Tuesday, June 30, 2015

No Atrocity Is Too Egregious For the Left, When Visited Upon Americans

Undocumented sex offenders left in Seattle-area neighborhoods without tracking

"SEATTLE — After digging through hundreds of ZIP codes, KIRO 7 found 11 convicted sex offenders in the country illegally living across western Washington neighborhoods.

The government has tried to deport most of these people, but a Supreme Court ruling requires they be released after six months in jail, if their home country won't take them back."
Releasing illegals who are also otherwise criminals as well into American communities is an ongoing atrocity, and has been happening openly for several years. It is now an expectation of US government.

US Caves in Iran Nuclear Negotiations

The Sentence That Could Doom the Iran Deal

"Here's a news bulletin from the Iran talks in Vienna:
US says system reached to give UN access to suspect Iran sites

Vienna (AFP) - A system has been reached in talks between Iran and major powers towards a nuclear deal that will give the UN atomic watchdog access to all suspect sites, a senior US official said Monday.

"The entry point isn't we must be able to get into every military site, because the United States of America wouldn't allow anybody to get into every military site, so that's not appropriate," the official said.

"But if in the context of agreement... the IAEA believes it needs access and has a reason for that access then we have a process that access is given," the official said on condition of anonymity.

"We have worked out a process that we believe will ensure that the IAEA has the access it needs."
This sentence is key: "The entry point isn't we must be able to get into every military site, because the United States of America wouldn't allow anybody to get into every military site, so that's not appropriate," the official said.

Think about that. The American official argues that Iran—a rogue regime that sponsors terror and that has lied about its nuclear program, and that is under sanctions precisely because it has proved time and again it can't be trusted—should be held to the same standards as the U.S. Amazing. It turns out the left's old doctrine of moral equivalence between the Soviet Union and the U.S. has been replaced by a doctrine of moral equivalence between Iran and the U.S."

[Emphasis added]
Not so amazing. Obama has favored Iran over the US from day one. He visited Iran as president-elect immediately after the first election. Or was it as a candidate... I forget. Maybe his election was partially funded by Iran for all I know. His funding sources will never be known.

Battle of the Victimhood Groups in Chicago

Let's see. Gays vs. Blacks vs. Queers (whatever those are these days):
Black Lives Matter Protesters Disrupt Chicago Gay Pride Parade

"But by far the biggest disruption was from a large group of “black lives matter” protesters. The group was joined by members of the black queer community of Chicago who announced the disruption on their website.

After noting that they had “purposefully disrupted the Chicago Pride Parade,” the queer group explained their reasoning.

“We do so,” the group said, “because our people are dying at the hands of police, military and state-funded militias around the globe. We do so because we refuse to be tokenized by the same corporations that sponsor state violence, refuse a living wage and profit off our poverty. We do so because young queer people need a better outlet to celebrate themselves than a mire of consumption and sexual violence.”

The queer group was also attacked by the “black lives matter” protesters who held signs and walked as a group to push their own message."
Well, Gays are now officially mainstream just like "the Man". And so are blacks who have even more rights and privileges than Gays, due to affirmative action programs and extra welfare if they don't marry. That leaves Queers (whatever those are these days). So maybe the next SCOTUS legislation will be for Queers (whatever those are these days), leaving group marriage until later.

Monday, June 29, 2015

Elena Kagan: Lying Leftist Liar and SCOTUS Legislator

"ELENA KAGAN IN 2009: “THERE IS NO FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO SAME-SEX MARRIAGE.” As Prof. William A. Jacobson writes at his Legal Insurrection blog, “Then she was a nominee for Solicitor General, now she is an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court. Then she was bound to follow the law, now she gets to make it.”
From Ed Driscoll at Instapundit
The full context of Kagan's statement and subsequent validation of its meaning is at the LINK.

Brady Center Goes Face-first Into Its Own Muck

I am amazed at this turn of events:
Judge orders Brady Center to pay ammo dealer’s legal fees after dismissing lawsuit

"A federal judge has ordered that the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence pay the legal fees of an online ammunition dealer it sued for the Aurora movie theater shooting.

The order, which was issued last week, comes after Judge Richard P. Matsch dismissed the gun control group's suit that sought to hold Lucky Gunner legally responsible for the 2012 shooting. The Brady Center had argued in their suit that the way Lucky Gunner sells ammunition is "unreasonably dangerous and create a public nuisance."

"A crazed, homicidal killer should not be able to amass a military arsenal, without showing his face or answering a single question, with the simple click of a mouse," Brady Center's Legal Action Project Director Jonathan Lowy said at the time. "If businesses choose to sell military-grade equipment online, they must screen purchasers to prevent arming people like James Holmes."

Judge Matsch disagreed with the Brady Center's argument. He said the suit was filed for propaganda purposes. "It is apparent that this case was filed to pursue the political purposes of the Brady Center and, given the failure to present any cognizable legal claim, bringing these defendants into the Colorado court where the prosecution of James Holmes was proceeding appears to be more of an opportunity to propagandize the public and stigmatize the defendants than to obtain a court order," he said in his order.

Lucky Gunner praised the court's decision and vowed to do everything in its power to recover the money awarded to it by the ruling.

"The federal judge on the case ruled it was apparent that this suit was filed to pursue the Brady Center's 'political purposes' and was used as an 'opportunity to propagandize the public,'" Lucky Gunner spokesman Anthony Welsch said. "Lucky Gunner agrees with the court's assessment and continues to do all it can to hold the Brady Center accountable for legal fees awarded in the case."
Lucky Gunner should counter sue the Brady Center for ideological harassment. Ammunition is not illegal to own or sell. A dealer is not a psychiatrist. Brady Center was not injured. The only basis for this lawsuit was to harass Lucky Gunner. Since the tables have turned, Lucky Gunner should push back to the limit.

Quote of the... um, Very Long Time

Victor Davis Hanson:
It is almost as if California answers back: “I am too bewildered by your premodern challenges, so I will take psychological refuge in my postmodern fantasies.”
From "Goodnight California"

Post Democracy

As Vox points out, the last week of SCOTUS bench-legislation is a firm indication that the USA is beyond rule "by the people". We are now post-democracy, post-republic. We are firmly Leftist oligarchy, with tycoon symbiosis. There is no assault on the constitutional rights of the individual which cannot be overturned in a flash by the SCOTUS coterie. Here's an example of legislation interruption due to lawsuits from "women's health" activists who want to preserve fetal death by dismemberment:
Kansas judge enjoins Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Abortion Act

"On June 25, Shawnee County District Court Judge Larry Hendricks issued an injunction that bars the first-in-nation Kansas Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Abortion Act [Senate Bill 95] from going into effect July 1.

The judge’s order will remain in effect while he considers the lawsuit further.

The lawsuit was filed and argued by the New York-based Center for Reproductive Rights on behalf of the Overland Park Center for Women’s Health that had previously sued two other Kansas pro-life laws.

Kansans for Life is confident this law will eventually be upheld—mirroring the long, but successful partial-birth abortion battle in which the U.S. Supreme Court eventually acknowledged the validity of pro-life legislation."
This optimism is ill-deserved. There is little resemblance between killing a half-born baby and the killing of younger embryos by tearing them apart while still in the uterus. Two separate issues.

However, these two separate issues do illuminate the totally callous nature of "women's health" activism. This obvious drive to kill and keep killing also illuminates the Leftist propensity for violence being visited upon defenseless innocents, including their deaths in the dozens of millions - nearly 60 million in the USA alone. And the elderly are next:
Health-Care Rationing Is Inevitable
Let's stop debating the why of rationing and get on with the how."
And:
Ration Roulette: U. S. House debates ObamaCare’s Death Panels

"As the former chief of Medicare said, it’s much cheaper for the government to let sick people die than care for them. So, the President’s team invented this Board, which would be hand-picked by the White House to determine who is worthy of care and who isn’t. Not only would IPAB be free of congressional oversight, but it would also operate without much input from health care providers. Instead of discussing the options with your doctor, IPAB will be sitting at the controls in Washington making health decisions for your family.

Essentially, the Board’s 15 members would be completely unaccountable — to Congress or anyone else. They’d have the power to limit which doctors you see, what treatments are available, and in some cases, whether you’re eligible for care at all. “The ‘independent’ part of IPAB’s name is no joke…” Forbes points out. “If Medicare spending exceeds limits set by law, then IPAB can impose its own set of cost controls… Once IPAB settles on its cuts, lawmakers must either offer an alternative plan that cuts the same level of spending or muster a super-majority to block the Board’s cuts from taking effect.”

Republicans have called it a “rationing board” — and even liberals agree."
There is no human right which cannot be sacrificed to Leftist "new rights" such as are invented in order to subvert the older, constitutional rights. Right to Life is subverted to the phony new "Right to Choose To Kill One's Progeny Violently". Right to Free Exercise of Religion is sacrificed to the phony new "Rights of the Mentally Disordered to the Sacraments of Normal Unions, to be Enforced Upon Religious Providers With Pain of Financial/Professional Destruction For Violation".

These newly discovered "rights" are actually merely attacks on morality which the Left hates and especially hates having imposed on them from the bottom up. The Left has its own diametrically inverse morality which it imposes in reverse, down onto the population. This is done by a coterie of Leftists in federal courts, culminating in the US Supreme Court. SCOTUS is infested with four Leftists who always vote against constitutional rights for individuals and for the Leftist new rights for designated classes. The remaining justices include two which bend with every Leftist wind, with only three justices who value the written constitution as the sole guide for judicial decisions. Since six justices do not value the US Constitution, they willingly violate their oaths of office to protect it. They are scofflaws and social engineers who drive the law of the land in whatever direction they wish. The essence of SCOTUS is that of outlaws making laws.

With a cowardly Congress (which constitutionally should defund the executive branch assaults on America and Americans, AND defund SCOTUS) which takes no reparative action at all, there seems to be no peaceful recourse to the loss of popular control of America to the pagan totalitarian outlaws who are currently in charge.

Sex Nannies and Social Engineers: Law professors Stephen J. Schulhofer and Erin Murphy

The Left is probing deeper into the American bedroom, apparently with their every SJW breath. Sexual freedom has become "rape culture", with men in the crosshairs of Leftist activists who are pursuing lesbian feminist agendas:
Has the federal government ever had sex?

"The act of sex is not illegal. But if two members of the American Law Institute have their way, it will be — unless you follow their rules.

Law professors Stephen J. Schulhofer and Erin Murphy are trying to update the criminal code when it comes to sex offenses, believing current definitions of rape and sexual assault are antiquated. The focus of their draft is on what constitutes consent. It adopts the "yes means yes," or "affirmative consent" model that was passed in California last year.

The California law applies only to college campuses, however. Schulhofer and Murphy aim to take that definition of consent — which says that before every escalation of a sexual encounter, clear and convincing consent must be given — to the state or federal level. No one actually has sex this way, requesting permission and having it granted perhaps a dozen times in a single encounter.

But the theory that millions of Americans are having sex wrongly has gained currency among campus activists. This new attempt to alter the American Law Institute's Model Penal Code, a highly influential document that has been adopted in whole or in part by many states' legislatures, is part of a push to bring authoritarianism into the bedroom."

[Emphasis added]
Social Justice is always - always - authoritarian/totalitarian. Social Justice never addresses individual justice (traditional justice); it always addresses class issues, and pits one class against another, favoring one class over the other. The SJW crowd will dictate your behaviors in every venue where it has ingress and enough freedom to operate; law is highly vulnerable, and the pursuit of classist social justice will attack personal freedom wherever it is allowed to exist without challenge. The fascination with rape, in a culture where rape has decreased and especially on-campus rape, is a mental disorder: irrational and uncontrollable. It is demonstrably anti-logical. But the term "rape" has cachet; it resonates in the fevered SJW cranium, likely due to the utility of the term in demonizing men. That's highly valued by the lesbian feminist storm troopers and their SJW adjuncts.

Angry Feminists

Stacy McCain:
"And let’s face it: If you weren’t angry all the time, you wouldn’t really be much of a feminist, would you?"
This observation by McCain back in 2011 was in reference to the attack on the pronoun "he" by lesbian feminists Kate Swift and Casey Miller, who somehow became editors for a sex education text (who better to teach sex than a pair of anti-masculine homosexuals??):
“Kate Swift, Writer Who Rooted Out Sexism in Language, Dies at 87,” reads the New York Times obituary headline, to which we might cheerfully add: “And Not a Moment Too Soon!”

'Ms. Swift turned her attention to the issue of sexist language when she and Casey Miller, her companion, formed a professional editing partnership in 1970 and were asked to copy-edit a sex education manual for junior high school students.

The stated goal of the manual was to encourage mutual respect and equality between boys and girls, but Ms. Swift and Ms. Miller, who died in 1997, concluded that the author’s intent was being undermined by the English language.

“We suddenly realized what was keeping his message — his good message — from getting across, and it hit us like a bombshell,” Ms. Swift said in a 1994 interview for the National Council of Teachers of English. “It was the pronouns! They were overwhelmingly masculine gendered.”'

"Read the whole thing, which was sent to me by Dave C. from At the Point of a Gun, who should therefore get all the hate-mail from angry feminists. (And let’s face it: If you weren’t angry all the time, you wouldn’t really be much of a feminist, would you?)
I have and will continue to use the generic "he" which has been the English standard from time immemorial. Lesbian hatred of non-gynocological gender(s) should not drive language conventions, or anything else. Lesbian hatred and perverted logic should be sealed hermetically, restricting it to lesbians and containing it wholly within their cloisters.

Interesting Takes

...On fragile but onerous Snowflakes, and the "generic 'he'" becoming the "generic 'she'". Ed Driscoll at Instapundit:

"OUR PRECIOUS LITTLE SNOWFLAKES: “This celebration of a child’s every accomplishment, however slight, is something new. By the time a kid reaches 18, she will have accumulated boxes and boxes of diplomas, medals, ribbons, trophies and certificates for just showing up – whether she’s any good at anything or not,” Margaret Wente writes in the Canadian Globe and Mail:
'Sometimes you have to compromise in life, but we don’t want to break this crushing news to our children. Personally, I’ve met far too many young adults who graduate from university with plans to work in development/save the world/find a career in environmental sustainability. There’s nothing wrong with these noble aspirations. What’s amazing is that no adults have ever levelled with them.

Reality will bite soon enough, of course. The idea that your job should be your passion is a misguided romantic notion that only the upper-middle-class can afford to entertain. In fact, most people wind up in areas that nobody ever talks about. “Insurance is a very interesting field,” Mr. Laurie assured me. “But no one says ‘I want to go into insurance.’ ”

The trouble is, snowflakes are not very resilient. They tend to melt when they hit the pavement. How will our snowflake children handle the routine stresses of the grownup world – the obnoxious colleagues, pointless meetings, promotions that don’t come their way? How will they cope when no one thinks they’re special any more?

I’m afraid they could be in for a hard landing.'
And how.

It’s an interesting essay and a great conclusion, but the author’s consistent use of “she” as a pronoun along the way, leapfrogging from the now doubleplus ungood crimethink use of “he” past “he or she” all the way to “she” makes one pause for a double-take. Particularly given, as Dr. Helen has noted, academia’s own war on young men over the past decade or so. In a chapter of his 1995 book The Vision of the Anointed titled “The Crusades of the Anointed,” Thomas Sowell explored the thinking behind the crusade that drove what he called “The Generic ‘He’” out of first academic and then most MSM writing. By 2010, Theodore Dalrymple noted:

I get to review quite a number of books published by academic presses, British and American, and I have found that the use of the impersonal “she” is now almost universal, even when the writer is aged and is most unlikely to have chosen this locution for himself (or herself). It is therefore an imposed locution, and as such sinister.

But then in the 21st century, there are precious little snowflakes of all ages whom we don’t dare offend."

Sunday, June 28, 2015

Tales Of Climate Science As A Protected Species

The Climate Wars’ Damage to Science

"At first, the science establishment reacted sceptically and a diversity of views was aired. It’s hard to recall now just how much you were allowed to question the claims in those days. As Bernie Lewin reminds us in one chapter of a fascinating new book of essays called Climate Change: The Facts (hereafter The Facts), as late as 1995 when the second assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) came out with its last-minute additional claim of a “discernible human influence” on climate, Nature magazine warned scientists against overheating the debate.

Since then, however, inch by inch, the huge green pressure groups have grown fat on a diet of constant but ever-changing alarm about the future. That these alarms—over population growth, pesticides, rain forests, acid rain, ozone holes, sperm counts, genetically modified crops—have often proved wildly exaggerated does not matter: the organisations that did the most exaggeration trousered the most money. In the case of climate, the alarm is always in the distant future, so can never be debunked.

These huge green multinationals, with budgets in the hundreds of millions of dollars, have now systematically infiltrated science, as well as industry and media, with the result that many high-profile climate scientists and the journalists who cover them have become one-sided cheerleaders for alarm, while a hit squad of increasingly vicious bloggers polices the debate to ensure that anybody who steps out of line is punished. They insist on stamping out all mention of the heresy that climate change might not be lethally dangerous.

Today’s climate science, as Ian Plimer points out in his chapter in The Facts, is based on a “pre-ordained conclusion, huge bodies of evidence are ignored and analytical procedures are treated as evidence”. Funds are not available to investigate alternative theories. Those who express even the mildest doubts about dangerous climate change are ostracised, accused of being in the pay of fossil-fuel interests or starved of funds; those who take money from green pressure groups and make wildly exaggerated statements are showered with rewards and treated by the media as neutral.

Look what happened to a butterfly ecologist named Camille Parmesan when she published a paper on “Climate and Species Range” that blamed climate change for threatening the Edith checkerspot butterfly with extinction in California by driving its range northward. The paper was cited more than 500 times, she was invited to speak at the White House and she was asked to contribute to the IPCC’s third assessment report.

Unfortunately, a distinguished ecologist called Jim Steele found fault with her conclusion: there had been more local extinctions in the southern part of the butterfly’s range due to urban development than in the north, so only the statistical averages moved north, not the butterflies. There was no correlated local change in temperature anyway, and the butterflies have since recovered throughout their range. When Steele asked Parmesan for her data, she refused. Parmesan’s paper continues to be cited as evidence of climate change. Steele meanwhile is derided as a “denier”. No wonder a highly sceptical ecologist I know is very reluctant to break cover."
Of course it's not just climate science that is not science in the "self-correcting" sense. The very definition of science as the objective, empirical, testable hypotheses with test data for non-falsification, went by the wayside in the Atheist rush to declare evolution to be scientific truth. The overarching need was for a narrative, not knowledge. So wildly fantastic inference stood in for testable hypotheses and non-falsification, and that malpractice rapidly got transferred to other sciences, especially the soft sciences, where no amount of testing can generate consistent data (psychology comes to mind, as does anthropology, which now eschews the title of being a science).

Unfortunately for reputable science, evolution has a heavy demand from the ideology of Atheism. And climate science has a heavy demand from SJWs and One-world Messiahs. So the defense of these two hinges not on actual outcome data, rather it depends purely on inferential conclusions which are projected from certain observations - observations which are not of the actual effect, and possibly not even related to the stated causes.

Much modern science is not even a shadow of its former self; it is an inversion, going directly away from objective knowledge generation by observing the effect as a final product of an hypothesized cause. And much other science is bogus, being self-referencing fraud. The remaining, actual objective science is stained by all the scientific malpractice - started by Darwin.

SMOD2016 - Candidate for Everyone

SMOD2016
This changes everything.

Politico Immediately Primes the Pump for Polygamy

With homosexuality normalized, protected with extra punishment, and now dictated by judicial fiat to usurp marriage as a moral institution, the next horizon for the SJWs is, as some have predicted, polygamy. According to the Leftists on SCOTUS, its all about love and not wanting to be lonely. The obvious solution to loneliness is marriage in the eyes of the state. The Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution is no barrier to Leftist "feelies" and feelguud legislation by the court. Most of the declared SCOTUS feelguuds would apply also to anybody who loves anybody else, regardless of the quantities or genders involved, and maybe regardless of whether "anybody else" is even human. I fully expect a group wedding between a large consortium of SJWs and Gaia, with tax breaks for all. But for now, it's just polygamy:

"It’s Time to Legalize Polygamy

Why group marriage is the next horizon of social liberalism.


"Welcome to the exciting new world of the slippery slope. With the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling this Friday legalizing same sex marriage in all 50 states, social liberalism has achieved one of its central goals. A right seemingly unthinkable two decades ago has now been broadly applied to a whole new class of citizens. Following on the rejection of interracial marriage bans in the 20th Century, the Supreme Court decision clearly shows that marriage should be a broadly applicable right—one that forces the government to recognize, as Friday’s decision said, a private couple’s “love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice and family."
With the removal of morality, common sense as well as any constitutional restrictions on the SCOTUS justices, there is no longer any limitation at all, outside of whatever the justices create for the Law Of The Land. The "love" argument should apply equally to all, shouldn't it? If you claim "love", then you qualify... to marry your brother and grandma and her goat, with marriage privileges all around.

The "love" argument can easily be combined with the "tolerance" argument in order to weaponize this type of slogan-lawmaking against dissent. It's already got a fair grip, and it won't take much to turn "free exercise of religion" into "free exercise of love and tolerance of all prior abominations without exception, or else: hate crime". And that's already underway on large portions of the web, with dissent by the justices not approving the gay's judicial legislation being labelled as hate criminals:
"Justice Scalia Is a Homophobe

By BARNEY FRANK

June 26, 2015"
The execrable Barny Frank is a perfect example of homosexual egregiousness, scofflaw attitudes, and intolerance. And he is always in the vanguard of desecration and destruction which homosexual activists and the "progressive" Left wish upon the USA. It should not be mistaken that they are in the business of advancing freedoms; they are in the business of tearing down uncomfortable civilized behavior restrictions which they don't like, in order to allow and even ennoble destructive behaviors which they do like. They see themselves as elite iconoclasts. All that needs be done is to redefine the ignoble behaviors as normal yet noble, and dissenters as ignoble X-ophobes (suddenly "mentally disordered" without any logic to, or recourse in, their Class designation). This is cynically done in order to both eviscerate dissent and to reverse the charge of mental illness which actually applies to the deviant behaviors of homosexuals and not to heterosexuals (or those who defend heterosexuality as normal).

I think this war is not over; it is just heating up. Whites, heterosexuals, Christians and conservatives, as well as logic and morality have been under attack from the Obama administration and SCOTUS for a long time, and all their targets have tolerated it... so far. We'll see where it goes from here.

Democrats Must Apologize For Their History of Slavery, Jim Crow, Ku Klux Klan, and Century of Apartheid Visited On American Blacks

From the American Spectator (read it all, this is just a sampling):
Will Democrats Apologize for Slavery and Segregation?

"You, Congresswoman Wasserman Schultz, along with President Obama and former Secretary Clinton, talk of what happened in Charleston by mentioning the need to discuss “race bigotry and violence” (you), or saying of racism that “societies don't, overnight, completely erase everything that happened 200 to 300 years prior” (President Obama) or calling the Charleston attack “an act of racist terror” (Secretary Clinton). But somehow you never get around to saying just who was doing all of this — your political party. The Democrats.

In fact, as I noted here in 2008, the Democratic National Committee — on the eve of the Obama nomination — went out of its way to deliberately erase a full fifty years of Democratic Party history from the official DNC website. What was erased? All reference to your party’s role in slavery, segregation, lynching, and the rest. Those platforms that supported slavery, mentioned above? The number of Democrats who occupied the White House while owning slaves? The platforms that supported segregation — and the Democratic presidents, senators, governors and more who supported segregation? The tie between Democrats and the Klan? All of this and more was simply gone from your website — deliberately and willfully hidden from voters while trying to leave the impression that your party was a historically enthusiastic supporter of civil rights. Which, to understate, is not true.

Amid all the tragedy of Charleston, I would suggest that it is finally time for the Democratic Party — the party you chair — to come forward and admit its role in this long-running national horror. It’s time — way, way past time — for an apology. An apology directly from the leaders of the Democratic Party to black Americans, not to mention the rest of the country, for what your party has done.

And instead of raising all those millions for the next election? How about raising some millions from all your rich donors to pay black Americans for the damage you have done to them since the inception of your slavery/segregation and race-based party in 1800?"
The Democrats were formed as a political party based solely on support for racism and its, yes, "national horror". It is different now only in its tactics, not in its foundational premises. (Remember that abortion was founded on racist attempts to reduce the number of blacks; abortion is still focused heavily on blacks, as is the destruction of black families through welfare policies).

No Longer Sure That Trump is a False Flag Candidate

No Lefty could have responded as Trump did to the Univision issue.
Univision's Attack on Donald Trump Backfires

"So. As a result of Univision’s decidedly unthought-thorough stab at partisan politics they received in return 1) a lawsuit for breach of contract over the cancellation of the Miss Universe Pageant; 2) a lawsuit for defamation (the poster comparing Trump to the racist killer in Charleston; 3) its executives have been booted from the Trump golf course; 4) a once convivial agreement on building a gate between neighboring properties has been ordered closed; 5) there is now a demand for the resignation of the executive who posted the defaming poster; 6) the private letter revealing anchorman Ramos to be beseeching Trump for an interview has been publicly released; and…and 6;) Trump has received a boatload of priceless publicity that appears as his numbers surge in the polls.

Well done Univision! If this is the company’s idea of humiliating a Republican presidential candidate other GOP candidates are going to demand equal, Trump-style treatment from the network.

While this particular media episode has a Hispanic flavor, in fact it is one more example of life in the liberal media bubble. One can only imagine the conversations that went on internally in Univision.

Executive One: “Hey, I’ve got an idea! Let’s cancel Trump’s pageant!”

Executive Two:” Great idea! That’ll show him!”

Executive Three: “Yeah..yeah…that’s the ticket! And I have a great idea for a poster too!”

In other words? In the world of the liberal media bubble there was no one there to say: “What? Are you crazy? These are seriously bad ideas!”
If this is just Trump being a Lefty who is "acting like" a hardened business-conservative, he's a very good actor. Univision was playing with dynamite, or so it appears from the outside, peering in. Univision is pretty much in Hillary's pocket, so nothing has been lost by Trump. And much has been gained.

Bogus Science

Study claims 1 in 4 cancer research papers contains faked data

"While we don't think that the initial claim—a quarter of cancer research is fake—is accurate, the fact that it's closer to one in eight should still be troubling. A lot of responsibility rests with the authors who write these papers, as well as the reviewers and journal editors who accept them for publication. With bandwidth and storage as cheap as they are now, there's no good reason why one shouldn't be asked to submit the raw data for each experiment when submitting a paper.

Sadly, the pressure to puff up one's findings probably isn't going away any time soon. So, unless there's an organized strengthening of standards, problems like these probably won't go away either."

Boehner/Obama Party on Airforce One

John Boehner is a disgrace and should be impeached.
John Boehner gets his first Air Force One ride with Obama

"The change in Air Force One hangouts following the midterms provided a marked contrast to the middle of the Obama presidency; from September 2011 until February 2013 not a single Republican lawmaker joined the commander in chief aboard the plane, despite a litany of possible trips.

The president flew to Charleston Friday with a large group of lawmakers, including not only Boehner, but also Republican Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) and Reps. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) and John Lewis (D-Ga.).

Boehner carried with him an envelope containing a first-flight certificate, given to passengers when they make their first trip with a president aboard his plane."
Clutching a first-flight certificate?? Like his first merit badge?? No self respect at all. At least no respect from me. He gave Obama the secret but massive trade bill(s). And he acts like Stalin to his own party.

Saturday, June 27, 2015

Charen Takes On Democrat Historical Revisionism

As Clinton tries to connect Republicans to racism, it is important to continue to illuminate the actual, very real history of the Democrat Party as the ground zero of slavery and racism.
Whitewashing the Democratic Party’s History

"Here’s what the former president of the United States had to say when he eulogized his mentor, an Arkansas senator:
We come to celebrate and give thanks for the remarkable life of J. William Fulbright, a life that changed our country and our world forever and for the better . . . In the work he did, the words he spoke and the life he lived, Bill Fulbright stood against the 20th century’s most destructive forces and fought to advance its brightest hopes.
So spoke President William J. Clinton in 1995 of a man who was among the 99 Democrats in Congress to sign the “Southern Manifesto” in 1956. (Two Republicans also signed it.) The Southern Manifesto declared the signatories’ opposition to the Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education and commitment to segregation forever. Fulbright was also among those who filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964. That filibuster continued for 83 days.

Speaking of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, let’s review (since they don’t teach this in schools): The percentage of House Democrats who supported the legislation? 61 percent. House Republicans? 80 percent. In the Senate, 69 percent of Democrats voted yes, compared with 82 percent of Republicans. (Barry Goldwater, a supporter of the NAACP, voted no because he thought it was unconstitutional.)

When he was running for president in 2000, former Vice President Al Gore told the NAACP that his father, Senator Al Gore, Sr., had lost his Senate seat because he voted for the Civil Rights Act. Uplifting story — except it’s false. Gore Sr. voted against the Civil Rights Act. He lost in 1970 in a race that focused on prayer in public schools, the Vietnam War, and the Supreme Court.

Al Gore’s reframing of the relevant history is the story of the Democratic Party in microcosm. The party’s history is pockmarked with racism and terror. The Democrats were the party of slavery, black codes, Jim Crow, and that miserable terrorist excrescence, the Ku Klux Klan. Republicans were the party of Lincoln, of Reconstruction, of anti-lynching laws, of the civil rights acts of 1875, 1957, 1960, and 1964. Were all Republicans models of rectitude on racial matters? Hardly. Were they a heck of a lot better than the Democrats? Without question.

As recently as 2010, the Senate president pro tempore was former Exalted Cyclops Robert Byrd (D., West Virginia). Rather than acknowledge their sorry history, modern Democrats have rewritten it.

You may recall that when MSNBC was commemorating the 50th anniversary of segregationist George Wallace’s “Stand in the Schoolhouse Door” stunt to prevent the integration of the University of Alabama, the network identified Wallace as “R., Alabama.”

The Democrats have been sedulously rewriting history for decades. Their preferred version pretends that all of the Democratic racists and segregationists left their party and became Republicans starting in the 1960s. How convenient. If it were true that the South began to turn Republican due to Lyndon Johnson’s passage of the Civil Rights Act, you would expect that the Deep South, the states most associated with racism, would have been the first to move. That’s not what happened. The first southern states to trend Republican were on the periphery: North Carolina, Virginia, Texas, Tennessee, and Florida. (George Wallace lost these voters in his 1968 bid.) The voters who first migrated to the Republican Party were suburban, prosperous, “New South” types. The more Republican the South has become, the less racist.

Is it unforgivable that Bill Clinton praised a former segregationist? No. Fulbright renounced his racist past, as did Robert Byrd and Al Gore Sr. It would be immoral and unjust to misrepresent the history.

What is unforgivable is the way Democrats are still using race to foment hatred. Remember what happened to Trent Lott when he uttered a few dumb words about former segregationist Strom Thurmond? He didn’t get the kind of pass Bill Clinton did when praising Fulbright. Earlier this month, Hillary Clinton told a mostly black audience that “What is happening is a sweeping effort to disempower and disenfranchise people of color, poor people and young people from one end of our country to another . . . Today Republicans are systematically and deliberately trying to stop millions of American citizens from voting.” She was presumably referring to voter ID laws, which, by the way, 51 percent of black Americans support.

Racism has an ugly past in the Democratic Party. The accusation of racism has an ugly present."

[Emphasis added, because I couldn't help it]
I read somewhere that the Ku Klux Klan has been the Terrorist arm of the Democrat Party from the very beginning of the party. That tactic became less necessary under Lyndon Johnson when the Democrats decided to use blacks rather than abuse blacks. The Democrats have cynically used blacks ever since then by employing lies like the Clinton lie, above. There are now nearly three generations of blacks who have been lied to by Democrats, and kept on the Democrat welfare plantation. White and black Democrat "leaders" have consistently used fear of whites to keep blacks in line and voting for their historic masters. These days, most "racial incidents" are phony creations of the Left intended to create racism where it doesn't exist. Find a burnt cross on someone's lawn and it's ten to one that it was put there by a Leftist. But it's "true" if it furthers the narrative, don't you know. There are no lies in a culture that knows no truth.

Be kind and give Charen a hit at this LINK.

Gays Lose Eliteness

Historic Day for Gays, but Twinge of Loss for an Outsider Culture

"But even many who raced to the altar say they feel loss amid the celebrations, a bittersweet sense that there was something valuable about the creativity and grit with which gay people responded to stigma and persecution.

For decades, they built sanctuaries of their own: neighborhoods and vacation retreats where they could escape after workdays in the closet; bookstores where young people could find their true selves and one another. Symbols like the rainbow flag expressed joy and collective defiance, a response to disapproving families, laws that could lead to arrests for having sex and the presumption that to be lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender was shameful.

Lisa Kron, who wrote the book and lyrics for "Fun Home," which features a young lesbian girl. “The thing I miss is the specialness of being gay,” Ms. Kron said. Credit Walter McBride/Getty Images

“The thing I miss is the specialness of being gay,” said Lisa Kron, who wrote the book and lyrics for “Fun Home,” a Broadway musical with a showstopping number sung by a young girl captivated by her first glimpse of a butch woman. “Because the traditional paths were closed, there was a consciousness to our lives, a necessary invention to the way we were going to celebrate and mark family and mark connection. That felt magical and beautiful.”

Ms. Kron is 54, and her sentiments seem to resonate among gay people of her generation and older. “People are missing a sense of community, a sense of sharing,” said Eric Marcus, 56, the author of “Making Gay History.”

“There is something wonderful about being part of an oppressed community,” Mr. Marcus said. But he warned against too much nostalgia. The most vocal gay rights activists may have celebrated being outsiders, but the vast majority of gay people just wanted “what everyone else had,” he said — the ability to fall in love, have families, pursue their careers and “just live their lives.”"
It's an interesting dilemma for homosexuals: getting what you demand vs. losing your Victimhood and Messiah status when you do get what you demand. Homosexuals will need something else to replace the loss of the special Class War designation which has defined them. They will have to either find a different Victimhood status to bestow upon themselves, or possibly create more hate crimes to prove that their old Victimhood status is still intact.

The loss of Victimhood represents a return from rebellion and distinction, back to non-differentiation: non-eliteness. How will homosexuals choose to rebel now? I suspect that many will discover that they are suddenly straight, now that there's no rebellious advantage to being homosexual, no specific Class separation to shove in people's faces. But many others will need an all-new rebellion in order to differentiate themselves from cis-sane people.

States Must Stop All Contact With Marriage... But It Won't Help

The proper response to this absurd court dictate is to remove all state statutes referring to marriage. This includes taxes. There should be no differentiation between humans as individuals, except as acknowledgement as citizens of certain zones - cities, counties, states, country - who abide by the laws of those zones. There should be no marriage permits, marriage certificates, marriage records, except for census (and I'm not sure that the national census should be allowed anymore, given its abuse by Obama, but that's trivial).

But here's what would happen: The federal response would be to create a national marriage certificate, which would be required in order to get some sort of monetary benefit (paid for by tax payers of the future, of course). Probably a tax "deferment" fiat, just like the deportation deferments being created by presidential fiat.

The next response should come from states' attorneys, who reject federal dictates under the constituional protection of the tenth amendment. When the US Supreme Court then rejects the tenth amendment, the country will know what is next, and the second civil war will begin in order to restore constitutional government.

In my opinion, after much blood, that will fail but internal control will be sketchy until troops are stationed virtually everywhere. Except the borders, of course. In the meantime, China will expand unexpectedly right up to the US borders, and finding the US to be incredibly weak, will finally act toward a world government.

But wait. That would be a slippery slope scenario. There is no slippery slope, just ask any SJW. For example, there is no slippery slope to increased racial tension because we elected a half-black twice (that would be the same as electing a full-black once, right?). So all we need to do is focus on eliminating whites (ask any black panther). Another example is the sexual freedom that exists in the USA (except on government controlled campuses, of course, where men are suspects because of their cis-cender, and guilty of rape if they actually do have sex). So the only slope is the SJW slope toward total freedom from absolutely all traditional, rational restrictions which might exist in a rational, civilized society (a rational civilization would recognize and treat all mental disorders, instead of institutionalizing them).

There is no longer anyplace globally to go where insanity is not the rule. There is no New World, no wilderness, no new continent, no safe harbor for sane people. The entire planet is now owned and controlled, and those in control are either communist, Communist (capital C), or proto-communist (or some form of Islamic Terrorist dictatorship) . Without forcible revolution and forcible control for maintaining actual constitutional government, the world dictatorship (Global Union of Socialist States) is inevitable. By eliminating all traditional morality, inevitability of SJW amorality and immorality is created and guaranteed.

The Brave New World has started in SCOTUS. Here's the indicator:

Supreme Court Rules Same-Sex Couples Have Right To Marry Nationwide

"“No union is more profound than marriage,” Kennedy wrote, joined by the court’s four more liberal justices.

“From their beginning to their most recent page, the annals of human history reveal the transcendent importance of marriage. The lifelong union of a man and a woman always has promised nobility and dignity to all persons, without regard to their station in life. Marriage is sacred to those who live by their religions and offers unique fulfillment to those who find meaning in the secular realm. Its dynamic allows two people to find a life that could not be found alone, for a marriage becomes greater than just the two persons. Rising from the most basic human needs, marriage is essential to our most profound hopes and aspirations,” Kennedy wrote."
Note the personal philosophy and then note the lack of reference to any mention of the US Constitution, and especially lack of mention of any restrictions on the federal government. It is now presupposed that the federal government may interfere in any and all parts of life, without any nasty constitutional impediments to their dictates. That is the definition of dictatorship.

Friday, June 26, 2015

SCOTUS *hearts* Gays

By removing any residual morality from the concept of marriage, the US Supreme Court has rendered the union meaningless from a moral standpoint. So any other meaning which marriage might have is also to be designated by the government, probably solely by SCOTUS which now is the ultimate legislative body, from which there is no further recourse.

The concept of marriage is now fungible and can be expanded by minority forcings. What it will come to include is anyone's guess at this point, but it is certain that future challenges from other quarters of disorders will occur. And if equality is, well, equal, then all disorders must be treated equally to have access to marriage. Given equal treatment in SCOTUS, then, (and that is certainly not certain) they all can have access to marriage, they just must wait their turn.

In today's circus there is no traditional institution (such as truth, free speech, tenth amendment rights) which is not an abomination in line for abolition by moral, iconoclastic, crusaders for perversion rather than rationality. There are no "good" traditions and there are no "bad" perversions. It is not necessary to accept a concept of Satan in order to observe that there is a definite difference between what is good and what is evil, and that today's cultural drivers are not interested in anything which can be considered "good" by anyone but themselves.

The cultural acceptance of behavior A became demonized in a huge marketing campaign which was outlined in specific documents. Cultural behavior A became so demonized that a general silencing of morals and moral speech regarding behavior A became the norm. Behavior B, on the other hand, was first designated Victimhood status, then became the icon of acceptable and "moral" behavior. In little more than a decade, behavior B - the antithesis of behavior A - replaced behavior A. Replacing behavior A is not simple, though, and merely demonizing it is not sufficient. With behavior B in full control, those preferring behavior A are to be punished, and as severely as possible under current standards.

But current standards of punishment must change, also. They are insufficient to meet the needs for cultural control which are necessary to maintain behavior B as a permanent replacement for behavior A. So punishment standards must evolve to a new level, level B, also.

It never stops in the totalitarian world. Utopia is always in danger from incompatible thought. So in universal utopia, only utopians are to be allowed. The ratchet works in only one direction.

Dylann Roof

I think by now that it is safe to say that no one has come up with any Christian or other religious connections in the life and worldview of Dylann Roof. If that connection could be made, it would be exploited to the maximum absurdity. But it has not been made. Thus we may further observe that Roof is most likely to be, if not specifically Atheist, at least one of the "nones", the "no religion" category which Atheists rush to claim as their own. This is not to say that Atheism is a driving motivation for Roof. It is to say that Roof has been unimpeded by any morality other than that of his own devising. And that is identical to the process of moral self-creation which Atheists, if they are to have morals, must perform in order to get them.

In his own way Roof is a social justice warrior, a self-declared messiah for his own version of moral salvation of his designated Victimhood Class. In Roof's case, the Victimhood Class refers to white Europeans and white European culture; the Oppressor Class is filled with those Others who Roof declares as threats to his Victimhood Class. Roof's Other Class, the Oppressor Class, includes Blacks and Hispanics, but not Asians, to whom Roof grants ally status due to his perception of Asian racial purity attitudes which align with his own.

Because Social Justice is intended for purification of humanity based on Class Theory and warped moral principles, Roof's theory is the same fundamental structure as the Leftist Social Justice Warriors, with the same three class designations: Messiah Class, Victimhood Class, Oppressor Class. Only the specific objects placed into each class are different.

The purity purging by the Leftist SJWs differs from that of Roof only in degree, not in kind. The kind in this case is the common intent, and that intent is purification purging of human society for a single, common outcome: domination of the Messiah Class.

Because their worldviews have the same theoretical structure and the same moral intent, varying only in the objects, Dylann Roof and the Leftist Social Justice Warriors are of the same kind, in the same class, of the same motivation, with themselves in the narcissistic focal point as Messiahs. Each is as dangerous as the other. It should not be forgotten that the SJWs inspired and motivated the attempted mass murder at FRC.

Proto-Stalinist Retribution Begins

Officer Fired After Posting Photo Of Himself In Confederate Flag Boxer Shorts On Facebook

"CHARLESTON, S.C. (CBS Atlanta)– A North Charleston police officer was fired from his position after posting a photo on Facebook featuring the Confederate flag.

WCIV reports the post, which featured the officer wearing Confederate flag boxer shorts, went viral Thursday after it was posted a few days earlier.

The police chief terminated Sgt. Shannon Dildine’s position, saying the photo questioned his ability to improve trust and instill confidence between citizens and officers.

“Your posting in this manner led to you being publicly identified as a North Charleston Police officer and associated both you and the Department with an image that symbolizes hate and oppression to a significant portion of the citizens we are sworn to serve,” Police Chief Eddie Driggers wrote, as reported by WCIV."
The instantaneous SJW creation of a new, punishable sin is an indicator of things to come. There will be no speech left, if this is not fought to the ground.

Funny... For Now

Two rival self-driving cars have close call in California

" As the Delphi vehicle prepared to change lanes, a Google self-driving prototype - a Lexus RX400h crossover fitted with similar hardware and software - cut off the Audi, forcing it to abort the lane change, Absmeier said.

The Delphi car "took appropriate action," according to Absmeier."
Isn't that standard driving procedure in CA?

Continuing Adventures of an Insane Pope

Vatican signs treaty with "State of Palestine"

" VATICAN CITY (AP) -- The Vatican signed a treaty with the "State of Palestine" on Friday, saying it hoped its legal recognition of the state would help stimulate peace with Israel and that the treaty itself would serve as a model for other Mideast countries.

Vatican Foreign Minister Paul Gallagher and his Palestinian counterpart, Riad al-Malki, signed the treaty at a ceremony inside the Vatican."

Keep pants zipped, and maintain a distance of 150 feet from the opposite sex... and wear a body cam at all times.

Is anything happening on American campuses besides policing microaggressions and sexual posturing?
Sex At New York’s Colleges Is Screwed

"Given the experience of politicians with sexcapades, one might hope they would be a little more circumspect in their embrace of the flavor of the month redefinitions of what constitutes a sexual assault for college students. After all, had that been the rule when they went to Fordham, there’s a good chance they would be digging ditches today.

But no. Neither New York’s leaderless Assembly nor Senate had the guts to say no means no, and gave in to Governor Andy Cuomo’s gift to his daughters. From the New York Times:
New York’s political leaders have reached a deal on one of Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo’s legislative priorities for 2015, saying they will adopt new laws intended to change the way sexual assaults on all college campuses in the state are handled.

The agreement, announced on Tuesday, proposes legislation that would establish a statewide definition of “affirmative consent,” and define consent as a “knowing, voluntary and mutual decision among all participants to engage in sexual activity.”
Which means . . . what?
This does not mean students will need to enter into a written contract before every sexual encounter; it is meant to reorient students in terms of how they approach sex, said Assemblywoman Deborah J. Glick, a Manhattan Democrat and chairwoman of the Higher Education Committee.
Okay, so it doesn’t mean more work for Legal Zoom, but what does it mean?
“It’s a question of putting everyone on notice that they have to be in a consensual situation,” Ms. Glick said. “It also sends a message to the institutions that they have to up their game on how sexual assault on campus is viewed and treated.”
So what you’re saying is, you have no clue what it means either. Great. So students will be accused, go through the pretense of a hearing where guilt is presumed, due process is denied, and males are expelled from college (no refund?), permanently tainted, lives ruined, based upon meaningless rhetoric? Well, yes. That’s what it means."
This is a perfect example of a law with no means of objective measurement for compliance/noncompliance, but one which will undoubtedly be used for persecution in the future. It is purely based on "feelies", and we know who will judge the feelies in any such situation. (Hint: it won't be lawful authorities).

The Left is returning campuses to the principle of abstinence by default. The Leftist moral policing is much more severe than the segregated dorms of thirty years ago.

SCOTUS Unanimously SUPPORTS Free Speech for Religion

Supreme Court to Government: No, 'Good Intentions' Don't Give You a License to Censor Speech

"Today, the Supreme Court issued a momentous First Amendment decision. In Reed v. Town of Gilbert, Arizona, a unanimous Court invalidated a town sign code that subjected certain signs to harsher restrictions than others, depending upon what messages they conveyed. In doing so, it made plain that such "content-based" restrictions on speech are presumptively unconstitutional and must undergo strict judicial scrutiny.

The facts: The town of Gilbert has a sign code that restricts the size, duration and location of temporary signs. Under the sign code, the Good News Community Church's temporary signs promoting church services are subjected to far greater restrictions than temporary signs promoting political, ideological and various other messages. That is, the sign code facially discriminates on the basis of the content of the messages communicated by the signs.

The First Amendment broadly prohibits the enactment of any law "abridging the freedom of speech." It makes no exception for certain messages, ideas or subject matter, nor does it insulate legislation enacted with supposedly benevolent intentions. The Supreme Court has properly recognized the danger presented by laws that regulate speech based on its communicative content, holding that they are presumptively unconstitutional unless the government demonstrates, with reliable evidence, that they are narrowly tailored to compelling government interests.

But lower courts have held that laws that facially discriminate based on content are not necessarily content-based -- not only when evaluating sign codes, but also when evaluating restrictions on other forms of speech, such as occupational-speech licensing, panhandling bans and noise ordinances. In the decision below, the Ninth Circuit determined that Gilbert's sign code was "content-neutral" because of the town's assurances that it had no intention to discriminate. The Institute for Justice filed an amicus brief urging the Court to clarify that facially content-based statutes should not be given a pass because officials (allegedly) mean well.

In Reed, the Court squarely held that strict scrutiny applies either when a law is content-based on its face or if its purpose and justification are content-based -- and courts must inquire into each question. Writing for the Court, Justice Thomas explained, "A law that is content based on its face is subject to strict scrutiny regardless of the government's benign motive, content-neutral justification, or lack of 'animus' toward the ideas contained in the regulated speech." The Court easily determined that the sign code at issue classified signs on the basis of their content -- the restrictions applied to any given sign "depend entirely on the communicative content of the sign."

[Emphasis added]

The case was based on an Atheist absurdity by local officials: discrimination against religion while claiming neutrality. Even the uber-Leftists on the court couldn't stomach that. A 5/4 would have been surprising; a unanimous strike against Atheist overreach is shocking.

More, in-depth, at the LINK.

Roger Simon: Racism and the Left

90% of the Racism in America Comes from the Democratic Party and the Left
My conclusion is inescapable. Here's why...


"Ninety percent of the racism in America today comes from the Democratic Party and the Left. They live off it and exploit it. It is unconscionable to the degree they do this, ruining the lives and futures of the very people they say they are helping in the process.

I am uniquely positioned to say this because I spent most of my life on the Left and was a civil rights worker in the South in my early twenties. I was also, to my everlasting regret, a donor to the Black Panther Party in the seventies.

So I have seen this personally from both sides and my conclusion is inescapable. The Left is far, far worse. They are obsessed with race in a manner that does not allow them to see straight. Further, they project racism onto others continually, exacerbating situations, which in most instances weren’t even there in the first place. From Al Sharpton to Hillary Clinton, they all do it."
Racism and its effluent - discord, poverty, hatred, institutionalized Victimhood, Messiahism, and constant Othering - all are to the distinct advantage of the western Left. Normal people have nothing to gain from these things, and wish to have nothing to do with them. The Left needs them, must have them, feeds solely on them. Without them, the Left are nothing. Nothing at all. They actually have no other desires except the further Messiahist craving to return Goddess Gaia to her pre-Anthropocene utopia (add eugenics to the list above).
"Barack Obama is one of the worst offenders in this regard. Recently, in reaction to the horrid actions of the deranged, but solitary racist Dylann Root, the president claimed racism is in our DNA.

How could he possibly utter such nonsense and who was he talking about? The majority of Americans are from families that came to this country after slavery existed. Many of those were escaping oppression of their own. In my case my family was fleeing the pogroms of Eastern Europe. Many of the members of my family who stayed behind ended up gassed in Auschwitz or exterminated in Treblinka.

Is Obama telling me that racism is in my DNA? What a wretched and insulting statement. If he means that, he should tell it to me face-to-face.

If he does, I will tell him what I think. The racial situation in this country has gotten decidedly worse since he took office. And he is a great deal to blame. Ever since the beer summit it was obvious he was disingenuous and harmful on the subject of race, seeking to stir the pot when it was actually empty or nearly. His claim that if he had had a son he would look like Travyon Martin was ridiculous and self-serving in the extreme. Barack Obama is a product of the fanciest private school in Hawaii and his children go to Sidwell Friends, the fanciest school in D. C."
Never forget that the very first day as president, Barack Obama cancelled the program which allowed exceptional black DC children to go to the best schools, and thereby escape their stultifying neighborhood day prisons. Had a white president done that, DC would still be smoldering cinders, edge to edge.

Read the rest at the LINK, give him a hit.

Thursday, June 25, 2015

Repurposing For The Next Rebellion

By pointing out the racism attached to the Southern Democrat secessionist flag and its inappropriateness for official use, sane minds have enabled and triggered the SJWs inadvertently. The SJWs have leapt into action to demand not just the banning of the flag altogether including sales to private individuals, but have expanded their war to include all things Civil War, right down to movies in which the war is featured. As is pointed out by some commentators, this has diluted the Leftist push for gun control by swamping the conversation with loony hysteria.

The result possibly will be two fold; first, the Left will find its insane stepchild to have taken over and left the Left facedown in the dust; second, the SJWs will have iconized a flag to be used for rebellion against both the SJWs and the Left in general. Here's a candidate now:


This is a specific response to the mindless, panicky, stampeding Class Warfare; it combines two rebellious American traditional flags into an all new, single meaning, devoid of both King George and Slavery, and now focused on addressing specifically the anti-totalitarian movement which seems to be gaining traction. I don't think the flag will actually catch on. But I have hopes for the movement.