Culture of hate

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.

Back to the grindstone

A week ago I was on my way to Nashville. J and I are now back. The initial flurry on our return, checking the mail, doing errands postponed from last week, recovering from a bit of physical overexertion, are over.

Like any long anticipated event, there’s a let down when it’s over. The excitement, built by anticipation over the last weeks and months, is gone.

Sole Mio Banquet Room, Nashville, TN

Sole Mio Banquet Room, Nashville, TN

Last Saturday, J and I were invited by a number of blogger friends to dinner at a small Italian place, Sole Mio, a couple of blocks from the Music City Center. I had met about half of group from the St. Louis NRAAM in 2012. Some have become good friends despite the fact we’ve only met, face-to-face, once or twice before.

As bloggers, we all have our separate interests. Some write solely about guns and gun issues. Others, like my friend, Kelly, AKA, Ambulance Driver, writes about EMS topics. Some write about their military experiences and Jim, a new writer, presented me with signed copies of his books. All of us, however, have one common topic that we all write about at one time or another: Shooting.

It was a fun night. We agreed to meet again in a year at the next NRAAM in Louisville. Mrs Crucis and I have already marked our calendars for May 20-22, 2016. They’re still counting the attendance. The Annual Meeting continued through Sunday. The attendance by Saturday night was over 78,000. When Sunday’s attendance is added, I expect that number to exceed 80,000. The question is by how much. IMO, the Music City Center was too small. I hope Louisville is larger.

Next year we hope to take a couple of local friends with us.

***

I may have escaped the political escapades in Missouri for a few days. That didn’t mean it stopped. In the Missouri Senate, the Tax ‘n Spend crowd wants to raise Missouri’s gas tax by 10¢. IIRC, it sits today at 19¢. This crowd says it must go up to 29¢ or we’ll lose some federal money.

Spend! Spend! Spend! And when the money is spent, it’s never spent on what we really need. Missouri has allocated well over a billion dollars in the last decade to fix the state’s roads and bridges. Most of that money, once it was appropriated, was re-directed to more politically sensitive projects. MODOT is a joke. Nixon won’t release funds already allocated while claiming to need more. Now the idiots want more!? No! The Missouri Senate has blocked this tax and no-spend bill. At least for the moment.

***

The ‘Pubs have three announced candidates so far, Ted Cruz, Rand Paul and Marco Rubio. They all made their announcements in public, in person, and made the media rounds afterward.

On the democrat side, Hillary announced her candidacy…via social media—not in public, not in person, and no interviews with the media. Instead, she rented a Darth Vader van, went to Iowa, found a restaurant, ran out everyone who was there, filled it with hired supporters and created a media event. And, like she did in 2008, departed without leaving a tip—verified by the on-site security cameras.

What a comparison: Cruz, Paul, Rubio, real people meeting real people vs. Hillary, a fraud and a phony, a manufactured candidate. It is a pocket-sized truism of left vs. right.

Hillary believes if she can manipulate the public, she’ll win. Not even the rabid democrats believe her anymore.

From PJ Media…

86% Say No to Hillary in MSNBC Poll

by Debra Heine, April 15, 2015 – 11:02 am

According to a new Rasmussen poll, nearly six in 10 voters believe that Hillary Rodham Clinton will be the next president. But perception is not reality, as an MSNBC poll seems to indicate.

The poll, which appeared on the MSNBC website on Tuesday morning, shows that 86% of MSNBC readers who responded would not vote for Hillary Clinton in the upcoming presidential election. Only 13% responded in the affirmative and a mere 2% said “maybe.”

The poll, while not scientific, strongly suggests that progressives do not prefer to have a baggage-laden career politician as their party’s standard bearer in 2016.

***

“Missouri is no longer a presidential bellwether state. The state’s voters haven’t sided with the national victor since 2004,” so says the St. Louis Public Radio. What they really mean is that Missouri hasn’t been an Obama rubber-stamp much to the chagrin and disappointment of the St Louis liberals.  In fact, Missouri is so out-of-step, according to them, that the state’s political consultants are being chosen to lead the campaigns of Cruz, Bush, and perhaps Scott Walker.

Missouri’s position — and importance — in 2016 presidential contest up in the air

First, one thing needs to be made clear: Missouri is no longer a presidential bellwether state. The state’s voters haven’t sided with the national victor since 2004.

As a result, as more candidates announce their 2016 presidential bids, many activists in both major parties predict Missouri won’t be a battleground state this time, either.

This means, as in 2012, Missouri voters won’t see many presidential TV ads and likely won’t see much of the candidates.

Under that scenario, Democrats believe it will be too costly, too risky and unnecessary to try to carry the state. And Republicans are confident they don’t need to spend money to keep Missouri in their presidential column.

But that doesn’t mean Missouri has no role to play in the presidential contest. “We will not see presidential candidates coming here for votes, but they will be coming here for some of the talent in our state and probably more importantly, to raise funds,” said Republican consultant James Harris.

In fact, such quests already are underway. Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush stopped by a couple months ago for a private money-raising event held at Hunter Engineering, the firm owned by former Ambassador Stephen Brauer and headquartered near Lambert Field.

And several major Republican players in the state already have lined up behind GOP contenders:

  • Kansas City-based consultant Jeff Roe has been assisting GOP hopeful Ted Cruz for months and recently was named his campaign manager;
  • Gregg Keller, a St. Louis-based consultant, is a senior adviser for Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker. Former U.S. Sen. Jim Talent, R-Mo., also is on board with Walker, providing policy advice. Keller and Talent previously had been active in Mitt Romney’s presidential bids.
  • Prominent St. Louis lawyer Jack Oliver, former vice chairman of the Republican National Committee, has been volunteering in the state and nationally on behalf of Jeb Bush. Oliver earlier had been the campaign finance chairman for former President George W. Bush.
  • Harris, based in Jefferson City, isn’t officially aligned with any of the 2016 candidates, although he personally backs Jeb Bush. He served as a contribution “bundler’’ for Republican nominees John McCain in 2008 and Romney in 2012.

Oliver, by the way, disagrees with those pundits who write off Missouri as a 2016 battleground state.  “Missouri is a very important state, and will be in the primary and in the general election,” he said.

Some fellow Republicans who privately agree with him point to the state’s top Missouri Democratic consultant, who long has been a national player:  veteran consultant/money-raiser Joyce Aboussie.

Based in St. Louis, Aboussie was the national political director for U.S. Rep. Dick Gephardt, D- St. Louis, for more than a decade. She has supported and assisted Hillary Rodham Clinton for years.

The column continues on the website, you can read all if it here. Missouri’s liberals may think Missouri has nothing much to be noticed. Others, on the national political scene, believe otherwise.

Rand is in

Rand Paul announced his candidacy for President today. Erick Erickson wrote a column today that mirrors my concerns about Rand Paul as prez.

Welcome to the Arena, Senator Paul

Erick Erickson (Diary)  | 

Today, in Kentucky, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) is going to announce his campaign for President of the United States.

This 2016 run has caused one unnoticed negative for conservatives. Since it became obvious that they’d be competing against each other in 2016, Rand Paul and Ted Cruz has had a less than stellar working relationship when it comes to advancing the conservative agenda. At least now it can be out there and the differences between the two can be aired.

Paul is going to have baggage that Cruz does not have. Paul backed McConnell against Matt Bevin in 2014 and McConnell is doing nothing now to reciprocate. Though McConnell won, it left a bad taste in the mouths of many conservative activists. Likewise, Rand Paul is going to have the shadow of his father lingering over him and will have to, again, show he is his own man. The zealous nature of many Ron Paul supporters keeps some from embracing Rand Paul and, concurrently, Team Paul has historically done awesome at winning straw polls, just not regular polls.

But Paul will be free of some baggage that Cruz has. Paul has gone out of his way to show he can work within establishment circles. Backing McConnell helped. Likewise, Paul has shown himself to be a less doctrinaire conservative, which will help him with the media, even if it does not with the base.

Many of my friends think Rand Paul operates as a closet Democrat. I think, in fact, he comes the closest to an authentic civil libertarian candidate in some time. He is willing to approach issues on race in ways other Republicans don’t, if only to mitigate prior attacks on him for his statements on civil rights legislation. He has also been willing to speak critically of American engagement abroad when most Republicans rah-rah any use of force.

The column continues at the website.

Rand Paul is waay down my list of preferred candidates. Still, I admit that he’s better than Bush, Christi or Huckabee. I believe Paul would secure our borders…but that’s all. His and his father’s political views are isolationist following the Libertarian platform. That platform does not support a strong military.

Paul’s foreign policy would be a retreat to our shores. Our Navy would revert to a ‘brown-water’ navy from a ‘blue water’ navy. Without ‘foreign entanglements,’ the US would not need a large military. Paul would continue the deterioration of our military capability. That is a very dangerous attitude and I see no amelioration of that in Rand Paul.

The US has lost its leadership of the world. I do not see Rand Paul interested in fixing that situation.

Ramirez_04072015

The race is on!

 

Wailing and gnashing of teeth

https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/1484685_10155407013505425_3373572342549140451_n.jpg?oh=120df3ca6f237b75f9947e6f2aa92833&oe=55771586If you read my post yesterday, you may have followed the link to the video of Ted Cruz’s announcement that he’s running for president. Immediately after, he made the usual rounds and started his speaking tour. He received the endorsement of the most important precincts.

Uhhh, what? What precincts? Those precincts that affect the largest portion of conservative voters—Rush, Hannity, Levin, Beck, a long list of conservative talk-show hosts and The Drudge Report. They are the ones who influence and inform more voters than any politician or pundit.

Cruz Makes Inroads in the Most Important Primary of All

By C. Edmund Wright, March 24, 2015
You can talk about the Iowa Caucus and New Hampshire and South Carolina all you want – and those all are important – yet none of them is the most important primary on the Republican side.
No, the most critical Republican primary, at least for non-establishment candidates, is the Rush Limbaugh-Drudge Report-Breitbart-Mark Levin-Sean Hannity-Glenn Beck internet message board primary.  For a conservative base candidate to win the nomination, he or she must carry most of the above precincts.
Now, this is not to say that all or any of the above  will endorse a candidate by name during the primary season.  They probably will not.  But they will all talk about, report on, interview, and discuss what and whom they like.  And the some 30-40 million people who make up those combined audiences and readerships will be impacted and educated by these venues.  They go to these shows and these websites specifically for opinion and news, after all.
Thus, it is critical to win this primary, because those are the voters who turn out for non-establishment candidates in primaries.  They just are.
Consider: for the past six weeks, Scott Walker has dominated this primary.  The Drudge Report has posted many very friendly headlines about Walker during this time, and talk radio – led by Limbaugh – has been recounting over and over how Walker defeated the liberals and the unions in Wisconsin.
As a result, he has skyrocketed up the polls, gotten unexpected fundraising traction, and has been drawing fire from panicked liberals from everywhere.  And why not?  He has beaten them at every turn.  It appears he will be formidable for the long run, and as such, he has been aggressively vetted by some on the right as well.  The takeaway is, his dominance of the Rush-Drudge-et al. universe was a tremendous launching pad for him.  It was almost overnight.
And there was a shift in this realm on Monday as Ted Cruz announced his candidacy at Liberty University.  Nobody said anything negative about Walker, but the talk of the internet and talk radio was about how impressive Cruz was, and how the liberal media was going bananas over him, and how finally there was someone articulating what we believe and doing so fearlessly and very well.  Rush said it was dazzling and “scared the heck out of the left.”
Cruz definitely started to make big inroads in this unofficial primary on this day. (Read the full column here.)

It wasn’t just the left who was attacking Cruz. The GOP establishment was in the forefront of the attackers, NY Representative Peter King was practically frothing at the mouth in vituperative media interview about Cruz.

Mild in comparison, Judge Napolitano took some shots at Cruz as well. Napolitano likes all of Cruz’s domestic positions. Unfortunately, Napolitano has drunk the libertarian kool-aid that ignores national security. Napolitano believes Cruz would lead us into foreign wars. He neglects to consider that such wars may become a necessity due to Obama’s drive to alienate our friends, cozy up to our enemies and emasculate our military. Napolitano is a Ron Paul fan, tine-foil hat and all. That shortsightedness is what is most dangerous of the libertarian platform.

Probably Rush said it best yesterday, “… it’s gonna scare the hell out of the left.  They already are.  It’s gonna scare the heck out of the Drive-By Media.” Rush is right. Ted Cruz will scare the ‘heck’ out of the left—and the GOP RINOs as well.

A friend told me that Cruz in only in 3rd place in the polls for the GOP 2016 race. I reminded him those were last week’s polls. Let’s see what the polls say when they are updated and released for this week.

Finally!

tedcruzforprez

Senator Ted Cruz delivers remarks before announcing his candidacy for the Republican nomination to run for US President March 23, 2015, at Liberty University, in Lynchburg, Virginia.(PAUL J. RICHARDS/AFP/Getty Images)

Finally there’s an announced candidate I can vote for. Ted Cruz announced his candidacy for President in the 2016 election at the Liberty University to a rousing ovation. He immediately went to the top of the polls

Wow!

Of course he’s at the top of the polls. He’s the only one who has officially announced his candidacy by-passing the ‘exploratory’ phase completely.

His speech is already on YouTube. In his announcement, he vowed to end Obamacare if a repeal appeared on his desk and to end the IRS.

But the trolls are already out. Obama has already stolen a step on Cruz by buying the TedCruz.com domain name. It a liberal front supporting Obama and illegal immigration. It’s a tossup if the new domain owners are Obama or La Raza or one of the other uberliberal front groups. It really makes no difference as long as they prevent Ted Cruz or his supporters from using it.

The trolls seized the TedCruz.com domain but the real Ted is using TedCruz.org. On his website, Ted Cruz lists his policy positions and his voting record unlike liberals and RINOs who fear to make public their positions and voting records.

Pedro Gonzales, who is the editor of a website called NewsMachete.com, wrote a column about Cruz in the American Thinker.

Ted Cruz’s policy positions

By Pedro Gonzales, March 23, 2015

Now that Ted Cruz has decided to run for president, he is the first one with a website that actually states his policy positions.  Other would-be candidates, like Scott Walker and Rand Paul, have none, since they are not yet declared candidates.  (They do have websites for their current office, but none specifically addressing policy positions of what they would do as president.)

There’s a lot to chew over at TedCruz.org, but here’s a sampling of Cruz’s positions.

Authored the Obamacare Repeal Act as his first piece [of] legislation.

Led the fight to defund Obamacare — the largest regulatory challenge facing our nation which has resulted in killing jobs, cutting workers’ hours, and causing millions of Americans to lose their doctors or health care.

I remember when Cruz had his “mini-filibuster” on this subject.  He spoke for 21 hours straight.  He and Mike Lee were basically alone; no other senators came to offer support for any substantive period of time.  Rand Paul made a cameo appearance for about five minutes.

Authored legislation to end taxpayer dollars subsidizing corporate fat cats, including the Ex-Im Bank.

Opposed the Renewable Fuel Standard ethanol subsidy.

All the other candidates support ethanol, except for Rick Perry.

Led the fight against regulating the Internet as a public utility because it threatens the Internet as a haven for entrepreneurial freedom and unlimited opportunity.

Rand Paul, to his credit, has been outspoken on this as well.

Set an early, high standard for meaningful Republican opposition to increasing the debt ceiling.

Demanded a 60-vote threshold vote on a clean debt-ceiling increase in February 2013, when Republican leadership wanted to allow the Democrats to raise the limit with a simple majority vote.

Led the charge on behalf of 13 states to successfully defend, before the U.S. Supreme Court, a federal law that bans one form of late-term abortion, the Partial Birth Abortion Act.

Joined 18 states in successfully defending the New Hampshire parental-notification law before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Successfully defended in federal court Texas’s Rider 8, which prohibits state funds for groups that provide abortions.

Fought for the right of states to define marriage, without intrusion by unelected federal judges, by drafting the State Marriage Defense Act.

Opposed the Obama Administration’s dangerous deal with Iran that would allow Iran to pursue nuclear weapons.

Successfully pressured the Obama Administration to lift its unprecedented FAA ban on flights to Israel after exposing the move as, in essence, an economic boycott of our strongest ally in the Middle East. The ban was lifted within 36 hours of the Senator’s actions

Championed the Expatriate Terrorist Act to prevent Americans who join ISIS from returning to the United States to commit acts of terror at home.

Joined Texas and 25 other states in a lawsuit to stop President Obama’s illegal executive amnesty.

Authored legislation to triple the size of the U.S. Border Patrol.

Played a crucial role in preventing federal legislation to restrict the Second Amendment rights of Americans.

Led 31 states in District of Columbia v. Heller where the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a ban on firearms in a 5-4 landmark decision.

This is just a small sampling of the material on TedCruz.org; there’s a lot on his positions and record there.  People think of him as being only a senator in his first term, but they forget that he was solicitor general of Texas and litigated a lot of cases to preserve our freedoms.

I like a lot of what I read here, and I suspect that you do, too.  I look forward to the other candidates declaring and putting up websites showing their policy positions so we can compare and contrast.  But for now I’m impressed not just by the amount of information Cruz has put up, but by the degree of detail.

Now we conservatives have a candidate who is one of us. Who has the same dreams and visions that we do, one who wants to restore constitutional government to Washington.

And finally, he’s a flat tax advocate rather than that god awful consumption/national sales tax.

Bits ‘n Pieces

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

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.

More Missouri Moments

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.