8 Years

8 Years ago today  I started this blog. It was in response to ObamaCare and the radicalization of our Health Care and the radicalization of our Country by a hardcare leftist ideologue, Barack Hussein Obama, whom the Leftist Media wanted.

Now all these years later…It’s much worse. So bad, that a duly elected Man of The People who won because the People wanted him as President is hated by Republican and Democrat alike. Hated by The Media that IS Orwell’s Ministry of Truth.

And the Hate?  Out of Control.

History, in danger like it has never been.

Freedom is Slavery. War Is peace. Ignorance is Strength.

Diversity is Exclusion. Fear is Hope.

Segregation is Inclusive.

“Colorblind” is racist.

Math education is “unjust and grounded in a legacy of institutional discrimination,” according to the National Council of Supervisors of Mathematics and TODOS.

Everything eventually is “racist” “sexist” or “bigotry” if you disagree with The Left even .000000000000001%.  You evil people you!

Free Speech is Censorship.

bellyfeel – a blind, enthusiastic acceptance of an idea
blackwhite – to believe that black is white, to know that black is white, and to forget that one has ever believed the contrary
crimestop – to rid oneself of unwanted thoughts, i.e., thoughts that interfere with the ideology of the Party. This way, a person avoids committing thoughtcrime
crimethink, thoughtcrime – thoughts that are unorthodox or outside the official Party platform

Violence is good and proper, as long as it’s from the Left. And if you object, we’ll start investigation against you. We’ll shout you down.

And the screaming minority is King.

The words of Martin Luther King are”racist”.

Statues are racist. Cars are racist. Everything is racist if you want 5 seconds.

“Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book has been rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street and building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And that process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped.”
–from NINETEEN EIGHTY-FOUR by George Orwell

That’s 2017, for ya. An orwellian dystopia of mental and physical manipulation.

Malcolm X, as a member of the Nation of Islam, preached anti-Semitism and called the white man “devil.” After the assassination of John F. Kennedy, Malcolm X dismissed the murder as a case of “the chickens coming home to roost.”

Obama’s pastor for 20 years said the same thing. 🙂

In Spike Lee’s biographical drama, “Malcolm X,” a white teenage girl approaches the angry activist and says, “Excuse me, Mr. X. Hi. I’ve read some of your speeches, and I honestly believe that a lot of what you have to say is true. And I’m a good person, in spite of what my ancestors did, and I just — I wanted to ask you, what can a white person like myself who isn’t prejudiced, what can I do to help you … further your cause?” He stares sternly, and replies, “Nothing.” She leaves in tears.

But Malcolm X changed. He visited Mecca, where he saw people of all colors worshipping together. It changed the way he thought. He repudiated his anger toward whites after discovering that people were more similar than they were different. He renounced the racist ideology of the Nation of Islam, and in doing so knowingly signed his own death warrant. He was assassinated by members of the Nation of Islam.

Alabama Gov. George Wallace, in 1963, proclaimed, “Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever,” at his inauguration, and later stood in a doorway at the University of Alabama to bar blacks from entering. Nine years later, Wallace took a would-be assassin’s bullet, leaving him paralyzed. Older, wiser and chastened by the attempt on his life, Wallace changed. Wallace, one day and without invitation, went to a black church where 300 black clergymen were holding a conference. He asked to speak. Wallace asked for forgiveness. He said to the church leaders, “I never had hate in my heart for any person. But I regret my support of segregation and the pain it caused the black people of our state and nation. … I’ve learned what pain is, and I’m sorry if I’ve caused anybody else pain. Segregation was wrong — and I am sorry.”

The voters in Alabama returned the former governor to office, but this time, he received black support and made several black appointments. The damage Wallace did through his actions and rhetoric was profound, and despite the assassination attempt, he lived long enough to undo some of it.

Even a Confederate general can change.

Confederate Gen. William Mahone, one of General Robert E. Lee’s most able commanders, owned slaves before the Civil War. But after the war, he led an interracial political movement. He organized and became the leader of the Readjuster Party, the most successful interracial political alliance in the post-emancipation South. In 1881, Mahone was elected to the U.S. Senate, at the time split 37-37 between Republicans and Democrats. But Mahone aligned with the Republicans, the party founded two decades earlier by Northerners trying to stop the expansion of slavery.

From 1879 through 1883, Mahone’s Readjuster Party dominated Virginia, with a governor in the statehouse, two Readjusters in the U.S. Senate and Readjusters representing six of the state’s 10 congressional districts. Under Mahone’s leadership, his coalition also controlled the state legislature, the courts and many of the state’s coveted federal offices.

The Readjusters established what became Virginia State University, the first state-supported college to train black teachers. Democrats described the hated Readjusters and Republicans as advocates of “black domination.”


What about Lt. Gen. James Longstreet? One of Lee’s favorite generals, Longstreet not only became a Republican after the war and served in Republican administrations but also fought against the racist White League in New Orleans.

After the Civil War, Longstreet moved to New Orleans, where he urged Southerners to support the Republican Party and endorsed their candidate, Ulysses S. Grant, for president in 1968. He commanded blacks in the New Orleans Metropolitan Police Force against the anti-Reconstruction White League (a paramilitary arm of the Democratic Party) at the Battle of Liberty Place in 1874. He was shot and held captive for several days. He accepted political appointments from Republicans, and even dared criticize Gen. Lee. For this “betrayal,” white Southerners pronounced Longstreet a “scalawag” and “leper of the community.”

Where does this viewing of history through the prism of modern-day feelings end? Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. once gave advice to a gay young man that today would be heresy. King suggested he battle his feelings, strongly implying that the young man needed therapy and sexual re-orientation. Today, that kind of advice gets one branded a Neanderthal. President John F. Kennedy, frustrated with a high-profile Democrat who hadn’t supported his election, threatened to banish him by giving him an obscure ambassadorship to one of the, as Kennedy put it, “boogie republics” in Africa. Tell that to Black Lives Matter.


History is complicated. And history requires perspective and understanding, something sadly lacking in those who seek to erase history by imposing today’s standards of right and wrong.

They say those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. We are doomed because The Left wants to erase it altogether so you can’t even remember that you repeated it.


civil war1
wheel of Truth

5 Words

Liberals: Whiny snowflakes. Sensitive moral relativists. Poor economists.

And one of the latest: manipulative linguists.

That’s right. Liberals have injected morality into the political sphere.

Thus, those who disagree with them are not only “wrong” but racist, sexist, fill-in-the-blank-ist.

They don’t just disagree with liberals–they are horrible people as well.

As Lifezette.com explains, “illegal immigrants became ‘undocumented immigrants’ and then in some circles–‘undocumented Americans.’ Use of such terms as ‘illegal immigrants’ or ‘illegal aliens’–the legal moniker–became tarred as racist, with those who utter those words shunned.”

And they haven’t stopped there. The Left has misinterpreted, spun, and altogether changed the meaning of words in our current political discourse.

Here are five:

1.) Alt-Right. The problem with this descriptor is that no one can seem to agree what it means. Some white supremacists and neo-Nazis have embraced the term as an effort to rebrand themselves. Breitbart News Executive Chairman Stephen Bannon once said he wanted the news website to be the “platform of the Alt-Right.”

The association of a label used by racists allowed Bannon’s critics to tag him with the same slur. But Bannon never defined the term the way racial separatists such as Richard Spencer apply it. He meant it as an alternative strain of conservatism that emphasizes nationalism and populism over libertarianism on such matters as trade and immigration.

If there were ever any doubt where Bannon stands, his interview with the left-wing American Prospect shortly before leaving his post as White House chief strategist should have cleared it up. Bannon called the white nationalists who marched in the streets of Charlottesville, Virginia, earlier this month “clowns.”…

2.) Dog Whistles. This refers to seemingly neutral words that actually are super-secret coded messages to racists and other contemptible people.

The only people who seem to be able to decode the messages, though, are racists, liberal pundits, and left-wing activists.

“Law and order?” Code for taking away the rights of blacks, say those on the Left. “Cosmopolitan,” the word White House adviser Stephen Miller used to highlight CNN reporter Jim Acosta’s elitism during a briefing-room debate over immigration policy? It’s an anti-Semitic dog whistle that had its origins with Nazis in Germany. (Never mind that Miller himself is Jewish).

Former FBI agent Michael German this month even told CNN anchor Erin Burnett that “Western culture” is a dog whistle.

3.) Divisive. This pejorative is nearly always applied to Republicans, especially President Donald Trump.

What progressives really mean when they apply it to politicians is, “advocates policies I don’t like.” If a politician calls for open borders and less aggressive enforcement of immigration laws, he is a “unifier” or is “trying to bring us together.”

But such positions are controversial and opposed by at least half the country. It makes no more sense to call these positions unifying than it does apply the “divisive” label to the opposite position — that immigration laws should be enforced to the fullest extent of the law…

4.) Microaggression. This sounded liked a joke when it came into popular usage a few years ago. But it is anything but funny. Originally attributed to psychiatrist and Harvard University professor Chester Pierce in 1970 to describe insults against African-Americans, the term has been expanded in recent years to apply to virtually every aggrieved social group….

5.) Courage. Political courage is an admirable trait. A willingness by a politician to risk his career by doing what is right was the basis of President John F. Kennedy’s 1957 Pulitzer Prize-winning “Profiles in Courage.”

Progressives, however, often use “courage” as a synonym for “opposing Trump” or Republicans, generally. This particularly is true when the politician opposing Trump is a Republican.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) bathed in left-wing accolades in July after he cast the deciding vote against the “skinny” repeal of the Affordable Care Act.

“It certainly was a McCain moment,” gushed “Morning Joe” co-host Mika Brzezinski after the vote. “Mark Halperin, talk about that moment and what it meant, what it means for the future.”

Halperin, an MSNBC political analyst, answered: “Well, he’s not afraid of the president, and he’s not afraid of doing what he thinks is right.”

In summary:

The Alt-Right: Neo-Nazis! …or anything the Left deems terrible at the moment.

Dog Whistles: Liberals calling out policies they don’t like and changing the name to make them sound like micro (and macro!) aggressions against minorities.

Courage: Any Republican who opposes Donald Trump (even a prisoner of war!).

Can you think of any more? Lets get this list going!  (Regan Pifer)

civil war1not my prez


Water is patient. Water is Persistent. Just look what it did to the Colorado River…

The Left is Orwellian Water.

They are trying to wear us down.

Although they don’t understand anything about those with whom they are dealing.

Regular folks who love God, their family and their country aren’t the fascists or racists the left makes them out to be, with the daily barrage of propaganda designed to take good people down.

Normal folks don’t have time to entertain the darkness the left promotes. They are too busy working or going to church or tending gardens or splitting wood at night to keep their families warm. Then they go to bed and get up the next day and do it all again.

There is no time for the nonsense littering the internet and television intended to cast guilt over their values and votes. The more insane the left and their propaganda becomes, the more confident they are about the choices they will make in 2018 and 2020.

They have zero interest in protests across the country about which the media incessantly reports. They have no patience for the violence and chaos and destruction. They interpret it as something city folks do when they have too much time on their hands and too much money they didn’t earn in their pockets.

They are intuitive, but too busy to be distracted.

They are fully aware of heavily funded temper tantrum groups ingratiated by the Democrat Party such as the former Occupy Movement. A movement whose members expressed their adulation for spreading the wealth around by spreading their own feces around public places during Barack Obama’s first term. Normal people respect and appreciate cops, so they were repulsed when an occupier disrespectfully did the “big nasty” on a cop car while others poured human waste down a flight of stairs and at a bank ATM vestibule in New York. Obama and Congressional Democrats cheered them on.

And whose mental state are we currently questioning?

Those who learned stamina from the school of hard work were not impressed when reports emerged the Occupy Movement fizzled into obscurity after temperatures dropped and smarmy snowflakes retreated to their taxpayer subsidized safe spaces upon realizing they could tolerate cold about as much as they do opposing opinions.

Now, according to Politico, they are back.

Those who do the right thing every day even when they don’t feel like it, don’t have time to care this group resurrected from dormancy. But they do hope protesters pack diapers or pooper-scoopers this time around because poop disposal fairies do not exist. They resent when their taxes are used to clean up these messes.

Those who work for a living aren’t worried this group, “Refuse Fascism,” has a mission to oust President Trump and threatens to march and demonstrate and occupy city centers and parks until “Trump and Vice President Mike Pence have fallen,” as Politico reports.


We all should be concerned, though, that one of this group’s lead organizers is “a Maoist activist,” as Politico reports. The left is full of history-challenged non-thinkers who have no clue that Mao Zedong was a mass murdering communist dictator whose policies killed tens of millions of people by starving, working and beating them to death.

While millions less people on the planet might excite someone like Gloria Steinem who recently said, “forcing women to have children” is the “fundamental cause of climate change,” those who value life find it concerning Democrats have not disavowed this Maoist activist group organizer.

This should also serve as a reminder to the miniscule fraction of rightwing never-Trumpers that the enemy of your enemy is not always your friend.

With that said, and this column complete, I need to get to work. Sorry Gloria, it’s been snowing in our mountains here since early August, so I must sign off to go outside to split more wood. (Susan Stamper Brown)


The Bully Pulpit

If you thought you couldn’t be any more disgusted by Rocklin Academy, the California school who introduced small children to transgenderism without any advanced notice for parents, we’ve got bad news for you.

Todd Starnes at Fox News reports that one first-grader got sent to the principal’s office for “misgendering” a fellow student.

The “offender” is a poor little girl who did nothing more than see a boy she knew on the playground and call out to him…without knowing that over the summer break, the boy had changed his name because he “decided” (or more likely, his deranged leftist parents decided) he was a girl.

Starnes got more details on the situation from Karen England of the California pro-family group Capitol Resource Institute:

England said the first grader was investigated by the principal to determine whether or not she had bullied the transgender child by calling him by his original name. After about an hour it was determined the little girl made an honest mistake and she was not punished or reprimanded.

But she was terribly traumatized by the incident, England said.

“The daughter came home from school upset and crying – saying, ‘Mommy, I got in trouble at school today,’” England told me […]

Capitol Resource Institute provided me with a letter the mother wrote – expressing her extreme concern over how the situation was handled.

“I stressed over and over with the principal that I am all for protecting the rights of [the transgender child], but my children have rights as well,” the parent wrote. “It makes me sad that my daughter felt like she was punished for trying to be kind to the kid.”

If this doesn’t convince everyone that transgender mania has nothing to do with emotional health or security, nothing will.

It’s hard to fathom a mind so incompetent it would need an hour to determine that a normal kid’s obviously benign, perfectly rational greeting wasn’t a microaggression, so heartless that it would anguish that kid over nothing, or so deranged that it would think browbeating children for imaginary thoughtcrimes somehow serves the cause of anti-bullying.

Yet the average liberal mind is afflicted with all three maladies. And proudly so.

Reasoning with abusive monsters like this is a fool’s errand. A lawsuit would sting them, but it would only be a matter of time until their next atrocity. The only solution in cases like this is for parents to pull their kids out, donors to stop donating, and principled politicians to cut off every dime of taxpayer funding. Unfortunately, the latter two aren’t going to happen in a hellscape of irrationality like California, but parents who watch this and leave their children at Rocklin have nobody to blame but themselves. (Calvin Freiburger)

Political Cartoons by Jerry Holbert

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Political Cartoons by Chip Bok

Consider This…

From a Friend on Facebook.

The (il)logical path to perdition…ask where you find yourself on it today…

1) I disagree with belief/statement/philosophy X
2) I wish belief/statement/philosophy X didn’t exist
3) I wish people actively espousing belief/statement/philosophy X didn’t exist
3) I wish PEOPLE THINKING belief/statement/philosophy X didn’t exist
4) People actively espousing belief/statement/philosophy X SHOULDN’T exist
5) I believe it should be against the law to actively espouse belief/statement/philosophy X
6) I believe our government officials and/or law enforcement should make illegal/arrest/prevent anyone from actively espousing belief/statement/philosophy X
7) I will only VOTE for officials who will make illegal/arrest/prevent anyone from actively espousing belief/statement/philosophy X
8) I wish people who would vote for anyone who WON’T make illegal/arrest/prevent anyone from actively espousing belief/statement/philosophy X didn’t exist
9) I believe all people who vote for anyone who WON’T make illegal/arrest/prevent anyone from actively espousing belief/statement/philosophy X must AGREE with belief/statement/philosophy X didn’t exist and therefore…all THOSE people are judged by me via 4) through 6) above
10) I will actively attempt to END the existence of anyone who holds belief/statement/philosophy X didn’t exist – apply same to 7) through 9) above.

Pick a historical (or current) group that you DON’T like who you feel falls anywhere from 3)-4) or higher… Now spend hours to days explaining why you’re beyond those numbers against some BAD people but it’s okay in THIS case… Right…

Joe Pardon

“Today, President Donald J. Trump granted a Presidential pardon to Joe Arpaio, former Sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona.  Arpaio’s life and career, which began at the age of 18 when he enlisted in the military after the outbreak of the Korean War, exemplify selfless public service.  After serving in the Army, Arpaio became a police officer in Washington, D.C. and Las Vegas, NV and later served as a Special Agent for the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), formerly the Bureau of Narcotics.  After 25 years of admirable service, Arpaio went on to lead the DEA’s branch in Arizona,” the White House released Friday. “In 1992, the problems facing his community pulled Arpaio out of retirement to return to law enforcement.  He ran and won a campaign to become Sheriff of Maricopa County.  Throughout his time as Sheriff, Arpaio continued his life’s work of protecting the public from the scourges of crime and illegal immigration.  Sheriff Joe Arpaio is now eighty-five years old, and after more than fifty years of admirable service to our Nation, he is worthy candidate for a Presidential pardon.” 

“Given Sherriff Arpaio’s extraordinary life of public service, including in the military, the President didn’t believe that subjecting a man to a conviction and potential prison term for enforcing federal immigration law was appropriate,” the statement continued. “The President did not make this decision lightly. He considered all the circumstances surrounding this case, including the fact that Sherriff Arpaio is 85 years old and had served in the military, the DEA and as a sheriff for five decades.”

Arpaio served as Sheriff for Arizona’s Maricopa County from 1993 to 2016 and was regularly re-elected with heavily majorities until his departure last year. He is known for his tough stance on illegal immigration and infamously made inmates wear pink underwear during his tenure. 

I have no problem with this since he was convicted of not following a Liberal Judge’s order to not enforce Federal Immigration Law. So was convicted of contempt for a Liberal Judge’s order to ignore the Law.

That’s just typical for Liberals. Sad, really..game show

Blue RINOs

What’s the end game for these preening, posturing doofuses who call themselves Republicans, but who can’t pass a CNN camera without slamming their party’s president? There is a lot of blue falconry going on in the GOP right now, and while it’s pretty clear why, what’s not so clear is what these fair weather frauds believe they’re accomplishing.

We know why they do it. Some of them are truly shocked and upset by Trump’s rough edges. He’s not your grandfather’s Republican. He’s more like your grandfather’s buddy who got Pops drunk and took him to a brothel long before he ever met grandma. Trump’s rude and crude, and that rubs a lot of Republicans the wrong way. His cheerful vulgarity and vindictiveness, which many find his most attractive qualities, offends some people because they’re decent people of moral character who just can’t go there. It rubs others the wrong way because they’re hopeless wusses who would rather be loved by the WaPo than kick liberals in their Harry Reids.

Others undermine our party’s leader because Trump dropped a deuce in their profitable punch bowl. They used to have power, and now they’re on the sidelines, and it gnaws at them. For so long they had control of the Republican Party, and they could shamelessly lie to our faces at election time back home in the sticks, then return to Washington, D.C., take off their sensible shoes, slip on their Gucci loafers, and proceed to do the bidding of their donor masters. Ka-ching!

Oh yeah, we’ll repeal Obamacare. Oh yeah, we’ll defend the border. Oh yeah, we’ll defund the baby-butchering cartel. Oh yeah, blah blah blah blah blah. All lies, but they didn’t care. They had their power and prestige and the promise of a fat paycheck down the road when they moved from Congress to K Street. Actual conservative ideology? Well, that was for the rubes. And we were the rubes. We in the base, who are suffering from the establishment’s incompetent mismanagement of the society it had been foolish to try to micromanage in the first place, tried to warn them. But the Fredocons wouldn’t listen, because they’re smart, not like everyone says, like dumb…

That warning was called ‘the Tea Party,” and the GOP establishment didn’t like it either. Remember how all those activated Republican voters helped recapture Congress, yet most of the establishment types looked at them like they were something nasty that was smeared on their shoes? See, the base isn’t supposed to be activated. It’s supposed to be obedient. It’s supposed to turn out on election day to do volunteer work and write checks. It’s not supposed to try to have input. That’s for our betters, not for us.

But the thing is, now we’re woke, and we’ve realized that our establishment sucks, and that we’re tired of being the suckees. They didn’t listen to us when we gave them the Tea Party, so now we gave them Trump. And they’re very, very upset with us. That’s a key reason they want to undercut Trump. Some people are just always going to want to trash the guy getting the attention and wielding the influence they think rightfully belongs to them. That’s true whether they are some donkey–looking senator from Arizona or Nebraska pimping a book about his agonizing moral struggles, or some tiresome op-ed scribbler serving as the domesticated house conservative on a failing liberal rag, or the invasion-happy beneficiary of his parents’ success who finds he can’t fill the cabins on his brochure’s cruises anymore.

But what’s the end game? What are they thinking is going to happen? Do they think that one morning Trump is going to wake up and think “Gosh, all these people telling me I’m wrong and mean and crude and tweet too darn much must be right. I’ll change, because I always take the advice of people who I’ve already broken and humiliated.

Unlikely, because Trump doesn’t respect you. And he doesn’t respect you because he’s already beaten you. He’s not a gracious winner, but to be fair, you’ve hardly been gracious losers. Oh, how it must gall you to be so utterly defeated by someone you consider your moral and intellectual inferior.

So if you’re not going to change Trump, what do you think you’re going to do? Do you think you’re going to somehow drive Trump out of office? Let’s run down that scenario. Now we have President Pence, and about 75% of your party’s base infuriated at your backstabbing betrayal. That seems disastrous even if you buy the idea that President Pence would somehow preside over a return to something like business as usual. He might, at least until the next election. Then you’re all toast. Let’s just say that in addition to your treachery, your past track record of total failure to achieve the conservative goals you promised won’t particularly inspire Trump supporters to lend you their support.

Or maybe you think our voters would just be so disgusted that they would let the Democrats grab a majority on Capitol Hill and the White House too. Maybe you figure you could live with that. Maybe you think you can wait out the base’s fury by crawling back into the comfortable gimp box of submissive GOP congressional opposition.

Except it won’t work that way. Through all this Tea Partying and Trumping, we normals got a taste for power, and we like it. We’re not just going to just shrug our shoulders when the guy we picked gets deposed in a coup. We’re going to get mad. Really mad. And you’re going to get primaried. Just ask Jeff Flake (Dork-AZ). Have you seen his approval numbers? There are strains of the herpes virus that poll higher.

No, there’s no going back to the old days. This is the new normal, and there are new rules, rules you better learn to play by. The most important of these is, “Take your own voters’ side in a fight.” You should try it, because if you didn’t like the Tea Party, and you hate Donald Trump, you are going to be really, really, really unhappy with what we normals will do next. (Townhall)


Well, the predictable as the sun rising and setting happened after the speech last night.

“Angry and Divisive” is the Media’s verdict. I could have written that weeks BEFORE the speech because that’s all they ever say.

“Angry and Divisive” means you’re not kiss their ass and doing everything they want you to do when they want. You don’t drink their greatness and kool-aid by the gallon.

You actually have the gall to disagree with them. HOW DARE YOU!

Don Lemon (CNN): “What we have witnessed was a total eclipse of the facts.”

Very pithy. “the facts” as the far left see it, of course. Mind you Facts are not partisan, but don’t tell that to a Liberal.

The Left heard what they want to hear, not what was actually said.

President Trump doubled down last week after coming under fire for failing to condemn violence by neo-Nazis and White supremacists in Charlottesville. For a man who never admits a mistake, the president clearly tried–in his strange way–to clean up his mess.

They are pre-disposed and intellectually incapable of hearing WHAT he said because Liberals never let Facts get in the way of their emotions or their ideology.

CNN said he still has a long way to go toward convincing “a deeply skeptical public that he is a uniter, not a divider.”

The Corrupt News Network is the divider, but they won’t see it that way. They are too ideologically hell bent to be actual journalists.

Shortly after the president’s speech ended and night fell in Phoenix, protesters began to throw water bottles and scream obscenities at police.

Guess who that was, The Left’s new favourite sons Antifa. 🙂

“Antifa leaders admit they’re willing to physically attack anyone who employs violence against them or who condones racism — as long as force is used in the name of eradicating hatred,” CNN reports.



Atifa, according to CNN, claims their violence is “self-defense” against “hate speech” and people with whom they disagree. “It’s a position taken by many Antifa activists: ‘This is self-defense,’” CNN reports.

“Antifa activists often don’t hesitate to destroy property, which many see as the incarnation of unfair wealth distribution” and “sometimes launch attacks against people who aren’t physically attacking them,” CNN admits.

Scott Crow, a longtime Antifa member, said: “Don’t confuse legality and morality. Laws are made of governments, not of men,” quoting John Adams.

“Each of us breaks the law every day,” Crow said. “It’s just that we make the conscious choice to do that.”

CNN reports Antifa members use Facebook to organize their protests or counter protests and take martial arts classes and “strategize” on how to achieve their goal of “taking down fascists.”

Members of a Portland-based Antifa group “don’t apologize” for the violence, according to CNN.

“You have to put your body in the way,” the group’s leader said, “and you have to make it speak in the language that they understand. And sometimes that is violence.”

Good thing, they aren’t “divisive” and their violence is “defensive”.

The Left will defend them.

Meanwhile, Trump is “angry” AND “divisive” because he disagrees with the Left.

Got it?




Truth Bomb

As Atlanta’s first African-American mayor and a major player in the civil rights movement, you may expect Andrew Young to be in favor of tearing Confederate memorials down. However, in a statement that must have horrified race-baiters from coast to coast, Young said that his city had better things to do that worry about taking down statues.

According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Young made the remarks at a news conference earlier this week in which he endorsed Atlanta City Council President Ceasar Mitchell to be the next mayor..

The news conference came amid nationwide calls from liberal figures to tear down Confederate statues and memorials, including one from Georgia Democrat gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams to remove a carving of three Confederate war figures — Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson and Jefferson Davis — on Georgia’s Stone Mountain.

“We must never celebrate those who defended slavery and tried to destroy the union,” Abrams wrote on Twitter, saying that the monument “remains a blight on our state and should be removed.”

Young, a Democrat who was mayor of Atlanta from 1982 to 1990 and also served as a congressman and our ambassador to the United Nations under the Carter administration, disagreed.

“I think it’s too costly to refight the Civil War,” Young said. “We have paid too great a price in trying to bring people together.”

“I’ve always been interested more in substance over symbols,” Young said, adding that similar arguments could be made about the American flag.

“If the truth be known, we’ve had as much agony but also glory under the United States flag,” he said. “That flew over segregated America, it flew over slavery.”

Naturally, liberals were horrified.

That’s missing the point.

Young’s argument that there are few historical symbols in this world that are of unalloyed historical good seems to have escaped the left, which is now moving from Confederate memorials to statues of men like Washington, Jefferson and Lincoln. Heck, they’ve already been going after Old Glory for quite some time now.

However, for those of us not in thrall to the far left, Young’s words should have resonance.

This is a man who has seen division unlike any most of us have ever experienced. He’s seen our nation’s history, including some of its darkest chapters — and he thinks that this needs to be preserved. There are far bigger issues in this country than tearing down statues. Statue removal will not solve the problems of the African-American community. As much as it these memorials may be a convenient scapegoat for leaders, erasing our history will do nothing to ameliorate race relations or provide opportunities for minorities.

It’s time for us to admit that.  (townhall)

Dilbert to The Rescue

How To Know You’re In a Mass Hysteria Bubble

Posted August 17th, 2017 @ 12:36pm By Scott Adams

History is full of examples of Mass Hysterias. They happen fairly often. The cool thing about mass hysterias is that you don’t know when you are in one. But sometimes the people who are not experiencing the mass hysteria can recognize when others are experiencing one, if they know what to look for.

I’ll teach you what to look for.

A mass hysteria happens when the public gets a wrong idea about something that has strong emotional content and it triggers cognitive dissonance that is often supported by confirmation bias. In other words, people spontaneously hallucinate a whole new (and usually crazy-sounding) reality and believe they see plenty of evidence for it. The Salem Witch Trials are the best-known example of mass hysteria. The McMartin Pre-School case and the Tulip Bulb hysteria are others. The dotcom bubble probably qualifies. We might soon learn that the Russian Collusion story was mass hysteria in hindsight. The curious lack of solid evidence for Russian collusion is a red flag. But we’ll see how that plays out.

The most visible Mass Hysteria of the moment involves the idea that the United States intentionally elected a racist President. If that statement just triggered you, it might mean you are in the Mass Hysteria bubble. The cool part is that you can’t fact-check my claim you are hallucinating if you are actually hallucinating. But you can read my description of the signs of mass hysteria and see if you check off the boxes.

If you’re in the mass hysteria, recognizing you have all the symptoms of hysteria won’t help you be aware you are in it. That’s not how hallucinations work. Instead, your hallucination will automatically rewrite itself to expel any new data that conflicts with its illusions.

But if you are not experiencing mass hysteria, you might be totally confused by the actions of the people who are. They appear to be irrational, but in ways that are hard to define. You can’t tell if they are stupid, unscrupulous, ignorant, mentally ill, emotionally unstable or what. It just looks frickin’ crazy.

The reason you can’t easily identify what-the-hell is going on in the country right now is that a powerful mass hysteria is in play. If you see the signs after I point them out, you’re probably not in the hysteria bubble. If you read this and do NOT see the signs, it probably means you’re trapped inside the mass hysteria bubble.

Here are some signs of mass hysteria. This is my own take on it, but I welcome you to fact-check it with experts on mass hysteria.

1. The trigger event for cognitive dissonance

On November 8th of 2016, half the country learned that everything they believed to be both true and obvious turned out to be wrong. The people who thought Trump had no chance of winning were under the impression they were smart people who understood their country, and politics, and how things work in general. When Trump won, they learned they were wrong. They were so very wrong that they reflexively (because this is how all brains work) rewrote the scripts they were seeing in their minds until it all made sense again. The wrong-about-everything crowd decided that the only way their world made sense, with their egos intact, is that either the Russians helped Trump win or there are far more racists in the country than they imagined, and he is their king. Those were the seeds of the two mass hysterias we witness today.

Trump supporters experienced no trigger event for cognitive dissonance when Trump won. Their worldview was confirmed by observed events.

2. The Ridiculousness of it

One sign of a good mass hysteria is that it sounds bonkers to anyone who is not experiencing it. Imagine your neighbor telling you he thinks the other neighbor is a witch. Or imagine someone saying the local daycare provider is a satanic temple in disguise. Or imagine someone telling you tulip bulbs are more valuable than gold. Crazy stuff.

Compare that to the idea that our president is a Russian puppet. Or that the country accidentally elected a racist who thinks the KKK and Nazis are “fine people.” Crazy stuff.

If you think those examples don’t sound crazy – regardless of the reality – you are probably inside the mass hysteria bubble.

3. The Confirmation Bias

If you are inside the mass hysteria bubble, you probably interpreted President Trump’s initial statement on Charlottesville – which was politically imperfect to say the least – as proof-positive he is a damned racist.

If you are outside the mass hysteria bubble you might have noticed that President Trump never campaigned to be our moral leader. He presented himself as – in his own words “no angel” – with a set of skills he offered to use in the public’s interest. He was big on law and order, and equal justice under the law. But he never offered moral leadership. Voters elected him with that knowledge. Evidently, Republicans don’t depend on politicians for moral leadership. That’s probably a good call.

When the horror in Charlottesville shocked the country, citizens instinctively looked to their president for moral leadership. The president instead provided a generic law and order statement. Under pressure, he later named specific groups and disavowed the racists. He was clearly uncomfortable being our moral lighthouse. That’s probably why he never described his moral leadership as an asset when running for office. We observe that he has never been shy about any other skill he brings to the job, so it probably isn’t an accident when he avoids mentioning any ambitions for moral leadership. If he wanted us to know he would provide that service, I think he would have mentioned it by now.

If you already believed President Trump is a racist, his weak statement about Charlottesville seems like confirmation. But if you believe he never offered moral leadership, only equal treatment under the law, that’s what you saw instead. And you made up your own mind about the morality.

The tricky part here is that any interpretation of what happened could be confirmation bias. But ask yourself which one of these versions sounds less crazy:

1. A sitting president, who is a branding expert, thought it would be a good idea to go easy on murderous Nazis as a way to improve his popularity.


2. The country elected a racist leader who is winking to the KKK and White Supremacists that they have a free pass to start a race war now.


3. A mentally unstable racist clown with conman skills (mostly just lying) eviscerated the Republican primary field and won the presidency. He keeps doing crazy, impulsive racist stuff. But for some reason, the economy is going well, jobs are looking good, North Korea blinked, ISIS is on the ropes, and the Supreme Court got a qualified judge. It was mostly luck.


4. The guy who didn’t offer to be your moral leader didn’t offer any moral leadership, just law and order, applied equally. His critics cleverly and predictably framed it as being soft on Nazis.

One of those narratives is less crazy-sounding than the others. That doesn’t mean the less-crazy one has to be true. But normal stuff happens far more often than crazy stuff. And critics will frame normal stuff as crazy whenever they get a chance.

4. The Oversized Reaction

It would be hard to overreact to a Nazi murder, or to racists marching in the streets with torches. That stuff demands a strong reaction. But if a Republican agrees with you that Nazis are the worst, and you threaten to punch that Republican for not agreeing with you exactly the right way, that might be an oversized reaction.

5. The Insult without supporting argument

When people have actual reasons for disagreeing with you, they offer those reasons without hesitation. Strangers on social media will cheerfully check your facts, your logic, and your assumptions. But when you start seeing ad hominem attacks that offer no reasons at all, that might be a sign that people in the mass hysteria bubble don’t understand what is wrong with your point of view except that it sounds more sensible than their own.

For the past two days I have been disavowing Nazis on Twitter. The most common response from the people who agree with me is that my comic strip sucks and I am ugly.

The mass hysteria signals I described here are not settled science, or anything like it. This is only my take on the topic, based on personal observation and years of experience with hypnosis and other forms of persuasion. I present this filter on the situation as the first step in dissolving the mass hysteria. It isn’t enough, but more persuasion is coming. If you are outside the mass hysteria bubble, you might see what I am doing in this blog as a valuable public service. If you are inside the mass hysteria bubble, I look like a Nazi collaborator.

How do I look to you?



By Charlie Daniels |

The heartbreaking incidents we saw in Charlottesville, Virginia this past weekend vividly demonstrates the social, ideological, and sadly, racial divisions in our nation, divisions that have been encouraged by opportunistic politicians, self-serving minority leaders, hate groups, radical ideologues and paid rabble rousers.

Whether it’s Black Lives Matters marching down a street chanting about frying police officers like bacon or white supremacists waving swastikas and screaming hateful racial epithets, whether it’s a venue full of college students shouting down a speaker with opposing views or a random drive by shooting of a rival gang member, they all demonstrate how not just divided but, rather, how shattered our nation really is.

The reasons for this sorry situation are almost as diverse as the situation itself, but at least, in my humble opinion, it all boils down to two words, respect and responsibility.

We have come to a point where so many of us have no respect for the views of other people.

The traditional method for settling differences of opinion was debate.  Proponents would sit down and look at both sides of the issue, actually listening to and considering the other person’s position and respecting their right to voice it.

And usually middle ground can be found if both parties are willing to accept the validity of the other person’s argument.

Unfortunately, the debates have disintegrated into screaming matches and the respect into total intolerance.

When preceding generations went to school, discipline was the first order of the day. Disrespect for the teacher carried zero tolerance, which created an orderly and closely supervised atmosphere for learning. And if you didn’t learn, you didn’t pass.

If you went out for a sport, if you couldn’t cut it, you didn’t make the team. I know, because I’ve failed to make the team, and it spurred me and motivated me to work harder to improve myself so I could measure up and make the next team.

There were no ribbons for also-rans, no consolation prizes for losers, no participation trophies, and nobody was patting you on the back telling you it wasn’t your fault that you couldn’t make the grade, that it was really unfair that others did better than you did, that you were disadvantaged for some reason or other and that you should just take your place at the end of the line as the norm for your life, bitter and resentful.

No, what you were told was this: if you want to pass this test, study; if you want to make this team, get yourself in shape; if you want to make something out of yourself you’d better accept the responsibility for your own actions and develop a hardcore work ethic.

Respect for law officers, the very people who put their lives on the line for us every day, who risk life and limb by just showing up for work, has reached a deplorable level, as evidenced by the amount of police shootings around the nation.

And there are those who, given a chance, would seriously reduce the levels of discipline in our armed forces, the discipline that means the difference between life and death in battle conditions.

An overly permissive society is never equipped to deal with its own results as ideology is seldom practical, given to overkill and unrealistic pipe dreams and in the effort to level playing fields actually tilts them, much as compassionate green minded activists upset the natural order when they try to influence the ecology and bring about an overabundance of some species that actually contributes to the dwindling population of others.

Human beings were, from their creation, meant to respect authority, to earn their bread by the toil of their hands and the sweat of their brow. They were meant to obey the laws of God and man and to sit down and reason together.

My fervent prayer for our beloved America is that we will one day, again, live up to the word “united.”

What do you think?

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

God Bless America

Charlie Daniels

Blame Canada

South Park on my mind. 🙂 when reading about this Leftist Atrocity:

Canada passed a law Thursday making it illegal to use the wrong gender pronouns. Critics say that Canadians who do not subscribe to progressive gender theory could be accused of hate crimes, jailed, fined, and made to take anti-bias training.

Canada’s Senate passed Bill C-16, which puts “gender identity” and “gender expression” into both the country’s Human Rights Code, as well as the hate crime category of its Criminal Code.

Then it was passed by the full Legislature and got official royal approval so it’s now Law.

Forced Government speech. “hate” speech if you don’t.

There will be a test later. And an Army of Lawyers on Speed Dial if you slip up.

Pronouns – A How To Guide

Pronoun cards 2016-01

Pronoun cards 2016-02Note: the top line is meant to indicate two separate – but similarly spelled – sets of pronouns. They are ae/aer/aers and fae/faer/faers.

Gender Neutral / Gender Inclusive Pronouns

A gender neutral or gender inclusive pronoun is a pronoun which does not associate a gender with the individual who is being discussed.

Some languages, such as English, do not have a gender neutral or third gender pronoun available, and this has been criticized, since in many instances, writers, speakers, etc. use “he/his” when referring to a generic individual in the third person. Also, the dichotomy of “he and she” in English does not leave room for other gender identities, which is a source of frustration to the transgender and gender queer communities.

People who are limited by languages which do not include gender neutral pronouns have attempted to create them, in the interest of greater equality.

zie zim zir zis zieself
sie sie hir hirs hirself
ey em eir eirs eirself
ve ver vis vers verself
tey ter tem ters terself
e em eir eirs emself


No pressure. There is just an Army of Lawyers on Speed Dial waiting for you to “offend” someone so they can destroy you and a Government that will arrest you if you don’t comply.

Happy Trails, Citizen.


Hero No More

One of the South’s & Confederacy’s “gods” Masser Robert is now Politically Inconvenient so now he’s bein smeared by the Leftist that once revered him as a God.

After all, The Confederacy was a Democrat thing. Slavery was a Democrat thing. Being against Civil Rights in the 1960s was a Democrat thing.

So 50 years later you re-write history and the mindless buy into it.

Robert E. Lee was one of the greatest military leaders in human history. He was also a deeply honorable man of his time.

But his time is up. He’s more useful for a 2 Minute Hate (see Orwell) stretch out for days, weeks, months, longer if need be. He is now a punching bag for the manipulations of The Left.

The removal of a statue of Robert E. Lee was the flashpoint that brought white supremacists to Charlottesville, Virginia, and reignited a national debate over Confederate monuments. But what do most Americans know about the Confederate general?

Not enough, says George Rasley, editor of Conservative HQ — especially racists want to use Lee as a symbol of white supremacy and liberals want to see him erased from American history. In a Conservative HQ n op-ed titled “Misusing Robert E. Lee,” Rasley argues that both sides in the debate over Lee’s legacy miss that he opposed slavery and helped end the Civil War before it turned into a bloody guerrilla war.

Knowing Lee’s place in history is important, particularly as the left seeks to use him as a symbol of division. Progressives know that Lee has many defenders — and they also know that conservatives who stand up for Lee’s memory can be falsely painted as apologists for slavery and the old order of the Confederacy.

Yet, few involved in the debate actually know Lee’s complicated history.

Offered a position as the commander of the Union forces, Rasley points out, “Lee refused the command on the grounds that he was a Virginian and owed his first allegiance to the state he believed was a sovereign entity with the right to stay in or leave the Union as it saw fit. He would, he said, not make war on the Union, but he would defend the state of his birth.”

However, when Virginia seceded, the general felt his sympathies residing with his home state. “I shall never bear arms against the Union, but it may be necessary for me to carry a musket in the defense of my native state, Virginia, in which case I shall not prove recreant to my duty,” he said.

As for his feelings on slavery, Rasley notes that “(w)hile Lee espused the paternalistic attitudes many Nineteenth Century Americans felt toward Africans, it certainly wasn’t because he believed slavery was just.” In fact, what Lee said about slavery may surprise a number of people who aren’t familiar with Lee’s views on the matter

“There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil,” Lee wrote back in 1856, in a letter written in response to a speech given by then-President Franklin Pierce.

Lee’s views on race may not be ones we entertain today, but few if any Americans — even those that we rightly hail as heroes of the emancipation — held opinions we consider appropriate on the matter. As for why he fought for the South, Lee simply believed the United States was, as Rasley says,  “an association of sovereign states that could, if they chose, leave it or dissolve it.” After all, as the Declaration of Independence notes, “whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government.” Lee believed his state — and the rest of the South — was simply following the tenets of one of our founding documents.

However, Rasley argues that “it isn’t what Lee did before and during the Civil War that makes him such an important figure in American history — and one that should be honored — it is what he did after the Civil War that earned him the memorials erected to his memory and a place in history that should be honored by all.”

“When Lee surrendered at Appomattox he also signed a parole document swearing upon his honor not to bear arms against the United States or to ‘tender aid to its enemies.’ Lee’s surrender and his immediate parole were essential in preventing the Civil War from continuing as a destructive guerrilla war that would have continued to rend the country indefinitely.”

Lee spent his retirement as the president of Washington College in Virginia (which would be renamed as Washington & Lee) and would urge reconciliation between the North and the South. In his public letters, he urged “all should unite in honest efforts to obliterate the effects of war and to restore the blessings of peace.”

Does this sound like the kind of man who would urge belligerent white nationalists to violence over a statue of him? Does this sound like the kind of man who would tolerate those who would give succor to the enemies of the United States in the reprehensible, intimidatory way that the vomitous cretins who held aloft the flag of Nazi Germany in Charlottesville this past Saturday did? Does this sound like a man who would support domestic terrorism?

No. You may not agree with the decisions that Robert E. Lee made or the views that he held, but let us remember that he spent the rest of his life atoning for the war and his views weren’t just his own but those of his era. He was a man who was opposed to slavery and wanted to bind the wounds that the war caused.

The liberal media wants to make Lee the avatar of the abominable rabble that descended upon Charlottesville and left three people dead in its wake. What they hope America never hears is who he really was.

Yes, some racists and bigots are in favor of keeping Confederate monuments. Nobody is denying that. We believe they are in the minority. The vast majority of people who want to want to keep these statues wish to honor our history and the men who played a part in it. Let us all turn away from the despicable ideologies we saw on display in Virginia this weekend — but let us also not let the media pretend that those ideologies are what the debate over Confederate monuments is about. (Conservative Tribune)

They are Charlottesville

I would like to congratulate the “White Nationalist” twits in Charlottesville, VA for giving The Left EXACTLY what they needed, a poster child for the Not-Them. A violent, White, Agressive Thug. Everything they like to tell people anyone who isn’t them is.

So thanks for that.

Now any Trump Supporter are these assclowns just waiting to burst out and kill you. They boogeyman personified.

It doesn’t matter who created who. It’s who can use who. And with an abusively biased Ministry of Truth we just personified Goldstein, the opposition and they will use it relentlessly I guarantee it.

The fact that The Left’s hate created this monster will be about as far from their thoughts as the remnants of the Big Bang are physically, light years away.

Because, to them, and their ideological needs, WE HAVE ALWAYS BEEN THIS WAY. They just have a new poster child.

And symbolism is everything to them.

John Hawkins:

The liberal media is dying to blame it all on Donald Trump, but it should look in the mirror.

To begin with, the liberal media is almost entirely responsible for growing the Alt-Right merger of hate groups and internet trolls. Most people are well aware of the stifling political correctness that reached an apex under Barack Obama. People are sick and tired of being attacked and scolded by the humorless left-wing thought police every time they stray from the latest liberal doctrine.

As an aside: Try being unhappy about a Female 13th Doctor and see how much scorn and hellfire you get. 🙂

That created a large group of people who enjoyed tweaking social justice warriors and some of them realized the easiest way to do that was with racial slurs. Every time some doofus leaves a noose on a college campus or says the N-word, it’s treated like a national crisis. If you’re an anonymous troll who enjoys getting people to react to everything you say, that’s a FEATURE, not a bug. All you have to do is say something racially offensive and all these people who studiously try to ignore you will go out of their minds.

That racial element gave the Nazis, white supremacists and KKK mouth-breathers a way to connect with the more socially adept trolls making the Pepe the Frog memes. Of course, the media liberals fueled them as well with their hypocrisy. They painted EVERY white supporter of Donald Trump or the Republican Party as a racist even as they ignored and defended the vicious anti-white rhetoric that has become commonplace on the Left. Just to give you a quick example of that, there was a hashtag that trended on Twitter after the attack called #ThisIsNotUS. It started out as a way for white liberals to virtue signal, but it quickly turned into an all too typical attack on white people, America and Trump voters. Here are some of the most popular comments from the hashtag…

#ThisIsNotUs Then who is it? 63% of white men & 53% of white women voted for KKK-endorsed Trump. The majority of EVERY OTHER ETHNICITY didn’t

If you are white and you are trying to say #ThisIsNotUs you are part of the problem.

If you’re earnestly tweeting #ThisIsNotUS, know that the you might as well have been one of the white supremacists walking w/ tiki torches.

Every white person that tweets #ThisIsNotUs is being complicit in not addressing the rampant racism and bigotry that in their community

#ThisIsNotUS? Easy to say so. Unfortunately you can’t have the Black, Brown, Asian, Jewish, Muslim or LGTBQ “experience” to know #THISISYOU

Gaga, prime example of a white woman using tag #ThisIsNotUs like this country wasn’t built on slavery & racism. THIS HAS ALWAYS BEEN AmeriKa

#ThisIsNotUs is how white people try to absolve themselves from their complicity in white supremacy; it v much is you, your inaction fuels it

The biggest talking point white supremacists have are comments like these. Would that be true if the mainstream media actually treated these comments with the same sort of contempt it has for the Alt-Right?


Yet these sort of comments are MAINSTREAM on the Left. Let me repeat that. They are MAINSTREAM on the Left.


On the other hand, white supremacists are nothing on the Right. David Duke is a joke. Richard Spencer? Let me tell you a little story about Richard Spencer. I was walking around CPAC and noticed an enormous gaggle of media surrounding someone I didn’t recognize, who didn’t seem to be drawing a crowd of regular attendees. As it turns out, the massive group of media people weren’t following a big name. They were following Richard Spencer, who was later kicked out of the conference, presumably because the organizers never wanted him there in the first place.

Yet Richard Spencer, like David Duke before him, is treated like some kind of rock star by the media liberals even though he’s a nobody in the conservative movement. Why? Because they don’t care about conservative opinion. They don’t care about conservative views. They care about creating propaganda that paints the Right as a bunch of hood-wearing, Nazi-saluting scumbags. So, they treat Richard Spencer like a rock star.

This creates a sort of Kim Kardashian effect. Ninety five percent of any influence Spencer has comes from the fact that anything he does is a big deal to the media. Why were Spencer and Duke able to gather even 500 Tiki torch-waving idiots in Charlottesville? Because the media would cover everything they did with bated breath. It gave them a chance to feel important, to feel like they were making an impact. In fact, white supremacists have started to believe its own BS because they keep hearing it from the media. After fighting with Richard Spencer on Twitter, I still remember one of his fans claiming that white supremacists were an essential part of Trump getting elected. My response was….


“Yeah, you guys made a bunch of Holocaust memes & called people cucks and then you’re all….’I’m helping.’”

The hardcore racists out there are pariahs everywhere except in the mainstream media, where they’re treated as incredibly important.

On the other hand, the same mainstream media that has elevated the Alt-Right has been silent as violence has increasingly become a mainstay at liberal protests, including the counter-protest of this event. A few shops getting looted or people getting hurt doesn’t stop the media from describing a liberal event as a peaceful protest. Even the counter-protests in Charlottesville were widely described as “peaceful.” Yet, protesters chanted “From the Midwest to the South, punch a Nazi in the mouth,” a female reporter was punched by one of those counter-protesters, the organizer of the rally was hit, and other people were attacked. That’s not peaceful. That’s something LIBERAL POLITICIANS should be asked to condemn.


In other words, Nazi and KKK members are HORRIBLE. The violent liberal counter-protesters are ALSO horrible. James Alex Fields, Jr? Who appears to have marched at the rally before plowing into a crowd? I condemn what he did. I also condemn the Bernie supporter who shot up a congressional Republican softball game. Additionally, I will condemn the next person on the Left or the Right who kills someone over politics, which seems inevitable when you have opposing sides carrying shields and weapons to political rallies. Those condemnations don’t make a damn bit of difference as long as the liberal media keeps elevating white supremacists and excusing the violence of the Alt-Left. I’m genuinely sorry people are dying at political rallies, but it would be surprising if the death at Charlottesville were the last one. Their blood will be on the hands of the liberal media.

The Civil War the Liberal Media WANTS is on. Whether you like it or not.


Whitewashing History

On July 7, the University of Mississippi—Ole Miss—announced it would re-name the James K. Vardaman Building, which houses among other things the university’s Violence Prevention Office.

That was a nice touch. When former Democrat Governor James Vardaman died in 1930, his legacy was not exactly violence prevention. In 1907, as sitting governor he declared, “If it is necessary, every Negro in the state will be lynched; it will be done to maintain white supremacy.”

“[I]t’s an old game.”

Ole Miss’s decision to demote Vardaman comes at a time when many colleges and universities and some city governments are embroiled in controversies over whether to remove statues or otherwise de-commemorate historical figures whose legacies now seem less than wholesome. Vardaman, who is among the most vicious racists ever to hold public office in the United States, is an unrivaled example.

Extolling Mississippi’s poll tax, Vardaman spoke with his usual candor: “There is no use to equivocate or lie about the matter… Mississippi’s constitutional convention of 1890 was held for no other purpose than to eliminate the nigger from politics.”

The memory of Vardaman belongs in the textbooks, not over the portals of university buildings. But what about figures such as Woodrow Wilson? In November 2015, students organized as the Black Justice league at Princeton University occupied President Eisgruber’s office to demand the removal of Wilson’s name “from all buildings.”

Wilson, who served as Princeton’s president prior to being elected the governor of New Jersey and president of the United States, was definitely no friend to American blacks. After receiving a letter from NAACP founder Oswald Garrison Villard deploring his administration’s decision to segregate black federal workers behind screens, Wilson insisted that segregation “reduced tensions between the races.” And Wilson’s affinity for eugenics is no secret: as Governor of New Jersey he signed a bill permitting the sterilization of criminals and the mentally ill.

Princeton took the demand to scrub Wilson’s name seriously. Princeton’s board of trustees convened a committee to study the proposal. In April 2016, the board accepted the committee’s recommendation to keep Wilson’s name, but also created a new program to foster “diversity and inclusion.”

When it comes to de-commemoration, lines must be drawn. Vardaman is known for nothing other than oppression of blacks. Wilson has a more complex legacy. Wilson’s advocacy for international institutions based on human rights and the rule of law eventually undergirded a US-dominated world order. Princeton rightly took this into account.

However, it isn’t always easy to draw a line between “flawed men” like Wilson who might still be worthy of recognition and figures like Vardaman who deserve nothing but opprobrium.

Consider Yale’s decision to rename Calhoun College. Although John C. Calhoun was an ardent defender of slavery, he was an accomplished public servant and reformer.

When President James Monroe tapped Calhoun to head the War Department, he advocated for the development of a professionally trained army in place of the smaller, local militias that barely scraped by British forces during the War of 1812. Though congressional Jeffersonians fought his efforts tooth-and-nail, public opinion would eventually reflect Calhoun’s view.

Calhoun also favored the development of roads and later a national railway system that would have protected domestic trade from foreign interference with coastal shipping.

Did having a college at Yale named after an alumnus who became vice president and a leading figure in antebellum politics stain the university? Perhaps some stains are better left intact. Calhoun was a man of his time and place, but he was also a statesman who spoke, at least some of the time, to noble aspirations. Statesmanship is totally absent in a figure like Vardaman. That seems one distinction worth maintaining.

There is, ironically, another line of defense for preserving Calhoun’s name. The idea for which he is best known—nullification—lives on among today’s progressives. You would think they would want to give credit where credit is due.

Governor Jerry Brown (D-Calif.) had no problem applying Calhoun’s nullification logic to support his decision to defy federal immigration laws. And progressive activists tapped into their inner-Calhoun when they encouraged the Golden State’s secession after Donald Trump’s upset election victory last year.

Progressives also displayed their latent attraction to Antebellum views on race in 1969 when Wesleyan university agreed to provide segregated housing for blacks, saying the decision would quell racial tensions on campus. Just two years ago, Brown University released a “Pathways to Diversity and Inclusion Action Plan” detailing the school’s effort to promote “culturally conscious mental health,” a euphemism for hiring black psychologists exclusively for black students.

Woodrow Wilson, the ur-progressive, would surely have approved. Brown University has restored his concept of screening off the blacks.

The urgency among universities to whitewash history by eliminating conspicuous apologists for slavery collides with their competing urgency to validate neo-racist policies.

When Trinity College reinstated Prof. Johnny Eric Williams after the widely reported #letthemfuckingdie incident, the AAUP celebrated his exoneration. And the Chronicle of Higher Education rushed to defend Tommy Curry’s advocacy for racial violence against whites on the grounds that his views were why Texas A&M hired him.

It’s possible that what we’re witnessing on university campuses is simply the triumph of one identity politics over another. It isn’t hard to see the “intersection” between Lost Causers and modern day multiculturalists. “Woke” blacks justify campus segregation by saying it’s a defense against an all-powerful white regime. Slavery apologists continue to argue that Northern aggressions provoked the first shots at Fort Sumter.

Each side seeks recognition of its illiberal views. Neither understands the truth in the idea that all men are created equal.

Tearing down the statues of yesterday’s heroes, renaming buildings and streets, putting someone else’s mug on the nickel or the $20 bill—it’s an old game. Egyptian pharaohs played their own version of it, so it’s best not to get too excited. At least not until the keepers of our cultural legacies decide to replace Tupac Shakur with Eminem. That’s where I draw the line.

Double Standard Debbie

WASHINGTON — Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., the former Democratic National Committee chairwoman known in political circles as DWS, is knee-deep in a scandal that involves a laptop, money and possible foreign entanglements.

Unlike the Trump Russian scandal, however, The Washington Post and New York Times have barely reported on the story, which has conservatives observing — with President Donald Trump’s Twitter account concurring — that the mainstream media have a double standard.

In February, the House sergeant-at-arms yanked House computer network access for five information technology staffers who worked as shared employees for some 30 House Democrats. Capitol Police told members that the five were under criminal investigation for possibly violating security policies — and asked members to update their security settings. By March, most Democrats had fired the five, if only because they could no longer do their jobs.

To the puzzlement of many Democrats and Republicans, Wasserman Schultz kept one of the five, Imran Awan, on the payroll, even though he could not do standard House IT work.

On July 24, federal authorities arrested Awan at Dulles Airport as the naturalized citizen was about to board a plane to his native Pakistan. According to an FBI affidavit, Awan had just wired $283,000 to Pakistan, $165,000 of it from an ill-gotten home-equity loan. The feds charged Awan with bank fraud, and then released him under supervision. Only then did Wasserman Schultz fire Awan.

Awan’s wife, Hina Alvi, who was one of the fired IT workers, had left the country for Pakistan in March. While she had bought a round-trip ticket with a return date in September, FBI Special Agent Brandon C. Merriman wrote he “does not believe that Alvi has any intention to return to the United States.”

Wasserman Schultz is no obscure member of Congress. Last year she had to resign as DNC chair after WikiLeaks revealed that she had tilted the Democratic primary in favor of Hillary Clinton, even though the national committee was duty-bound to remain neutral.

Earlier this month Wasserman Schultz told the South Florida Sun Sentinel that she kept Awan on the payroll because she had “grave concerns about his due process rights being violated,” and stated her belief that the Capitol Police actions could be the result of anti-Muslim, anti-Pakistani profiling. She kept Awan on the payroll by switching his role to an advisory position.

Awan’s attorney Christopher Gowan released a statement that blamed the firings on “a frenzy of anti-Muslim bigotry,” charged that “extremist right-wing bloggers” forced Awan’s family to leave the country and voiced confidence that Awan “will soon be able to clear his name and get on with his life.”

It is important to note that federal authorities have not charged any of the IT five — Awan, Alvi, Awan’s two brothers or a friend — with any crime directly related to their House IT work.

But Matthew Whitaker, executive director of the Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust, sees Awan’s continued presence on the payroll as a violation of House ethics rules. “After Awan was barred from accessing the House computer system, Wasserman Schultz continued to pay Awan with taxpayer funds for IT consulting – a position he could not possibly perform,” Whitaker wrote to the House Ethics Committee.

Awan’s salary also is an issue. Politico reported that Awan made nearly $2 million since he started working for House Democrats in 2004. Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley wrote that over 13 years, Awan, his brothers and wife “collected more than $4 million,” which he said is “three times higher than the norm for a government contractor.”

There is enough smoke to this story to merit intense news coverage. Yet The Washington Post, the federal government’s hometown paper, had published only two stories on the Awan saga as of Tuesday, when the Post ran an explainer that looked at the story through two lenses — one conservative, one liberal.

The “conservative media” angle: “A powerful Democratic congresswoman refused to fire an information technology aide after he’s accused of stealing House computer equipment and potentially breaching security protocols.”

The “liberal media” angle: “Powerful Democratic congresswoman protects Muslim IT staffer from what she suspects is religious discrimination. She fires him after he is charged with a seemingly unrelated crime.”

For this story, the Post simply could not take a side. Its coverage of the Trump Russia probe shows no such hesitation.

Likewise The New York Times began a July 28 story with a warning of sorts — that “conservative news outlets have built a case against Imran Awan, his wife, two brothers and a friend, piece by piece.” Hmm. Could it be that conservative outlets built the case because most liberal organs didn’t see much of a story?

When Trump has railed against leaks from the intelligence community, cable pundits routinely have slammed the president for not appreciating members of the intelligence community who put their lives on the line every day. When Wasserman Schultz has accused the Capitol Police of racial or religious profiling, newspapers have simply repeated her accusation.

The twin papers focused on how the fringe has framed the story — one “YouTube conspiracy theorist” accused Awan and friends of being “Pakistani spies” — as if fringe opinion absolves them from having to follow the story where it leads.

It is impossible not to see a double standard. The Democrats’ IT guys enjoy the presumption of innocence. And that would be OK, if big beltway media showed the president the same courtesy.


People say the movie industry has lost its way and alienated its audience, but I’m super-excited about the future of movies, especially in light of Tinseltown’s current trend towards goose-stepping leftist conformity! How can that go wrong?

From fussy fascist fatties like Lena Dunham listening in to stewardesses’ private chats, to withered crones like Chelsea Handler wishing we too could arrest Chinese tourists for goofing on Hitler like the Germans do – apparently there’s no one else in Germany who needs arresting – it’s becoming clear that free-speech and free thoughts are things of the past! Sure, you could Google “free speech,” but the result will probably come back with a link to a long lecture about how your penis makes you bad. Remember, diverse conformity is strength or something.

Well, Hollywood is totally onboard with these trends, and with that in mind, we have plenty to look forward to. Just check out these coming attractions!

 Xe-Day: After the racist, sexist, and homophobic nightmare that was Dunkirk left audiences literally shaking, moviegoers are begging to see a war movie that doesn’t just focus on the people who were actually there or things that really happened. Well, your wish is Hollywood’s command! You thought you knew the whole story of the Normandy operation, but what you really knew was the phallo people of pallor version that minimized and invisibled the contributions of trans soldiers of heft! Xe-Day is the stirring story of the she-roes who didn’t let their birth genders or carbohydrate addictions get in the way of defeating the Nazis! With the cry of “Come on you she-males, you want to live forever!” these pudgy paratroopers aren’t about to allow the Third Reich to mansplain away their girl power! It’s no longer just Band of Brothers anymore! It’s band of brothers, sisters, and others! Opening this Winter Solstice!

1984 II: This exciting reboot turns expectations on their heads as courageous social justice warriors root out bad thinking thought criminals like Winston Smith! You’ll thrill as angry college students confront people with ideas they don’t like, and punish and kill them for daring to be different – all in the name of diversity! When this smash hit is over, you too will love Big Mother!

But is that a “rwality” show already…Called MSNBC, CNN, etc… 🙂

Dirty Harriet: Take that, cro-magnon Clint Eastwood clichés! This modern cop movie teaches us that every life matters, except blue ones! Female-identifying (but curious!) Detective Harriet Callahan gets all the dirty jobs, like running diversity classes for those knuckle dragging patrolman who refuse to abandon their wrong thinking. Pairing up with a differently-abled Muslim dwarf of color, she busts the real villains…the people trying to keep order on the streets! And she does it with hugs! Go ahead, make her day – by admitting your privilege!

 Son of an Inconvenient Truth: It’s his third try, and this time it’s personal! Al Gore takes time away from his busy schedule of eating, dining, having dinner, and pestering innocent masseuses, to explain in detail why his previous predictions of total climate Armageddon that were supposed to come true a couple years ago haven’t. Spoiler Alert – it’s all Trump’s fault!


 From Russia with Lunacy: The Trump/Russia collusion story takes a romantic twist as a brave and intrepid foreigner refuses to be silenced and courageously uses social media to provide America with the forbidden truth about how Trump and Putin got together with the Trilateral Commission and the Reverse Vampires and personally kept Hillary Clinton from campaigning in Michigan, all in defiance of the commands of the Grand Marshal of the Supreme Court and her FISA warrants. Don’t bring the kids because of the controversial dossier scene! Written and directed by, and starring, Louise Mensch, and co-starring Ted Lieu as “Weenis.”

 There’s Something About Sanctuary Cities: This outrageous comedy provides laughs and lessons – because comedy with a message is the funniest comedy. It follows the adventures of people who shouldn’t be in the country raping, looting, and pillaging, because America is bad and deserves it. And all the while our heroes are dodging those evil people from ICE who are trying to enforce the laws that our elected officials made. Ben Stiller makes a comeback as a newly woke resident of San Francisco who learns that as an American citizen he really has no moral right to tell foreigners that they can’t be here, and then gets shot as part of a gang initiation by an undocumented worker named “Vato Loco 69.” Rated: MS-13.


The Bike Lane Warrior: Mad Max is back, but this time he’s caring about the environment! Forget the carbon criminal Max of the past. It’s no longer the last of the V8 interceptors; now he’s got a 10-speed cruiser with a banana seat and he’s pedaling his way through Brooklyn seeking adventure! Starring Zooey Deschanel as “The Humongess,” a 95-pound chick who is tougher and better at fighting than Max and every other man because of girl power!

Lassie Must Die!: Little Timmy learns the heartbreaking truth, that his corgi is helping to cause global warming and is also annoying his Muslim neighbor who just got here from Somalia thanks to a judge in Hawaii! Timmy realizes that his dog must be sacrificed to the Weird Weather Religion and to the whims of some pushy foreigner. After all, as Timmy learns, he’s merely an American citizen, so he doesn’t matter.

 To Chill With A Mattress Girl: This is a college comedy where a goofy frat boy learns a lesson in active consent when the sorority babe he dated decides 10 months later that the romantic interlude she agreed to via notarized contracts signed on videotape was actually rape because the boy stopped returning her texts and her Professor of Uterus Studies said so. Brace yourself for the hilarious “mattress party” sequence as dour feminists crash a dance and read non-rhyming poetry about how they were oppressed growing up as the daughters of doctors and lawyers in Connecticut and Santa Monica!


Harry Potter and Trump Is Totally Valdemort: The movie millennial audiences have been waiting for! Without actual religion to provide them meaning, young folks are filling their empty heads with childish tales of wands and wizards – and JK Rowling is only too happy to keep making money off them. In this tale, Harry Potter comes out of retirement and takes on the evil POTUS, who is a spirit of evil for some reason. Harry also makes out with the weird redheaded boy because the other books were too cisnormative.

Yes, Hollywood has learned plenty about entertaining us over the years. I, for one can’t wait to go spend $50 for a couple of tickets to sit in a dark, sticky room with people poking at their cell phones while garbage is projected in front of me. But apparently you can, since Hollywood seems to be hitting rock bottom in terms of box office. Oh well. If you want something awesome to entertain you, maybe you should read a book, and then another book.

Or break out those DVDs you bought and never watched. That’s my plan…

Google it

Just remember that Leftists are all for “tolerance” and “diversity” as long as you do EXACTLY as they say and believe EXACTLY as they do at that nanosecond or else there will be hell hath no fury like a Liberal disagreed with.

By now you’ve read about the ten-page “anti-diversity screed” that was published by an anonymous engineer at Google. Well, he’s no longer anonymous. His name is James Damore and yesterday Google fired him.

But before we go any further, I’d encourage you to read the actual memo Damore wrote. Because it is neither “anti-diversity,” nor a “screed.” What it is, is a rational case against the worst excesses of corporate identity politics and—most notably—it’s a case made from the left. Damore does not appear to be terribly conservative. Here are some selected passages:


I value diversity and inclusion, am not denying that sexism exists, and don’t endorse using stereotypes. When addressing the gap in representation in the population, we need to look at population level differences in distributions. If we can’t have an honest discussion about this, then we can never truly solve the problem. Psychological safety is built on mutual respect and acceptance, but unfortunately our culture of shaming and misrepresentation is disrespectful and unaccepting of anyone outside its echo chamber. Despite what the public response seems to have been, I’ve gotten many personal messages from fellow Googlers expressing their gratitude for bringing up these very important issues which they agree with but would never have the courage to say or defend because of our shaming culture and the possibility of being fired. This needs to change.



I strongly believe in gender and racial diversity, and I think we should strive for more. However, to achieve a more equal gender and race representation, Google has created several discriminatory practices.



We all have biases and use motivated reasoning to dismiss ideas that run counter to our internal values. Just as some on the Right deny science that runs counter to the “God > humans > environment” hierarchy (e.g., evolution and climate change) the Left tends to deny science concerning biological differences between people (e.g., IQ and sex differences). Thankfully, climate scientists and evolutionary biologists generally aren’t on the right. Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority of humanities and social scientists learn left (about 95%), which creates enormous confirmation bias, changes what’s being studied, and maintains myths like social constructionism and the gender wage gap. Google’s left leaning makes us blind to this bias and uncritical of its results, which we’re using to justify highly politicized programs.

Whatever else you might think of Damore, he does not appear to be severely conservative.

Damore’s main points can be boiled down to three arguments:

(1) Because Google has an overwhelmingly liberal corporate culture, the company should be tolerant of dissenting opinions and cognizant of the dangers of confirmation bias.

(2) The differences in gender outcomes may be influenced by a host of factors, only one of which is discrimination.

(3) Google should try to remediate these differences in gender outcomes through non-discriminatory means.

That’s it. That’s the screed.

Ordinarily, you might read this and think that it’s nothing but common sense. But the reaction to the memo proved Damore’s point beyond a reasonable doubt.

Here, for instance, was the opening to a piece on the memo from Vice’s Motherboard: “Saturday morning, we reported the existence of an anti-diversity manifesto written by a Google software engineer that was shared widely within the company. . . .While the document itself contains the thoughts of one employee, responses to the document from other Google employees show that some people at the company share the same beliefs.”

No kidding: This sounds like something from The Lives of Others. Motherboard went on to note that several Google employees internally had called for the firing of the anonymous engineer. There’s more. But the best part came in the form of a response from Google’s Vice President of Diversity, Integrity & Governance, Danielle Brown (how much revenue do you think her division brings in?), who wrote to her colleagues:


Many of you have read an internal document shared by someone in our engineering organization, expressing views on the natural abilities and characteristics of different genders, as well as whether one can speak freely of these things at Google. And like many of you, I found that it advanced incorrect assumptions about gender. I’m not going to link to it here as it’s not a viewpoint that I or this company endorses, promotes or encourages.

In sum: This employee voiced “incorrect” thoughts which will not even be linked to so that other employees may form their own opinions and, by the way, it’s crazy to have any concerns about not being able to speak freely at Google.

This is Stalinist.

Not in the literal sense—Damore didn’t’ wind up in a gulag. (Not yet, anyway.) He was merely deprived of his livelihood a few days after writing a samizdat essay in which he politely and compassionately expressed a coherent set of rational ideas.

But just like in Stalin’s Russia, at Google there are Right Thoughts and there are Wrong Thoughts. These categories are determined by those in power and the average worker dissents from them, even by an inch, at his peril.


A Virginia high sent a disturbing letter to parents and students announcing they would be selecting students for Advanced Placement and honors classes based on skin color – instead of intelligence.

Martin Luther King, Jr. must be turning over in his grave.

A parent forwarded me a copy of the letter sent from John Handley High School in Winchester.

“Through our collective work, advanced classes such as AP and Honors will have proportional representation,” read the letter. “Proportional representation is 40% White, 35% Hispanic, 12% African American, 10% mixed race.”

The letter went on to explain that public schools across the country “continue to see outcomes that are disproportionate by race and social class.” 

“American demographic trends indicate that America will be a majority minority nation in the next 25 years,” the letter read. “Therefore, the new work of American public schools is to develop systems to address disparate outcomes.”

Interesting –  I thought the work of American public schools was to teach kids how to read, write, multiply and divide.

Among those who received the letter was Eric Sitton – the father of a rising sophomore honors student at the high school.

“I was taken aback. I couldn’t believe someone would put words like that in print to send around to the homes of students,” he told me.

He said he was especially distressed when his teenage son read the rules governing honors classes.

“I felt powerless to help my child,” he said. “Seeing the look on his face when he realized that he was being judged by the color of his skin was agonizing.”

So how does a public school district explain judging children based on their pigmentation?

I reached out to the school district multiple times over the past two days but so far – they have not responded to my questions regarding the policy.

“My son asked me, ‘Am I not going to be able to be in an AP class because I’m white?’ And I didn’t know what to tell him,” Mr. Sitton said.

Clearly, the school is playing identity politics. And it won’t be long before they require students to take white privilege classes.

Last year, he said one of his son’s teachers told students she could not believe anyone would vote for Donald Trump. She attempted to influence students with her political ideology.

“It is honestly like trying to run a marathon in mud – trying to deal with the school system,” Mr. Sitton told me.

Hopefully, Mr. Sitton’s son will be among the 40 percent of white people permitted to enroll in honors classes.

“I told my son to just do the best you can do, show your aptitude and hopefully you will get the classes you want,” he said.


The school district released a statement after our story was published: (The oh no we didn’t ass-covering letter)

“Our school division does not have, nor has it ever had, any policy that utilizes race for enrollment into honors or AP courses. All students, regardless of race, must meet academic criteria to enroll in advanced level coursework. Over the past years, the School Board has continued its focus on providing advanced level coursework as well as increasing advanced course offerings across a variety of disciplines. The School Board has not contemplated, nor adopted, any policy or practice that utilizes race in determining which students can or cannot take such courses, or any other courses for that matter.

We have not received any inquiries from parents regarding the letter that was referenced by the parent. The portion of the letter you cited was from an insert in a back to school mailing from John Handley High School that highlighted division and school level work slated for 2017-2018. This work includes increased efforts to identify students who meet academic criteria and encourage them to enroll in advanced level coursework, regardless of race, socioeconomic status, and disability.

Our School Board prides itself on being available and responsive to community members; that is our role as a School Board. Had I received an inquiry from this parent or any other concerned parent, I would have provided the facts related to the letter to the concerned parent and child. We believe that students must have access to advanced coursework opportunities and we will continue to make them available to all students should they meet the academic criteria required. Our vision is that all students that have met those requirements are encouraged to take these courses, and to that end, we hope to see an increase in overall enrollment in advanced coursework.”


Winchester Public Schools, like many division across the country, continue to see outcomes that are disproportionate by race and social class. American demographic trends indicate that America will be an majority minority nation in the next 25 years. Therefore, the new work of American public schools is to develop systems to address disparate outcomes.

Translation: RACE


The WPS equity committee has three subsets – community engagement, culturally responsive practices, and proportional outcomes. Each subcommittee presented strategies for implementation in the upcoming year. Examples include the AMPed UP! (Accelerated Math Progressions for Underrepresented Potential) for rising fifth graders, giving the PSAT to all tenth graders in order to generate the AP Potential report for 11th grade registration, universal screeners for gifted identification in elementary school, and culturally responsive training through a train the trainer approach.


Through our collective work, advanced classes such as AP and Honors will have proportional representation. Proportional representation is 40% White, 35% Hispanic, 12% African American, 10% mixed race.

Translation: Racial Quota. Not based on Merit alone.