Category Archives: Attacks by Leftists

Repeat: Friday Follies for June 5, 2015

Posted on by

The left is attempting to smear Marco Rubio and his wife. The Drudge headline this morning is this: NYT INVESTIGATES: Rubio and Wife Cited 17 Times for Traffic Infractions... The New York Times couldn’t be bothered by Hillary’s State Department incompetence, nor of the bribes funneled to her and Bill through their shell corporation, but let the Rubios get some traffice tickets? Horrors!

I’ll take the Rubio’s traffic ‘indiscretions’ over Bill’s and Hillary’s criminality any day. At least the Rubios paid their fines instead of attempting to cover them up.

***

Rick Perry announced his candidacy for Prez yesterday. I saw him speak at the NRA Annual Meeting in Nashville a month ago. It was apparent then that he was going to run. (You can see my comments and a link a video of his speech here.) Perry’s opening video of him shooting steel with an AR was a hit with the NRA members—especially his final look to the audience in the video.

Perry lost his bid for Prez in 2012 by screwing up one interview. In that interview, he said he’d close three federal departments. He named two and couldn’t remember the third. I’ve heard him say elsewhere that he had learned his lesson—never give an interview after having major surgery. Perry had surgery on his back during the campaign and was taking pain-killers when he was interviewed.

I like Perry. I like a number of the ‘Pub candidates, Cruz, Walker, Rubio, Jindal, and to as lesser extent, Paul. I told my wife after hearing Perry speak in Nashville, “He is the only one speaking today that actually appears Presidential.”

***

I don’t know how many of you subscribe to Erick Erickson’s daily newsletter. I do. I don’t always agree with him but, on occasion, he says something that strikes a cord within me. Today’s newsletter had such an occasion. I would hope you read it, too. It contains ammunition for you in your next discussion with a liberal who claims our Founders were racist, old white men.

Open Letter to a Liberal Professor

My conservatism doesn’t need to be edited.

By: Diary)  |  June 4th, 2015 at 03:27 PM

(From the diaries…bill s)

The heart of this entry is a letter I wrote in response to one specific liberal professor who made the mistake of attempting to embarrass me for holding conservative views. First let me share a little back-story. It was an online course on American Government, one that made use of a message board for class discussion and student interaction. After introductions our first assignment was to answer a question regarding freedom in America, including how and to whom it should be applied. I happily typed and posted my response, which I share here in part:

“Our Federation was founded on the ideas of Individualism, and the idea that freedom should be available to every citizen in equal measure. It was this idea that the framers of our Constitution embodied and enshrined within our system of governance. They sought to create a document that preserved and protected the idea of individual freedom by enumerating a system that not only protected the citizen but allowed the citizen to participate should he or she choose to do so.”

Being a liberal my professor could not let me, a mere student, praise the work of our nation’s founders, especially in an open forum where other students might be exposed to a positive view of them. Thus she felt it her duty to post a reply and correct my “errant” notions, and responded by stating:

“I will not usually intervene here, but I want to push you all to think about something —

Irish writes: “Our Federation was founded on the ideas of Individualism, and the idea that freedom should be available to every citizen in equal measure.” As I’m sure Irish knows, though, the Founding Fathers explicitly did not believe that freedom should be available to every citizen in equal measure. Quite the opposite. They believed that freedom should be available mostly to the wealthy, land-owning, white men. Our idea of who should be allowed to participate in this project of self-governance has evolved substantially over our history.”

Like so many liberal professors, in a room with a captive audience, this woman had become far too comfortable spouting factual inaccuracies and historically incorrect statements in order to drive forward a corrosive ideology. Like so many conservatives I am sick of this having become a common occurrence, so rather than drop the matter, I chose to respond:

Professor,

In response to your attempt to correct my statement I would prefer to defend my position. I said exactly what I meant, it needs no correction, and furthermore I can defend my position with historical evidence.

At the time of our nation’s founding the understood meaning of the word “citizen”, so far as political involvement was concerned, was indeed that of white, land-owning, males. Thus, to say, as I did, that “Our Federation was founded on the ideas of Individualism, and the idea that freedom should be available to every citizen in equal measure” is accurate in its context. However to state that the founders “explicitly did not believe that freedom should be available to every citizen in equal measure” that they believed “[q]uite the opposite” going so far as to suggest that “They believed that freedom should be available mostly to the wealthy, land-owning, white men” is demonstrably incorrect.

It defies logic to suggest that our Constitution’s Framers intended to reserve citizenship and freedom to white, male, landowners, either generally or exclusively. If that were the case they could have done so, they had the opportunity — they had the votes.

Our Constitution, written by those very framers, does not restrict citizenship or freedom in such a manner. Even issues such as slavery are acknowledged but not enshrined, left instead to the discretion of the states. Nowhere within our founding document can be found anything resembling the Jim Crow laws or the “slave” codes that erupted in the South after the passing of the 13th Amendment. Yet these men you accuse of harboring such vile racist views had ample opportunity to include such legislation. Furthermore, the inclusion of the Article 5 Amendment process indicates that our Constitution’s framers were aware of the fact that times would change, and also aware of the need to provide for those changes. They were conscious of the population growth in the North and expected that it would eventually overrun the influence of the South within Congress. Feeling that this would be the case they allowed the Three-fifths Compromise in an effort to prevent the Southern States from simply importing more slaves as a means to increase their power within the House of Representatives. This act by the Framers suggests they intended to provide a means by which our federation could eventually deal with the issue of slavery while accomplishing the immediate, and necessary, task of creating a union of the existing States.

I would suggest that our Constitution is not a rigid document enshrining bigotry, patriarchy, or voting rights tied to landownership, is evidence of the lack of intent to restrict society in America in such a manner; but it could have been. This is a truth I feel is easily supported. We need look no further than he dissenting opinion in the infamous Dred Scott case. This document contains a great deal of history relating to the treatment of African Americans prior to the Emancipation. In the opinion Justice Benjamin R. Curtis reveals that four Northern states (Delaware, Maryland, New Hampshire and New York) provided voting rights for African American citizens even before our Constitution was drafted. (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1072053/posts) Ironically, in light of your assertion, several states when ratifying the Constitution did so with votes from both Whites and African Americans. This, to my mind, seems to fail as evidence of an exclusionary approach by the Framers.

I am however not naïve, I realize that there were those among our founders who felt otherwise but the facts are clear — the majority of our Founding Fathers did not intend to restrict freedom, using a narrow definition of who was a “citizen,” reserving it to a select few, as you have suggested.

On a final note I would point out that where there hasbeen a substantial change to our definition, or understanding, of what constitutes a “citizen” it has been a result of those “white, male, landowners” in the North who voted to abolish the institution of slavery and redefine said citizenship, via the 13th and 14th Amendments, and this was done in the face of great opposition from the southern Democrat Party. (On a side note: This phenomena was repeated in the early 1900’s when again “white men” in the House of Representatives and the Senate voted to extend that definition to include recognized national voting rights for women as citizens of America, and this via another Constitutional Amendment. This decision closed the gap legally between citizenship and voting rights for women.)

The ability for this to happen, both for former slaves and for women, was precisely a result of those “white, male, landowners” who could have enshrined sexism, bigotry and the like within our founding document but did not.

I stand by my original statement, and maintain that I was accurate in my portrayal of the intent of our founders.

I appreciate your time.

I knew even then that I would not change her mindset, or reverse her ideology, but I also knew that I was throwing down a gauntlet she could not afford to pick up. This is why it is important we self-educate. We as conservatives must be able to defend our beliefs with documented and researched opinions. It is amazing to watch a liberal when they are out of their element, falling back on tired and weak hypothetical arguments.

Not surprisingly this professor never again attempted to correct my posts, and for the curious, my grade did not suffer for my response.

Facebook

Can we survive…

Posted on by

…Obama’s last months in office without civil war? A couple of articles triggered that thought as I perused the headlines this morning. In one article, I saw that the DoJ is funding a study about ‘right-wing’ use of social media. They’ve thrown in a few Islamic sites but the real emphasis is us, you and me.

Justice Department Studying ‘Far-Right’ Social Media Use

$585,719 study to combat violent extremism

BY: , June 1, 2015 5:00 am

The Department of Justice is concentrating on “far-right” groups in a new study of social media usage aimed at combatting violent extremism.

The Justice Department’s National Institute of Justice (NIJ) awarded Michigan State University $585,719 for the study, which was praised by Eric Holder, the former attorney general, earlier this year.

“There is currently limited knowledge of the role of technology and computer mediated communications (CMCs), such as Facebook and Twitter, in the dissemination of messages that promote extremist agendas and radicalize individuals to violence,” according to the NIJ grant. “The proposed study will address this gap through a series of qualitative and quantitative analyses of posts from various forms of CMC used by members of both the far-right and Islamic extremist movements.”

The study draws more upon right-wing forums than upon the corners of the web inhabited by Islamist extremists.

“We will collect posts made in four active forums used by members of the far-right and three from the Islamic Extremist community, as well as posts made in Facebook, LiveJournal, Twitter, YouTube, and Pastebin accounts used by members of each movement,” the grant said.

“The findings will be used to document both the prevalence and variation in the ideological content of posts from members of each movement,” the grant continued. “In addition, we will assess the value of these messages in the social status of the individual posting the message and the function of radical messages in the larger on-line identity of participants in extremist communities generally.”

The project will also “identify the hidden networks of individuals who engage in extremist movements based on geographic location and ideological similarities.” (This column continues at the Free Beacon website.)

Given Obama’s and Holder’s track record on curbing Islamic extremists, does anyone really believe the emphasis will be on them instead of you and me? I don’t.

The second article was about schools teaching “white privilege,” spending millions to the exclusion of funding other dire needs. Children are being taught that the root of all ills is “white privilege,” whatever that is. When I was growing up, I wish I had some. My father was a coal miner. My mother a school teacher. My father had, at best, an eighth grade education. My mother started teaching in the 1920s because she had a high school diploma. She took college courses all her life but never got a BS Ed. I’m sure she wished she had some “white privilege.”

What is happening is nothing more than indoctrination and the setting of false expectations.  If the children are taught failure is external, they will never look to improve themselves through their own efforts, “because it’s white privilege that makes you fail, not a lack of effort on the children’s and teacher’s part.”

Teachers complain, chaos reigns as St. Paul schools spend millions on ‘white privilege’ training

Steve Gunn , June 2, 2015

ST. PAUL, Minn. – Have the taxpayers of St. Paul spent nearly $3 million over the past five years to bring chaos and danger to their schools and students?

Apparently so.

In 2010, the St. Paul school district began a contractual relationship with the Pacific Educational Group, a San Francisco-based organization that tries to help public schools deal with achievement and disciplinary issues involving black students.

PEG packages and sells the concept of victimization, for a very high price.

It claims that the American education system is built around white culture, tradition and social norms – aka “white privilege” – to the unfair detriment of black students.

PEG believes that black students will only achieve if school curricula are customized to meet their cultural specifications. It also rejects the concept of using suspensions or expulsions to discipline black students.

…

According to information provided by the district to EAGnews through a freedom of information request, St. Paul schools spent at least the following amounts on PEG consultations services over the past five years:

* $137,720 in 2010-11,
* $366,800 in 2011-12,
* $598,900 in 2012-13,
* $489,150 in 2013-14 and
* $285,895 in 2014-15.

The district also reported spending “matched amounts” of $132,072 (2010-11), $363,260 (2011-12) and $537,900 (2012-13) on PEG, without explaining what that term means.

Not long after PEG started working with St. Paul school officials, crucial policy changes were made, according to various news reports.

Special needs students with behavioral issues were mainstreamed into regular classrooms, a position openly advocated by PEG.

Student suspensions were replaced by “time outs,” and school officials starting forgiving or ignoring violence and other unacceptable behavior, according to various sources.

“The disciplinary changes came out of meetings with an organization called Pacific Educational Group, a San Francisco-based operation that has been consulting with the district dating back to 2010,” the Minneapolis Star Tribune reported.

The result has been general chaos throughout the district, with far too many students out of control because they know there are no real consequences for their actions.

A  local publication called CityPages recently told the story of Becky McQueen, an educator at St. Paul’s Harding High School.

“Last spring, when she stepped into a fight between two basketball players, one grabbed her shoulder and head, throwing her aside,” the CityPages article explained. “The kid was only sent home for a couple of days.

“In March, when a student barged into her class, McQueen happened to be standing in the doorway and got crushed into a shelf. The following week, two boys came storming in, hit a girl in the head, then skipped back out. One of them had already been written up more than 30 times.

“Yet another student who repeatedly drops into her class has hit kids and cursed at an aide, once telling McQueen he would “fry” her ass. She tried to make a joke of it — ‘Ooh, I could use a little weight loss.’ Her students interjected: ‘No, that means he’s gonna kill you.’”

McQueen now has her students use a secret knock on the classroom door, so she will know who to allow in, the article said.

It seems strange to me this indoctrination only seems to occur in metropolitan areas were the students are primarily black. In all these articles, not a word is said about the white students who remain in these schools. Aren’t they worthy of education, too? Or, is that reserved only to those with “black privilege?”

What programs like the Pacific Education Group accomplish is further division within the nation. When these children graduate—with a minimum of real education but a plate-full of indoctrination, they will ‘see’ the world through the indoctrinated bias. Failure is because of ‘white privilege,’ not due to their own efforts, or lack thereof. PEG continues to reinforce a culture of dependency, slavery to the government for a livelihood because those former students, now adults, are unable to provide for themselves.

What will be the result? Riots of course. Riots aided and abetted by the liberal, black politicians and activists who supports the mob against the agencies of law and order. In the case of Baltimore, the local State Attorney is siding with the mob to create more chaos.

And with chaos comes…what? Possibly civil war. We already see acts of civil war occurring daily in Baltimore, New York, Chicago, St. Louis, all the cities with liberal, black, local governments. Cities controlled by those unable and unwilling to do the job they were elected to do.

Obama has approximately eighteen months remaining in his term. The question is, “Will a nation-wide civil war occur before or after his term expires?” The cities are filled with false and unrealistic expectations. When the public trough runs empty, who will be blamed? You know the answer to that question as well as do I.

Facebook

Culture of hate

Posted on by

We, conservatives, Christians, have been under attack for decades, since the sixties if not earlier. Initially, no one really cared, nor took any interest in the attacks. This is America, after all. We all have 1st Amendment rights. Don’t we? We can’t lost that! It can’t happen here.

Well, it can happen here. Our first amendment rights, as well as all the other constitutionally protected rights are under attack. The left has carefully seeded hate against us and those seeds have now sprouted. If you doubt this, just scan the headlines. You needn’t read the articles, the headlines will tell you enough.

Gay-rights advocates torpedo GoFundMe campaign for Christian-owned bakery

For those of you who have been living under a rock, a bakery in Oregon, Sweet Cakes, was targeted by a lesbian couple. They asked the bakery to make a wedding cake. The bakery refused saying it was against their religious beliefs. The lesbian couple sued for discrimination—and won. The bakery’s 1st Amendment right was ignored. The liberal court assessed the bakery a fine large enough to bankrupt them. The headline above tells the rest of the story.

In another instance, the John Hopkins University Student Government has banned Chick-fil-A from their campus. Why? “Johns Hopkins University has banned Chick-fil-A from its campus saying that the restaurant is a “microaggression” against its students.” It mattered not that Chick-fil-A has no presence on the university campus. The act was nothing more than pure spite.

These were attacks against Christians and a Christian-owned business. But these aren’t the only instances of hate and violence. Rabid environmentalists have used violence for decades. Usually those acts were against property. One of the latest attacks was direct violence against a person, an employee of a company.

Will there be a National Conversation after environmentalist shoots energy worker?

posted at 7:21 pm on April 17, 2015 by Noah Rothman

Get ready for a week of introspection from the press, particularly the left-leaning media, as a wave of tortured self-criticism characterizes coverage of what is sure to dominate the news cycle for the foreseeable future… LOL. Just kidding!

A disturbing story out of West Virginia flagged by The Washington Free Beacon’s Lachlan Markay indicates that a man, enraged by the drilling taking place in his state, shot an employee of an energy exploitation company on Monday.

A man dressed in camouflage with his face painted black approached Mark Miller, an employee with HG Energy LLC, on Joe’s Creek near Sod, Napier said.

“At that time he played Mr. Miller a recording that said ‘Stop the drilling’ and then stuck a gun through the window of the passenger side of the truck,” [Lincoln County Chief Sheriff’s Deputy J.J.] Napier said.

A reporter with The Charleston Gazette called a member of the West Virginia Sierra Club for comment and received unequivocal condemnation of this violent incident, but the episode has received little attention in the national press.

For a media culture that is quick to blame conservatives for every episode of violence with a potential political motive, the commentary community’s silence on this incident is deafening.

The column continues listing the instances where the lefties acted with violence. In some cases the liberal media tried, and failed, to blame conservatives for the acts of violent liberals.

The left has purposely sought to divide the country. A country divided is weak and when weakened, that nation is susceptible for a takeover. A coup, in other words.

A coup need not be a violent overthrow, it can be insidious, a chip here, a chip there. The question is not how, but when. When will the people of this nation wake up and resist. That resistance need not be violent, either. The same methods used by the left, can also be used by us to counteract the left.

With Obama, Holder and the new Holder clone as Attorney General, the left is emboldened. The current crop of GOP leadership in Washington are willing enablers of the coup. They fear the left and are abetting them. We have a chance to make corrections. Remember Cruz, Walker, Paul, and Rubio, each a conservative, when the election cycle commences. Remember, too, that Boehner and McConnell must go along with their cronies in Congress.

Facebook

Can we hope?

Posted on by

Rumors of a political coup against Speaker of the House John Boehner (D-OH) arose when his partner-in-crime, Mitch McConnell caved on the DHS funding bill. Those rumors haven’t gone away. In fact, they’ve increased after Boehner pushed a DHS funding bill that included funding for Obama’s illegal alien amnesty. Boehner was able to do so by relying on his democrat partners who voted en masse for the bill. Only 75 ‘Pubs followed Boehner. All the remaining ‘Pubs, 167 of them, did not.

House Republicans weigh coup against Boehner after series of political defeats

Retreat in Homeland Security shutdown showdown latest embarrassment for GOP leaders

By S.A. Miller – The Washington Times – Thursday, March 5, 2015

Rank-and-file Republicans are openly contemplating a coup against House Speaker John A. Boehner and his top lieutenants after a series of self-inflicted legislative fumbles and political defeats in the first weeks of the congressional session.

This week’s retreat from the standoff over Homeland Security Department funding and President Obama’s deportation amnesty was only the latest embarrassment for Republican leaders, who also have had to yank bills on abortion, border security and education after rebellions within their own party.

Rep. Andy Harris, Maryland Republican, conceded that running the conference was like “herding cats” but said that is not an excuse for failure.

“I’m still optimistic that leadership can herd the cats. But if they can’t, then I think there will be consideration about whether a new leadership team needs to be put in place,” Mr. Harris said.

The leaders have acknowledged stumbles at the opening of the congressional session, when Republicans took control of the Senate as well as the House and members had high expectations for advancing a conservative agenda. But leaders have insisted that they don’t need dramatic changes in how they run the conference, a Republican aide said.

House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, California Republican, prides himself on having an open-door policy and listening to members, but conservative lawmakers say the leadership team hasn’t been listening to them or their constituents.

“I don’t think they are listening to all the members,” said Rep. John Fleming, a member of a small band of lawmakers who formed the conservative Freedom Caucus and have been at the center of rebellions against the leadership.

He said the party leaders haven’t kept up with an increasingly conservative Republican base that is electing lawmakers who are more conservative.

“The problem is we are used to being in this moderate lane and the people, our constituents who are sending us here, are trying to move us over into the more conservative lane,” said the Louisiana Republican. “I think the struggle is that leadership has not yet picked up the trim line that they need to put out more conservative legislation to get better results.”

Supporters of the leadership team blame the dysfunction on conservatives such as Mr. Fleming, who they say sabotage good legislation by demanding perfect bills and ideological purity.

“Our problem isn’t leadership around here; it’s followership,” said Rep. Tom Cole, an Oklahoma Republican who is a close ally of Mr. Boehner.

“We have a group of people who, frankly, think they are always right and their leaders and the conference collectively are usually wrong,” he said. “It’s actually a fairly small group.”

Rep. Peter T. King, New York Republican, put it more bluntly: “I don’t consider them conservatives. I consider them anarchists.

“The whole party is going to suffer, not just the leadership, all of us are going to suffer if we can’t get more organized. But I don’t know if that group of about 35 wants to be organized. It’s almost as if they sit by themselves in the floor there — like a separate party, like in France or Italy where you have the rump parties out there,” Mr. King said.

Apparently Representatives Cole, Fleming and King think the conservatives should shut-up and be quiet. They believe those rebelling congressmen should say and do nothing because, “Big Brother knows best!” No other contrary opinions will be allowed.

The column continues on a second page with a list of bills that were pulled after objections from conservatives. Those bills have yet to be refiled.

As an aside, there is a reason why Peter King has been elected from a heavily liberal district. He’s more progressive than any of the democrat candidates who ran against him. He has been and still is a subversive vote among the ‘Pub ranks.

The column continues.

Not all of the leadership’s dust-ups have been with conservatives.

The first blunder occurred with a bill that would ban abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy, with an exception for cases of reported rape, incest or danger to the mother’s life. The leaders pulled the bill Jan. 21 to head off a revolt by some of the conference’s female and moderate members.

“We’re continuing to listen to everybody,” Mr. McCarthy said at the time. “We’re still planning on moving forward with the bill.”

The bill has yet to return.

A week later, a border security bill was pulled amid complaints from conservatives that it was too weak. The legislation is expected to return combined with other bills that beef up interior enforcement of immigration laws.

The third bill pulled off the floor would have rolled back parts of the No Child Left Behind Act, but conservatives balked that it didn’t do enough to get the federal government out of education.

Mr. Fleming said the education bill underscored the disconnect between Republican congressional leaders and voters.

“That’s the reason why there is frustration out there,” he said. “Time and time again, our constituents are telling us, ‘No, we don’t want federal mandating on school education. We want that left to the states.’ And yet somehow there are people who are making decisions up here who think that, ‘No, we just need to have just a little less federal control but not hand it over to the states.’”

Still, Mr. Cole said the Republican conference isn’t going to oust its leadership team.

“People really recognize that the problem is in the culture of the conference; it’s not with the leadership of the conference. So we have to work through this as a family and get to a point where we all — or at least 218 of us — are willing to work together,” he said. “If you can’t do that, you’re going to have a hard time accomplishing the things you said you wanted to do when you came here.”

The two Representatives quoted in the Washington Times, Tom Cole and John Fleming, think the differences between the House conservatives and the ‘leadership’ is just a family squabble. They are wrong! It is the difference between saving the nation as it should and must be, or allowing the country to continue its slide into tyranny and civil war. The House leadership are no friends of ours. They’re on the same side as the democrats and liberals that infest the nation’s capital.

 

 

Facebook

Bits ‘n Pieces

Posted on by
https://jasonkander.com/files/2015/02/Jason-Kander-for-US-Senate-100x100.jpg

Missouri Secretary of State, Jason Kander

Jason Kander, our democrat Missouri Secretary of State and scion of the Kansas City democrat political machine, has announced he will run against Senator Roy Blunt in 2016. Kander received the endorsement of the entire Missouri democrat team as well as from the KC ‘Red’ Star. Surprise, surprise!

Attorney General Chris Koster, who is readying to join Kander on the statewide slate in his own run for governor: “Every day, Jason Kander uses the lessons he learned serving in the Army in Afghanistan to do what’s right for Missouri. He doesn’t care who gets credit for an idea, he just wants to get the job done for our state. We need that approach in Washington, which is why I am supporting Jason Kander for United States Senate.” — PoliticMO Newsletter, February 19, 2015.

So it will be Turncoat Koster running for Governor teaming with Kander running for Senator. All in all, Kander has a better rep than Koster. Still you have to wonder, in this ‘race of the Double-Ks’ who is helping whom?

***

An idea whose time has come? Missouri already has a Voter-ID law on the books. There are a number of acceptable forms of ID listed on the Missouri Secretary of State’s website.

ACCEPTABLE FORMS OF VOTER ID:
  • Identification issued by the state of Missouri, an agency of the state, or a local election authority of the state
  • Identification issued by the United States government or agency thereof
  • Identification issued by an institution of higher education, including a university, college, vocational and technical school, located within the state of Missouri
  • A copy of a current utility bill, bank statement, paycheck, government check or other government document that contains the name and address of the voter
  • Driver’s license or state identification card issued by another state

If you do not possess any of these forms of identification, you may still cast a ballot if two supervising election judges, one from each major political party, attest they know you. – http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/govotemissouri/howtovote.aspx

This new effort will add a Constitutional Amendment to give more teeth to the existing law which has a number of exceptions that still allow people to vote without proper ID. The existing law is a good first step, but, reviewing the documented acts of vote fraud in St. Louis and Kansas City, it isn’t enough.

Missouri House endorses voter photo ID requirements

By MARIE FRENCH, Associated Press, Feb 18, 6:21 PM EST

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) — The Missouri House is once again pushing forward with a Republican priority to require photo identification at the polls, after similar measures were stymied by the Senate or courts in recent years.

The House gave initial approval Wednesday to a proposed constitutional amendment that would go before voters in 2016 and also endorsed a bill that would institute the voter photo ID requirements if the constitutional amendment is approved.

Both measures need a second House vote and also would also have to pass the Senate, where Democrats have previously blocked the proposed photo ID requirements.

Supporters say the requirement is needed to ensure the integrity of the election process. Rep. Rick Brattin, R-Harrisonville, said the measure would protect individuals’ voting rights by making sure someone does not try to vote for another person.

“It ensures that someone did not take their vote and steal what is rightfully their vote,” Brattin said.

If you read the full article at the website, you will see, as usual, democrats, abetted by MO Secretary of State Jason Kander, protesting the measure because it would make their continuing vote fraud schemes more difficult.

***

Have you heard the term, Social Justice Warrior? It’s all the vogue on university campus across the country and in other segments of society (see my post concerning the SFWA and the Hugo Awards.) Social Justice Warriors have become the progressives’ front-line troops in their battle against free speech and expression.

Social Justice Warriors Come to Campus

By Robert Weissberg, February 19, 2015

Since the late 1960s, radical students have periodically taken over the university president’s offices to propose a laundry list of “non-negotiable” demands. Early takeovers tended to be about their school’s cooperation with the military during war in Vietnam; today, however, “social justice” is the aim so let’s call these office occupiers Social Justice Warriors or SJW’s.

Back in February 2014 a group of 30 Dartmouth students commandeered the president’s office to  announce a “Freedom Budget”:70 specific calls for greater diversity, eliminating sexism and heterosexism, an improved campus climate for minorities and gays, banning the term “illegal immigrant,” offering a class on undocumented workers in America, creating a professor of color lecture series, and harsher penalties for sexual assault, among many, many others.

More recently, Clemson University SJW’s demanded that the school provide a “safe” multicultural center for students from “under-represented” groups, employing more administrators and faculty of color, a more diverse student body, mandatory sensitivity training for faculty and administrators, and increased funding for students organization catering to under-represented groups.

Then there are the University of Minnesota students who seized the President’s office to demand a bigger budget for the Department of Chicano and Latino Studies Department, removing all racial descriptions from university police reports, offering gender-neutral bathrooms at all college facilities and, of course, recruiting more faculty and students of color.

Fortunately, this is the U.S., where such political histrionics are greeted with mild amusement. Ironically, school officials typically welcome “meaningful political dialogue and change,” the need for “hard work” to achieve progress and then conclude by thanking the Social Justice Warriors for their assistance in moving forward. Though police may remove protestors, criminal charges, let alone violations of campus rules, are rarely pursued and the moral buzz for these SJW’s may last weeks. In fact, I suspect some warriors honestly believe that their achievement will burnish their resume when applying to a second-tier MBA program. Imagine if these SJW’s tried this in Russia or China?

Such incidents are easy to pooh-pooh as the politically-correct version of Animal House. But that said, they nevertheless offer important insights into today’s college activist’s thinking and why university administrators tolerate the foolishness.    

Most evidently, the Social Justice Warriors totally disregard the costs associated with their self-righteous crusades. Everything is single-ledger accounting. Will the tooth fairy fund Dartmouth’s proposed $3.6 million dollar Triangle House, the “safe haven” for LGBT? Yes, high-school dropouts may believe that government benefits are “free,” but youngsters admitted to top colleges? No wonder the U.S. sinks deeper and deeper into indebtedness — even among the smart, costs are invisible. Picture a Warrior taking Econ 101 and hearing for the first time that there is no such thing as a free lunch. What a shock!

The shallowness of these demands is breathtaking and suggests that these activists are just winging it. The Dartmouth students are surely among America’s brainiest but why do they denounce “ableism”? Are they suggesting that acknowledging variations in ability is morally wrong and if differences are to be abolished (hopeless anyhow), how would society function? Why must the campus offer gender-neutral bathrooms? Keep in mind that in a few decades such folk may be among our national leaders.

Particularly troublesome is how these presumptuous, self-centered warriors think that if they think something is good, it must be good, so case settled. For example, they glibly assume that academically challenged black and Chicano youngsters really benefit by attending schools that would never admit them in a merit-based admission process.  Have these young do-gooders considered the downside of this generosity — schools will fake the numbers by creating easy-to-pass courses in dubious ethnic-studies departments, steering them to easy grading instructors or just tolerating rampant grade inflation. Or, more important, that these in-over-their-head youngsters may be better off in community college acquiring well-paying skills like welding?

Closer to home, have these SJW’s calculated the link between achieving their vision of “social justice” and tuition? Attracting minority students, addressing their academic deficiencies, creating a nurturing environment and all the rest costs money, and this will inevitably push soaring tuition even higher and, since there is no Santa Claus, a college education will be yet further beyond the reach of many poorer students while saddling graduates with yet more debt. In effect, these idealistic protestors are demanding a tax on those who are not members of their version of “under-represented.” Imagine if these SJW’s had to hold jobs to pay their own tuition?

Do these Social Justice Warriors realize that their demands will require administrators to break the law to achieve this multicultural Utopia? That is, under today’s judicial guidelines it is almost impossible to admit students solely on the basis of race or ethnicity. California, Michigan, and Washington (among others) have state laws explicitly banning racial preferences.

Why do schools tolerate such idiocy, including ignoring violations of campus policy? The answer is that no matter how imprudent the demands, they help drive the university’s bureaucratic expansion, and in today’s campus life, size matters. A symbiotic relationship exists between the children’s crusades and yet more bureaucratic bloat. Universities are not the profit-driven private sector. Absolutely everything, everything in every one of these SJW catalogues entails spending more university money, hiring more personnel, and creating yet more rules and regulations and the apparatchiki to monitor and enforce them.

It is a long article and I urge you to follow this link to the website and read the entire piece. It may be an education for you; make you aware of another insidious attacks against our liberty by ‘progressives.’ Joe Stalin and Adolf would be proud of them.

Facebook

More Missouri Moments

Posted on by
http://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/stltoday.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/8/7b/87b666b9-fe90-5331-91d1-3d57fe8eda0d/530a3d118898d.preview-300.jpg

Ed Martin, now chairman of the Missouri Republican Party, in an Oct. 6, 2010, file photo. (AP Photo/Jeff Roberson)

Missouri GOP Chairman Ed Martin announced his resignation yesterday. Rumors had been floating around some some weeks before the announcement. Martin is leaving to become President of Phyllis Schlafly’s Eagle Forum.

The announcement did surprise many. Today, we’re hearing some news who may replace Martin. Some are well-known conservatives. Others, such as the protégé of Ron Richard, aren’t.

Possible Four Way Race Shaping Up for Missouri GOP Chair

Duane Lester, February 3rd, 2015

Yesterday Ed Martin announced he was not running for re-election for the Chair of the Missouri Republican Party, instead taking a position with The Eagle Forum.

When I heard that, I only knew of one person who was in the hunt: John Hancock.

After I posted Martin’s press release, I had someone reach out and say, “Did you hear that someone else may jump in?”

I hadn’t, but today I have a name: Eddy Justice.

Justice has shown interest in leading the Missouri GOP, but didn’t want to challenge Martin. He said he didn’t have any problem replacing him though.

Another name that’s being mentioned is Pat Thomas, current Secretary of the Missouri Republican Party. She’s also deputy Treasurer.

Finally, a name I’m hearing as being possibly recruited for the position is Nick Myers, Newton County GOP Committee Chairman. Myers is a good friend of Sen. Ron Richards, and a power player in southwest Missouri.

So, overnight, this turned from a one man race into a bit of a dog pile for the leadership of the Missouri GOP.

I’ll be working on doing some profiles on each of these folks.

I’m reminded how Ron Richard betrayed the GOP by reversing his votes in the last veto session and in the veto session in 2013 to block passage of some key bills. The 2013 reversal came after a mid-east junket with democrat Governor Jay Nixon. Ron Richard had earlier voted for the bills. But when it came to support the GOP, he didn’t. Richard has no core principles other than his own advancement. Consequently, I would not be a supporter for anyone connected to him.

***

CNBC Reporter Kelly Evans, tried to ambush Senator Ron Paul during an interview. Paul didn’t fall for the tactic and turned the tables. Before the interview left the air, Paul called Kelly’s attempts as ‘slanted’. I always like to see a lib’s plan fail. Especially when it backfires so spectacularly.

I’m not a believer that vaccines cause autism. I believe it falls into the same category as global warming—cherry picked data to fit a preconceived objective. The originator of the ‘vaccine causes autism’ cherry-picked data and actually fabricated data in a study that started this controversy. Every study since, that I’ve examined, still uses that original false study as source document.

Be that as it may, I also believe it is a parent’s right to choose which, if any, inoculations her or his child receives. The libs are pushing for mandatory vaccinations using the current measles outbreak as justification. The ‘anti-vaxxers’, as they have been called, claim that their children are the only ones at risk. Those vaccinated should not fear being infected.

That last statement, too, is false logic. First, no inoculation is 100% perfect. Some will get sick regardless. The inoculation will not work for some. Some, whose immunizations work, can still be a carrier. There is some justification for inoculation. However, the final choice still belongs to parents, not government.

***

The current buzz today is the straw poll conducted on the Drudge Report yesterday. Scott Walker was the clear leader of the possible GOP candidates with 46% of the votes. Ted Cruz was second with 14% and Ron Paul third with 12%.

The poll is meaningless, of course, but it did create a storm of discussion on the ‘net! For me, it was a toss-up between Walker and Cruz. I’m more aligned, politically, with Ted Cruz. On the other hand, Scott Walker has proven to be a fighter and the GOP needs a fighter. There are none in Washington, DC.

Facebook

They’re off!

Posted on by

The 2016 campaign season started this week with GOP sessions in Iowa and other locales. Ted Cruz, Scott Walker and Marco Rubio received applause. Rand Paul a few less, mainly due to his lack of support for national security. Apparently Rand Paul has no problems with the Castros in Cuba. Cruz and Rubio, do. In Arizona, John McCain was booed at the AZ state GOP meeting and Sarah Palin hinted she may consider running again in 2016. Of course, the liberal media went into hysterics. All-in-all, it was a good start.

***

Everyone is watching the scenes and positions: Conservatives vs. RINOs, RINOs and Liberals against Conservatives. There  is another, less well known, battle going on in, of all places, the gamer and science-fiction communities. Have you heard about Gamergate and the controversy in the SFWA (Science Fiction Writers of America) over the Hugo Award? Most people think the conservative vs. progressive conflict involved only politics. Wrong!

Gamergate is…complicated. The SFWA controversy less so. Both involve censorship and attacks by ‘progressives’ against more conservative participants. Gamergate, a term created by Firefly actor, Adam Baldwin, began with a controversy involving sexism, feminism in on-line games. Self-declared critics quickly took sides and the battle was on. Taken as a whole, Gamergate is trivial. Viewed as a cultural battle, it is another battleground used by the progressive movement to change American culture into a tyranny where free speech and expression do not exist.

It issue became so controversial that Wiki banned five feminist editors from touching the topic. The issue was ‘fairness.’ ‘Fairness,’ however, depends on your personal viewpoint. Wiki strives to maintain impartiality for their online encyclopedia. Usually, they are successful and this ban is a response to maintain that impartiality.

The SFWA/Hugo Award controversy is less confused. Larry Corriea, a SF/Fantasy writer is on one side, that of conservatives, many of them members of the Baen writers group. Baen writers are generally conservative. Many of the writers product military science fiction and write with a more conservative viewpoint. On the other side is John Scalzi, a self-declared liberal and progressive, and the progressive members of SFWA.

An explanation about the Hugo awards controversy

Posted on April 24, 2014 by correia45

A few days ago the finalists for the Hugo were announced. The Hugos are the big prestigious award for science fiction and fantasy. One of my books was a finalist for best novel. A bunch of other works that I recommended showed up in other categories. Because I’m an outspoken right winger, hilarity ensued.

Many of you have never heard of me before, but the internet was quick to explain to you what a horrible person I am. There have been allegations of fraud, vote buying, log rolling, and making up fake accounts. The character assassination has started as well, and my detractors posted and tweeted and told anyone who would listen about how I was a racist, a homophobe, a misogynist, a rape apologist, an angry white man, a religious fanatic, and how I wanted to drag homosexuals to death behind my pickup truck.

The libel and slander over the last few days have been so ridiculous that my wife was contacted by people she hasn’t talked to for years, concerned that she was married to such a horrible, awful, hateful, bad person, and that they were worried for her safety.

I wish I was exaggerating. Don’t take my word for it. My readers have been collecting a lot of them in the comments of the previous Hugo post and on my Facebook page. Plug my name into Google for the last few days. Make sure to read the comments to the various articles too. They’re fantastic.

Of course, none of this stuff is true, but it was expected. I knew if I succeeded I would be attacked. To the perpetually outraged the truth doesn’t matter, just feelings and narrative. I’d actually like to thank all of those people making stuff up about me because they are proving the point I was trying to make to begin with.

Allow me to explain why the presence of my slate on the Hugo nominations is so controversial. This is complicated and your time is valuable, so short explanation first, longer explanation if you care after.

Short Version:

  1. I said a chunk of the Hugo voters are biased toward the left, and put the author’s politics far ahead of the quality of the work. Those openly on the right are sabotaged. This was denied.
  2. So I got some right wingers on the ballot.
  3. The biased voters immediately got all outraged and mobilized to do exactly what I said they’d do.
  4. Point made.

The column continues with a discussion about motives and issues surrounding the award process. If you read all of Correia’s post, you will notice the controversy is not about books, novels, nor much about their quality nor content. It’s about politics—conservatives vs. liberals.

On the other side, among many, is John Scalzi, past President of SFWA whose term expired in 2013. Scalzi, perhaps seeing the writing on the wall, chose to not run again for office. His name was the only one on the ballot when he was elected.

Correia and Vox Day have been accused of attempting to stuff the ballot box by creating proxy memberships in SFWA. Scalzi admits that the tactic has been used before by liberal writers in their attempts to win Hugos. The tactic is fine when liberal writers do it. But when Correia gathers some real conservative writers and persuades them to join SFWA, it suddenly become controversial. Another form of the liberal bias is the weighted voting system. Toni Weisskopf, Baen’s publisher, had the most votes for Editor Long Form award, but came in 2nd due to WSFS’s (World Science Fiction Society) weighted voting system. Baen’s conservative books are an anathema in the SFWA.

Scalzi wrote this posting after the Hugo Awards were announced. I’ve never heard of the winning writers, Charles Stross excepted, and I’ve been reading science fiction since I was in grade school sixty years ago. Of the winners, however, every single one of them is a progressive who push their political agenda openly in their novels. Even USA Today noticed the conflict.

Thoughts On the Hugo Awards, 2014

,

In no particular order (and for reference, the winners are here):

1. I am super-delighted that the Hugo Best Novel Award went to Ancillary Justice. One, because it’s fantastic, but two, because I feel entirely unwarranted pride in Ann Leckie’s career, because I gave her her first professional sale, and was delighted to give Ancillary Justice a blurb for when it came out. I had nothing to do with the book’s success, other than receive the pleasure of letting people know I thought it was great. I’m still super proud of its clean sweep of the major SF/F awards, and of Ann. This is just great.

2. I’m also giggling that Charlie Stross name-checked me and Lou Anders when he won for Equoid; I remember that fateful night in Denver in 2008, when the messy seeds of that story were planted with two words, the two words being “unicorn bukkake.” And now, Charlie’s got a Hugo out of it. That’s just about perfect.

3. Also: Mary Robinette Kowal! Who is one of my favorite people on the planet. Some of you may know that her Hugo-wining novelette was disqualified last year, despite having enough nominations to make the slate, because its first appearance was in audio form. It then appeared in word form, and here we are. I’m thrilled that it got a chance to be considered in another year, although frankly it should have never been disqualified at all. I do believe a proposed rule change would have audio-first stories considered in fiction categories along with print-first stories. I think that’s wise.

4. And generally I am delighted with the slate of winners in other categories as well. I think there was a fair amount of concern that the large increase of Hugo voters this year was going to be evidence of (for lack of a better phrase for them) “single issue” voters — specifically those voting only for Wheel of Time or participating because of the “sad puppy” slate of conservative writers. But the voting tallies suggest that if there were “single issue” voters, they were swamped out by people who did their homework and then voted from there. To which I say: Well done, Loncon 3 voters! You done good.

5. You’ve seen me snark about it, I’m sure, but now that the voting is over, what did I really think of the “sad puppy” slate of nominees championed by Larry Correia and others? What I thought at the beginning, which was: The folks pushing the slate played within the rules, so game on, and the game is to convince people that the work deserves the Hugo. It does not appear the voters were convinced. As a multiple Hugo loser myself, I can say: That’s the breaks, and better luck another year.

With that said, Correia was foolish to put his own personal capital as a successful and best selling novelist into championing Vox Day and his novelette, because Vox Day is a real bigoted shithole of a human being, and his novelette was, to put it charitably, not good (less charitably: It was like Gene Wolfe strained through a thick and rancid cheesecloth of stupid). Doing that changed the argument from something perfectly legitimate, if debatable — that conservative writers are often ignored for or discounted on award ballots because their personal politics generally conflict with those of the award voters — into a different argument entirely, i.e., fuck you, we got an undeserving bigoted shithole on the Hugo ballot, how you like them apples.

Which is a shame. It’s fine for Correia to beclown himself with Day, if such is his joy, and he deserves to reap the fruits of such an association. I suspect, however, there are others whom he championed for his “sad puppy” slate who were less thrilled to find themselves looped in with Day by involuntary association. Likewise, Correia is a good writer and his works are fun to read and easy to enjoy; others he championed are likewise fine writers, and their works deserving of award consideration. He didn’t do his work, or the work of these other writers, any favors by muddling his message with Day’s nonsense.

Now, I understand Correia will be happy to tell you that his Hugo loss doesn’t matter to him, which is fine. I do wonder if he considered how other people that were seen as part of his slate feel the same way, or whether he’d do them or their careers any damage by associating them with a bigoted shithole, or that if he really wanted to make the argument that a particular set of writers are ignored by award voters, that he went about making the argument in just about the worst way possible. Bad strategy, bad tactics, bad result.

6. About the entire Wheel of Time series being nominated, again, fully within the rules, so game on, and I would have been honestly happy for Brandon Sanderson if he’d picked up the Hugo with Robert Jordan. I think people underestimate the skill and talent required to do what Brandon did over the course of three books, which was to satisfy the long-term fans of the series, bring the series to a well-developed end with all the story arcs closed up and and emotions earned, and to keep his own ego as a writer in check as he did it. Think that’s easy? I sure as hell don’t — and as a writer, I couldn’t have done it. If Wheel of Time had won, Brandon would have earned every millimeter of that rocket, and I would have been cheering for him.

Likewise, I was never particularly worried about Wheel of Time voters being “single issue” voters — that is, voting only for Wheel of Time and then blowing off the rest of the ballot. Anecdotally, I know a fair sampling of Wheel of Time readers, and none of them only read Wheel of Time. Having the series on the ballot may have brought in new voters, but it seems like they took their voting seriously. So there you have it.

7. In sum: A very good year for the Hugos; indeed, a vintage year. Congratulations to the winners; congratulations to the nominees; congratulations to the voters. See you next year in Spokane.

Culture wars exist. More specifically, it is one culture war masquerading as many. In the end, it still comes down to this: it’s them or us. I know which side I’m on.

Facebook