Help fight the
liberal media

click title for home page
Be a subscriber

The complete history of Barack Obama's second term -- click Views/Repies for top stories

  Author   Comment   Page 5 of 10     «   Prev   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   Next   »

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #101 

A sporting event where only one team obeys the rules


Jeffrey T. Brown (AmericanThinker) says from childhood, we have had ingrained in us that in order for interactions between people to work, especially competitive interactions, everyone has to "follow the rules." The reason we have rules is that we have people, and people are sometimes dishonest cheats. The rules are put in place to prevent the dishonest cheats from winning unfairly, because they are despicable thieves who would steal what rightfully belongs to someone else.

Nobody likes a cheat, except perhaps other cheats or those who stand to share in what the cheater steals from the honest participant. That is, nobody with an ounce of integrity, understanding the inevitability of chaos if half of all participants in an event are permitted to cheat, would agree to participate. Therefore, any system which is premised upon rules requires that independent arbiters, acting without bias and favoritism, intercede to enforce the rules so that each contest is determined by merit, rather than fraud and intimidation. This is called "integrity."

Unfortunately, when the referees belong to the same organization, or "team," as the half of the participants in an event who cheat, the system is no longer effective. Indeed, when the half that cheats has become so comfortable with cheating and lying and stealing that they have no reason or intention to stop, because there is no cost to them as long as their cronies remain in charge, the risk is that the rule-followers will never again know what it is like to have an event in which they have any hope or chance of not only competing, but sometimes winning.

After eight years of the most blatant and obvious corruption, we watch current events as if we have a splinter in our eye. An entire political party is so morally bankrupt that it no longer feels any need to hold its members to any rules at all. And yet, it controls the enforcement of the rulebook, and zealously enforces those rules against anyone who doesn’t belong to their lawless team. They do this smugly and self-righteously, as if it is their right and privilege to screw millions of people who follow the rules and believe that a society can only survive it its rules are followed by all, and enforced equally against all.

This is the only kind of fairness that the Constitution contemplated, because it is the only kind that man can control. One man cannot control whether another man with free will makes choices that will prove successful. We are not born owing what we will someday earn to morons who are too careless or brainwashed to make wise choices. As if to stand the theory of evolution on its head, Democrats exist to show us that Darwin was wrong. People do not evolve. They do not improve or adapt to better function in the ecosystem. No matter how much time goes by, humans will always have among them the cheats, the thieves, and the losers. We will always have among us the humans whose nature is dark and evil, those who are incapable or unwilling to place their self-interest behind the concept of a greater good. The world is their oyster, and they intend to steal every pearl they see.

At present, the Democratic Party and its membership, particularly in positions of authority and in media, is participating in events as actors unbounded by any rule or law. The IRS commissioner still uses the IRS to target conservatives. The Obama administration is literally turning illegal aliens into citizens to unlawfully alter the outcome of the upcoming election, as Democrats have always done. They are rewarding criminals with early release from prison and restored voting rights simply to tip the scales. They are flooding our country with Muslim Syrians, whose culture is antithetical to ours, knowing the inevitable outcome will be an eventual conflict between those who believe in forcefully imposing Islamic theocracy and those few who still know and believe in the American Constitution. They are making secret alliances with our enemies, or merely surrendering to them out of abject cowardice or belief in common principles. They protect terrorists, who are the ultimate rule-breakers, while demonizing Americans, who cannot figure out what they may have done wrong, having done nothing but exist.

No matter which side of the aisle you are on, it is undeniable that any system that is premised upon rules will fail and break apart when one side gleefully cheats with impunity, but the other side is punished. You would not tolerate this if it was your own child’s sporting event, or one in which you had agreed to compete. You would not peacefully watch a professional event if one team got to do whatever it wanted, while the other team was policed by the cheats. Such an event would unnaturally reward vice and criminality, while punishing integrity.

At present, the Democratic Party is the most successful example of a criminal enterprise that we have in this country. The Mafia was never as large and powerful as the Democratic Party, but they were at least more honest. They never swore an oath to uphold the law and not enrich themselves with the property of others. There was no public trust betrayed. They pretended to be businessmen, but not to be public servants in order to gain control over the treasury and the arbitrary enforcement of laws against only their enemies.

The last eight years have been about building the brand, honing and perfecting the fraud, constructing the perfect machine with which to destroy what is left of a system of laws, rights and duties. The Left believes in none of those concepts, or they would abide by them. They believe the lie of their own superiority and deformed morality. Hillary Clinton believes that disagreement with her is deplorable and irredeemable. She will rule as a tyrant, as spiteful and vengeful as any before her who was slowed by her enemies. Her objective is to utterly destroy the last vestiges of honor and integrity that made this country exceptional. 

One thing is certain. We cannot construct a new framework with the Left or its amoral members, just as we would not form a business or marriage or friendship with someone we know we can never trust or respect. Besides, they will try to revive the solutions of leftist history before they will allow us freedom, from them and for ourselves.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #102 

The useless Left


Bruce Walker (AmericanThinker) says the principal distinction between the Right and the Left is that the Right is filled with people who work in real jobs that produce valuable goods and services while the Left is infested with people who do not work or do useless work, like lawyers, professors, and community organizers.

Consider the occupations of the last few nominees of the two parties.  The Republicans nominated men who had been war heroes (Dole and McCain and George H. Bush) or businessmen (George W. Bush, Mitt Romney, and Trump), while the Democrats have nominated lawyers (Dukakis, Bill Clinton, Obama, and Hillary Clinton) or Gore, whose "occupation" defies description.

Who supports Republicans?  Principally folks do work of value, like producing food, healing the sick, growing cotton, drilling oil, building houses, mining coal, protecting us as policemen and soldiers, healing the sick.  Productive people.

Who supports Democrats?  Principally those sloths whose "work" has nothing of real value to ordinary Americans at all like sociology professors; government bureaucrats; public school administrators; blood-sucking lawyers; and, of course, that vast army of leftists who live off welfare and other entitlements and who do not even pretend to do any work at all.

What would America look like if all the leftists left our land?  The congestion and corruption that are the real "work" of most leftists would largely disappear, and so the work of the farmers, businessmen, doctors, builders, and miners would become more efficient and inexpensive, and the huge slab of national wealth gobbled by those drones of the Left could be consumed by those who actually created the wealth.

Leftists secretly sense the pathetic unimportance of their work and the essential irrelevance of their careers in the healthy life of the nation.  This inadequacy translates into venom, such as when Hillary, who has never done a real day's work in her whole life, looks down on those whose work has meaning and whose life has purpose while her life is a dreary parade of greed, ambition, and lies.

The resentment these shallow and selfish leftists feel toward the solid and hardworking people who do real work and create actual wealth slops over into every aspect of public life.  So our hapless and clueless president demonizes those who produce the energy we need as heartless polluters and denigrates the farmers who grow the crops and raise the livestock we consume.

So also the hapless and clueless Barack Obama, who, in the 2008 campaign, privately mocked the hardworking people in rural America as folks "bitterly clinging to their guns and religion" and in 2012 mocked enterprising Americans with the "you didn't build that" taunt, and so the Democrat nominee in 2016 sneers at "deplorable" Americans, who, by the way, are the Americans who actually grow and mend and mine and build and make the things the Left consumes. 

The brave police officers who go in harm's way for us are "racists" who need retraining while those professional complainers who prey like piranha in vile ponds of invented racial grievance and who tacitly encourage cop-killers are heroes.  The courageous soldiers who defend us are sent into battle with depleted numbers and aging equipment, while those who let our veterans die while awaiting medical care are carefully protected by the Byzantine civil service system (and the Left resists changes in federal law to allow the firing of these bad VA bureaucrats).

The distinction is most stark, however, in how Washington looks at Flyover Country and how Flyover Country looks at Washington, which is the real Left and Right divide in America.  Those leftist piglets who suckle greedily on the fat sow of Washington contribute almost nothing for what they take, while those who create wealth in spite of Washington take much less than they make.

The problem is Washington, and if the federal government was reduced to the tiny size needed to perform its constitutional purposes, all the perverse silliness that is leftism in America, taken off Washington life support, would become useful or shrivel into a hollow dead husk.  The useless Left is a junkie, and Washington is its pusher.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #103 

NYT's Maureen Dowd says my Lefty friends want to censor Trump and anti-Hillary stories

Mark Tapson (TruthRevolt) is reporting that on Sunday's Meet the Press, host Chuck Todd told New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd that polls are showing a "margin of panic" among "Upper West Siders," an "East Coast freakout" about Donald Trump's popularity.

Dowd explained that her liberal friends won't read any interviews she does with Trump, that "they would like to censor any stories about Trump and also censor any negative stories about Hillary. They think she should have a total free pass because as she said at that fundraiser recently, I'm the only thing standing between you and the abyss."


TODD: New York Times, I think it was Saturday, Maureen, had a lead that said -- basically interviewing all these Upper West Siders panicking. I think they referred to it as the polls are showing a margin of panic for Clinton supporters. Describe this East Coast freakout that I feel like you’ve seen among the elites this week.

DOWD: Right. My friends -- one of my friends, Leon Wieseltier, calls it a national emergency. My friends won't even read any -- if I do interviews with Trump. They won't read them. And basically, they would like to censor any stories about Trump and also censor any negative stories about Hillary. They think she should have a total free pass because as she said at that fundraiser recently, I'm the only thing standing between you and the abyss.

"Oh," she added, "and Democratic strategists are taking antacids."

In an interview with the Daily Beast to promote a new book, Dowd said something similar: "A lot of my friends won’t read my interviews with Trump because they’re like, 'You shouldn’t be talking to him!' and giving him space to say anything."

However, Dowd took a more evenhanded approach:

"There is plenty to reproach Trump for, and I do. But that doesn't mean that Hillary is above reproach. I think it's really bad for democracy -- this idea that she should get a pass, that no one should say anything critical about her because the alternative is 'the abyss,' as she said at a fundraiser. I don't think that's a healthy attitude."

Once again, we see the Left's inner totalitarianism come to the surface.

These people are the fascists they accuse others of being -- and it never occurs to them.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Posts: 225
Reply with quote  #104 
We are winning, day by day, on almost every front.

The pace of our victories is altogether too slow.  The foundation is being set, nay, may already be set for a political coup of our cherished Republic.  During the Progressive era of our country, operatives who railed against the Constitution (i.e., Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson) were successful in doing two things:  paving the way for administrative bureaucracy who began making policy in the stead of Congress; and, changing the way Americans viewed our President and chief executive, from the person who ran the Executive Branch of our government to the person wholly responsible for what our government does or doesn't do.  That these two things happened the way they did was a mistake for which we are going to pay for a long time to come.  To make matters worse, we have a large number of un-assimilated immigrants supported by several generations of indoctrinated young people who honestly don't have a clue about what they have wrought.


Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #105 

The imploding leftist establishment


Bruce Walker (AmericanThinker) says leftism has been on life support for fifty years. The Republican landslide in the 1966 midterm election was recognized by everyone at the time as a massive rejection of the agenda and the politics of the Left.

The reasons were clear. The War on Poverty produced race riots and idiocies like "Welfare Strikes." Having achieved civil rights, militant blacks were now demanding "Black Power." Affirmative action was so clearly discrimination that there were few serious minds who could coherently defend this vile incarnation of state-mandated bigotry.

The Left's approach to foreign threats was precisely as it is today: put in our brave men in harm's way with no discernible purpose other than to make Washington bosses look good; reject waging war to win and instead muddle from failure to failure hoping not to win or to lose; reduce defense spending so that in any future conflict, instead of spending treasure, we would spend blood.

Beginning in 1968, Democrats began calling themselves "progressives" and scrupulously avoided the term "liberal." As I have noted often, self-defined "conservatives" dramatically outnumber self-defined "liberals," but less known is that even in the aftermath of Goldwater's defeat, when smug leftists insisted that conservatism was dead, ordinary Americans called themselves "conservative" by a two-to-one margin over "liberal."

The Left was sustained not by the quality of its politicians. Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Hillary Clinton are such dull minds and slow wits that the worst Republican nominee in the last five decades looks brilliant and wise by comparison.

What, then, has kept leftism alive?  It is an imperial occupying force in much of America. Flyover country, largely, is America -- particularly the part of America that actually produces the wealth we consume. Leftism is a small minority even in states like Minnesota and Michigan and Maine.

The three pillars are  (1) monopolistic control of news and entertainment by the Left, with a corresponding collusion against the public interest; (2) limitless usurpation of power to Washington and within Washington to the federal bench, independent regulatory agencies, and executive departments, which buys support; and (3) the creation of a vast taxpayer-subsidized system of pseudo-education and pseudo-research whored into unsavory work corrupting all true education and research.

Gallup recently released a poll that shows that trust in the news media is at an all-time low. Only 8% of the American people have a great deal of confidence in the media, while 27% have no confidence at all, a historic high. The disconnect between Democrats and other Americans is stark: while 51% of Democrats have some trust in the media, only 30% of independents and only 14% of Republicans do. Indeed, the telling statistic is that trust in the media among independents has dropped since 1997 from 53% to 30%, and the trend lines are such that by the next election, fewer than one in four independents will trust the media. Pew reports the same trend but notes that local news is much more trusted than national news.

Gallup also reported last year that trust in the federal government was at an all-time low of 19%, and distrust of Washington was at an all time high of 81%. Pew Research also has trust in the federal government at an all-time low, with only 19% of Americans trusting Washington. It has never been easier to make a broad case against D.C.

The surreally high cost of college and the deplorable failures of public schools afflict everyone except those elite leftists who send their own children to expensive private schools. The arrogance displayed by teachers in Chicago Public Schools -- reflected throughout all public school systems in some degree -- and the hateful nuttiness of censorship of conservatives in academia mean that this last decrepit pillar of establishment leftism is ripe for radical reform. (Indeed, Donald Trump recently championed charter schools -- a good step in the right direction.)

Conservatives and other normal people can be dismayed by the horrific failures of leftism and the costs we all pay for these failures, but here is a better thought: we are winning. We are winning, day by day, on almost every front. The tottering, rotten edifice of leftism is sustained by tired trickery and puerile magic tricks performed by aging charlatans. Their lies infect everything they do. Their failures are impossible to conceal. Someday, maybe someday soon, we will push back, and the Left will simply implode. Time, as long as we are confident, is on our side.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #106 

The false rationale of homegrown anti-Americanism


Jeffrey T. Brown (AmericanThinker) says homegrown anti-American activists are a dishonest bunch.  Maybe some of them mean well, though I doubt it.  Either way, in order for us to listen to them, or support them, we have to accept the premise that underlies their movement: everything is someone else's fault, especially America in general.  This is where the good-hearted or gullible fall into traps set by the frauds, because the cause is almost never what it appears.  We are not correcting America.  We are erasing it.

Take Colin Kaepernick.  He would have you believe that racial injustice in America motivates him to disrespect the National Anthem and our flag.  Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that this black American multi-millionaire sincerely believes that the country is racist and oppressive, and that despite his own success, his own success isn't achievable because the country is so racist.  Yes, I know that it is utterly contradictory, but Kaepernick isn't renowned for his brilliance.  He throws a football well.

Mr. Kaepernick blames the country for what he thinks is happening to others, and he is obviously not alone.  Increasing numbers of black athletes and celebrities, each of whom is living proof of the falsity of their own argument, feel the same way.  By kneeling, or raising a black power salute, they spit at the country that enabled their success rather than their supposed oppression.

Missing entirely from their simplistic reasoning is that free will has vastly more to do with the lives and outcomes of millions of Americans, white or black or anything else, than the country they live in when they make those choices.  As a preliminary matter, let us acknowledge that the supposedly oppressed people for whom Colin Kaepernick and his ilk purport to speak are making their choices as free people, something denied to hundreds of millions of other people around the world.  Anti-American protesters will never acknowledge this, because it is the first step in the debunking of their premise that our uniquely American system is the problem.  Truly oppressed people don't get to choose whether they are oppressed, so it hardly advances the narrative to admit that black Americans who have not achieved at the same levels as others ended up where they did because of their choices.

By the way, this same rationale works for every race.  Whites who are not billionaires made choices, too, millions of them along the way, which explain why they are where they are now, good or bad.  It's how real life works.

America-haters cannot afford to admit that outcomes are determined by choices rather than geography.  If the "oppressed" put themselves where they are, whether by their personal choices or by the votes they cast for those whose policies will keep them there, then their unfortunate circumstances derive from their own errors.  That they remain there, as well, is a product of their choices, even to the point of choosing not to do anything affirmative to change their own circumstances.

Our entire history as a nation is infused with the stories of millions of people who rose above limitations and obstacles to advance themselves and their families.  Now, sadly, their offspring have been taught to blame America rather than take actions calculated to change their circumstances, as their ancestors did.

When we see people like Kaepernick, and all those other millionaire athletes, movie stars, and celebrities, and even our petulant president, we rationally ask ourselves, "If our country is so oppressive, how have all of them done what other blacks have not?"  How, we ask ourselves, can there be a black president in a racist nation?  The obvious answer is, there can't be.  It's either racist and oppressive or it is a nation where people are free to achieve at the limits of their abilities.  Some have, and some have not, but those who have not are in their present circumstances not because of racism, or oppression, or any other such nonsense.  Their lives are a product of their choices, just like everyone else in every race.  Denying this is a lie.

It is here that people like Colin Kaepernick have not only missed the boat, but purposefully chosen to contribute to a dishonest narrative.  Kaepernick's message could have been "Look at me; look at what I and others who look like me (and you) have achieved in this fantastic country."

Instead, Kaepernick, and those whose success belies the claim of oppression, blames the United States for the outcomes produced by each individual's thousands of choices each day.  Rather than be true agents of change, as they say they want to be, they are agents of the status quo.  They are advocates for failure by utterly misidentifying the one dynamic that has the greatest impact on success or failure: personal choice.  America allowed Kaepernick and his friends to succeed.

Once upon a time, true activism required courage, because there were real wrongs to be righted.  It took courage to fight forces that truly oppressed.  There were no Colin Kaepernicks then, or very few of them.  Now Colin Kaepernicks are a dime a dozen.  What honest people would have celebrated as a sign of all the progress that has been made is something modern activists would have us ignore, understanding the hypocrisy and contradiction they represent.  Now, like the good little American "racists" we have been told we are while not actually oppressing anyone, we are expected to take the accusation, to absorb the lie, without thinking or questioning whether the premise is even remotely valid.

The Kaepernicks of the world are not courageous.  They are simple-minded tools.  Those whose actions have divided us and put us at each other's throats sit back and smile to themselves.  It is so easy to create division, and there are so many willing soldiers.

As we watch the dramas unfold, we should be mindful that these distractions, these false narratives, are themselves the products of choices being made by those who wish to see our country erased.  We must understand that those who shout the loudest against oppression are pursuing it with all of the resources at their disposal.  Shame on all those who continue to give themselves to this exercise in national suicide.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #107 

Riots in Milwaukee spark a beginning of the end of political correctness at Trump speech


Joe Ragonese (USDefenseWatch) says the #BlackLivesMatter movement -- born from a lie, ("hands up, don’t shoot") -- is not about black lives nor anything that matters to the African-American community.  #BlackLivesMatter was born out of the same group of anarchists that formed Occupy Wall Street.  George Soros is the architect behind both.  Some may recall that he created anarchy in Great Britain’s financial market in order to make a fortune out of the chaos that followed with the falling pound.  Follow the money, and you will find that he intends to see the American dollar fall, in order to make a great deal of money again.

Occupy Wall Street was formed to counter the TEA Party movement.  Leftist, Marxist, and big government loving politicians, on both sides of the pond were terrified by its inception.  The TEA Party movement was an organic, populist, grass roots movement that included left, right and center citizens who were fed up with the way the government was headed, especially fiscally.  The uncontrollable spending frightened most Americans and they confronted their politicians over their reckless spending.

Americans knew that the huge amounts of money being spent weren’t good for the average person.  The TEA Party was leaderless, and as such an easy target for the leftist press and organized government.  The Obama administration struck with all of its might, not allowing it to grow roots to form into a true movement.  His administration utilized the IRS, DoJ, and any other governmental body at its disposal.  At the same time the press savaged it, to the point that anyone who admitted they believed in its reasons for being, were considered evil.  The TEA Party was silenced, but it did not go away.  The rise of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders is proof of that.

After the TEA Party movement was crushed, the left felt emboldened.  First came the Occupy Wall Street crowd, hoping to show that there was an anti-TEA Party movement.  It was not real and was funded by far left groups, including George Soros.  As soon as its funding dried up, the group disappeared.  Soros, in his attempt to destabilize the United States, funded another movement, this time it was called #BlackLivesMatter.  The people he chose were easy targets.  Many poor blacks dislike the police, and any excuse to confront them is a blessing in their eyes.  The lie, "hands up -- don’t shoot," was told in the wake of a justified shooting of a black man by a white police officer.  It followed the justified shooting of a black thug in Florida by a Hispanic man who was armed for his own protection.

Barack Obama jumped on the first incident, saying that if he had a son it would look like that boy.  When the truth came out, even the Obama Justice Department, under Eric Holder, could not prosecute the shooter because, in America, a man has the right to defend himself.  Both Holder and Obama weighed into the Ferguson, Missouri, shooting too, where a policeman was forced to shoot and kill a drugged up thug who had just committed a strong armed robbery and then decided to follow up by attacking a police officer, disarming and shooting him.  Of course, the policeman killed the criminal.

The media had a field day.  It enhanced the Marxist/leftist narrative that white police officers are hunting poor black youth.  Again the Obama/Holder DoJ did everything possible to find fault with the officer’s actions, and again, they could find nothing wrong.  But the lie was told, over and over again by every left leaning media source that the boy had his hands up and the policeman still shot him.  It was proven a lie; yet to this day the lie is repeated by the main stream media.  Poor black youth and susceptible whites are drawn into this narrative because they want to believe it.  To them it is one more reason not to trust authority, and both groups are anti-authority.

The Democratic Party is fully supporting this narrative; after all, its standard bearer, Hillary Clinton, is a liar and wants people to believe her lies.  So the lie was born, nurtured and codified by the Democratic Party.  Enter George Soros with millions of dollars to spend to create chaos.  With a willing group, many paid through donations by leftists and Marxists, Milwaukee, or some other city, was bound to happen.  In this instance an armed black man was shot by a black police officer defending his life as the criminal was pointing his illegal gun at the officer.  None of it mattered.  In Milwaukee, the revolution had begun.  Blacks paraded around, defiant of the police, looting (their primary cause) and causing destruction.  They openly beat up any white person in the area, cheering as the hapless person withered in pain at the crowd’s punches and kicks.

The black mob was out for blood, anything white and anything that wore a uniform.  It was the first round of the Soros Revolution.  Stay tuned, more are about to follow.  The poor black population has nothing else to do but rant at white oppression.  After all, they don’t have to get up in the morning and go to work.  In many instances this is a fifth generation of black people who have not ever worked in their lives, depending on the Democratic Party to supply all of their needs; from cradle to grave.  Many do not know their fathers, and if they do, the father and mother are not married and do not see each other often.  The children, especially boys, never have a male role model to structure their lives after.  Remember, this is the fifth generation.  None of the males under these circumstances knows how to act like a man.

All they know is scamming "the man" (called gaming the system) and taking what they want.  They have never known the pride in accomplishment or the joy in sacrificing for others.  For relief from the extreme boredom of doing nothing all day, every day, they get high and game the system.  When opportunities arise to loot and mess up a policeman, they will take it if they think they can get away with it.  This may sound like a very racist rant; however, it is not.  This is how the lower class black communities live, yet it applies only to a small group who fit the description stated above.  They are the minority of the black population.  Most blacks I know are very hard working men and women who take care of their families, raise their children as well as anyone can and are a benefit to society.  We are talking about only a small community that seems to get all of the press and leaves America with the impression that this is typical of blacks.  The leftist media does not hold those people (the small group) accountable for their actions. Instead it would rather attack the police (many of whom are black and the people that I know) for somehow causing the plight of this group.

The real cause of their problems is the Democratic Party.  Starting with the "War on Poverty," signed into law by President Lyndon Johnson, the effects were predictable and came with lightning speed.  Democrat policies changed the basic structure of American culture.  The IRS codes were modified to reward people who were not married.  Instead of maintaining a strong family structure, which enhances our civilization, they chose to destroy the family, redefining what a family is.  Then there were the give-a-ways.  Welfare has been around in America for a very long time; however, it was always a helping hand, not a way of life.  Since the inception in 1968 of the modern welfare state, those five generations of people have learned to live doing nothing but voting for Democrats.

As each generation matured, what was once thought of as heinous became mundane.  The Democrats, with their media allies, made these people victims.  This victimization turned this group into an angry people who had nothing but hate to live on, day after day.  This is the group that George Soros targeted with the help of American Marxists, progressives, and leftist of all stripes.  This group has been manipulated by the Democratic Party for so long that they can’t even see that they are being used.  You want your free stuff?  Vote Democrat. That is all that is asked of them.  The shame is that given just a little help they can be a productive group of Americans.

Enter Donald Trump.  He went to Milwaukee and gave his law and order speech, outlining exactly the causes of the riots in that city and what he would do to fix it.  He was so explicit in his message, that the main stream media was silent on the speech.  In that speech, Mr. Trump put the blame for inter-urban conflict and despair right at the feet of Hillary Clinton and the Democrat Party.  "I am running to offer you a much better future," Trump said speaking directly to the black population, "crime and violence is an attack on the poor and it will never be accepted in the Trump administration."  Mr. Trump went on to explain that the policies holding back minority neighborhoods were due to a rigged system" led by Mrs. Clinton, whom, he said, pandered to black voters but did not really care about their suffering.

"The political class that Mrs. Clinton has been a part of for the past 30 years has abandoned the people of this county.  They only care about themselves," Donald Trump said.  "I am going to give the people their voice back."  He then went on to explain that Hillary Clinton repeatedly sides with #BlackLivesMatter activists and against the police.  That she was pushing a narrative that actually hurt minority communities.  "The problem," Trump said, "in our minority communities is not that there is too much police, but that there is not enough police. She (Clinton) is against the police, believe me.  You know it and I know it, and guess what, she knows it."  He then went on and explained that under the current administration blacks have actually fallen further behind due to Obama’s policies, which include open borders that allow illegal immigrants into the country, who take jobs away from black Americans.  This was the elephant in the room that the press and Democrats have been trying to hide for years.  No one has ever been allowed to say such a thing before.  Now the dirty little secret was in the open.

His speech was a direct appeal to black voters and reinforced his earlier speech claiming that he was the law and order candidate.  He may not win many black votes with his speech, but he will win many others who have never heard the facts stated so succinctly, or at all.  In the meantime, he is causing apoplexy among the leftist media who has hid these facts very carefully for many years.  The end of political correctness means that the truth can be discussed.  That is the greatest gift that Donald Trump has given the American people.  With a Trump presidency we will have law, order and an orderly society.  With a Clinton presidency we will have riots and chaos for her entire term of office.  Donald Trump laid out the differences very clearly.  He is doing his job, now the rest is up to us, the voters.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #108 

The Left's reticence on Islam


Bruce Thornton (FrontPage) says the bloody attack on gay night-club in Orlando by a Muslim, the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history, should be a wake-up call for progressives still unwilling to confront the illiberal core of radical Islam. The choice of target was not random, or just an expression of neurotic homophobia. Hatred of homosexuality is part of traditional Islamic Sharia law, as is the punishment of death for transgressors. Today homosexuals are still being executed in Muslim majority nations like Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia. But just as Islamic misogyny has been ignored or rationalized by the Left, so too has this violent intolerance for diversity.

This romance of progressives with Islam reflects the fundamental incoherence of Marxist-inspired leftism. From the beginning, Marxism cast itself as a product of science and reason. By their laws of historical progress, tribalism and religion were backward superstitions doomed to obsolescence, and industrial capitalism a necessary stage in the relentless march to the communist utopia. Marx himself made clear his disdain for those cultures still clinging to the old ways and beliefs. Commenting on America's 1846 war with Mexico, Marx said the U.S. had snatched California "from the lazy Mexicans, who did not know what to do with it." Those backwards peoples who did not play their assigned role in the communist libretto were worthy only of scorn.

In the twentieth century, however, the Western proletariat ignored Marx's laws of history and did not ignite the communist revolution. They preferred to take advantage of the expanding wealth created by free-market capitalism, and to join the hated bourgeoisie. Communists then looked to the Third World, where the postwar anticolonial movements promised the worldwide revolution the workers of the West had betrayed. "Natives of the underdeveloped countries unite!" cried Jean-Paul Sartre, replacing the old "workers of the world" with the oppressed victims of European colonization.

Thus was born Third Worldism, the modern reboot of the old noble savage myth. Once considered primitives that needed to be civilized, now non-Westerners were idealized. Their exotic customs and mores, and their simpler, more authentic lives, were held up as reproaches to the "air-conditioned nightmare" of the repressed bourgeois West and its soul-killing, mass-produced consumerism. The tyranny and cultural dysfunctions of these newly liberated peoples, and the persistence of their old tribal intolerance and violence, were ignored or rationalized as understandable reactions to continued Western oppression.

At the same time, multiculturalism became institutionalized in Western politics and culture, an ideology founded on the same assumption of Third Worldism: "Every Westerner is presumed guilty until proven innocent," as the French social critic Pascal Bruckner put it. We Westerners, he continued, "have been raised to detest ourselves, certain that, within our world, there is an essential evil that must be relentlessly atoned for . . . colonialism and imperialism." This fashionable self-loathing, of course, came cheap, as Westerners continued to enjoy the leisure, affluence, and human rights created by Western ideas that the people they idealized lacked or hated.

In this misguided and reductive worldview, the Islamic peoples were grouped together with the other non-Western cultures. The Arab-Israeli conflict gave this idealism a geopolitical significance that had little to do with religion. The Arabs attacking Israel were transformed into victims of neo-colonialism and "illegal occupation" by the capitalist puppet Israel. Like the Viet Cong, the Algerian Liberation Front, and Castro's guerrillas, they were freedom fighters struggling for national "self-determination." The Islamic roots of Arab revanchist hatred were ignored in the West, even as PLO leader Yasser Arafat issued the traditional Koranic call for "jihad, jihad, jihad" from the "river to the sea" -- that is, for a war to ethnically cleanse Israelis from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean.

America's Cold War involvement in other Muslim nations seemingly confirmed this narrative, making the Muslim people yet another Third World victim of the evil West, and so an object of admiration and idealization by leftists and progressives. The illiberal, anti-modern, intolerant dimensions of Sharia law were dismissed or rationalized. Just mentioning such things became a sign of Western bigotry against the oppressed "other," as the literary critic Edward Said argued in his still influential Orientalism.

The persistence of these ideas among Western liberals and progressives was immediately evident in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on 9/11. Traditional Islamic doctrines regarding jihad against the infidel were played down. America's foreign policy, particularly its support for Israel, became a favorite rationalization. Poverty, lack of economic opportunities, even restricted access to women were also invoked to explain the attack. A few brave writers on the left, like Christopher Hitchens and Nick Cohen, pointed out the contradictions between the leftist ideology of liberation, and traditional Islam's tenets of submission. But in the main, liberals and leftists stuck to Third Worldism's old narrative of oppressed victims of Western historical crimes lashing out in violence. The misogyny, hatred of homosexuals, religious obscurantism, and intolerance of infidels were all forgotten or explained away.

Indeed, the new thought-crime of Islamophobia became an obsession of government officials in the Obama era, who have enforced the "nothing to do with Islam" analysis of jihadist terror, most recently in the redaction of references to ISIS and Islam in the transcript of the Orlando killer's 911 call to the police. Just quoting accurately Koranic verses or passages in the hadith that justified violence and intolerance was deemed a hate crime. Politicians, security agencies, and the military scrubbed their public statements and training materials of any reference to violent jihad and Islam. Attacks by Muslims against Westerners were now characterized vaguely as "terrorism" or "hate," as President Obama put it on the day of the Orlando slaughter. As a result, Islam, one of Marx's "opiates" previously scorned as false, has been protected from criticism and admired as the "religion of peace" by the same leftists who protest the slightest expression of Christianity in the public square as a breach of the mythical "wall of separation between church and state."

The contradictions do not end there. We have witnessed the spectacle of Western feminists obsessing over masculine pronouns, decrying alleged "wage gaps," and exaggerating sexual assault on elite university campuses, even as millions of Muslim women endure genital mutilation, stonings, honor killings, forced marriages, inadequate education, and stunted economic opportunity. We hear cries of protest when kooks threaten to burn Korans or deface mosques with graffiti, even as Christians are being killed, tortured, enslaved, and systematically cleansed from the lands their ancestors inhabited for seven centuries before Islam even existed. The slightest hint of insult to gay people summon up thundering denunciations of homophobia, even as across the Muslim world gays are executed in accordance with Sharia law.

The Left's reticence on Islam, in addition to being a repudiation of its deepest professed principles, hamstrings our ability to engage and destroy the jihadist enemy. As James Woolsey, Director of the CIA under Bill Clinton, said after the Orlando attack, "This reluctance [to link terror to Islam] is doing real damage. You can't effectively fight something if you can't discuss it." The jihadists tell us in no uncertain terms why they want to destroy us -- we are decadent infidels whose mere existence threatens the Muslim faithful. They have been hammering this message as far back as the 1920s when the Muslim Brothers were created to call the faithful away from modernity and back to the purity of Islam's first centuries. And recent attackers have sent the same message by linking their crimes to ISIS. Perhaps after nearly a century of sending this warning by word and bloody deed, we should start heeding it.

Yet we prefer to believe that neurotic or mentally impaired individuals -- or perhaps "evil" men and "extremists" consumed with irrational "hate" -- are the reasons why countless were murdered in Fort Hood, Orlando, San Bernardino, and Boston, to name only the deadliest recent attacks. That the Left should be so blind to the beliefs of a faith that hates everything the Left stands for is just another sign of that ideology's moral and intellectual bankruptcy.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #109 

What #BlackLivesMatter really is about


Paul Mirengoff (Powerline) says "#BlackLivesMatter is not about black lives. It's about the fact that 'Occupy Wall Street' fizzled, requiring the radical Left to find another hobbyhorse, this time one with a racial hook." Now I learn, via Jack Fowler at NRO, that this the finding of a detailed report by Anne Sorock of The Frontier Lab.

Based on lengthy interviews with activists and organizers, Sorock writes:

#BlackLivesMatter as a movement represents the hopes and dreams of leftist organizers who shared with us that, until now, they had never felt such a sense of hope and excitement that their goal – as one operative put it, "total social upheaval," and "systemic change" — could be realized in their lifetime. From veteran agitators like the Weather Underground's Bill Ayers to a new crop of social-media-wielding female and LGBTQ leaders, #BlackLivesMatter is encapsulating the hopes and dreams of multiple generations of progressives in a way, they say, no movement has before.

The three female founders of the movement have made it clear, and the message has seeded itself as far down the chain as the operatives we spoke with, that #BlackLivesMatter is the vessel through which all progressive causes can flow. LGBTQ, illegal immigration, abortion, and countless other causes are simmering just beneath the public face of the focus on police violence. Even police violence flows neatly, according to #BlackLivesMatter, into economic violence — wage issues, workers' rights . . . The panoply of leftist groups come together under this banner.

The validity of Sorock's conclusion is evident from the demands recently presented by the BLM movement, which I discussed here and here.

It would seem like a long-shot to convert protests over a few highly publicized police shootings, some of which have already been found justified, into a mass movement in favor of "total social upheaval." We in the radical antiwar movement of the late 1960s tried to use the Vietnam War, an enormously traumatic and prolonged historical watershed, this way. We failed.

But we didn't have years of leftist indoctrination by high schools and colleges to build upon. #BlackLivesMatter does. Indeed, Black History months begin the race-based indoctrination as early as kindergarten.

Sorock explains the problem this way:

Young Americans across the country are ... caught up in the #BlackLivesMatter fervor, if for different reasons than the organizers and operatives who are keen to bring them in. A representative survey conducted in June 2016 with 1,965 young adults ages 19-30 revealed that 51 percent of young adults support the #BlackLivesMatter movement, compared to 32 percent who said they oppose it.

This freshman class is more likely to participate in mass movement protest action than any of the classes of the past fifty years. And, as the research will show, they are emotionally
college class is more likely to participate in mass movement protest action than any of vulnerable to the positive messages of community, excitement, justice, and purpose that #BlackLivesMatter provides, while also susceptible to the threat of exclusion from the left's cultural community.

Many of the #BlackLivesMatter agenda items are popular with students independently of any relation to racial issues. LBGTQ, amnesty for illegal immigrants, and (sadly) perhaps screwing Israel come to mind. Socialism is far from a dirty word for today's students, as Bernie Sanders demonstrated.

What could go wrong for the revolutionaries behind BLM? Plenty. Rising crime rates for one thing. In this context, to be mugged is the quintessential example of being mugged by reality.

We hear stories of white crime victims refusing to report crimes committed by blacks on the theory that this would be an exercise in white privilege (or something). But this type of lunacy seems unlikely to survive a sustained crime wave.

Nor will ordinary blacks be pleased by a spike in crime in their neighborhoods. If ordinary blacks call for more aggressive law enforcement, as they did in the early 1980s, the BLM narrative will be undercut and its utility as a vehicle for "total social upheaval" undermined.

And what about reparations? As today's students assume financial responsibilities, will they support the transfer of their income to blacks for wrongs they had no role in perpetrating? Maybe, I don't want to underestimate the extent to which they have been brainwashed. But maybe not.

And what if the LGBTQs get everything they want, student loans are forgiven, fossil fuels are made economically unviable, and so forth, but there are no reparations? Then, the joke will be on the black activists, and they won't be amused by this ultimate manifestation of "white privilege."

I'll end my speculation here, but with this warning: Fasten your seat belts.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Posts: 884
Reply with quote  #110 
This is a new day and new media.  Folks are not watching the Mainstream Media (NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, Fox, MsNBC) and the globalist and domestic/foreign enemies of America know it.  They are scared out of their wits regarding the Wilileaks of emails and correspondence.  They are scared of the silent majority has awakened.

They are scared that their propaganda is not being adhered too and people are exercising their 2nd amendment right to bear arms in record numbers during the Obama Usurpation.  They know Hillary Clinton is a bad candidate and are scared to death.

Americans must not be fooled.  Continue to use outside media to break the back of the Globalists.  They know their run is coming to an end.

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #111 

Sliming Trump


Matthew Vadum (FrontPage) says now that Donald Trump is safely ensconced as the official Republican nominee for president, the mainstream media is running an intense around-the-clock operation to deprive him of the relatively unfiltered media exposure he needs to seal the deal with the American people.

Trump being silly and playful in front of TV cameras or utilizing his sense of humor is cast as evidence of a disordered, antisocial mind. The media is focusing on minor benign details and marketing them as the evil deeds of an evil man.

Preventing Trump from communicating effectively with Americans didn't work so well during the primaries. That was when student radicals, union thugs, Democrat allies in Black Lives Matter, and the remnants of Occupy Wall Street were disrupting Trump rallies and intimidating would-be rally attendees by beating the New Yorker's supporters up in broad daylight.

This was always less an effort to counter Trump or challenge his policy platform, than a fascistic push to simply suppress his message. With Trump, the master communicator whose outreach skills arguably mirror President Obama's, the message is everything.

Squelch his voice and he's finished.

The leftist narrative being deployed against Trump is based on lies, half-truths, and nothing-burgers. They don't even have to make sense. All they have to accomplish is to hold Trump, the blunt, brash billionaire elitists love to hate because he's from lowly Queens, the home of the fictional Archie Bunker, up to ridicule. Trump may own country clubs and golf courses but he doesn't have the manners or the breeding the upper crust expects from those with money. New money is bad money unless you're a left-winger who gives it to inane social justice-oriented causes, goofy charities, nonprofits pushing radical social engineering on people, and Democrat candidates for office.

So Americans are subjected to a buffet of stupid "news" stories that happen to help journalists make their case against Trump. Meeting the Donald head-on wouldn't work so instead it's death by a thousand cuts.

The fact that a veteran admired Trump so much he gave a copy of his Purple Heart medal to the candidate who made a lighthearted joke about always wanting to receive the medal (an obvious absurdity since you have to be injured during military service to get it) was twisted to make the case Trump was a draft dodger who hates military families that have lost loved ones in wars.

The media has been gleefully resurrecting the "chickenhawk" fallacy that was the rage during George W. Bush's presidency. It held that because Cindy Sheehan lost her son in Bush's war she was uniquely qualified to pass judgment on matters of war and peace and in general to make a spectacle of herself.

Of course, once the fake dove Barack Obama was sworn in as president, Sheehan's antiwar yammering was no longer useful to the Left so blessed sister Cindy disappeared from media coverage. When the Left's favorite president of all time is in power, and he's a thuggish warmonger who can't even be bothered to consult Congress before launching an illegal, ill-advised war against Libya's Muammar Qaddafi, having antiwar leftists dog the president at every turn is no longer a positive thing.

Besides, Trump sacrificed nothing, according to the wrathful Khizr Khan, so he needs to shut up. Trump's run-in with the sleazy immigration lawyer is still receiving media attention. The lie that Trump attacked Khan's hero son who died in Iraq getting his men to move away from danger won't die. It's taken on a life of its own and hardened into fact in the minds of many.

This "chickenhawk" fallacy gives rise to another fallacy that rears its ugly head whenever there is an opportunity to make Republicans look heartless. That is the idea that the words and actions of Gold Star families can never be questioned. Even though Khan, whose sketchy background has been emerging, used a prime speaking spot at the Democrat convention in Philadelphia last week to promote even higher levels of immigration that would financially benefit him as an immigration lawyer, he is supposed to be untouchable because the media wants it that way.

At the same time the media ignores the fact that Hillary Clinton let four men die in Benghazi, Libya, when U.S. facilities came under terrorist attack, and then lied to the surviving family members' faces, blaming an anti-Islam YouTube video nobody saw. The media also avoids providing a body count for the Arab Spring that Clinton inflicted on North Africa and the Middle East.

"It's funny to be lectured about respect for vets and the military by a party that's spent years calling our soldiers rapists and baby killers," tweeted Legal Insurrection contributor "Aleister."

Contrast what happened to Trump with what happened when someone gave former Rep. Gabby Giffords (D-Ariz.) a Purple Heart that she hadn't earned. The gift came after she nearly died at the hands of a crazed shooter and it was treated as a heartwarming gesture from an appreciative citizen toward a public servant who had suffered so much for her country.

Trump gets creamed by the media no matter what he does.

After playfully tolerating an infant's crying from the podium at a rally, Trump eventually asked the mother to remove the baby from an event. That's what decent people do. It's called politeness. It's a non-issue if you're a normal person with a healthy respect for social norms but rabid feminists seized on it as example of the Republican's supposed contempt for babies and mothers.

At CNN's website MoveOn mom Kristin Rowe-Finkbeiner berates Trump, claiming he was mocking the mother. Trump doesn't realize "that when he throws a baby out, the metaphorical bathwater can't be ignored." This garden-variety humorless left-wing feminist used the opportunity to blather on about equal pay, how women outnumber men in this country, and the need for crazy-expensive big government programs like paid family parental leave.

To the Left what Trump did is a grievous offense against civility and social norms, yet Clinton's communistic blueprint It Takes A Village, calls for the state "to teach, train and raise children," adding that "[p]arents have a secondary role." Put Hillary in the White House and she'll solve the problem of crying babies by terminating parental rights. After all, that's what she says in her book.

And don't forget that the Left deems this crying baby incident to be far worse than Clinton's strident, unconditional, unapologetic support for the taxpayer-funded human body parts trafficking concern known as Planned Parenthood.

During the Democratic National Convention last week CNN and the New York Times pushed out the lie that at a presser Trump had invited Russia to somehow hack Hillary Clinton's emails which are far as anyone can tell no longer exist. The party of sedition and treason went nuts calling Trump a traitor. In reality all Trump did was offer a quip to reporters, urging Russia or any other governments that may have Clinton's mountain of missing emails in their possession to return them to the United States. Nor was Trump's statement tantamount to asking Russia to interfere in U.S. elections.

The media left out the fact that Clinton is much closer to Russia than Trump is and that that nation's government has compromised her. She even cut bad deals with that country to hand over a big chunk of American uranium to the Kremlin.

Journalists are engaging in all this mischief because they are acutely aware that if Trump can somehow penetrate the massive propaganda force-field the mainstream media has erected around his campaign, the party is over. The thinking among the media and the Left – but I repeat myself – is that if they can keep strategically placing nasty little booby-traps in the undisciplined candidate's path they can keep him off-message and floundering long enough to get would-be federal inmate Hillary Clinton across the finish line Nov. 8.

If he can reach voters with his tremendously popular message of law and order, immigration enforcement and border security, and mostly pro-growth economic policies, he wins – convincingly – in a year of political populism and anti-establishment anger.

If Trump focuses on one issue, specifically, how truly rotten and anemic the Obama-Clinton economy is, he probably wins.

Wall Street Journal columnist Daniel Henninger said Clinton, whose class warfare-dominated platform calls for far-reaching, even punitive, tax hikes all over the place ought to doom her candidacy. "Trump should be killing her on that point," he said on the most recent installment of the "John Batchelor Show."

Despite polling showing Clinton ahead of Trump, seasoned political handicappers know that Hillary's support is a mile wide and an inch deep. Even gung-ho leftists Michael Moore and Cenk Uygur think Clinton, the ultimate political insider, is such a lousy candidate that she's destined to take a dive on Nov. 8.

Reporters are doing these terrible things because they are terrified that there will be no third Obama term and that Americans will have to wait a few more years for a president who has a uterus. And worst of all in their view, is the possibility that America just might have a future with Trump in the Oval Office. That is unacceptable to these ink-stained wretches and blow-dried talking heads who insist on influencing the news instead of merely reporting it.

The media is also trying to depict the Trump campaign as in a state of growing disarray, even though Democrats are experiencing unprecedented political meltdowns.

Top staffers were liquidated in a Bolshevik-style purge at the Democratic National Committee after leaked emails showed top Democrats engaged in unethical behavior, including waging war against second-place primary finisher Bernie Sanders.

DNC chairman Debbie Wasserman Schultz got the axe and was replaced on an interim basis by Gore-Lieberman 2000 campaign manager Donna Brazile. Brazile, in turn, gave the bum's rush to DNC CEO Amy Dacey, communications director Luis Miranda, and chief financial officer Brad Marshall.

Although recent polls show Clinton's lead over Trump growing in the wake of the businessman's messaging problems, the admittedly subjective anecdotal evidence on the ground suggests Trump is doing fine. His fundraising has dramatically picked up.

Trump continues receiving rock star treatment at rallies around the country such as those held this week in Portland, Me., and Daytona Beach and Jacksonville, Fla. Trump speaks to overflow crowds while Clinton has great difficulty filling more modestly sized venues. There is no passion for Hillary. There are plenty of people who feel they have to vote for her because having a president with a uterus would be a world-historic moment.

But reporters still aren't asking the Clinton campaign about the candidate's fall in December 2012 in which she suffered brain damage. Her coughing fits at the podium, strange facial expressions at the Democrat convention as celebratory balloons were falling, and jerky body movements also don't inspire confidence in her ability to physically endure the rigors of the presidency. Nor does the fact that she hasn't held a press conference in 244 days. She is everywhere on TV and yet she says next to nothing of substance. She is hiding in plain sight and the media is protecting her from having to answer inconvenient questions.

It also should be noted that the Trump candidacy is also bringing out the worst in conservatives who refuse to get behind the GOP nominee.

At Mediaite, conservative talk show host John Ziegler is already pushing for Sean Hannity to be "punished severely" by having his Fox News Channel show canceled because he got on the Trump train early and proved influential among primary voters.

In a sophomoric, oddly written rant, Ziegler accuses Hannity of recently launching a campaign to cover his posterior for boosting Trump, whom he declares was obviously unelectable from the start. He calls Hannity "not at all a bright guy" and "the guy who married the obviously wrong girl, and now wants to try to blame his buddies, who tried to tell him she clearly wasn't the right one."

Ziegler is far from the worst offender among right-leaning commentators as anyone who has been following the recent adventures of Mitt Romney, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, Sens. Jeff Flake and Lindsey Graham, George Will, and Bill Kristol can attest.

Meanwhile, the leader of a Republican anti-Trump group is moving her efforts against the candidate to a new level. Liz Mair, the founder of Make America Awesome, an anti-Trump super PAC, is now communications director for something new called Republicans for Johnson-Weld, the Libertarian Party's presidential ticket.

Mair, a former Republican National Committee online communications director, called Trump a "loudmouthed dick" on CNN Wednesday, adding that she expects him to continue "basically acting as if he's on a suicide mission and aiming to take the whole rest of the party down with him."

Critics say the Libertarian ticket is working to elect Clinton by siphoning votes away from Trump.

Aside from politics junkies, most people think of Libertarians as vaguely conservative so it's hard to argue with that critique.

The ticket this year consists of two former Republicans, former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson and his would-be vice president, former Massachusetts Gov. Bill Weld.

Both men say nice things about Democrat standard-bearer Hillary Clinton. Weld said she was "by and large a good secretary of state," and Johnson called her "a wonderful public servant." Referring to the end run Clinton did around public records laws by maintaining private email servers, Johnson said "I don't think there was criminal intent on her part."

The two men are Clinton shills, Breitbart's Patrick Howley opines.

"The Johnson-Weld team seems to think that libertarianism is mostly about admitting as many immigrants to the United States as possible. This is a far cry from Ron Paul's pro-borders libertarian movement of a few years ago. The libertarian movement has shifted to the progressive globalist Left."

Johnson even attacks religious freedom laws, likening them to a "black hole."

Such laws might "open up a plethora of discrimination that you never believed could exist," Johnson said. "And it'll start with Muslims."

While America is under siege by homicidal Islamofascists, Johnson and the rest of the nation's left-wingers are worried that somewhere in the country a Muslim woman might have to take her veil off to pose for a driver license photo.

It's a pretty piddling matter to be concerned about given that America's future is on the line.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #112 

Progressive racism

pic26.jpgBarbara Kay (FrontPage) says the timing for the recent release of "Progressive Racism," Book VI in David Horowitz's series, The Black Book of the American Left, could not be more propitious. This volume, which explores the politicized betrayal of MLK's vision in detail, is arguably the most important of the series because, as Horowitz writes in his preface, the subject "goes to the heart of the most problematic assault on the American social contract." The book is a compilation of Horowitz's columns on race published (mostly, with a few recent exceptions) in the late 1990s and early 2000s.

Horowitz writes that he structured the chronologically arranged articles to,

"form a running journal of the conflicts that accompanied the transformation of the civil rights cause. Until this transformation it had been a movement to integrate African-Americans into America's multi-ethnic democracy. In less than a decade it had become a movement led by demagogues to refashion racial grievances into a general assault on white people and on the country they were said to 'dominate.' In its core agendas, the new civil rights movement was an assault on the basic American social contract, and in particular the 14th Amendment's commitment to equal rights under the law and thus to race-neutral standards and race-neutral government practices. Post-King civil rights became a movement to institutionalize racial preferences -- the same kind of discriminatory practices that characterized segregation -- and to recreate a race-conscious political culture in which blacks and a handful of designated minorities were singled out as the groups to be racially privileged. On the other side of the coin, whites were made targets of exclusion, suspicion and disapprobation."

The book's first section, "Decline and Fall of the Civil Rights Movement," begins with "Memories in Memphis" (1999) in which Horowitz challenges both the creation myth and the illusory achievements of affirmative action head-on:

"[A]ffirmative action was not created because of white racism. It was created because of widespread black failure to take advantage of the opportunities made available when legal segregation was ended. Since the politics of the left are premised on the idea that social institutions determine individual outcomes, this failure had to be the result of institutional rather than individual factors";

and the alleged achievement:

"[Affirmative Action's] primary achievement is to have convinced black Americans that whites are so racist that some external force must compel their respect and, secondarily, that blacks need affirmative action in order to gain access to the American dream. The further consequence of this misguided remedy has been to sow a racial paranoia in the black community so pervasive and profound that even blacks who have benefited from America's racial opportunities have been significantly affected in the way they think."

One of the more vexing tropes that pervades black activist discourse is "institutional racism." This Soviet-like abstraction, unverifiable and collectively inculpatory is, Horowitz argues, the last refuge for desperate militants running short of individual racist acts to condemn. It is on the one hand meaningless, but on the other impossible to rebut, rendering ineffectual all attempts to counter it. As Horowitz writes:

"The belief in the power of institutional racism allows black civil rights to denounce America as a racist society, when it is actually the only society on earth -- black, white, brown or yellow -- whose defining creed is anti-racist; a society to which blacks from black-ruled nations regularly flee in search of opportunity and refuge. But the real bottom line is that the phantom of institutional racism allows black leaders to avoid the encounter with real problems in their own communities which are neither caused by whites nor solvable by the actions of whites."

The main effect of affirmative action seems to have been to heighten awareness of and sensitivity to black self-esteem in order to make life easier for students only too conscious of the disparity in educational preparedness between them and their white peers. Blacks attending university on affirmative action tend to drop out at far greater rates than whites - at Berkeley it is nearly three times the white dropout rate - or take far longer to get their degrees. But any allusion to this reality became a forbidden subject.

In the following section, "Racial Correctness," Horowitz offers examples of the many ways in which the "race card" dominates the discourse in American society on every level. When Horowitz wrote an article for Salon, "Guns Don't Kill Black People -- other Black People Do," which put the bald facts and statistics of black crime on the table, he was told by a reader he had no business opinionating on black issues because he wasn't black. The unspoken assumption was that facts and statistics need not be taken seriously by blacks, because their situation is unique, and they therefore aren't bound by the same rules of logic or justice as whites.

In "An Academic Lynching (1997)" Horowitz tells the story of Lino Graglia, a Sicilian-born American, an attorney in the Eisenhower Justice Department, who taught constitutional law at the University of Texas in Austin for 33 years. His martyrdom is worth recounting in full because what happened to him is a template for all the ruined lives in academia that can be traced to political correctness around race.

The syndrome is called a "mobbing." In a classic mobbing episode, the underlying "crime" is typically a statement that is benign or objectively unassailable. But someone or some group takes offence. The accused at first assumes his friends and colleagues will rush to defend him. But if the critics are able to cast their case in politically fashionable terms -- the fight against racism or sexism, most commonly -- then personal loyalties go out the window. People rush to join the torch-bearing crowd, lest the accused's crimes tarnish them as well. Graglia was mobbed by his chancellor, 51 colleagues in the law school and state legislators. He was called a KKK supporter, a racist and "academic riff raff." Graglia was charged by the local NAACP chapter and student groups for "racial harassment."

His crime? To state his opinion in a speech to the Students for Equal Opportunity (SEO), where he was faculty advisor. The subject under discussion was the Hopwood case, which had recently ended affirmative action at the university. Twenty years before, Graglia had written a book, Disaster by Decree: the Supreme Court Decisions on Race and the Schools, which was highly critical of affirmative action programs. So it wasn't as if Graglia had been hiding his light under a bushel. The opinion he expressed was that affirmative action cannot obscure the fact that blacks and Mexican-Americans are not academically competitive with whites and Asians.

He said:

"Racial preferences are the root cause of virtually all the major problems plaguing American campuses today. They result in a student body with two groups, identifiable by race, essentially in different academic ballparks. An inability to compete successfully in the game being played necessarily results in demands that the game be changed, and thus are born demands for black and Hispanic studies and 'multiculturalism'....Concealment and deception are therefore always essential elements of racial preference programs and thus is born insistence on political correctness and the need to suppress 'hate speech'".

One does not hear this sort of thing anymore -- or at least one does not hear it emanating from the lips of academics, even those with tenure. Not because there is no truth in what Lino Graglia said, but because of what happened to him for saying it. Bad things still happen to racially incorrect academics; it is just that the triggering "offences" have been dumbed down considerably since the Graglia affair. Since those in authority at universities have given no indication so far that they will stand up for their wrongfully tarred and feathered scapegoats, we can expect the show trials of insufficiently racially correct professors and administrators to continue, and the population to swell in those gulags where mugged classic liberals with a nostalgia for freedom of speech gather to express their astonishment and lick their wounds.

Racial correctness is at its core an endorsement of black separatism.  Horowitz summarizes:

"This cold-hearted calculus is a central thesis of what is now generously described as 'black separatism'." If blacks want to march behind a racist kook, fine, or want racially segregated dorms and racially segregated graduation ceremonies and racially separated curricula, fine. Basically we are back to "separate but equal."

Playing the race card has done nothing to help the blacks who need help most and a great deal to harm them. One of the great paradoxes of progressive indulgence for the myth that racism is at the root of all black problems is that the elephant in the room, black crime, cannot be discussed with candor -- or at all, except when the thrust is black victimization of white policemen. There are racist cops, and some of them do kill blacks under (filmed) circumstances in which they would be very unlikely to kill whites. Nevertheless, such individual tragedies, increasingly explosive in their collective emotional and political impact, often serve to obscure the more pervasive and intractable cultural problem it is racially incorrect to mention (my own recent foray into such a discussion attracted a slew of angry emails and Twitter accusations accusing me of racism).

Horowitz wades boldly in on this subject where progressives fear to tread. In "Guns Don't Kill People, Other Black People Do" (1999), he adduces troubling but incontestable statistics, such as the fact that black men are eight times more likely to commit murder than white men, a reality that spikes fear in police officers tasked with keeping order in high-crime areas. In another article, "Death of the Civil Rights Movement" (2000), we learn that in 2000, there were an estimated 31,000 gangs in the U.S. with a combined membership approaching one million, 80% of which were black or Hispanic. According to a 1993 Justice report, 70% of violent juvenile defendants in criminal court were black males, as well as 72% of rape defendants, 78% of robbery defendants and 61% of assault defendants (similar statistics for today can be found here). Horowitz's refusal to play the game of racial correctness, whose first rule is to ignore inner-city cultural epidemiology, earned him vicious blowback and contributed to his professional marginalization. The fact that he is himself the grandfather of black children earns him no points with progressives.

In the next section, "Reparations for Slavery," Horowitz takes aim against the most hyper-alienated of black leaders, those for whom equal rights and opportunities, even if fully realized, would never be enough. They want America to "show me the money." Reparations is the hottest of controversial subjects on the race file, and Horowitz met the challenge with customary resolution. In response to reparations movement founder Randall Robinson's treatise, The Debt: What America Owes to Blacks (namely more than $4 trillion), Horowitz mounted a highly-publicized rebuttal, "Ten Reasons Why Reparations are a Bad Idea," which in turn set off a firestorm of rage and counter-rebuttal on campuses across the country.

Some of Horowitz's stated figures and claims in his "ten reasons" -- for example, that if American blacks were a nation, they would be the tenth richest in the world -- are hotly contested, but on one critical point Horowitz is, I think, unassailably right: the reparations movement is virulently anti-American.

To reduce the relationship of blacks and whites to a cash nexus -- all blacks are "owed" and all whites must therefore "pay" -- would, Horowitz argues, pit blacks against whites, but also against other ethnic groups, who have had their own struggles in making it as full Americans. It would furthermore be to deny that "[f]or all their country's faults, African-Americans have an enormous stake in America and above all in the heritage that men like Jefferson helped to shape...The American idea needs the support of its African-American citizens. But African-Americans also need the support of the American idea."

Reparations has never taken hold outside of a militant core. A 2002 "Millions for Reparations March" was a flop, attracting only hundreds of participants. Just as well, since the rhetoric was quite incendiary. New York City Councilman Charles Barron confessed himself so angry he felt like going up to "any white person" and "slap[ping] them." One rapped shouted, "Show me the money, or I'll show you my Glock." Virulent anti-Semite and New Black Panthers "Minister of Defence" Malik Zulu Shabazz ranted: "The president wants to talk about a terrorist named bin Laden. I don't want to talk about bin Laden. I want to talk about a terrorist called Christopher Columbus. I want to talk about a terrorist called George Washington. I want to talk about a terrorist called Rudy Giuliani. The real terrorists have always been the United States of America."

The final section, "Progressive Racism," examines the double standards black ideologues endorse for anti-social or even criminal behavior in the name of combatting an alleged systemic attitude of "white supremacy." What would not be tolerated in whites is well tolerated in blacks. Victimization of blacks by whites is highly publicized, but not the reverse.

When, in December 2000, five professional young men and women were tortured and shot in the head by sadistic black brothers, with only one survivor -- the shocking incident is known as the Wichita massacre - not a single national news outlet reported the case contemporaneously ("Racial Witch Hunt," 2001). In 2002, a white man, Ken Tillery, was lynched by four black men in Jasper, Texas, the same town where James Byrd was lynched by white men in 1998. Byrd's name became a household word. Tillery's not so much.

The book ends with a 2012 article co-authored with John Perazzo, "Black Skin Privilege and the American Dream." Here the concepts of "white skin privilege" and "institutional racism" are unpacked as "sophistries [that] made possible new battles and continued campaigns that annually lured millions of dollars into the deep pockets of 'anti-racist' organizations and movements, even as racists were no longer detectable in the institutions themselves."

"Black privilege" rests on three main pillars.

First is the progressive assumption that in any incident involving blacks and whites with abuse as the central motif, allegations of racism-motivated guilt against whites will be received as truth without -- or before -- substantiation to reinforce the claim, while reverse claims are meticulously interrogated or even ignored.

A case in point is the infamous 2006 "rape" of a black stripper by three white male members of the Duke University lacrosse team, which turned out, to the utter dismay of progressives, to be a complete fabrication on the part of the accuser, Crystal Mangum, who later went to prison convicted of second-degree murder in an unrelated incident.  On her word alone, a posse of 88 Duke academics charged in a notorious ad that "white male privilege" had permitted the perpetrators of "this horrific racist incident" to remain "safe under the cover of silent whiteness" and given them "license to rape, maraud, deploy hate speech and feel proud of themselves in the bargain." Even after the accused were exonerated, none of the 88 ever apologized nor did they suffer professionally for their rush to judgment. Quite the contrary, in fact.

The second pillar of black privilege is the reflexive impulse in the liberal media to ignore, downplay or "explain" instances of hate crimes or hate speech by blacks against whites.

Regarding hate crimes: In the two months following the death of Trayvon Martin in Florida, black assailants perpetrated more than a dozen brutal attacks on white victims motivated by vengeance for Martin. In Mobile, a white man was assaulted by a mob of black men armed with brass knuckles, bricks, bats and steel pipes after he asked them to stop playing basketball in front of his house. According to his sister, who witnessed the incident, as the victim lay bleeding, one of the assailants told her, "Now that's justice for Trayvon."

In Phoenix, weeks after the Martin killing, a 22-year old black motorist shot and killed mentally disabled "white Hispanic" Daniel Adkins outside a Taco Bell restaurant. The shooter claimed a "stand your ground" defence, though no weapons were found on Radkins, who may or may not have attempted to punch the shooter after an altercation. In many respects this was a mirror image of the Trayvon Martin affair, but it is doubtful that many people will recognize the name of Daniel Radkins. The shooter was not charged.

Horowitz and Perazzo cite the book, White Girl Bleed a Lot: The return of racial violence and how the media ignore it, by Colin Flaherty, which documents a plethora of black race riots, shootings, stabbings and sexual crimes that have gone unreported by the media under the rubric of black privilege.

As I write in early July, Micah Johnson, a heavily armed black sniper, "upset about Black Lives Matter," has just killed five white police officers at a peaceful Dallas march protesting police abuse (He himself was killed after a gun battle with police). His Facebook page revealed he is a supporter of the New Black Panther Party, a group that advocates violence against whites (and Jews in particular). It will be interesting to see the spin black militants and white progressives put on this affair. (One of my detractors almost instantly tweeted to me that Johnson was goaded to action by America's systemic racism; I tweeted back asking if Lee Harvey Oswald was goaded to murder JFK by America's "systemic communism." I didn't hear back.)

As for hate speech, a cursory perusal of some of the content in comments by anti-American and anti-Semitic black cleric Bishop Desmond Tutu or anti-white black actor Samuel L. Jackson will convince any fair-minded observer that there are consequences for white celebrity racists or anti-Semites like Mel Gibson that don't apply to blacks in the public eye. Gibson will never be offered the 40 honorary doctorates Jackson boasts, or receive the Presidential Medal of Freedom Jackson received from Bill Clinton. Not that Gibson should have been so honored! But then neither should Jackson.

The third pillar is an activist judiciary that, in the spirit of "leveling the playing field," complacently rigs the law to favor collective institutional entitlements rather than individual justice, particularly, but not only, in the area of education. As Columbia University law professor Patricia Williams (who is black) explains: "If the modern white man, innocently or not, is the inheritor of another's due, then it must be returned." Or, as Chief Justice Thurgood Marshall bluntly told fellow justice William O. Douglas, "You [white] guys have been practicing discrimination for years. Now it's our turn."

Consequently, this past June, in a "tortured 4-3 opinion," regarding the case of Abigail Fisher, a white student who claimed she had been rejected by the University of Texas on unconstitutional grounds, the Supreme Court voted to uphold racial preferences in U of Texas admissions. Dissenting Justices Alito, Roberts and Thomas described as "remarkably wrong" Justice Anthony Kennedy's opinion that "[c]onsiderable deference is owed to a university in defining those intangible characteristics, like student body diversity, that are central to its identity and educational mission." Nevertheless, the ruling finds favour with other elite universities and, of course, the Obama administration.

The message bruited by progressive elites that affirmative action is both ethical and legally normative has trickled down to permeate the institutional culture everywhere in the U.S. Universities, major corporations and franchises actively recruit minorities and sponsor scholarships for them, and even give bonuses to managers who successfully recruit and promote black hires. Even public services in which high standards for competence can make all the difference in public safety, as in fire departments, have signed on to aggressive affirmative action programs, sometimes with what would be entertaining results, if they were not so disquieting.

The left's most beguiling argument for affirmative action is its necessity to redress past injustices: that even though the practice may cause a certain collateral damage, the benefits conferred on the formerly disadvantaged group are worth the cost to others. Horowitz and Perrazo respond that the artificial leveling of the playing field is a "totalitarian" impulse and a threat to freedom. "One standard and one justice for the only equality that is not at odds with individual freedom." Affirmative action, they say, harms more than the individuals it displaces.

"When enforced by government and backed by law, it tears at the very fabric of the social order, regardless of whom it benefits. The wounds that the principle of separate and unequal inflicts on the community are incomparably greater than the damages incurred by individuals or the benefits that accrue to them. Building racial bias into the framework of the nation compromises the neutrality of the law that governs us all. It corrupts the standards that make a diverse community possible, and creates a racial spoils system that is the antithesis of the American dream, which was Martin Luther King's dream as well. By corrupting the principle of neutrality, racial privilege breaks the common bond between America's diverse communities and undermines the trust that makes the nation whole."

Just so. The erosion of common bonds and the undermining of trust between our communities is proceeding apace before our eyes in daily reports of encouraged or actual violence - not in spite of, but because of the erroneous progressive belief that separate and unequal treatment of citizens based on history and color is the way to bring about an equal and united citizenry.

David Horowitz is once again to be commended for his unwavering resistance to reprehensible good intentions on the left and exposure of the hell to which they are the paving stones, as well as for his eloquent commitment to the fundamental conservative belief that the principle of individualism as America's Founders conceived it is the only path to the true equality all right-thinking Americans aspire to.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #113 

Defined by a deep hatred of America


Texas1974 says leftist ideology is, and always has been defined by a deep hatred of America, complete intolerance, unchecked dishonesty, chronic cynicism, profound hypocrisy, unending negativism, constant grievance peddling, simple ignorance, and covert racism through the silent bigotry of low expectations.

It has a long history of failure and has brought only pain and misery to those who have suffered under its heavy boot. It is an ideology that views dishonesty and criminal behavior as clever virtues serving its radical agenda.

Over the years it has come under different names including communism, socialism and liberalism as the ruling class has attempted to disguise its true nature and package it as something new and improved that will appeal to apathetic and uninformed naves.

Today the new word is "progressive." It sounds nice and very modern, but it's not at all. It's still the same old failed ideology that hasn't changed since Karl Marx. In the market place of honest ideas and open debate it has no place. That is why it works hard to control the media. It also cannot survive without a critical mass of poorly educated constituents, which explains why public education never improves.

A well-educated middle class is its worst enemy, which explains why we have open borders to bring in the impoverished and ignorant hoards, who will overwhelm the middle class and dumb down the voting populace. Of course all of this does great harm to any nation, but the elite ruling class is perfectly content to rule over a nation in decline and cares very little about future generations including those of their own children and grandchildren.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #114 

Feel the burn


NBC News is reporting that seventeen protesters were arrested outside the Republican National Convention on Wednesday afternoon after a scuffle broke out during a flag-burning, in the most dramatic confrontations seen here this week.

Two of the demonstrators were charged with assaulting an officer. The others were charged with inciting to violence, a misdemeanor, police said.

The incident unfolded at intersection of Prospect Avenue and East 4th Street, just beyond a security entrance for delegates walking into the Republican National Convention. Police, protesters, media and onlookers filled the street. 

Cleveland Police Chief Calvin Williams, who was at the scene, said the person who started burning the flag caught himself and others around him on fire and officers moved in to put out the flames.

"That's when they got defensive," Williams said, "and that's when they assaulted an officer."

One officer was punched and pushed, according to Williams, and "the whole area got amped up when this happened."

Video from the scene showed the flag, followed by a scuffle and a visual of someone spraying a substance into the middle of the crowd. Police said no pepper spray was used but that an officer did use a fire extinguisher.

A group that provides legal services for protesters criticized the police for what it called "aggressive shows of force."

"The Ohio NLG is highly concerned about these arrests and the escalation of police tactics against peaceful demonstrators," said Jocelyn Resnick of the Ohio Lawyers Guild.

The protest was announced in advance by Joey Johnson, a revolutionary communist known for flag-burnings. Hours before the protest, there was a call on Twitter for counter-protesters to turn out, too.

Johnson was one of the 17 arrested, but Williams said none of the charges were related to burning the flag, which is legal. Johnson and other protesters chanted "America was never great" as they were taken into custody.

The burned flag that led to a fight between protesters just blocks from where the Republican National Convention was being held.

After the crowd was dispersed, police put crime-scene markers on the the remnants of the flag, placards carried by the protesters and other debris.

Before Wednesday, there had been only five arrests related to RNC protests. There are 5,500 law enforcement officers assigned to convention duty, but they had given protesters, even those marching on roads without permits, a wide berth.

On Tuesday afternoon at Public Square, a hub for RNC activists and attention-seekers, a "little shoving match" erupted during a face-off between conspiracy theorist and radio host Alex Jones and some protesters opposed to Donald Trump, Williams said.

The chief helped separate the groups as hundreds of reinforcements streamed into and surrounded the square.

So far, the political Left has been impotent at Cleveland.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #115 

#BlackLivesMatter Columnist says we need a military coup if Trump wins

Red Alert Politics is reporting that the failed coup in Turkey that killed more than 200 people and wounded thousands more could be coming to America -- if Donald Trump is elected and #BlackLivesMatter activist and Daily News columnist Shaun King has his way.
King tweeted this weekend that the U.S. would suffer the same fate as Turkey if the soon-to-be Republican nominee won the presidency.


"If Donald Trump becomes president, you are fooling yourself if you think we're far from having a coup our own selves," King tweeted. "I'm dead serious."

This isn't the first time King has said a President Trump could lead to violence. In a May 9 article in the Daily News, the activist stated that anarchists might vote for the billionaire because his presidency would result in a civil war.

It's strange that a movement that claims they want to fight injustice peacefully has a spokesman who repeatedly fantasizing about civil wars and uprisings which would lead to death and destruction.

I have a few words for Shaun:


A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #116 

Cities brace for nationwide day of rage


Matthew Vadum (FrontPage) says leftists, anarchists, and #BlackLivesMatter activists are planning violent national "Day of Rage" protests in 37 cities across America today.

The original Days of Rage were the Weatherman-organized riots over three days in October 1969, a follow-up after the "success" of violent protests at the Democratic Party's national convention in Chicago in 1968.

Now the "hacktivist" group Anonymous is reportedly calling for nationwide Day of Rage protests today.

"We are calling upon the citizens of the United States in conjunction with the #BlackLivesMatter movement as well as other civil rights activists to participate in a day of action against the injustices of corrupt officers," the group says in a video.

Protests are scheduled for 37 cities across America including Washington D.C., Philadelphia, Chicago, Denver, Des Moines, Memphis, Little Rock, Miami, Seattle, Los Angeles, Atlanta, Baltimore, Boston, and Detroit.

Also on the list is Cleveland, the city where the Republican National Convention officially gets underway Monday. Local blogger Mike Cernovich makes the alarming claim, allegedly based on inside information, that Cleveland police have "issued a stand down order to officers." He writes that Cleveland cops do not intend to defend Trump supporters who are attacked, citing the city's seemingly weak plan to use police on bicycles to keep rival protest groups separated.

Cleveland's mayor is Frank G. Jackson (D), a gun-grabber and a member of Michael Bloomberg's Mayors Against Illegal Guns Coalition.

Jackson won't be winning a profile-in-courage award anytime soon. After the city was sued in connection with the 2014 police-involved killing of Tamir Rice, a 12-year-old black boy who brandished a toy pistol, the mayor apologized for standard legal language that the city used in defense pleadings.

"Plaintiffs' decedent's injuries, losses, and damages complained of, were directly and proximately caused by the failure of plaintiffs' decedent to exercise due care to avoid injury," and that the child's injuries "were directly and proximately caused by the acts of plaintiffs' decedent, not this defendant," that is, the city, read the legal boilerplate.

Jackson quickly caved in to criticism, absurdly apologizing for legal drafters' "poor use of words."

"We used words and phrased things in such a way that was very insensitive," he whimpered.

This linguistic silliness brings to mind the forcing out of District of Columbia government official David Howard in 1999 over the word "niggardly," which some city employees mistakenly believed was some kind of racial epithet. In fact the 500-year-old word, which Howard used in the context of a budget discussion, means miserly or stingy. It has no racial connotations.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Army is taking the Day of Rage threat seriously. It has advised all military personnel to stay away from the 37 cities identified.

"For security reasons, we don't discuss force-protection measures that we put into place at our Army installations or the specifics of cautionary advice we provide to our soldiers," said Army spokesman Lt. Col. Jason Shropshire.

"However, the advisory was to provide situational awareness for all Army personnel within the U.S. Northern Command area of responsibility who may find themselves in the vicinity of any protests (planned or spontaneous)," he added. "At this time, we do not have information regarding any specific threats to [Department of Defense] personnel."

An Army notice states that the list of cities constitutes "a list of places NOT to be on Friday the 15th." It continues, while the video "does specify nonviolence and denounces the actions taken against police officers that were not involved in these deaths, with the tagline ‘Day of Rage' it is safe to expect emotions to be running very high on both sides of the line. No matter how great your empathy might be for those who have unjustly lost their lives, these protests are not safe places to be."

The notice also states that "being anywhere near these protests greatly increases the chance that you could become a victim of violence. When the mob mentality takes over, normally decent people can commit heinous acts."

Of course, the Army is assuming #BlackLivesMatter supporters and leftists are good people underneath. It's a risky assumption.

The Anonymous video announcing the protests opens with the title, "EMERGENCY RESPONSE CALL TO ACTION #FridayOfSolidarity JULY 15 2016." It is followed by graphic cellphone footage of Alton Sterling being shot and Philando Castile in his final moments after being shot. The video demands prosecution of the cops who killed Sterling and Castile in separate incidents last week.

A computer-generated voice states:

"We are infuriated as we watch day after day another human murdered because an irresponsible, corrupt system allows free rein to cops that continuously abuse their power. Thus we are calling upon the citizens of the United States to rise up and stand in solidarity with the people of Dallas, Baton Rouge, Falcon Heights, as well as Baltimore and Ferguson. We are grieving for the lost lives that were taken by the hands of a corrupted authority."

The voice also warns law enforcement:

"To police departments across the United States, we are not your enemy; however, it is in your hands if you want us to stay that way or not. We will not be silenced and we will not be intimidated."

The video specifically threatens police departments in Minnesota and Louisiana.

"To the St. Anthony and the Baton Rouge police departments, we've already launched attacks on your virtual infrastructure. We are prepared to release every single piece of evidence that will expose your corruption and blatant disregard for human life."

It should be noted that the St. Anthony, Minn., police department seems to have been mentioned because it is under contract to patrol Falcon Heights where Castile was shot. Falcon Heights mayor Peter Lindstrom says as a result of the shooting that contract is under review.

The debunking website Snopes is skeptical of the threat this new call for a Day of Rage presents to the public. The site says Anonymous supposedly called for a nationwide Day of Rage on Aug. 21, 2014 after the killing of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo. There were certainly many protests across the country around the time about Brown's death but whether they were worthy of being described with the rather scary-sounding moniker Day of Rage is debatable. The more intense and violent demonstrations that were accompanied by riots generally came later.

On the other hand, remember that Day of Rage was the name of the event that launched the hyper-violent Occupy Wall Street movement in lower Manhattan on Sept. 17, 2011.

So it is dangerous to assume the Day of Rage that may be planned for today is a hoax.

While race-related turmoil rises in the U.S., a new Harvard study led by a black economist found that there is no racial bias in police-involved shootings, the New York Times reports.

"It is the most surprising result of my career," said Harvard professor Ronald G. Fryer Jr., of the study that looked at more than a thousand shootings in 10 large police departments in California, Florida, and Texas.

In the shootings studied, cops were more likely to discharge their weapons against whites without having first been attacked. Black and white civilians involved in such shootings were equally likely to have been armed.

In Houston, Texas, police were roughly 20 percent less likely to shoot when the suspect was a black person. In New York City black suspects were more likely to be subjected to nonlethal police force than non-blacks.

Barack Obama's race-baiting has taken its toll on Americans.

A recent poll shows 69 percent of Americans believe race relations are awful, the worst they've been in more than two decades, according to the poll that was conducted from July 8, the day after the Dallas massacre.

The latest New York Times/CBS News Poll finds that "[r]acial discontent is at its highest point in the Obama presidency and at the same level as after the riots touched off by the 1992 acquittal of Los Angeles police officers charged in [Rodney] King's beating."

"Relations between black Americans and the police have become so brittle that more than half of black people say they were not surprised by the attack that killed five police officers and wounded nine others in Dallas last week. Nearly half of white Americans say that they, too, were unsurprised by the episode, the survey found."

Nor will many Americans be surprised when Obama blames the nation's law enforcement community for future terrorist acts committed by #BlackLivesMatter supporters.

The 37 target cities include: Phoenix and Tucson, Ariz., Little Rock, Ark.; Los Angeles, Oakland and San Francisco, Calif.; Denver, Colo.; Washington, D.C.; Miami, Orlando and Tampa, Fla.; Atlanta, Ga.; Chicago, Ill.; Des Moines, Iowa;  New Orleans, La.; Baltimore, Md.; Boston, Mass.; Ann Arbor, Detroit and Lansing, Mich.; Minneapolis, Minn.; St. Louis, Missouri; Carson City, Nevada; Newark, N.J.; New York City, N.Y.; Durham, N.C.; Cleveland and Columbus, Ohio; Portland, Ore.; Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, Pa.; Memphis and Nashville, Tenn.; Austin, Texas; Salt Lake City, Utah, Seattle, Wash., and Milwaukee, Wisc.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #117 

The Left has blood on its hands in Dallas


Keith Koffler (WhiteHouseDossier) says Barack Obama and his allies on the Left have helped create an atmosphere of hostility toward the police. They've taken what is a very rare event, racist white cops unnecessarily shooting black victims, and blown in up into what threatens to become a race war.

The Left needs to do some hard thinking about whether the loudest of its mouths have put blood on its hands in Dallas. The irresponsible drumbeat of accusations that have pounded into the American psyche the falsehoods that racism is endemic in criminal justice system and that police killing blacks is a pervasive problem very likely contributed to the killing of five police officers.

In the wake of isolated police killings of unarmed black men over the past two years -- some justified, some not -- and with passions stoked by the presence of video cameras, liberals have created a dangerous environment in which cops are villains and guys who knock over convenience stores heroes.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #118 

Sirens song


Stilton Jarlsberg (HopeNChange) says the cartoon above isn't so much targeted at readers of Hope n' Change (a singularly well-informed, logical, and compassionate group of people) so much as an expression of our sense that the American people are being very actively manipulated into division and confrontation by leftists who actually hate our nation, desire power, or simply want ratings or celebrity -- even purchased with the blood of innocents.

Sadly, it's become a sick tradition that as a presidential election nears, myriad forces try to kindle hatred and fear in the voting population -- no matter what the damage to our national morale. It's a special kind of treason and a despicable betrayal of the public trust.

Hope n' Change isn't suggesting that anyone should tune out either real problems or sincere discussions about possible solutions. We can't -- and must never -- turn our backs on tragedies or social injustice.

But there is an appalling and perhaps unprecedented amount of ugly political manipulation assaulting our senses right now, and to be entirely truthful it scares us.

We wish we had great insights and wisdom to share, but we don't. Rather, we present a handful of common sense suggestions:

•  Don't believe that things are as bad as we're being told.
•  Don't ever forget to factor in the political goals of those who are giving us bad news.
•  Don't help spread half-truths or "adding fuel to the fire" speculations via social media.
•  Let's continue to believe in the overwhelming goodness and decency of our fellow Americans even as we decry the loss of those virtues in our media and political leadership.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #119 

Rush Limbaugh warns of massive leftist violence if Trump elected


Talk show radio giant Rush Limbaugh issued a dire warning on his most recent broadcast about the outcome of a Donald Trump win in November's election, predicting a massive uprising on the side of the ideological left-leaners that will bring violence, mayhem and widespread calls for an election reversal.

"I think," he said, "people are going to be shocked at the degree to which the Left intends to intimidate people into reversing that result. I think they're going to do everything they can to see to it that Trump never does get inaugurated."

Limbaugh said he doubted very much liberals would "sit idly by" and accept any election result that brings Trump to the White House, but rather bring on "levels of violence that we have not seen," he said.

He also said members of the media wouldn't likely condemn such violent displays, but rather press the American viewer to "understand" the angst of the protesters.

"The media," he said, "will tell us that we must dig deep and understand why this is happening."

Trump's campaign rallies have been marked by displays of violence from those -- many of whom were Mexican flag-wavers -- who particularly dislike his border crackdown promises.

"You know full well how the Left goes crazy today protesting things, like in Ferguson, in Baltimore, take your pick," Limbaugh said. "You add to this the Democrats losing the presidency in November and my sense is that there isn't going to be any peace. There's going to be anger. There is going to be rage. There are going to be lawsuits. Everything about the victory is going to be attacked."

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #120 

Here's what was perfectly acceptable during "Bash Whitey Night" -- also know as the "BET Awards"

Warner Todd Huston (BizPacReview) is reporting that it probably won't surprise anyone that the Black Entertainment Television awards show was far less about entertainment than it was about far-left, Democrat politics. The entertainers who accepted awards indulged a plethora of anti-Trump, anti-gun, and pro-Hillary Clinton speeches with many saying the country needed to be "fixed."

Millionaire Honorees and presenters alike lapsed into shilling for the Democrat Party one after another as they took the stage. They all lamented how bad the United States was and how the viewers needed to get out and vote to "fix" the country.

The political attacks on whites, Trump, and Republicans was so persistent it should have made viewers wonder why the country is still so awful even though their favored Party has been in charge for 8 years and has been under the leadership of an African-American president? Even more absurd, now they are shilling for an old white woman to come in and save them! Seems upside down, doesn't it?

Newsbusters did a great job chronicling many of the political statements made during the "awards" show, but some of the more egregious ones was the anti-gun plea by BET's Chairman and CEO, Debra L. Lee, as well as her praise for the anti-gun stunt Democrats pulled in the House last week. She was also effusive about the Black Live Matter groups out there.

The attacks and shilling started early with the hosts of the show, Blackish stars Anthony Anderson and Tracee Ellis Ross, jumping right into pushing a political agenda on the show.

But Grey's Anatomy actor Jesse Williams, who was born in Chicago of a black father and a white mother, took the prize for the most hate-filled rant on the stage that night. When Williams took the podium he said the U.S.A. was created to "divide and impoverish and destroy" black people. Williams also attacked white people saying, "this invention called whiteness uses and abuses us."

In fact, Williams' entire five-minute tirade was an attack on white people (like his mother, apparently) who, he said, all want to steal from, oppress, and kill black people.

Not to be outdone actor Samuel L. Jackson came on to call Britons stupid for voting to leave the EU and used their vote as a way to attack Donald Trump. Urging black viewers to get out the vote in November, Jackson added "We gotta fix this. Don't get tricked like they did in London."

Speaker after speaker hit the stage with Democrat politics and anti-white messages on their lips. And today, the entire Old Media complex is utterly silent on the hate spoken on that stage.

These are the people that are always accusing other of "hating." It amazes me that they are completely clueless when it comes to their own bigotry and hate.

Remember, these people aren't attacking individual white people or some white people. They are attack ALL white people -- and that is racism -- pure and simple.

I'd like one of these geniuses to explain how the answer to racism is more racism?

We can thank Barack Obama who is directly responsible for this crap. He has been damning America since he usurped the Office.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #121 

Another shooting, the Left's belief in evolution, and the Manual on Psychopolitics

David Risselada (FreedomsOutpost) says here we go again. What we all feared would happen because of the unfettered immigration and transplanting of refugees into the United States has happened. On Sunday night, in Orland Florida, fifty people were shot in a gay night club by suspect Omar Mateen, whom authorities believe has ties to radical Islam.  Reports indicate that it took police hours to arrive to the scene, which developed into a hostage situation in the meantime. Reporters say that police storming the bar saved countless lives; however, many will wonder how many could have been saved if more people exercised their right to carry. The time it took police to respond is exactly why people need to take responsibility for their own protection. Ironically, according to, ISIS made a threat against Florida just three days ago. Well, we all know the attitude of the current administration: never let a good crisis go to waste.

Undoubtedly, the Obama administration, as well as Hillary Clinton, will hunker down on their message of gun control and launch a full frontal assault. Congressional Republicans will do little to shut them up, as usual. They should be tried for treason against the United States for allowing Barack Obama to get away with what he has. Is it mere coincidence that this shooting occurred after the U.N was here discussing ways to implement gun control, and, after the 9th circuit court ruled there was no constitutional right to concealed carry? If you’re a tinfoil hat wearer, then no, it’s not a coincidence.

To Second Amendment advocates, the issue is an open and shut case. The right to bear arms exists to protect life from those that do not value it, period. There are countless times when firearms are used by innocent, law-abiding citizens in the act of self defense. Women use firearms to prevent rape countless times every year, yet we are constantly told by the Left that people should not have the right to own, let alone, carry guns. This is quite a contrast that truly defines the beliefs between the Left and Right. One values life, the other does not. If you ever wonder how much value the left has for your life, just look at their support for abortion. Senate Democrats recently supported a bill allowing an abortion for a fetus that is nine months along. Yeah, they love life so much that the life of a newborn means nothing to them if it gives them political power.

The difference is really quite simple to explain. The Right believes people are capable of self governance, are compassionate, and are able to act with goodwill towards their fellow man. We believe in a definite morality that defines good and evil because we believe in God. We believe in personal responsibility and that all life has value, and, in most cases, when left to their own devices, people will do good things. The Left, on the other hand, believes in Darwinian evolution, which says God does not exist and that man is no different than an animal that has to be trained. They believe that man has to be controlled and they do not differentiate between good and evil. To them, there are no good people because we are all subject to our animalistic instincts and that any moment, anyone carrying a gun can turn into a raving lunatic and commit mass murder. They despise Christianity and they hate the idea of an absolute morality that defines good and evil. The Left believes in psychology and psychiatry, and that man's entire behavior can be controlled through the stimulus-response mechanism discovered by Ivan Pavlov. Not only do they believe this, they want you to believe it as well. Consider the following quote from Brainwashing-A Synthesis on the Russian Textbook on Psychopolitics.

Man is a stimulus-response animal. His entire reasoning capabilities, even his ethics and morals, depend upon stimulus-response machinery. This has long been demonstrated by such Russians as Pavlov, and the principles have long been used in handling the recalcitrant, in training children, and in bringing about a state of optimum behavior on the part of a population.

What does it mean to bring about optimum behavior in a population? Well, looking at the idea of stimulus-response mechanisms, it is easy to conclude that the very environment in which we live is constantly being manipulated in order to force reactions and change behavior. There is a huge difference when you describe human behavior from a point of view that credits God, and one that believes strictly in the inhumanity of science. Consider the following quote from B.F Skinner's Beyond Freedom and Dignity.

In the scientific view (and the word is not necessarily honorific) a person’s behavior is determined by a genetic endowment traceable to the evolutionary history of the species and by the environmental circumstances to which as an individual he has been exposed. Neither view can be proved, but it is in the nature of scientific inquiry that the evidence should shift in favor of the second. As we learn more about the effects of the environment, we have less reason to attribute any part of human behavior to an autonomous controlling agent. And the second view shows a marked advantage when we begin to do something about behavior. Autonomous man is not easily changed: in fact, to the extent that he is autonomous, he is by definition not changeable at all. But the environment can be changed, and we are learning how to change it. The measures we use are those of physical and biological technology, but we use them in special ways to affect behavior. (Skinner, 101)

Our environment is currently being manipulated on many levels to cause the most shock and terror in the consciousness of man in order to optimize human behavior in favor of government objectives. The economy is deliberately being collapsed, our country is deliberately being flooded with those who do not share our values and, in many cases, who have threatened to carry out the type of attacks we have just witnessed. The media is aiding and abetting by keeping the worst news possible in our faces all day and night in order to affect the way we see our world. Consider what the Manual on Psychopolitics has to say.

The mechanisms of stimulus-response can be easily understood. The body takes pictures of every action in the environment around an individual. When the environment includes brutality, terror, shock, and other such activities, the mental image picture gained contains in itself all the ingredients of the environment. If the individual himself was injured during that moment, the injury itself will re-manifest when called upon to respond by an exterior command source.

What does this mean? It means constant exposure to every terrorist attack and mass shooting through the television media causes traumatic injury to the human consciousness. People are living in a state of panic and uncertainty through the stimulus-response mechanism, with the end goal being a voluntary surrender of our liberties -- surrendering liberty for security, in other words. The only way to combat this is to first understand that this is, in fact, what is occurring. Secondly, understand that there is an objective and that objective is changing the geo-political make up of the country. They want you to believe that we cannot be free. They want you to believe that man must be controlled for our own safety. They want you to believe that communism is the solution. You must educate yourself and be ready to defend American principles. Allowing yourself to be silenced because you are unable to articulate what you believe only aides in their efforts. Stand up, America: time is short.

By psychopolitics our chief goals are effectively carried forward. To produce a maximum amount of chaos in the culture of our enemy is our first most important step. Our fruits are grown in chaos, mistrust, economic depression and scientific turmoil. At last a weary populace can seek peace only in our offered Communist state, at last only Communism can resolve the problems of the masses. Laventia Beria.

Article reposted with permission from The Radical Conservative

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #122 

And the Communists enter the 2016 campaign

Hysterical flyers at Richmond Trump rally call for violence against Trump supporters to "smash white supremacy."



You will notice the communist symbology displayed prominently.

From's "About" page:

We must draw upon revolutionary examples from the past -- from the Black Panther Party to the Chinese Revolution -- and begin to seize our power by uniting all who can be united and organizing ourselves. The working class has an accumulated history and experience. There are also scattered acts of resistance. We must transform these revolts, these experiences, these acts, into a power for all the exploited and oppressed. We must consolidate a camp of anti-capitalist workers and oppressed nationality people that collectively thinks and acts: the proletariat.

We can start out by building struggle committees that take on the ruling class -- the capitalist bosses and the landlords -- and their tools, the police. The ruling class attacks us through evicitions, landlord neglect, food stamp benefit cuts, hospital closures, worker layoffs, wage cuts, criminalization of drugs and petty crimes, failure to provide adequate health care, the school to prison pipeline, stop and frisk and police violence…

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Posts: 884
Reply with quote  #123 

Why are we shocked?  This is what Socialist/Communists/Marxist/Fascists do.  They are like Parasites.  Everything they put their hands on they destroy.  Look at Detroit, MI.  Look at Baltimore, MD.  Look at all of the urban cities.  This is what they do.

This is what they did to the Soviet Union and why it collapsed.  The same thing is happening to Venezuela.  The difference is American Citizens who are patriots are waking up and seeing what they are.

They did this in the 1960s and 1970s and then Reagan came in the 1980s.

The same thing happen in 1930's and 1940's and then the 1950s happened.

History is repeating itself.


Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #124 

Death to the Republic


S. Noble (IndependentSentinel) says that what is happening to America is the result of a culture war between traditionalists and secular progressives. The problem isn't the TEA Party of the right and never has been. It's always been the movement from the Left in the Democrat Party. Liberals are no longer liberal and have allowed the more extreme elements in the party to take over.

They have adopted political correctness and found advantage in calling things by the opposite of what they actually are, thus the Affordable Care Act is anything but, the SAFE Act deprives people of their right to self-defense, the Employee Free Choice Act takes away the secret ballot in union elections and takes away choice, tolerance is actually intolerance for anyone who disagrees, and lying is acceptable as long as it gets them to their goals.

They have all the answers and they are the elite who will bear no dissent. We see it in the drive to punish people who disagree on climate change, common core, and political correctness.

Dissenters will be prosecuted if they offer contradicting research, students will be punished if they opt out of government tests, and criticism of any of their preferred groups will be banned.

Can brute force be far behind?

The bathroom bill is just because they can and it's a lie to further the culture war. It has nothing to do with the very small numbers of transgenders, it's about anyone who says they are whatever gender the person says they are at any given time and there are 56 of them on Facebook. In New York City, there are 31 of them and the mayor is insisting landlords and businesses address them by the proper pronouns, even if a "he" becomes "they." The government is mandating thought and speech and that is what it is really about.

The chaos in our schools, business, politics, colleges accurately represents the chaos in our culture and our morals. What is normal is no longer normal. Everything is relative so that it can be transmorphed by the state.

The government is transforming our culture and preparing to finish us off.

Obama is of the far-left and has accelerated the movement. He is the Marxist student intellectual in his Che Guevara t-shirt who never left the halls of the Ivy League.

The Left is now far more out in the open and aggressive because they are convinced they've won and are moving in for the kill.

The most concerning aspect of all this is the many various leftist groups are uniting and they are funded in part by the taxpayer with grants from an increasingly corrupt all-powerful government.

Our economy is in serious trouble and we are already a welfare state. Obama has decimated the Middle Class. Taking the entitlements away will cause riots.

He has ignored our Constitution, the separation of powers and states' rights and he has been applauded for it. He has made his causes into civil rights so no one can oppose them. Our Senate has given up their treaty powers on the most key issues such as the Iranian nuke deal and the climate change deal.

His dangerous foreign policy is borne of an extreme pacifist view. Because of him we have ISIS, China's building armed islands in a $5 billion dollar trade route, Russia is threatening invasions and calling the US their greatest threat while being our greatest threat, and we are now aligned with terror nations like Cuba and Iran who hate us.

Hillary is more of the same.

The Democrat Party that once opposed illegal immigration, stood up for the rights of religious people and did represent freedom are dissolving into identity politics, bullying The Little Sisters of the Poor, and assuming control of the masses they look down on. The media is an arm of the party as are the colleges, arts, and movies/theaters.

Our government acts in secret and rules us. They have opened our borders to bring in the new populations of automatons who will abide by the will of the State.

We are suffering under mass delusions perpetrated by the Left. We are told that what is isn't and we live in this budding Orwellian world in seething silence.  We know that it's crazy to have large men in ladies bathrooms, we know the Senate should be approving treaties, and we know that the borders are open to give the Democrats a one-party majority but we live under this delusion because we are afraid to be called racists, fools, and liars.

College campuses are no longer fostering free thought, they are programming students.

The Left won the culture wars but will they be kind to their opponents? It doesn't seem so. We have half the country supporting a man who for the most part is a communist.

Christianity is being made into a hated entity. It's the only way the State can be supreme. They cannot co-exist as equals. One must be subservient to the other.

Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, remarked to a reporter with the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, "We are on the losing side of a massive change that's not going to be reversed, in all likelihood, in our lifetimes. Christians must adapt to the changed cultural circumstances by finding a way 'to live faithfully in a world in which we're going to be a moral exception.' "

Russell Moore, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, told his parishioners that Christianity "doesn't need 'family values' to flourish," he wrote in The Washington Post. "In fact, the church often thrives when it is in sharp contrast to the cultures around it."

The Pope is himself a man of the Left and Muslims align naturally with the far-left.

It's not only about religion of course.

The Left claims the right starts the culture wars and the Left must end them. The truth is the opposite in most cases. The right now includes those who want freedom and true tolerance. There is no place for them in the Democrat Party.

The Left even has their armies of violent troublemakers who show up at Trump rallies and on college campuses.

Trump tapped into the resistance. Some of his ideas are very scary, particularly on foreign policy and trade, but scarier are the things these leftists have done. At least he will close the borders and we will get to keep our guns because he will appoint conservative justices.

We have lost all safeguards in our constitution -- the Separation of Powers and States' Rights are being dissipated. What we have left is the Supreme Court -- barely -- and without them, it's over.

The Left doesn't even admit we live in a Republic. The words never leave their mouths. The assault from the Left has hit every pillar of society and the Obama has nationalized or is in the process of nationalizing all pinnacles of power under one dangerous, overreaching big government where agency pinheads freely write laws.

Justice isn't justice, it's social justice based on outcomes the government wants, not based on talent and achievement, and equality is what the government says it is. Equality now marginalizes the majority.

Also over is our culture as we knew it, especially if issues like bathroom bills are enshrined into law. Once things like this are codified, there is no going back.

Revolution is in the air. The Democrats are prepared for that.

If you are not familiar with the Cloward-Piven Strategy, click here.

If we lose our limited government, our freedoms, we will decline into the abyss.

Trump is the response to the discontent as is Sanders. Trump is the last great hope. He might have no solutions but he's all the right has.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #125 

The Mexican flag isn't an all-American symbol


John Hinderaker (Powerline) says violent mobs who have attacked Donald Trump supporters at one rally after another wave Mexican flags while burning American flags. The vast majority of Americans will disapprove, to say the least, so the Associated Press felt called upon to assure us that Mexican flags are really OK: "Mexican flag, seen at Trump protests, has long history in US."

The flag of Mexico has a long history in the United States, despite being a symbol of a nation south of the border. It became a topic of discussion last week after a violent anti-Trump protest in Albuquerque.

Trump lashed out on Twitter after protests outside his Albuquerque rally sparked a riot that caused thousands of dollars in damage, condemning "thugs who were flying the Mexican flag."

"Lashed out" is what reporters say when they want you to be skeptical of a remark that otherwise seems to be plain common sense.

The AP wants us to think that Mexico has legitimate grievances against the U.S., although how that is relevant remains unspoken:

After the United States took over a third of Mexico's territory following the U.S-Mexican War in 1848, the flag remained a symbol of resistance due to broken promises outlined in Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, said David Correia, an American Studies professor at the University of New Mexico. That treaty said former Mexican citizens from New Mexico to California would be granted full American citizenship, but instead, they faced illegal land seizures by whites and decades of discrimination, Correia said.

Here, the AP relies on a left-wing activist who describes his academic interests as "Critical Environmental Politics, Critical Legal Studies, Marxism, New Mexico and the U.S. Southwest," and who rejects the "the bourgeois notion that the individual is the privileged political actor in society." In other words, the left-wing thug should be the privileged actor in society, which is what the anti-Trump rioters believe.

In Houston and parts of Texas in the 1920s and 1930s, Mexican immigrants used the flag as symbols for their mutual-aid societies that provided funeral insurance and avenues for other civic engagement, said Lorenzo Cano, associate director for the Center of Mexican American Studies at the University of Houston.

So it's really about insurance? Not quite:

During the Chicano Movement of the 1970s, a more militant movement like the black power movement, activists proudly brought the Mexican flag to protests to showcase their ethnic pride, Jennie Luna, a Chicana/o Studies professor at California State University Channel Islands, said.

The AP has interesting sources. Ms. Luna says that she "received her undergraduate degree in Chicana/o Studies under the 'unaffiliated' designation, as it represented a product of the 1969 Third World Liberation Front…." She is "interested in notions of cultural consciousness as a tool for decolonization and healing, especially amongst transnational Indigenous Mexican migrant communities."

Ms. Luna continues:

Dr. Luna's research incorporates Nahuatl language study, representations of Indigeneity, and the role of women in the Intercontinental and global Indigenous movements. As a practicing doula/labor assistant, her other research interests include Indigenous women's reproductive rights, traditional birthing methods and reproductive justice. …

She also promotes and centers on a decolonized diet, honoring body, mind, and spirit. She enjoys cooking Indigenous foods and learning about sacred medicines and herbs used for healing.

A "decolonized diet"? At least she isn't engaged in cultural appropriation! But I digress. The real question is, does the Associated Press have any sources who are not far-left ethnic activists?

The AP's effort to domesticate the Mexican flag continues:

Luna said today waving the Mexican flag is no different than Italian Americans waving the Italian flag in New York's Little Italy or Irish-Americans carrying the Irish flag in South Boston. "The difference is that Mexican Americans have never been fully incorporated into the history of this country," Luna said.

No, the difference is that Italian-Americans in New York don't burn the American flag and chant, "Let's make New York Italy again." Whom is she trying to kid?

"On top of that, the language Trump uses reinforces the idea that all Mexicans are foreigners."

Sorry to break it to you, Jennie, but all Mexicans are foreigners. Her apparent conflation of "Mexican" with "Mexican-American" is telling.

Karla Molinar, 21, a University of New Mexico student who was thrown out of the Trump rally in Albuquerque for disrupting his speech, said she saw nothing wrong with protesters waving the Mexican flag. "They are just showing that they are proud of where they came from and they won't put up with the hate," said Molinar, who was born in Mexico.

Great source, AP!

To its credit, the AP concludes with a dissenting voice:

Orlando Baca, a retired teacher in Santa Fe, New Mexico and a Republican…

Note that every person quoted in the article up to this point is a Democrat or worse, but no party affiliation has been stated.

…said it would have been better if Latino anti-Trump protesters, especially immigrants, started waving the American flag to highlight their grievances.

"If things are so good for some back in Mexico and you are so proud of being Mexican, then why didn't you just stay there?" said Baca…

Good question!

…whose family's presence in the United States goes back centuries. "If you are an American, be proud that you are an American. It's about respect."

The Associated Press, along with pretty much all other news outlets, will do its best to drag Hillary across the finish line. But try as it might, the AP won't be able to convince 90% of voters that waving a foreign flag while burning the stars and stripes is as American as apple pie.

The Mexican-American War began on April 25, 1846, when Mexican cavalry attacked a group of U.S. soldiers under the command of General Zachary Taylor, killing about a dozen. They then laid siege to an American fort along the Rio Grande.

The war ended and Santa Anna resigned. The United States waited for a new government capable of negotiations to form. Finally, on Feb. 2, 1848, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was signed, establishing the Rio Grande and not the Nueces River as the U.S.-Mexican border. Under the treaty, Mexico also recognized the U.S. annexation of Texas, and agreed to sell California and the rest of its territory north of the Rio Grande for $15 million plus the assumption of certain damages claims.

So Mexico started the war and America ended it. The United States didn't have to give Mexico a dime -- spoils of war and all -- but they did, and Mexico accepted the money and the terms of the treaty.

These illegal alien invaders have been taught and believe that America "stole" Texas and the American southwest by the Marxists of La Raza and the Aztlan movement.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Previous Topic | Next Topic

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.

Help fight the

The United States Library of Congress
has selected for inclusion
in its historic collection of Internet materials

Be a subscriber

© Copyright  Beckwith  2011 - 2017
All rights reserved