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

 

 

Advertisements

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