Category Archives: featured opinion

The Corrupt Obama Administration: Lying For The Faith

Media Justice for Christie Political CartoonOne of the main principles of the very religious and so very principled radical Muslims is that their religion permits them to lie (or kill or torture or enslave) infidels in order to further their religious goals.  This is the principle of “lying for the faith”. The Obama administration is following these same guidelines with its various recent scandals (Fast and Furious, AP, Rosen, Benghazi, IRS, Immigration, no plan to eliminate ISIS, etc.): they are lying about what they have been doing in order to protect the “religion” of radical progressive/socialism at which altar they worship.

 

When Lois Lerner (IRS Director of Tax Exempt Organizations, accused of denying conservative groups tax exemption for political purposes) arrogantly sticks her nose in the air and refuses to testify to a Congressional investigating committee and says she’s done nothing wrong, she is morally correct in this statement, because for leftist/progressives it’s not wrong to illegally deny conservative Americans their Constitutional and lawful rights as citizens.  Likewise when Hillary arrogantly turns her nose up and asks “What difference, at this point, does it make..” about the four Americans who died on her watch in Benghazi or when she lies about her email server or what cell phones she used as Secretary of State.  These fool people, who are currently in charge of controlling the federal government (or in Hillary’s case lying to get Obama’s job and continue raping America) under Barack Insane Obama, firmly believe this tripe.  They really believe they are morally superior and that their actions to deny conservatives and Republicans any rights under the law are justified.

 

Likewise with Douglas Shulman (former IRS Commissioner) who visited the White House 157 times but refuses to explain to a Congressional committee why the visits were made, while he sarcastically, arrogantly and disrespectfully makes an insulting remark as part of his non-response to that question. These dedicated leftists’ actions and attitudes follow the edict of lying for the faith of liberalism and show why American leftists can behave casually when breaking the law, or destroying the economy with radical environmental regulations or risking attack by reducing national security precautions.  They are practicing a religious belief of Liberalism/environmentalism against their enemies (American conservatives).  And they have the additional protection of the President who was re-elected in part by their illegal acts.

 

Before our pleasant lives are destroyed by Barack Insane Obama and his henchmen, our legislators must repeal Obamacare, fire the IRS as a group, implement a FAIR tax to replace the current income tax, repeal the legislation that enabled the vile Environmental Protection Agency and then impeach Obama for the transgressions of his administration that would get the CEO of a private company removed from office and prosecuted.

 

Clinton-New York Times Scandal Highlights Inanity of Political Endorsements

It seems every day brings news of yet more sordid exploits in which the Clintons are prominently featured.

The latest revelation from the Washington Free Beacon lays out a possible endorsement-for-hire scandal in which a charity owned by the New York Times received $100 thousand from the Clinton Family Foundation in 2008, the same year the paper endorsed Hillary as the Democratic nominee for president.

While the paper, which was reportedly considering endorsing Barack Obama, unquestionably engaged in some shady ethics, the question is, should they really be condemned, or is the centrality of endorsements in the American election cycle really the problem?

Why is the editor of a major newspaper qualified to endorse a public servant of any kind, be they federal representative or notary public? Surely not because their position as “government watchdog” gives them some special insight into what kind of policy is best for the nation and which candidates are most likely to support that legislation. That would suggest the papers, who wear their accountability role  as a badge of honor, have an agenda and perspective.

Of course, there is no such thing as true editorial objectivity. The problem with the Times’ endorsement of Clinton lies not in the timing of the donation, but in that they were not honest about it at the time.

The Times, by possibly allowing money to their decision, essentially sold their editorial integrity to the Clintons. Their voice became, not their own, but a puppet, malleable in the hands of the highest bidder. This is problematic because, in the democratic process, a vote is an act of expression.

When the individual relies on endorsements of a candidate as a judgment of worth, he or she engages in intellectual collectivism. Their voice is no longer a representation of their needs, wants or interests, but an echo of the endorser’s. And, since endorsements, particularly when voiced by prominent public figures and officials are ultimately done in the name of the needs of some disenfranchised group, they are ultimately hollow, self-perpetuating rhetoric.

When a candidate truly has ideas that correspond to the ideology of a particular person, their own appeals and legislative actions will resonate. Endorsements suggest that the average voter is not smart enough to make such an assessment on their own; they suggest that voters need to be enlightened by the smarter elites of society. In reality, the voter should give credence to no voice other than their own, since, even if someone else does have similar interests, can empathize with the harsh reality of daily need, they cannot mirror perspective.

As a tool of contrast, endorsements may be useful. When a rational case is laid out along lines of thought that are alien to one person’s worldview, the contrast in thinking may be intellectually expansive. But this cannot replace the analysis of a candidate’s past actions and present promises necessary to make a truly informed vote.

Only individual volition can chose to do this. And it can only truly do so by considering wants and thoughts that are unique, determined by past experiences, present needs and future goals.

Why Voting In 2016 Matters

THE NEW ANT and the Grasshopper, Two Versions:

The ANT AND THE GRASSHOPPER

This  one is a little different…. Two  Different Versions …
Two  Different Morals

 

OLD  VERSION

The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long,

building his house and  laying up supplies for the winter.

The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool

and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.

Come winter, the ant is warm

and  well fed.

The  grasshopper has

no  food or shelter, so he
dies  out in the cold.

MORAL  OF THE OLD STORY:

Be  responsible for yourself!

MODERN VERSION 

The ant works hard

in  the withering heat and the rain all summer long, building his house
and  laying up supplies for the winter.

The  grasshopper thinks the ant 

is  a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.

 

Come  winter, the shivering grasshopper 

calls  a press conference and demands to know why the ant should be
allowed  to be warm and well fed while he is cold and starving..

CBS,  NBC, PBS, CNN, 

and  ABC show up to
provide  pictures of the shivering grasshopper
next  to a video of theant
in  his comfortable home with a table filled with food.  
America   is stunned by the sharp contrast.

How  can this be, that in a country of such wealth, this poor grasshopper   

is  allowed to suffer so?

Kermit  the Frog appears   on  Oprah with  the grasshopper
and  everybody cries when they sing, ‘It’s Not Easy Being Green

Occupy  the Anthill stages a demonstration in front of the ant’s house  where the news stations film the SEIU group singing, We  shall overcome.

 

Then  Rev Al Sharpton’s assistant 

has  the group kneel down to pray for the grasshopper
while  he damns the ants. The Reverend Al can not attend as he has contractual commitments to appear on his MSNBC show for which he is paid over two million dollars a year to complain that rich people do not care.

President  Obama condemns  the ant and  blames

President  Bush 43, President Bush 41, President Reagan,  Christopher Columbus, and the Pope  
for  the grasshopper’s  
plight..

Nancy  Pelosi & Harry Reid exclaim  in an interview on The View that  the ant has gotten  rich off the back of the
grasshopper 
and  both call for an immediate tax hike on the ant to make him pay his fair  share.

Finally,  the EEOC drafts the  Economic  Equity &
Anti-Grasshopper  Act
retroactive  to the beginning of
the  summer.

The  ant is fined for failing to hire a proportionate number of  green  bugs and, having  nothing left to pay his retroactive taxes, his home is confiscated by the  Government  Green Czar and  given to the grasshopper .

The  story ends as we see the grasshopper 

and  his free-loading friends finishing up the last bits of the ant’s food while the government house he is in, which, as you recall, just  happens to be the ant’s  old house,
crumbles  around them because the grasshopper  doesn’t maintain it.

The  ant has disappeared in the snow, never to be seen again.

The  grasshopper  is found dead in a drug related incident, and the house, now  abandoned, is taken over  by a gang ofspiders  who terrorize the ramshackle, once prosperous   and  peaceful, neighborhood.

The  entire Nation collapses bringing  the rest of  the free world with it.

MORAL  OF THE STORY:

Be  careful how you vote in 2016. 

“What Kind Of Society Are We Leaving Our Kids’ Available here.

Ant

This is one man’s opinion.

Does This Ballistic Vest Make Me Look Fat?

The Pentagon is experimenting with a variety of female ballistic armor designs.

The Pentagon is experimenting with a variety of female ballistic armor designs.

Developments on the women–in–combat front are cause for concern, even for leftists that have made cognitive dissonance a way of life, because the women don’t seem to be holding up their end of the ideological bargain.

If Ranger Sgt. Rosie Riveter is going to be leaping out of aircraft and putting paid to ISIS misogynists — either by a well–placed burst from her rifle or silently dispatching him with the Camel Clutch (first made famous by the Iron Shiek) — it would be a big help if she’d quit complaining about her shoes.

I was under the impression that if a shoe didn’t hurt a female wasn’t interested in wearing it, but evidently that’s not the case. Females deployed in Afghanistan are complaining they lack access to combat boots designed especially for them.

This is where the dissonance really bites.

Feminists believe “gender” is a social construct and men and women are interchangeable. Lefty women, secure in Washington think tanks, contend that denying other women the opportunity to be killed on the front line is patriarchal discrimination.

Meanwhile women actually in the Army are hoping for something a little more strappy with a semi–open toe.

Even in branches of the service that have essentially struck their colors, women aren’t happy about equality. The Washington Times quotes a middie (maybe widdie?) at the Naval Academy unhappy that the unisex unis “make women look like men.”

Navy Sec. Ray Mabus — no doubt wondering if women are ever happy — replied there are “skirt options on a bunch of women uniforms,” which didn’t earn him any points either.

The idea behind uniforms is the clothing exhibits, here’s that word again, uniformity. If everyone is accessorizing their look depending on circumstances you no longer have a military, you have a pride parade.

Although women’s slacks have a certain amount of variety when it comes to placement, for men zippers need to be in the front. That goes for the rest of the clothing designs. Uniforms should only differ by size with the exception of undershirts, ballistic vests and maxi–pads. One relaxed–fit BDU design should work for both sexes.

Rep. Niki Tsongas (D–Dr. Scholls) disagrees. The WT reports she is sponsoring a bill that will require the Pentagon to “devise a strategy to ensure that women are outfitted with the best combat footwear possible.”

That would seem to fly in the face of arguments from the women–as–cannon–fodder movement that women are just as capable as men. If that fanciful contention were true, then the only difference in the shoes should be size.

But it’s not true. The WT quotes a British study that found women suffer seven times the rate musculoskeletal injuries found in men and ten times the number of hip and pelvic fractures. And those figures don’t include statistics on pregnancy that, Bruce Jenner aside, don’t affect male combat trainees.

The Marines have had a great deal of trouble finding a few good women. So far the Infantry Officer Course remains undefeated. Recruiters scoured the Corps looking for 100 women eager for the chance to die in the mud and could only persuade 29 to give it a shot. Of those 29 every woman failed the course.

The Army, seven times larger than the Marines, found 113 women to try the Ranger Training Assessment Course. Out of the 113 women, 20 passed and began Ranger training. Out of those 20 every woman failed the course.

Defense Secretary Ashton Carter, who knows all about photons and nothing about females, is eagerly awaiting the first women volunteers for SEAL training, scheduled to begin after Sec. Mabus determines the ideal length for a neoprene skirt.

Frankly if I were Sec. of Defense it would concern me that the only militaries wholeheartedly in favor of the US integrating women into frontline combat units belong to the enemy. As his increasingly disruptive and damaging search for Wonder Woman continues, maybe Carter should contact videogame manufacturers.

They seem to have no shortage of heroic women with large busts that are ready, willing and able to kick some behind, even if they are entirely imaginary.

Silence Kills Americans

Silence is NOT golden when it comes to Domestic Abuse !!   Broken bones and bruises, in time, will heal. The mental scars may never ‘be well’ again.  Many victims develop what’s known as “Stockholm Syndrome”. becoming totally dependent on the abuser and accept these inflections as normal.  There are numerous forms of abuse and the trails of destruction it leaves in the wake is almost scatological in nature and stings our very senses…..Knowing this is wrong in every aspect, Why is it that we are so timid and reluctant to only speak of it in whispers?  Are we actually waiting for our silence to kill?
Perhaps you think that you don’t know anyone that is being abused daily.  Think again!  You, as well as I and every other American that love our beautiful Nation are victims of domestic abuse  !!    Right Now !!! As you are reading this, ‘our’ government is bloated with false power and gorging itself on our liberties.  “They” are shredding our Constitution and wiping their filthy big boots on our Bill of Rights and pursuit  of happiness!!   We are shrouded in Political Correctness as we are being assaulted from all directions.  “They” have invaded  our schools, courts, churches and even want to tell us what to eat!  Is our bedroom next?
Our very lifelines in grave danger. Our economy is on the verge of collapsing, energy production is stifled, unemployment is stagnant and foreign policy has become the laughing stock of other nations. We have a dwindling Department of Defense and National Security.  Who knows what our ‘trade policy’ is?  All of these are vital,…..Still new mandates and regulations pelt us daily !  At this rate there will be nothing left for our children!  How can we possibly remain silent any longer ??  IF we wish to again have the exceptional status in the eyes of the world, WE MUST SPEAK NOW !   Muted groans and whispered complaints will not stave off this abuser any longer….That ‘fundamental change” Obama promised is drawing dangerously close! 
“We the People” power can prevail.  That’s the can in American !  It will take each and every one of you (and all your cousins) speaking up in loud outside voices.  No one individual can be effective trying to tackle them all.  Choose the issue you feel is priority, directing your energy to it.  We have many good conservative organizations you can contact. Get to know your subject for yourself.   Letters and emails to the legislators on that particular committee are also effective. (venture out of your state)  Engage your friends and family. There is something every one can do and it doesn’t all require money….Just Do it !
My personal ‘issue’ is our Borders and un-vetted ‘refugees Obama is sending invitations to. (note: In May alone at tax payers expense more than 800 Somalians were ‘relocated’ in Minnesota )  I define those with legal visas as immigrants, those without, as migrants, illegal and criminal trespassers.  I have spent the better part of the last decade trying to get our borders  secured.   The hesitancy of government to do so is incomprehensible to me…..We lock the doors to our homes and often fence our yards to keep out the thugs down the street or across town out.  We expect that even our ‘good’ neighbors respect this as they do the same.   So, why should the doors to our homeland be slung wide open to allow unwanted, uninvited people in ? 
Sans enforcement, laws are useless and chaos is inevitable.  We have laws that if enforced would correct many of the problems that we now face…We have law officers willing to enforce them if allowed to do so.  This administration has gone out of its allotted way to prohibit them from doing their job. 
Some of my most reliable sources have been  Retired Border Agents, current agents, Sheriffs in Texas & Arizona, Texas Border Volunteers, Center for Immigration Studies, ALPAC, Pew Hispanic Association, F.A.I. R., Texas Board of Prisons, and, of course, those most valuable individuals living closer to the borders willing to share their experiences. Also a few of my own encounters.  If it can’t be fact checked before hand, I will not use it without prequalifying.  The following are some key facts:
  • January 2014 before the June influx of unaccompanied minors the Federal Government let a contract out for bid that required both land and air transportation for such minors, multi lingual adult attendants able to care for and handle minor medical needs for approximately 6500 unaccompained minor children.  To begin approximately June 1, 2014.
  • ICE records show that they released 30,558 convicted illegal aliens in 2014. They included 79,059 crimes, 175 homicides, 373 sexual assaults (inc. children) 186 kidnappings, and 14,014 drunk/impaired driving offenses.  As of March 2015 another 10,246 illegal criminal aliens were released.  This is down by 32%  over last year !
  • ICE continues NOT to notify victims as required, but prioritizes the safety of the criminal first.   Also is slow to even notify local law enforcement who is being placed in their jurisdiction.
  • ICE records indicate that only 2,457 of 30,558 releases were classified as Zedvydas.  These are criminals that their own country of origin refuses to let them back in.
  • MS-13 gang member, Rangel-Hernandez arrested on drug charges and scheduled for deportation was shielded by the administration and released. Now is charged with four murders in Charlotte. NC.  There are at least 6000 known member in the United States.
  • In May of this year, the Mexican Consulate had a mobile unit in Odessa, Texas. They ‘set up shop’ in a local bakery for the purpose of helping ‘illegal’ Mexicans to ‘come out of the shadows’ to register and receive legal Identification Cards issued by Mexico that allow them to avoid deportation.  I could not get answers as to ‘how’ this was possible.  I was told that this unit was making stops throughout the United States.  There was no ‘public’ announcement prior to their arrival, yet lines formed outside the Mexican owned bakery.
These criminal trespassers are not all from Mexico. They come from all over the world.  The Border Agents in the Del Rio section report that they apprehend only about 30% of those crossings and more are from African countries, China, Pakistan, Iran and Iraq. 
A friend related the story of a neighbor living in rural Arizona, near the border.  She was driving home down the dirt road and suddenly about 20 men jumped out and swarmed her truck, demanding she take them to nearest Border Station…..they were from India.
A man living on the Texas Border east of Laredo Tx tells us his 16 year old daughter went to the barn to feed her horse one morning and there were 5-6 men sleeping in the stall and her horse turned out. 
Other American citizens tell of finding these criminal trespassers sleeping on their porches, destroying fences, breaking into their homes, killing their livestock.  It goes on and on and has ended in death for one rancher, Robert Krentz, in Arizona, that was simply repairing the damage they’d done to his cattle’s water supply.  Border Agent Bryan Terry was killed while in pursuit of  “Fast and Furious’ suspects.  Border Agent Nicholas also lost his life defending us at ‘our’ front door.   A Border Agent, on his day off, was fishing with his family on the river was gunned down in front of them by ‘criminal’ trespassers’ crossing to ‘our’ homeland. 
If this Domestic Violence is allowed to continue our children will know a life time of abuse.  Please answer this 911 call….let your voice be heard.
These American Citizens are living in fear…..not freedom.
“If words cannot repay the debt we owe those that died for us, surely with our actions we must strive to keep faith with them and their vision that led them to their final sacrifices” Ronald Reagan 1982
In Prayer for our Nation
ONE AMERICAN
Jan Brown

Is the U.S. Really More Respected Now?

President Obama this week made a statement that caused more than a few eyebrows to rise. He averred that the United States is the “most respected country on earth,” and that his administration claimed credit for that accomplishment. Judging from most reactions to the statement, it would appear that more Americans would agree with Charles Krauthammer’s rhetorical question, “What planet is he living on?”

UnknownSpeaking to about 70 community leaders from the nascent Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), the president declared, “People don’t remember, when I came into office, the United States in world opinion ranked below China, barely above Russia,” Obama said. “And today, once again, the United States is the most respected country on earth, and part of that I think is because of the work that we did to reengage the world and say that we want to work with you as partners, with mutual interests and mutual respect.”

But as the Investor’s Business Daily stated the next day, “The only problem with this narrative about winning respect is that it has no basis in reality. In fact, the very opposite is true.”

Syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer echoed IBD’s sentiments. “You wonder what world, what planet he’s living on and it’s not just as you enumerated, our enemies who have respect for us. The Chinese, the Russians, the Iranians of course, ISIS, you can go all the way down.”

muslim-brotherhood-flagClearly those who threaten global security and peace have no respect for the U.S. Russia invades the Ukraine, knowing U.S. leadership will do nothing. Putin’s assumptions are affirmed.

China builds manmade islands in international waters claiming sovereignty, and the assumption is obvious that the administration will do nothing. Again, the Chinese assumptions are affirmed.

Iran violates terms of the framework agreement regarding development of nuclear weapons, even before the tentative ink has a chance to dry, and again, the administration does nothing.

ISIS is running roughshod over Syria and Iraq, expanding and growing exponentially, in part due to the weaponry and equipment we left in the wake of our hasty and premature withdrawal from Iraq. We run a few token aerial sorties against the barbarians, but the administration ties its own hands by delineating everything we won’t do to rein them in.

Krauthammer continued with his rant against the president. “[How about] our allies. You think the Ukrainians respect us? Or the Poles? The Lithuanians? How about the Saudis? How about the Bahrainis? The King of Bahrain was supposed to come to the summit in Camp David with the President of the United States. He stiffs the President and the foreign ministry of Bahrain issues a statement saying that on that day, where was the king? At a horse show in England. Now, if that’s a sign of respect, we’ve got problems.”

baltimore-cover-finalBahrain wasn’t alone. Actually four Arab monarchs took a bye from the president’s summit on terrorism last month. And Saudi Arabia has so little regard for our policies and security measures in the Middle East that they initiated defensive measures against the insurgency in Yemen without even telling the administration. Clearly a measure of “incoherence” in our policies there, as NBC’s Richard Engels explained it.

Couple that with the “stream of leaks from anonymous White House operatives and public dismissals” against Israel’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu before his appearance before a joint session of congress two months ago, and the lack of respect for Obama’s new America is even more glaring. Israel, supposedly our closest ally in the region, is pummeled with abuse, while Iran, one of our most strident enemies, is treated amicably, and even apologetically, by the administration.

For the past forty years Egypt has turned to the U.S. for leadership, support, and stability. Part of that was reliance on our military technology and arms. Yet just this spring, for the first time in decades, Egypt went to Russia looking for weaponry for their armed forces.

And we mustn’t forget how infuriated our allies, especially Germany and Brazil were, after learning that the Obama administration had been spying on their leaders. The Edward Snowden revelations came not just as news to U.S. citizens, but to some of our closes global allies. And it was not welcome news.

Take-Notice-NRD-600-w-logo-578x420It’s inconceivable to think that the world is impressed with the domestic unrest over alleged racism of our law enforcement agencies, and the rioting and looting which regularly assaults the global news airways. Violent crime is now rising dramatically in those cities that have had violent clashes between hired rioters and law enforcement.

Yet we’re to believe that somehow we’re more respected as a nation? Really, Mr. President. What’s to respect about what you’ve turned our nation into? Domestically or abroad? Our “friends” and allies don’t trust us. Our enemies don’t fear us, as the administration proves their impotence on a nearly daily basis. And our domestic scene is more polarized and riotous than it’s been in fifty years.

The only ones who likely think America is more respected now are probably those of warped moral relativistic ideology, who in some convoluted way think domestic Christian cake-bakers are more evil than the extremists and sovereign powers that want to destroy us!

Associated Press award winning columnist Richard Larsen is President of Larsen Financial, a brokerage and financial planning firm in Pocatello, Idaho and is a graduate of Idaho State University with degrees in Political Science and History and coursework completed toward a Master’s in Public Administration. He can be reached at [email protected].

Slipping and Sliding Towards Third Worldism

The late, but great radio talk show legend Bob Grant (of whom I was a regular on his show) used to say, “We’re slipping and sliding towards third worldism and the only thing that separates us from other third world countries is the fact that we are industrialized.”  How right he was only now I think we’re closer than ever thanks to the Obama administration.

It was recently revealed that the Obama Administration, via unauthorized executive action, is now providing free transportation to individuals in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras who are related to foreign nationals inside the United States, including those here illegally. Once granted refugee status, an individual has open access to federal welfare, work permits, and the ability to receive a green card and citizenship. The Administration has also stated that it plans to “parole” such individuals into the United States as well, further contravening law.

Obama has appointed Cecilia Nunez as head of his domestic policy council. Nunez is a former senior vice president of La Raza. For those of you not familiar with La Raza,it is Spanish for “The Race.” They claim that Texas, Colorado, New Mexico,Arizona,California,Oregon, Idaho and Washington State were once all part of Mexico and want them back. La Raza doesn’t fly the American flag at pro-amnesty rallies, they fly the Mexican flag. They also want to do away with the white race.

Susan Payne, contributor to WCBM, a Baltimore radio station, inadvertently received an invitation to a White House conference call regarding immigration, the details of which are shocking. During the conference call, attendees explained their plan, through immigration, to build a country within a country, then, ultimately destroy the U.S. from within.

According to Susan Payne, on the Mark Levin show, there were 16 representatives of Obama’s cabinet present on the call; Cecelia Nunez, top Advisor to the President and Chairperson of the White House Task Force hosted the call. Ms. Nunez also served as the White House Director of Intergovernmental Affairs. A longtime civil rights advocate, she worked as Senior Vice President for the Office of Research, Advocacy and Legislation at the National Council of La Raza (NCLR), a radical anti-American organization.

Susan stated that the discussions on the call weren’t centered around 5 million illegals as reported in the media but rather 13-15 million illegals coming to this country as refugees. Ms. Nunez told the group that illegals will be re-designated as “receiving Communities”. They will be classified as receiving communities and morph into what was established as an “emerging immigrant community” that could grow like seedlings and need to be in fertile soil

The web conference attendees went onto say that the ‘seedlings’ will mature and eventually take over the host, as the immigrants will come out of the shadows and push the American citizens into the shadows. The White House will be developing a country WITHIN a country. Yes, on the call, they confirmed the new Americans will develop a ‘country within a country’ because these immigrants would not assimilate, but navigate. They will not be part of America; in effect, the illegals would grow as a separate nation, a nation within a nation. Eventually they will become strong and conquer America; Americans will be in the shadows when new Americans take over. This is the transformation that Obama promised.

In Ann Coulter’s new book, “Adios America:  The Left’s  Plan To Turn Our Country into a Third World Hell Hole,” she states, “The cost is enormous and we have two parties that don’t  want to do anything about it otherwise the wall would have been built. Never has this been done to our country and it is being done by the left because they want votes favorable to liberal policies. There is no scrutiny who we let into this country. They look at immigrants and say this will make a fine addition to our country and then they blow up the Boston Marathon.  Obama wants to transform America. He hates America and this is how  he’ll  change it”

Recently Time magazine had a cover story called “The Browning of America” and most of the liberal cable news shows talk about the browning of America. Film maker Ami Horowitz did a film and survey of new immigrants. He said “There is a lack of assimilation now. They come here and bring their language and cultures with them.” Ami said that he interviewed many Somalian and Syrian muslims and that they all said there should be a law making it illegal to insult the prophet Mohammed.”Ami went on to say,”They don’t  believe  in American values and people who believe that way shouldn’t  live here.” I agree.

To make matters worse Since 2012, according to columnist and author Paul Sperry, President Barack Obama has flooded the United States with roughly 100,000 Muslim immigrants annually in a shocking increase from prior years.

The primary problem surrounding the dramatic increase is that Obama is letting an increased number of Syrians and other Muslim immigrants from other war-torn nations into the country when, in the past, Syrian refugees were at the bottom of the priority list due to terror concerns.

He explained that the vetting process that the Obama administration is conducting on the

influx of Muslim immigrants is not actually happening.

“They admit, under oath, that they have no idea who these people are, and they can’t find out what type of backgrounds they have, criminal, terrorism or otherwise, because there is no vetting opportunities,” Sperry said. “You can’t vet somebody if you don’t have documentation, police records, etc.”

As he pointed out, the staggering number of Muslims coming in under Obama’s watch without proper background checks is nothing short of a national security gamble.

Who’s to know if they’re coming here for legitimate reasons or to form or join radical Islamic terrorist sleeper cells? There’s simply no way of knowing any of this.

Ami Horowitz said when he interviewed Syrian and Somalian sons of immigrants who were born here they said they’d  rather live in Somalia. Well what’s stopping them?

http://powderedwigsociety.com/illegals-enjoying-american-taxpayer-funded-bennies-18546/

Obama Appoints La Raza Radical to Control Domestic Policy – Katie Pavlich

Mark Levin Show: White House Conference Call Reveals Nefarious Plans to Destro (listen to this incredible call between Mark and Susan Payne on the meeting she attended with Obama and Munioz and other immigration leaders.)

MUSLIM COLONIZATION OF AMERICA: HIJACKING AMERICA’S REFUGEE RESETTLEMENT PROGR

INVASION: Obama Floods America With 100,000 Muslim Immigrants… But It Gets W

 

Elon Musk and the Questionable Good of Government Subsidies

To many, technological visionary Elon Musk, who has promised to birth such marvelous feats as “space internet,”  embodies the American spirit of entrepreneurial innovation.

While the federal government traps itself in the quagmire of over-regulation and bloated spending in green energy and interstellar research, Musk’s endeavors in commercial space flight and driver-less electric cars seem to be the rallying point for advocates of free market solutions to society’s exigent crises.

However, the delineation between private and public sectors is not so clear cut. Recently, $465 million in low-interest loans from the Department of Energy have led to the questioning of Tesla’s real merit. And, of course, much of SpaceX’s success is due to its contract with the government to launch supply missions to the International Space Station.

All of this begs the question: what is the proper relationship between private business and the government?

Congress does have some interest in business since Article I, Section 8 gives the legislature the authority “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.” However, to suggest that the government then has any interest in underwriting the success of innovation by using taxpayer money to subsidize services politicians deem to be in the nation’s “general welfare” is obviously an over-extrapolation of a very limited power.

The Obama administration’s electric-car subsidy debacle has incontrevritably proven what happens when government becomes a venture capitalist. The underwriting of green-energy companies ended in taxpayers seeing red. One by one, the government’s pet investments, most infamously Solyndra, folded to an unwritten universal economic truth- market demand cannot be artificially stimulated.

Tesla, however, managed to survive, pay back its loan and is now estimated to be worth $12 billion. The fact that is survived while other electric car company failed is perhaps a testament to Musk’s ingenuity and somewhat invalidates questions of the company’s true merit.

But, if Tesla’s model really is that good, free market principles dictate it should have been able to survive without government support. Could it have? Impossible to say because the subsidies cast a pall over market functions, ultimately making trends harder to analyze.

SpaceX presents a similar problem for the delineation between private and public markets. While questions about the desirability of electric cars to average consumers exist, there is no doubt that most people have no needs serviceable by space flight.

Yet, there is scientific good, the benefits of which to the lifestyle of the average American cannot be tangibly measured, in exploration.

The contract SpaceX has with NASA is helping to fund other research and missions. And Musk’s ultimate aim, incredible though it seems, is to one day open up mining colonies on Mars. Just four years ago, Newt Gingrich was mocked in a GOP debate for suggesting such a possibility. Today, one of America’s preeminent thinkers is actively working to make this a reality.

At the same time, other byproducts, such as the “space internet” Musk suggests could provide fast, cheap access to the web for people around the world, present a free market solution to supposed problems the government is threatening to regulate into parity.

It would be an interesting upending of centuries of state-capitalism, to see government contracts subsidize market innovation. If anyone is poised to do so, Musk is that person. Should he succeed, the monopoly of government force over economic powers will be irrevocably severed.

But the question of morality still remains. And while it’s easy to run away with fanciful dreams of science-fiction made reality, the government, since it is funded by the hard-earned money of its citizens, owes it to them to ground its decisions in practicality.

The ultimate outcome, and the morality of the degree to which it is underwritten by public dollars, remain to be seen.

Enough With The Gender Neutral Crap

I have truly had enough of the gender neutral crap, I just don’t understand it.

News flash: men and women are different.

There are people out there that have to come to the realization that men are better at some things and women are better at others, that’s just the way things are, nature has seen to that.

The political correctness of pushing women into jobs they do not qualify for is making Americans less safe, take New York for instance. One woman applied for the fire fighters test, she tried six times to pass New York’s Functional Skills Test within the 17-minute, 50-second deadline. Five times she couldn’t finish at all; on the sixth try, she needed 22 minutes. Women’s groups claim the test is needlessly difficult and unfairly bars women. Trainees wearing 50 pounds of gear and breathing through an air tank must climb six stories, raise ladders, break down doors and drag a dummy through a dark tunnel, all at breakneck speed. Sounds like firefighting to me.

Not only in New York, are court orders compelling Chicago to relax its standards? Two federal class-action lawsuits brought by women who flunked that city’s firefighting tests claimed that the exams required more than what is actually needed to be an effective firefighter. Women’s groups are always shouting that they can do the work same as a man, if that’s the case, let them pass the same test that a man does.

What about that woman in New York? “They’re going to allow the first person to graduate without passing because this administration has lowered the standard,” said insider, who is familiar with the training. Lowering standards in any field makes no sense what so ever, women and minorities should have to pass the same test that everyone else does.

Recently, the Army allowed women to participate in Ranger School. The Army Times reported in February that 100 women went into the pre-training phase, and in April, 19 women qualified for the Darby Phase, which is the next step, all failed but three, those three will be allowed to start over from the beginning of the first phase of Ranger School. If the Army Rangers start lowering standards, we are in trouble.

There was a report out not to long ago which said women, after three years of fighting fires, their bodies start to break down, women are just not built for that kind of physical work. There is no shame in that, that is just the way nature intended, I couldn’t be a trapeze artist and there is no shame in that either.

We need to get back to some kind of reality in this country, political correctness has gone crazy. Genders are different and races are different, lowering standards and pushing people into positions they do not qualify for is not only harmful to our society, but is downright stupid.

“What Kind Of Society Are We Leaving Our Kids” Available here.

Stupidity

This is one man’s opinion

Is it Time to ‘Abolish the Family’?

I appreciate it when leftists get off script, dispatch with the propagandist talking points and say what’s really on their minds.

“Progressives” hate natural marriage.

And they hate the natural family.

But they do so love big government.

In an article for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation titled, “Is having a loving family an unfair advantage?” Joe Gelonesi, host of “The Philosopher’s Zone” radio program, calls the natural mom-dad biological family a “weathered institution ever more in need of a rationale for existing.”

While he admits that it may be premature to “abolish the family and put children into care of the state,” Gelonesi suggests, nonetheless, that such government action might be the most “straightforward answer” – if only “from a purely instrumental position.”

But what’s the question? And why such hostility toward the natural family?

Buzzz! What is “social justice” for $1,000, Alex?

In the context of marriage, family and economics, the left’s upside-down brand of social justice, of “equality,” requires that, in order to level the playing field, we must bulldoze the playing field altogether – we must take from the haves, give to the have nots and dumb-down everything else to the lowest common denominator. If one person is suffering, then “equality” demands that all must suffer. The solution to inequality borne by those in the Third World, for instance, is to make the whole world the Third World (see Barack Hussein Obama, circa 2008-2016).

The same goes for marriage and family. As Gelonesi explains it, “The power of the family to tilt equality” creates an “unfair advantage” for children without loving biological parents. “When a parent wants to do the best for her child,” he claims, it necessarily “makes the playing field for others even more lopsided.”

And so, whereas the conservative solution is to offer a leg up, the “progressive” solution prefers a jackboot down. While equality of opportunity is a step in the right direction, equality of outcome is the statist endgame. Naturally, to reach this lofty goal, government intervention is required.

This is pure egalitarianism – cultural Marxism – and, as jaw-droppingly insane as it is, it yet remains the pervasive philosophy among “progressives” worldwide.

In order to bolster his thesis, Gelonesi interviews Adam Swift, a professor of political theory at Great Britain’s University of Warwick. Swift has co-authored, along with University of Wisconsin professor Harry Brighouse, the book, “Family Values: The Ethics of Parent-Child Relationships.”

Don’t let the title fool you. There’s nothing ethical about what these two men propose. “Challenging some of our most commonly held beliefs about the family,” boasts the editor’s summary, “Brighouse and Swift explain why a child’s interest in autonomy severely limits parents’ right to shape their children’s values, and why parents have no fundamental right to confer wealth or advantage on their children.”

Yikes.

Gelonesi’s article describes Swift as “a philosopher with a rescue plan very much in tune with the times.” This, as you will see, says a great deal about “the times.”

“One way philosophers might think about solving the social justice problem would be by simply abolishing the family,” suggests Swift. “If the family is this source of unfairness in society, then it looks plausible to think that if we abolished the family there would be a more level playing field.”

Swift concedes, however, that the family does confer some benefit to children, and, therefore, institutionalizing the little buggers may not be the best solution.

Yet.

“What we realized we needed was a way of thinking about what it was we wanted to allow parents to do for their children, and what it was that we didn’t need to allow parents to do for their children, if allowing those activities would create unfairnesses for other people’s children,” he told Gelonesi.

The operable words here are “allow,” “unfairness” and “other people’s children.”

“For Swift, there’s one particular choice that fails the test,” continues Gelonesi.

“‘Private schooling cannot be justified by appeal to these familial relationship goods,’ he says. ‘It’s just not the case that in order for a family to realize these intimate, loving, authoritative, affectionate, love-based relationships you need to be able to send your child to an elite private school.’

“In contrast, reading stories at bedtime, argues Swift, gives rise to acceptable familial relationship goods, even though this also bestows advantage.”

Swift opines that, while banning bedtime stories outright might be an impractical step toward ensuring fairness – banning private schools is at once a plausible and necessary means to that end.

“We could prevent elite private schooling without any real hit to healthy family relationships, whereas if we say that you can’t read bedtime stories to your kids because it’s not fair that some kids get them and others don’t, then that would be too big a hit at the core of family life.”

“For Swift and Brighouse,” writes Gelonesi, “our society is curiously stuck in a time warp of proprietorial rights: If you biologically produce a child, you own it.”

“‘We think that although in practice it makes sense to parent your biological offspring, that is not the same as saying that in virtue of having produced the child the biological parent has the right to parent.’”

By now, you should be saying “holy crap” or some such. This is unadulterated fascism on parade. And it’s winning the Western world over.

Speaking of parades, Swift goes on to wade the unpotable waters that will inevitably fester in the wake of the global “gay marriage” tsunami.

“Nothing in our theory assumes two parents: There might be two, there might be three, and there might be four,” he observes.

“Politicians love to talk about family values, but meanwhile the family is in flux, and so we wanted to go back to philosophical basics to work out what are families for and what’s so great about them and then we can start to figure out whether it matters whether you have two parents or three or one, or whether they’re heterosexual etcetera.”

But lest we deem the good professor entirely bat-guano-crazy, he sets an arbitrary cap on parents permitted, to allay our concerns. “We do want to defend the family against complete fragmentation and dissolution,” he graciously allows. “If you start to think about a child having 10 parents, then that’s looking like a committee rearing a child; there aren’t any parents there at all.”

Such is the irrational mindset of the self-styled rationalist – the immoral nattering of the moral relativist.

According to Swift and millions of very dangerous people just like him, the biblical admonition to “honor thy father and mother” is totally passé. Children today must “honor thy father and father, mother and mother, fathers and fathers or mothers and mothers.”

Better still to just “honor thy progressive government.”

Matt Barber is founder and editor-in chief of BarbWire.com. He is an author, columnist, cultural analyst and an attorney concentrating in constitutional law. Having retired as an undefeated heavyweight professional boxer, Matt has taken his fight from the ring to the culture war. (Follow Matt on Twitter: @jmattbarber).

Mercantilism in Campaigns: Good or Bad for the State of Politics?

Branding is an important part of presidential politics. A candidate needs a unique platform and must be able to communicate it clearly and quickly.

Thanks to the wonders of modern production, this need increasingly manifests itself in branded campaign merchandise.

In many ways, there is a lot of good in political merchandise. For non-moneyed supporters, the purchase of campaign goods is an equitable exchange of value. Their purchase of a t-shirt or bumper sticker not only helps in publicizing a campaign, but gives the supporter the intangible pleasure of asserting their ideology and annoying those who do not agree.

But, while there are myriad meritorious free-market principles on display here, can such a transaction go too far, say, when complex political issues are encapsulated in pithy t-shirt slogans or highlight a candidate’s perfunctory personal attributes?

Rand Paul, whose campaign has capitalized on his opposition to the Patriot Act, is currently selling t-shirts that take a somewhat facetious jab at bulk data collection:

On the other side, Hillary Clinton supporters can purchase a t-shirt made to look like one of her trademark pantsuit jackets:

Those who bemoan the state of money in politics can surely find cause for alarm here. And they may be right, not because votes are being bought, but because American politics requires substance beyond that which can be screen-printed and worn on someone’s chest.

Modern campaigning, with its emphasis on partisan politics and “gotcha moments” divorced from context, is already insulting to the intelligence of the average voter. The veniality of merchandized politics runs the risk of making it more so, especially if this is the sum total of engagement the average voter has with candidates and issues.

On the other hand, when people are made free to decide for themselves what political choices are most advantageous for their interests, they are also made free to act superficially, to disregard serious political discourse. Individualism, then, would dictate, that the risk of degradation to the health of the body politic presented by certain actors is something that must be combated by attention and volition.

After all, capitalism and democracy share the same strengths and weaknesses. Chiefly, their virtue lies in their organic nature. Only a plurality of individuals with united vision have the power to direct greater definitions of right and wrong. And this does not infringe on the rights of dissenters.

So, when it comes to mercantilism and political messaging, the ultimate affect upon broader political health is something for the American people to decide by individual discretion. And that’s a wonderful thing.

 

FIFA Indicted – The Clinton Foundation Should be Next

It was not much of a surprise to some to see the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) bring corruption charges against the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) this week. After all, the granting of World Cup hosting rights to Russia (2018) and Qatar (2022), appeared highly suspect, along with several other apparent “pay to play” coincidences. Considering the nature of the charges against FIFA, it seems only logical to wonder if, or when, such charges will be levied against Bill and Hillary Clinton, and the Clinton Foundation.

Wonder what FIFA got for their contribution to the Clinton Foundation

Wonder what FIFA got for their contribution to the Clinton Foundation

The DOJ indictment alleges that FIFA officials “abused their positions of trust to acquire millions of dollars in bribes and kickbacks,” according to Attorney General Loretta Lynch. The graft is alleged to have influenced World Cup host nation selection, marketing rights for sports marketing companies, and broadcast rights for television coverage of FIFA events.

Prima facie, it doesn’t appear that FIFA did anything more legally dubious than did the Clinton Foundation. According to Hillary Clinton last year, the First Family of the 1990’s left the White House “dead broke,” in 2001. They made up for their White House poverty years from 2001-2006, when, according to Mrs. Clinton’s Senate disclosures, the couple made $87.3 million, from book deals to speaking fees. As long as none of those paydays bought influence, that’s just fine, unless of course one’s ideology requires disdain and class-envy of those who are financially successful, for the Clintons are clearly “one per centers.”

imagesThe Clinton’s financial waters become much more murky when their Foundation is brought into the picture. The Clinton Foundation is classified under IRS Code 501(c)(3) as a “non-profit” foundation, comprising several separate “initiatives,” or areas of focus, including health, economic opportunity, and climate issues. In just over 13 years, the Foundation has raised nearly $2 billion from U.S. corporations, especially Wall Street firms, political donors, and foreign governments.

The nebulous financial arrangement and political nature of the Foundation was of sufficient concern to the Obama administration that Mrs. Clinton was required to sign a disclosure agreement with the White House before her nomination as Secretary of State in 2009. According to the Washington Post, Obama required her “to disclose all contributions to the Clinton Foundation, and that there be a process to vet donations that were coming in. They violated that agreement almost immediately. They took multi-million dollar donations from foreign businesses that had interests before the State Department. Those were never disclosed.”

Clinton Donors Got Weapons DealsAccording to Bloomberg earlier this month, there was a lot of non-disclosure going on at the Foundation. “There are in fact 1,100 undisclosed donors to the Clinton Foundation, [Clinton Foundation board member Frank] Giustra says, most of them non-U.S. residents.  ‘All of the money flowed through to the Clinton Foundation—every penny—and went to the [charitable] initiatives we identified,’ he says.”

Clinton-Foundation-2013-BreakdownBut even that raises significant issues, since according to the Foundation’s own tax filings, only 10% of their donations ultimately make it to “charitable grants” for their professed causes. That’s a whole lot of donations that go for expenses (34%), salaries and benefits (33%), travel (10%), office supplies (6%), and rent (5%). And don’t forget the 2% that goes to IT (information technology), for that’s where all of Hillary’s emails were stored, in two separate email accounts, until they were erased.

That’s likely where much of the hard evidence alleged in Peter Schweitzer’s book, “Clinton Cash,” would have been found. Absent the hard evidence, most of the public evidence is circumstantial. Charges that official State Department policy toward countries like Libya, Saudi Arabia, and India, were altered or softened after contributions by those countries to the Foundation certainly raise serious questions of paying for influence, not unlike those leveled against FIFA officials this week.

Clinton_Family_Corruption_1_495x750The most serious, however, is well documented. As explained by the New York Times, a Canadian businessman was purchasing up to 1/5 of the U.S. uranium assets, while making millions of dollars in contributions to the Clinton Foundation. The Canadian firm, Uranium One, was then sold to Russia’s atomic energy agency, Rosatom, which was celebrated in Russia’s Pravda with the headline, “Russian Nuclear Energy Conquers the World.” An acquisition of this size and nature had to be approved by the U.S. State Department, which was easily done with Mrs. Clinton at the helm.

To make this even more salacious, a Kremlin-linked bank that was promoting the stock of Uranium One, paid Bill Clinton $500,000 for a speaking engagement. But the contribution went not to the former president, but to the Clinton Foundation, as many of the speaking fees are funneled for non-taxable reporting purposes.

money_laundering-101The Clinton Foundation meets all of the criteria for a money-laundering entity: placement, layering, and integration, while enjoying the benefit of tax-exemption. They collect millions in donations (placement). Then through layering (or structuring) distance is created between the donation and the source, to obscure the audit trail. And finally the integration stage, which in the Foundation’s case, is the returning of favors and influence to donors.

Operationally, the Clinton Foundation functions as a shell corporation for the Clintons, and the pass-through conduit for buying influence and tax avoidance. Thanks to the IT staff at the Foundation, and Hillary’s obfuscation, we may never fully grasp the breadth and reach of the corruption. No wonder only 38% of us believe Hillary is honest.

If FIFA bribery and corruption is worth investigating, certainly the similar practices of the Clinton Foundation are as well. After all, the implications are much greater.

Associated Press award winning columnist Richard Larsen is President of Larsen Financial, a brokerage and financial planning firm in Pocatello, Idaho and is a graduate of Idaho State University with degrees in Political Science and History and coursework completed toward a Master’s in Public Administration. He can be reached at [email protected].

People of Honor and Integrity Need Not Apply!

It seems like the more I do stories about our institutions of higher learning, the more I come to the conclusion that there are no real standards for those teaching our young people. You may need a degree in order to teach, but that’s about all. Honor and integrity are no longer required.

Once again, my home state of Massachusetts shows that no matter how bad one’s character is, as long as they have a degree and are flaming liberals, they’re in! Boston University first realized they had an issue with incoming BU sociology professor Saida Grundy when a Tweet she sent out was brought to the administration’s attention: “white male college students are a “problem population”” and “white masculinity is THE problem for America’s colleges.” She is a black college professor, not that that should matter. As a professor, she is supposed to have open dialogue with her students. Can you imagine if a white college professor Tweeted ”black male college students are a problem population and their entitlement mindset is a MAJOR problem for American colleges?” They’d be fired before the moving truck got there!

Well, OK. So we are a little sensitive about the color thing. She got a little heated, we can just overlook her one indiscretion, right? But it wasn’t one or two or even three. And let’s not stop at four, but six… that we know of! You see, Professor Grundy thinks (like Hillary) that rules, guidelines, and basically good behavior do not apply to her.

The professor decided to mercilessly ridicule a white rape victim on social media with the following;

“^^THIS IS THE S**T I AM TALKING ABOUT. WHY DO YOU GET TO PLAY THE VICTIM EVERY TIME PEOPLE OF COLOR AND OUR ALLIES WANT TO POINT OUT RACISM. my CLAWS?? Do you see how you just took an issue that WASNT about you, MADE it about you, and NOW want to play the victim when I take the time to explain to you some s**t that is literally $82,000 below my pay grade? And then you promote your #whitegirltears like that’s some badge you get to wear… YOU BENEFIT FROM RACISM. WE’RE EXPLAINING THAT TO YOU and you’re vilifying my act of intellectual altruism by saying i stuck my “claws” into you?”

HELLO! The woman was raped as a child. And when the rape victim under attack tried to bow out gracefully, the professor tried to pull her back in with more nasty comments. Since the professor makes $82 thousand and is above the raped woman’s pay grade, shouldn’t she have taken the high road? She could have taken her educated backside out of the conversation and drop it. Is this really someone we want teaching our young people? Maybe someone with a little empathy or compassion?

Read more at HONOR

Harry Reid Retire Already

There is no doubt in my mind that Harry Reid is mentally off the rails, once again he sticks his nose where it does not belong. Reid renewed his crusade against the Washington Redskins, using time on the Senate floor to decry the team’s name as “racist.” Enough already!

First of all it is a private company, they can call themselves what ever they want, second 90% of people surveyed have no problem with the name Redskins, and third 85% of American Indians have no problem with the name as well. Shouldn’t he be more concentrated on things like our lousy economy, or ISIS invading our shores?

To quote this mental midget, “I find it stunning that the National Football League is more concerned about how much air is in a football than with a racist franchise name that denigrates Native Americans across the country,” he said. “I wish the commissioner would act as swiftly and decisively in changing the name of the D.C. team as he did about not enough air in a football.”

Harry, while you go on a rant about things that a majority of people don’t give a crap about, how about this:

RedskinsWhat about that Harry, anything to say about it. Harry Reid, the most evil man in Washington.

1830523363_2254746936_Harry_the_crook_Reid_84216882653_xlarge_xlarge“What Kind Of Society Are We Leaving Our Kids” Available here.

 

This is one man’s opinion.

 

Word of the day – “MICROAGGRESSION”.

The word “microaggression” has cropped up with increased frequency over the last year, to the point that now I see it almost daily! What does it mean?

Webster’s says it has “no meaning.” It’s not a word. It doesn’t exist! Various blogs, papers, and online source provide a definition, but they’re not “official” dictionaries.

And then, I found www.microaggressions.com. This site was obviously built by people who can’t stand anyone who might, kinda, sorta, could have some kind of privilege going for them. According to this site “microaggression” is defined as:

“Racial micro aggressions are brief and commonplace daily verbal, behavioral, or environmental indignities, whether intentional or unintentional, that communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative racial slights and insults toward people of color.”

I have said it before… words no longer have meaning and this is another perfect example of why. This definition specifically says it’s aimed at people of color.

Based on the many “microaggression” stories I’ve covered, the definition should read as follows:

micro aggressions are brief and commonplace daily verbal, behavioral, or environmental indignities, whether intentional or unintentional, that communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative slights and insults towards; __________. (INSERT – anyone identifying as LGBTQ, a woman, a minority, or some other subset of people, no matter how ridiculous).

Recently at Brandeis University, the Asian American Students Association was accused of microaggression for putting up a display to explain microaggression using only Asians… REALLY?

A group at Oberlin University had to issue a warning of microaggression or triggering alerting readers they were about to see “Discussion of rape culture, online harassment, victim blaming, and rape apologism and denialism. REALLY? They needed a warning?

Recently Johns Hopkins University refused to allow Chick-Fil-A to open on campus because the campus LGBTQ club considered it an act of microaggression. So now anyone or anything that offends is microaggression? Well, kinda sorta. It really only seems to apply to certain groups.

If you ask me to remove my Bible from view, you would consider that your right not to be “assaulted” by my belief. But by the definitions above, wouldn’t that be considered a microaggression toward me and my religion?

The latest in microaggressions was reported at Arizona State University. Students petitioned staff to change the name of pedestrian walkways. Why, you ask? Because not everyone can walk and that COULD be viewed as a microaggression to someone in a wheelchair or on crutches. Even the people who were supposed to be offended (those in wheelchairs or on crutches) thought this was ridiculous.

Read the rest at: microaggressions

« Older Entries Recent Entries »