spirit that is threatening the integrity of this Republic. …’”

Republican President Theodore Roosevelt continued: “There is but one safe rule … that is, to treat each man, whatever his color, his creed, or his social position, with even-handed justice. … Reward or punish the individual on his merits as an individual. Evil will surely come in the end to both races if we substitute for this. … Every lynching represents … a loosening of the bands of civilization. … No man can take part in the torture of a human being without having his own moral nature permanently lowered. Every lynching means just so much moral deterioration in all the children who have any knowledge of it, and therefore just so much additional trouble for the next generation of Americans.”

But it’s not just ancient history. Democrat President Woodrow Wilson segregated the Navy. Gen. Dwight Eisenhower had to overcome Democrat-led racism to arm black soldiers with guns.

Republican President Eisenhower ordered the desegregation of Washington, D.C., public schools after the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision. When Southern Democrat governors resisted desegregation, Republican Eisenhower sent in federal troops. Eisenhower forced integration by having federal soldiers escort black students.

In 1953, Republican Vice President Richard Nixon chaired a committee which sought to eliminate discrimination on the basis of race or color in the employment practices of government contractors. In 1957 and 1959, Republican President Eisenhower proposed civil rights bills to enforce the 15th Amendment, strengthening the rights of African-American to vote. Senate Democrats filibustered the bills and watered them down.

In 1959, when Southern Democrats demanded that any who violated the new civil rights bill should be tried before all-white Southern juries, Republican Vice President Richard Nixon gave the deciding Senate vote to kill the Southern amendment. Southern Democrats who opposed desegregation included former Ku Klux Klansman Sen. Robert Byrd and Gov. George Wallace.

After the Birmingham Children’s Crusade Protest, where police dogs and fire hoses were used against African-Americans, President John F. Kennedy called for a bill emulating the Republican Civil Rights Act of 1875.

Southern Democrats fervently opposed it, as Democrat Sen. Richard Russell in 1964: “We will resist to the bitter end any measure or any movement which would have a tendency to bring about social equality and intermingling and amalgamation of the races in our (Southern) states.”

Democrat Sen. Robert Byrd filibustered the Civil Rights Bill for 14 hours and 13 minutes on June 10, 1964.

Democrat Sen. Strom Thurmond stated in 1964: “This so-called Civil Rights Proposals, which the President has sent to Capitol Hill for enactment into law, are unconstitutional, unnecessary, unwise and extend beyond the realm of reason. This is the worst civil-rights package ever presented to the Congress and is reminiscent of the Reconstruction proposals and actions of the radical Republican Congress.”

The phrase “the bribe or the bullet” refers to positive or negative human motivations, like in the case of generations of past parents who motivated children with a piece of candy for obedience or a swat to the rear for disobedience.

From the Civil War to Lyndon Johnson, Southern Democrats were accused of engaging in negative motivation and intimidation tactics to keep African-Americans from voting.

As television and media coverage of these tactics grew, it resulted in bad press for the Democratic Party. Political strategists proposed a switch from “the bullet” to “the bribe,” from “intimidation” to “entitlement.”

In other words, if the African-American vote could no longer be suppressed, then maybe it could be manipulated and controlled through dependency on entitlement programs.

Even though Democrat senators filibustered the Civil Rights legislation nonstop for 71 days, from March 30 to June 10, President Lyndon Johnson persuaded the leaders of his party to support a compromised bill, which he signed July 2, 1964.

Then came LBJ’s “War on Poverty, which did more to harm the African-American community than any other federal program.

Beginning in the 1960s, educational emphasis migrated from strictly academic achievement to include more behavior modification. Voters who were less educated tended to be more easily manipulated, as foreshadowed in the pre-Civil War South where it was a crime to teach slaves to read.

An effort began to redefined “racism” to mean anyone opposing big government welfare programs.

In a tragic irony, growing dependency on government handouts appeared reminiscent of the dependency that existed on Southern Democrat plantations where slaves waited for handouts from their masters.

Media, music and entertainment began to increasingly be employed to stir passions and prejudices for political purposes, as President William Henry Harrison warned in his inaugural, 1841: “The understanding of men can be warped and their affections changed by operations upon their passions and prejudices.” (Federalist)

slaves1

And they don’t want anything less…

 

 

Extreme Vetting

Leftists pride themselves on their supposed tolerance. Left-leaning academics constantly identify the supposed authoritarian personality with refusal to hear other points of views or explore other ideas – but it’s the left that now seems committed to preventing ideological diversity at any cost.

hate-free-zone

Today’s example: Washington D.C. residents are requiring potential roommates to be screened by their 2016 vote.

According to The New York Times:

On Twitter, Reddit, Craigslist and in Facebook groups, people have been screening for Trump supporters since at least last fall. Such ads, more than a dozen of which have been posted on Craigslist since Inauguration Day, are only a fraction of the thousands of posts on the site, but they nonetheless represent a small act of defiance in an area that heavily favored Hillary Clinton and where residents have remained politically active since the election.

This, of course, is ridiculous. There are nice people all over the political spectrum. It would be foolish to marry someone diametrically opposed to your values, but sharing a flat with somebody and splitting the rent is a different story. But listen to the leftist whining over the possibility of having to talk politics with someone with a different point of view:

“I can’t live with someone who supports a ‘leader’ with those types of ideals,” Jessica, 32, a teacher who did not want her last name used because she feared harassment online, wrote in an email.

Which type of ideals, precisely? Trump is socially liberal. He’s not averse to big government. And just because somebody voted for Trump doesn’t mean he or she endorses everything Trump says or does. But she’s not the only leftist performing such extreme ideological vetting:

In one recent ad, a couple in the area who identified themselves as “open-minded” and liberal advertised a $500 room in their home: “If you’re racist, sexist, homophobic or a Trump supporter please don’t respond. We won’t get along.”

The best part of this particular ad is the open acknowledgment that you don’t have to be a racist, sexist, or homophobe to have voted for Trump – but you aren’t welcome if you voted for Trump nonetheless.

This is how today’s leftists think. If you voted differently from them, you must be cast out into the wilderness. Seek friends elsewhere. Seek acquaintances elsewhere. You are human refuse, and you must be banished from all human company.

There’s some irony here: the same people rip-roaring mad over the idea of extreme vetting for Muslim immigrants from terror-rich countries are using extreme vetting for their roommates to avoid having to talk with people who voted for Trump.

There is one problem for the left: there are a lot of people who disagree with them. If those people start applying the same rules, there won’t be much politics left, just a stark, unbridgeable gap that ends with the left out in the cold.

Or an ungovernable divide.

liberalism-in-5-easy-stepsbeing-liberal

Yikes!

7


BOOM! Ben Shapiro Lays Waste To Vapid Leftist In Transgender Debate…

Ben Shapiro. Let’s just say when it comes to debating, he’s no novice. If you’re a liberal and faced with Shapiro in a debate, seek ye cover. A yarmulke-clad legend is he. Despite Shapiro’s reputation for obliterating every progressive argument, leftists continue lining up to get smacked down. Actual, literal lines. Gluttons for punishment. They’re also gluttons for carbs and Netflix binges, but that’s beside the point here. Focus.

Ben recently took a cerebral axe to a naive leftist over the issue of TEH TRANSIES…

Conservative commentator Ben Shapiro used age to blow holes in the transgenderism argument during a recent appearance at Ferris State University in Big Rapids, Michigan.

Shapiro — after arguing with a young woman about how “gender is not disconnected from sex” — decided to pick a comparable category to prove his point.

“Let me ask you this. I won’t ask you how old – I will ask you how old you are, because you’re young enough that it’s probably not insulting to ask you,” he posed to the young woman, who responded, “I’m 22, so I’m probably a little bit naive, right?”

“No,” he continued. “Why aren’t you 60? Why aren’t you 60? Why can’t you identify as 60? What is the problem with you identifying as 60?”

“It’s not the same as gender,” the young woman countered. “You can’t just…”

“You’re right!” Shapiro shot back. “You can’t magically change your gender. You can’t magically change your sex. You can’t magically change your age.”

A civil disagreement…how rare is that. 🙂

 

Speed of Trump

gop-says-thanks

I get 30 minutes for lunch. Not a second more. I get 2 15 minute breaks during the work day. Period.

I don’t get luxury 5-star cafes.

I am not an elitist high brow.

I’m also not scared shitless of a Liberal Media that wants me to fail. But you are.

Go ahead, procrastinate, nibble at the edges, act like an 8 year facing a plate of broccoli and  don’t get anything done.

Then the Democrats will come back in 2018 and eat YOU for lunch because you didn’t really do anything and the American People will vote you out and the opportunity to save this country will be lost.

Timidity will get you nowhere. But if doing what you promised all these years is too much for you, I’m sure we can find a replacement who will.

I’m sure the Democrats would be happy to oblige.

dress1devos1

 

The Plant

Democrats lie, cheat, and steal. We all know that. Even in a debate that isn’t even in an election cycle because it was about their most prized possession, ObamaCare.

Last evening, liberal outlet CNN hosted a debate between conservative Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) and socialist Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT). Both candidates ran for President in 2016, and they appeared on the show to debate the future of Obamacare.

Cruz mopped the floor with Sanders’ outrageous socialist claims about healthcare being a “right.” He noted that as government takes over healthcare, the quality of service always goes down, with either higher prices or rationing.

 
 

One of the toughest questions came from a member of the audience, who asked:

“I have multiple sclerosis but could not afford insurance – without the treatment or medications i need, i had problems with walking, with my speech, and my vision. When the affordable care act was passed I moved from our home state of Texas because they refused to expand Medicaid to Maryland and within 2 weeks I started receiving treatments through Medicaid and am now well enough to work as a substitute teacher.”

Senator Cruz, can you promise me that you and the Republican leaders in congress will have – actually have a replacement plan in place for people like me who depend on their Medicaid? In other words, I like my coverage, can I keep it?

Here is video of the moment:

This heated moment went viral on Twitter, as the woman is clearly holding an email which says “Your Question.”

1question1question21question31question4

As Mediaite reports, CNN has changed and softened questions before:

Did CNN provide Hardaway with the copy for her question? Many asked the same question following a recent Town Hall event that the network hosted featuring Nancy Pelosi. A NYU student by the name of Trevor Hill asked Pelosi a question live on-air about the shifting demographics of the Democratic party as it pertains to capitalism, despite the fact that his initial question was supposed to be something else. In an interview with The Huffington Post, Hill recounted how it was a “fluffier” question he was tapped to ask.

So what happened here? Did CNN really plant a question in an attempt to make Ted Cruz look bad?

As anyone who has watched CNN during the first few weeks of the Trump administration knows, the outlet is definitely biased. But Cruz is a skillful debater and still won the townhall debate anyway!

But I’m sure the Left is still smug with their planted “Gotcha”n question because that’s what narcissists do.

After all, just yesterday I saw one of their scare tactic Obamacare will replaced with nothing commercials wanting you to brow beat the Republicans into keep ObamaCare.

It will be replaced by something else. It just won’t be what THEY wanted, so that might as well be nothing, right? 🙂

 

%d bloggers like this: