Happy Halloween

All you racists, misogynistic, bigoted cultural appropriators!

This year at Campus Reform, we’ve reported extensively how college students around the country have increasingly taken offense to Halloween celebrations, often accusing various costumes of being offensive and declaring students who wear them guilty of “cultural appropriation.”

At campuses around America, students have been discouraged from wearing sombreros, ninja outfits, Native American headdresses, or any other costume which assumes a culture one does not represent.

“[T]his is affecting people’s lives, you’re taking narratives away…So I definitely support [the petition].”

One prominent example of this trend came last year at Yale University, where students famously protested a professor who simply advised students to wear whatever Halloween costume they deemed appropriate.

Students at Yale and elsewhere have made it clear: they want their schools to take preemptive measures to prevent the wearing of Halloween costumes which could offend.

But would they be willing to support a more extreme measure in the hopes of limiting hurt feelings this Halloween season?

Campus Reform visited Yale with a petition to outlaw Halloween on the New Haven, Connecticut campus.

Posing as a member of the fictitious “Yale Students for An Inclusive Fall Season,” I attempted to garner support for my cause.

I had no idea how easy it would be.

After explaining that my goal was to create a more inclusive campus and limit the number of students made uncomfortable by costumes each year, I received signature after signature.

What was their rationale for signing the outrageous petition? Watch the full video to find out.

Image result for cultural appropriation halloween


Nothing will ever be acceptable to everyone. That’s just a fact of life. So giving in to that fear is wrong.

Christ Church in Alexandria, Virginia will pry off the memorial because it’s “not acceptable” to all parishoners.

Christ Church Alexandria
Wikimedia Commons

A historic church, once attended by George Washington, will pull down a plaque honoring the nation’s first president because it makes some of their worshippers uncomfortable.

Christ Church in Alexandria, Virginia, where Washington was once a parishioner, has a small brass plate on one of the pews marking where Washington and his wife, Martha, sat every Sunday. But because Washington was once a slave owner, Christ Church’s leadership says the plates will have to be removed.

“The plaques in our sanctuary make some in our presence feel unsafe or unwelcome,” leaders said, a reference to the fact that Washington was a slaveholder, the church said in a statement.


“Some visitors and guests who worship with us choose not to return because they receive an unintended message from the prominent presence of the plaques. Many in our congregation feel a strong need for the church to stand clearly on the side of ‘all are welcome- no exceptions,” the statement continued.

Washington not only attended Christ Church, he was one of its major financiers following the Revolutionary War. The Episcopalian parish received much of its funding from the British Government pre-war, but once Washington prevailed, its future was in doubt. Washington stepped in to support the church, and purchased the pew where his plaque now resides — at least for a couple more months.

Christ Church says it’s adamant about removing the plate, however, along with another honoring Confederate General Robert E. Lee who also worshipped there with his family. The church’s pastor, Rev. Noelle York-Simmons, says the vote to scrub Christ Church clean of “problematic items” was unanimous.

The plaques are expected to come out next summer.

6 Ways to Hell

There was a time when we used to be a nation that pushed freedom, responsibility, decency, patriotism and hard work. Some of us still believe in those things, but because of liberalism, much more destructive values have seeped into our culture like toxic waste. There are many ways that liberals have degraded our culture, but these are the worst of the worst.

1) The Politicization Of Everything: Want to watch football? There are players protesting the flag. Turn on a Hollywood awards ceremony? There are actors making political statements. Want to go to the bathroom in peace? Well, first, we need to know if you’re okay with sharing it with someone who feels like the opposite gender today. You’re just a regular person telling an off-color joke you heard? Better be careful; that could turn into a front page scandal if the wrong group gets offended. Want to buy a Halloween costume for your kid? Well, you better make sure it’s someone of the same race or people will be upset. Want to go on a date? If you date someone of the same race, you may be racist. Ready to marry your honey? Then you better support gay marriage or you’re a homophobe. I can remember a time in America where you could just live your life without paying attention to politics at all if you wanted and that was a good thing. Remember that old saying? Never discuss race, religion or politics in polite company? Well, because of liberals, you don’t have a choice anymore.

2) Political Correctness: I hate the idea that some normal person can tell a joke on Twitter and have his life destroyed for it by the liberal fun police. I think it’s disgusting to see that liberals have embraced fascism to such an extent that they can’t tolerate a contrary idea on their college campus. It’s like the whole country is in a relationship with someone who has borderline personality disorder. Everyone’s walking on eggshells because some buttercup might get horribly upset at, well….just about anything. Whatever happened to the idea that if some ordinary thing triggers you, YOU have the problem and it’s something YOU need to work on? Oh, yeah, liberals happened to it.

3) Victimhood: Only in America do people get so excited about the idea of being a victim that they will even fake hate crimes against themselves to get that status. Only in America are there women publicly crying that they were sexually assaulted and traumatized because a 93 year old, wheelchair-bound President pinched their butt. Only in America do we have to come up with things like white privilege and institutional racism because there’s not enough real racism happening to allow liberal minorities to feel like victims. There was a time in America when people wanted to feel strong, capable and able to handle their own problems instead of being victims. There still are people like that today and they’re called conservatives.

4) Liberal Feminism: The original “Women should have the same rights as men” feminism has been so widely accepted in society that it made feminism irrelevant. So, liberal feminists reinvented feminism as a combination of man-hating and victimization. Look out, it’s the patriarchy and rape culture! Don’t you dare hold the door for me! Stop mansplaining! Stop saying, “Not all men!” You just sit there in silence thinking about how you’ve oppressed women! Liberal feminism falsely makes women think they could have it all if those awful men weren’t getting in their way and it makes many guys unsure of what reaction they’ll get from women when they behave like men. Forget about the old “Women should be women and men should be men” philosophy; liberal feminism is about women being men and the men being shamed.

5) Tribalism:  Liberals work incessantly to split Americans in ever smaller groups that are at each other’s throats. If you want to get a sense of how bad it has gotten, we’re having ferocious public debates about transsexuals who, depending on how you define it, make up less than .25% to .75% of the population. Increasingly, the attitude is moving from the annoying, “You just can’t understand because of your race/color/gender” to “You HATE ME and I HATE YOU” because of differences that are often unchangeable. This is incredibly dangerous to our future as a country because you can’t hold any group of people including a nation together long term when people no longer believe they share the same goals and values as their neighbors.   Our nation’s motto is E pluribus unum (Out of many, one), but what happens when liberals insist that the many never become one?

6) “Non-Judgmentalism”: We’ve heard so many liberals talk about how important it is to be non-judgmental that it has seeped into the culture at large. When there’s a choice between what’s best for society and best for a particular individual who has done something wrong, we always default to protecting that individual. How’s that working out for us? Since the stigma around getting a divorce, having a child out of wedlock or having an abortion has faded, are we better or worse off? Are the kids who are aborted or who get raised by a single parent instead of a family better off? Are the guys who are extremely hesitant to get married because they fear divorce better off? Are we better off because people no longer wonder whether doing something horrible in public will hurt their good name or ruin their family’s reputation? The very fact that we are so unwilling to draw a line in the sand and say “That’s right” or “That’s wrong” has mired our culture in degeneracy. Maybe if there were more people who feel bad when they do things that “wouldn’t make their mothers proud,” there would be a lot more decent human beings.

Lynch Herself?

Congressional committees are good for hauling shady people in front of cameras and generating tough-sounding headlines and sound bites a politician can point to as evidence of their hard, courageous work when they’re up for reelection. But how effective are they at actually bringing those shady people to justice.

The Washington Times reports that on October 20, Barack Obama’s former Attorney General Loretta Lynch privately met with Congressional Republicans about her “tarmac meeting” with former President Bill Clinton, husband of failed Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, in June 2016. What they discussed is unknown, but many suspect it had something to do with the Obama Justice Department giving Hillary a pass on various scandals, particularly her illegal use of a private server to share classified material.

Surprise, surprise, Lynch didn’t feel much like talking:

Mrs. Lynch has been accused of attempting to influence the FBI’s investigation into Mrs. Clinton’s private email use while secretary of state — and both she and Mr. Clinton say the meeting at the Phoenix airport was a chance social encounter.

In June, during highly anticipated testimony, fired FBI Director James Comey told the Senate Intelligence Committee that the Lynch-Clinton tarmac meeting caused him to hold a press conference on Mrs. Clinton’s email case.

“At one point, the attorney general [Lynch] had directed me not to call it an investigation but instead to call it a matter, which confused me and concerned me,” Mr. Comey told the committee. “That was one of the bricks in the load that led me to conclude I have to step away from the department if we’re to close this case credibly.”

On Friday, Fox quoted sources saying the former attorney general refused to answer three queries: whether she ever instructed Mr. Comey to characterize the DOJ’s Clinton email investigation a “matter,” whether she liaised with the White House to hold the tarmac meeting with Mr. Clinton and finally — if she could address any issues related to Mr. Comey’s June testimony.

Mrs. Lynch reportedly declined to answer any of the three queries.

Earlier this month, TFPP reported that FBI has admitted to possessing 30 pages or so of documents pertaining to the tarmac meeting, after denying that it had any such records the year before. The FBI was forced to change its tune after the conservative American Center for Law and Justice got its hands on and then released email exchanges between the FBI and DOJ confirming the records’ existence.

So Republicans ask Lynch to come clean, and Lynch says she doesn’t want to come clean. What do Republicans do now? Frown, issue a finger-waving press release, and say “oh well, we tried”? Or do they decide that suspects deserve to be treated like suspects, and bring greater pressure to bear?

This is why the whole idea of legislators taking the lead on all of this is a farce. We’re not talking about bad policies; we’re talking about crimes. Corruption. Abuse of power. The Justice Department should be taking the lead. Lynch needs to be asked these questions in court, under oath. And everyone needs to understand that at the end of the day, the truth will be found one way or another, and somebody will most likely be going to jail.

Flake Out

Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ), who barely won his 2012 election, has decided to throw in the towel. Why? Well, for a couple reasons, one is that he felt, no—he admitted that he probably couldn’t survive a primary challenge. A preliminary poll had former Arizona State Sen. Kelli Ward beating him by 14 points. The second is that he’s not happy with President Trump or the state of the GOP (via NBC News):

The day after Sen. Jeff Flake announced he would not run for re-election, citing his dismay over President Donald Trump and the state of the GOP, the Arizona Republican acknowledged Wednesday that his decision came after he realized he wouldn’t be able to win a GOP primary.

“The bottom line is if I were to run a campaign that I could be proud of, and where I didn’t have to cozy up to the president and his positions or his behavior, I could not win in a Republican primary,” Flake told MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.” “That’s the bottom line.”


…Flake signaled that his views as a dedicated conservative simply didn’t align any longer with those of many of his constituents — especially when it came to the issue of standing with Trump.

“It’s not that you just have to be with the president on policy — you can’t question his behavior and still be a Republican in good standing, apparently, in a Republican primary,” Flake said.


Flake, in his announcement Tuesday to not run, said on the Senate floor, “We must stop pretending that the conduct of some in our executive branch are normal.”

“They are not normal,” Flake said, adding that he would not be “complicit and silent.”

As an Arizonan I have a lot more at stake here, especially when our other Senator is The RINO King, McCain.

I listened to  most of Flake’s speech and found a lot of it, that attacked the GOP for inaction, to be quite accurate, but, I found his ‘loyalty test’ gripe about Trump to be hallow. Ultimately, i think he quit so he could go out on a high horse rather than get sent to the Glue Factory next year because he refused to be more The Tea Party Candidate he was elected for.

He just didn’t want to fight anymore, IMHO.

So we may get stuck with the crazy woman from Mesa or the alternative to McCain not enough Republicans wanted last year. And there was much rejoicing…. 😦

He also took a ‘think of the children’ line in his Senate speech, which Fox News Greg Gutfeld torched as leftist strategy. It is tragic, senator—you were a Tea Partier. Now, you’re a quitter. Here’s his op-ed in The Washington Post, where he cited Army counsel Joseph Welch, who famously pushed back on Sen. Joseph McCarthy’s Army hearings with “have you no decency, sir.” It showed that McCarthy had overreached when he tried to take on the military and it was the beginning of the end of his political career, as Americans began to sour on McCarthyism:

The moral power of Welch’s words ended McCarthy’s rampage on American values, and effectively his career as well.

After Welch said his piece, the hearing room erupted in applause, those in attendance seemingly shocked by such bracing moral clarity in the face of a moral vandal. Someone had finally spoken up and said: Enough.


We face just such a time now. We have again forgotten who we are supposed to be.

There is a sickness in our system — and it is contagious.

How many more disgraceful public feuds with Gold Star families can we witness in silence before we ourselves are disgraced?

How many more times will we see moral ambiguity in the face of shocking bigotry and shrug it off?

How many more childish insults do we need to see hurled at a hostile foreign power before we acknowledge the senseless danger of it?

How much more damage to our democracy and to the institutions of American liberty do we need to witness in silence before we count ourselves as complicit in that damage?

Nine months of this administration is enough for us to stop pretending that this is somehow normal, and that we are on the verge of some sort of pivot to governing, to stability. Nine months is more than enough for us to say, loudly and clearly: Enough.

It still doesn’t cover-up the fact that it looks like you’re a quitter, Senator. The Senate is too gridlocked, so I quit. The partisan atmosphere is so toxic, so I quit. Trump is a bad, bad man, so I quit. I can’t win an election, so I quit. First, not faring well in a primary is not a forgone conclusion. There is a lot of time between now and Election Day 2018. Anything could’ve happened. Also, Flake voted with the Trump agenda the vast majority of the time. If Flake started out as a Tea Party conservative, his exit will peg him as a moderate who couldn’t hack it, but he’s not the only one.

Maine Sen. Olympia Snowe:

For change to occur, our leaders must understand that there is not only strength in compromise, courage in conciliation and honor in consensus-building — but also a political reward for following these tenets. That reward will be real only if the people demonstrate their desire for politicians to come together after the planks in their respective party platforms do not prevail.

I certainly don’t have all the answers, and reversing the corrosive trend of winner-take-all politics will take time. But as I enter a new chapter in my life, I see a critical need to engender public support for the political center, for our democracy to flourish and to find solutions that unite rather than divide us.

I do not believe that, in the near term, the Senate can correct itself from within. It is by nature a political entity and, therefore, there must be a benefit to working across the aisle.

Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh:

There are many causes for the dysfunction: strident partisanship, unyielding ideology, a corrosive system of campaign financing, gerrymandering of House districts, endless filibusters, holds on executive appointees in the Senate, dwindling social interaction between senators of opposing parties and a caucus system that promotes party unity at the expense of bipartisan consensus.

Many good people serve in Congress. They are patriotic, hard-working and devoted to the public good as they see it, but the institutional and cultural impediments to change frustrate the intentions of these well-meaning people as rarely before. It was not always thus.

So, the going gets tough, and these people just leave. Snowe said she wants to bolster the political center…by not being in the most prestigious legislative chamber to represent their supposed interests. Where is she by the way? For Bayh, yes—he didn’t have the best relationship with Obama, and he was more to the right on fiscal matters than Democrats, but two words apply to all of these people: I quit. I have never understood these ‘mic drop’ moments from the center. Okay—you’re leaving. So what? I don’t like how the party is going, then stay and change it. Fight for what you think is that principled conservative position. I may not agree with you always, but at least you stayed and fought for your ideals. Instead, it’s Trump sucks, I don’t like the atmosphere, and so I’m going to leave. That’s what everyone else in the party sees. Or maybe he truly couldn’t win, so he decided to make his exit by taking broadsides against the Trump administration.

Now that Flake is making his trip down desolation row, will this screw us in Arizona? As Sean Trende at Real Clear Politics wrote yesterday, it’s not an apocalyptic scenario at all. It remains the Democrats’ best pick-up opportunity, but while the state is becoming more bluish, for now—it’s still relatively red. He added that Flake’s exit increases the chances of a more establishment Republican doing better in a primary and then taking on Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, the presumptive Democratic candidate, in the general. Trende added that while Sinema has a moderate voting record, a plus in Arizona, she did describe herself as a “Prada socialist,” while in the state legislature. FiveThirtyEight made similar overtures, reiterating that it’s not a slam-dunk for Democrats now that Flake is leaving—and that his departure could be a good move for the GOP in the state:

Other, more establishment-friendly Republicans may jump into the race now that Flake is out. If one of these non-Ward candidates wins the primary, it probably means that Republicans caught a break with Flake retiring. He was very unpopular with Republicans, after all. And a new Republican candidate may be able to hold the Trump base (which Flake was struggling to do) without alienating voters in the center (as Ward may).

Other potential Republican candidates whose names had been buzzed about — Robert Graham and Jeff DeWit — are on good terms with Trump and are more conventional politicians than Ward. DeWit is the state treasurer, and Graham ran the Arizona Republican Party and got favorable reviews for his efforts to unite the emergent tea party forces with more establishment Republicans. Neither man is a polarizing figure in the state the way Ward is, and as Graham told FiveThirtyEight in September, GOP donors in Arizona have been clamoring for either of them to enter the race and unite establishment Republicans and far-right activists behind a single candidate. Dustin Stockton, Ward’s former campaign manager, told FiveThirtyEight that Rep. Martha McSally is also being talked about as a potential entrant to the race.

So, in all, we might have dodged a bullet. And yes, Flake’s base in the state was shaky on the verge of collapse. But I thought Trump could never win. I think a lot of people thought his candidacy could never be successful, but he fought and won. Moreover, it could have been interesting if Flake had just cooled off on the anti-Trump antics for a period of time to see how his approvals would have turned out. He has voted with the Trump White House the vast majority of the time. In a moment of clarity, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) issued this statement to his Senate colleagues attacking Trump: shut up and do your jobs. Maybe there was still time to right the ship, maybe it was impossible—I don’t know. In fact, you’ll never know if you don’t make the effort. Regardless, it’s farewell, Flake.

Apple a Day

CNN is airing a bizarre new advertisement with the motto “Facts First,” which insists that the network calls an apple an apple, even if critics of its “news” reporting argue it’s a banana. You see, CNN is interested in objective truth, not opinions. This would be like McDonald’s advertising with an apple and saying the company is all about health food.

Our “news” networks don’t deal with facts first. They sell us narratives, and the favorite is the wild speculation about what might happen next to President Trump. For months, they have speculated about how meetings with powerful Russians would be the end of Trump. From Jan. 20 to Oct. 20, the Media Research Center reports, the ABC, CBS and NBC evening-news shows alone gave that story just over 1,000 minutes.

But Obamacare? Budget and taxes? Immigration? A possible nuclear war with North Korea? All are second bananas. It’s Trump-Russia, Russia-Trump day in and day out.

The Russia narrative they prefer is this: Donald Trump won the presidency due to the help of an autocratic foreign power. But in the last week, a series of investigative reports by The Hill have brought something altogether new to the discussion: facts. And the facts are implicating former President Obama’s administration, specifically Hillary Clinton, in some astonishingly unethical, if not illegal, behavior with the Russians. The publication reported:

–Russian nuclear industry officials were engaged in bribery and extortion before the Obama administration approved the sale of Uranium One to Russia, a company that controls 20 percent of America’s uranium supply. They routed millions of dollars to the U.S. designed to benefit The Clinton Foundation during Hillary Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state and helped provide a favorable uranium decision to Moscow.

–In preparation for collecting a $500,000 speech payment in Moscow in 2010, former President Bill Clinton sought State Department clearance to meet with a key official of the Russian nuclear energy firm Rosatom, which still needed the Obama team’s approval for on the uranium deal. Instead, Clinton met with Russian President Vladimir Putin at the autocrat’s private homestead.

–Obama’s Justice Department prevented an American businessman who worked undercover for years as an FBI confidential witness from telling Congress about transactions and conversations he witnessed regarding the Russian nuclear industry’s efforts to win the favor of Team Obama and the Clintons.

–The FBI identified a Russian spy ring’s attempt in 2009 and 2010 to infiltrate Hillary Clinton’s inner circle through a donor friend in order to spy on the State Department. Agents arrested and deported the female spy before anything could happen.

Countless other publications assert that nine investors in Uranium One jointly donated a cool $145 million to the Clinton Foundation.

This reads like a fascinating spy novel, but ABC and NBC have offered nothing. Let that sink in. CBS aired one question (and one answer) on “Face the Nation” that lasted 69 seconds. CNN, which has spent hour after hour obsessing over Russian collusion with Trump, can hardly be bothered with this narrative.

That’s “Facts First” — media style.

Naturally, the usual dishonest Clinton defense emerged: This was “old news.” When author Peter Schweitzer wrote about this issue in 2015 (without the new developments), he was virtually ignored. And if he was interviewed, hostile treatment is an understatement. Here’s how NBC’s Savannah Guthrie dealt with “facts” back then. She asked Schweitzer: “Before we get into some of the details, let’s put it bluntly: Are you hoping that this book and the issues you raise in it torpedo her candidacy?” He said no, but she shot back: “a lot of your critics say, ‘Look, you are a conservative and that this is a right-wing hit job.’ Are you really claiming to be neutral here?”

No one is neutral in the pro-Clinton press corps. Facts never come first.


Halloween Advice

It’s important for white children to understand at a very young age that they are a cancer on the Earth and everything they do is racist. There is probably no better time to drive this into their bigoted heads than Halloween, a holiday rife with problematic potential. On that note, several articles have recently been written explaining why your daughter is essentially committing genocide if she dresses like Moana for trick or treating this year.

In case you haven’t seen the film because you’re racist, a quick recap: “Moana” tells the inspiring story of a spunky little Polynesian girl who saves her island and the entire world by publishing a series of feminist pamphlets decrying gendered wage disparity in the workforce. At least that’s how I interpreted it, viewing it through the lens of an extremely woke individual.

Obviously, dressing as Moana for Halloween is a form of cultural appropriation because Moana isn’t white. She also isn’t anything, really, because she’s a fictional character. But let’s not get bogged down by details. In fact, an article at RaceConscious.org explains that the appropriation is all the more appropriative in this case because Moana, a film featuring a magical singing demigod and a sentient island that turns into a giant demonic beast and then back into an island again [spoiler], is “based on real history.”

The author goes on to argue that it could even be racist to dress up like Elsa because Elsa is white. It seems very confusing, especially to white people, because white people are all profoundly stupid (except for me) compared to more advanced races. The Offensive Costume Matrix has gotten so complex that a college magazine had to print an entire flowchart explaining how to correctly select Halloween costumes without persecuting 4/5 of the globe.

I’ve decided to add my voice to this discussion by providing a handy list of nine simple ways to avoid being racist on Halloween. It goes without saying that these rules, like all rules, are intended for white cisgendered heterosexuals only. Everyone else can do literally whatever they want. Indeed, the article cited above closes by touting a black version of Elsa. Is it racist for a black person to dress up like a Norwegian character? No. Norwegian culture is white so it doesn’t count. I don’t even think Norwegia is a real place, to be honest. Just another lie made up by the white man.

Anyway, here we go:

1. Avoid costumes based on characters outside your race.

This has been covered but it bears repeating. It is absolutely demeaning and insensitive to pretend to be something you’re not. Unless you’re a man pretending to be a woman, in which case a parade should be thrown in your honor. Now, you might retort that the entire freaking point of Halloween is to pretend to be something you’re not, but that argument only reveals your white privilege.

Look, it’s simple: people of color are not here for your amusement. It is not acceptable to make a mockery of an entire race of people, even if your intention is to pay them homage. It’s hard for you to understand the pain caused by cultural caricatures because you’re white and nobody ever makes a caricature of white people. Incidentally, I had a great discussion about this very point last St. Patty’s Day while I guzzled Irish beer amid a crowd of drunken hooligans dressed like Leprechauns and wearing shamrock glasses.

2. Avoid costumes based on characters of the same race.

What kind of message are you sending when you dress as a white person for Halloween? Are minority cultures not worthy of your attention? Would you be embarrassed to be seen in a costume associated with a race you clearly find inferior? Do you think the only good fictional characters are white? A white child dressed as a white character is advocating segregation. She might as well just dress up as Jim Crow. The one thing more bigoted than mocking a person of color by dressing like them is excluding them by not dressing like them. You should be ashamed.

3. Avoid costumes made from material that originates from historically oppressed regions.

Costumes made from cotton are definitely out, for obvious reasons. Costumes featuring anything gold or sparkly must be ruled out because they may remind Indigenous People of the European explorers who came here to rape their land and steal their gold. Actually, all fabrics must be ruled out because East Asia has had a prosperous textile trade for many centuries. Oh, and don’t even think about wearing a jacket if it’s a little cold on Halloween. That would be extremely offensive to Eskimos, who are basically not white and I assume invented jackets.

4. Avoid costumes made from material that does not originate from historically oppressed regions.

What are you trying to prove by dressing your kid in that plastic Batman costume? Plastic was invented by a white man, which is a point of pride for white supremacists everywhere. Are you a white supremacist? Is your kid? When you wear plastic, you otherize and exclude marginalized people who did not have the opportunity to invent plastic. Try to be a little sensitive for a change, you worthless, drooling, knuckle dragging, Nazi caveman.

5. Avoid costumes that marginalized people would prefer you not wear.

This isn’t hard. If a person from a marginalized group is offended by your costume for any reason whatsoever, you must immediately tear it off and run through the street naked, beating your chest and screaming, “Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.” The safest approach is to gather together a focus group of your 500 closest minority friends and have them vote on the appropriateness of your costume. This is the process I follow before I get dressed every day. It only takes about 8 to 10 hours, usually. A small price to pay in the name of combating white supremacy.

6. Avoid costumes you buy from the store.

Think about it: If you buy a costume from a local retailer, that’s one fewer costume that will be available for the next African-American, Latinx, Sudanese, or Cambodian who walks through the door. In a sense, by purchasing the costume, you are stealing it from a Cambodian.

Worst of all, store-bought costumes advertise your wealth and privilege to disadvantaged groups who’ve long dreamed of going on a shopping spree at Party City. I seriously can’t believe that you would even consider buying a costume for yourself or your child. You may as well just cut to the chase and kick a minority in the shins. Disgusting.

7. Avoid homemade costumes.

Is there any more obnoxious way to flaunt your privilege than to wear a costume you made yourself? Think about the impact this may have on those around you. When I was a child, I wanted to be a knight for Halloween so my mom covered a cereal box in tin foil and put it on my head. As I walked down the street, thousands of black and Hispanic children looked at my ritzy, homemade outfit and wept. I learned then how dangerous Halloween can be.

The other problem is that homemade clothing is customary in many African and Asian cultures. They’ve stitched their own garbs for millennia. It is highly presumptuous for a white person to partake in such an intimate and longstanding minority tradition. How could you even consider doing something that minorities do — or don’t do?

8. Avoid costumes.

All costumes are cultural appropriation by definition. If you’d studied your history, you’d know that non-white cultures have always worn costumes for their various wonderful festivals and so forth. The Wodaabe tribe in Niger joins together once a year for a ritual celebration where many of the participants wear elaborate face paint and feathery attire. Before you go out this Halloween, think of how your costume will impact any Wodaabe people you may come across. Perhaps it’s best to forfeit costumes entirely.

9. Avoid avoiding costumes.

Only a racist would forfeit costumes entirely. To forgo costumes on Halloween communicates two things to marginalized populations: A) You don’t want to offend them because you’re afraid of them, which perpetuates the myth of the dangerous minority. B) You don’t want to partake in this fun holiday with minorities because they aren’t equal to you. Your decision to not wear a costume can be extremely dehumanizing to non-white people. Almost as dehumanizing as your decision to wear a costume.

These are the rules. They will be strictly enforced. Any white child who comes knocking at my door will have to follow the above protocols, and pass a short cultural sensitivity quiz, in order to receive a treat. If they fail, well, they’ll just have to hope the guy next door is handing out gluten-free pita chips. Mine are reserved for non-racists only.

A Matter of Perspective

President Donald Trump’s proposal for comprehensive tax reform was almost immediately dismissed as heartless and impractical by his political opponents.

But what would some of those opponents think if they were told the same plan was being proposed by someone they adore—Senator Bernie Sanders?

[RELATED: VIDEO: Students despise Obama policies…when credited to Trump]

To find out, we headed to George Washington University to ask students their opinions on Trump’s new tax plan. WIthout much explanation, the students immediately made clear their distaste for the plan.

“It’s not the most efficient, nor beneficial to the general populace,” said one student when asked her opinion of Trump’s plan.

“It’s better for the upper class than anyone else,” added another.

After watching student after student express their disapproval of the plan, we then asked those same students what they thought of Senator Bernie Sanders’ new tax plan.

Immediately, they expressed excitement and support after hearing the details of the plan.

The only problem for them? There was no tax plan for Senator Sanders. The plan they loved was actually President Trump’s.

How did they react? Watch the full video to find out!

Russia, Russia, Russia…NOT

Surprise! Big Media Ignores the Real Russian Scandal

While the mainstream media is chasing their tail about supposed Trump-Russia collusion, the scandal involving Uranium One unfolds to expose a Clinton-Russia connection as well as a stunning coverup by the Obama administration.

Rather than reporting real news, they continue to churn out phony news about phony news that Russia swayed the 2016 election with Facebook ads and a hodgepodge of other thus-far debunked Trump-Russia collusion conspiracy theories.

The Clintons’ chief political go-to guy Mark Penn, recently disproved the conspiracy theory that Russia swayed the 2016 election with $100,000 in Facebook ads.  Penn wrote in the Wall Street Journal that in the end, only $6,500 was spent on “actual electioneering” and most ads “did not solicit support for a candidate.”

Even if $100,000 was spent on actual electioneering, compare that to the Clintons’ multi-million-dollar influence-peddling scheme going on while Russia was conspiring to grab 20-percent of U.S. uranium reserves with the acquisition of Uranium One.

As I wrote in a March column, Uranium One is a Russian-owned uranium mining company that lobbied the Obama State Department through a firm co-founded by Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign chairman, John Podesta.

Uranium One fell under the corporate control of Russia’s atomic energy agency Rosatom through a series of transactions approved by Hillary Clinton’s State Department, effectively giving Russia control of 20 percent of U.S. uranium — while a flow of cash found its way to the Clinton Foundation.

All told, Newsweek reports $145 million went to the Clinton Foundation or its initiatives from those linked to Uranium One. Former President Bill Clinton also received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank promoting Uranium One stock with ties to the Kremlin.

Additionally, the chairman of Uranium One is a close friend of the Clintons and is on the board of the Clinton Foundation, according to Peter Schweizer, author of “Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich.”

Fast forward to now.

Enter: Rod Rosenstein, Andrew McCabe, Robert Mueller and James Comey –the same folks investigating the so-called Trump-Russia collusion investigation were also involved in Uranium One.

DOJ documents disclose the investigation was ultimately supervised by Rosenstein and  McCabe. Robert Mueller was FBI director when the probe began and James Comey was director until Trump fired him.

We now know the FBI was aware of multi-faceted Russian wrongdoing long before the Uranium One nuclear deal was approved.

The Hill reports the “FBI had gathered substantial evidence that Russian nuclear industry officials were engaged in bribery, kickbacks, extortion and money laundering designed to grow Vladimir Putin’s atomic energy business inside the United States, according to government documents and interviews.”

Investigators also knew “Russians were compromising American contractors in the nuclear industry with kickbacks and extortion threats, all of which raised legitimate national security concerns,” The Hill reports.

Apparently, the Obama administration was desperate to keep this under wraps and allegedly threatened an FBI informant to remain silent. Fox News reports that Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa has asked the DOJ to “lift an apparent ‘gag order’ on the FBI informant who “allegedly was ‘threatened’ by the Obama administration to stay quiet.”

All that, while we were told there was nothing to see here.

Too much was at stake.  Hillary was supposed to win in 2016. Covering up this scandal was just as important to Obama’s legacy as lying about Benghazi was to winning his re-election.

In the end, The DOJ managed to whisper out a vague press release before Labor Day 2015, mentioning a plea agreement and a four-year sentence for a handful of wrongdoings. Basically, a hand slap, despite mountains of evidence collected. Furthermore, the final investigation didn’t mention Obama’s DOJ “slow-walked” the probe, despite serious national security concerns. Of course, the Clintons got a pass with no mention of influence peddling or how the Clinton Foundation benefited.

The mainstream media’s silence on this scandal is damning and yet another reason why most Americans don’t believe much of what they say.

  Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

Smoked Out

In the months leading up to the passage of the Affordable Care Act, conservatives and Republicans railed against Democrats’ plan to increase government’s role in health care, with many arguing an expansion could eventually lead to the creation of “death panels” — government committees that determine which health care services will be covered and for whom.

Conservatives’ theory went something like this: If government is responsible for health care and thus dependent on tax revenue to provide health care services, then government has an incentive to cut services. Further, if government is in charge of health care, then it could theoretically use its power to force people to behave in a certain way if those people want to continue receiving government services.

Conservatives called these bureaucrats making health care decisions “death panels” because, they reasoned, they could eventually be used to deny certain life-saving treatments to people in the name of the “public good.”

The left roundly attacked conservatives for daring to make such a bold statement and the left, since Obamacare’s passage, has often used death panels as an example of how conservatives allegedly lied about the dangers of expanding government’s power over health care. Politifact even went so far as to call it 2009’s “lie of the year.”

Fast-forward to 2017. Obamacare is collapsing, insurance premiums and deductibles have skyrocketed compared to the pre-Obamacare era and people have fewer health insurance options in the individual market than ever before. And now a new story out of the United Kingdom seems to justify the many fears limited-government Americans have had for the past decade about the potential development of government-controlled health care decision-making panels.

A dangerous new policy

According to a report published Tuesday in The Telegraph (U.K.), “The NHS [United Kingdom’s National Health Service] will ban patients from surgery indefinitely unless they lose weight or quit smoking,” a policy change Royal College of Surgeons Senior Vice President Ian Eardley said could be just the “tip of the iceberg.”

The Telegraph reports in some parts of the country, those who refuse to give up smoking “could wait indefinitely” for access to surgical care, and “those with a Body Mass Index of 30 or more will be set targets to reduce their weight by 10 percent over nine months, with those with a BMI over 40 will be told to cut their weight by 15 percent.”

Once a patient is identified by the government as being, quite literally, too fat to be worthy of medical attention, a “clinical panel” will be summoned to determine whether an exception should be made for an overweight or still-smoking patient.

Why is this happening?

If you’re angry, you shouldn’t be — at least according to the British health officials who made the rule. Apparently, this is all for the good of the patients and society. According to the agency making the new rule, “This policy is designed to improve patient safety and outcomes, both during and immediately after non-urgent surgery. No financial savings are expected as a result of these measures. We do however hope to improve the long-term health of our residents through the targeted stop-smoking and weight-loss support on offer to patients.”

The reason the agency goes out of its way to say it won’t save any money from this new policy — which, by the way, doesn’t seem to make any sense — is because many have argued the policy is direct result of NHS being significantly underfunded and facing numerous staff shortages.

As The Telegraph notes, “While hospital doctor and nurse numbers have risen over the last decade, they have not kept pace with the rise in demand. Meanwhile 2016 saw record numbers of GP [general practitioner] practices close, displacing patients on to A&E [accident and emergency] departments as they seek medical advice.”

Why this matters

Whatever the reasons are behind the NHS decision, the result is the same: People considered to be too fat to matter and smokers will be treated as second-class Brits under the new rule. Why? Because they aren’t healthy enough to deserve the same resources as “more responsible” citizens. Who decides? Of course, the government, who in socialist-leaning nations like the United Kingdom is the final arbiter of what’s right and wrong and who has rights and who doesn’t.

Needless to say, this is truly horrifying, and when coupled with the tragic story of United Kingdom baby Charlie Gard, it should serve as a very clear warning to all those Americans crying for more government power in health care. When the government is in charge, systems are cold-hearted, inefficient, and designed to enhance the power of the ruling administrative state — or, as President Donald Trump likes to call it, “the Swamp.”

A better way forward

There is hope elsewhere, however. Rather than put your faith in government to manage health care — a government that can’t even manage to run the Post Office, Amtrak or DMVs without chaos ensuing — Americans should put their trust in each other.

Yes, the health care system that existed prior to Obamacare was a disaster and in desperate need of reform. It had become a crony-capitalist market full of unfair rules, regulations, and greed. But replacing the failures of the previous system with the current, much-worse model was the wrong way to go.

We need more freedom in health care, not less, and there are several ways this can be accomplished. Perhaps the most important is to move away from a model that makes everyone dependent on insurance companies for every health care service they get.

When you get an oil change, you don’t pay using your car insurance, so why would you use insurance when getting a check-up with your primary care doctor? This is a huge part of the problem, because insurance companies act as a costly middle man in almost every health care transaction, even those where they clearly aren’t needed.

Further, because consumers don’t ever think about prices when they go to the doctor, even for routine services, there are no market forces working in most of the health care system. Most of us don’t even know how much health care services cost!

This system needs to change so that patients work directly with their primary care doctors when getting routine services, negotiating prices as they would in any other situation. People would only use health insurance in extreme emergencies, which would make insurance much, much cheaper.

There are plenty of other solutions, too, but for any of them to happen, we need stop thinking about ways to make it easier for government to be involved in our lives and start thinking about how we can thrive without government.


Hothouse flowers threw another hissy fit on a college campus recently. But this time it was different. This time the target in their progressive crosshairs wasn’t some conservative bogeyman whose views were deemed unacceptable and so had to be shouted down.

This time left-wing students, at the College of William & Mary in Virginia, went after the ACLU, an organization that champions all sorts of liberal causes and no one is calling right-wing.

Call me a bad person, but it’s fun to watch the left devour its own. And here’s something else to giggle about: The ACLU speaker who was silenced by the progressive mob was on campus to speak about … free speech on campus.

You can’t make this stuff up.

This time the speech police were students affiliated with Black Lives Matter and were angry with the ACLU for defending white supremacist rights to rally in Charlottesville, Virginia. So instead of letting the woman from the ACLU speak, they chanted things like, “liberalism is white supremacy” and “Your free speech hides beneath white sheets” — reportedly for a full hour.

It was bound to happen. Why would left-wing students be content with simply shouting down conservatives? Why wouldn’t they shout down any views they don’t like? That’s what authoritarians do. Stalinists aren’t happy until everybody thinks the way they do, until all unacceptable ideas are crushed.

So, after shouting down the ACLU representative, the Black Lives Matter students issued a statement trying to justify their actions. “(O)ur protest of the ACLU event … was driven by our firm belief that white supremacy does not deserve a platform. The right to free speech is a fundamental human right. However, speech that condones, supports or otherwise fails to explicitly condemn injustice must be directly confronted.”

What they mean is that “The right to free speech is a fundamental human right” — as long as we agree with what you have to say. And what they mean by “directly confronted” — is shouted down.

You would think that by the time they reach college they’d understand a little something about how our free country operates; you’d think they’d understand that the First Amendment protects all kinds of speech — not just speech Black Lives Matter deems acceptable. Once upon a time, it was liberal college students who fought to expand free speech on campus. Too often these days, it’s their ideological progeny that’s trying to shut it down.

The grownups who, at least on paper, run the school, said the behavior was “not acceptable,” but citing privacy concerns wouldn’t say what they would do about it. Here’s an idea: How about expelling the students who shouted down the woman from the ACLU. Or would that offend the delicate hothouse flowers and cause them too much mental anguish?

Any time campus bullies get away with shouting down speakers it only encourages more of the same. We’ve seen plenty of it already at too many colleges. And unless the authoritarians are sent packing, we’ll see a lot more.

But what we’ve been witnessing on campuses for some time now is only a piece of a bigger picture involving left-wing sanctimony. In the Age of Trump, progressives, who see themselves as noble and virtuous, have become quite open about how hateful they can be.

You’ve heard about the CBS executive who got fired after the Las Vegas massacre for posting this observation on her Facebook page: “I’m actually not even sympathetic bc country music fans often are Republican gun toters.”

And after Hurricane Harvey, a professor at the University of Tampa tweeted that red state Republicans pretty much deserved what they got. “I don’t believe in instant Karma but this kinda feels like it for Texas,” he wrote. “Hopefully this will help them realize GOP doesn’t care about them.” And when Irma hit Florida, he took to Twitter again: “Those who voted for (Trump) here deserve it as well.”

Not everybody on the left, of course, is so crass. But what we do have here is a modern-day progressive mindset: If you don’t think the way we do, if you don’t believe in what we believe, if you hold views we don’t like, then you have no right to speak on campus. And in the grownup world, if you voted for Donald Trump you don’t warrant our empathy even in the wake of a massacre in Las Vegas or natural disasters in Texas and Florida – because you’re Republicans.

So Republicans, take note. Donald Trump touched a nerve when he ran against the liberal media that a lot of ordinary Americans had lost faith in. Running against self-righteous progressives in 2018 and 2020 may hit the same nerve. (Bernard Goldberg)

My Man Ted

Still wish he was the President.

Ted Cruz Warns Congress: 2018 Midterm Elections “Could Be a BLOODBATH”

“What the Obama Administration was doing, writing billions of dollars in checks, was illegal.”

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) told Fox News if the Republican Party did not keep its promises to voters on repealing Obamacare and cut taxes the 2018 midterm elections “could be a bloodbath for them.”

Cruz also claimed, “The reason people are so unhappy, they are ticked off. We have Republican control of every branch of government, and we’re not delivering. If senators don’t want to see those kind of challenges, there is an easy solution to that. Let’s do what we said we would do.”

Let’s deliver on tax cuts and repealing Obamacare. If we get that done, I’m a big believer good policy is good politics. We’ll have a terrific 2018 election year if we cut taxes, repeal Obamacare and the economy booms. If we don’t get any of that done, 2018 could be a bloodbath. We control our own fate. Deliver results.”

But they don’t want to. They want to sit in their ivory Tower of Babel and pontificate to the little people that they are so much better, richer and smarter than you and that the only use for you is to be sheered like a good sheep by their Shepherding every few years.

Sure they made a bucket load of promises that they had no intention of keeping. They just wanted to stay in power. They figured since Hillary was going to win they could ride the Hate Hillary gravy train for another 4-8 years like they rode the Hate Obama train. They even packed the train with explosives just to dare you not to vote for them.

But Trump winning messed up the apple cart and now they don’t know what to do with themselves. They sure a hell don’t want to lead and they doubly sure as Hell don’t want that non-elitist freak getting any of the credit for it.

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel


I saw the strength of America this past weekend, her will, her goodness, her compassion, her unity and her greatness.

It was in Payson – a small town in Arizona I’m sure most of you have never even heard of – when the residents of the area came together on a Saturday night to honor their veterans.

Farmers, cowboys, merchants, clerks, truck drivers and Americans of all professions, put aside their beliefs and political persuasions, their differences and banded together to pay homage to those who had put their lives on the line for the liberty of our beloved America.

When the color guard took the stage and the national anthem was sung before the show everybody rose, and silver haired old veterans stood ramrod straight at attention, paying homage to the flag, the nation and the ones who fought for her.

I have no doubt that those same grizzled old vets, proudly wearing battle ribbons and medals they’d won in combat in Korea, Vietnam et al. would gladly mount the ramparts again and defend America with their dying breath.

And I also have no doubt that the civilians who were there last night would do the same thing if it came down to protecting their families or their homes. They’re a hardy breed of folks, self-reliant, desert tough with calloused hands and sun-ripened faces.

I seriously doubt if any group of politically motivated radicals would fare very well if they came to their town to deface a monument or tear down a statue or walk down the street shouting anti police slogans.

These are people who believe in law and order, punishing crime, respect for authority and the vital importance of maintaining the strongest military on the planet.

Payson, Arizona is a microcosm of middle America, where the prevalent attitude of the people differs radically from the one American major media would have us accept. There are a thousand little towns and rural communities like it all over this nation, people who are ignored and forgotten by the bicoastal obsessed media, an attitude which got its fingers severely burned in the last election.

They pay their taxes and raise their children to respect people and property. They fight our wars, raise our food and build our infrastructure, and they’re sick and tired of the political correctness, disrespect for the law, the flag and the military.

Folks, no matter what agenda driven media and self-serving politicians would have you think, there’s still a patriotic America out here in the hinterlands, a place where a promise can be sealed by a handshake, where people still get up before the sun does and work all day, where neighbors still look out for each other, still stand for the anthem, salute the flag, still honor God.

I so much enjoyed our trip to Payson, Arizona, the concert we played and the people we met and the opportunity to be in the company of true patriots honoring our military past and present.

It makes me know that the America I envision is still alive and well and the underpinning is still solid and strong, and although you’d never know it by watching the evening news, that same feeling and patriotism exists in the big cities of this nation, it’s just not as evident as it does not present the kind of America liberal politicians and major media want to present to the world.

Last night, Democrats, Republicans, liberals, conservatives, Catholics, Methodists, sinners, saints, veterans and civilians of many different backgrounds put aside their differences and came together under one common cause, to honor our nation, our flag and the brave men and women who had fought and died to keep America free.

The strength of America is the people of America. When they unite and band together under one banner dedicated to the proposition that, under the patina of politics, social division and our many differences, we are all Americans.

What do you think?

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

God Bless America

Charlie Daniels

DACA Deception

Congress has been debating, among other things, the Obama-era Deferred Action For Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program and what to do with its 800,000 recipients who benefit from this constitutionally questionable executive action. The executive order issued by Obama shielded illegal aliens from deportation as long as they meet the criteria (i.e. no criminal record) and paid the $495 in application fees. DACA status had to be rented every two years. If accepted, DACA recipients had access to work permits. The program applied to illegal aliens that entered the U.S. as minors. What made immigration activists so jumpy is that these applicants gave very sensitive information about themselves and their whereabouts. They also had to admit they’re here illegally. The Daily Beast’s Betsy Woodruff reported on this back in September:

In deportation proceedings, the government must prove that the person they want deported is in the U.S. illegally. That can sometimes be tough. DACA recipients – nearly 800,000 of them – gave the Department of Homeland Security information proving they are undocumented so they could get relief from the threat of deportation. They also gave the government information about where they live, work, and go to school.  As soon as Donald Trump was elected, immigrants’ rights activists started asking what his administration would do with that information.

In a memo, the Department of Homeland Security answered this question. And its statement – full of wordy legalese – made clear that Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers will be able to use DACA recipients’ personal information to deport them.

“Information provided to USCIS in DACA requests will not be proactively provided to ICE and CBP for the purpose of immigration enforcement proceedings, unless the requestor meets the criteria for the issuance of a Notice To Appear or a referral to ICE under the criteria set forth in USCIS’ Notice to Appear guidance,” said the statement.

In other words, USCIS (United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, the agency which handles DACA) won’t proactively give immigration enforcement officers a list with the names and addresses of all DACA recipients. But if ICE officers ask for it, the agency will provide it.

The Trump administration signaled last month that they wouldn’t defend the law, as they didn’t see how they could legally. Democrats and members of the media have admitted that DACA is legally questionable, especially concerning separation of powers. Ever since it was enacted, the GOP has rightfully criticized DACA as executive overreach. Around a dozen Republican state attorneys general threatened to sue the Trump administration if they settle the DACA issue. The result was ending of the program with a six-month enforcement delay to afford Congress time to pass DACA-like legislation. It’s the only way to remove the constitutional questions surrounding the program, and there is enough GOP support to pass this. There was now a lingering question about enforcement. Senate Republicans, like Tom Cotton from Arkansas, sees this as a possible opportunity to get the RAISE Act passed, which overhauls our green card process to prioritize immigrants with high skills and adds a language provision. Any aspect of border security is anathema to Democrats. While Congress and the media debate this aspect of the immigration issue, the Border Patrol picked up two DACA recipients who were smuggling illegals across the border (Via DHS) [emphasis mine]:

LAREDO, Texas – On October 4, 2017, Border Patrol agents arrested a juvenile attempting to smuggle two illegal aliens. Agents at the Border Patrol Checkpoint on Interstate Highway 35 encountered a passenger vehicle at the primary inspection lane. The driver was questioned regarding his immigration status and was referred for further inspection after a Border Patrol canine alerted to the presence of concealed humans and/or narcotics. After further inspection, Border Patrol agents discovered two adult male subjects concealed in the trunk of the vehicle. An immigration inspection of the two subjects revealed that they were both from the country of Brazil. The driver, a juvenile, was identified as a National from the country of Guatemala and a recipient of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) in 2016. All subjects were processed for removal proceedings.

The second event took place on October 7, 2017, when Border Patrol agents arrested a juvenile attempting to smuggle one illegal alien. Agents at the Border Patrol Checkpoint on Interstate Highway 35 encountered a passenger vehicle at the primary inspection lane. After further inspection, Border Patrol agents discovered one adult male subject concealed in the trunk of the vehicle. An immigration inspection of the subject revealed that he was from the country of Mexico. driver, a juvenile, was identified as a National from the country of Mexico and a recipient of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). All subjects were processed for removal proceedings.

As a result of their arrests, the juvenile drivers were processed for removal proceedings as a violation of the DACA conditions. (Matt Vespa)

Free Speech is Censorship

That is my new catch phrase. It also epitomizes the Narcissistic Left. He is great example of the Elitist Orwellian Mentality that thinks they are so superior to us mere Neanderthals…

Editorial from Princeton University student.

It seems that, nowadays, cries for “free speech” ring from campus to campus. The term has become quite famous and quite popular. Perhaps it owes its popularity to how vague it is. It generally comes from conservatives in response to some sort of censoring of ideas. In its own way, “free speech” has become conservatives’ rhetorical weapon of choice, defended by right-leaning groups and thinkers both on and off campus. Recently, Professor John Londregan and some of his fellows wrote a letter calling for an end to the “shared and pervasive reality of growing hostility to free expression on college campuses across the country and around the world.” But what exactly is free expression, or “free speech?”

Conservatives would have you believe that their insistence on free speech is related to a desire for intellectual diversity and openness of discussion. When conservatives appeal to “free speech,” it is actually a calculated political move, designed to open up avenues of political discourse while shaming others from moving in active political opposition. I argue that when conservatives resort to this move, they can be safely ignored, as they are appealing to a right that does not exist. In my belief, when conservative ideas are opposed, there is no right that is being infringed.

We must begin with a fact: speech is intensely political. Speech is biased, opinionated. Anything we say, anything we don’t say, has political content and weighs on the scale of politics. Be aware then, that a call for “free speech” is as political as all speech is, because it reflects an opinion of what speech ought to be. And opinions are politics. Because “free speech” is a cornerstone of our rights under the Constitution, it can appear that conservatives’ socially free speech has this constitutional tradition as its backbone. However, this speech is something much different. As seen with many conservative groups, such as the Princeton Open Campus Coalition, conservatives are interested in being able to propose their ideas without any political opposition to their right to speech. I am not arguing that conservatives do not expect intellectual opposition to their content; instead, I am arguing against their right to be heard and accepted. I should clarify that I use “conservative” broadly to mean both those politically opposed to progressive aims, but also in particular to refer to those who invoke “free speech” to defend their access to political debate and to forestall political opposition to their viewpoints.  Finally, I want to make clear that “opposition” in this case refers to political opposition, which includes disinvitations, protests, and boycotts.


Yet, that has never been a right in private, nor at a university. If one presents an idea, one must be prepared to receive some type of response. Agreement is a possibility as much as outrage is. When conservatives propose this idea, they are demanding a private political right vis-à-vis other citizens to declare their views without opposition. But, opposition is not only allowed, but morally required, whether by pen, by protest, by boycott, or by disinvitation. Speech is political, and it is therefore within the realm of politics to oppose speech by any acceptable political means. I am not condoning violence; violence is unacceptable. To speak politically and demand that your political opponents hold back, however — this is not a right that society provides.

Indeed, there is something insulting and condescending about conservative appeals to free speech, and appeals to “free speech” make conservative arguments sound weak. It is as if they think, “If only the poor children listened to our ideas! If they didn’t simply reject our ideas out of hand, they would be listened to! We are right!” This, of course, ignores an obvious possibility: that conservative ideas have been listened to, that they have been weighed, and that they have been rejected. If conservative arguments were strong, they would be convincing, and if they were convincing, they would not meet political opposition. If conservative arguments were strong, they would stand without desperate appeals to the idea of “free speech.” If the only justification conservatives can offer for their ideas is that they merely exist, then let me say as Trotsky did: “You are miserable bankrupts, your role is played out; go where you ought to go — into the dustbin of history!”

When dealing with ultra-conservative factions (those on the alternative right, such as Nazis or white supremacists), “free speech,” or speech without fierce and unrelenting opposition, must be rejected entirely. There is no need to hear the arguments of hate, to engage in a “dialogue,” or to “hear the other side.” These arguments have been heard, and they were smashed at Gettysburg, resisted at Charlottesville, undone at Normandy, condemned at Nuremburg, and laid to rest at Dachau. Anyone who enjoys living in a democracy or a republic or appreciates human rights should be in political opposition to the alternative right, Republicans and Democrats alike. Fascists cannot appeal to the very principles of freedom they aim to dismantle, and no human is under the obligation to listen to what has already been refuted.

For conservatives, I honestly believe they are better off evaluating and reshaping their arguments rather than resorting to the argument of “free speech.” They are better off without it. Many conservative ideas are still valuable in moderation or require their fair day in court. As I have argued before, plurality and diversity of opinion is useful and valuable. Nothing is more advantageous to an argument than resistance, and intellectual diversity is useful. But, some ideas will be opposed, whether they can be justifiably offered or not, and this opposition may come in the form of political opposition. But some ideas will already have been judged wanting. Conservatives ought to question why some ideas are so stringently opposed and then adapt their arguments, instead of begging for “free speech.”

Just like conservatives, liberals and progressives do owe it to themselves to think critically about what is said and to pay attention to their arguments, both within their factions and when appealing to conservatives. I should not be considered to be arguing for a type of political groupthink, or a type of rabid crusaderdom. The ability to think critically ought to be praised and ought to play a role in campus discourse and in any political group, internally and externally. As I have suggested, liberals should aim to reach out to conservatives and moderates by appealing to how they think, which can require a critical approach. Liberals do benefit from being able to engage conservatives, to bring them around to new opinions through an understanding of their views. Certainly this is a fine argument for intellectual free speech. But, it does not make intellectual free speech a moral necessity. It is merely a pragmatic aid, just like any other sort of thought exercise.

Conservatives are not heroes for calling for people to exercise their critical thinking, to entertain their arguments; I have no fear that in a country and a campus of intelligent and independent people, voices will be heard. A voice is a political thing, and to raise it is a political action that can be opposed by political means. There is no such thing as “social free speech,” where “free” refers to a right to speak free from obstinate opposition. And if conservatives disagree, they are welcome to it. I, and others, are happy to respond accordingly. Really, that’s the problem, what conservatives can’t stand, what they can’t imagine could be true: speech is free.

Ryan Born is a junior in Philosophy from Washington, Mich. He can be reached at rcborn@princeton.edu


Isn’t a good thing that this elitist snob has no concept of the Constitution but is so arrogant he thinks he’s a scholar?

“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”—George Orwell


Happy Halloween 2017


Source: Ohio State University

So are we clear that you’re likely racist?

Have fun, kids…. 🙂

GQ has some advice for you racists out there:

Commandment I

Don’t Change Your Skin Color to Any Shade Found in Humans

But be careful; just because someone is a cartoon does not mean that someone is not also a proud Latino-American. If you would like to dress up as, for instance, Dora the Explorer’s sidekick, Diego, please refer to Commandment I.

If you try to mimic a celebrity’s exact body characteristics, odds are high that you’ll veer quickly into demeaning objectification.

When it comes to costumes, the more specific your outfit is, the funnier it will be. Dressing up as “a black man” is a bad idea. Dressing up as “Barack Obama” is a mediocre idea. Dressing up as “Casual, Retired Obama” is a funny idea—and a great opportunity to eat frozen treats while wearing comfy clothes.


Oh and a note from Wweek.com:

Día de los Muertos

Goddamn, people really love Mexican stuff when it comes to Halloween, and lately Día de los Muertos, or Day of the Dead, has been getting its turn being used in ways that are really not cool. A search on Instagram for the hashtag #Dayofthedead shows that there’s no shortage of people painting their faces like sugar skulls in order to celebrate Halloween. The thing is, Halloween and Día de los Muertos are two entirely different holidays that come from two separate traditions, so combining the two is strange at best and highly inappropriate at worst.

Part of the reason why dressing as a racist stereotype or misusing religious iconography is harmful is because of anti-Mexican attitudes that are prevalent in our country today.Donald Trump denigrated Mexicans when he announced his bid for the presidency, and I can’t think of any time in American history where Mexicans and Mexican Americans weren’t seen as a threat or as a disposable source of labor. To put it another way, it’s a problem when cultural symbols are okay, but the people who come from that culture are not.

Image result for sugar skull body paint
Naturally, I say go for it. Piss off the the snowflakes and the PC police. Give ’em Hell- Literally!

Cup of Destruction

The Tolerant Left Strikes again. The Diversity of Opinion. The Anti-Bullying Campaign.

The Compassion and Sensitivity of The Left on full display this past weekend in Tucson, AZ.

Cup It Up American Grill closed for good on Monday, three days after two of its owners posted a politically-charged statement on Facebook that prompted angry social media backlash and calls to boycott the University of Arizona area restaurant.

Cup It Up owners unleash a list of things they support, the top being standing for the national anthem, and reject, including “political correctness.”

The Facebook post showed the company’s stance on controversial topics such as repealing Obamacare, drug screening for welfare recipients, Antifa, global warming, and NFL players kneeling during the national anthem. The post was deleted a few hours afterward due to an extreme influx of negative feedback. The restaurant’s Facebook page was also removed.

They were “controversial” because they didn’t tow the Politically Correct Leftist Ideology. They dared to have an opinion that wasn’t PC.


Especially, in the country where Free Speech is Censorship!!

“the restaurant was the target of endless harassing and threatening phone calls” since their Facebook post.

“People threatened to burn down the restaurant with the owners in it. It’s a crazy world we’re in,” says Ron Sanchez whose grand daughter works at the restaurant.

Good thing Liberals are Tolerant and don’t believe in bullying… 🙂
They even trashed it on Trip Advisor and other sites.

Julian Alarcon, a former partner who was not involved in Friday’s Facebook post, said the restaurant at 760 N. Tyndall Ave. was the target of endless harassing and threatening phone calls throughout the weekend following Friday’s Facebook post. Two employees quit Saturday because of the calls and several more quit throughout the weekend, he said.

“It’s not worth it,” said Alarcon, the operating partner and chef who resigned Saturday morning in response to the Facebook post from his partners Christopher Smith and Jay Warren.


The pair’s post laid out their political beliefs that included support for President Trump, standing for the National Anthem and repealing Obamacare and opposition to fake news, kneeling during the National Anthem and global warming.  and opposition to political correctness . That post, which went up at noon Friday, also announced that they would not broadcast NFL games at the restaurant in light of players’ kneeling during the National Anthem. Within moments of going up just before noon on Friday, the post was met with a barrage of comments, most of them negative and including calls to boycott the restaurant.

The post was taken down three hours later and by Saturday the restaurant had removed itself from social media.

Neither Smith nor Warren returned calls for comment.


a 48% plurality believe that “hate speech” is not constitutionally protected. While liberal students were far more likely to support censorship than their conservative peers, though, conservative students reported a much greater degree of self-censorship on campus and in the classroom. (Foundation for individual rights in Education)

Gee I wonder why? 🙂

Ah, the future’s so bright…. 🙂

Moral Compass

As George Orwell said, “some ideas are so stupid that only intellectuals believe them.” Many stupid ideas originate with academics on college campuses. If they remained there and didn’t infect the rest of society, they might be a source of entertainment, much in the way a circus is. Let’s look at a few stupid ideas peddled by intellectuals.

During the Cold War, academic leftists made a moral equivalency between communist totalitarianism and democracy. Worse is the fact that they exempted communist leaders from the type of harsh criticism directed toward Adolf Hitler, even though communist crimes against humanity made Hitler’s slaughter of 11 million noncombatants appear almost amateurish. According to Professor R.J. Rummel’s research in “Death by Government,” from 1917 until its collapse, the Soviet Union murdered or caused the death of 61 million people, mostly its own citizens. From 1949 to 1976, Communist China’s Mao Zedong regime was responsible for the death of as many as 78 million of its own citizens.

On college campuses, the same sort of equivalency is made between capitalism and communism, but if one looks at the real world, there’s a stark difference. Just ask yourself: In which societies are the average citizen richer — societies toward the capitalist end of the economic spectrum or those toward the communist end? In which societies do ordinary citizens have their human rights protected the most — those toward the capitalist end or those toward the communist end? Finally, which societies do people around the world flee from — capitalist or communist? And where do they flee to — capitalist or communist societies?

Using logic on Liberals is pointless because they will not understand. Logic is a Thoughtcrime.

More recent nonsense taught on college campuses, under the name of multiculturalism, is that one culture is as good as another. Identity worship, diversity, and multiculturalism are currency and cause for celebration at just about any college. If one is black, brown, yellow or white, the prevailing thought is that he should take pride and celebrate that fact even though he had nothing to do with it. The multiculturalist and diversity crowd seems to suggest that race or sex is an achievement. That’s just plain nonsense. In my book, race or sex might be an achievement, worthy of considerable celebration, if a person were born a white male and through his effort and diligence became a black female.

Then there’s white privilege. Colleges have courses and seminars on “whiteness.” One college even has a course titled “Abolition of Whiteness.” According to academic intellectuals, whites enjoy advantages that nonwhites do not. They earn higher income and reside in better housing, and their children go to better schools and achieve more. Based on those socio-economic statistics, Japanese-Americans have more white privilege than white people. And, on a personal note, my daughter has experienced more white privilege than probably 95 percent of white Americans. She’s attended private schools, had ballet and music lessons, traveled the world, and lived in upper-income communities. Leftists should get rid of the concept of white privilege and just call it achievement.

But they can’t. Racial Division is in their ideology and they will not allow themselves to be wrong.


Then there’s the issue of campus rape and sexual assault. Before addressing that, let me ask you a question. Do I have a right to place my wallet on the roof of my car, go into my house, have lunch, take a nap and return to my car and find my wallet just where I placed it? I think I have every right to do so, but the real question is whether it would be a wise decision. Some college women get stoned, use foul language and dance suggestively. I think they have a right to behave that way and not be raped or sexually assaulted. But just as in the example of my placing my wallet on the roof of my car, I’d ask whether it is wise behavior.

But, again, logic is like garlic to a vampire, to liberals.

Many of our problems, both at our institutions of higher learning and in the nation at large, stem from the fact that we’ve lost our moral compasses and there’s not a lot of interest in reclaiming them. As a matter of fact, most people don’t see our major problems as having anything to do with morality. (Walter E Williams)

Because they think they have a superior morality and want to force everyone to adapt to it or else. They are Homo Superior Liberalis, after all, and you’re not. 🙂

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Fruit of The Loons

– Earlier this month, 41-year-old Robert Pattison went to introduce himself to his fellow firefighters at Engine 55 at Joy and Southfield in Detroit. Second Battallion Chief Shawn McCarty calls it a tradition for firefighters.

“It’s not mandatory, it’s voluntary,” he says. “You come in bearing gifts. The usual gift is doughnuts, but you are allowed to bring whatever you want to bring in.”

And Pattison, a probationary firefighter, decided to bring a watermelon wrapped in a pink ribbon. We’re told some African-American firefighters were instantly offended, since 90 percent of the people who work at Engine 55 are black.


“When you get your first detail at a firehouse you pretty much know what you are getting yourself into,” says Patrick Trout. “So you would have to say it was probably a bad call.”

FOX 2: “Is it racially insensitive to bring a watermelon into a fire house?”

“To some people,” McCarty says.

FOX 2 spoke to Pattison by phone, who claims it was not a joke – and he did not mean to offend his fellow firefighters. But he clearly did. Fire Commissioner Eric Jones says the Fenton native was officially discharged.

In a statement Jones says: “There is zero tolerance for discriminatory behavior inside the Detroit Fire Department. On Saturday, Sept. 30, 2017, at Engine 55, a trial firefighter (probationary employee) engaged in unsatisfactory work behavior which was deemed offensive and racially insensitive to members of the Detroit Fire Department.

“After a thorough investigation, it was determined that the best course of action was to terminate the employment of this probationary employee.”

In a world where racial tensions run high, some tell me the trial firefighter should have known better. Trout doesn’t know if he meant anything by it – but feels it was a bad choice.

“For sure by far it was,”

The question is did DFD take it too far?

FOX 2: “Should he have lost his job over a watermelon?”

“I don’t think so,” McCarty says. “Between what he did and what was there are a few things that could have been done.”

And if he’d brought Fried Chicken with that they’d have to arrest him and hang him on the spot! 🙂



A Priori

After every mass shooting, the left always invites us to join them in their insanity to participate in yet another circular argument about gun control.

It’s not because they care.

If they really cared, they would think before they speak after tragedies.

Shortly after the Las Vegas shooting, now-fired CBS top legal executive, Hayley Geftman-Gold said, “I’m actually not even sympathetic bc [sp] country music fans often are Republican gun toters.”

Atheist Richard Dawkins tweeted his sentiments, obviously mocking southerners: “Durn tootin’, great shootin’. Cool dude sertin’ he’s 2nd Memdment rahts. Hell yeah!”

CNN was true to form. Senior White House correspondent Jeff Zeleny reminded everyone: “Something else, I think to keep in mind, a lot of these country music supporters are likely Trump supporters.”

If they really cared, Democrats would look in the mirror and stop pointing fingers.

It’s OK to be enraged that Stephen Paddock transformed semiautomatics into quasi-machine guns using a bump stock device. It’s not OK to blame it on Republicans. Back in 2010 when Democrats controlled Washington, Obama’s ATF legalized the bump stocks the Las Vegas shooter used.

If Democrats cared, they would quit throwing NRA daggers across the aisle.

After the Las Vegas shooting, Hillary Clinton (and way too many others) insinuated that GOP leaders are puppets of the National Rifle Association. Their basis for that nonsense is that the NRA donated around $3.6 million to Congress members (on both sides of the aisle) – over a twenty-year period.

Even if NRA donations were for GOP candidates alone, compare that to what Planned Parenthood affiliates spent for the 2016 election cycle alone. The nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics reports they spent $4,044.378 in contributions, $1,368.408 in lobbying and $15,041,417 in outside spending.

So, who is puppeteering whom?

During a recent Senate Floor speech, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) spoke for the dead in Las Vegas, suggesting if they could speak, they would tell President Trump to “do something” about the NRA, which incidentally is responsible for zero deaths.

While it’s common knowledge that dead people tend to vote for Democrats, I’m not sure if Schumer is the right spokesperson, given his party supports abortion, which is responsible for the almost 60 million pre-born baby deaths in the U.S. since Roe v Wade.

If they really cared about gun violence and deaths, Democrats would find real solutions.


It’s clear that very restrictive gun laws have done little to curtail the gun violence in Chicago, where the Las Vegas death toll is just another month on the calendar.

The Chicago Tribune reports that in 2016, Chicago had 4368 shootings. The city also had 761 murders. As of this writing, 529 people have been murdered this year, including 59 in September, reports DNAInfo.com.

Where were Jimmy Kimmel’s crocodile tears for the 761 people murdered in Chicago last year? Where’s the outcry from Democrats that 4368 people were shot in 2016 and for the 529 murdered this year?

Those lives matter too.

If Democrats cared, they would stop pounding away on the Second Amendment with their proverbial sledgehammers after mass shootings.

Obviously, not everyone who lives here appreciates that America was founded on Judeo-Christian values and the U.S. Constitution. Chipping-away at it inches them closer to the goal of breaching the foundation to make America fall.

Chip away all they will, but the only thing certain to crumble is their ideology, based on a lie that they do what they do because they care.

They care. They care about their Agenda. They Care about their power. They care about control everyone and everything at all times. They care about themselves.


%d bloggers like this: