While Washington freaked out over the Congressional Budget Office’s verdict on the American Health Care Act (aka “Trumpcare”) and how cutting back health insurance would cost countless lives, the more interesting accounting came out of California. The dream of implementing single-payer health care across the Golden State came with a gobsmacking annual price tag: $400 billion, more than twice California’s annual budget.

So maybe this is a good opportunity to look for another homegrown solution to the problem of health care.

Loma Linda, Calif., has one of the highest life expectancies in the world. Residents there are 10 times more likely to live to 100 than typical Americans. The average male in Loma Linda lives to 89, the average woman to 91 — both about 10 years longer than the national average.

Before you make like Ponce de Leon and head there to find the Fountain of Youth, let me tell you there’s nothing in the water. Loma Linda is home to a thriving population of Seventh-day Adventists who place great stock in treating their bodies like temples. They don’t smoke, drink alcohol or eat meat, and they get lots of exercise.

So maybe we should make former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg czar, proscribe meat, tobacco and booze, and require North Korea-style calisthenics every morning before eating a mandatory breakfast of wholesome grains and raw vegetables.

No, we shouldn’t. But we can learn something from the Loma Linda residents.

Whenever the subject of health care comes up, advocates for more government involvement insist that America’s comparatively low life expectancy is a searing indictment of our dysfunctional insurance system. Sen. Bernie Sanders recently seized on Donald Trump’s statement that the Australians have a better insurance system by noting that Australians live longer, which is true. They live, on average, about three years longer than Americans.

But the gold standard of social organization for Sanders isn’t Australia. It’s Denmark. He often waxes lyrical about how Denmark has a different — and better — definition of freedom that, naturally, involves a cradle-to-grave socialist welfare state. Obviously, there’s a lot to debate there, but how does Denmark’s supposedly more enlightened approach translate in terms of life expectancy? The Danes live about a year and a half longer, on average, than Americans — or not quite as long as Australians.

And that “on average” conceals more than it reveals. A recent study by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation measured life expectancy by county across the United States. In 2014, a child born in Summit County, Colo., could be expected to live 86.83 years. The life expectancy of a child born in Ogala Lakota County in South Dakota, seat of the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation, is nearly 20 years shorter. Something tells me these discrepancies have much more to do with lifestyle than insurance.

Indeed, the chief reason American life expectancy lags — slightly — behind other developed countries has nothing to do with health care whatsoever. When the World Health Organization ranked America 19th out of 29 in life expectancy, Scott W. Atlas of the Hoover Institution pointed out that if you removed fatal car crashes and murders, the U.S. suddenly had the “world’s best life expectancy numbers.”

I can’t see how adopting Danish health care would affect driving habits or homicide rates. It’s also far from clear that government-provided health care does much to improve health generally. The Pine Ridge Lakota Indians already have it — in the form of the Indian Health Service. Of course, the IHS, like the Veterans Health Administration, has real problems. But a huge study of Medicaid expansion in Oregon found that, with the exception of depression diagnoses, increased health insurance yielded no significant improvement in health.

In 2016, when millions received coverage under Obamacare, American life expectancy went down for the first time in over 20 years. I’m not suggesting a causal relationship: Obamacare didn’t kill anyone. If it saved individuals’ lives here and there, that’s great. Still, those numbers vanish in the national data as anecdotes, not significant trends.

There are still good reasons to reform health care. But a little humility about what government can do, and the stakes involved, might be in order. (Jonah Goldberg)


The binary thinking (1-yes 0-no) of the Left and their absolute need to find offense and hatred 24/7 is exhausting. But, of course when you are as sanctimonious as they are and believe that only what they believe is right (1) and anything, ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING that disagrees with them on any level – real or imagined – is wrong (0) then you get stupid crap like this…

Wired Magazine: Discovery will focus on a callow commander (Sonequa Martin-Green) rather than a sophisticated captain, though we’re still getting the latter, too, played by the great Michelle Yeoh. Lantern-jawed cis-het white men have been rightly cleared off the bridge in favor of a team that more accurately reflects the galaxy (and Gene Roddenberry’s vision). New ship, new crew, new strange new worlds, new life, new civilizations. Beam me up.—Wired

After all, Gene hated Straight White Men…

George Takei (Sulu): Now these so-called trolls haven’t seen a single episode of the new series, because it hasn’t even aired…and they don’t know the history of Star Trek … Gene Roddenberry created this with the idea of finding strength in our diversity. And the delight of life in diversity. So they don’t know what they are talking about.

Now remember, kiddies, these are the “tolerant” people and anyone who disagrees with them is a “troll”, “racist”, “sexist”, “Homophobe”, etc… 🙂


New Yorker Magazine:

For Alt-Right Trolls, “Star Trek: Discovery” Is an Unsafe Space

How Dare You!

The fascist Politically Anal Correctness crowd has scored another hit for “tolerant” intolerance.

From The Washington Post:

Should white chefs sell burritos? A Portland food cart’s revealing controversy

May 26

Portland, Ore., has become the epicenter in a growing movement to call out white people who profit off the culinary ideas and dishes swiped from other cultures.

In the days since two white women were shamed into shutting down their pop-up burrito cart after telling a reporter that they had “picked the brains of every tortilla lady” in Puerto Nuevo, Mexico, Portland has become all but fed up with cultural appropriation within its city limits. One writer has stated, flat out, that “Portland has an appropriation problem,” going on to explain (the boldface emphasis is the writer’s):

Because of Portland’s underlying racism, the people who rightly own these traditions and cultures that exist are already treated poorly. These appropriating businesses are erasing and exploiting their already marginalized identities for the purpose of profit and praise.

Someone in the City of Roses has even created a Google doc, listing the white-owned restaurants that have appropriated cuisines outside their own culture. For each entry, the document suggests alternative restaurants owned by people of color. One “Appropriative Business” is Voodoo Doughnut, the small doughnut chain accused of profiting off a religion thought to combine African, Catholic and Native American traditions.

Cunductor71 (in comments):

Vendors should be required to prove their genetic heritage through DNA testing and only sell food that matches their profile. I’m half Russian, quarter German, and quarter Scottish. So half my sales can only be knishes and Syrniki and the other half equally divided between Fischbrötchen and haggis.
Sounds like a demand The Left would want…
And does that mean only a Cajun can make Gumbo??

Who can’t identify with a campaign to support the people whose voices are muffled in a culture still dominated by white males?

I Can’t. Because I’m a rational human being. 🙂

Some immigrants might take this the wrong way coming from a white guy from the Midwest, who works at a mainstream newspaper, no less. Yet, I must confess that I have trouble accepting this all-or-nothing mission to pry white chefs’ fingers from any dish not of their own culture. Part of it has to do with the country we share, a land of immigrants, whose food is available to anyone with even a tiny sense of curiosity. A white diner is bound to fall in love with some of it.

That’s is what diversity and learning from it means. Not Diversity is Exclusion.

The problem, of course, is not that a white diner falls in love with an immigrant cuisine. It’s that a white person profits from the cuisine or, more troublesome for many, becomes the leading authority on it, rather than a chef born into the culture.

Yeah, people who study hard and embrace the culture and the traditions is a bad thing.

I’m thinking specifically about chefs and/or authors such as Rick Bayless (with Mexican cuisine), Andy Ricker (with Thai food) and Fuchsia Dunlop (with Sichuan cooking). Bayless, a James Beard Award winner multiple times over, has faced the question of cultural appropriation so often, he once wondered aloud if it’s a matter of reverse racism.

It is. It’s also whiny ass PC idiocy. If you can only stomach a Mexican Chef who must be Mexican first and only, well, you watch or patronize Aron Sanchez and leave the rest of us the hell alone.

Bayless’s response didn’t go over well in some corners, in part because he sounded so whiny, as Gustavo Arellano wrote for the O.C. Weekly. Despite Bayless’s apparently thin skin, Arellano supports the chef’s work:

And as I’ve written before — hell, I wrote a whole book about it arguing this next point — anyone who loves Mexican food should thank gabachos for their insatiable desire for chili, nachos, tacos, micheladas, fajitas and all the “Mexican” food trends that have swept across the U.S. over the past 125-plus years. Without them, both the gabacho consumer and the cook, Mexican food in this country would be as remarkable as sauerkraut.

In fact, Krishnendu Ray, an associate professor and chair of the Department of Nutrition, Food Studies and Public Health at New York University, argues in favor of cultural appropriation, but only if the outsiders embrace more than the plate of food sitting in front of them.

“If you pay attention to the food and to the language and to their lives, that is not a colonizing act,” Ray told The Washington Post’s Lavanya Ramanathan. “I, in general, do not think appropriation is a bad thing. There’s all this discussion about cultural appropriation. Should we all be imprisoned in our little holes, with our cultural walls, completely closed off to others? If you are eating another’s food, engaging with their lives, engaging with their ways of conceiving the world, that is a welcome engagement. That is how newness enters the world.”

But Diversity is Exclusion.

Ray’s position starts to get to the heart of my own feelings on the subject. Accusations of cultural appropriation are often grounded in an underlying assumption: that privileged white folks contribute nothing to the culture from which they steal. The two white women in Portland were accused, for instance, of not compensating the Mexican women who shared some of their tortilla secrets. On that micro scale, I suspect there are indeed countless interactions between curious white chef and immigrant home cook that go unrewarded to the latter, all in the name of research.


But on a macro scale, the involvement of white chefs and restaurateurs with foreign cuisines can benefit all. Take Josh Phillips, a white partner in Espita Mezcaleria, a Shaw establishment dedicated to the food and drink of Oaxaca. The “vast majority” of Espita’s roughly 65-member staff is Mexican, Phillips says. They’re paid decently, and all full-timers are offered health benefits. The restaurant employs not just one full-time tortilla maker, but four of them.

Those tortilla makers use only heirloom corn from Mexico. Phillips says 99 percent of it comes directly from Oaxaca. Before he even opened Espita, Phillips made a promise to mezcaleros in Oaxaca never to sell mezcal from corporate distillers. “I want to make sure there is an economic impact on mezcaleros,” he adds.

To my ears, this sounds more like cultural ambassadorship than cultural appropriation. And like it or not, as Francis Lam noted several years ago for the New York Times, U.S.-born chefs and restaurateurs have easier access to the media than their foreign-born counterparts. They have, in other words, the ability to sing the praises of Mexican, Thai, Sichuan or whatever cuisine they love. There is power in that, which should not be dismissed out of hand by those quick to decry cultural appropriation at every turn.

So it’s about money, then, eh? If the poor people don’t share in the success it’s “appropriation”??

What a crock.

In this day and age we enjoy a diversity of food choices that were unheard of even 15-20 years ago. That diversity is because of “appropriation” which is actually APPRECIATION but the Politically Correct are so fascist, controlling, petty, and sanctimonious they can see the Diversity for the Exclusion.

Having Low Friends in High Places

An Obama-appointed judge has tossed a lawsuit against Hillary Clinton filed by the families of the Benghazi victims. The families of Sean Smith and Tyrone Woods allege that the former first lady was guilty of negligence and intentional emotion harm in their wrongful death suit that was filed in August of 2016. In September of 2016, we found out that Clinton’s aides straight up ignored the suit and refused to comply with the summons. In the end, U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson, who was nominated by Obama in 2010, felt that Mrs. Clinton was not at fault concerning the allegations brought against her (via Washington Times):

Mrs. Clinton neither enabled the Benghazi attack by using her now-infamous private email server nor defamed its victims’ parents afterwards, U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson ruled Friday in Washington, D.C., casting aside claims raised on behalf of parents of slain State Department information officer Sean Smith and late CIA operative Tyrone Woods.

The Smith and Woods families sued Mrs. Clinton last August in D.C. federal court alleging she caused their sons’ deaths by discussing sensitive State Dept. matters over an insecure, nongovernmental email system while secretary of state, supposedly providing terrorists with information used to plot the Sept. 11, 2012 ambush, according to the lawsuit.


“The Court finds that Secretary Clinton was acting in the scope of her employment when she transmitted the emails that are alleged to give rise to her liability,” Judge Jackson‘s 29-page opinion reads in part. “The untimely death of plaintiffs’ sons is tragic, and the Court does not mean to minimize the unspeakable loss that plaintiffs have suffered in any way. But when one applies the appropriate legal standards, it is clear that plaintiffs have not alleged sufficient facts to rebut the presumption that Secretary Clinton was acting in her official capacity when she used her private email server.”

In September 2012, Mr. Woods and Smith were killed in a terrorist attack against the U.S. compound in Benghazi, Libya. It became a controversial subject for the Obama administration since it undercut their narrative that al-Qaeda was on the run; the group who executed the attack—Ansar al-Sharia—is affiliated with the international terror group. Things became worse for the Obama White House when then-U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice did the full Ginsburg on September 16, 2012, going on every major Sunday morning talk show to label the attack as a spontaneous reaction to an anti-Muslim YouTube video. That was a lie. The attack was coordinated and planned in advance. (Matt Vespa)

Local Boy Goes Rogue

I’m going local today. Because on Thursday an idiot thought it would be fun to hunt cops at a Pop Culture Convention here in Phoenix.

Because of that, people were standing out in the heat for hours just to get in because of security concerns.

Justifiable concerns, but having your escapist fun interrupt by a nutcase is not desirable.

This is how we effect others. Also, several of the celebrity guests gave advice that is very counter-snowflake. So it was a fascinating day.

Gunman Arrested at Phoenix Comicon Claimed He’s The Punisher and Wanted to Kill Jason David Frank

Note: Jason David Frank for the uninitiated is famous for being the original Green Ranger from Mighty Morphin’ Power Rangers (1990’s). He is one of those guests I was alluding to in my intro. He uses his celebrity to inspire people. He strives everyday to “remain humble” because he is not in for the money, he has a passion for trying to inspire people. He’s one of those evil Christians. He told a story about he sold his extensive comic book collection at 18 to open his first Dojo (Martial Arts studio) to mentor people in the Martial Arts.
He was inspired to the Martial Arts by his father an his Sensei (Master)
He says “I can” not “I can’t”. He wants you to also.
I wish I was that good.
He’s a good natured preachy about it. A bit Yoda -like. Very Mr. Myagi (Karate Kid).
Yesterday at his panel was the 3rd Time I’ve seen at a panel.
This is a celebrity worth seeing, not some whacked narcissist like Arianne Grande or Amy Schumer.
It’s a sad world we live in where the worst are the ones we look up to, and the best are not.
Phoenix Comicon has had some severe growing pains this past year and this did not help. They have a lot of thinking to do.

More details are emerging regarding Matthew Sterling, the Valley resident arrested at Phoenix Comicon on Thursday, May 25, with a cache of weapons.

And the information is both surreal and disturbing, to say the least.

According to court documents, the 31-year-old Mesa resident told Phoenix Police detectives that he was a real-life version of famed Marvel Comics vigilante The Punisher. He also stated that he would kill “bad police officers” if need be to protect himself or his friends.

Both revelations were included in court documents, specifically a lengthy probable cause statement written by detectives who interviewed Sterling after his arrest. The statement also detailed how he slipped past security and was apprehended by police.

He later told police in an interview that he believed the signs and law prohibiting weapons at the venue did not apply to him, according to court paperwork.

I wonder where he got ideas like that? 🙂

New Times has also learned that Sterling allegedly wanted to kill Mighty Morphin Power Rangers actor Jason David Frank (a special guest at this year’s Phoenix Comicon) and claimed he had a vendetta against the star.

Phoenix P.D. arrested Sterling at the Phoenix Convention Center. He was in possession of three handguns, a shotgun, a combat knife, pepper spray, and throwing stars.

According to the probable cause statement, Sterling (who was wearing black tactical pants, a red bandanna, black face paint, and a shotgun bandolier) entered the convention center and avoided the venue’s security, as well as one of of the peace-bonding stations for inspecting prop weapons. He then proceeded to the second floor. 

One of Phoenix Comicon's security checkpoints that were in place on Thursday.

One of Phoenix Comicon’s security checkpoints that were in place on Thursday.
Benjamin Leatherman

Sterling was reportedly in contact with a female acquaintance from Hawthorne, California, via text message and Facebook.

After learning of Sterling’s alleged intent to have a “showdown” with cops and seeing that Sterling had posted on Facebook photos of officers at Comicon, she alerted law enforcement of the situation.

Police located Sterling sitting on a bench while reading Comicon’s programming guide. A struggle ensued as cops “immediately began to control [his] hands due to the numerous weapons they saw he had on his person.”

Sterling reportedly resisted, tore off one officer’s Phoenix P.D. patch, and “pushed his full body weight against the bench he was sitting on so he could not be moved.”

A number of officers eventually subdued Sterling, who was taken to police headquarters to be interviewed by detectives.

According to prosecutor Ed Leiter of the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, who was present at Sterling’s initial court appearance on Friday, the 31-year-old suspect allegedly fessed up about his plans.

Sterling offered “numerous fantastical stories” to detectives, Leiter says, including tales of “bad police officers” and an alleged history with Frank.

Sterling allegedly told detectives that he believes there are certain cops — he calls them “Aphrodite officers” — who have “kind faces in uniform” but are ultimately bad. Apparently, he also would’ve shot the cops that arrested him if he determined they were “Aphrodite officers.”

In regards to Frank, Leiter stated at Sperling’s court hearing that the suspect untended to attack and potentially kill the actor. The prosecuter also noted that Sterling’s phone had a reminder set for Thursday to “Kill JDF” at Comicon.

According to Leiter, Sterling reportedly told detectives that he stabbed the actor 15 years prior and was at Phoenix Comicon to “finish the job.”

“He exhibited a dramatic threat to the community beyond police officers, beyond Jason David Frank,” Leiter stated. “A number of other people were referenced as possible targets or people he wanted to kill.”

Here’s the complete text of the probably cause statement (with paragraph breaks added for readability):










Sterling was charged with attempted murder, resisting arrest, multiple counts of aggravated assault, carrying a weapon in a prohibited place, and wearing body armor during the commission of a felony.

A judge set a $1 million bond in the case. Sterling is due back in court on the matter in early June.

Sterling was also booked for three counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, wearing body armor during the commission of a felony, resisting arrest and carrying a weapon in a prohibited place.

I’m sure because he’s white and wielding guns the Left will go nuts over this, as they do everything that is on their agenda.
Another escapist joy in life by one person.
The Needs of the many do outweigh the needs of the one. 🙂

From Charlie to UPChuck

Charlie Daniels

By Charlie Daniels |

Senator Chuck Schumer (Wikimedia Commons Photo)

Sen. Schumer, I don’t live in your constituency, but in the larger picture, you live in mine and every other legal, taxpaying American citizen who is affected by the power you hold in your political party, your blind allegiance to it and the obstructionist posture to anything that doesn’t directly benefit it.

There’s something sinister about seeing you bent over the lectern in the Senate Chamber, your countenance resembling what I would imagine Edgar Allen Poe’s would look like reciting one of his macabre tales of doom and gloom, as if there is not one drop of happiness in your life, forecasting a dismal future for America if anything President Trump proposes passes both houses, is signed and becomes law.

I know you’re disappointed. I know you had the balloons ready to fall and the corks halfway out of the champagne bottles on election night. And I know you just can’t face the truth that what happened in the election was exactly the same thing you continue to do: you forgot about the working people; you forgot about the empty factories of the rust belt; you took for granted the high crime, low employment inner cities you’ve made unkept promises to for decades.

Instead of looking inward at the real cause for your party’s loss, you had to find a scapegoat, and if it hadn’t been Russia, it would have been something else.

Sen. Schumer, will you do me and America a favor? Will you lay your hand on a Holy Bible and tell America that you believe in your heart that Donald Trump has actually colluded with Vladimir Putin and the Russian government to the detriment of the United States of America?

You see, sir, everything you’ve come up with so far, and you’ve been at it since well before the election, has been superficial. And I believe that anything your special counsel will come up with will also be superficial, guilt by association, the fires of triviality fanned and proliferated by a tilted, hate-filled media and super partisan politicians.

Sen. Schumer, what goes around truly does come around, and if, or should I say when, this pendulum starts swinging back the other way, do you realize that Mr. Mueller could actually find a lot more dirt on prominent Democrats than they do Trump and his staff?

You have opened Pandora’s Box, sir, and basically thrown away the lid.

Now it’s time to chop the log and let the chips fall where they will.

If President Trump has actually colluded with the Russians or any other foreign government, or sold out my beloved nation in any way, I definitely want to know about it, and if he has, he should be impeached and thrown out of office in disgrace. But right now, you’re a hell of a long way from proving even one iota of your accusations.

Now let’s turn this coin over.

Did or did not Hillary Clinton sign off on allowing a Russian agency to purchase a company holding up to 20 percent of America’s uranium production capacity?

Who leaked the classified information that started this ball rolling? For the investigation to be valid, that has to come out.

Did Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton’s State department, through incompetence, indifference or both, allow four American citizens to die in Benghazi?

Be careful how you answer this one because the jury and some explosive evidence are still out there, and it all could well be brought to light in a few months.

Did or did not Hillary Clinton, by using an unsecured server and allowing Huma Abedin to email copies to her husband, Anthony Weiner, expose classified documents?

Was there collusion between the Obama administration and the IRS to disallow tax free status to conservative organizations?

If not, why did Lois Lerner plead the Fifth Amendment and retire with full benefits?

You see, sir, Pandora is neither a Democrat nor a Republican, and what is revealed in the coming months could well be a two-edged sword.

Be careful what you wish for.

What do you think?

Pray for our troops, our police and the peace of Jerusalem.

God Bless America

Charlie Daniels

Skunk Stink

Derek Hunter:

Democrats told us climate change would mean the end of snow. Although that clearly didn’t happen, the political environment sweeping college campuses may well mean the end of delicate snowflakes – the safe space-seeking crybabies so insulated from reality that the very existence of contrary worldviews causes them to need new underpants. Their future should, and probably will, mean a lot of time in their parents’ basement.

In the political world there are few people as decent as Vice President Mike Pence. Whether you agree with him politically is irrelevant – he has a reputation for treating staff, fellow members and all around him with respect.

In a season of protests, turned backs and riots over speeches, that’s what made the “walk-out” protest against the vice president’s commencement address at Notre Dame so pathetic. This tiny minority of entitled babies could not fathom the concept of being respectful to someone who exists with opposing opinions speaking on topics unrelated to politics.

That these snowflakes showed such disrespect to anyone is not that surprising; across the country there are hundreds of thousands of these fragile, delicate flowers incurring insurmountable debt to learn the crippling skill of not being able to cope with adulthood.

These “social justice” temper tantrums are getting to the point where the actions of a few can taint everyone. Honestly, who in their right mind would hire someone who went to the University of California at Berkeley knowing what that crockpot of crackpots produces? Unless, of course, that person was head of the Berkeley College Republicans, and even then you would have to wonder.

Could you imagine the potential nightmare of having one of these hyper-“woke” mutants in your office? It’d be like inviting a member of the Gestapo or KGB into your work – ready, willing, and able to report you to the boss for any “microaggression.” No way.

The problem for the normal people graduating from these progressive petri dishes of outrage is they’re being splattered with the skunk-stink of guilt by association. I wouldn’t hire any recent graduate from Berkley, Notre Dame, Mizzou, Bethune-Cookman, and countless others because I wouldn’t want to risk pulling a rotten egg from the carton.

This attitude is, undoubtedly, the minority right now, but it’s not unique to me and it will spread. As it does, and hopefully before it does, there will be growing pressure on the normal students who are there just to get an education – the “silenced majority,” if you will, frightened into quiet – to speak out to protect their futures.

I have no incentive to help them, and neither do you (unless one of them is your kid). They have to help themselves. That could be the greatest lesson they learn in college – to stand up to an unruly mob of brats disrupting the calm for the sake of their own egos.

Until then they will be collateral damage. They will have jobs not offered to them because people simply don’t want the potential headache. If a short inspirational speech from the vice president of the United States is something you can’t handle, you probably aren’t ready for a job.

Deadlines will send these snowflakes under their desks, and companies don’t have designated huggers for when the boss isn’t happy (at least not yet, and God help us if they ever do). Who wants to be around them as adults when they finally emerge from their cocoon and realize years after most do that they aren’t special? Not only aren’t they special, but until they actually do something, if they ever do, they’re very, very ordinary.

I pity them in one respect. Many took out huge loans they’ll be paying for the rest of their lives for the privilege of being lied to. I would’ve lied to them for half the price, and I would’ve smacked them across the face with a dead fish upon graduation and told them most of what they learned was a waste and overpaying for a bachelor’s degree was just the first in a long series of mistakes they’re going to make in life.

That it is not what they’ve done to this point that will define who they are and what they do going forward. And to get the hell over themselves so they can get out of their own way because that is their only hope for success.

They would’ve booed me, turned their backs and walked out in disgust. But at least they couldn’t say they weren’t warned.

The vice president was much more generous and kind than I would’ve been, and they still walked out on him. But hey, at least they didn’t torch the place. That’s something, I guess.

Congratulations and good luck to the silenced majority. You’re leaving the place now where the tyrants tried to keep you quiet. Don’t be quiet anymore. Your future depends on it. And to the snowflakes, welcome to reality. Hope your parents have a comfortable couch.

The Lust for Power

I learned something yesterday. Or more accurately, reaffirmed something yesterday.

Democrats and Unions are evil bastards. Their lust for power and control is as insatiable as it is predatory.

I flew back to my hometown of Flint, MI (yes the “water” place- but that’s only the tip of this titanic iceberg). And now Wednesday morning I am going home one day early because the place gives me the creeps like it did 30 years ago when I left Michigan.

I have been here since 1983. When Flint was the unemployment capital of the United States.

It’s even worse now. The city is a shell of it’s former glory. Did you know there is not one movie theatre in the city limits. the one and only in “Flint” is in what is called the Township area outside the technical city limits. 2 More in the suburbs. That’s it!

A town that was 250,000 people and the 4th largest city in Michigan when I was a kid and it was already starting to show the rot set in by the Democrats and the Unions that controlled it.

Now, it’s 90,000+ and expected to dwindle into the 60’s by 2040. This is a town when no purpose and no hope. Thanks, guys.

The Democrats and The Unions have moved on from here. From where they started. You see this is where Unions started. Other than Detroit, this is where the automobile started.

This was a boomtown once. Now it’s barely a ghost of a town.

A great example of this from a childhood memory around 1976. The UAW was in the midst of it’s 1970s piss fights with GM. They took turns massacring each other. The Union would go on strike for more money and benefits, cost GM lots of money. GM would concede eventually, then they’d layoff thousands of people. Who would later be re-hired. Meanwhile, both negotiated sweetheart deals that would benefit no one but themselves in the long run.

Around 1976 or so I remember vividly that the UAW’s latest strike for “more pay” was because they were only making $28/hr. In 2017 terms that’s well over $100/hr. And they were pissed.

That was the kind of routine I grew up with. And it’s still alive and well today.

This is a good summation:

So the Democrat lust for power (and RINOs) is insatiable and like a giant succubus will suck the life out of anything to continue its quest for ultimate power and control.

That’s is the lesson for today, kiddies.

There was the eight-story Smith-Bridgman department store — the lavishly decorated place for children to see Santa Claus. There were The Fair, J.C. Penney and, just north of downtown, Sears. There was latecomer Montgomery Ward, which opened in 1965.

Sears and Woolworth left for the new Genesee Valley mall in 1970. Which is now a shell of its former self. I know, it was The Mall of my High School Years.


Here it is yesterday.


Genessee Valley Center Mall. Straight out of the 1970s…

The Montgomery Ward building is still there. But it’s been abandoned since the 1980s and is now a Court building. I saw it yesterday. It was the bus stop I got off at in Downtown every day of High School. You see, my High School was in Downtown. Now, its a parking lot.

They even renamed Detroit St., Martin Luther King St. 😦

Image result for downtown flint,michigandowntown
A People, a Town, is a terrible thing to waste.
But the Liberal succubus has to move on…

Between a Rock and a RINO

This is probably a smart political move by the White House, to be honest, even though it will please neither side of this debate. By way of background, the Obama administration started paying bailout-style cost-sharing subsidies to insurers under Obamacare, reimbursing carriers for some of the costs associated with lowering expenses and deductibles for certain lower-income consumers.  House Republicans sued, contending that Congress never appropriated those billions of dollars, rendering the program illegal. Thus, Trump is faced with a dilemma: Either (a) side with Obama’s possibly-illegal scheme in the name of preventing even more disruption in the law’s marketplaces — or (b) side with Republicans by ending the program, which would instantly result in double-digit premium hikes and prompt even more insurer departures.  Amid reports that the president was leaning toward the latter option, the White House has reportedly chosen door number three:

The Trump administration and House of Representatives Monday asked a federal court for another 90-day delay in a lawsuit over Obamacare insurance subsidies, undermining the future of the health care marketplaces as insurers look for certainty from the government before committing to offer coverage next year. “The parties continue to discuss measures that would obviate the need for judicial determination of this appeal, including potential legislative action,” the House and White House wrote to the court. If the request is approved, the parties would have to file another update in 90 days. “We continue to work with the Trump administration on a solution,” said AshLee Strong, spokeswoman for Speaker Paul Ryan. The suit, House v. Price, centers on Obamacare’s cost-sharing program, which reimburses health insurers to help low-income people make co-payments at the doctor or hospital. The case was brought by House Republicans during the Obama administration. But the case has taken on added significance as Republicans try to repeal the health law: without the $7 billion in payments, insurers say they cannot remain afloat in the Obamacare markets.

Legally speaking, Obamacare opponents believe these payments, which they see as unlawful, should be cancelled. Politically, it’s not so simple, and that’s by design. Yanking back those un-appropriated dollars may be the correct constitutional move, but it would have an immediate and harmful impact on the existing system. Maddeningly, this is something of a perverse win-win for Democrats. If Trump declines to uproot Obama’s unauthorized program, a controversial aspect of Obamacare remains intact, now with the imprimatur of a Republican administration attached to it. Insurers and some patients would benefit, at least in the short term. But if Trump were to vitiate the program, Democrats would have a field day. They’d blast the White House for its “mean-spirited” decision to screw over low-income Obamacare consumers, they’d demand that the Republican Congress formally allocate the disputed dollars (pressuring Republicans into a “fix” that would infuriate the base), and they’d proceed to blame all inevitable future Obamacare meltdowns on the GOP. We all know that the failing law is bound to keep failing, with even higher rates and even fewer options for consumers on the horizon in 2018. Democrats have already trotted out the lame talking point that the law (for which they are 100 percent responsible) is being “undermined” by Republican-fueled “uncertainty.”

In reality, this downward spiral long pre-dates the Trump presidency, and the same exact problems would still beset Democrats’ partisan healthcare scheme if Hillary Clinton had won the election. The dysfunctional dynamics that are sinking Obamacare are inherent to the fundamentally and fatally flawed law. If Trump pulls the rug out from under insurers in an even more jarring way by abruptly ending his predecessor’s questionable reimbursement mechanism, the resulting negative outcomes will be entirely laid at Republicans’ feet. Critics could then more persuasively argue that the anti-Obamacare party owns part of the Obamacare mess. With the administration on the defensive after two brutal weeks of PR, and with Trump abroad on his first international trip as president, the White House has apparently chosen not to pick a massive new fight with Democrats at the moment. Can, kicked. One of the arguments Team Trump is likely to employ to defend this delay is that the Senate is currently doing its work on the House-passed healthcare bill, so it’s more prudent to let that process play out, rather than throwing a politically-volitile grenade into the mix while those delicate negotiations are underway. Speaking of which, everyone involved is waiting on the CBO’s score of the latest AHCA version, which could conceivably require the House to rejigger the bill and take another vote. Gulp.

Meanwhile, Republican lawmakers continue to be physically threatened and menaced over their efforts to keep an oft-repeated campaign promise to clean up Democrats’ deteriorating healthcare disaster. The status quo is failing badly and hurting millions of people — and the pain is going to get significantly worse, even if Trump doesn’t touch Obama’s cost-sharing provision. The House bill is flawed and needs improving, but angry constituents lambasting members of Congress (watch this recap of Rep. Tom MacArthur’s fury-filled forum) over the AHCA’s supposed outrages (“failing” to protect people with pre-existing conditions, or “making” rape a pre-existing condition) are misguided, ignorant or dishonest. (Guy Benson)

But lying for their agenda and spreading fear  is very Leftist.

Fundamentally Wrong

But they don’t care. The Narrative is the Narrative. The Agenda is The Agenda.
“And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed – if all records told the same tale – then the lie passed into history and became truth. “Who controls the past,” ran the Party slogan, “controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.” And yet the past, though of its nature alterable, never had been altered. Whatever was true now was true from everlasting to everlasting. It was quite simple. All that was needed was an unending series of victories over your own memory. “Reality control,” they called it: in Newspeak, “doublethink.”1984 By George Orwell.

There’s Something Fundamentally Wrong With Liberals
That liberals are hypocrites is not news. Just take a look at the net worth of any Democratic Party leader who routinely rails against the “1 percent.” But in the age of Trump, where the hatred that normally drives what we’re told is the “tolerant” left has been turned up to 11. All standards have gone out the window; no hypocrisy is too great, no conspiracy theory too insane for someone on the left to advance it and its drone army to believe.

It must be easy to be a liberal in 2017. You don’t have to think for yourself. You don’t have to prove anything. And your life can swirl in a bubble where you’ll never have anything you say challenged in a serious way. Liberals have become the bad guy in Lethal Weapon 2 – their membership in the progressive club grants them a sort of diplomatic immunity from reality.

The same people who cheered the release of traitor Bradley Manning after serving only seven of 35 years for giving thousands of classified national security secrets to Wikileaks clutch their pearls to this day over the same website publishing unclassified emails from the Clinton campaign.

Is Wikileaks evil or righteous? Do they support the information it receives only if that information damages national security and puts American lives at risk? Sure seems like it.

When it comes to conspiracy theories, the left has become the Fox Mulder of politics. There is nothing beyond the pale or too insane to be advanced…as long as it is against a Republican. If it’s not, if it’s critical of the left, it’s dismissed as paranoia.

I’ve never written or spoken about the murder of DNC staffer Seth Rich because, honestly, I haven’t seen anything but wild speculation about it. Was he the source of the DNC email leak to Wikileaks? I have no idea. If someone offers real proof, I’ll bite. Until then his death is just another senseless murder.

The lack of evidence hasn’t stopped some on the right from connecting dots that may or may not exist to advance a political agenda. But just because I tend to agree with a lot of the policy objectives the people connecting those dots want advocate not mean I’m on board with everything they do. If I’m disgusted when a Democrat does something, I’m disgusted when a Republican does it too. The same can’t be said for liberals.

Liberal journalists raged against the right over Rich both because there was a grieving family here and it’s distasteful to dredge up conspiracy theories in that circumstance, and because they are outraged a story has advanced for which there is no evidence. These are awful behaviors, but the left engages in them frequently and gleefully.

On the matter of advancing theories lacking proof, there isn’t a liberal publication that not only functions under the assumption Donald Trump colluded with the Russians to “steal” the election from Hillary Clinton, but prints stories and editorials alleging it on a regular basis.


It’s been almost a year and there is still zero evidence of this conspiracy, yet the Washington Post, New York Times, and every other left-wing birdcage liner has a team of reporters opining in their pages and on cable news about how this myth is fact.

Even Democratic members of Congress, who’d sacrifice their grandchildren to find a crumb of proof, have admitted there is none. It had to kill Sen. Dianne Feinstein and Congresswoman Maxine Waters to admit it, but they did. Journalists can’t.

Instead they run anonymously sourced stories, many of which are denied on the record by the very people implicated in them. They leave those stories, uncorrected, on their websites because the conspiracy must be true.

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein had to have threatened to resign if the president used his letter as justification for firing FBI Director James Comey; anonymous sources told them he did.

Never mind that Rosenstein personally, unambiguously denied the story. Liberals need it to be true. As such, the original story sits, uncorrected, on the Washington Post website without mention of Rosenstein’s unequivocal denial. It would be journalistic malpractice…if journalism still had standards.


The same goes for countless stories in which Casper the Friendly Leaker whispers something into the ear of some liberal reporter that fits the narrative so perfectly it snaps in place like the last Lego.

Comey was fired just after requesting more money for Russia probe? Obviously. It doesn’t matter that the acting Director of the FBI denied it under oath or that there is zero evidence; it just has to be true.

Someone is going to read you a couple of lines over the phone from a “dear diary” entry by Comey that claimed the president “hoped” the FBI would leave Michael Flynn alone? It doesn’t matter that you don’t know the context, or that Comey didn’t tell anyone at the time, or you weren’t even allowed to see the words on the page. Trump is corrupt, so it has to be true. And so on.

When it comes to love of anti-Trump-perfectly-fitting-the-left-wing-narrative conspiracy theories, facts just get in the way. Journalists are ready to roll around like a happy dog in the sun on the grassy knoll of news.


As for the idea that respect for the dead should dictate decorum, these credentialed degenerates stepped down from their high horses long enough to cheer the death of Fox News founder Roger Ailes. I don’t know how damaged someone has to be to write the things they wrote – thinking something sick is one thing; believing the world needs to know it is a disorder yet to be named – yet there they were, dancing on his grave before his family even had a chance to digest their loss.

You say someone is a monster and insensitive to the family for theorizing about a murder last summer, but you can’t wait for the body to get cold to express glee over someone’s passing because you didn’t like their politics? There’s a special place in hell for people like that.

Liberals, particularly journalists, have morphed into something very disturbing since the arrival of Donald Trump onto the political scene. They’ve achieved a new level of hypocrisy and disgusting cruelty that would shame a normal person.

Something deep inside them, at their core, is fundamentally damaged. Whether it was broken before the election or not is irrelevant, it’s their driving force now. Were they civilians, they’d likely be shouting at streetlights and losing the argument. Since they’re journalists, they’ll probably win a Pulitzer. (Derek Hunter)

Political Cartoons by Chip Bok


The (pardon the pun) whitewashing and cleansing of history so liberals can rewrite it in their own image has gotten to another shameful level.

New Orleans Removes Statue Of Robert E. Lee

Photo by Annie Flanagan for The Washington Post via Getty Images

Hank Berrien

On Friday, the city of New Orleans is removing a 20-foot statue of Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee.

Lee’s statue is the fourth and last of Confederate-related statues that the city has removed, although unlike the others, Lee’s statue will be taken down during the day. The removal of the statues followed a 2015 City Council vote; Confederate President Jefferson Davis’ statue was taken down last week; Confederate Gen. P.G.T. Beauregard’s on Wednesday; and a monument memorializing a 1874 white-supremacist uprising was removed in April. The other statues were taken down in pre-dawn hours because there were alleged threats against contractors and workers scheduled to remove them.

AP reported that the city issued a news release stating the statues were “erected decades after the Civil War to celebrate the ‘Cult of the Lost Cause,’ a movement recognized across the South as celebrating and promoting white supremacy.” 

<<BUZZER>  Sorry, wrong answer.

The statue of the general sat atop Lee Circle, a vaunted roundabout in the Crescent City. Since 1884, Lee has stood in a place of prominence atop a multistory, white stone column facing north allowing Lee to keep a watchful eye on “the enemy.”

Mayor Mitch Landrieu has been pushing for the removal of the statues since the 2015 massacre of nine black parishioners at a South Carolina church by Dylann Roof, who termed himself a racist and displayed Confederate battle flags in photos.

Giving the Left the excuse they needed. As you remember, this is when th “Dukes of Hazzard” was also banned. The Democrats are burying their own history and making it look sanctimonious.

Landrieu said last month, “We will no longer allow the Confederacy to literally be put on a pedestal in the heart of our city.”

“They are not just innocent remembrances of a benign history. These monuments celebrate a fictional, sanitized Confederacy ignoring the death, ignoring the enslavement, ignoring the terror that it actually stood for,” Landrieu said, noting that Lee and the Confederate army fought against the United States. “They may have been warriors, but in this cause they were not patriots.”

As for the statues themselves, the city said it has received offers from public and private institutions to take individual monuments; only nonprofits and governmental entities will qualify. The city insisted that anyone who submits a proposal must explain how they would “place the statues in context both in terms of why they were first erected and why the city chose to remove them in 2015.” They are banned from displaying them outdoors on public property within the city. 

Substitute “statues/monuments” for plans in the following quote from Douglas Adams’ Hitchhikers Guide to The Galaxy

“But the plans were on display…”
“On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.”
“That’s the display department.”
“With a flashlight.”
“Ah, well, the lights had probably gone.”
“So had the stairs.”
“But look, you found the notice, didn’t you?”
“Yes,” said Arthur, “yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard.”


And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed – if all records told the same tale – then the lie passed into history and became truth. “Who controls the past,” ran the Party slogan, “controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.” And yet the past, though of its nature alterable, never had been altered. Whatever was true now was true from everlasting to everlasting. It was quite simple. All that was needed was an unending series of victories over your own memory. “Reality control,” they called it: in Newspeak, “doublethink.”–1984 By George Orwell
Mini-Documentary: Lee was not a “white supremacist” but that does fit the Sanctimonious Liberal Narrative. So History must change to support it.

SJW Math

Yes, you to can inject Liberal Social Justice Racism & Exclusion into any equation.

The phrase “two plus two equals five” (“2 + 2 = 5”) is a slogan used in many different forms of media, most notably in Part One, Chapter Seven of the book 1984 by George Orwell. In the novel, it is used as an example of an obviously false dogma that one may be required to believe, similar to other obviously false slogans promoted by the Party in the novel. It is contrasted with the phrase “two plus two makes four”, the obvious—but politically incorrect—truth.

the mathematically false statement that control over physical reality is unimportant; so long as one controls one’s own perceptions to what the Party wills, then any corporeal act is possible, in accordance with the principles of doublethink (“Sometimes they are five. Sometimes they are three. Sometimes they are all of them at once”)

Reality is set by The Party. The Party is Reality.

Orwell wrote:

Nazi theory indeed specifically denies that such a thing as “the truth” exists. … The implied objective of this line of thought is a nightmare world in which the Leader, or some ruling clique, controls not only the future but the past. If the Leader says of such and such an event, “It never happened” – well, it never happened. If he says that two and two are five – well, two and two are five. This prospect frightens me much more than bombs.”

So if The Party (aka Democrats and SJW Liberals) say 2+2=5, then it does. The End.

The Party is Reality and Reality is The Party. Math included.

  • Teach for America and EdX are partnering to provide a training course for middle-school math teachers on how to incorporate social justice into their curricula.
  • According to the course developers, regular math is “too abstract” for many students, and incorporating social justice can help them better understand “the power and meaning” of math.

This summer, middle school math teachers can learn how to incorporate social justice issues like racism and privilege into their classrooms.

Teaching Social Justice through Secondary Mathematics” is a six-week online course designed by Teach for America and offered through EdX, which provides free online classes from top universities such as Harvard University, MIT, and Columbia University.

“Do you ask students to think deeply about…social justice issues within your mathematics classroom?”   

Unveiled earlier this month, the course aims to teach math instructors how to craft lesson-plans that incorporate social justice in order to raise their students’ awareness.

“Do you ask students to think deeply about global and local social justice issues within your mathematics classroom?” a course overview asks. “This education and teacher training course will help you blend secondary math instruction with topics such as inequity, poverty, and privilege to transform students into global thinkers and mathematicians.”

According to the website, the course can even help students to learn math, because while many aspects of middle- and high-school math “can seem abstract to students,” the developers claim that “setting the mathematics within a specially-developed social justice framework can help students realize the power and meaning of both the data and social justice concerns.”

Participants in the online course are given sample ideas for lessons they could create, such as using math to teach students about “Unpaid Work Hours in the Home by Gender” and “Race and Imprisonment Rates in the United States.”

The module also identifies five main themes of “intersectional mathematics,” including “mathematical ethics,” which refers to the notion that math is often used as a tool of oppression, according to the instructors.

“For centuries, mathematics has been used as a dehumanizing tool,” they write, citing the example of how IQ can be used against people who score in the lower half of the distribution.

To remedy math’s contribution to oppression, teachers are thus encouraged to think of ways that math can be used to advocate for marginalized populations, to which end they are encouraged to read an article by an English teacher from Hawaii, Christina Torres, who argues that failing to teach students about social justice is a “wasted opportunity” to provide them with the “tools to subvert power, question normalcy, and change society as we understand it.”

Despite its emphasis on liberal priorities, the instructors insist that social justice can be taught “without bias” as long as instructors select topics that they feel they can discuss with neutrality.

“This is not an opportunity for a teacher to impose his or her beliefs on the students. It is important to choose topics about which you feel you can be pedagogically neutral,” they state, clarifying that “Quality social justice and mathematics exploration in the K-12 classroom should be apolitical and non-agenda-driven.”

Danielle Montoya, vice president of communications at Teach for America, told Campus Reform that social justice is a part of “culturally responsive teaching” while praising the course as a model for promoting “positive change” and civic engagement.

“We share the understanding that social justice is recognizing and acting upon our individual and collective ability to create positive change,” Montoya said. “This is one way to give students the tools to be engaged citizens, prepared to contribute to their communities.”

2+2=5 because they say so. Period. The End. That’s is the reality of The Left.

Orwell writes:

In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable – what then?

Image result for 2+2=5

Take CAIR Who You Offend

A local business in the state of California was slapped with a fine simply for doing what they saw was safest for their customers. An amusement park in Livermore, CA was forced to pay out a cash settlement to several young ladies who were not allowed to ride go-carts at their park. At the time, the park had a safety measure in place to keep riders safe. This included banning a variety of loose clothing items that may come off or restrict vision. A loose piece of clothing coming off of a rider could be a danger to them or others.

For example, if a scarf were to come partially off and get caught in the motor or wheels it could do deadly harm to the rider. This policy did not allow passengers to use the go-carts while wearing anything loose like a head scarf. According to the policy:

“If fashion, religious expression, or your hair style is more important to you than safety, that’s fine. You can do what you want with your life. You just can’t do it at our park.”

A local business in the state of California was slapped with a fine simply for doing what they saw was safest for their customers. An amusement park in Livermore, CA was forced to pay out a cash settlement to several young ladies who were not allowed to ride go-carts at their park. At the time, the park had a safety measure in place to keep riders safe. This included banning a variety of loose clothing items that may come off or restrict vision. A loose piece of clothing coming off of a rider could be a danger to them or others.

For example, if a scarf were to come partially off and get caught in the motor or wheels it could do deadly harm to the rider. This policy did not allow passengers to use the go-carts while wearing anything loose like a head scarf. According to the policy:

“If fashion, religious expression, or your hair style is more important to you than safety, that’s fine. You can do what you want with your life. You just can’t do it at our park.”

Even though the same policy also covered other headwear, it was held out as being a direct test of the Muslim faith. The case started as a direct result of an incident that occurred at Boomers in Liverpool. In August of 2013, a group of seven Muslim girls and women along with a Sikh man were not allowed to operate go-carts while wearing head scarves or turbans. Each of the guests was offered another type of headgear to wear, but they refused. They would have been allowed to ride the go-carts dressed in a safer, alternative head covering.

Boomer’s was owned by Palace Entertainment, who was named in the complaint. The complaint was filed in August of 2014 with the state Department of Fair Employment and Housing by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). According to the complaint:

“The law guarantees Californians of all faiths access to places of business and entertainment, and safety concerns must be founded on more than speculation or stereotype. We are pleased that Palace Entertainment worked with DFEH to achieve resolution of these cases without the need for litigation.”

The settlement, in this case, was paid to each of the claimants in the form of a $4,000 check. It will also force the amusement park to change their safety guidelines to allow the use of the head scarves. The larger ramifications were explained in a statement made by the CAIR representative handling the case:

“It means that people won’t be denied access to this attraction just because of their religious beliefs. They will be able to participate like every other member of their family or their friends.”

The new policy does not explain how the company will keep both those wearing head scarves and other riders safe in the event one becomes loose and causes an accident. This may, in fact, leave the park open to lawsuits in the case of an injury. CAIR was quick to point out that other amusement parks like Disneyland do not have the same rules. They failed to mention that Disneyland also does not have the same type of go-carts in operation.

Unfortunately, this is not the first case of a head scarf interfering with basic safety. It is also not the first time they have taken the demand to wear the head scarves to court. A recent case in Michigan was just dismissed as a woman being booked into jail requested to remain in possession of her head scarf. The Oceana County Sheriff’s Office deputies instructed Fatme Dakroub to remove her head scarf as she was booked. She later sued to say this was mistreatment.

Dakroub was lawfully arrested for driving without a license. When she was arrested, she was booked into jail and expected to change completely out of her personal clothing like any other inmate. Due to a safety risk, she was also asked to remove the large scarf. To allow her to keep her head covered, she was offered an alternative in the form of a hooded shirt.

The inmate insisted she was mistreated and punished for her religious beliefs when she was treated like all other prisoners. This simply was not true as the scarf was a huge safety risk for both Dakroud and others in custody. Luckily, in this case, the courts sided with the jail. According to a statement issued by the jail:

“Allowing Plaintiff to retain possession of a lengthy scarf while she was in a jail holding cell presented significant security concerns for the Plaintiff, other inmates and corrections officers… officers acted solely upon considerations of the good order and discipline of the Oceana Jail, and by applying sound principles of safety within a correctional facility.”

While these two cases are different in the reasons they asked for the women involved to remove head scarves, it came down to safety in both cases. One has to wonder if the next lawsuit will be tied to an injury when someone is allowed to wear a scarf without regard for safety. Each of the women involved was offered alternatives to keep their heads covered to respect their religious beliefs.

But Ideological advantage, power, and control mean more.

You will bow to them, sooner or later, because you will have no choice. Right?

Freedom is Slavery


Rational, I think not!

I dare you to think of a rational thought after reading this dribble for a HuffPo Blogger. It has none so it’s on it own universe.

“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

The Second Amendment is highly contested. There is no doubt that people do have the right to carry and have a stockpile of guns (“the right of the people to keep and bear arms”) and a state has the right to organize a well-regulated Militia. But, the main issue is on the right to self-defend with a firearm.

The main problem with the notion of self-defense is it imposes on justice, for everyone has the right for a fair trial. Therefore, using a firearm to defend oneself is not legal because if the attacker is killed, he or she is devoid of his or her rights. In addition, one’s mental capacity is a major factor in deciding whether a man or woman has the right to have a firearm. There are two reasons for ensuring mental capacity. First, one of the Five Aims is to ensure domestic tranquility and there can be no tranquility if one does not have the capacity. Second, if one’s brain is distorting his or her reality, they do not have the proper reasoning and deduction skills to use a firearm.

Therefore, if we ponder and meditate on the recent events in news about guns, it would be obvious that the current state is incorrect. A gun for civilians is a weapon for a revolution and not for ordinary use. The belief that a gun is a useful tool to protect one is counterintuitive because guns get into the hands of people who use them for horrible reasons. In addition, there are reasons why cops are trained to use a firearm in stressful situations. It is not to keep their mind at ease or anything of that sort, but to be able to fire accurately at the target in the correct location. It is immensely difficult to fire when under pressure. Moreover, one may argue this is an analogous argument and yes it is because the United States government is lobbied to not study or fund research that observes the effects of guns. This cripples the chance of evaluating a proper policy to deal with gun violence. But, there was one study by ABC, which observed using guns in a classroom. All the participations poorly performed at the mock situation.

Once again, if there is an argument in the reasoning of this amendment and others, one must filter it through the Five Aims of the USA and the Bill of Rights. This is to ensure that any argument can be answered, avoiding a political divide.

But there is nothing BUT a political divide in this inane silliness that you laid out, dearie. You need mental help, and fast…

Word Games

The Left has added another word to their bag of tricks.

Most people have long thought Google shows a left-wing bias in its behavior, even in how it provides search results. Now there is proof based on Google’s changing the definition of “fascism.”

Background. The father of fascism, Benito Mussolini, was a lifelong radical Socialist. He didn’t suddenly veer from his extreme leftism to become a right winger and invent fascism. Fascism, like all left-wing ideologies, denies individualism and forces a collective, everything-for-the-state mentality.

Google and the left. Now that there are morons like the group “Antifa” running around the country claiming to be anti-fascists, it seems Google wants to try and redefine the term.


Why? Maybe so these extreme left-wingers, who are actually behaving like fascists, don’t look so stupid? Who knows? Maybe the owner, who is a left-winger himself, doesn’t quite grasp what the term means. From The Daily Caller:

Has Google, the world’s most popular search engine, changed the definition of the word “fascism” to protect liberal mobs using violence to silence those who disagree with them politically? The evidence suggests they have.

Political conservatives advocate for small, less intrusive government where power rests with the states and individuals, and the federal government lives within its Constitutional restraints. Progressive liberals advocate for just the opposite: a powerful central government with authority vested in a strong leader who has the ability to impose decrees from Washington on everything from health care to education.

Google curiously adds “right-wing” to its definition and omits the “severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition” part.

First Up: Merriam-Webster:


a political movement that employs the principlesand methods of fascism, especially the one established by Mussolini in Italy 1922–43. (

Below is a photo that shows the definitions of fascism when doing a Google search:


Why this matters? It matters because it’s just another way the left is keeping people ignorant and uninformed. They need to keep their supporters dumbed down because they wouldn’t want them to actually understand the truth. Either that or those on the left are not smart enough to actually grasp the concept of fascism.

By continuing to keep people uninformed, they continue to encourage bad behavior as well as ignorance, which is often far more dangerous.

The left doesn’t want people to learn the truth about history because if they did, they would never vote for a leftist again.

 A form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion. [RobertO. Paxton, “The Anatomy of Fascism,” 2004
Sound Like the Left to you?



Orwell Makeover

 Update on Prior Blog. Could be a new Reality Series… 🙂

The University of Arizona recently announced that it will revise its controversial “Social Justice Advocates” position after facing a week of backlash from conservative media.

As Campus Reform initially reported, the school planned to pay students $10 per hour to assume the responsibilities of “Social Justice Advocates,” which included hosting monthly “social justice modules” for RAs and bi-semesterly “Real Talks” with residents, while arranging both “active” and “passive” social-justice programming.

“It’s best to use a title that isn’t politically charged. It just set off alarms.”  

Most controversially, though, the job description called for students filling the role to “report any bias incidents or claims to appropriate Residence Life staff,” prompting many conservative pundits to point out that the school was effectively paying its students to “tattle on others.”

“So, let’s get this straight,” wrote Tom Knighton of PJ Media on Wednesday, in one example. “The university takes money from students and the Arizona taxpayers and funnels it toward a social justice Gestapo whose primary function seems to be a combination of social justice secret police and indoctrination activities, and this is supposed to be a good thing?”

The Thought Police.

In response, the university has scrubbed the job listing from its website, noting that it is “in the process of reviewing the title and responsibilities,” but providing no further details regarding possible revisions.

School officials told The Phoenix New Times that it planned on changing at least the title of the position since the term “social justice” elicited so many negative reactions.

University officials told the Phoenix New Times that it was likely the title soon would be changed because some people have strong feelings about the phrase “social justice.”

“It’s best to use a title that isn’t politically charged,” university spokesperson Pam Scott explained. “It just set off alarms.”

So Like Global Cooling…Warming…Climate Change…The The Thought Police job will get an Orwellian Makeover. It’s not like the University suddenly released what it was doing was a bad idea, just that the optics were wrong.

Typical Liberal. Never let their sanctimony get in the way of critical thinking. 🙂

The duties of the new position, which include reporting any “bias incidents” committed by students living in dorms, were being distorted by some members of the press, officials said.

Applications are no longer being taken. A help-wanted ad that was online but appears to have been taken down  stated that the job will, among other things, require the advocates to:

  • Create an environment that enables Residence Life student leaders to dialogue around topics related to diversity, multiculturalism, and social justice.”
  • Promote inclusive communities through positive interactions and increase resources available for staff on topics relating to diversity, multiculturalism, and social justice.”
  • Report any bias incidents or claims to appropriate Residence Life staff,” and “confront diversely insensitive behavior.”

And of course, guess who’s fault it is… 🙂

Nick Sweeton, executive director of UA Residence Life and University Housing, said he believes a “trend” of unwelcoming behavior by some students against others began at the university after President Donald Trump’s election.


And they have learned nothing at all. After all, they are the superior morality…

The accused student’s name won’t be recorded in connection with an incident, but the student will be contacted by school officials. The school may “recalibrate” the type of reporting by the advocates as necessary, they said.

The advocates will create monthly programs regarding diversity and social-justice issues, maintain bulletin boards, host dialogues among student groups, and perform other related tasks. Officials hope the advocates, who are expected to have a “moderate” understanding of modern social-justice issues, will become a resource for students hoping to make changes in themselves or the university.

The university also asks the advocates to take time on the job to “increase understanding of one’s own self through critical reflection of power and privilege, identity and intersectionality, systems of socialization, cultural competency, and allyship as they pertain to the acknowledgement, understanding, and acceptance of differences.”

That part involves understanding of white privilege or critical race theory, which is the idea that racism in various forms is embedded in all parts of American culture, the officials said. But the advocates won’t be required to actually believe in those concepts to perform their jobs.

All the advocates will receive the same training for the job, regardless of their religious or ethnic background.

“Our goal is not impose a belief on students,” Sweeton said. “It’s simply to expose them to an idea. It does involve a lot of self-reflection. They’ll be trained on some areas in terms of self-identity.”

The advocates will then be prepared to enlighten other students.

“In a global economy and multicultural society, we think it’s important that people know how to engage in conversations like this,” he said.

Ironically, though, changing the name of social-justice advocates to something less offensive means the program’s first lesson for students is how to retreat from a conversation when the pressure’s on.

Make Orwellian excuses, Blame someone else for it when it goes haywire…Sounds like a Liberal idea alright…






Pity the Democrats, to the extent you can without bursting into hysterical laughter at their agony. America has thoroughly rejected them in every branch of the federal government plus out in the states, and on top of that they were utterly humiliated by the guy they all claimed was a complete moron. Which begs the question – what does that make the sanctimonious harpy he crushed in the Electoral College?

They still haven’t realized what’s going on. Their ego-driven drive to dominate normal people and shape us into New Socialist Nongendered Beings has blinded them to the bitter reality.

We think they, along with their minions in the media, in Hollywood, and on campus, suck.

They are baffled at our refusal to acknowledge their moral, intellectual, and political superiority. It doesn’t just compute.

Yeah, well compute this, geebos.

You look nuts. I mean wacko, zonked out, “Hey, that goldfish is firing a mind control laser at my brain and making me break dance” nuts.

But don’t stop. No, pump it up. You’re at “11,” and I say take it to “12.”

This is great!

All this insanity is going to help us normals retain power, from your gyno-hat marches to the fake hate crimes to your insistence that the Russians are responsible for everything from Hillary losing the election to the rarely-discussed but well-known liberal epidemic of ED.

Here’s a little test. It’s been about six months since Trump treated The Smartest Most Accomplished Woman In The World like a NordicTrack treats Harry Reid, and does anyone know even one person who has said, “You know, I voted for Trump, but now after Neil Gorsuch, General Mattis and H.R. McMaster, I really wish I had checked the box for Felonia von Pantsuit?”

I’m not talking about alt-right weirdos – they don’t count. I mean literally, unless they remove their off-brand Nike knock-offs. I mean normal people. Who voted for Trump and now says something remotely like this?

“Yeah, I really regret not letting Hillary pick a SCOTUS judge who thinks the Constitution bans guns but mandates taxpayer-subsidized transsexual abortions!”

“Wow, that 70% drop in illegal alien entries into America and all those deportations of MS-13 guys are depriving the country of valuable, productive future Democrat voters!”

“Gosh, I hate so much how Trump has paid attention to that sliver of our country lying between I-5 and I-95!”

“It was Ashley Judd’s v-cap slam poetry, combined with Bill Nye’s sex confusion clip, that convinced me what America needs is liberals back in power!”

No one.

No one who voted for Trump has ever said any of those things. Oh, they might have voted for him reluctantly, but <href=”#exit-modal”>no statistically significant slice of them wish they hadn’t.

But the Democrats work under the assumption that such folk exist and are receptive to their tantrums. Good! These liberals are crazy, and they’re stupid, and we totally need to encourage them to keep doing crazy, stupid things.


We conservatives are supposed to be terrified by polls that say that the House could flip to the Dems in 2018. Just ask President Clinton about how the liberal wishcasting multiplier effect on the polls worked for her, but the fact is that we have 18 months to go. On the Democrat side, it looks to be 18 months of kookiness that will leave us normals scratching our heads and snickering.

“Yes, I know that just this morning I was saying Comey should have been fired but then Trump actually did it and his doing what I suggested is the worst constitutional crisis ever!”

“Bombing Putin’s ally was a cunning ploy to throw us off the trail!”

“Why, even though failed FBI Director Jim Comey, James “MC Leakmaster J” Clapper, Diane “Crypt-keeping It Real” Feinstein, and even noted particle physicist Maxine Waters concede that there’s no evidence that Trump and Putin are breeding a collusive love child, I’m still convinced of the existence of this sweeping, enormous, and invisible conspiracy that occurred for some reason somehow, and about which absolutely zero evidence of Trump collusion has leaked out during ten months of colonoscopy-esque investigation despite everything else leaking out.”


Sounds legit.

Sure, Congress polls right around the popularity of “Outhouse scuba diving” and “Borrowing Charlie Sheen’s toothbrush,” but then who wants to live in a country where we like our politicians? It’s not like in 2016 we were high-fiving these guys. We get that a GOP Congress is a necessary evil. But we also get that a Democrat Congress is an unnecessary evil.

And while these liberal spazzes and their fussy Fredocon gimps are shrieking about the coming Armageddon in their high-pitched, girlish voices, Trump is just rolling along. Special prosecutor, schmecial prosecutor – he’s not falling for it. And did you see the ten judges he just nominated? You usually have to come up with roses and champagne to score like that.

Here’s how this goes. The Democrats, along with the media and Team Tinfoil, keep whining about Russians Russians Russians, and normal people keep tuning them out. While they’re babbling about nonsense that means nothing outside of the coastal looney bins, normal people are tuning into how the stock market and the job market just keep getting better, how we’re not taking guff from foreign creeps anymore, and we’re not talking about how much taxes will go up but about how much they’ll go down.


Tax reform is going to pass. Obamacare is getting repealed – it’s as dead in the Senate as it was in the House, which is not at all. Our military is getting rebuilt. We’re going to stop leading with our chin on trade. Things are going to keep getting better, and people will see it.

The only way the President can still screw this up is by choosing to screw this up. He won’t do it by messing with liberals. Keep tweeting those twerps into a sputtering rage! It pays dividends every time he provokes them to new heights of lunacy.

No, the President only fails by forgetting his conservative friends, and that is becoming a problem. Where are the hardcore cons at State and Defense? He needs to get solid business leader Anthony Scaramucci into the White House, like we conservatives were promised (A guy who can raise $20 million might come in handy). And as for judges, well, the motto for conservatives is “No Justice Willett, No Peace.”

The Democrats are being crazy and it’s a bad look. So let’s keep helping them do it. We can pity them even as we laugh at them. (Kurt Schlichter)


Townhall: I rarely use the word stupid.  Most frequently the word I use is ignorant which means lacking knowledge or awareness.  Stupid means something significantly different.  Stupidity means lacking intelligence, understanding, reason, wit and/or good sense.  Republicans have often referred to liberals as just plain wrong though some invoked stupidity in a knee-jerk manner.  If you doubted that liberals are stupid, we now have proof.

The proof comes from the high priests of the Left – the editorial board of The New York Times.  What set them off and displayed their complete lack of intelligence and good sense was their editorial attacking former President Obama for taking a $400,000 speaking fee from Cantor Fitzgerald. In an editorial entitled The Cost of Obama’s Speech, they reacted with shock that he would accept such a fee from the forces he was “fighting” against.  And this is not feigned shock like Captain Louie in Casablanca.  This is real shock. 

They even quoted his own words from The Audacity of Hope.  I read that book.  I just thought the people who fell for his slop were fools.  Now I know they are stupid.

Ruth Marcus joined the chorus of the offended and took to the pages of the Washington Post to chastise the Obamas for the $400,000 fee.   The stupidity of the Left was further validated when Vox published an article with a title that states the $400,000 fee will undermine everything Obama believes in.    

Everything Obama believes in is – Obama.  Did you really think he was going to live by all that garbage he was shoveling down your throats? 

Isn’t it interesting that the Obamas are following the same pattern as the Clintons?  First, totally forget where you came from.  The Obamas will return to Chicago as frequently as the Clintons have returned to Arkansas.  The Obamas will do obligatory visits to the presidential library and maybe catch a Chisox game. 

In Los Angeles we live with celebrities on a daily basis.  We have a term for people like Obama who are enamored by these celebrities – Star_____.  The Obamas would be the King and Queen of that if they were not exceeded by – you guessed it, the Clintons. 

But did you not get a hint where the Obamas were headed when they signed what is estimated to be a $60-65 million deal for their memoirs.  Penguin is going to have to sell a lot of books. That means a royalty of $6.50 on each of 10 million books sold.  Seems more like a bribe than good business.

But let us review what the Obamas have been doing since they left office:

  •       In early February, the Obamas were hosted by Virgin chairman Richard Branson on his private island in the British West Indies, for an unknown length of time.
  •       The next stop was Tetiaroa, the South Pacific private island that once belonged to Marlon Brando, and now houses ultra-expensive and ultra-exclusive villas (reportedly one is for sale for 6 million euros).  The former president decided this was the ideal spot to pen his memoirs for perhaps as much as a month.  The prices are $3,000 a night.
  •       And, finally, there are the now infamous photos of the Obamas with David Geffen and his guests (Tom Hanks, Bruce Springsteen, Oprah and Gayle King and God knows who else) on his mega-yacht Rising Sun – which measures 454 feet and regularly shows up at all the best water spots on the globe.   The yacht just happened to be in the neighborhood when the Obamas were on Tetiaroa.

Amazingly, none of this set-off the Leftists.  Hanging with the ultra-rich is fine; just don’t take Wall Street money.

Did you really think Obama was going to be hangin’ with the common folk?  Jay Z and Beyoncé will be “how they will be rollin’” in the future along with clipping his G’s as he did when he was talking to the common folk.  Maybe some time at Oprah’s many estates.  He will be hobnobbing with anyone rich and famous who will take him on exclusive golf courses where he can wine and dine with the elite.


Some would say the Obamas deserve to make a lot of money because they sacrificed for the country for eight years.  Not to get technical, but the people of the United States provide handsomely for them.  Obama receives a pension of $205,700 the first year out of office which will increase over time.  He also receives funding for staffing, rent, travel, etc.  This does not include his secret service protection.  This amounts to millions of dollars each year.  He may even have some friends who would pick up a few meals for him and maybe a few rounds of golf.

Fascinating how easily the Left is captivated by rich people who are willing to say and do things that further their own exclusive lifestyle.  Somehow they still think the Democratic Party cares about the commoner.  It is all about power and money.  Money in their pockets. 

The question is, are you stupid enough to believe them? 


Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

Divide & Conquer

I would argue the following has already happened…

“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

The Liberal Lie So Big It May One Day Split the Country
“Civilization has been aptly called a ‘thin crust over a volcano.’ (Liberals) are constantly picking at that crust.”Thomas Sowell

After Hollywood jackass Jimmy Kimmel was criticized for exploiting his son’s illness to push his political agenda and incorrectly insinuating that surgeries for newborns weren’t covered before Obamacare, he did a follow-up on the subject where he said, “I would like to apologize for saying that children in America should have health care. It was insensitive, it was offensive, and I hope you can find it in your heart to forgive me.”

Drop dead, Jimmy Kimmel, you colossal ass.

This is a great example of what may be the most annoying, dishonest thing that liberals habitually do.

Jimmy Kimmel favors a certain political policy. It’s one that has been a disaster for tens of millions of Americans, including a lot of children.

Jimmy Kimmel could have said, “Obamacare may not be perfect and it may have been sold with a lot of lies, but I believe it’s worth it for everyone else to pay more so the small percentage of the population with pre-existing conditions and no insurance can be covered.” That pitch may not be a political winner, but at least it would be an honest argument.

Instead, Kimmel is essentially arguing that ONLY people who agree with him care about the healthcare of children and the rest of us want children to die.

This sort of rhetoric has become commonplace on the Left and it’s not just dishonest, it’s evil. It’s bad for the country. It could even potentially split the country apart one day because we won’t be able to continue to live with each other. In fact, we’ve already reached the point where California’s threats to secede are being met with cries of “faster please, what can we do to help?” from millions of conservatives.

Yes, it may currently give liberals some small temporary political advantage to claim that everyone who doesn’t support gay marriage hates gays, everyone who doesn’t think rape culture exists supports rape, that everyone who doesn’t back free birth control for women hates them, everyone who wants to stop illegal immigration hates Latinos and that everyone who doesn’t want to tear down Confederate statues hates black Americans, but it also injects pure poison into our culture.

If you believe someone doesn’t want kids to have healthcare, hates gays, hates women, hates minorities and wants more rapes to happen, you will probably detest that person. However, liberals seldom consider that the reverse of this is also true. You will also probably detest people who falsely accuse you of not wanting kids to have healthcare, hating gays, hating women, hating minorities and wanting more rapes to happen. In the Palestinian territories or Syria, there might be significant numbers of people who believe many of those aforementioned beliefs. In America, there are very few. What this means is that there are large numbers of people liberals have inspired hatred towards via falsehoods and also large numbers of people who’ve grown to abhor liberals after being targeted by their lies.

Put another way, liberals are CREATING an America where it’s natural to HATE people of differing political views. Not disagree with, HATE.

My initial reaction to hearing Jimmy Kimmel’s, I would like to apologize for saying that children in America should have health care,” comment was thinking that I’d enjoy punching him in his smug face.I have no doubt that vast numbers of people that liberals dishonestly call racists, misogynists and homophobes feel exactly the same way. Of course, it’s one thing to feel that way and it’s another to actually do it or suggest others do it as many liberals do. We have left-wingers rioting in the streets to stop people they disagree with from speaking at colleges and publicly encouraging each other to physically attack Nazis, while accusing pretty much everyone who doesn’t toe the liberal line of being a Nazi.

We’ve gotten to the point where someone as inoffensive as Betsy DeVos can’t even give a commencement speech at Bethune-Cookman University without gaggles of idiots screaming and booing. If those liberals can’t even show a modicum of courtesy for Betsy DeVos at a commencement speech, how do they work with people they disagree with? How do they go to church with them? How do they date? How do they share the same space? If the answer is, “They can’t do any of those things,” then how do we ultimately share the same country?

I have a left-wing acquaintance who is still endlessly complaining about Hillary Clinton getting coverage from the very liberal mainstream media that was too negative for his taste. When I noted that Hillary may have gotten some harsh coverage at times, but Trump’s coverage was much worse, I was told in so many words that, “Yes, but Trump deserved it.” Similarly, have you noticed that liberals don’t seem to accept and respect the fact that conservatives found Obama just as loathsome as they find Trump?

It’s the liberal mentality that says, “People who disagree with us on anything are racist, sexist, homophobic and evil. Therefore, we don’t have to treat them fairly. Therefore, their concerns are irrelevant. Therefore, it’s acceptable to lie about them, take away their rights or even use the IRS or legal system to mistreat them. Therefore, they don’t matter. At all.”

I loathe liberalism, but I don’t hate liberals. I would not be okay with lying about them, preventing them from speaking at universities or attacking them because of their political views. I think a lot of liberals are deeply misguided and put their emotions above logic and the good of the country, but I don’t think most of them are evil. Unfortunately, many liberals don’t afford conservatives that same courtesy and one day, that may split the country because what brings us together as a nation is becoming smaller than the liberal hatred that is dividing us.  (John Hawkins)

The King is Dead

“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.”– Martin Luther King

Carmen Goséy knows all about racism.

The black student is the chair of student body government at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, a predominantly white, elite school.

In that position she’s witness how people of color and white people interact with – and react to – each other. She’s been a campus leader on various important issues and has come to one conclusion: all white people are racist.

She’s a  Snivel Rights Advocate.

Of course, that blanket statement – like “all black people are dumb” or “all Mexicans are lazy” – is bigoted and racist in its own right, but Goséy is not too interested in what you white folks think.


As she steps down from her position, The Daily Cardinal reports, she has written an open letter (see Below)  to students saying that while she had her leadership role, she tried to create an environment of diversity and inclusion, but that by the end of her term, she felt lost and defeated.” Because of racism.

Her racism. She says it’s because of “white supremacy.” And because “all white people are racist.” But those statements alone give an indication of the real reason she may have struggled in her efforts.

“I was operating in a white position as a person of color,” Goséy wrote. “Now I see the University was not designed for the success of minority communities; it was designed for white students to learn about my oppression while not having to participate in dismantling it.”

Goséy tells us she was only a “token for white supremacists.”

“I have struggled with the juxtaposition of my identity and representing a campus that does not look like me or remotely relate to my experience,” Goséy wrote.

She told parents of “children of color” that they shouldn’t send their children to the prestigious school. “I ask people of color to reconsider your place at this institution,” she wrote. “I ask parents of people of color to rethink sending your children to this institution.”

Segregation is a much better option… 🙂

Her final comment, which she repeated twice, was to deride the institution that is providing her with the quality education she is benefiting from.

“This institution does not care about people of color. This institution does not care about people of color,” she wrote.



%d bloggers like this: