The media takes a holiday when confronted with democrat's continued systemic capacity for lying to the public.
Republicans and Conservatives don't get a free pass when caught with the hand in the cookie jar..
Monday, August 28, 2017
Media Explains and Identifies Liers : Trump Or Barack?
The media takes a holiday when confronted with democrat's continued systemic capacity for lying to the public.
Republicans and Conservatives don't get a free pass when caught with the hand in the cookie jar..
Thursday, August 24, 2017
Police Inaction in Charlottesville : By Design?
Race hustlers? Oh you mean Al Sharpton, right? Progressive liberals seeking the power to control outcomes by allowing civil disobedience to become the order of the day and therefore allowing the government to proclaim the right to deny personal freedom as a measure to regain order.
History is riff with examples and the results are a total collapse of orgaizated and civil society. And as the saying goes and works well here to help understand what is happening, 'When citizens are confronted with insurgencies, people wait too long to recognize the danger and the are too often paralyzed by it'.
It doesn't require rocket science to understand we are standing like a deer in the headlights while our cities are being burned to the ground. Why?
Police Inaction in Charlottesville Only Enabled the Race Hustlers
Walter E. Williams /
Charlottesville, Virginia, a city named after Britain’s first black queen, was the scene of a bloody riot Saturday, Aug. 12. The fray resulted in the death of one woman, who was mowed down by a car—plus, there were many other people injured. Have politicians and the news media told the correct and complete story about what happened, or have Americans been deliberately misled? Let’s look at it. One does not have to accept the racist and nationalist vision of the Unite the Right organization to recognize and respect its First Amendment rights.
Moreover, the group obtained a city permit to hold a peaceful rally to protest the lawful removal of the statue of Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee from Emancipation Park, formerly known as Lee Park.
It was the leftist protesters who did not have a city permit to assemble for a rally on that day.
Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe said: “There has got to be a movement in this country to bring people together. The hatred and rhetoric that has gone on and has intensified over the last couple months is dividing this great nation.”
He denounced “the white supremacists and the Nazis.” However, when asked a question about whether he would include the left-wing, pro-violence Antifa in his condemnation, he ignored the question and walked out of the room.
Here’s a question for you: Did the authorities of the city of Charlottesville have a duty to protect Unite the Right rally attendees? The American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia said they had a right to rally, saying, “The First Amendment is a critical part of our democracy, and it protects vile, hateful, and ignorant speech.” Thus, the ACLU of Virginia defended the white supremacists’ and neo-Nazis’ right to march and rally against the removal of the statue of Lee.
Both the Unite the Right organizers and the leftist counterprotesters charged that the Charlottesville police did not do their job. They just stood back and watched the melee. This was documented in several reports. The Daily Caller article titled “Why Were The Police Held Back in Charlottesville?” reports:
In a ProPublica article titled “Police Stood By As Mayhem Mounted in Charlottesville,” the authors reported that “state police and National Guardsmen watched passively for hours as self-proclaimed Nazis engaged in street battles with counterprotesters.” ProPublica reporter A.C. Thompson, who was on the scene, reported that “the authorities turned the streets of the city over to groups of militiamen armed with assault rifles.”
Instead of owning up to his dereliction of duty—by not having ordered his police force to protect life and limb—Charlottesville Mayor Mike Signer chose to demagogue the situation by blaming the rise of white nationalists on President Donald Trump.
Many politicians, racists, hustlers, and tyrants have an agenda that consists mostly of making the U.S. Constitution meaningless and giving government greater control over our lives, thereby destroying personal liberty.
The alt-right and white supremacists seek to achieve their goals through racist propaganda. The leftists seek to achieve their goals by tricking Americans into believing that all they want are brotherhood and multiculturalism.
If either group achieves its goals, we Americans will lose not only our liberty but also our civility.
Few Americans recognize and respect the fact that multiracial societies are inherently unstable. What we’ve been doing for decades, through various government policies, is stacking up combustible racial kindling awaiting a racial arsonist to set it ablaze.
There are too many historical examples of what happens to a nation when race hustlers are allowed to take over.
History is riff with examples and the results are a total collapse of orgaizated and civil society. And as the saying goes and works well here to help understand what is happening, 'When citizens are confronted with insurgencies, people wait too long to recognize the danger and the are too often paralyzed by it'.
It doesn't require rocket science to understand we are standing like a deer in the headlights while our cities are being burned to the ground. Why?
Police Inaction in Charlottesville Only Enabled the Race Hustlers
Walter E. Williams /
Charlottesville, Virginia, a city named after Britain’s first black queen, was the scene of a bloody riot Saturday, Aug. 12. The fray resulted in the death of one woman, who was mowed down by a car—plus, there were many other people injured. Have politicians and the news media told the correct and complete story about what happened, or have Americans been deliberately misled? Let’s look at it. One does not have to accept the racist and nationalist vision of the Unite the Right organization to recognize and respect its First Amendment rights.
It was the leftist protesters who did not have a city permit to assemble for a rally on that day.
Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe said: “There has got to be a movement in this country to bring people together. The hatred and rhetoric that has gone on and has intensified over the last couple months is dividing this great nation.”
He denounced “the white supremacists and the Nazis.” However, when asked a question about whether he would include the left-wing, pro-violence Antifa in his condemnation, he ignored the question and walked out of the room.
Here’s a question for you: Did the authorities of the city of Charlottesville have a duty to protect Unite the Right rally attendees? The American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia said they had a right to rally, saying, “The First Amendment is a critical part of our democracy, and it protects vile, hateful, and ignorant speech.” Thus, the ACLU of Virginia defended the white supremacists’ and neo-Nazis’ right to march and rally against the removal of the statue of Lee.
Both the Unite the Right organizers and the leftist counterprotesters charged that the Charlottesville police did not do their job. They just stood back and watched the melee. This was documented in several reports. The Daily Caller article titled “Why Were The Police Held Back in Charlottesville?” reports:
Law enforcement was on hand at the dueling demonstrations on Saturday, decked out in riot gear and looking prepared for the worst. Except they weren’t allowed to do their job.According to the ACLU of Virginia, police on the scene were reported to have been ordered to “not intervene until given command to do so.” That kept them from suppressing the numerous scuffles that broke out. I’d like to ask any policeman: Since when did the police need a command to intervene when they are witnessing people assaulting one another?
In a ProPublica article titled “Police Stood By As Mayhem Mounted in Charlottesville,” the authors reported that “state police and National Guardsmen watched passively for hours as self-proclaimed Nazis engaged in street battles with counterprotesters.” ProPublica reporter A.C. Thompson, who was on the scene, reported that “the authorities turned the streets of the city over to groups of militiamen armed with assault rifles.”
Instead of owning up to his dereliction of duty—by not having ordered his police force to protect life and limb—Charlottesville Mayor Mike Signer chose to demagogue the situation by blaming the rise of white nationalists on President Donald Trump.
Many politicians, racists, hustlers, and tyrants have an agenda that consists mostly of making the U.S. Constitution meaningless and giving government greater control over our lives, thereby destroying personal liberty.
The alt-right and white supremacists seek to achieve their goals through racist propaganda. The leftists seek to achieve their goals by tricking Americans into believing that all they want are brotherhood and multiculturalism.
If either group achieves its goals, we Americans will lose not only our liberty but also our civility.
Few Americans recognize and respect the fact that multiracial societies are inherently unstable. What we’ve been doing for decades, through various government policies, is stacking up combustible racial kindling awaiting a racial arsonist to set it ablaze.
There are too many historical examples of what happens to a nation when race hustlers are allowed to take over.
Harvard Professor Dershowitz Calls Out The Domestic Terrorists
Antifa is not a grass roots movement against Fascism. This is an orchestrated attempt to tear down America and it's most scared tenant, individual freedom. The question we must ask now is, who is behind this domestic terror to destroy our country, aggressively seek them out and bring them into the light of day.
Sadly it seems there too many among us that don't believe our country is in danger of ''transformation'' as promised by Barack, they believe it's time for ''the change we can believe in'' and so do nothing to stop the carnage of our country's heritage and legacy of freedom and liberty.
When a professed liberal like Dershowitz aggressively calls out the terrorist, you have to believe things are rapidly going out of control. And where are the rest of the progressive socialist liberals in the universities and media, calling for more action and violence with unrelenting attacks on our form of government and civil society.
Harvard Professor Calls Out Antifa for Trying to ‘Tear Down America’
Nick Givas / @NGivasDC /
Harvard professor Alan Dershowitz said Tuesday that liberals should not treat Antifa members as heroes for tearing down Confederate monuments because they are trying to “tear down America.”
“Do not glorify the violent people who are now tearing down the statues. Many of these people, not all of them, many of these people are trying to tear down America.
Antifa is a radical, anti-America, anti-free market, communist, socialist, hard-left sensorial organization that tries to stop speakers on campuses from speaking,” Dershowitz said on “Fox & Friends”
“They use violence. Just because they are opposed to fascism and to some of these monuments, should not make them heroes of the liberals,” he added.
Dershowitz warned there is a danger to tearing down these monuments because it creates a slippery slope regarding what is acceptable and what is not. “Of course there is a danger of going too far,” Dershowitz said. “There is a danger of removing [George] Washington and [Thomas] Jefferson and other Founding Fathers who themselves owned slaves.” He compared the movement to remove Confederate monuments to Josef Stalin, and accused the agitators of trying to rewrite history.
“The idea of willy nilly going through and doing what Stalin did, just erasing history and rewriting it to serve current purposes does pose a danger. And it poses a danger of education malpractice,” Dershowitz said.
The professor added that both sides of the aisle have a responsibility to condemn the extremes that occur on their particular point of the political spectrum. “I’m a liberal, and I think it’s the obligation of liberals to speak out against the hard-left radicals, just like it’s the obligation of conservatives to speak out against the extremism of the hard right,” Dershowitz concluded.
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities for this original content, email licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
Sadly it seems there too many among us that don't believe our country is in danger of ''transformation'' as promised by Barack, they believe it's time for ''the change we can believe in'' and so do nothing to stop the carnage of our country's heritage and legacy of freedom and liberty.
When a professed liberal like Dershowitz aggressively calls out the terrorist, you have to believe things are rapidly going out of control. And where are the rest of the progressive socialist liberals in the universities and media, calling for more action and violence with unrelenting attacks on our form of government and civil society.
Harvard Professor Calls Out Antifa for Trying to ‘Tear Down America’
Nick Givas / @NGivasDC /
Harvard professor Alan Dershowitz said Tuesday that liberals should not treat Antifa members as heroes for tearing down Confederate monuments because they are trying to “tear down America.”
“Do not glorify the violent people who are now tearing down the statues. Many of these people, not all of them, many of these people are trying to tear down America.
Antifa is a radical, anti-America, anti-free market, communist, socialist, hard-left sensorial organization that tries to stop speakers on campuses from speaking,” Dershowitz said on “Fox & Friends”
“They use violence. Just because they are opposed to fascism and to some of these monuments, should not make them heroes of the liberals,” he added.
Dershowitz warned there is a danger to tearing down these monuments because it creates a slippery slope regarding what is acceptable and what is not. “Of course there is a danger of going too far,” Dershowitz said. “There is a danger of removing [George] Washington and [Thomas] Jefferson and other Founding Fathers who themselves owned slaves.” He compared the movement to remove Confederate monuments to Josef Stalin, and accused the agitators of trying to rewrite history.
“The idea of willy nilly going through and doing what Stalin did, just erasing history and rewriting it to serve current purposes does pose a danger. And it poses a danger of education malpractice,” Dershowitz said.
The professor added that both sides of the aisle have a responsibility to condemn the extremes that occur on their particular point of the political spectrum. “I’m a liberal, and I think it’s the obligation of liberals to speak out against the hard-left radicals, just like it’s the obligation of conservatives to speak out against the extremism of the hard right,” Dershowitz concluded.
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities for this original content, email licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
Progressives Vandalizing America's Heritage And Legacy : America Is Illegitimate
I wonder how long it will take for the rest of America to say this is wrong and it must stop and stop now. In reality, it won't stop as there are too many people that are at the controls of power that believe the destruction of our heritage is justified.
It appears it's not just Trump that the progressive socialist liberal democrats believe is illegitimate, now it's America herself that progressive socialist democrats believe is illegitimate.
Who voted for the democrats that brought this nightmare of domestic terror into our universities and now our streets, and why everyone should never vote again for a progressive democrat.
I Went to a Vandalized Columbus Monument. Here’s What I Saw.
Jarrett Stepman / @JarrettStepman /
The debate over whether or not to tear down Confederate statues deemed offensive has quickly moved on to other historical figures.
Christopher Columbus, the Italian sailor who opened up the New World to migration from the Old, is now in the crosshairs of protesters and vandals.
What is likely the oldest monument to Columbus in the United States was targeted and badly damaged by vandals on Monday night. A YouTube video of a man taking a sledgehammer to the front of the 225-year-old statue at a park in Baltimore, Maryland, was posted online.
Here Are 8 Monuments That Have Been Attacked Since Charlottesville
At one time in American history, Columbus was almost universally admired. He was so celebrated that our capital city, the District of Columbia, was named after him, and “Hail Columbia” almost became our national anthem before it was superseded by “The Star Spangled Banner.”
Columbus Day was proclaimed as a national holiday by President Benjamin Harrison in 1892—for the 400-year anniversary of the explorer’s arrival in the Americas.
More recently, President Ronald Reagan called Columbus the “author of the American dream.”
But Columbus has now been painted as a genocidal monster and a villain. New York Mayor Bill de Blasio is having a review conducted to consider removing a 76-foot Columbus statue from Columbus Circle. Numerous other cities are re-examining their Columbus statues.
I made a trip to see the defaced Baltimore statue on Wednesday and spoke about the ongoing attacks on historic monuments that have ratcheted up since the incident that took place in Charlottesville, Virginia, earlier this month. Watch the video above.
It appears it's not just Trump that the progressive socialist liberal democrats believe is illegitimate, now it's America herself that progressive socialist democrats believe is illegitimate.
Who voted for the democrats that brought this nightmare of domestic terror into our universities and now our streets, and why everyone should never vote again for a progressive democrat.
I Went to a Vandalized Columbus Monument. Here’s What I Saw.
Jarrett Stepman / @JarrettStepman /
The debate over whether or not to tear down Confederate statues deemed offensive has quickly moved on to other historical figures.
Christopher Columbus, the Italian sailor who opened up the New World to migration from the Old, is now in the crosshairs of protesters and vandals.
What is likely the oldest monument to Columbus in the United States was targeted and badly damaged by vandals on Monday night. A YouTube video of a man taking a sledgehammer to the front of the 225-year-old statue at a park in Baltimore, Maryland, was posted online.
Here Are 8 Monuments That Have Been Attacked Since Charlottesville
At one time in American history, Columbus was almost universally admired. He was so celebrated that our capital city, the District of Columbia, was named after him, and “Hail Columbia” almost became our national anthem before it was superseded by “The Star Spangled Banner.”
Columbus Day was proclaimed as a national holiday by President Benjamin Harrison in 1892—for the 400-year anniversary of the explorer’s arrival in the Americas.
More recently, President Ronald Reagan called Columbus the “author of the American dream.”
But Columbus has now been painted as a genocidal monster and a villain. New York Mayor Bill de Blasio is having a review conducted to consider removing a 76-foot Columbus statue from Columbus Circle. Numerous other cities are re-examining their Columbus statues.
I made a trip to see the defaced Baltimore statue on Wednesday and spoke about the ongoing attacks on historic monuments that have ratcheted up since the incident that took place in Charlottesville, Virginia, earlier this month. Watch the video above.
Wednesday, August 23, 2017
The (Hollywood's) 9th Circuit Court Rules Against Christians : WOW - Who Knew?
Oh No! How can it be? Who knew the 9th Circuit of Appeals would side with Hollywood? The 9th circuit si the most progressive liberal court in the land, and littler wonder being in California.
And that it attacked a religious organization with it rulings for taking a stand against the Hollywood elites doesn't require rocket science to understand. With more the 70% of federal judges admitting to being progressive, little is left to wonder how they would vote, especially on a matter of Christian's religious liberty.
Hollywood Wants to Force This Profanity-Filtering Service Out of Business, and May Succeed
Peter Parisi /
The ideological and philosophical divide between Republicans and Democrats has seldom, if ever, been broader and deeper, and the divide between partisans in the degree of their aversion to swearing in feature films is just the latest manifestation of that.
A new Harris poll—commissioned by the makers of a forthcoming faith-based film, “Generational Sins,” that itself reportedly contains 32 profanities—found that Republicans are offended by swearing more than Democrats are, by a margin of nearly 2-to-1. Nearly half (45 percent) of Republicans surveyed, compared with just 1 in 4 (25 percent) Democrats, find the “F-bomb” objectionable, for example, the poll found.
Among all respondents, however, the poll found the use of “Jesus Christ” as a profanity and “G.D.” both narrowly edged out the four-letter F-word as vulgar dialogue that would keep them from seeing a movie if they knew ahead of time they were used in the film.
One in three (33 percent) of those surveyed objected to using “Jesus Christ” as an expletive. Thirty-two percent said the same about “G.D.,” while 31 percent said “f—” would keep them from buying a ticket. Among evangelical Christians, the corresponding numbers were 90 percent, 86 percent, and 74 percent, respectively.
The poll also found a divide along other demographic lines, with Christians, not surprisingly, objecting more than non-Christians. More women object to the use of the “F-bomb” in movie scripts (37 percent to 26 percent). Objections also increased with age, with more than half of those over age 72 telling the pollster they would shun movies with strong profanity. “Milder” profanities, among them “sh–,” “p—,” “damn” and “hell,” were found objectionable at lower rates across all demographics.
It’s all a far cry from the days of “Gone With the Wind,” when in 1939, producer David O. Selznick agonized over whether to tone down Rhett Butler’s famous retort to Scarlett O’Hara, “Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn,” out of concern for moviegoers’ sensibilities.
Given today’s anything-goes ethos in Hollywood, it seems positively quaint that Selznick would have to defend the line before members of the film industry’s self-regulating Hays Code. “It is my contention that this word as used in the picture is not an oath or a curse,” Selznick said. “The worst that could be said of it is that it’s a vulgarism.”
Alas, that was then, and this is now.
At one time, not so long ago, it was widely believed that swearing represented intellectual poverty or at best, the sign of a stunted vocabulary. But revisionism apparently is no longer limited to history.
In the April 2016 article “Is Swearing a Sign of a Limited Vocabulary?” Scientific American reported on studies that sought to debunk the “poverty of vocabulary” explanation for the use of profanity.
“This research has led to a competing explanation for swearing: Fluency with taboo words might be a sign of general verbal fluency,” Piercarlo Valdesolo wrote. “Those who are exceptionally vulgar might also be exceptionally eloquent and intelligent.”
Thus, with the mainstreaming of the acceptability of swearing, and movies, cable TV, and streaming services arguably leading the charge, what the “bleep” is a person who doesn’t want to hear all the “@#$%^&*” to do?
One recourse is VidAngel, a video-filtering service that enables subscribers to filter out profanity and other graphic and objectionable material (nudity, sex, violence, drug use, and the like) from content on Netflix, Amazon Prime, and other streaming services, making them more family-friendly.
VidAngel has said that 96 percent of its customers filter at least two items—and an average of 17—from a typical film.
Regrettably, however, VidAngel—begun by four brothers who grew up in Idaho—is in an existential legal battle with leading production companies, including Disney and Warner Brothers. They accuse the Palo Alto, California-based company of copyright infringement.
VidAngel argues that viewers should “have the choice to watch however the bleep [they] want,” and insists that it “just facilitates that.” It contends that the federal Family Movie Act of 2005 protects its customers’ right to use its service to filter films. Federal court rulings—as recently as Aug. 2 at the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals—have consistently gone against VidAngel, however.
If VidAngel is forced out of business, the large numbers of people who told the Harris pollsters they found film profanity objectionable will be left with little recourse but to stick their fingers in their ears.
And that it attacked a religious organization with it rulings for taking a stand against the Hollywood elites doesn't require rocket science to understand. With more the 70% of federal judges admitting to being progressive, little is left to wonder how they would vote, especially on a matter of Christian's religious liberty.
Hollywood Wants to Force This Profanity-Filtering Service Out of Business, and May Succeed
Peter Parisi /
The ideological and philosophical divide between Republicans and Democrats has seldom, if ever, been broader and deeper, and the divide between partisans in the degree of their aversion to swearing in feature films is just the latest manifestation of that.
A new Harris poll—commissioned by the makers of a forthcoming faith-based film, “Generational Sins,” that itself reportedly contains 32 profanities—found that Republicans are offended by swearing more than Democrats are, by a margin of nearly 2-to-1. Nearly half (45 percent) of Republicans surveyed, compared with just 1 in 4 (25 percent) Democrats, find the “F-bomb” objectionable, for example, the poll found.
Among all respondents, however, the poll found the use of “Jesus Christ” as a profanity and “G.D.” both narrowly edged out the four-letter F-word as vulgar dialogue that would keep them from seeing a movie if they knew ahead of time they were used in the film.
One in three (33 percent) of those surveyed objected to using “Jesus Christ” as an expletive. Thirty-two percent said the same about “G.D.,” while 31 percent said “f—” would keep them from buying a ticket. Among evangelical Christians, the corresponding numbers were 90 percent, 86 percent, and 74 percent, respectively.
The poll also found a divide along other demographic lines, with Christians, not surprisingly, objecting more than non-Christians. More women object to the use of the “F-bomb” in movie scripts (37 percent to 26 percent). Objections also increased with age, with more than half of those over age 72 telling the pollster they would shun movies with strong profanity. “Milder” profanities, among them “sh–,” “p—,” “damn” and “hell,” were found objectionable at lower rates across all demographics.
It’s all a far cry from the days of “Gone With the Wind,” when in 1939, producer David O. Selznick agonized over whether to tone down Rhett Butler’s famous retort to Scarlett O’Hara, “Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn,” out of concern for moviegoers’ sensibilities.
Given today’s anything-goes ethos in Hollywood, it seems positively quaint that Selznick would have to defend the line before members of the film industry’s self-regulating Hays Code. “It is my contention that this word as used in the picture is not an oath or a curse,” Selznick said. “The worst that could be said of it is that it’s a vulgarism.”
Alas, that was then, and this is now.
At one time, not so long ago, it was widely believed that swearing represented intellectual poverty or at best, the sign of a stunted vocabulary. But revisionism apparently is no longer limited to history.
In the April 2016 article “Is Swearing a Sign of a Limited Vocabulary?” Scientific American reported on studies that sought to debunk the “poverty of vocabulary” explanation for the use of profanity.
“This research has led to a competing explanation for swearing: Fluency with taboo words might be a sign of general verbal fluency,” Piercarlo Valdesolo wrote. “Those who are exceptionally vulgar might also be exceptionally eloquent and intelligent.”
Thus, with the mainstreaming of the acceptability of swearing, and movies, cable TV, and streaming services arguably leading the charge, what the “bleep” is a person who doesn’t want to hear all the “@#$%^&*” to do?
One recourse is VidAngel, a video-filtering service that enables subscribers to filter out profanity and other graphic and objectionable material (nudity, sex, violence, drug use, and the like) from content on Netflix, Amazon Prime, and other streaming services, making them more family-friendly.
VidAngel has said that 96 percent of its customers filter at least two items—and an average of 17—from a typical film.
Regrettably, however, VidAngel—begun by four brothers who grew up in Idaho—is in an existential legal battle with leading production companies, including Disney and Warner Brothers. They accuse the Palo Alto, California-based company of copyright infringement.
VidAngel argues that viewers should “have the choice to watch however the bleep [they] want,” and insists that it “just facilitates that.” It contends that the federal Family Movie Act of 2005 protects its customers’ right to use its service to filter films. Federal court rulings—as recently as Aug. 2 at the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals—have consistently gone against VidAngel, however.
If VidAngel is forced out of business, the large numbers of people who told the Harris pollsters they found film profanity objectionable will be left with little recourse but to stick their fingers in their ears.
Smithsonian Inducts Colin Kaepernick : Clarence Thomas to The Back of The Bus
Colin Kaepernik's support of Black Lives Matter(BLM) and his induction into the Smithsonian's National Museum of African American History and Culture is a direct slap in the face of all black people. BLM might have been a legitimate organization when it was founded, but given it's history of bringing disruption and conflict to the population, regardless of the law, can now be seen as just self serving.
The Black Lives Matter organization is not about black people being used and abused in society, it is about get power that will bring them influence and money to control events as they see fit even when means black people will not be helped. BLM is a self serving group dedicated to bring chaos and conflict to the larger society, including the black community as a means to dictate it's own terms for control.
That a man as prominent as Clarence Thomas, with an incredible history of dedication to the rule of law in the highest court in the land, is denied recognition as worthy of even being part of the larger black communities best and brightest, but heaps praise on a mediocre football player as a symbol of great accomplishment just because he is radical in a civil society.
Where is the justice? Where is the common sense? Where is the community of responsible citizens?
Kaepernick Makes Black History Smithsonian Before Clarence Thomas
Kevin Daley / @kevindaleydc /
Free agent NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick will be featured in a Black Lives Matter collection at the National Museum of African American History and Culture, museum curators announced this weekend. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, the nation’s longest-serving black justice, remains absent from the museum.
USA Today Sports reports items belonging to Kaepernick will be incorporated into the museum’s Black Lives Matter collection. The quarterback became a symbol of the nation’s complicated racial politics and social relations when he declined to stand for the national anthem during the 2016 NFL season. The quarterback said his gesture signaled solidarity with the Black Lives Matter movement.
“The National Museum of African American History and Culture has nearly 40,000 items in our collection,” sports curator Damion Thomas told USA Today. “The Colin Kaepernick collection is in line with the museum’s larger collecting efforts to document the varied areas of society that have been impacted by the Black Lives Matter movement.” Featured items will include shoes and a game-worn jersey.
The quarterback’s protest inflamed racial and political tensions around the country. He returned to San Francisco’s starting lineup in advance of its week six game against the Buffalo Bills in October 2016. Anti-Kaepernick displays outside the Bills stadium before the game prompted allegations of racism.
Kaepernick was released from his contract with the San Francisco 49ers in March 2017 and is currently a free agent. He finished the 2016 NFL season on 2,241 passing yards, 18 touchdowns, and four interceptions.
The quarterback’s admission into the nation’s premier black history museum was fairly speedy relative to Thomas, only the second black man in American history to serve on the Supreme Court. The Daily Caller News Foundation reported that Thomas was not included in the museum in 2016. His exclusion prompted resolutions in both houses of Congress urging his incorporation in the museum.
Thomas was born in Georgia’s coastal lowlands among impoverished Gullah speakers. By his own account, he did not master English until his early 20s. He came of age in Jim Crow Savannah, Georgia, where he was ridiculed by white neighbors and classmates for his unpolished style. During this period, most public spaces in Savannah were segregated by race.
Despite the startling racial injustices of his youth, he went on to the College of the Holy Cross and Yale Law School. He was appointed to the Supreme Court by President George H.W. Bush in 1991.
The museum has consistently denied that it applies ideological litmus tests in preparing its exhibits.
“There are many compelling personal stories about African-Americans who have become successful in various fields, and obviously, Associate Justice Thomas is one of them,” a spokesman said. “However, we cannot tell every story in our inaugural exhibitions.” “We will continue to collect and interpret the breadth of the African-American experience,” the spokesman added.
Editor’s note: Ginni Thomas is a contributor to The Daily Caller News Foundation.
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities for this original content, email licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
The Black Lives Matter organization is not about black people being used and abused in society, it is about get power that will bring them influence and money to control events as they see fit even when means black people will not be helped. BLM is a self serving group dedicated to bring chaos and conflict to the larger society, including the black community as a means to dictate it's own terms for control.
That a man as prominent as Clarence Thomas, with an incredible history of dedication to the rule of law in the highest court in the land, is denied recognition as worthy of even being part of the larger black communities best and brightest, but heaps praise on a mediocre football player as a symbol of great accomplishment just because he is radical in a civil society.
Where is the justice? Where is the common sense? Where is the community of responsible citizens?
Kaepernick Makes Black History Smithsonian Before Clarence Thomas
Kevin Daley / @kevindaleydc /
Free agent NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick will be featured in a Black Lives Matter collection at the National Museum of African American History and Culture, museum curators announced this weekend. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, the nation’s longest-serving black justice, remains absent from the museum.
USA Today Sports reports items belonging to Kaepernick will be incorporated into the museum’s Black Lives Matter collection. The quarterback became a symbol of the nation’s complicated racial politics and social relations when he declined to stand for the national anthem during the 2016 NFL season. The quarterback said his gesture signaled solidarity with the Black Lives Matter movement.
“The National Museum of African American History and Culture has nearly 40,000 items in our collection,” sports curator Damion Thomas told USA Today. “The Colin Kaepernick collection is in line with the museum’s larger collecting efforts to document the varied areas of society that have been impacted by the Black Lives Matter movement.” Featured items will include shoes and a game-worn jersey.
The quarterback’s protest inflamed racial and political tensions around the country. He returned to San Francisco’s starting lineup in advance of its week six game against the Buffalo Bills in October 2016. Anti-Kaepernick displays outside the Bills stadium before the game prompted allegations of racism.
Kaepernick was released from his contract with the San Francisco 49ers in March 2017 and is currently a free agent. He finished the 2016 NFL season on 2,241 passing yards, 18 touchdowns, and four interceptions.
The quarterback’s admission into the nation’s premier black history museum was fairly speedy relative to Thomas, only the second black man in American history to serve on the Supreme Court. The Daily Caller News Foundation reported that Thomas was not included in the museum in 2016. His exclusion prompted resolutions in both houses of Congress urging his incorporation in the museum.
Thomas was born in Georgia’s coastal lowlands among impoverished Gullah speakers. By his own account, he did not master English until his early 20s. He came of age in Jim Crow Savannah, Georgia, where he was ridiculed by white neighbors and classmates for his unpolished style. During this period, most public spaces in Savannah were segregated by race.
Despite the startling racial injustices of his youth, he went on to the College of the Holy Cross and Yale Law School. He was appointed to the Supreme Court by President George H.W. Bush in 1991.
The museum has consistently denied that it applies ideological litmus tests in preparing its exhibits.
“There are many compelling personal stories about African-Americans who have become successful in various fields, and obviously, Associate Justice Thomas is one of them,” a spokesman said. “However, we cannot tell every story in our inaugural exhibitions.” “We will continue to collect and interpret the breadth of the African-American experience,” the spokesman added.
Editor’s note: Ginni Thomas is a contributor to The Daily Caller News Foundation.
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities for this original content, email licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
Tuesday, August 22, 2017
The Golf Cart Overturned : No Ones Hurt (Humor)
Here is a little comedy relief from the riggers of the day and the nonsense of media politics.
While golfing, a senior gentleman accidentally overturned his golf cart late one afternoon. A very attractive, young, female golfer, who lives in a villa on the golf course, heard the noise and called out, "Are you OK?", "I’m OK, thanks," he replied, as he pulled himself out of the twisted cart.
"Well, OK," he finally agreed.
Chicago Citizens Innovate For Safety : A New Neighborhood Strategy
I wonder what the next move is going to be for the democrats in Chicago to stem the killing of it's citizens? It appears going to the neighborhood grocery store is like running the gauntlet in some war where the enemy fire is coming from all sides.
Still, I like how the American spirit of innovation takes command to stem the problems of daily life in one of America largest cities.
Still, I like how the American spirit of innovation takes command to stem the problems of daily life in one of America largest cities.
Is this like the movie Saving Private Ryan? How this will work on a daily basis for the average citizen has yet to seen. Still, life goes on in Chicago, or maybe not.
| Chicago citizens innovate and prosper. It's the American way. |
Chicago Moves to Proptect Children : New School Buses Work!
Has it come to this? Chicago's understanding of the killings, murders of it's citizens, has taken a new twist in that to combat the murderous numbers of the dead, the city officials have implemented a new strategy to help children and young adults stay safe from gang members, that daily are killing them selves and others.
Will this new strategy work remains to be seen. The progressive democrats that are in charge say it will require a rise in taxes to pay for these expensive school busses and the man power to operate them effectively.
Still, city officials, including the mayor believe they are doing everything in their collective power to keep the citizens of Chicago safe, including, but not limited to, suing the federal government to prevent federal funds from being cut off because of the city's 'Come one, come all' sanctuary city stand that welcomes illegal immigrants that are now flooding into Chicago.
The mayor says there is no price to high for Chicago taxpayers to pay to keep our children safe from being murdered on their way to school. You have to admit, the mayor is on top of his program!
| What's the problem? |
New York Times Comes Out of The Shadows : The Gray Lady Is A Socialist!
But it's not about freedom at all, it is about controlling the events that shape the country with an ideology that was designed to take control from the people by force. Hungry? Poland? Czechoslovakia? East Germany? Cuba?
 |
| The New York Times explains what they really believe to be true. |
The New York Times is being exposed with these articles that explain how great communism is and how capitalism has driven out country into a despair of inequality among the different classes of people.
What the New York Times is saying here is they believe this old Soviet motto, that is the founding principle of communism established by Marx and Lenin, ''To each according to one needs and From each according to ones abilities'', is equitable and sustaining form of government.
Given what the Times is writing about, ignoring the catastrophic events in real time in Venezuela, North Korea, and Cuba, and this ideology's tortured history of death and destruction around the world were ever it was forced on a population, we have to believe that the once vaulted 'news paper of record' is now no more then red socialist rag, a mouth piece for the expansion of progressive socialist liberalism.
As the New York Times is referred to as the 'Gray Lady of Journalism', a center piece for truth has now taken a new track for truth, they are telling us unabashedly what they truly believe is the truth.
And sadly, with that new truth telling, the once proud 'Gray Lady' has now become just a whore for the Left's 'new world order' of progressive socialist liberalism.
The New York Times Continues Its Tradition of Whitewashing Communism
Jarrett Stepman / @JarrettStepman /
It seems communism is back in vogue at The New York Times. A sad but common issue in the modern West is that progressives have created a fanciful and distorted picture of socialism to make it seem like an intriguing alternative to American-style capitalism. Ikea socialism—with Sweden as the model—is an utterly distorted, but at least understandable, example for leftists to trot out as a demonstration of success.
And it’s even a bit amusing how they try to dance around the fact that Venezuela—which is utterly collapsing and egregiously abusing human rights—is a socialist country they praised just 10 years ago.
Socialism Has Destroyed Venezuela
But The New York Times now has actually found a way to create fanciful notions of Soviet-style authoritarianism—and whimsical tales of its influence in America—in a new section dedicated to the “Red Century,” which explores “the history and legacy of communism, 100 years after the Russian Revolution.”
Romanticized Tyranny
While some of the pieces explore the horrors and failures of communist rule, others delve into topics that would seem funny if the subject matter weren’t so horrifying. For instance, the Times ran what can aptly be described as a “puff piece” on Vladimir Lenin, the man who led the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia and is linked to the death and murder of millions of people.
The article, titled “Lenin’s Eco-Warriors,” paints the man as some kind of Siberian John Muir, and incredibly concludes that leaving “landscapes on this planet where humans do not tread” was the Soviet dictator’s “legacy.”
As absurd as that piece was, the Times managed to outdo itself with another article on, no joke, “Why Women Had Better Sex Under Socialism.” This piece is an idealized account of how life under an absolutist government could be liberating and possibly a better model for the feminist movement.
The author wrote:
Those comrades’ insistence on government intervention may seem heavy-handed to our postmodern sensibilities, but sometimes necessary social change—which soon comes to be seen as the natural order of things—needs an emancipation proclamation from above.The absurdly romanticized account of life under tyrannical government explains little of the hopelessness of a system where an individual has no hope and no future. These examples certainly weren’t the first, or the worst, instances of the Times engaging in communist revisionism. One of the most egregious examples of “fake news” in the mid-20th century was conducted by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Walter Duranty in the 1930s.
Fake News
Duranty, who was the Times’ Moscow bureau chief, wrote a series of glowing pieces about the USSR’s policies under General Secretary Josef Stalin in 1931. While millions of people were starving in Ukraine, Duranty reported back that things were going swimmingly under the communist regime despite a few bumps in the road. “Enemies and foreign critics can say what they please,” Duranty wrote. “Weaklings and despondents at home may groan under the burden, but the youth and strength of the Russian people is essentially at one with the Kremlin’s program, believes it worthwhile and supports it, however hard be the sledding.”
He attacked reports that portrayed the Soviet policies in a negative light as “malignant propaganda.”
Though the total number of deaths due to forced starvation in the Holodomor is unknown, estimates are generally at least 3 million from 1932 to 1933. Despite his blatant misreporting, Duranty was never stripped of his Pulitzer and has still been listed on the Times’ honor roll.
It would be good on The New York Times if it ran a piece about Duranty’s egregious reporting and disinformation campaign that gave Americans a distorted picture of communist reality, but, alas, that hasn’t happened amid the various fables about socialist “successes.”
It may seem easy to dismiss The New York Times accounts as eyerolling fantasies of the left trying to defend a broken ideology, but the danger of this historical revisionism is real.
Dangerous Historical Fantasy
A worrying study sponsored by the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation found that millennials are generally clueless about communism. “Just 37 percent of millennials had a ‘very unfavorable’ view of communism, compared to 57 percent of Americans overall,” according to a Daily Signal report. Perhaps even worse, a full third of millennials say they think that more people were killed under former President George W. Bush than under Stalin.
Watch video : https://youtu.be/KQKNr7vUbNM
Historical ignorance of communism’s crimes is real, and ultimately dangerous.
‘Communism for Kids’ Turns Deadly Ideology Into a Fairy Tale
As The New York Times joins with others to peddle a warped image of what communism is really about, generations that have never witnessed its horror may be lulled into buying the clichéd line that “real communism has never been tried.”
As historian Sean McMeekin wrote in his book “The Russian Revolution,” after communism’s “century of well-catalogued disasters … no one should have the excuse of ignorance.”
Communist revival is growing in Western countries even as it is nearly extinct in the countries it was tried. This is folly fueled by historical blindness. “Today’s Western socialists, dreaming of a world where private property and inequality are outlawed, where rational economic development is planned by far-seeing intellectuals, should be careful what they wish for,” McMeekin wrote. “They may just get it.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
