The Coup Part 1

You know they want to.

Kurt Schlichter:

“We cannot tolerate this any longer,” said the former CIA Director at the head of the table. “We have to forcibly retake the government from Donald Trump. It is the only way save our democracy.”

His audience nodded solemnly. The men and women gathered at that secret February meeting on the top floor of 241 West 41st Street, the New York Times building, were Democrat politicians, media figures, retired and active members of the federal security bureaucracy, and several Establishment Republicans, and they were at wit’s end. There simply was no other choice. Donald Trump must be replaced, and it no longer mattered how. This meeting was the genesis of the bloody coup of April 2018.

Out of power, with #TheResistance fading, the ruling class elitists dislodged from their sinecures by the arrival of Donald Trump and his populist followers in 2016 were desperate. There was no guarantee they would retake power in 2020, or even 2024, were Ivanka to run. Their Trump/Russia fiasco had crashed and burned. They had created the pseudo-scandal to convince the electorate that Trump and Putin had been tongue-kissing during the election and, instead, it backfired on the Democrats by revealing their Fusion GPS/FSB shenanigans. Worse, somewhere in a DOJ safe house, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz was trying to keep out of prison by spilling her guts to Jeff Sessions’ investigators.

It had been all the mandarins could do to suppress that scandal, though in the uncontrolled media – and in Trump’s accursed tweets – Democratic corruption was still under a spotlight. After Trump went on the internet (since no network but Fox would show his speech) to explain that he was firing Robert Mueller for his massive conflicts of interest and his inability to run a professional, leak-free organization, nothing happened. The media railed, Capitol Hill was in an uproar, but the people understood that having the accuser’s best buddy lead the investigation makes it a sham, and Trump’s numbers didn’t budge. In fact, polls for Trump-allied primary candidates rose. Future Michigan Senator Kid Rock was even acting like a real candidate, releasing a position paper on tariff policy –“My position is standing up for America first and not bending over for these damn foreigners! Word.”

The Democrats were stalled and powerless as General John Kelly’s focused and disciplined White House staff, in conjunction with the cunning and vindictive Mitch McConnell (who relieved Schumer-ally John McCain of his beloved Armed Services Committee chairmanship “reluctantly, so my good friend John can focus on his health and his family”), began pushing through appointments, filling empty court seats, and notching legislative wins. The media’s credibility was in free fall – CNN’s ratings dipped below those of Love, American Style reruns on the That 70s Channel network. And the GOP Establishment, frozen out of government jobs and abandoned by donors, was in a panic. “You should see how many empty cabins we have on the Weekly Standard Does Scandinavia cruise!” whimpered one disgruntled conservative publisher.

And the uncouth nature of these red state barbarians – it was too much to bear. Just the other day, a senior White House advisor had gone on Tucker and said that if Chuck Schumer didn’t like the recent repeal of the legislative filibuster, he could “Kiss me where the Good Lord split me!”

But how would one pull off a coup d’etat in the United States? Most of the political hacks had no idea, while the military experts understood the massive challenge. Some answers were obvious – in the Third World, the first thing the plotters take control of are the radio and TV stations and the newspapers. In America, the media was already in the bag. Hell, they would cheerlead a coup. But the actual seizure of power? That was more complicated.

 

“You just send in some soldiers and take over everything,” said the younger and, astonishingly, stupider California senator. “You know, with guns. How hard can this Army stuff be?”

Retired – actually, fired by Trump – General Leonard Smith, who had been promoted by Obama after failing to win in Iraq and Afghanistan, but who successfully spearheaded the transsexuals in foxholes initiative, tried to explain.

“Look, it’s a matter of numbers. We take all our land forces in CONUS…”

“What’s CONUS?” asked a former Clinton Deputy Assistant Undersecretary of Defense.

“The continental United States,” the general replied, annoyed. “We have maybe 45 brigade combat teams total available, counting everything active and reserve, Marine and Army. Less than one per state. And a city takes a brigade to control – at least. New York would take ten. And that’s assuming they were all loyal to us. There’s police and federal law enforcement too, but we also have 100 million armed Americans who might object.”

“Ridiculous,” sniffed the senator. “How can a bunch of citizens armed with their deer rifles stop a modern army?”

 

“Oh, I don’t know, Senator. Ask the Vietnamese. Or the Afghans. Look, we need speed and focus. Step one is to decapitate the government by eliminating the current leadership, via capture or … otherwise. Step two, take the the key control nodes before the administration can react. Step three, use the inertia of the military and law enforcement. We get them on our side – whether they know it or not – and keep them moving and following orders so they do not have time to reflect and react against us. But you need to understand and to go into this with your eyes open. If we do this, people will die. Are you ready for that?”

“If breaking a few eggs is the price of restoring democracy by removing the president these Neanderthals elected, so be it,” said a MSNBC hostess. The general, thinking about the high position he had been promised in the new government, said nothing. For him, it was worth the risk.

They set about making contacts, enlisting support, and drafting plans. Their agents in the intelligence community ordered surveillance on dozens of government and civilian leaders expected to be loyal to the administration. Military contacts recruited key commanders and routed others into vital posts. For example, near Washington, the 3rd Infantry regiment’s commander was suddenly relieved and a new one assigned. The commander of the DC National Guard was likewise vetted and enlisted. At the FBI, arrest warrants for “Treason” were drafted and signed by friendly judges and then held for the right moment. Some hints of these preparations filtered up to law enforcement, but sympathizers throughout the federal government ensured the tips were routed to the circular file.

 

Timing was everything – all the pieces had to be in place to act. But they weren’t. As the weeks wore on and February turned to March and March into April, the plotters grew anxious. Every passing day made it more likely that their plan would be leaked and exposed. It actually was exposed once – a CNN reporter did a segment headlined “Rumors of a Military Coup in Swirl in Washington” before the executives shut it down. Luckily for the conspirators it was on Chris Cuomo’s show, so no one saw it.

Pressure was growing. The economic news was improving as the market hit new highs. Trump-allied candidates were winning primaries as Obamacare collapsed and the people somehow failed to hold those who did not enact it responsible for it. But then a window of opportunity arose. On April 25th, 2018, the President would be at the White House, but the Vice-President would be flying back to Indiana, Attorney General Sessions would be at home in Alabama, and Defense Secretary Mattis would be at an Air Force base in Nebraska. Congress would be in town, as would the Supreme Court. They carefully reviewed their proscription lists – neutralizing key individuals was as important as securing physical locations – and the schemers prepared to act.

The vast majority of the coup catspaws would have no idea of their place in the big picture; they would be assigned specific tasks within the scope of their typical duties and only find out after it was too late that they had been part of the plot. But others knew exactly what they were doing, including a significant number of military and law enforcement trigger pullers who would undertake active measures.

At 8 p.m. on April 25th, cruisers from the Washington, D.C. Police Department received orders to shut down each of the bridges into the city and key land routes in from Maryland due to a “terrorist alert.” The TV stations reported it, but police appeared at local radio stations demanding they go off the air “by order of the Mayor.” In the meantime, a convoy of a dozen vehicles marked “Secret Service” turned onto Pennsylvania Avenue.

General John Kelly walked into the Oval Office where the President was speaking to his colorful communications director. “Mr. President, I have received a report from the CIA of a major potential terrorist operation. I’ll talk to DHS and FBI and see what else we know. We are increasing security here at the White House.”

“What’s going on?” asked Donny Coleman, a uniformed Secret Service officer at the White House gate. He’d been on the job twenty years and never seen anything like this. A dozen Secret Service vehicles with lights were lined up behind the barrier, everyone was in tactical gear, and the head honcho wasn’t in a mood to chat.

“Emergency Response Team. Open the damn gate!” he shouted. “There’s a major terrorist threat.”

But Donny Coleman had not been told of a convoy suddenly appearing because of a major terrorist threat he had heard about just two minutes before, and moreover, he was an affable guy who took pride in knowing just about everyone in the Uniformed Division of the United States Secret Service, and he didn’t know any of these guys.

“Let me hit the gate button,” he said, and walked into the guard shack, hit the button that read “ALARM,” drew his .357 magnum SIG Sauer 229 and dropped to the ground as the claxon sounded and a flurry of 5.56 mm bullets shredded the walls.

“What the hell is this?” Jeff Sessions asked as a half-dozen armed men pushed into his living room in his Alabama home. He had given all but one of his security detail the night off; that man lay on the porch, shot through the forehead.

“Shut up,” said the biggest one, smashing the Attorney General in the mouth.

The pilot of Air Force Two, a C-32 (the military version of a Boeing 757) looked out her window.

“Where’s our escort?” the lieutenant colonel asked. The F-16s had been right there at their wings as they had approached Indianapolis – a nice gesture to welcome their passenger home. The scope showed the two fighters had dropped back.

There was a piercing tone in the cockpit. “Missile lock!” shouted the pilot and the plane’s automatic defense systems came to life. Too late. Four AIM-120 AMRAAM missiles slammed into the jet. It spiraled down into a cornfield north of Jasper, Indiana, at 7:32 p.m. local time.

“Secure the President!” shouted General Kelly as gunfire erupted outside. “Get him to the bunker!” The Secret Service guards did, surrounding him, weapons out. Agents and Marines rushed through the halls, stopping to open hidden cabinets packed with M4s and ammo.

“You need to see this,” Anthony Scaramucci, the communications director said. Kelly followed. In the comms room, he saw the same picture on all the screens – except for Fox, which was snow. It was Hillary Clinton, stiff at a desk, looking a bit like she had imbibed some liquid courage. She was reading off a sheet of yellow paper.

“…no choice but to act decisively to restore democracy and our Constitution by removing the Trump junta. Our armed forces are acting to protect our country by transferring leadership to the National Committee of Recovery and Reconciliation, made up of prominent citizens from all political parties, which will govern until fair elections free of foreign collusion can be held …”

Kelly caught the President and his escorts at the elevator. The battle outside sounded like the general remembered Fallujah sounding. Except, inside the White House, he had only a few Secret Service agents and some Marines to hold off the onslaught.

“Sir,” he said. “It’s a military coup.”

PART 2 of “The Military Coup Against Donald Trump of 2018” runs Tuesday.

 

Irony Alert

A Marxist student group at Swarthmore College disbanded itself earlier this year after realizing that its members were too rich and too white to be real commies.

According to screenshots confidentially provided to Campus Reform by an individual with access to the group’s private Facebook page, the demise of the Swarthmore Anti-Capitalist Collective (SACC) came in the wake of a farewell letter from a member who had decided the group could never be an effective proponent of “unproblematized anticapitalist politics” due to its “history of abuse, racism, and even classism.”

“Their main support base was middle-upper class white kids who enjoy jogging.”

“From my understanding SACC disbanded because they realized the makeup and tactics of their group was at odds with their espoused principles,” Swarthmore Conservative Society President Gilbert Guerra told Campus Reform. “Their main support base was middle-upper class white kids who njoy jogging.”

 

The farewell letter corroborates Guerra’s understanding, asserting that “SACC’s fundamental failure” was that “at its formation, it was made up of entirely white, with the exception of one person of color*, students,” and to make matters worse, “not one of [the founding members] are from low-income and/or working class backgrounds.”

Arguing that “low-income people of color should never be an afterthought in a group whose politics supposedly focus on their liberation,” the author then went on to accuse SACC of having a “history of abuse, racism, and even classism that was never adequately addressed or recognized despite constantly being brought up as an issue.”

The screenshots provided to Campus Reform do not include dates, but the SACC Facebook page suggests that the group may have folded at some point in late-March or April. The page has seen no activity since March 26, prior to which posts had been added on a fairly regular basis.

Campus Reform reached out to other former SACC members for their take on the group’s disbandment, but none were willing to comment.

 

Guerra agreed strongly with the letter-writer’s assessment that SACC was ineffective, telling Campus Reform that “SACC didn’t do anything noteworthy during their existence,” and had little impact on campus discourse.

“If anything,” he said, “I think the legacy of that particular group will turn out to be motivating some apathetic students to become involved in the Conservative Society.”

As for the future of Marxist groups on campus—which the SACC letter optimistically predicted would provide a “future for anti-capitalist organizing on this campus”—Guerra said that he expects there will be a “new Maoist group on campus in the fall,” but didn’t seem terribly concerned about its prospects.

Saying that such a group is “a foregone conclusion” because there are many leftist students at Swarthmore who want to actively “resist during the Trump Presidency,” Guerra noted that the only question now “is whether this new group will be any more sustainable that [sic] the past couple of leftist groups that have splintered and fizzled out.”

Twitter Scare

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) apparently has an unusual idea about the proper role of government: it can cure literally all problems!

Murphy tweeted just that on Friday morning, mentioning the previous night’s vote that failed to repeal Obamacare.

“Last night proved, once again, that there is no anxiety or sadness or fear you feel right now that cannot be cured by political action.”

As Murphy would soon find out, there actually is quite a bit of “anxiety or sadness or fear” that people are feeling that political action would do absolutely nothing to solve. People let him have it.

In an effort to play it off, Murphy later tweeted that he only meant “political anxiety,” whatever that is.

Good grief.

Political Cartoons by Steve Kelley

Government Decides

The Liberal RINOs have killed you. Thanks to idiots like Arizona Republicans who refused to vote for anyone but their buddy Johnnie McCain who is a Liberal and the very definition of a RINO.

Senate Republicans failed to garner a simple majority for a so-called ‘skinny repeal’ bill, widely viewed as their last chance to continue the process of repealing and replacing at least some significant elements of Obamacare.  The final vote was 49-51, with John McCain, Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins helping Democrats kill the bill — which leadership insisted was merely a vehicle to get to a conference committee with members of the House of Representatives.

ObamaCare wins. The Democrats couldn’t be happier. The Republicans openly betray every bit of smack they said over the last 8 years. The Democrats are even happier.

The Democrats best friend, a Republican. 🙂

So now we are owned by The Government.

Congrats on your bureaucratic slavery. The Government now decides for all and all-time who lives and who dies and when and where.

Don’t like 110% increases and $8000 deductibles?  TOUGH SHIT.

Your local Republican, like the blacks in Africa, just sold you into Indentured Servitude to the State!

Happy Bureaucrat, Happy Life. Right? 🙂

What do you wanna bet the Republicans run on “Well, we need a 60 man Super Majority to pass it!”

And I hope people spit in their face if they do.

Obamacare’s ongoing failures are well known. Not only are they not going away, they’re deepening. And they’re still actively harming millions of people — victims of a terrible law built on lies. It’s now more obvious than ever that lying to voters about healthcare is not relegated to one political party.

And asking the liars and super-fuck-you partisan Democrats who gleefully pried open Pandora’s box to help them pass a BY-Partisan bill is a new low in spinelessness and utter narcissistic debauchery.

Anything a Republican says should considered a Lie until proven otherwise.

This is not a new thing, but it is now a necessary thing.

The problem there is, that ObamaCare was designed to fail from the get-go. To so totally destory the healthcare system that we, the minion slaves, would come crawling to Mama Government to save us. Then they would pass Single-Payer Government Health Care and the chains would be permanent.

The Republicans promised a better way.

They Lied.

I’m not the least bit surprised, expect that they brazenly did it right in your face with a 2X4 and FUCK YOU to boot.

Now it’s time for The Wrath.

 

This Means War

The Narcissistic Liars proved what I said long ago. They are only in it for themselves. We serve them, in their minds. It’s all about what THEY want. We only matter when it’s time for them to keep their power. That’s it. Nothing else.

Republican senators who voted to block an Obamacare repeal are “hypocrites” and “liars” who ought to be defeated at the ballot box “at all costs,” Mark Levin said during his national radio show.

I agree. Even if he’s “your guy” and he promises to kiss your ass from now until Hell freezes over. “Vote for me, The Other Guy’s an Asshole”.

HE’S LYING!  Period.

There needs to be a wholesale RINO slaughter in 2018 at the ballot box and again and again until they get the message.

It will not be easy. Fear and Hatred are their greatest weapons.

“The vote today demonstrates that the Republican Party is the party of a progressive movement,” Levin said of the outcome, and that the party of Presidents Ronald Reagan and Calvin Coolidge is gone.

“This is the day that private health care was killed [in America] and government-run, centralized health care was born,” the Conservative Review editor-in-chief said.

We are All Charlie Gard Now. Wards of the State. You are owned by the State. You serve at their pleasure.

The Wolf owns the Chicken coop and your are served up on the menu at his pleasure.

Period. No ifs, ands, or buts.

As expected, Senators have also rejected a “clean repeal” bill (something of a misnomer), with seven Republicans joining all Democrats in opposition. Six of those ‘nay’ votes came from members who voted in favor of nearly the exact same measure in December of 2015, when an Obama veto guaranteed their actions would not take effect. The bill would have cleared out much of Obamacare’s framework without implementing any simultaneous replacement (quite unpopular); that task would have been punted to some time in the next two years.  Now what?  

Here are the senators who changed their positions, breaking their promise to repeal Obamacare.

Senator Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn.

Senator Susan Collins, R-Maine

Senator Dean Heller R-Nev.

Senator John McCain, R-Ariz.

Senator Shelley Moore-Capito, R-W.Va.

Senator Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska

Senator Rob Portman, R-Ohio

These are the Republicans who, given the chance to vote for a clean repeal of Obamacare like they promised, betrayed the American people. Every one of them except for Senator Collins were in the Senate in 2015 and voted for the same bill they voted against today.

They are hypocrites. They are liars.

Conservatives should not forget and should not forgive.

Time to be as ruthless with them as they are with us.

Period.

RINO Virus III

Well, they voted (by VP pence breaking the tie) to open debate on doing what they promised for the last 8 years. It only took them 7 months.

Then…

Senators voted 57-43 late Tuesday to reject the plan in the first vote on an amendment to the bill. Those voting “no” included nine defecting Republicans.

The amendment vote portends a rough road ahead for GOP efforts to advance some form of ObamaCare replacement, even after the Senate narrowly revived the core bill in a dramatic test vote Tuesday afternoon. 

Senators planned to vote Wednesday on another Republican amendment repealing much of the health law and giving Congress two years to come up with a replacement. A combination of solid Democratic opposition and Republicans unwilling to tear down the law without a replacement in hand were expected to defeat that plan as well.

In the failed vote Tuesday night, GOP foes reportedly included Sens. Susan Collins, Bob Corker, Tom Cotton, Lindsey Graham, Dean Heller, Mike Lee, Jerry Moran, Lisa Murkowski and Rand Paul. (conservatives that say it doesn’t go far enough or is laden with pork barrel and Liberal RINOs, a toxic mix.)

The list includes both moderates and conservatives. The vote underscored problems Republicans will have in winning enough votes to recast Obama’s statute. 

The rejected amendment was centered on language by McConnell, R-Ky., erasing Obama’s tax penalties on people not buying insurance, cutting Medicaid and trimming its subsidies for consumers. 

Language by Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz would let insurers sell cut-rate policies with skimpy coverage. And there was an additional $100 billion to help states ease costs for people losing Medicaid sought by Midwestern moderates.

The vote came after a high point in the chamber, when Sen. John McCain dramatically entered for the pivotal vote, his first since surgery and his cancer diagnosis in Arizona. Unified for once, Republicans and Democrats applauded and whooped for the six-term lawmaker. “Aye,” he said, thumbs up with both hands, for the GOP vote to move ahead on debate.

President Trump on Tuesday warned four opponents to ObamaCare repeal legislation — two of them Republicans.

“Any senator who votes against repeal and replace… they’ll have a lot of problems,” Trump said during a speech in Youngstown, Ohio.

the mouseGOP-Rinosdnc dog

Just Give up

The House always wins. The house in this case, The Government.

Charlie Gard’s parents have decided to end their legal fight over treatment for their terminally-ill son.

It means Charlie’s life support will be switched off and he will die shortly before his first birthday.

Charlie’s mum, Connie Yates, said she and Charlie’s father, Chris Gard, were “now going to spend our last precious moments with our son Charlie”.

She said they are “sorry we couldn’t save you” and said the last year had been both the best and worst of their lives.

Here is Ms Yates’ statement which was read to the High Court today.

“The last 11, nearly 12, months have been the best, the worst and ultimately life-changing months of our lives but Charlie is Charlie and we wouldn’t change him for the world. All our efforts have been for him.

“This is one of the hardest things that we will ever have to say and we are about to do the hardest thing that we’ll ever have to do which is to let our beautiful little Charlie go.

Connie Yates listens as Charlie Gard’s father, Chris, speaks to the media outside the High Court (Image: PA)

“Put simply, this is about a sweet, gorgeous, innocent little boy who was born with a rare disease, who had a real, genuine chance at life and a family who love him so very dearly and that’s why we fought so hard for him.

“We are truly devastated to say that following the most recent MRI scan of Charlie’s muscles, as requested in the recent MDT meeting by Dr Hirano; as Charlie’s devoted and loving parents we have decided that it’s no longer in Charlie’s best interests to pursue treatment and we will let our son go and be with the angels.

Charlie Gard, whose parents have decided to end a long and difficult legal fight over treatment for the terminally-ill baby (Image: PA)

“The American and Italian team were still willing to treat Charlie after seeing both his recent brain MRI and EEG performed last week. He’s not brain dead (and never has been). He still responds to us, even now, but after reviewing the recent muscle MRI it was considered that Charlie’s muscles have deteriorated to the extent that it is largely irreversible and, were treatment to work, his quality of life would now not be one which we would want for our precious little boy. They both agreed that treatment should have been started sooner.

“There is one simple reason for Charlie’s muscles deteriorating to the extent they are in now – TIME. A whole lot of wasted time. Had Charlie been given the treatment sooner he would have had the potential to be a normal, healthy little boy. His muscles were in pretty good shape in January, although obviously weaker than a child of similar age, and his brain scan was that of a relatively normal child of his age. He may well have had some disabilities later on in life but his quality of life could have been improved greatly.

Chris Gard and Connie Yates with Charlie when he was born (Image: PA)

“The reason that treatment was not commenced in January or April this year was that Charlie was found to have ‘irreversible brain damage’ and treatment was considered as ‘futile’. Dr Hirano and Dr Bertini, together with other internationally renowned paediatric neurologists, have now reviewed Charlie’s MRIs and EEGs which were performed in January and April respectively and they have confirmed that these MRIs and EEGs showed NO actual evidence of irreversible brain damage.

“Unfortunately Professor Hirano did not have access to the raw data and he based what he said in April on reports. We did not have access to these second opinions before the initial trial, hence why we are where we are today. Had we had the opportunity to have raw data of the MRIs and EEGs independently reviewed, we are convinced Charlie would be on treatment now and improving all the time.

“However, we are now in July and our poor boy has been left to just lie in hospital for months without any treatment whilst lengthy court battles have been fought. We have been told time and time again that Charlie has a ‘progressive disease’ but rather than allow treatment for him with a medication that was widely accepted to have no side effects, Charlie has been left with his illness to deteriorate, sadly, to the point of no return.

“We would like to say a few words in the hope that Charlie’s life will not be in vain. We have always acted in our son’s best interests from the very beginning. We were told back in November that all his organs would fail and it was likely that we only had days left with him but to this day, aside from Charlie’s need for ventilation, not one organ has ‘failed’.

(Image: PA)

“We have always been led by Charlie. I promise every single one of you that we would not have fought this hard for our son if we thought that he was in pain or suffering. There has never been any proof that he was and we still don’t think that he’s in pain or suffering to this day. Having said that, we have decided to let our son go and that’s for one reason and one reason only. It is because the prospect of improvement is unfortunately now too low for Charlie. Our doctors in America and Italy were still willing to treat Charlie after reviewing the MRI head scan from July 2017 as they still felt that there was a chance of meaningful improvement in Charlie’s brain. However, due to the deterioration in his muscles, there is now no way back for Charlie. Time that has been wasted. It is time that has sadly gone against him.

“We now have seven experts supporting therapy for Charlie’s condition which I think is proof that it was more than reasonable to try it. Nucleosides are simply a powder that would’ve gone into Charlie’s milk and are compounds which all of us in this room produce naturally. Unfortunately, Charlie can’t produce these due to his disease, which is why he is the way he is. We want people to realise that we have been speaking to parents whose children were just like Charlie before starting treatment and now some of them are walking around like normal children. We wanted Charlie to have that chance too.

“Our son has an extremely rare disease for which there is no accepted cure but that does not mean that this treatment would not have worked, and it certainly does not mean that this shouldn’t have been tried. We have only been asking for a three-month trial of treatment to see if there was any improvement. We have been asking for this short trial for the past eight months. Charlie did have a real chance of getting better if only therapy was started sooner.

“It was never false hope as confirmed by many experts. Now we will never know what would have happened if he got treatment but it’s not about us. It’s never been about us. It’s about what’s best for Charlie now. At the point in time when it has become too late for Charlie we have made the agonising decision to let him go.

“This has also never been about ‘parents know best’. We have continuously listened to experts in this field and it has raised fundamental issues, ethically, legally and medically – this is why the story of one little boy from two normal everyday people has raised such conflicting opinions and ferocious arguments worldwide.

“All we wanted to do was take Charlie from one world-renowned hospital to another world-renowned hospital in the attempt to save his life and to be treated by the world leader in mitochondrial disease. We feel that we should have been trusted as parents to do so but we will always know in our hearts that we did the very best for Charlie and I hope that he is proud of us for fighting his corner.

“We will have to live with the ‘what ifs’ which will haunt us for the rest of our lives but we’re thinking about what’s best for our son. We have always believed that Charlie deserved a chance at life and we knew that his brain was not as bad it was made out to be and that’s why we continued.

“We completely understand that everyone is entitled to their opinion and this was always going to be a matter which would cause a huge debate in who’s right and who’s wrong. In truth, there are no winners here. One thing is for sure though. We know deep within our hearts that we have always had Charlie’s best interests in the forefront of our minds and despite what some people think of us, we will try to walk away from this with our heads held high. As I said, we know the truth, and in our hearts we know that we have done all of this for our darling little Charlie. We have never done this for selfish reasons. We didn’t keep him alive just because we couldn’t bear to lose him.

“Charlie had a real chance of getting better. It’s now unfortunately too late for him but it’s not too late for others with this horrible disease and other diseases. We will continue to help and support families of ill children and try and make Charlie live on in the lives of others. We owe it to him to not let his life be in vain.

“We would like to thank our current legal team who have worked tirelessly to try and save Charlie’s life and they have not asked for a single penny. They won’t even let us buy them a coffee. They have done it out of the kindness of their hearts because they believed in us and they certainly believed in Charlie. We would like to thank everybody who has supported us throughout this journey in this country and thousands of people worldwide and we also would like to thank the staff at GOSH who have looked after Charlie and kept him comfortable and stable for so long. The care he has received from the nurses who’ve cared for him has been second to none. But most of all, we would like to thank Charlie for the joy he has brought to our lives. The love we have for you is too much for words and we love you so very much.

“Despite the way that our beautiful son has been spoken about sometimes, as if he not worthy of a chance at life, our son is an absolute WARRIOR and we could not be prouder of him and we will miss him terribly. One little boy has brought the world together and whatever people’s opinions are, no one can deny the impact our beautiful son has had on the world and his legacy will never ever die. Charlie has had a greater impact on and touched more people in this world in his 11 months than many people do in a lifetime.

“We could not have more love and pride for our beautiful boy. His body, heart and soul may soon be gone, but his spirit will live on for eternity and he will make a difference to people’s lives for years to come. As his mum and dad, we will make sure of that. We owe that to our boy. We will do our utmost to ensure that no parents have to go through what we have been through and the next Charlie that comes along WILL get this medicine before it’s too late and Charlie will save many more lives in the future, no doubt about that.

“We are struggling to find any comfort or peace with all this, but one thing that does give us the slightest bit of comfort, is that we truly believe that Charlie may have been too special for this cruel world. We are now going to spend our last precious moments with our son Charlie, who unfortunately won’t make his first birthday in just under two weeks’ time, and we would ask that our privacy is respected at this very difficult time.

“Mummy and Daddy love you so much Charlie, we always have and we always will and we are so sorry that we couldn’t save you.

“Sweet dreams baby. Sleep tight our beautiful little boy. Charlie Matthew William Gard. Our hero!”

 
 

Wrong Way

Why is this such a problem? I just don’t understand it.

How to stay alive if a wrong-way driver comes at you

Simulation of a wrong-way driving situation (Source: 3TV/CBS 5)

Simulation of a wrong-way driving situation (Source: 3TV/CBS 5)
SCOTTSDALE, AZ (3TV/CBS 5) – The owners of a Scottsdale driver-training school have created wrong-way driving scenarios for their simulator to help combat the onslaught of wrong-way driving crashes happening throughout the state.

Richard and Maria Wojtczak own Driving MBA, which offers driver education to students of all ages.

In 2016, when several critical wrong-way driving crashes occurred within a short period of time, the Wojtczaks decided they needed to add techniques for dealing with wrong-way drivers to their program.

“We keep working on new scenarios. So, we’re continually improving our programs and so the wrong-way drivers, we continue to make sure we incorporate that into the curriculum,” Maria explained

[SPECIAL-SECTION: Wrong-way drivers]

Richard demonstrated a couple of those scenarios, explaining that they are designed to give the student driver a true sense of what it’s like to have a car coning straight at you.

“All the sudden I see somebody coming at me. First thing I’ve got to do is get way over. Keep under control. Keep calm and get out of the way,” said Richard.

The key, according to the experts, is to be positioned for anything before something happens.

“We teach a concept called strategic driving,” Maria said. “Pay attention. Look what’s going on around you so you can keep your head in the game. It’s staggering yourself so that you know that if anything happens you’ve got an out on one side or the other. You’ve got to pay attention and you’ve got to pace yourself to make that happen.”

The ideal situation is to be staggered with other traffic. If a wrong-way driver approaches, slow down and move as far to the right as possible. The left is not a great option because if the wrong-way driver suddenly sees you, his or her instinct would be to move to their right, thus creating a head-on collision with you, according to the Wojtczak’s.

“The whole point of using the simulator is to create the experience ahead of time so that they’re not ad libbing at 70 miles an hour,” Richard said.

If you’re in a situation where a wrong-way driver is coming up on you, there will not be much time.

“This is why distracted driving is a problem,” Maria said. “If you have something like this, this is catastrophic. If you’re not paying attention you won’t have the wherewithal to really handle the situation. So being in the game of driving, which is not easy when we’re behind the wheel of the car, is really important for us to stay focused.”

If you are boxed in and your only choice is to side-swipe a car or get hit by the wrong-way driver, Richard says your chances of survival are better with the sideswipe.

Copyright 2017 KPHO/KTVK (KPHO Broadcasting Corporation). All rights reserved.

The Mirror

We have met the enemy and he is us.

What most people call a “truth teller” in politics is someone who repeats their dearest held beliefs and prejudices back to them. This is easy to do because SOMETIMES, those things are true. That being said, the vast majority of people seldom want to hear anything that challenges their beliefs. So they don’t read it; they don’t like it and they don’t share it with their friends. When media becomes a highly competitive business, which it is on both the Left and the Right, these stories become unprofitable and few people write them. Instead, they focus on stories that make money. In other words, if conservatives believed there were men on Mars, most of the hosts on Fox would be talking Martians all week while the hosts on MSNBC would be doing specials on Mole Men at the center of the earth if that’s what liberals believed in.

Don’t get me wrong; there are people with integrity in the media and politics, but the truth is that integrity isn’t what sells any more. Neither is human decency. Instead, the public loves controversy, disaster and outrage. So why not tell a shiny lie? Why not say something terrible? It’s like I told my friend Matt Lewis on Twitter, “If 1000 people think you’re scum, but you get 100 new twitter followers who want to see a train wreck, it’s a win to a lot of people.”

This is how a lot of people on both sides of the aisle have built careers. The more horrible things they say, they more they’re attacked by people on the other side which makes them more popular with their own side. In fact, that had more than a little bit to do with how Donald Trump became president.

But, what does that sort of thinking lead to ultimately? A world where people like Bill Maher and Shaun King represent liberalism while Ann Coulter and Milo Yiannopoulos are the ones most associated with conservatism while everyone else is trying to up their a-hole game to catch up.

Incidentally, this dovetails nicely with conspiracy theories which are becoming increasingly prevalent because surprisingly, accuracy doesn’t matter all that much to the public. It doesn’t matter whether you’re floating the idea that the Russians rigged the voting machines on the Left or that George Bush planned to merge America, Canada and Mexico on the Right, there’s no price paid for foisting nutty conspiracy theories on the public, but there are gains to be made by doing it. Online, conspiracy theorists make up in enthusiasm what they lack in numbers and they’ll push what you’re doing. So, if no one abandons you over your ridiculous conspiracies or indifference to truth, the only thing stopping you is your conscience. So, if you’re say Mike Cernovich, Alex Jones, Robert Reich or Michael Moore and have no conscience, why not go for it?

We blame the media, but we CREATE the media. Liberals want to hear anti-conservative propaganda; so that’s what they get. Conservatives reward people who lie to us and worse yet, people who hate us. So much of what has gone wrong with our country from the conservative perspective comes down to that old saying, “The squeaky wheel gets the grease.” Liberals are loud; we are quiet. The Washington Post pisses us off, but we don’t cancel our subscriptions. Hollywood stars come out against everything we stand for, but we keep watching their movies. Colleges openly work to brainwash our kids to hate everything we believe in and we send them there anyway. We might as well wear “Kick Me” signs.

Also, is anyone being honest about why government is so screwed up in America? It’s screwed up because of US conservatives, liberals, moderates, you, me, all of us.

Politicians lie to us and we shrug our shoulders and say, “That’s how it goes.You can’t expect these guys to be honest.” We talk big about wanting balanced budgets, but then get upset when we’re confronted with the reality that it’s not possible to get there without cutting Social Security, Medicare and the Defense budget. We send our money in to PACS that are often completely ineffective at best or outright scams at worst. Interest groups have learned from us that it’s better to shoot down every piece of legislation than to back something that’s less than perfect which will call their purity into question. The same members of leadership in both parties who do nothing to make the country better and everything to make it worse win over and over again no matter how badly they fail.

At the end of the day, most Americans love snark more than wisdom and they would much rather be entertained than informed, catered to rather than challenged.  That’s why we have the culture we do, the media we do and the politicians we do. If we change ourselves, then all those things will change, too. Cross your fingers, but don’t hold your breath.

We are all Charlie Gard

Now.

With Government Health Care, the State has say over who lives and who dies.

BY-Partisanship

The story of health care policy this week, this month and for the last decade (at least) has been a tale of partisan folly. But fear not, this isn’t another earnest pundit’s lament for the vital center to emerge, phoenix-like, to form a governing coalition of moderates in both parties. That’s not my bag.

After all, I have always argued that bipartisanship is overrated.

Bipartisan support often means unthinking support (as the founders could have told you). Partisans may be annoying from time to time, but they also can be relied upon to point out the shortcomings of what the other side is doing. When partisan criticism is missing, it might be a sign that politicians in both parties are helping themselves, not the country. Or, it might mean they’re pandering to the passions of the public and press rather than doing the hard work of thinking things through.

So you’ll get no warm and fuzzy pleading for moderates to scrub clean the word “compromise” so that it’s no longer a dirty word in Washington. Others can make the case for that. And besides, that argument misses the essence of this spectacular failure. Honest partisanship isn’t the problem, bipartisan dishonesty is.

Both parties have become defined by their lies and their refusal to accept reality. It’s a problem bigger than health care, but health care is probably the best illustration of it.

For seven years Republicans campaigned to repeal Obamacare. We now know that for many of those politicians, that pledge was a sales pitch that expired after the sale — i.e., the election — was final.

But before liberal readers pull a muscle nodding their heads: The Democrats aren’t any better. Obamacare itself was lied into passage. “You can keep your plan!” “You can keep your doctor!” “Your premiums won’t go up!” These were lies. If those promises were remotely true, Obamacare wouldn’t be the mess it is.

But these aren’t even the lies I have in mind.

The Republican “repeal and replace” bills debated for the last six months did not in fact repeal Obamacare. They kept most of its regulations intact — particularly the popular ones. The GOP did seek to repeal and reform the Medicaid expansion under Obamacare, but that’s not the same thing as repealing Obamacare.

Yet Republicans insisted it was a repeal because they wanted to claim that they fulfilled their repeal pledge. Actually fulfilling the substance of the pledge was a low-order priority. Heroically winning the talking point: This was their brass ring.

George Orwell Quotes. Political language… is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.

So, too, for the White House. Donald Trump just wanted a win. He has made it abundantly clear that he would sign anything the Republicans sent him — up to and possibly including the head of Alfredo Garcia if someone had written “Obamacare: Repealed” on the poor chap’s forehead. Trump has shown zero preference for any specific policy or approach during these debates. He just wants the bragging rights.

 

And that is the one thing Democrats are most determined to deny him. The Democrats know that Obamacare has been an albatross for their party. They often acknowledge, through gritted teeth, that the law needs a substantial overhaul.

More important, they also know that the GOP wasn’t pushing an actual repeal. But they couldn’t tolerate for a moment the idea that the Republicans would get to claim it was repeal. So the one thing both sides could agree upon was that this was a zero-sum war over repealing Obamacare — when it wasn’t.

In our age there is no such thing as ‘keeping out of politics.’ All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred and schizophrenia. George Orwell

This was all about bogus gasconade and rodomontade for Republicans and insecure rhetorical wagon-circling around Barack Obama’s “legacy” for Democrats. If Trump and the GOP agreed to abandon “repeal,” as Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer wants, one can only wonder how much replacing of Obamacare Schumer would allow the GOP to get away with.

Likewise, if Democrats could somehow give Republicans the ability to say they repealed Obamacare, many Republican senators — and certainly Trump — would probably be happy to leave the bulk of it intact.

It is this fact that makes the polarized, tribal climate in Washington so frustrating. I like partisan fights when those fights are about something real. The Medicaid fight was at least about something real. But most of this nonsense is a battle of liars trying to protect past lies in the hope of being able to make new lies seem just plausible enough for the liars to keep repeating them. (jonah goldberg)

The very concept of objective truth is fading out of the world. Lies will pass into history. George Orwell
Republicans this week:
What they are fighting FOR:
fighting for1fighting for 2grim

How to Win

Condescension being a hallmark of liberalism is an age-old discussion. Yet, after Hillary Clinton’s stinging 2016 defeat to Donald Trump, some are wondering if their attitude to people who don’t think, act, or live like them might be an issue in terms of bridging the cultural divide we have (i.e. urban vs. rural). Business Insider’s Josh Barro, who also hosts Left, Right, and Center on KCRW, commented on this issue and offered ways in which his fellow Democrats can stop being so annoying. There are parts with which I disagree – namely that we’re a socially liberal country. I still think we’re right-of-center, but Barro is blunt and straightforward in his assessment that liberals have just become insufferable in their intolerance towards people who don’t live in the urban bastions of progressivism. As a result, they have become the “moral busybodies” that was often a criticism of conservatism. Barro calls this particularly problem within liberalism “the hamburger problem.” And by cultural disconnect, he’s not talking about policy stances either, which is often an excuse for liberals to think that they’re not out of touch.

Suppose you’re a middle-income man with a full-time job, a wife who also works outside the home, and some children. Suppose it’s a Sunday in the early fall, and your plan for today is to relax, have a burger, and watch a football game.

Conservatives will say, “Go ahead, that sounds like a nice Sunday.” (In the Trump era, they’re not going to bother you about not going to church.) But you may find that liberals have a few points of concern they want to raise about what you mistakenly thought was your fundamentally nonpolitical plan for the day.

Liberals want you to know that you should eat less meat so as to contribute less to global warming. They’re concerned that your diet is too high in sodium and saturated fat. They’re upset that the beef in your hamburger was factory-farmed.

They think the name of your favorite football team is racist. Or even if you hate the Washington Redskins, they have a long list of other reasons that football is problematic.

Beyond what you’re doing this weekend, this movement has a long list of moral judgments about your ongoing personal behavior.

The SUV you bought because it was easier to install car seats in doesn’t get good enough gas mileage. Why don’t you have an electric car?

The gender-reveal party you held for your most recent child inaccurately conflated gender with biological sex. (“Cutting into a pink or blue cake seems innocent enough — but honestly, it’s not,” Marie Claire warned earlier this month.)

You don’t ride the subway because you have that gas-guzzling car, but if you did, the way you would sit on it would be sexist.

No item in your life is too big or too small for this variety of liberal busybodying. On the one hand, the viral video you found amusing was actually a manifestation of the patriarchy. On the other hand, you actually have an irresponsibly large number of carbon-emitting children.

[…]

Liberals like to complain that working-class voters who back Republicans have voted “against their own self-interest,” by which they implicitly mean economic self-interest. This idea could benefit from a little introspection.

Do liberals go into the voting booth and choose a candidate based on a narrow conception of economic self-interest? Of course not.

[…]

Objectively, you would think the groups most substantively exposed to risk from the Trump presidency are low-income people who face benefit cuts and members of minority groups against whom he whips up and indulges negative sentiment.

Yet, as the Republican pollster Patrick Ruffini has pointed out in his analyses of turnout in House special elections, the “resistance” surge in Democratic turnout relative to Republican turnout is occurring almost entirely among college-educated whites. That is, the people most alarmed by Trump seem to be the ones who stand to lose the most cultural power, not those who stand to lose the most materially.

Barro later goes into how liberals can fix this perception that could hurt outreach initiatives since whether they like to admit it or not, Democrats need to win back white working class voters (i.e. Trump voters). One is working to diffuse the high tension on cultural issues and recognizing that this is not a sign of defeat or compromise. Actually, this can be applied to a whole host of issues that liberals will fight to the death on, like immigration. Here’s the rest of his advice on what liberals should do to temper their cultural intolerance:

Don’t tell people they should feel guilty. As I discussed at the top of this piece, Americans are broadly open to liberal positions on cultural policy issues. Over the last few decades, they have increasingly internalized the idea that the government should let people be free to do what they want in their lives. So embrace that ethos by emphasizing how liberal policy positions would let members of all sorts of groups live their best lives, protected from discrimination and harm. Don’t tell people they should feel bad about living their own lives as they want.

Say when you think the liberal commentariat has gone overboard. While former President Barack Obama has urged people to eat less meat, usually the leading voices of the new liberal moralism are not politicians. Less-smug liberal commentators will usually protest that these voices are marginal, especially the college students who get so much attention on Fox News for protesting culturally insensitive sushi in the dining hall. If these voices are so marginal, it should be easy enough for Democratic politicians to distance themselves by saying, for example, that some college students have gotten a little nuts and should focus on their studies instead of the latest politically correct cause. Showing that you also think liberal cultural politics has gotten a little exhausting is a good way to relate to a lot of voters.

Offer an agenda that provides benefits people can see as mattering in their daily lives. If you want voters to refocus away from petty cultural fights and toward public policy, it’s not enough to turn down the temperature on culture; you need a policy agenda they can relate to. I wrote in December about some ideas to do this — though of course, you could also make such an agenda in farther-left flavors.

Don’t get distracted by shiny objects. If the government can’t do anything about the problem you’re discussing — if it’s purely a matter of the cultural discourse — should you spend your time on it and risk alienating people on the opposite side of the issue? Probably not.

You can debate among yourselves if this will actually take hold with Democratic Party leaders and the elite that keep the war chests funded. Right now, let’s say it’s very possible that these could take hold. Democrats have no economic message for the 2018 midterms at present. They’re divided, leaderless, and searching for a route to political revival. You never know what could be added into the mix, if they ever get to it—for a winning political message. At the same time, there’s plenty to suggest this won’t happen. The number of rural Democrats on the Hill is slim. Overall, they’re pretty much a species on the verge of extinction. They were all but wiped out in 2010. In Appalachia, a once robust bastion of Democratic support among working class whites, Hillary Clinton only won 21 out of its 490 counties. That’s a total collapse and Democratic elites may not want to even bother with rebuilding the party apparatus out there, though it’s necessary if they want to expand the map, especially for state and local races which are key to keeping a talent pool well maintained for future national races. Also, these people don’t think white voters matter, which was crystal clear with the Clinton campaign.

Condescension seems to have its roots in American liberalism. Whenever it’s mentioned I always think back to the story between an aide and Adlai Stevenson, who, like Clinton, is also a two-time presidential loser; Stevenson ran and lost twice in 1952 and 1956. The tale goes that the aide was confident of a Stevenson win, saying to the Democratic candidate something along the lines of “Mr. Stevenson, you have the thinking people on your side” to which Stevenson replies, “ah, but I need a majority.” Snobbery and condescension may have always been ingrained in liberal politics, but social media made this virus airborne. (Matt Vespa)

Then there were these idiots who just had to snatch defeat from victory because they are narcissistic:

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Political Cartoons by Steve Kelley

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

 

Thanks, Sen. Blutarsky

Well, the ObamaCare Repeal failed yet again. Thanks, Sen. Blutarsky (aka Mitch “The Ditch” Mcconnell).

Image result for senator Blutarsky
The Drunken Stupor of Sen. Blutarsky continues where he talked smack for 7 years to the Dean (Obama) and now he has to produce it and he just can’t get out of his own way. “See if you can guess what I am now…A weak-willed RINO” You guys up for a toga party?
Sen. Shelly Moore Capito (R-WV) said on Tuesday that she couldn’t vote for a Obamacare repeal bill because it would “hurt people.” She didn’t feel that way in 2015, “Americans deserve a health care system that works for them and Obamacare is not it. “

Not that the Republican really wanted to do it again anyhow. They are forced into it like a kid having to eat their vegetables. You serve them straight, they won’t eat them. You try and hide them, and they still won’t eat them.

Mom forces them to. They pick at it. They nibble. They make faces. They ultimately won’t.

But these guys don’t go to their room hungry. They are too Elitist and too rich and powerful to care. Oh well, no big deal.

They never wanted to do it anyways. They were just playing the “Screw You” card to Obama and getting rich and powerful on the Hate (kinda Like Sith Lords or Kylo Ren the wanna-be hapless Vader) but now that they have to actually do it, they are exposed as the frauds they are.

It’s Animal House, and The Congress is the Frat house.

Youre a goddamned disgrace!
You’re all worthless and weak!
You fucked up, you trusted us — Congress.
Now we could do it with conventional weapons, but that could take years and cost millions of lives. No, I think we have to go all out. I think that this situation absolutely requires a really futile and stupid gesture be done on somebody’s part!
Us: Don’t screw around, they’re serious this time!
voters1
They talked smack about The Dean, but now they have to produce and Like Animal House, it just devolves in a display of stupidity, in this case Elitist “But I don’t wanna go”.

 

Weed Accident

According to the Washington State Marijuana Impact Report, the incidents of marijuana-impaired driving are increasing dramatically. Fatal driving accidents have risen 122 percent between 2010 and 2014, according to the Washington State Traffic Safety Commission. The traffic safety organization AAA has its own reports on marijuana use among drivers in fatal crashes, and the picture is equally bleak.

“That’s anecdotal evidence!!” Weed advocates always say in the most predictable fashion imaginable… while citing their own anecdotal experiences. Usually something along the lines of “Pot helps me focus, man.”

YodaFacePalmReaction GIF

Try again, dummy.

As we’ve learned in the past, arguing pot is bad gets you no brownie points with the surprisingly large pot crowd. It’s a losing battle, like trying to drive efficiently while stoned out of your mind. But the potheads stopped reading at my mention of “brownies.” For you non-stoners, it gets worse…

According to the impact report… In 2014, youth under the age of 20 made up 45 percent of Washington Poison Center calls. That number of calls has increased 80 percent since legalization. One in six infants and toddlers admitted to Children’s Hospital in Colorado with coughing, wheezing, and other symptoms of bronchitis tested positive for marijuana, according to a study found in the American Academy of Pediatrics.

Okay, potheads. Remember when you said “Hey man, pot is, like, totally fine, and it’s only affecting me, so stay out of my life, bro”? No. You’re a moron. Also you reek.

Let’s be honest here: there’s an impact. Not just because of your stench. (Speaking of impacts… And it’s not maybe connected to marijuana legalization. There are studies that substantiate a definite connection. The results? Not awesome. Obviously.

If you want to get high… well you’re a moron, and getting high will make you more of a moron. But fine. After all, things like Coachella wouldn’t exist if potheads weren’t there to attend. Just don’t drive, operate any machinery, or be around children. All things, by the way, a responsible person would’ve known. But since you’re actively dumbing yourself down, on purpose, we have to spell it out for you. Thanks for that.

And no, pot’s not comparable to alcohol. There are tests that determine how much alcohol content is in your bloodstream. We can’t yet do that with weed, so it’s impossible to handle these incidents the same way. Which makes this entire ordeal much more difficult to navigate. Weed laws are messy. Almost as messy as your ganja saturated dreadlocks. Soap. Seriously, go find some.

But here’s what we know: marijuana is a mind-altering substance. So when you drive while high, you’re endangering the lives of everyone else on the road. Again, a major duh for those of us who prefer to keep our mental facilities semi-sharp. Our inability to monitor you stoners leaves the majority of the responsibility up to the smokers.

Which is problematic, because if you’re smoking weed good decisions probably aren’t your thing.

Publishing Diversity

equal1

When does the “oppressed” become the oppressor? When do they go too far in the other direction and their is no balance. No Tolerance. No Diversity. Only their view and nothing else?

“The oppressed, instead of striving for liberation, tend themselves to become oppressors.” “Liberation is thus a childbirth, and a painful one.” … They do not liberate, nor are they liberated: they oppress.”-Paolo Freire

Academics and scholars must be mindful about using research done by only straight, white men, according to two scientists who argued that it oppresses diverse voices and bolsters the status of already privileged and established white male scholars.

Geographers Carrie Mott and Daniel Cockayne argued in a recent paper that doing so also perpetuates what they call “white heteromasculinism,” which they defined as a “system of oppression” that benefits only those who are “white, male, able-bodied, economically privileged, heterosexual, and cisgendered.” (Cisgendered describes people whose gender identity matches their birth sex.)

Mott, a professor at Rutgers University in New Jersey, and Cockayne, who teaches at the University of Waterloo in Ontario, argued that scholars or researchers disproportionately cite the work of white men, thereby unfairly adding credence to the body of knowledge they offer while ignoring the voices of other groups, like women and black male academics. Although citation seems like a mundane practice, the feminist professors argue that citing someone’s work has implications on his or her ability to be hired, get promoted and obtain tenured status, among others.

Related: Women’s issues are different from trans women’s issues, feminist author says, sparking criticism

“This important research has drawn direct attention to the continued underrepresentation and marginalization of women, people of color. … To cite narrowly, to only cite white men … or to only cite established scholars, does a disservice not only to researchers and writers who are othered by white heteromasculinism …,” they wrote in the paper published recently in the journal Gender, Place and Culture.

Mott and Cockayne did not immediately respond to questions from The Washington Post, but Mott told Campus Reform last week that they decided to write about citation practices after observing that research done by white men are relied upon more heavily than those done by experts from other backgrounds.

Work done by women and other minorities have often been overlooked by their peers, hindering their professional advancement and depriving disciplines of diverse perspectives, she argued.

When citations are predominantly those of the work of white, straight males, “this means that the views and knowledge that are represented do not reflect the experience of people from other backgrounds,” she told Campus Reform. “When scholars continue to cite only white men on a given topic, they ignore the broader diversity of voices and researchers that are also doing important work on that topic.”

In their 22-page paper, “Citation matters: mobilizing the politics of citation toward a practice of ‘conscientious engagement,'” they explained that their work was motivated by “shared feelings of discomfort, frustration, and anger” over actions of fellow scholars and publication practices.

The authors offer what they describe as practical strategies for fellow geographers who work in a largely male-dominated discipline. According to the American Association of Geographers, men and women account for 62 percent and 38 percent of its members, respectively.

Related: Feminist group alleges sexually hostile environment at U of Mary Washington

One of them: Scholars should read through their work and count all the citations before submitting their work for publication, and see how many people of diverse backgrounds — women, people of color, early-career scholars, graduate students and non-academics — are cited.

“Today, the field is more diverse, but this diversity is largely represented by earlier career scholars. Citing only tenured, established scholars means that these voices are ignored, especially when it is well-known that today’s brutally competitive academic job market continues to privilege the white heteromasculinist body,” they wrote.

Editors and reviewers also can act as watchdogs of sort by scrutinizing a scholar’s body of citation, they argued.

A Campus Reform writer said she asked the researchers whether the disparity in citations is simply because there are more men than women in the field of geography. In response, Cockayne said their point is that research done by “marginalized voices” is often ignored.

Mott and Cockayne both describe themselves as feminists and have done research related to feminism.

Mott also focuses her research on race and social justice, among other things. She describes herself as a “feminist political geographer,” who’s interested in “how resistance movements mobilize to fight against state-sponsored violence and marginalization.” Cockayne’s research and interest are on digital media, entrepreneurship, and gender and sexuality. (WP)

Trust Issues

Conservatives have long had justifiable concerns with today’s colleges. Parents send their children to school, only to have them inundated with liberal lessons in the classroom and progressive events on campus. Commencement speakers with explicitly liberal ideologies outnumber conservatives by 4-to-1. 

To put it bluntly, conservative ideals are demonized and conservatives have officially had it, at least according to a new Pew Research Center study.

A majority of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents (58%) now say that colleges and universities have a negative effect on the country, up from 45% last year. By contrast, most Democrats and Democratic leaners (72%) say colleges and universities have a positive effect, which is little changed from recent years.

This study makes even more sense when taking a look at the political breakdown of today’s campuses. In a study of dozens of college faculty, the Econ Journal Watch found that professors clearly favored one party over the other.

We investigate the voter registration of faculty at 40 leading U.S. universities in the fields of Economics, History, Journalism/Communications, Law, and Psychology. We looked up 7,243 professors and found 3,623 to be registered Democratic and 314 Republican, for an overall D:R ratio of 11.5:1.

President Trump has done much to expose the liberal bias rampant in today’s universities. More than once this past year, a professor has been busted for spewing hate against the commander-in-chief. Orange Coast College Professor Olga Perez Stable Cox said Trump’s election was an “act of terrorism” and called the president “one of the most anti-gay humans in this country.”

St. Joseph University Professor David Parry said that Trump’s victory was an act of “violence.”

“People are going to die because of what happened,” he told his students.

There are plenty more opinionated professors where they came from.

Roger Ream, president of the Fund for American Studies, said the culture needs to change – now.

“With the price of a college education skyrocketing and the landscape of the American economy rapidly changing, we must make sure that students are graduating with the ability to think critically and form nuanced opinions. That can’t happen if they only encounter one point of view. Students deserve to receive a balanced educational foundation and it’s the job of college administrators to ensure they do so.”

 But Homo Superior Liberalis is a narcissistic beast. They believe only THEY are superior and thus anything they say is superior so who would they want to be “fair” and “open minded” when they are already perfection?
  • Two Illinois professors are using “social justice video games” developed by high school students to teach about “white privilege” and “police misconduct.”
  • The games, which were developed in 2015 by 13 Chicago teenagers, include selections such as “Can You Serve and Protect?” and “Growing Up Black in Chicago.”

Two Illinois professors are using “social justice video games” developed by high school students to teach about “white privilege” and “police misconduct.”

The Street Arcade”—a collaboration between Steven Ciampaglia, a professor at Northern Illinois University, and Kerry Richardson, who teaches at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago—is designed to help teens create “social issue video games as a platform for community dialogue.”

“We designed this project…as a medium for social justice.

[RELATED: University to offer ‘Social Justice Advocacy’ certificate program]

The program began in the summer of 2015, when the professors worked with 13 teenagers from Chicago’s South Side to create a series of art video games on contemporary social issues, which include “white privilege, racial profiling, peer pressure, and others,” according to their website.

The video games, which can also be played online, were then unveiled to the public at the Hyde Park Art Center in Chicago later that summer, where passersby could play titles such as “Can You Serve and Protect?” and “Growing Up Black in Chicago.”

“I am African American and I see on the news how the police are killing my kind,” reads a description of the the former. “It kind of hurts me and I want to just change that to make a better world, for not only my community, but for everybody else.”

Neither Richardson nor Ciampaglia responded to inquiries from Campus Reform as to whether the program is currently running, but the professors just published an article on their project in the latest issue of the Journal of Art Education.

“Video games are clearly attractive to teens in our experience running community art programs,” they said, noting that they’ve often found that teenagers want to learn how to make them. “We designed this project to capitalize on this allure by using the new media art conception of video games to—known as art games—as a medium for social justice.”

[RELATED: USC video game panel cancelled over lack of women]

The project was funded by the nonprofit A Blade of Grass, which granted the professors $20,000 in “unrestricted project support” and a one-year fellowship, according to their announcement of their 2015 Fellows for Socially Engaged Art.

Earlier this year, the nonprofit produced a video in praise of the program, during which students lamented the preponderance of “white people programming the games” that are normally released to the public, and expressed a desire for more women and minorities to be involved in the video game industry.

“The game is engaging people and putting them into this place where they’re forced to consider [these social justice issues],” Professor Richardson said in the video.

Neither professor responded to requests for comment on their program.


RINO Shame

Michael Reagan

I saw an honest Republican congressman on TV the other day.

I was so shocked I can’t remember who it was or what channel I was watching.

It was a mirage.

But he gave the most truthful explanation I’ve heard from a  Republican politician all year about why the GOP can’t get it together on health care reform.

The congressman was asked the same simple question that House and Senate Republicans have been asked a million times before –

“Why didn’t you guys have a bill ready in January that would repeal and replace ObamaCare?”

After all, for seven years Republicans had railed in unison against the stupidities, inefficiencies and inequities of ObamaCare.

See yesterday’s blog IMHO.

Republican candidates in flyover country had used the “repeal & replace” mantra to help them win dozens of governorships, House seats and Senate seats.

The GOP-controlled House had bravely and boldly voted for bills to repeal it at least five hundred times.

Then last fall Donald Trump shocked the world and Republicans even took narrow control of the U.S. Senate.

Repealing ObamaCare suddenly became possible.

And the Republicans went “oh shit! You mean we actually have to do something?”

But as the honest congressman I saw on TV admitted, the GOP wasn’t ready because “We never thought Donald Trump would win.”

So they were geared up to be The Trolling Opposition as usual. They didn’t mean a word of it. They were just using the Sheeple for their own power.

Like everyone else in the political and media establishment, Republicans in DC believed Hillary Clinton was sure to be the next president.

With her and Bill in the Oval Office armed with their veto pens, the GOP had no serious plans drawn up for ending ObamaCare – or trying to do anything else.

I still think secretly and strategically they wanted her.

So when Trump won on Nov. 8, 2016,, Republicans in Congress basically said, “Oh, crap. What do we do now?”

Overnight a whole bunch of Republicans became terrified about having to back up their tough repeal-and-replace talk with actual legislation.

YOU MEAN WE HAVE ACTUALLY DO SOMETHING! WE HAVE BE ACCOUNTABLE!!

Eight months later they’re still looking for their conservative spines and trying to figure out what to do.

They’re stuck between living up to their empty promises or losing their seats in Congress in 2018.

They’re afraid to vote to take away the “free” or subsidized health care coverage ObamaCare gave millions of voters as it wrecked the already government- wrecked health care world.

A RINO has no spine. But boy, does he have a big mouth when hr’s not in charge.

But if they lose control of the Senate in 2018, Republicans are done. They’ll see nothing passed if Chuck Schumer and the Democrats get to run the Senate.

And it will be THEIR FAULT. The last, best hope for salvation squandered because they were too narcissistic to get out of their own way.

Schumer will do what Harry Reid did when he was boss – make sure no House bill ever comes up for a vote in the Senate.

At least this week the Senate took President Trump’s hint and put off their summer vacations for two weeks.

Now GOP leaders are again promising us they’ll put together a health care reform package that Rand Paul, Susan Collins and 48 other Republicans can vote for.

Ted Cruz announced Thursday that he’ll vote for the new bill as it exists at this point in time, but who knows what will change by next week.

After all the tough talk, Republicans may end up having to sit down with Democrats to “repair” ObamaCare, which will mean we’ll never be able to shop for health insurance across state lines and idiotic things like mandated maternity benefits for grandmothers will live forever.

 
And the end is nigh.
Political Cartoons by Henry Payne
Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy
Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

Aw Sh*t! Really?

Do you get the same feeling I get?

It’s the feeling that the Republican Party really, deep down, wanted Hillary to win too? I was much easier for them to just snipe and bitch and moan from the sidelines. Give The Democrats the finger and puff up their chests like a peacock and make themselves look important.

But not actually DO ANYTHING.

Just rile people up. Make excuses why you don’t do anything and collect your fat millions from the sheeple and the rich fat cats.

What a life.

The perpetual Troll.

Then f*cking Donald Trump and The American People had to go and screw it all up.

NOW we actually have to DO SOMETHING!!

How dare he!

And how dare you get mad us for promising for a decade “to fix it” and riling you up into a drooling lather then when it came to actually fulfill all those promises we just wanted to dick around, pick at our food like a teenager who got served vegetable. Go on vacation. Complain and moan some more.

Why do we have to do anything? It was som much easier just being the voice of “outrage”. Life was so much simpler then.

We’d pass a bill, 40 times in 8 years, to repeal Obamacare just for show.

We’d feign outrage at all his socialist and unconstitutional excesses but we really didn’t want to do anything about it. Not really.

We are the Government Elite. We just wanted to profit from them.

Now you want us to fix them?!! Are you F*cking nuts!

Why the hell would we want to do that?

Because we promised for 10 years we would?

Oh, ok Mom, I’ll half-ass it and act like I care. I’ll put on a show of “good faith”.

But really, my hearts just not in it. Can we go back to the way it was. I liked that better.

gop-says-thanks

Freedom of Speech is Censorship

Colleges should “screen” speakers to ensure that they are not giving a platform to “intolerant perspectives,” a University of Maryland student argues in a recent op-ed.
Moshe Klein argues that “there are important reasons to censor speech on the campus,” saying some viewpoints make certain students feel “unsafe.”

Colleges should “screen” speakers to ensure that they are not giving a platform to “intolerant perspectives,” a University of Maryland student argues in a recent op-ed.

“There is nothing inherently wrong with screening speakers, teachers and even students on the campus,” sophomore Moshe Klein declares in an op-ed for The Diamondback, arguing that “intolerant” points of view “prevent certain groups of people from participating in campus life safely.”

“There are important reasons to censor speech on the campus.”

“There are important reasons to censor speech on the campus,” Klein asserts, saying for instance that students would be justified in tearing down “fascist white power posters” to protest a speech by David Duke.

At the same time, he contends that it was “reasonable” for Harvard to revoke the acceptances of incoming freshmen who participated in an offensive meme-sharing group, because such action demonstrated “that there is no space for intolerant behavior.”

He does, however, acknowledge that “in some cases, what we consider intolerant is simply a different perspective,” saying students should only “walk out” on speakers—as University of Notre Dame students did to Vice President Mike Pence at their Commencement ceremony—when they “directly advocate targeting groups and [making] them feel unsafe.”

“That is how decisions about free speech on campus should be made, especially if campuses want to be authentically diverse and open-minded, and not just echo chambers,” he says.

Klein explained in an interview with Campus Reform that he was motivated to write his op-ed because he had been thinking often about free speech in light of how President Trump’s speech “often falls outside the parameters of acceptable discourse,” adding that he stands by his arguments.

“Speakers and teachers should be screened for hate speech—absolutely—especially on a campus like the University of Maryland, which proudly believes that every student has a ‘rightful place,’” he said, referring to the “Multicultural Philosophy” statement from UMD’s from their Department of Residential Life, which states that students have a “responsibility to recognize the rightful place of every other citizen in our community.”

Hate speech, he explained, has no place on college campuses, because “when hate speech is used, it is an assault on the safety and security of people,” and on a college campus “would constitute an assault on the safety and security of students.”

He did concede that it is often difficult to demarcate between views that are truly dangerous for students and those that are acceptable, saying that “oftentimes, these lines are difficult to discern and we have to use our best judgement about when we move from being uncomfortable to being unsafe.”

Russia Russia Russia

russia-brady

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/ukraine-sabotage-trump-backfire-233446

Remember, Politico is “trusted” by The Left as “fair”, yet the Left just can’t admit they are dishonest, yet again.

So now the partisan, agenda narrative must always be claws come out.

And the Ministry of Truth buries it under that “Beware The Leopard” sign.

One Major factor between Hillary and The DNC colluding with the Ukrainians that the Left will miss conveniently every time:

“Because Donald Trump Jr. does not serve in the administration and does not have a security clearance, he was not required to disclose his foreign contacts.”  In short, this meeting, which was portrayed as nefarious across several anti-Trump media outlets, was disclosed and openly reported by its attendees — Kushner and Manafort.  (The Hill)

DONALD TRUMP JR is NOT A GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL.

But never let facts get in the way of The Agenda.

In other words, the information Trump Jr. initially expressed interest in receiving was not hacked emails or illegally obtained documents but apparently information about Clinton’s official Secretary of State dealings with Russia.  At the time the information was offered on June 3, 2016, there was no information suggesting Russian hackers were responsible for the hacking of the DNC.  Donald Trump Jr., in other words, had no reason to believe that the information he sought was little more than opposition research. (The Hill)

The whole Russia thing was created by THE DNC and Clinton, remember.

Bill Clinton had given a $500,000 speech in Russia. Clinton had given her approval in handing one-fifth of U.S. uranium to Russia, after which her foundation received $2.35 million from the Russian-controlled company. Suspiciously, Clinton did not disclose the transaction.

Likewise, Clinton campaign chief John Podesta sat on the board of a company that received $35 million from the Russian government alongside fellow board members Anatoly Chubais, a senior Russian official, and Ruben Vardanyan, an oligarch.

doesn't matter

%d bloggers like this: