Showing posts with label Canada Free Press. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Canada Free Press. Show all posts

Saturday, September 5, 2015

Climate Propaganda Paves Way for “Pig Power”

insert pictureHaving been bamboozled into passing a mere bill to thwart the Iran deal, rather than treating the agreement as a treaty, the Republican-controlled Congress is on the verge of being taken to the cleaners again. This time, President Obama is maneuvering to authorize U.S. participation in a United Nations climate change treaty through an executive agreement. The treaty is expected to come out of the December meeting in Paris of parties to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change.

Rather than submit the agreement to the Senate as an Article II Treaty, it is anticipated that the Obama administration will simply accept the treaty on the basis of what it claims to be “existing” presidential authority.

The agreement could establish or propose legally binding limits on carbon emissions, crippling what’s left of our industrial economy, along with new legally binding financial commitments that could run into the trillions of dollars to be “redistributed” from the U.S. and other “rich” nations. Obama has told the U.N. that the United States will meet a pledge of 26 to 28 percent emissions reduction by 2025.

Eleven top Senate Republicans, led by Senator James Inhofe (OK), had asked for “robust and transparent communication between the Executive and Legislative branches, particularly with respect to the Senate and its Constitutional advise and consent responsibilities.” But such requests are typically treated with disdain by the administration, which is determined to get its way no matter what Congress believes.

In order to provide a basis of some kind for Obama to take this questionable approach, our media trumpeted the “news” that July 2015 was supposedly the warmest month on record for the earth dating back to January 1880—with humans the culprits, of course. The source of this sensational claim was the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

Friday, September 4, 2015

Hillary Clinton: National Security Disaster

For an army of ethically compromised defenders in politics and the media, Hillary Clinton’s email scandal is being framed as little more than a political attack aimed solely at derailing her presidential candidacy. Yet while each new revelation makes it harder to dismiss Hillary and Bill’s seemingly endless effort to monetize the Clinton Foundation by virtually any means possible, most of it is beside the point. What’s not beside the point is the reality that Hillary Clinton is a walking, talking national security disaster.
insert picture
The Daily Beast’s John R. Schindler, who wonders if other officials in the Obama administration, including the president, will be burned by this scandal, notes that many counterintelligence officials now assume Clinton’s emails have been read by foreign intelligence officials in Russia and China because her server was “wholly unencrypted for months.” A Department of Defense counterintelligence official was so certain of that reality he insisted that anyone working for the Chinese or Russians would be fired if they couldn’t explain why “they didn’t have all of Hillary’s email.”

As if on cue, revealed a person claiming to be a computer specialist allegedly has 32,000 emails from Clinton’s private server, and is putting them up for sale for $500,000. “Promising to give the trove of the former Secretary of State’s emails to the highest bidder, the specialist is showing subject lines as proof of what appear to be legitimate messages,” the website states.

At least four of those emails contain subject lines with the word “Sid,” presumably referring to Clinton hatchet man Sidney Blumenthal, whose own AOL account was breached in 2013 by the Romanian hacker known as Guccifer. That hack also revealed Clinton’s email address. The website’s source warns that if the 32,000 emails enter the public domain, “not only is Hillary finished as a potential Presidential nominee, she could put our country’s national security at risk.”

She already has, and the National Review’s Stanley Kurtz reveals the unassailable logic behind that assertion. Even if Clinton was extraordinarily lucky, and the Russians and Chinese haven’t accessed some or all of her emails, it is nonetheless incumbent on the nation’s entire security community to behave as if they did. “Doesn’t that mean that we are now making massive changes to the sources and methods of our intelligence?” Kurtz asks. “Are we now withdrawing valuable agents? Are we trying to replace methods that cannot be easily replicated? Are we now forced to rebuild a good deal of our intelligence capabilities from the ground up? Are we not suffering tremendous intelligence damage right now, regardless of what foreign intelligence services did or did not manage to snatch from Hillary’s server—simply because we are forced to assume that they got it all?”

Considering the stakes—as well as the reality there have been massive hacks at Office of Personnel Management, networks of the Department of Defense (DOD), the IRS, the State Department (called the “worst ever”), and the White House, compromising the personal data of million of Americans—the answer is an unequivocal yes.

Thursday, September 3, 2015

It Is Time to Put the Limit Back in Limited Government

insert pictureI own a small farm, a berry patch, to be exact, and for the particular type of berry that I grow it is much more profitable to market them as organic.  I grow everything organically out of choice.  However, to market anything as organic the operation must be certified by the government.

So, of course I must spend hours filling out and filling out and filling out forms.  Of course there are fees, filing fees, inspection fees and certification fees.  Then there is the time spent with the inspector at the kitchen table talking, not long, only a few hours out of a busy day.  If you add up the fees and add in a reasonable estimate of the time, I ended up spending more to become certified than I made selling my “Organic” berries.

I put the word organic in quotation marks not because they aren’t organic.  I do it because there is no way the inspector could actually know whether they are or not.  He didn’t test the soil.  He didn’t test the plants.  He didn’t test the berries.  He went exclusively by what I told him, what I documented in my field logs, and in the forms I filed.

We actually do grow everything organically, and as I said we do that because of our own desire to grow, eat, and market chemical free food, not because the government tells us we have to do so.  However, the process the government follows not only encourages fraud, it makes it possible.  Does it seem credible that every farmer everywhere at all times is honest?  Does it seem credible that somewhere there may be a farmer who farms using every chemical available and then just lies about it?  In the end “Organic” means all the proper forms have been filed, all the fees paid, and the farmer told the inspector what he needed to hear.

Here we have one more victory for government regulations that cost the farmer (read consumer) time and money. 

When regulation becomes strangulation economies stumble over the government instituted by the social contract between those governed and those governing.  When regulations carry the force of law, when they read like telephone books written in insurance language held upside down, when they multiply like mosquitoes in a swamp, people begin to regard them and the governance they represent as a hindrance instead of a help.  Have we reached the point where everyone is guilty and the government merely needs to decide when to pick us up?

In the Declaration of Independence the Founders first told us what beliefs their actions were based upon, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Sunday, August 30, 2015

Hate and Anger are not mental Illnesses

This week we have suffered additional senseless and tragic shootings of innocent people here in America.

insert pictureThis past Wednesday, Vester Flanagan II (aka:  Bryce Williams) executed two former co-workers from WDBJ-TV in Roanoke, VA.  Flanagan had a history of anger issues mostly stemming from his being both a black man and gay.  It appears his anger continued to grow over several years and between multiple jobs.  He had reached a point where common sayings or items and street names were viewed as racial attacks and taunts against him.  His hate grew right along with his anger and this week it reached a boiling point.

It has been reported that he considered the following as racial attacks:  seeing a watermelon on top of an ice chest at work, someone stating that it was time to “go into the field” before going out on location for their job, and someone saying the name of a street “Cotton Lane”.  He had filed a discrimination suit against another former employer claiming he was harmed due to being gay.  When that was dismissed and it was shown that there are other gays at the same employer, he changed the suit to racial discrimination.

Flannigan approached, after what appears to have been a planned attack, reporter Alison Parker and her cameraman Adam Ward while they were conducting a live interview of another person (all white) out in public for the morning show on the station.  He had taken issue with each of these two while he worked at the station, prior to being fired over his anger.  Video footage has been made public from not only the cameraman but also the shooter, who filmed the attack.  The shooter walked up and stood slightly behind and to the left of the cameraman.  The three people standing in front of him were all absorbed in the interview and did not notice him.  He pulled out his semi-automatic pistol and aimed it at Alison.  Then, it appears that he noticed that Adam had directed his camera away from the two ladies and was shooting a scene to the side.  Flanagan lowered his gun and waited for the cameraman to get the ladies back on camera before raising the gun again and beginning to shoot.

Friday, August 28, 2015

The Children of Illegal Immigrants Are Not Born American Citizens

Once again, Donald Trump has managed to open up a robust national discussion about an issue that up to this point had been largely ignored by the political class. This time, the discussion is about so-called “birthright citizenship,” the idea that whenever a foreign national (regardless of legal status and with a very few exceptions) has a child on American soil, this child automatically becomes an American citizen from birth. This approach to citizenship has been thede facto (though not de jure) approach to the issue of “anchor babies,” the children of illegal aliens who come to the United States so that they can have their children here, thus allowing the parents to remain as well, usually helping themselves to generous American benefit monies.

Defenders of unrestricted birthright citizenship - primarily found among liberals, establishment GOP types, and the more uninformed types of libertarians—adamantly argue from the 14thamendment’s Citizenship Clause that birthright citizenship is not only legal, but is in fact constitutionally protected, and is what the 14thamendment has meant all along. They often try to buttress their arguments by appealing to English common law with its historical provisions for birthright citizenship. However, is this sort of “swim a river, fill our quiver” approach really what the 14th amendment meant? Is it really what English common law, which forms the basis for much of our own law and constitutional interpretation, historically upheld? The answer to these questions is, “No.”

The crux about which the discussion revolves is the Citizenship Clause found in the 14thamendment, Section 1,

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

More specifically, what is at issue is the phrase, “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Clearly, the clause was not intended to convey American citizenship to an unlimited pool of children born to aliens on American soil. If this had been the case, then the phrase under discussion would not have been included. Obviously, some limits were intended, those circumscribed by the intent of being “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

So what were these limits? Typically, it will be pointed out that the limits due to this jurisdictional issue were that citizenship was not being conveyed to children born of ambassadors and others aliens employed by their foreign governments, nor was it being conveyed to members of various Indian tribes which exercised sovereign powers within their own territories (this latter was rescinded by an act of 1924 which granted Indian tribes full American citizenship). Were these the only restrictions on birthright citizenship intended by the author and debaters of the 14th amendment?

No, actually. Let’s understand what the original intention of the 14th amendment was, which was to grant American citizenship to former black slaves and their children, and to prevent these newly freed citizens from being denied citizenship rights by certain of the southern states. That’s it. This was made clear by Sen. Jacob Howard, who authored the amendment in 1866, who clearly provided the intent for this section of the amendment,

Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is, by virtue of natural law and national law, a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great issue in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.” 

Thursday, August 27, 2015

Stealing from Walmart still stealing

In the new “legal relativism” and mob justice atmosphere that uses “social justice” as an excuse to loot and burn down stores in their neighborhoods, Everett Mitchell, the Director of Community Relations at the University of Wisconsin, Madison campus, stated during a discussion panel, “Best Policing Practices,” that prosecuting shoplifters from Walmart and Target is “aggressive police behavior.”

“I just don’t think they should be prosecuting cases for people who steal from Walmart. I don’t think that. I don’t think that Target, and all them other places – the big boxes that have insurance – they should be using the people that steal from there as justification to start engaging in aggressive police behavior.”
Perhaps it is why, for the first time in my life, I experienced yesterday at my local Walmart a person stationed at the exit, checking receipts carefully and scanning baskets of goods purchased. It wouldn’t be a far stretch to start checking purses, bags, and backpacks like they did under communism.

The social justice lefty crowd wants to engage in selective policing of their choosing, overlooking most crimes, drug offenses, shootings, traffic offenses, crossing our borders illegally, robbing and shooting innocent people, the knockout “game” against white people, breaking and entering, etc. 

I have personally seen judges give elderly individuals expensive court fines of $400 and community service for stealing a $4 bottle of Aspirin which they needed for pain. Yes, the law should apply equally to everyone and nobody should be shot for petty theft or for stealing food. But then ObamaCare and the current economy is causing some desperation among low income individuals.

Monday, August 24, 2015

Denver City Council halts Chick-fil-A’s airport operation because its owners believe the Bible

Forcing you to bake a gay wedding cake is just the start. The gay marriage fascists are pretty resourceful when it comes to using the power of government to enforce their orthodoxy. And by the way, this is one of the less-discussed problems with the perpetual expansion of government into everything. If you can’t do business without government contracts, or without tax exemptions, you inevitably empower someone in the political realm to judge your worthiness to be in business at all.

When the Denver City Council chooses a concessionaire for the Denver International Airport, the decision is supposed to be based on the applicant’s operational prowess, its quality, its track record and, of course, its ability to make the arrangement profitable for both parties while pleasing airport patrons with products and service.

But it’s not about that for what appears to be a majority of the Denver City Council. It’s about gay marriage, and the now airtight requirement that anyone doing business with the government must not agree with 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. It makes no difference if all you do is sell chicken sandwiches, which has nothing to do with homosexuality. If you’re like Chick-fil-A, and your owners have made it clear they believe the Bible, you’re not running concessions at the DIA:

Chick-fil-A’s reputation as an opponent of same-sex marriage has imperiled the fast-food chain’s potential return to Denver International Airport, with several City Council members this week passionately questioning a proposed concession agreement.
Councilman Paul Lopez called opposition to the chain at DIA “really, truly a moral issue on the city.”
His position comes despite ardent assurances from the concessionaires — who have operated other DIA restaurants — that strict nondiscrimination policies will include protections based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

Robin Kniech, the council’s first openly gay member, said she was most worried about a local franchise generating “corporate profits used to fund and fuel discrimination.” She was first to raise Chick-fil-A leaders’ politics during a Tuesday committee hearing.

The normally routine process of approving an airport concession deal has taken a rare political turn. The Business Development Committee on Tuesday stalled the seven-year deal with a new franchisee of the popular chain for two weeks. 

This is where we’ve gotten with gay marriage politics in the United States. It used to be that if a politician had it in for a business for some reason that had nothing the legitimate terms of a proposed contract, the politician would at least invent some phony pretext for stalling the deal. Not anymore. Now they come right out and admit that they’re only doing it because the business doens’t agree with them on a social issue. Even the editors of the Denver Post, which backs gay marriage, is warning the City Council to be careful about the precedent it’s setting here:

Think this one through, Denver City Council. If you block Chick-fil-A from returning as a vendor at Denver International Airport, how far might you then go in imposing political litmus tests on corporations seeking to do business there — or elsewhere in the city?

And what are the implications for free speech in America if such political vetoes by cities were to become the norm?

At a committee meeting this week, Councilman Paul Lopez described opposition to the chain at DIAbecause of its CEO’s hostility toward same-sex marriage as “really, truly a moral issue on the city.” Some other council members clearly agreed.

Saturday, August 22, 2015

St. Louis Back in Flames

A disturbing yet familiar scenario is playing out once again in St. Louis, where police made nine arrests and dispersed demonstrators protesting the shooting of black American Mansur Ball-Bey, 18, on Wednesday. According to police, Bell-Bey aimed a weapon at two white officers who returned fire, killing him. Unsurprisingly, the protesters are disputing police accounts of the incident. 

The Fountain Park neighborhood where the shooting occurred is an area of abandoned, boarded up houses “plagued by violence,” noted St. Louis Police Chief Sam Dotson. In recent days, a business near the shooting site was hit with gunfire, and a 93-year-old Tuskagee Airman was robbed and carjacked last Sunday when he got lost trying to find his daughter’s home and stopped to call her. A man got in the airman’s car robbing him and fleeing in another vehicle. The airman tried to track him, but pulled over once again to ask two men for help. The duo carjacked him. 

Another man and a woman were removed from the house without incident and Dotson revealed the house had been served with previous search warrants, including one about 18 months ago that yielded several illegal guns. Three additional weapons and crack cocaine were also recovered at or near the residence. One gun was found in the house itself and two others over the fence where they were tossed when the two suspects fled the house. Two of the three remaining guns were also stolen weapons. “Detectives were looking for guns, looking for violent felons, looking for people that have been committing crimes in the neighborhood,” Dotson added.

Friday, August 21, 2015

State Dept.: Hey, we never issued a computer to Hillary

I guess this shouldn’t be surprising when you think about it. If Hillary was using a homebrew server for all her e-mails, she’d have to get State Department IT help to set up the account on a government-issued computer, right? We already know Hillary wasn’t too interested in getting government IT staff mixed up in her personal any type of her business. So why even bother to issue Hillary a computer when she wasn’t going to use it anyway? You think she was going to sit there and do work on it?

No way. Hillary was going to use her own device connected to her own server. You try to get away with that at your job and tell me how it goes, but we all know the rules don’t apply to America’s self-styled royalty:

As the guy from CNET explains, (video below) this only further exacerbates the security problems inherent in Hillary’s makeshift IT scheme. Anyone who’s ever used a work-issued computer understands this. Your employer orders the computer and has it prepared in certain ways to be compatible with what’s expected of you in your job. That will include the pre-loading of certain security software and possible blocking software. And in the case of the government, it apparently also includes a rather sophisticated process for marking classified material. In response to a recent column, reader UCrawford, who appears to have some knowledge about this, explained:

Classified and unclassified information are on separate servers entirely. Information classified as SECRET, for example, would never be processed on an unclassified system not rated to handle classification. You can move unclassified data up to a classified system through transferable media fairly easily (the media would have to be approved and scanned for viruses, malware, etc). But for classified data to move down to an unclassified system, it’s not just about removing markings and doing a virus scan on the thumbdrive…the data itself would have to be scrubbed of all classified references/sources/information, approved through a declassification authority, and transferred to an entirely different portable media (any unclassified thumb drive plugged into a TOP SECRET system, for example, would automatically be classified TOP SECRET and could never be plugged into an unclassified system again). It’s a cumbersome process and most requests to declassify current TS data (which she’s accused of having on her system) are automatically rejected because the chance of spillage is so great. And nobody would authorize TS data that hadn’t been scrubbed to go to a unclassified government system…and especially not a personal system. Would never happen.
If Clinton had multiple instances of TS data on her unencrypted personal server, there’s simply no way it was ever approved for transfer. Zero chance of that being a simple mistake or someone just deleting classification markings. They would have a) had to have been given access to a classified network (meaning they were briefed on proper procedure, thoroughly and repeatedly), b) put some kind of portable media into the network (illegal unless approved by the security officer…which is very unlikely), and c) downloaded classified data to it, removing the portion markings (highly illegal…and clearly explained as such to anyone with a clearance). Most people would be arrested and charged immediately for doing that if caught. In most cases, the server would be immediately seized as soon as it was recognized that classified data had been placed on it. And Clinton would have been briefed on proper procedure about classified as well, and is responsible for the behavior of all people operating under her instructions. There is zero chance she did not know that transferring data to her home server was illegal…procedure is spelled out in every single document she signed for her clearance and access.

Thursday, August 20, 2015

Hillary Clinton: prison cell, not Oval Office

As orange is the new black, Mrs. Clinton belongs in the big house not the White House in 2016

Delusional, morally bankrupt, self-obsessed Hillary Clinton—a metaphorical modern day power-obsessed Lady Macbeth (with the same self-destructive [political] behavior) is the poster child of the dictionary definition of treason: a violation of allegiance to one’s sovereign or to one’s state and the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery. (Indeed, staffers should have known something was amiss when the Clinton’s movers snatched everything not nailed down when the Clintons left the White House—the people’s house—the first time.) Yes, people of Hillary’s ilk live by a single axiom: numero uno first, last, and always.

Clearly, Mrs. Clinton exists in the rarefied air of ruling class elitists: millionaires and billionaires, and former and future U.S. Presidents. Therefore, the rule of law (and not the fickle dictates of distant kings and emperors for which the American Revolution was fought) is not for her. It is something only to penalize the rest of us—the “little people” laboring in the hamster wheels of part-time jobs (sans health insurance due to Obamacare regulations)—to pay the 18 trillion dollar tab (and counting) of their largesse. We should be grateful for she who would stoop to rule us.     
Under Congressional questioning, recall her petulant knee-jerk response to four murdered Americans (including one U.S. Ambassador) in Benghazi when she raged “what difference, at this point, does it make?” Therefore, her callous, blasé attitude (and her recent smarmy joke about using the Snapchat app and automatically deleting emails) is just par for the course. Mrs. Clinton sent and received top secret material (of the 20% currently sampled, 305 are classified) across a non-governmental, unsecured, private server (in clear violation of law) that has likely exposed the nation’s vulnerabilities to our enemies. That obliviousness—and the intentional lies of cover-up—are treasonous.                                                                                                                                       
Of this, Watergate reporter Bob Woodward said: “Follow the trail here. There are all these emails. Well, they were sent to someone or someone sent them to her. So, if things have been erased here, there’s a way to go back to these emails or who received them from Hillary Clinton. So, you’ve got a massive amount of data in a way, reminds me of the Nixon tapes: Thousands of hours of secretly recorded conversations that Nixon thought were exclusively his.” Lesser politicians not abetted by a minimizing hard-left MSM would be doomed.  

In any case, ignorance of the law is no defense. A far less dire example; former CIA director and retired general David H. Petraeus who shared classified material with his biographer mistress (who incidentally had a security clearance) got prosecuted for his lack of good judgment. As orange is the new black, Mrs. Clinton belongs in the big house not the White House in 2016.

Wednesday, August 19, 2015

Democratic Dissidents

Campbell Brown and Kirsten Powers take on the leftist establishment

insert picture
Democrats are known for many things, but chief among them is the relentless determination to maintain a rigid progressive orthodoxy within their ranks. Bucking that orthodoxy requires character and conviction because those who do can expect a certain level of contempt directed their way from their oh-so-tolerant brethren. Campbell Brown and Kirsten Powers are two women who have demonstrated a willingness to take positions decidedly at odds with the progressive establishment.

Brown’s Democratic roots can be traced back to her father, Louisiana Democratic State Senator and Secretary of State James H. Brown Jr. Although James Brown is Presbyterian, Campbell was raised as a Roman Catholic, which she remained until converting to Judaism following hermarriage to Republican strategist and Fox News analyst, Dan Senor.
Brown worked her way up through the ranks of television reporting, winning an Emmy award for her reporting on Hurricane Katrina while working at NBC. She followed an 11 year career at that network with a stint at CNN. She began in 2008 as an anchor for CNN’s “Election Center,” renamed “Campbell Brown: No Bias, No Bull” and ultimately “Campbell Brown.” 

During the 2008 election cycle, she engaged in a controversial interview with John McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds, questioning Republican VP candidate Sarah Palin’s executive bona fides. That interview earned her accusations of bias from the McCain campaign, who accused her of going “over the line.” In 2010 CNN released her from her contract due to low ratings.

Brown moved on to writing opinion pieces that indicated such bias was a figment of John McCain’s imagination. In 2012 she penned two pieces for the New York Times. In one, she insisted a “paternalistic” Barack Obama should stop “condescending to women.” In the other she criticizedPlanned Parenthood’s self-destructive strategy of embracing “blind partisanship” that was costing the organization supporters. In 2013 she urged Daily Beast readers to keep the shooting in Newton, CT off the “culture war battlefield. Yet it was a piece for the Wall Street Journal that same year indicating where she was going with her post-TV career: Brown began challenging the left’s cherished nexus between the Democratic Party and the unionized education establishment, taking the New York City teachers unions to task for protecting sexual predators.

Tuesday, August 18, 2015

[VIDEO] Left goes insane over video of cute white sorority girls having fun

Here’s a shocking piece of news for you: College sorority girls prance around, often in rather skimpy clothing, while engaging in generally mindless activities like, er . . . prancing around. They also put on makeup. They also shake their groove thangs and know perfectly well that you’re going to help yourself to a look. And if they want other girls to be interested in joining them, they know that the best way to make that happen is to show themselves, you know . . . prancing around, etc.

As far as the political and cultural left is concerned, here’s an even more shocking piece of information about certain sororities: Many of the girls are white. In some cases, all of them are white. When you combine that with the general nature of college greek organizations in the first place, you end up with promotional videos that appeal to the college girl looking to spend four years partying, but have the exact opposite effect on the enforcers of mandatory “diversity” and hypersensitivity.

So be on notice: The following four-minute video is not to be watched. It is not empowering. It is not diverse. Watching it will make you less of what the left demands that you be - even less than you already are. And we can’t have that. So don’t watch.

Alpha Phi has “removed” the video, which is hilarious insofar as the attention it’s attracted has prompted it be re-posted to hundreds of YouTube accounts, and consequently embedded all over the Internet at sites like this one. But shame on you if you don’t hate it with every fiber of your being. Just consider:

 The six-minute-long clip was published last week to attract potential new recruits ahead the annual sorority rush recruitment event at the university, Mashable reports. The video shows the sorority sisters running around campus in bikinis and football jerseys and putting on makeup, among other things. 
  Criticism towards the chapter was initially sparked by an op-ed published by writer A.L. Bailey on local news website, “It’s all so racially and aesthetically homogeneous and forced, so hyper-feminine, so reductive and objectifying, so Stepford Wives: College Edition. It’s all so … unempowering,” Bailey wrote of the video. 
  Since then, the video has been reuploaded by countless YouTube users. While commenters panned what they referred to as the video’s sexist undertones, others have defended the video as just being a fun promotion for the group.
A college sorority that’s “hyper-feminine.” Never thought I’d see the day.

I’ll be honest here: I am not a fan of fraternities and sororities at all. Never have been. Despite their claims that they’re really about friendships, professional connections and community service, anyone who’s ever attended college knows that they’re really about getting drunk and partying - and paying for the privilege to do so.

My wife thinks it’s ironic that Animal House is one of my favorite movies, but it’s the very fact that nothing in the film can be taken seriously that makes me like it so much. I wouldn’t want to be around that scene for one second, nor would I want my son around it, so I enjoy the fact that the film depicts everything connected to it spinning completely out of control at the end.

But that’s what’s noteworthy about the criticisms of this video. The issue is not the debauchery that goes on in fraternities and sororities. That’s perfectly fine to the complainers. It’s the fact that the girls are white, and that they act like girls. I suppose if they were prancing around in bikinis (or better yet, topless) and angrily shouting for their right to have abortions, the left would find that admirable. But because they’re white girls and they’re putting on makeup and having fun, (and also because they’re good looking), the video has to be extricated from the consciousness of the nation.

By the way, the black football player doesn’t seem too bothered by the lack of diversity to which he is the conspicuous exception. Nor would anyone expect him to be.

Monday, August 17, 2015

Maryland’s GOP Governor Larry Hogan: Conservative Getting Things Done

Defeating the political machine in one-party Democratic stronghold Maryland, Maryland Governor Larry Hogan went from nobody to overnight (and still going) sensation among conservatives across the country, especially for Republicans in a state where, aside from a Congressman here and there plus a celebrity governor, Republicans never fared well. With “Change Maryland”, his non-partisan interest group with bipartisan support,  Governor Hogan pushed tax and spending cuts, supported education, and killed expensive public projects.

A team player interested not just in furthering his career but helping his fellow Republicans, the son of a former Congressman has invested time and energy improving the Republican brand and increasing GOP outreach to otherwise unknown or untapped constituencies, particularly young voter and minorities. With Republicans nearing majority status in select counties, plus the growing weariness of voters taxed and regulated beyond reason, Hogan declared joyfully on the steps of the state house: “It’s a great day to be a Republican in Maryland”. With majority control over five of nine county executive boards, the new Governor is setting his sights on long-term growth and development for a state which barely survived eight years of uber-liberal Martin O’Malley.

Hogan has issued executive orders to require state officials and legislators to end the endless gerrymandering which marginalizes the most resolute of Old Line State residents. Despite the current push-back from the still Democratically dominated state legislature in Annapolis, Hogan is gaining prestige and strength. People want change, and Hogan is bringing it. One of his most recent and popular measures? Reducing the tolls and fees for Marylanders as well as visitors traversing the state.  Following the Baltimore riots, the governor exulted with national press that Baltimore would celebrate its world famous horse race. Residents stepped out to clean up and improve their city. The port of Baltimore is open for business, and bringing in major commerce with the largest shipping firm in the world.

Law and order has become the order of the day under the Hogan Administration, too. Recently, he has shown some muscle against illegal immigration, particularly in cases where a violent crime has occurred, despite the two-to-one Democratic voter registration in the state and previous Democratic Governor Martin O’Malley’s relentless policies to promote illegal aliens and transform them into “new Americans”.

Departing from the previous governor’s policy of non-cooperation, Hogan informed Marylanders that he would change the course of the state’s non-compliance legacy, comply with the federal government, and detain illegal aliens for Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents.

The Washington Post reports:
Immigration advocates in Maryland are criticizing a decision by Gov. Larry Hogan to notify federal immigration officials when an illegal immigrant targeted for deportation is released from the state-run Baltimore City Detention Center.

Advocates consider Hogan’s stance to be a departure from the policy of his predecessor, Democrat Martin O’Malley, who last year joined other elected officials in refusing requests from the Obama administration to coordinate with federal law enforcement whenever a detainee was being released.

With a latent political savvy determined not only to thwart amnesty proponents but coalesce widespread general support for his decision, Hogan’s office responded:

When pro-amnesty group CASA de Maryland protested outside Governor Hogan’s mansion, hisoffice released another statement:

The Baltimore City Detention Center is simply complying with a request from the Obama administration in regard to individuals who have already been detained. If CASA has concerns about Obama’s Priority Enforcement Program, I would recommend they take those concerns to the White House.

“Priority Enforcement” comes in light of President Obama’s executive amnesty in late November last year, when he announced to the United States that he would defer deportation and permit five million illegal aliens to remain in the country who had not broken any other laws.
What a supreme and gratifying irony: A Republican governor in a deep blue state is enforcing the law,, rounding up illegal aliens who endanger the public; an executive —whoa—enhances public safety all while rebuffing critics by referencing the President’s own unconstitutional order to expand immigration and benefits to illegal aliens. Even the “shrilly, shrilly liberal” Washington Post had to concede to the Republican governor’s “common sense” on immigration.

Following those bold measures, Governor Hogan took unprecedented action and shut down a corrupt, inefficient, and dysfunctional detention center in Baltimore City, too. Fiscal prudent and morally sound, Hogan practices fiscal discipline without sacrificing the safety and security of his citizens. Surviving and thriving in spite of non-Hodgkins lymphoma, the (once considered unlikely) conservative Republican Governor of Maryland has become the face of the growing conservative upswing sweeping the country, a nation fed up with government serving itself instead of taxpayers, hardworking men and women who just want a leader who will get things done.

Friday, August 14, 2015

Salon: Mouthpiece of the Racist Left

The racist Left has found a home at the radical commentary website, Salon, which routinely and viciously attacks conservatives and other patriotic Americans for their beliefs while promoting racist causes like the Black Lives Matter movement.

Salon is the voice of the violent mob in the street; at times it makes the small-c communist Nationmagazine seem like a bastion of common sense. Its contributors claim white people, especially conservatives, emerge from the womb hating black people. To reinforce this ugly lie, Salon tries to silence those who threaten the Left and the racial-grievance industry. Salon was so desperate to slime the highly effective conservative investigative journalist James O’Keefe in 2010 that it published a sophomoric error-strewn hit piece by pseudo-journalist Max Blumenthal. Even the left-wing Columbia Journalism Review slapped down Salon and Blumenthal.

Nowadays Salon publishes morally reprehensible full-throated defenses of the increasingly violent Black Lives Matter movement whose supporters now openly endorse murdering cops and waging “war” against America. Salon cheered on the rioters in Baltimore and Ferguson, Mo., accepting as gospel the idea that blacks like Freddie Gray, Michael Brown, and Trayvon Martin were murdered by racist white people running wild. Black violence is routinely dismissed at Salon because it doesn’t fit the Left’s narrative. Black people are always victims and white people are always evildoers.

David Palumbo-Liu is just one of many Salon writers who spends his time emulating Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan. Like Farrakhan, Palumbo-Liu seems to embrace genocide against whites.

After two hard-left Democratic presidential candidates were booed at a radical left-wing activists’ convention for not toeing the Black Lives Matter line, Palumbo-Liu castigated the politicians for daring to assert that all lives, not just black lives, matter, accusing them of belonging to an evil “cult.” He attacked “the disgraceful performances of Mike [sic; read Martin] O’Malley and Bernie Sanders at last week’s Netroots Nation (#NN15) event in Phoenix.”

After Black Alliance for Just Immigration national coordinator Tia Oso and Black Lives Matter co-founder Patrisse Cullors occupied the stage where O’Malley was speaking, Cullors said she had to intervene. “We are in a state of emergency. If you do not feel that emergency, then you are not human.” De-humanizing opponents is a tactic of a genocidal, totalitarian movement, not of those legitimately advocating for civil rights.
To this political stunt worthy of the Third Reich’s Sturmabteilung, O’Malley responded in a restrained and perfectly decent way. He said “of course” black lives matter, just as white lives and “all lives matter.”

Wednesday, August 12, 2015

Black Skin Privilege: Justifying Voter Fraud

Editor’s note: The following is the fourth article in the FrontPageseries “Black Skin Privilege,” based on the Freedom Center pamphlet “Black Skin Privilege and the American Dream” by David Horowitz and John Perazzo. (Read Part I here, Part II here, and Part IIIhere.)
Black Americans today receive preferential treatment in the realm of elections and voting rights because the Left needs them to acquire and keep political power.

insert pictureTo left-wingers it’s 1815, not 2015. Blacks today are unquestionably full citizens unhindered by officially sanctioned discrimination, but to the Left there are still crosses burning in front of black families’ houses while residents cower in terror inside.

It’s a nefarious but brilliant strategy that relies on Republican cowardice.

When “Democrats turn election process rules into racial issues, they know they can get Republicans to shut up and capitulate, no matter how phony the civil rights branding,”writes former Justice Department attorney J. Christian Adams.

“The Left understands the interaction of culture with process,” he adds. “The Left knows that new election process rules act as a new set of sails to capture cultural prevailing winds favorable to Democrats.”

In other words, process is power.

America’s Fearmonger-in-Chief is always spreading alarm about a phony Republican push that threatens to prevent African-Americans from participating in the democratic process. A year ago Obama told Al Sharpton’s group that:

The principle of one person, one vote is the single greatest tool we have to redress an unjust status quo. You would think there would not be an argument about this anymore. But the stark, simple truth is this: The right to vote is threatened today in a way that it has not been since the Voting Rights Act became law nearly five decades ago. 
Across the country, Republicans have led efforts to pass laws making it harder, not easier, for people to vote. In some places, women could be turned away from the polls just because they’re registered under their maiden name but their driver’s license has their married name. Senior citizens who have been voting for decades may suddenly be told they can no longer vote until they can come up with the right ID. In other places, folks may learn that without a document like a passport or a birth certificate, they can’t register.

Obama, as usual, is lying

Obama, as usual, is lying 

It is his party that is assaulting voting rights by aggressively encouraging vote fraud. Democrats oppose photo ID requirements for voting because such laws discourage non-citizens, illegal aliens, disenfranchised criminals, and con artists from voting. Democrats want voting rights restored to disqualified felons—many of whom are black—because they vote for Democrats at a rate of 9 to 1. They support same-day registration because it makes fraud easier.

Democrats in Oregon and Washington State have opened the door to endless fraud in those states by forcing everyone to vote by mail. These postal voting systems effectively abolish the secret ballot because bureaucrats tallying the paper ballots get to see how citizens voted.

Letting Election Day stretch to a month or two, Adams notes, “doesn’t facially help Democrats, unless you understand the intersection of culture and election process rules—and the importance of monitoring the mechanics of elections.” He continues:

Month-long elections give Democrats the ability to get the unmotivated to the polls. More importantly, it allows the Democrats to conduct a prolonged election free from the watchful eyes of election observers in cities where nearly everyone is a Democrat. Six weeks of early voting is unmanageable in places like Detroit, Philadelphia, Chicago and other cities notorious for election crimes.
Democrats don’t want to make voting as easy as mailing a letter or ordering a pizza because they want America’s storied democracy to flourish. As whites continue to flee the party of Obama, Democrats know their party is doomed without continued heavy African-American backing. Without this very strong super-majority support from the black community, the Democratic Party might well join the Whigs and the Know Nothings on the ash heap of history.

Popular Posts