Friday, September 15, 2017

Two sides of the exact, same, horribly-ugly coin…

Two sides of the exact, same, horribly-ugly coin…:





The Liberal Economic Cycle of Stupidity..

The Liberal Economic Cycle of Stupidity..:





Ben Shapiro: The 3-Step Argument the Left Makes to Justify Violence Against Conservative Speakers

Ben Shapiro: The 3-Step Argument the Left Makes to Justify Violence Against Conservative Speakers:





Free speech is under assault because of a three-step argument made by the advocates and justifiers of violence.

The first step is they say that the validity or invalidity of an argument can be judged solely by the ethnic, sexual, racial or cultural identity of the person making the argument.

The second step is that they claim those who say otherwise are engaging in what they call “verbal violence,” and the final step is they conclude that physical violence is sometimes justified in order to stop such verbal violence.

So let’s examine each of these three steps in turn. First, the philosophy of intersectionality. This philosophy now dominates college campuses as well as a large segment, unfortunately, of today’s Democratic Party and suggests that straight, white Americans are inherently the beneficiaries of white privilege and therefore cannot speak on certain policies, since they have not experienced what it’s like to be black or Hispanic or gay or transgender or a woman.

This philosophy ranks the value of a view, not based on the logic or merit of the view, but on the level of victimization in American society experienced by the person espousing the view. Therefore, if you’re an LGBT black woman, your view of American society is automatically more valuable than that of a straight, white male.

The next step in the logic is obvious. If a straight, white male, or anybody else who ranks lower on the victimhood scale, says something contrary to the viewpoint of the higher-ranking, intersectionality identity, that person has engaged in a microaggression.

As NYU social psychologist Jonathan Haidt writes, “Microaggressions are small actions or word choices that seem on their face to have no malicious intent, but that are thought of as a kind of violence nonetheless.”

You don’t have to actively say anything insulting to microaggress. Somebody merely needs to take offense. If, for example, you say that society ought to be colorblind, you’re microaggressing certain identity groups who have been victimized by a noncolorblind society.

Note: Microaggressions, as the name suggests, are not merely insults. They are aggressions. They are the equivalent of physical violence.

Just two weeks ago, psychologist Lisa Feldman Barrett of Northeastern University published an essay in The New York Times suggesting that words should be seen as physical violence because they can cause stress and stress causes physical harm. Thus, Feldman suggested, it is reasonable, scientifically speaking, to ban or restrict speech you do not like at your school.

This is both inane and dangerous. That’s because it leads to the final logical step: Words you don’t like deserve to be fought physically.

When I spoke to California State University at LA, one professor threatened students who sponsored me by offering to fight them. He then posted a slogan on the door of his office stating, “The best response to microaggression is macroaggression.”

As Haidt writes, “This is why the idea that speech is violence is so dangerous. It tells the members of a generation already beset by anxiety and depression that the world is a far more violent and threatening place than it really is. It tells them that words, ideas, speakers can literally kill them. Even worse: At a time of rapidly rising political polarization in the United States, it helps a small subset of that generation to justify political violence.”

Indeed, protesters all too often engage in physically violent disruption when they believe their identity group is under verbal attack by someone, usually conservative, but not always.

Not only do some administrators look the other way at Middlebury College, Cal State LA, Berkeley, Evergreen,—actual crimes were committed and almost nobody has been arrested. But they actively forbid events for moving forward, creating a heckler’s veto, the notion that if you are physically violent enough, you can get administrators to kowtow to you, to bow before you, by canceling an event you disagree with altogether.

All of this destroys free speech, but just as importantly, it turns students into snowflakes, craven and pathetic, looking for an excuse to be offended so they can earn points in the intersectionality Olympics and then use those points as a club with which to beat opponents.

A healthy nation requires an emotionally and intellectually vigorous population ready to engage in open debate at all times.

Shielding college students from opposing viewpoints makes them simultaneously weaker and more dangerous. We must fight that process at every step. And that begins by acknowledging that whatever we think about America and where we stand, we must agree on this fundamental principle: All of our views should be judged on their merits, not on the color, or the sex, or the sexual orientation of the speaker, and those views should never be banned on the grounds that they offend someone.

Reposted from The Daily Signal

Thursday, September 14, 2017

Al Gore's electricity bill reveals he consumes 3,400% more power than the average U.S. home

Al Gore's electricity bill reveals he consumes 3,400% more power than the average U.S. home:

AlGore.jpg (Natural News) Just as most of us can remember exactly where we were and what we were doing when the planes flew into the Twin Towers in New York City in 2001, we can likely clearly remember the shock and horror we felt when watching Al Gore’s 2006 documentary, An Inconvenient Truth. That film – which...

Black Lives Matter Founder Claims Hate Speech Isn’t Protected By First Amendment

Black Lives Matter Founder Claims Hate Speech Isn’t Protected By First Amendment:





The co-founder of the Black Lives Matter movement claimed Monday on MSNBC that hate speech is not protected under the U.S. Constitution.

Host Katy Tur asked Dignity and Power Now founder Patrisse Cullors about President Donald Trump’s initial statement on the violence from white supremacists at a Charlottesville, Va. rally, which appeared to equate the neo-Nazis with the counter-protesters.

“Draw a distinction for me, if you will,” Tur asked Cullors, who first spread the hashtag #BlackLivesMatter.

“I think what is important at this moment is white nationalists are actually fighting to take away people’s rights,” she responded. “Black Lives Matter and groups like Black Lives Matter are fighting for equality.”

“Hate speech, which is what we’re seeing coming out of white nationalists groups, is not protected under the First Amendment rights,” she continued.

Cullors is incorrect. Under existing Supreme Court precedent, the U.S. government cannot sanction or ban speech simply because it is hateful or unpopular.

That principle was most recently upheld in June in the case of Matal v. Tam, when the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the government cannot deny trademarks to brand names it finds offensive.

Read more at The Free Beacon

Dana Loesch: The alt-right is not conservative

Dana Loesch: The alt-right is not conservative:





In the wake of last weekend’s violent “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, which resulted in three deaths and dozens of injuries, Dana Loesch has set the record straight on identity politics.

“I want to make something incredibly clear,” explained Dana on her Facebook page. “The alt-right is NOT conservative. … It is an identity politics movement. It is based in identity politics just like ‘Black Lives Matter’ is based in identity politics, just like Antifa is based in identity politics. ”

Dana continued on “Dana” today saying, “Alt-right is antithetical to conservatism.” She went on to explain that alt-right shares the same values and belief sets as Antifa and other political groups such as neo-Nazis and Ku Klux Klan that “look at identity over the animating principles of freedom.”

“Can we stop making everything about right and left, left and right?” asked Dana. “Either you are for individual freedom, either you are for liberty and you believe in the Constitution, or you don’t. There are no sides.”

Read more and watch the video at The Blaze

White Supremacists Were Not The Only Thugs Tearing Up Charlottesville

White Supremacists Were Not The Only Thugs Tearing Up Charlottesville:





The violence in Charlottesville reveals not who we are as Americans, but who we might become if we allow radicalism and totalitarianism to become normalized. In America today, that possibility is most likely to come, not from the radical Right, but from the Left.

To understand this trajectory, we need to know who the players were in this weekend’s violence. Those behind the protest and the counter-protest were not average Americans, but two extremist groups: anti-fascists (Antifas) on the Left (the counter-protestors) and white supremacist nationalists on the Right (the protesters).

With the contentious campaign and election of Donald Trump, Antifa exploded onto the scene, along with its counterpart, the neo-Nazis. The radical Right—a tiny but despicable group—saw in Trump’s America First agenda an opportunity for legitimization.

Despite Trump and his supporters condemning racism, the Left characterized everyone who supported him as “the radical Right.” Loose and even unwanted associations were seen as blood alliances. Never mind that grandma, who wants better border control and loves Trump because he stands for American interests, has nothing to do with a neo-Nazi thug. She and everyone wearing a MAGA red hat have been deemed white supremacists and racists by the Left.

Antifa’s violence is closely connected to leftist labeling of Republicans—an important point politicians, thought leaders, and the media need to take seriously. Going back to the 1960s when conservatives were called Nazis for supporting law and order, the label of racist has been a club Democrats have used to beat Republicans into submission. If you’re for border control, you’re a racist. If you oppose affirmative action, you’re a racist. If you want greater opposition to radical Islam, you’re a racist. If you don’t believe there’s institutionalized racism in America, you’re a racist. Basically, if you don’t agree with Democrats, you’re a racist.

Read more at The Federalist

Wednesday, September 13, 2017

Rules for them; rules for us…

Rules for them; rules for us…:





From November 2016…

President Obama won’t try to call off protests against Donald Trump, he said Thursday, ignoring pleas from the president-elect’s advisers to denounce the nationwide demonstrations.

“I would not advise people who feel strongly or are concerned about some of the issues that have been raised over the course of the campaign, I would not advise them to be silent,” Obama said during a joint news conference with German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

Obama said protests are just something Trump would have to get used to as the leader of the free world.

“I’ve been the subject of protests during the course of my eight years,” he said. “And I suspect that there’s not a president in our history that hasn’t been subject to these protests.”

The comments were Obama’s most extensive about the demonstrations against Trump that have sprouted up in numerous major cities.

Read more at The Hill

And again, Conservatives get blamed for the mess Liberals make…

And again, Conservatives get blamed for the mess Liberals make…:





Friday, September 8, 2017

Playing Into Every Female Stereotype, Women At Google Stay Home After Memo For Emotional Reasons

Playing Into Every Female Stereotype, Women At Google Stay Home After Memo For Emotional Reasons:





Some “upset” women in the echoing halls of Google decided to stay home from work after their feelings were hurt by a ten-page memorandum written by an anonymous employee who — trigger warning — acknowledged the general differences between men and women.

A former Google software engineer says some women at the company skipped work today, upset by the leaked memo. https://t.co/Uuvd5CBKv7
— NPR (@NPR) August 8, 2017
NPR reported that former Google employee Kelly Ellis said “some women who still work at the company stayed home on Monday because the memo made them ‘uncomfortable going back to work.'”

James Damore, who penned the politically incorrect memo, was canned by the corporation intolerant of viewpoint diversity on Monday for allegedly “perpetuating gender stereotypes.”

Ironically, the women too “upset” to go into work over a science and evidence-backed note are indeed playing into the worst gender stereotypes of all — the overly-emotional and irrational woman — and inadvertently proving what they are so fiercely attempting to deny: men and women are different.

Is NPR implying women disproportionately had an emotional reaction? �� https://t.co/TiPIfP4Tji
— Jeff Giesea (@jeffgiesea) August 8, 2017
Read more at The Daily Wire

Clinton’s still stinking up the country…

Clinton’s still stinking up the country…:





The Clinton administration signed off on a framework in 1994 that ended up replacing North Korea’s nuclear power plant with light water reactor power plants – supposedly in an attempt to help North Korea develop nuclear energy without the capacity for nuclear weapons. Here’s what Bill Clinton had to say at the time:

This agreement will help to achieve a longstanding and vital American objective: an end to the threat of nuclear proliferation on the Korean Peninsula.

This agreement is good for the United States, good for our allies, and good for the safety of the entire world. It reduces the danger of the threat of nuclear spreading in the region. It’s a crucial step toward drawing North Korea into the global community….This agreement represents the first step on the road to a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula. It does not rely on trust. Compliance will be certified by the International Atomic Energy Agency. The United States and North Korea have also agreed to ease trade restrictions and to move toward establishing liaison offices in each other’s capitals. These offices will ease North Korea‘s isolation.
By 2002, it was clear to the world that North Korea was in fact a nuclear developer, and the Bush Administration so announced in 2003. By 2006, North Korea had tested a bomb. In other words, the United States handed the North Koreans cash and technology – and a signed basketball from Michael Jordan – in order to convince them not to go nuclear. Within a decade, North Korea had gone nuclear.

Read more at The Daily Wire

So, remind me again, how much of the internet are these morons controlling these days?!?…

So, remind me again, how much of the internet are these morons controlling these days?!?…:





Margot Cleveland—As I cast my eyes toward the upcoming academic year, I’d like to publicly thank Google for providing a veritable semester-long case study on legal issues related to human resource management. From questions of free speech, employment at will, and labor relations, to questions of hostile environment, affirmative action, and retaliatory discharge, Google’s firing of James Damore has it all.

So far, most media reports have cast Damore’s firing as entirely legal. Some reporters have highlighted Damore’s status as an at-will employee, which allows Google to fire him for any lawful reason. Others have focused on Google’s status as a private employer, which means the First Amendment does not prohibit it from firing Damore because of his speech.

But contrary to the running narrative, Damore has two viable legal claims, evident from comments he made to The New York Times: “I have a legal right to express my concerns about the terms and conditions of my working environment and to bring up potentially illegal behavior, which is what my document does.” Damore added that before his firing, he filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board, alleging Google was “misrepresenting and shaming me in order to silence my complaints.” He noted that it was “illegal to retaliate” against him for filing the NLRB charge.

Read more at The Federalist

Saturday, September 2, 2017

Yes, it’s true: The evidence shows that Trump is a fascist dictator

Please please please click the link below and read the whole thing!!  ~Vanessa



Yes, it’s true: The evidence shows that Trump is a fascist dictator:

I’ve examined all of the evidence carefully and it’s true: What Trump has done — from spying on journalists to unconstitutional treaties — is tyrannical.


Donald Trump at CPAC 2016
Spurred on by my Facebook friends’ assertions that Trump is a dangerous fascist dictator, one who seeks to control all aspects of American life, I examined the evidence — and it’s true. He is. Here are the facts:



The post Yes, it’s true: The evidence shows that Trump is a fascist dictator appeared first on Bookworm Room.

Explaining logic to morons…

Explaining logic to morons…:





Save this quick and handy guide…

Save this quick and handy guide…:





Diversity for us vs “Diversity” for them…

Diversity for us vs “Diversity” for them…:





Dinesh D’Souza : The Fascist Roots of the American Left

Dinesh D’Souza : The Fascist Roots of the American Left:





In 1925 the Jewish philosopher Theodor Lessing spoke out against the repressive political climate of Weimar Germany.

Although Lessing’s explicit target was the cravenness of the Weimar regime of Paul von Hindenburg, his real target was the emerging power of Nazism, and he blamed the government for yielding to it.

The Nazis recognized immediately the threat posed by Lessing. Adolf Hitler youth at Lessing’s University of Hanover formed a “committee against Lessing.” They encouraged students to boycott his lectures.

Nazi youth then showed up and disrupted Lessing’s classes. Lessing was forced to give up his academic chair the following year.

In his account of what happened, Lessing later wrote that he could do nothing to prevent being “shouted down, threatened and denigrated” by student activists.

He was helpless, he said, “against the murderous bellowing of youngsters who accept no individual responsibilities but pose as spokesman for a group or an impersonal ideal, always talking in the royal ‘we’ while hurling personal insults … and claiming that everything is happening in the name of what’s true, good and beautiful.”

This was fascism, German style, in the 1920s.

In March 2017, the eminent political scientist Charles Murray showed up to give a lecture on class divisions in American society at a progressive bastion, Middlebury College in Vermont.

Hundreds of protesters who deemed themselves “anti-fascists” gathered outside McCullough Student Center where Murray was scheduled to speak and engage in dialog with Middlebury political scientist Allison Stanger.

Murray is a libertarian who leans Republican, although he’s no fan of President Donald Trump. Unlike Lessing, who taught at the university where he was harassed, Murray doesn’t teach at Middlebury, which is virtually devoid of conservative faculty.

(Stanger is a moderate Democrat affiliated with the New America Foundation.)

In any event, the discussion promised to be a scholarly and illuminating one, giving students a perspective that they never get. But the Middlebury protesters were having none of it.

The activists confronted Murray and Stanger, and at one point they struck Stanger. Inside Wilson Hall, protesters turned their backs to Murray and began to boo and shout epithets like “racist” and “Nazi.”

Murray found he simply could not be heard. College officials escorted Murray and Stanger to another location where their conversation had, for safety reasons, to be shown on closed-circuit television.

After the event, according to Middlebury spokesman Bill Burger, Murray and Stanger were “physically and violently confronted by a group of protesters.” The protesters were masked in the standard Antifa style.

Murray and Stanger ducked into an administrator’s car, but the protesters attacked the car, pounding on it rocking it, and seeking to prevent it from leaving.

“At one point,” Burger said, “a large traffic sign was thrown in front of the car. Public safety officers were able, finally, to clear the way to allow the vehicle to leave campus.”

According to Burger, “During the confrontation outside McCullough, one of the demonstrators pulled Stanger’s hair and twisted her neck. She was attended to at Porter Hospital later and is wearing a neck brace.”

Murray praised campus security officers for the protection they provided but described what he experienced as “scary, violent mob action.”

This is so-called progressive anti-fascism, American style, circa 2017.

Why does this purported anti-fascism on the part of progressives so closely resemble the fascism that it claims to be opposing? More profoundly, what is “anti-fascism” as the term is now used on the American left?

To answer these questions, we turn to the founders of the so-called anti-fascist movement on the progressive left, the sociologist Herbert Marcuse of the Institute for Social Research in Frankfurt am Main, Germany.

Much has been written about the Frankfurt School and its leading intellectuals, Theodor Adorno, Max Horkheimer, and most of all Marcuse.

These mostly-lionized accounts stress that the Frankfurt group was made up of refugees from Nazi Germany, Jews fleeing the prospect of Holocaust. Consequently, the credibility of these men in formulating an anti-fascist doctrine has gone largely unquestioned.

In reality, the Frankfurt School’s relationship to Nazism is much more complicated. Marcuse, for instance, was a student and devotee of the philosopher Martin Heidegger, and Heidegger was a lifelong anti-Semite and member of the Nazi Party who championed Hitler’s rise to power.

Heidegger viewed his entire philosophy as laying the foundation for the “blood and soil” doctrines of Nazism. Even after the war, Heidegger refused to condemn Nazi atrocities.

Marcuse did break with Heidegger and flee Germany, but the break was entirely over the issue of anti-Semitism and the personal danger that Hitler’s policies posed for Jews in general and Marcuse in particular.

Marcuse never repudiated Heidegger’s philosophy, and a good deal of his own early work has been described as attempting a reconciliation between Heidegger’s thought and that of Marx. Heidegger viewed Marx as the pioneer leftist of the 19th century and Heidegger as the pioneer leftist of the 20th century.

Arriving in America, Marcuse taught at Columbia and Brandeis and also worked in Washington, D.C., for the Office of War Information and the Office of Strategic Services, forerunner to the CIA.

There Marcuse helped formulate anti-fascist educational strategies to combat Nazism and later to shape anti-fascist education in postwar Germany. Subsequently, Marcuse moved west to the University of California in San Diego where, during the 1960s, he became a guru of the New Left.

Here I want to focus on the idea that Marcuse is probably best remembered for, one that could not be more pertinent today.

This idea was unveiled in a famous essay he wrote called “Repressive Tolerance.” This essay was published along with several others in a book published in 1970 called “A Critique of Pure Tolerance.”

Let’s follow the argument of the essay because it provides the basis for the vicious intolerance that the left currently unleashes against all forms of dissent in our culture.

The bullying and terrorizing of conservatives on campus, the shaming of Republicans in the media, the defilement of the American flag, the disruption of Trump rallies—all of this behavior receives its moral justification in Marcuse’s famous—or infamous—essay.

Marcuse begins by admitting that all other things being equal, classical liberal virtues like tolerance and free speech are desirable. But, he says, given the class structure of society in which ruling groups have most of the power, and disenfranchised groups have very little, “the conditions of tolerance are loaded.”

To extend tolerance to intolerant groups, Marcuse argues, “actually protects the already established machinery of discrimination.”

Therefore, Marcuse argues that a general principle of liberal tolerance—tolerance toward all viewpoints—should be abandoned.

“Tolerance cannot be indiscriminate and equal with respect to the contents of the expression, neither in word nor in deed; it cannot protect false words and wrong deeds which demonstrate that they contradict and counteract the possibilities of liberation.”

In society, Marcuse insisted, “Certain things cannot be said, certain ideas cannot be expressed, certain policies cannot be proposed, certain behavior cannot be permitted without making tolerance an instrument for the continuation of servitude.”

Marcuse was nothing if not blunt about what he advocated: “the systematic withdrawal of tolerance toward regressive and repressive opinions.”

What specifically did Marcuse seek to repress?

He cited “the withdrawal of toleration of speech and assembly from groups and movements which promote aggressive policies, armament, chauvinism, discrimination on the grounds of race and religion, or which oppose the extension of public services, Social Security, medical care, etc.”

Moreover, Marcuse added, his approach “may necessitate new and rigid restrictions on teaching,” including the suppression of certain types of “scientific research.”

Marcuse bluntly calls for “intolerance against movements from the right, and toleration of movements from the left.” He admits his goal is one of “shifting the balance between left and right by restraining the liberty of the right,” and in this way “strengthening the oppressed against the oppressors.”

Marcuse’s argument has been summed up in the phrase: No toleration of the intolerant. In the 1960s, Marcuse acolytes used a similar chant, “No free speech for fascists.”

At first glance, “no free speech for fascists” sounds like an unobjectionable idea. But upon reflection, it becomes problematic.

Don’t all citizens under the Constitution have equal rights, and if so don’t they have the same rights to free speech, free assembly, and so on? If so, then fascists have those rights too. So on what basis can fascists in America be denied rights?

Since Marcuse intends this, he obviously does not believe in equal rights for all citizens, and neither, apparently, do his modern-day followers.

Moreover, not once does Marcuse demonstrate that the groups he intends to repress are in fact fascist. Marcuse’s targets are not Nazis but rather patriots, Republicans, conservatives, and Christians.

The real meaning of Marcuse’s essay is: No free speech for patriots and conservatives. No toleration for capitalists and Christians.

Of course, the fascists and Nazis themselves sought to undermine the institutions of liberal democracy, such as free speech and tolerance, in precisely the way Marcuse recommends.

To fight fascism with intolerance is one thing. But to fight classical liberalism and modern American conservatism with intolerance is, well, fascist.

This excerpt was taken with permission from Dinesh D’Souza’s new book “The Big Lie: Exposing the Nazi Roots of the American Left” (Regnery Publishing, 2017).

…but let Trump put the toilet paper on the roll the wrong way, and it’s a total MSM squall-fest.

…but let Trump put the toilet paper on the roll the wrong way, and it’s a total MSM squall-fest.: