Uncommon Sense

politics and society are, unfortunately, much the same thing

Middlebury College enabled student riot

original article: How Middlebury College Enabled The Student Riot During Charles Murray’s Visit
March 7, 2017 by Peter W. Wood

School administrators must stop abasing themselves to student outrage. Colleges should foster intellectual community—not progressive appeasement.

The fracas at Middlebury College on March 2 has been widely reported. Both the New York Times and The Wall Street Journal covered it, though perhaps no report improved on the local Addison County Independent: Middlebury College professor injured by protesters as she escorted controversial speaker.” Web coverage and commentary has also been ample. The American Interest was among the first to post.

This is an ongoing story with important details to come. The links above provide concise versions. What follows is a zoomed-in look at the events that preceded the apparent effort by a protester to inflict serious harm on a Middlebury professor, a professor who herself played an ambiguous part in the disturbance.

read full article

abuse, corruption, education, extremism, intolerance, left wing, liberalism, oppression, political correctness, progressive, protests, scandal, victimization

Filed under: abuse, corruption, education, extremism, intolerance, left wing, liberalism, oppression, political correctness, progressive, protests, scandal, victimization

Violent behavior is condoned—as long as the politics are correct

original article: There Really is Climate of Violence on Campuses
February 13, 2017 by WILLIAM M BRIGGS

Time for our News Quiz! How many were arrested and punished in Berkeley among those who rioted, vandalized and violently beat a man with shovels, almost killing him, when the right-wing comedian Milo was to visit that campus?

Hint: The total was the same as the number of student militants menacingly brandishing automatic weapons who violently occupied Cornell’s Willard Straight Hall in 1969 in protest of Cornell’s “racist attitudes” and “irrelevant curriculum.”

Still not sure? Then here, at the risk of being too generous, is another hint. The number of violent actors arrested at Berkeley is the same as the number punished for their violent storming of the stage at the University of Wisconsin, Madison to prevent mild-mannered Ben Shapiro from speaking on the subject of decency, an event at which “Campus police watched but did nothing to stop the interruptions.” Violent students also blocked Shapiro from UCLA.

If you still don’t have it, the number you’re looking for is the usual count of those arrested, expelled or otherwise punished for their use of violence to further political causes at colleges and universities all across this fair country. It is a number fewer than the fingers on your right hand to the left of your thumb.

No more clues. Unless you find the answer too distasteful to admit, you have at least an inkling of this circular figure.

The Violent in Charge

Now that we have finished the first question, it is time for our … Political Science Quiz! Ready?

What do we call those people in a society who are licensed or allowed to use violence?

No hints this time. We call these the people in charge.

Since the violent are in charge, and since folks regularly use violence on college campuses as a means of politics — violence that just as regularly goes unpunished or is countenanced — we can therefore say that there is an officially approved climate of violence many campuses in the United States.

It really is this simple. Violent students (and professors) are in charge, have been in charge, and will continue to be in charge as long as they are allowed to use violence.

Violence in and around universities is so commonplace that its presence is thought natural and necessary. Pepper sprayings, calls for muscle, assaults of speakers calling for free speech (another Berkeley incident), a brawl and students rushing the stage, students occupying by force various campus offices.

These violent actions are not only in protest of freedom and traditional morality. Sometimes plain old-fashioned greed is the excuse. As when students violently burst into and occupied various buildings at University of California at Davis to whine that tuition should not increase.

There isn’t any point in continuing the examples. The reports of violent behavior and temper tantrums of campus denizens appear in the news as often as storm reports, ever since the 1960s. Everybody knows this to be true. Everybody expects it. And except for noting these incidents, as I am doing now, few do anything about them.

Don’t Call Them Snowflakes

The mistake is to label violent, fit-throwing students as they crowd into “safe spaces,” fill their diapers and demand to be changed, with being “snowflakes.” Those who do so, says Anthony Esolen in his new book Out of the Ashes, “are wrong in their diagnosis and inaccurate in their criticism.”

It is also something of a mistake to point at the students and laugh at them for being weaklings. The students hold the hammer, and they know it … in our world of inversions, power is granted to people who claim that they have no power and who resent the greatness of their own forebears. They do not seek “safety.” They seek to destroy. The strong man is bound and gagged, and the pistol is pointed at his head — the seat of reason itself.

On paper, at least, university presidents, deans and trustees are in charge. Almost none of these people, duly accepting their office and possessing the right to administer punishment and keep order, fulfill their duties to maintain order and keep the peace. Sometime these officials share the political goals of the violent on campus, and so excuse the violence.

But often those purportedly in charge do not want the grief associated with doing the right thing. If a president expelled a violent student, the national media would be against him, a large part of his faculty would be against him, the student body would be against him, even the trustees buckling under the weight of publicity would be against him. It is easier to look the other way or issue a non-binding We-Love-Tolerance-And-Repudiate-Violence missive.

abuse, bullies, corruption, criminal, culture, education, ethics, extremism, hate crime, hate speech, hypocrisy, ideology, intolerance, left wing, liberalism, nanny state, oppression, political correctness, politics, progressive, protests, relativism, scandal

Filed under: abuse, bullies, corruption, criminal, culture, education, ethics, extremism, hate crime, hate speech, hypocrisy, ideology, intolerance, left wing, liberalism, nanny state, oppression, political correctness, politics, progressive, protests, relativism, scandal

Yale couple flees classroom amid free speech chill

original article: Yale couple flees classroom amid free speech chill
December 08, 2015 by FoxNews

Anti-free speech demonstrators at one of America’s most vaunted universities have claimed a pair of scalps – a husband-wife duo who say teaching is too much trouble in a campus climate “not conducive to civil dialogue.”

Yale University professors Nicholas and Erika Christakis, who both have always gotten overwhelmingly positive reviews from students, said they have had enough, after an email she sent sparked a campus-wide controversy that soon pulled him in.

“I have great respect and affection for my students, but I worry that the current climate at Yale is not, in my view, conducive to the civil dialogue and open inquiry required to solve our urgent societal problems,” she said in an email to The Washington Post.

“I have great respect and affection for my students, but I worry that the current climate at Yale is not, in my view, conducive to the civil dialogue and open inquiry required to solve our urgent societal problems.”

– Erika Christakis, Yale professor

The affair began in October, when Erika Christakis, a psychology professor and associate master at the school’s Silliman College, one of a dozen residential communities, sent out an email defending the right of students to wear costumes which may be “culturally appropriating.” That spurred outrage and led to one student confronting Nicholas Christakis on the campus quad and berating him in a shocking episode that was caught on video that soon went viral.

The video showed Nicholas Christakis, a physician and professor of social and natural science, calmly trying to reason with a student who was screaming at him for not keeping students “safe,” as others snapped their fingers in a trendy sign of approval.

Erika Christakis said she will quit teaching indefinitely and cited a campus atmosphere not “conducive to the civil dialogue and open inquiry required to solve our urgent societal problems.” Her husband said he would not teach scheduled classes in the spring, and would take a sabbatical.

Neither Yale officials nor the Christakises responded to requests for comment.

“I don’t have much to add to her decision,” Yale Dean Jonathan Holloway told The Washington Post, adding that as a lecturer, Christakis is paid per course and can decide whether to teach each semester.

The school is ultimately responsible for the chill on free speech, according to Foundation for Individual Rights in Education.

“While Yale did eventually get around to issuing a statement in favor of free expression, it’s hard to imagine that Erika or Nicholas Christakis would have decided to quit teaching at Yale and take a sabbatical, respectively, had Dean Holloway or President [Peter] Salovey consistently shown their support for free expression through their words and actions on campus,” said FIRE’s Robert Shibley.

The issue of free expression on campus has come into sharp relief on several campuses, with students calling for “safe zones” and speech codes where words and deeds deemed offensive are barred. Erika Christakis provoked outrage when she sent an email to Silliman residents questioning the desire to find offense in Halloween costumes.

“Is there no room anymore for a child or young person to be a little bit obnoxious… a little bit inappropriate or provocative or, yes, offensive?” Christakis wrote. “American universities were once a safe space not only for maturation but also for a certain regressive, or even transgressive, experience; increasingly, it seems, they have become places of censure and prohibition.”

He husband later apologized for his role in the controversy in a heartfelt mea culpa delivered in his own home.

“I have disappointed you and I’m really sorry,” he told about 100 students gathered in his living room last month, as Holloway and other university administrators stood by.

“I’ve spent my life taking care of these issues of injustice, of poverty, of racism,” he said. “I have the same beliefs that you do … I’m genuinely sorry, and to have disappointed you. I’ve disappointed myself.”

In a related matter, Yale announced it could soon follow Harvard and Princeton and change the administrative title both Nicholas and Erika Christakis hold, as “master” evokes imagery associated with slavery.

“The word ‘master’ can evoke thoughts of slavery and other forms of subjugation, and it has made me at times quite uncomfortable to be referred to as ‘master,’” Nicholas Christakis said in a letter to students at the beginning of the year.

abuse, bullies, censorship, culture, education, extremism, free speech, intolerance, left wing, liberalism, oppression, progressive, protests, scandal, unintended consequences, victimization

Filed under: abuse, bullies, censorship, culture, education, extremism, free speech, intolerance, left wing, liberalism, oppression, progressive, protests, scandal, unintended consequences, victimization

Stop Hiring Yalies: A 5-Point Plan for Ending Campus Madness

original article: Stop Hiring Yalies: A 5-Point Plan for Ending Campus Madness
November 13, 2015 by JOHN ZMIRAK

America’s “progressive” college students are throwing a temper tantrum, and there is method to their madness. Yes, many of the frothing sign-wavers are just so many clueless pawns, but lurking behind the campus insanity is a coldly calculated purpose. The goal is to change forever the culture of education that forms our country’s leadership class.

And, yes, the movie we’re watching is a sequel. The campus explosions in 1968 also were the fruit of careful planning in smoky backrooms among hard left agitators — who coolly crafted the slogans that addled a million hippies’ brains, all to advance the goal of crippling America’s war effort in Vietnam and installing radicals in power on college campuses.

That ’60s campus movement was itself a sequel of sorts. Instead of the Old Left’s harsh, ascetical creed that called young people to go work in factories alongside the proletariat, the New Left repackaged radicalism as a pretext for hedonism and cowardice. Suddenly, taking drugs, dodging the draft, impregnating women and packing them off to abortionists were signs of some higher virtue — brave rebellions against the tyranny of repressive bourgeois values. No wonder the tactic worked like catnip on an alley cat.

Now the hard Left has dusted off that strategy and repackaged it, attacking core principles of free speech, academic objectivity, truth-telling and moral responsibility for one’s own actions — all in the service of an ideological construct that has captured the liberal arts faculties at most universities, even those nominally Christian.

This construct is the spider that hatched a thousand eggs, from the lies at the University of Missouri about imaginary Klansmen to the spasms at toxic kindergartens like my alma mater, Yale University, where “elite” students cringe and whine that they feel “unsafe” when exposed to contrary ideas or ethnic Halloween costumes — then coldly demand an end to dissenting professors’ careers. This from the school that once gave us Nathan Hale.

There are so many jumbled elements to the new worldview twisting all too many of our young citizens into cowards, bullies and fools that one could spend hundreds of pages unpacking it, but two words really will do:Cultural Marxism. Marx followed Machiavelli in viewing every aspect of social and economic life through the jaundiced eye that sees life as, at root, a ruthless struggle for power. But Marx wrapped that Italian’s bone-deep cynicism in a pseudo-Christian costume: Yes, all of human life should be seen as a vicious fight for power. But here is the twist: We are on the side of the weak, of the victims, who have waited too long for revenge, Marxism coos to its adherents. And it joins to this a promise, one rarely stated explicitly: We will gain power ourselves by ostentatiously joining their side and speaking on their behalf, then sticking it to the former ruling class, and collecting their fallen privileges.

To accomplish this power-grab, cultural Marxists seek to infiltrate and dominate every important medium of culture, every elite institution, which magnifies their power to punish their enemies. They will be winsome when it is helpful, act vulnerable when that’s needed, but when they smell blood in the wind, they will drop the rubber Anne Frank mask and start yelling for “some muscle.”

What Cultural Marxism offers is a wish list for spoiled, lazy, randy students on the make. It helps white kids from prestigious prep schools look cool, make friends, impress casual sex partners, silence their enemies, intimidate authority figures and seem like tough, effective activists — all for the trivial price of denouncing their own backgrounds and heritage. It’s no coincidence, by the way, that the hunger strike ringleader of the chaos at Mizzou is not the working class kid from the hood that some assumed but the son of a millionaire railroad executive.

What a fantastic package deal, for the average young man with strong instinctual drives, no moral compass, and too much time on his hands since he’s not taking math, science, or foreign language classes. In any case, many of his professors are tenured radicals themselves, and their schools’ administrators are timid time-servers who know more about human resources case law than they do about science, philosophy or literature. So who will push back and fight? On campus, very few. So we must step in and help them.

Bad Student! Bad!

How to answer such students? Not with anguished pleas for sweet reason and decency. You might as well readRilke to a snarling, snapping dog. Not with elaborate quests to understand their spiritual malformation. There is no mystery here. Most of these young people are immature, impulse-driven, ambitious, poorly formed and easily led. It is these nasty adolescent attributes that we hope education will help wear away. The great danger comes when educated people with a veneer of culture and a sexy ideology can glom onto students and tell them the lovely lie that their base impulses are noble, that they should indulge them, that it is righteous and good to follow envy, guts and glands.

Young people caught up in such a lie won’t benefit from a high-minded speech, the gift of a spiritual book or a call to dialogue. They’ve been taught to sneer at such things, in Marxist Shakespeare courses that undermine everything Shakespeare stood for, or in classes bent on Marxist-feminist-materialist deconstructions of the Bible. No, what such people need to see are consequences. They need to see that they will not in fact benefit from thuggishly silencing their opponents, terrorizing professors, wallowing in sordidness and  and reducing schools to chaos. They also need to see that the powerful radicals who encourage such stunts on campus pay a price, thatradical feminism, multiculturalism and race-hustling don’t pay.

Later on, when their instincts have dulled and tempers have cooled, they can open the Bible or rent Kenneth Branagh’s Henry V and rediscover the finer things of life. But it probably won’t happen on campus.

So here is my five point plan for rapping the campus Left on the nose with a rolled-up newspaper:

1. Stop hiring Yalies.

Or graduates of any other elite school famous for radical activism, unless said student’s resume includes involvement in a conservative organization, like Yale’s William F. Buckley Program. Charles Murray wisely said that the SATs, and the top schools which rely on them, are a very expensive replacement that employers use for illegal IQ tests. The reason most people go to such schools, at enormous cost after years of desperate prepping for tests and interviews, is to join the social elite. Not to learn, but to make business contacts and ensure their place in our nation’s upper class. (Remember that I went to school with these people; I speak from experience.) The reason that firms hire such students is that they imagine they will be good and useful employees, with fine brains and disciplined work habits, who will benefit their companies. This is no longer true.

The students at Yale who were so offended by a professor’s wife’s plea to chill out about “offensive” Halloween costumes that they claimed that she made them feel “unsafe” are not people you want around your company. They will be prickly, thin-skinned, self-indulgent and worst of all, litigious. They will flout orders, whine, back-stab, and then when you have to fire them, they will threaten to sue you, and bad mouth your company for years. So don’t hire them in the first place.

Instead, look for truly countercultural (that is, conservative) credentials, or go for the highest-performing student from a Christian academy that hasn’t sold out to the left, such as The King’s College, or a “working school” like theCollege of the Ozarks, where first-generation college students put in 15-hour work weeks while studying their butts off. You won’t regret it — and if you do, they won’t sue you for canning them. They haven’t been taught to see the world as their Oyster Rockefeller, served up on a silver tray. (Yes, at Yale we had brunches served on silver trays.)

2. Tell your state legislator to defund the humanities (and most of the social sciences).

You might imagine that — if not at Sarah Lawrence or Wesleyan, at least at your local state university — the humanities are still fields where students are offered their last chance, before they enter the workaday world, to savor “the best that has been written and thought,” in Matthew Arnold’s ringing words.

Balderdash. These days, in most schools the humanities are where bad ideas go to die, excruciatingly slowly. Few people still take Marx seriously in economics, the field in which he claimed to write, because his descriptions don’t fit reality and his prescriptions have proved poisonous. So Marxists migrated to literature departments. Likewise there are very few Freudians practicing psychology, since his therapy doesn’t help people. So Freudians and post-Freudian feminists infest every English department. In general, any theory which fails the empirical test of reality will go on to infect the humanities, where the only test is tenure.

Thanks to the tenure system and the death-grip that ideologues have on graduate studies and hiring in the vast majority of humanities departments, there is no fix for this short of cutting the taxpayer funded umbilical cord to these departments. Take a moment to mourn this. But it’s okay; young people can buy art history books on Amazon, watch Shakespeare movies on Netflix, and form poetry reading clubs on Facebook — all without toxic ideologies infusing and ruining forever their appreciation of the arts.

So tell your representatives that you want them to stop wasting money by appropriating funds to university humanities programs. Let them stick to funding math, science and foreign language classes until such a time as humanities departments return to teaching the humanities.

3. Restore stiff math, science and foreign language requirements for graduation from college.

There is a high-minded reason for doing this: At their best, mathematics and science are beautiful, demanding, uplifting disciplines that force us out of ourselves and compel us to view the world objectively. Foreign languages make us encounter the “Other” in his own words and on his terms. Making these courses mandatory would also be a good idea for the crassly practical reason of economic competitiveness — preparing our kids to go toe-to-toe in a globalized economy, where millions of Chinese and Indian kids are learning computer science and physics, while native-born Americans take feel-good classes in post-colonial women’s studies.

Also, the kind of sloppy, lazy thinker who is attracted to radical leftism usually lacks the discipline to master subjects like these — and so, God willing, will flunk out of college and find work grinding coffee beans or fixing bicycles. Hey, they might even discover some self-discipline through such humble, honorable work and eventually become fit to return to college as a hard-working non-traditional student paying their own way.

4. Don’t let your kids go to a radicalized college, no matter how prestigious it is.

And don’t assume that Christian universities with skillful marketing departments are still solid. Most of them aren’t, even if they know how to talk a good talk to their alumni. Why is this one crucial? Most kids are joiners. They desperately want to be liked, and are prone to empty their minds and deform their souls in order to get that. They want to please their teachers, and be seen as “open-minded” and progressive. These perfectly natural cravings are deadly in a deeply perverse environment. So don’t send the kids you spent two decades raising and protecting as naked missionaries to Sodom. The exception here is if your kid is a thick-skinned, misanthropic, anti-social contrarian. Then he’ll do fine at Yale, as I did. Sure, he’ll be miserable, but he would have been miserable anywhere.

5. Don’t give money to your alma mater, unless …

College fundraisers are experts at milking your gratitude and nostalgia, and at hiding how crazy and alien a place your college has become. Here’s a good litmus test, which I used to get the Yale fundraiser to hang up and not call back: Ask the person badgering you for money if the school offers abortions on campus, or funds them through its health plan. Inquire if there are single-sex dorms, with restricted visitation policies. Or simply look online and see if the school has a women’s studies program. And if you have the stomach, do some digging to find out what the professors in the theology department are saying in their academic books and articles. You’d be surprised. If any of these answers doesn’t please you, spend your money somewhere else.

corruption, culture, education, ideology, left wing, liberalism, progressive, protests, reform, unintended consequences

Filed under: corruption, culture, education, ideology, left wing, liberalism, progressive, protests, reform, unintended consequences

College student’s op-ed criticizing Black Lives Matter movement stirs controversy

original article: College student’s op-ed criticizing Black Lives Matter movement stirs controversy
September 25, 2015 by Fox News

An Iraq War veteran has found himself in a First Amendment battle after taking on the Black Lives Matter movement in his role as a college newspaper columnist.

Bryan Stascavage, a 30-year-old Wesleyan University student who served two tours in Iraq, penned an op-ed in the school newspaper that criticized the Black Lives Matter movement for creating an environment he believes advocates violence by spreading anti-cop hatred, and questioned the movement’s legitimacy.

“Is the movement itself actually achieving anything positive?” Stascavage wrote in his op-ed, “Why Black Lives Matter Isn’t What You Think,” published Sept. 14 in the Wesleyan Argus.

“It boils down to this for me: If vilification and denigration of the police force continues to be a significant portion of Black Lives Matter’s message, then I will not support the movement, I cannot support the movement. And many Americans feel the same,” Stascavage wrote.

“Is it worth another riot that destroys a downtown district? Another death, another massacre? At what point will Black Lives Matter go back to the drawing table and rethink how they are approaching the problem?” he questioned.

He said that certain actions by the movement’s extremists — like calling for more “pig” police officers to “fry like bacon” — should be condemned by the movement’s leaders.

The opinion piece unleashed a firestorm of criticism, first directed at Stascavage and later at the school newspaper and its editors. Stascavage said he’s been called a racist by students on campus, while some activists are calling on the school’s student government to defund the newspaper.

A petition demanding the Wesleyan Argus lose funding unless it meets certain demands has signatures from at least 172 students, staff and recent alumni. Signatories threatened to boycott the paper because they said it fails to “provide a safe space for the voices of students of color and we are doubtful that it will in the future.”

The university administration, meanwhile, defended Stascavage’s right to free speech over the weekend.

“Debates can raise intense emotions, but that doesn’t mean that we should demand ideological conformity because people are made uncomfortable,” Wesleyan University President Michael Roth wrote in a blog post along with Provost Joyce Jacobsen and Vice-President for Equity and Inclusion, Antonio Farias.

“As members of a university community, we always have the right to respond with our own opinions, but there is no right not to be offended,” said the post, titled “Black Lives Matter and So Does Free Speech.”

“We certainly have no right to harass people because we don’t like their views,” the administration said. “Censorship diminishes true diversity of thinking; vigorous debate enlivens and instructs.”

Stascavage, a sophomore majoring in philosophy and political science at the Connecticut university, said he knew his column would be controversial for posing “uncomfortable questions,” but said he never believed it would “hit nerves to the extent that it has.”

“The whole point of the article was to encourage people to think of alternative ways to get the Black Lives Matter movement to communicate their message effectively, instead of destroying a downtown district and screaming, ‘We want change,'” Stascavage told FoxNews.com Thursday.

“They are painting the police with a broad stroke as being racist killers,” he said. “I don’t agree with cheering when a police officer is killed. The rhetoric is starting to slide from a political movement to this mob mentality that leads us down a bad path.”

Stascavage, who has penned about 20 pieces for the school newspaper since his freshman year, claims editors at the newspaper said nothing to him prior to the op-ed’s publication.

After the backlash, however, editors-in-chief Rebecca Brill and Tess Morganissued a lengthy statement apologizing “for the distress the piece caused the student body.”

“The op-ed cites inaccurate statistics and twists facts,” the two wrote. “As Wesleyan’s student newspaper, it is our responsibility to provide our readership with accurate information. We vow to raise our standards of journalism and to fact-check questionable information cited in articles, including those in the Opinion section, prior to publication.”

Neither Brill nor Morgan returned messages seeking comment Thursday. Stascavage said the editors-in-chief have yet to speak to him about the piece in question.

“I was very disappointed,” Stascavage said of their statement. “It looked like they just threw me under the bus.”

Brill and Morgan noted, however, that “The Opinion section is open to any writer who wants to share a view, whether or not the Opinion editors and the editors-in-chief agree with it.”

“While we strive to make articles as coherent as possible before publication, we edit opinions for style rather than content, even if they are unpopular, controversial, and widely contested,” they said.

Stascavage, who plans to continue writing for the paper, said the ordeal has proved a valuable learning experience.

“I have learned more in the past 10 days than I learned in three years of college,” he told FoxNews.com. “Freedom of speech is critical for democracy.”

bias, bullies, censorship, corruption, culture, discrimination, diversity, education, hate speech, hypocrisy, ideology, intolerance, left wing, liberalism, news media, oppression, pandering, political correctness, progressive, propaganda, protests, racism, relativism, scandal

Filed under: bias, bullies, censorship, corruption, culture, discrimination, diversity, education, hate speech, hypocrisy, ideology, intolerance, left wing, liberalism, news media, oppression, pandering, political correctness, progressive, propaganda, protests, racism, relativism, scandal

Crowds gather to protest St. Louis police shooting, but no outrage for murder of girl, 9

original article: Crowds gather to protest St. Louis police shooting, but no outrage for murder of girl, 9
August 20, 2015 by Fox News

A crowd gathered Wednesday evening to protest the shooting of an armed suspect by Missouri cops, but no mention was made of the 9-year-old girl who had been shot dead by an unknown assailant just seven miles away the night before.

Jamyla Bolden was killed doing homework on her mom’s bed and her mother was also wounded when someone began firing into their Ferguson home around 9:30 p.m. Tuesday night, according to Fox2Now.

Bolden had just returned from a birthday party when shots rang out. Jamyla’s mom, who was released from a hospital Wednesday morning, was wounded in the leg. Jamyla suffered more serious injuries. Her grandmother embraced her, imploring her to continue breathing as police tried in vain to save her.

“I kept holding and holding her,” the grandmother, who did not wish to be identified, told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. “I still have her blood on my hands. She was still breathing. I was telling her to just breathe.”

No suspect has been arrested or even publicly named, though relatives said they believed police had identified a person of interest and think the gunman probably targeted the wrong house.

“We have to keep thinking about the blessed opportunity we had to encounter her presence,” said Teressa Kindle, Bolden’s teacher at Koch Elementary where Bolden had just begun fourth grade. “Everyone knew her drive for success: academic success, behavioral success, any success – kickball success, jump rope success.”

That sentiment was echoed by her principal, Howard Fields.

“We have a slogan right outside when you come into our building that says, ‘Do better than your best,’” Fields told Fox2Now. “You determine how far you can go, no one else. She is an individual who exemplified that every single day.”

Ira DeWitt, the wife of St. Louis Cardinals President Bill DeWitt, will pay Bolden’s funeral expenses, KSDK reported.

abuse, bias, children, corruption, culture, hypocrisy, ideology, left wing, liberalism, pandering, political correctness, progressive, propaganda, protests, relativism, scandal, tragedy

Filed under: abuse, bias, children, corruption, culture, hypocrisy, ideology, left wing, liberalism, pandering, political correctness, progressive, propaganda, protests, relativism, scandal, tragedy

Planned Parenthood gets paid for work it doesn’t do

original article: What These Pro-Life Groups Have to Say to Companies Donating to Planned Parenthood
July 24, 2015 by Kate Scanlon

On Tuesday, The Daily Signal published a list of companies that donate or have donated directly to Planned Parenthood, either through grants or through matching employee gifts. We used data from 2nd Vote, a website and app that tracks causes that corporations donate to.

We asked each company about its donations to the nation’s largest abortion provider.

Spokespersons for three of the companies—Coca-Cola, Ford and Xerox—objected to their inclusion on the list. When The Daily Signal provided the companies with a Planned Parenthood website listing them as donors, they said they would be contacting the organization to be removed.

Planned Parenthood later removed all corporate donors from the site.

Many of the companies acknowledged that they contribute to Planned Parenthood through their employee gift matching programs.

The Daily Signal reached out to pro-life groups to ask what they would tell consumers about these companies.

Kristan Hawkins, the president of Students for Life of America, said that “this shows how badly Planned Parenthood is hurting.”

“A couple of years ago, businesses would have replied that they proudly supported Planned Parenthood or live in fear if they didn’t (remember what they did to the Komen Foundation?) but today they are the defense, rushing to say that they are not directly donating to Planned Parenthood but instead are giving their employees the option to donate—which is still giving money to the abortion giant,” Hawkins said.

“You can’t just donate to Planned Parenthood and say your donation is earmarked for utilities or staff or paper clips but not abortion.”

“The building and the staff and the utilities all contribute in some way to abortion and are involved [in] it,” Hawkins said. “Any money whatsoever going to Planned Parenthood in any way contributes to the more than 327,000 abortions they commit every year—and who knows what else they do behind closed doors, some of which is thankfully now being revealed because of the Center for Medical Progress videos.”

Rev. Clenard Childress of the Life Education and Resource Network said that he applauds companies who practice corporate responsibility, but that the companies on the list need to more carefully scrutinize “to whom they are writing checks.”

“The community should hold them accountable,” Childress said.

He criticized the companies who said they will donate to “any” organization their employees choose.

“Would you write a check to the Ku Klux Klan?” Childress asked.

Kristen Day, the executive director of Democrats for Life, said her organization has called for Planned Parenthood to be defunded because there “have always been concerns” about it.

She said that not only is Planned Parenthood allegedly selling fetal organs, but its employees also “changing their abortion procedure” to obtain them.

“We know, from history, that we cannot trust Planned Parenthood,” Day said.

“Just a few years ago, the Komen Foundation decided not to provide grants to organizations who do not actually perform mammograms. Planned Parenthood, who does not perform mammograms, embarked on a huge PR campaign to complain about Komen’s policy because their half a million dollar grant was pulled. PP raised over $3.3 million in 24 hours (6 times the grant they would have lost). Komen was hit hard by the smear campaign and lost millions of dollars at future fundraising events. Planned Parenthood’s grant for mammograms was restored, but they still do not perform mammograms. The grant would have paid for 50,000 mammograms for women.”

“American tax dollars should be allocated to companies we can trust, not to organizations that bring customers into their business, offer a procedure—abortion—and in turn benefit financially from their recommendation, selling hearts, lungs and livers,” Day added.

“American businesses should follow this same protocol.”

abortion, cover up, ethics, funding, greed, ideology, pro-life, protests, scandal

Filed under: abortion, cover up, ethics, funding, greed, ideology, pro-life, protests, scandal

Radical Netroots Nation denies white lives matter. And they’re racist.

The radical left wing group Netroots Nation had Democrat presidential candidate Martin O’Malley speak at a recent event. In the 20 minute video there is plenty of protesting for unknown reasons – it’s not like there were any Republicans on stage. But near the end of this recording O’Malley tries to appeal to the most basic tenets of common sense and common decency: all lives matter. He begins with the obligatory “black lives matter” and proceeds with “white lives matter” on his way to “all lives matter”. But when he mentions white lives matter, you might be surprised to find out the people of Netroots Nation don’t actually agree with that.

At the 20 minute mark O’Malley begins the lives matter routine but the audience can clearly be heard shouting “NO” when he says white lives matter.

Now, before anyone tries to say Netroots Nation didn’t actually deny white lives matter, please offer me a scenario in which white Southerners could EVER say “NO” to “black lives matter” and not have such a comment deemed racist. If anything should be met with universal agreement it would be that “all lives matter”. But Netroots doesn’t believe this.

Some argue that saying “all lives matter” diminishes the importance of the issue of blacks being killed by police. Never mind the fact police kill more whites than blacks. We’re talking about people who make a living fomenting racial strife, we can’t have inconvenient truths mentioned here.

The fact is “black lives matter” is an exclusive thing. Its supporters often object to the fact any other lives matter too. If you object to someone saying all lives matter you are elevating the value of the lives one group over another. You can claim you’re merely trying to promote awareness about injustice (and if that injustice is that cops kill blacks because of racism, you got some ‘splainin to do, and some contradicting evidence) but you need to justify why the implication that other lives DON’T matter isn’t really part of the package.

Let me ask a question raising a related point. Some claim the Confederate flag is about heritage, not racism. Most other people say that flag is about racism, pure and simple, and that other opinion is illegitimate. As it stands, I happen to agree with the majority on this one point: the Confederate flag stands for racism, no matter what anyone else wants it to mean. (I don’t agree with censoring it or removing the flags from historical markers or video games – because I don’t agree with hiding history or with infringing upon free speech). But since we don’t let the proponents of the Confederate flag define what that flag means, why should we let the black-lives-matter crowd define what that phrase means?

In most of American politics if something can be construed as racist or discriminatory in some way (especially if someone says they are offended) our society bends over backwards to accommodate and eliminate the offensive material, with apologies and all. The mere accusation of racism takes over any other considerations. The phrase black lives matter is harmless enough (though still exclusive, elitist, and actually anti-diversity) but to object to “all lives matter” and insist only “black lives matter” can be spoken is downright racist. I see no reason to object to all lives matter; well no good reason. There are race-pimping, opportunistic reasons to do that, sure, but I don’t consider those reasons good for America.

And I see no reason to deny the racist nature of insisting only black lives matter. If you object to saying all lives matter, and insist only the “black lives matter” mantra be permitted, you’re racist. Pure and simple. And so is Netroots Nation. I don’t care if some people want the phrase to mean something else. We live in an age where words and ideas can be redefined at whim, but where racism trumps everything else.

No one is saying racism doesn’t exist anymore. Now, Institutionalized Racism is a different thing. I don’t see any Jim Crow laws in effect anymore. I don’t see any water fountains or rest rooms or lunch counters set off to the side for blacks only (mandated by law, I remind you). I don’t see any laws in place specifically designed to make things tougher for blacks. If you do, show me. If you oppose voter ID but have no objection to the legal requirement of marriage licenses your argument is invalid. On the other hand, I see plenty of laws in place to make things easier for blacks. I see plenty of government programs set up with the assumption black people are incompetent rubes who can’t survive without government telling them what to do. All a person of color has to do is yell racism and all attention is diverted away from facts, and any wrong doing or mistakes made by the POC are ignored. There’s a word for that: it’s called privilege. And as Bob Parks eloquently explains, some people get paid to find racism so they find it even when it isn’t there.

Besides, we have good reason to question whether Netroots Nation or other progressives really believe black lives matter. Apparently some don’t.

bigotry, bullies, campaign, culture, Democrats, discrimination, elections, elitism, extremism, hate speech, hypocrisy, ideology, indoctrination, intolerance, left wing, liberalism, pandering, philosophy, political correctness, politics, progressive, propaganda, protests, relativism, video

Filed under: bigotry, bullies, campaign, culture, Democrats, discrimination, elections, elitism, extremism, hate speech, hypocrisy, ideology, indoctrination, intolerance, left wing, liberalism, pandering, philosophy, political correctness, politics, progressive, propaganda, protests, relativism, video

Progressive chickens coming home to roost in higher ed

PC Liberals Devour Their Own
June 3, 2015 by RICH LOWRY

Noorthwestern University professor Laura Kipnis didn’t set out to become a martyr to free speech when she wrote a spirited essay in The Chronicle of Higher Education pushing back against “sexual paranoia” on college campuses.

To stir the pot, yes. To outrage the sensibilities of people she thinks are more naive than she is about sex, sure. But not make an example of herself in the fight against the stultifying regime of political correctness that grips academia.

This is the chilling fact at the center of the Kipnis affair: Her university investigated her for something she wrote, and not even something that was remotely anti-feminist or traditionalist.
No one will mistake Kipnis, who teaches filmmaking, for Phyllis Schlafly. Her books include “Ecstasy Unlimited: On Sex, Capital, Gender, and Aesthetics” and “The Female Thing: Dirt, Envy, Sex, Vulnerability.” In a starred review, Publisher’s Weekly said an evidently pro-adultery book she wrote combined “the slashing sexual contrarianism of Mailer” and “the scathing antidomestic wit of early Roseanne Barr” (sounds delightful).

This gets to the other fact that should be chilling for any liberal blasé about the Jacobin atmosphere of college campuses: If they can come after Kipnis, they can come after anyone.

Conservatives in academia have traded stories for years of fear on campus, of keeping their heads down and watching what they say lest they get harassed or fired. Now, the illiberalism of the left is being turned against its own. It is an illustration of the basic civil-libertarian point that any regime meant to stifle opponents eventually comes back to bite its architects.

The groves of academe have gone from what are supposed to be bastions of free speech to grim prosecutorial arenas where everything you say can and will be used against you. The potential McCarthyites sit in every lecture hall and seminar room and they are children of the left, students who have been trained and encouraged to be whiny, litigious and censorious.

This is a dystopia entirely of the left’s making. Its identity politics, feminism and hysteria about campus rape are ascendant on campus. On top of this, it is the Obama administration that weaponized Title IX in response to the alleged epidemic of campus rape and made it a clear and present danger to due process and freedom of expression.

In her essay, Kipnis argued that “in the post-Title IX landscape, sexual panic rules,” and the new campus codes are “a striking abridgment of everyone’s freedom” and “intellectually embarrassing.”

Kipnis should have known that her offenses were manifold. She called a he-said-she-said case of alleged unwanted groping at Northwestern, the occasion for a Title IX lawsuit, a “melodrama.” She questioned why women are called “survivors” instead of “accusers,” even when their accusations haven’t yet been validated. She professed mystification at the proliferation of students who say they find course material “triggering.”

Her critics could have argued back and hoped one day to be able to write as well as she does. Instead, they protested Kipnis (carrying mattresses, naturally) and reported her to the authorities.

In retrospect, Kipnis might as well have been a 13th-century monk taunting the Inquisition, or a 17th-century courtier of Charles I daring the Stuart king to throw him in front of the Star Chamber. She was duly accused of violating Title IX by writing an essay questioning the excesses of Title IX.

The university’s investigation of her was about what you would expect if Kafka’s Josef K. had caught the attention of the shadowy Committee of Affairs by writing an op-ed some people found uncongenial. It was difficult for Kipnis even to find out what she was accused of, which turned out to be violating a Title IX prohibition against retaliating against an accuser — even though all she did was write about a case that had nothing to do with her.

Kipnis was eventually cleared of the charges, but, as the cliche goes, the process was the punishment. Her subsequent essay on her experience, “My Title IX Inquisition,” has caused liberal soul-searching. It’s all fun and games when Condoleezza Rice gets disinvited, or when feminist-critic Christina Hoff Sommers protested, but when a film professor with high regard for Foucault is targeted, then clearly things have gotten out of hand.

The liberal explainer website Vox ran a piece a few months ago basically arguing that political correctness is a hoax perpetuated by oppressors. In the wake of the Kipnis piece, it featured a piece by a liberal professor saying he’s terrified of his liberal students, for the same reasons as Kipnis (tellingly, he wrote it under a pseudonym).

If liberals are really going to push back against the political correct regime on campus, they will have to do a number of things they will surely find unwelcome: tell students to grow up and realize that speech they disagree with is not tantamount to a physical threat; acknowledge that campus rape, even if it’s a serious issue, is not an out-of-control plague that requires dispensing with due process and other norms; and pressure the Obama administration to rescind its notorious April 2011 letter on Title IX that has roiled campuses and caught up innocent actors like Kipnis.

As it stands now, for a university not to take every Title IX accusation seriously is to risk a federal investigation and potentially a catastrophic loss of federal funding. So the normal bureaucratic impulse is to toss common sense out the window, and with it, protections for free speech.

In its statement on the Kipnis case, the campus free-speech group FIRE wrote, “The transmogrification of Title IX into an all-purpose excuse for knee-jerk overreactions to complaints about speech — sometimes only tangentially related to sex — is an unacceptable trend that endangers freedom of expression and undermines the purpose of higher education.”
Laura Kipnis just proved it.

Further commentary:

Support separation between School and State

My Title IX Inquisition
by Laura Kipnis

I’m a liberal professor, and my liberal students terrify me
June 3, 2015 by Edward Schlosser

FIRE’s Statement on Northwestern’s Lengthy, Unwarranted Title IX Investigation of Laura Kipnis
June 1, 2015 by Fire

Laura Kipnis’s ‘Title IX Inquisition’ Reveals Absurdity of the Current Campus Climate
May 29, 2015 by Susan Kruth

The Laura Kipnis Saga: Privacy Paranoia Runs Amok Once More On Campus
June 2, 2015 by Greg Piper

abuse, bias, bigotry, bullies, bureaucracy, censorship, discrimination, education, extremism, feminism, free speech, government, hate speech, hypocrisy, ideology, indoctrination, intolerance, left wing, liberalism, litigation, nanny state, oppression, philosophy, political correctness, politics, progressive, protests, public policy, reform, regulation, scandal, unintended consequences, victimization

Filed under: abuse, bias, bigotry, bullies, bureaucracy, censorship, discrimination, education, extremism, feminism, free speech, government, hate speech, hypocrisy, ideology, indoctrination, intolerance, left wing, liberalism, litigation, nanny state, oppression, philosophy, political correctness, politics, progressive, protests, public policy, reform, regulation, scandal, unintended consequences, victimization

Hey Ferguson Protestors: Justice Has Been Done, But You Never Wanted Justice

November 25, 2014 by Matt Walsh

Hey protestors in Ferguson and around the country, along with all manner of other agitators, demonstrators, race baiters, looters, rioters, media sensationalists, and everyone else in the Michael Brown Fan Club across the nation and the world:

You claim you want justice, so what are you protesting now?

Justice was done, friends, justice was done.

There won’t be a public trial because this is America, and in America we don’t put people on trial just to satisfy the vengeance of the mob. We don’t bring someone up on charges if the facts do not support those charges.

So Officer Wilson was not indicted. The facts reigned supreme last night. Well, first the facts, and then the arson.

Officer Wilson will not be charged because the entire outrage was built on fabricated witness testimony. Witness testimony, in some cases, from people who weren’t even witnesses. Officer Wilson was not indicted because the physical evidence, forensics, and ballistics all supported his story. Officer Wilson was vindicated because the most consistent witnesses were the ones who validated his version of events (and most of those witnesses were black).

That’s the truth. That’s the reality. It’s rock solid, folks. Plain as day. Michael Brown was not a civil rights hero; he was a belligerent and violent young man who lost his life because of his own actions. It is sad that he’s dead — and it’s his fault that he’s dead. He sought an altercation with a store clerk and then he sought an altercation with a cop. In the course of that second altercation, he tried to grab the officer’s gun. And now he’s dead. That’s what happens when you assault a cop and try to take his gun. You get shot. This is no great mystery. It’s no cause for rioting in the streets. It’s a case where A + B = C, and Michael Brown is fully responsible.

This decision is not what you wanted, I realize, but that’s only because you never wanted justice at all. You wanted a certain outcome, and you have demanded that outcome from the very beginning, before listening to the other side, before looking at the evidence, before hearing from all of the witnesses, before giving the dust a chance to settle. You came to a conclusion based on rumor and conjecture, and you have not strayed from that conclusion or adjusted it or even acknowledged that any other conclusions are possible. This, my fellow citizens, is not the behavior of people who want justice and fairness. This is the behavior of a lynch mob. This is the behavior of tyrants who are perfectly willing to send an innocent man to jail if it means winning some kind of bizarre ideological victory. This is behavior that ought to be exposed and shamed, in no uncertain terms.

That’s why I won’t be another to make this all about the violence in Ferguson, although there has been a ton of it since Michael Brown was shot and killed by Officer Darren Wilson. I can easily point to the rioting and looting, not to mention the bomb plots, rock throwing, vandalism, death threats,rape threats, terrorist threats, and general chaos at your hands. And that’s just before the decision. After the decision we saw utter detestation brought upon by the people who claim they are fighting for some great and magnanimous cause. More rioting, looting, vandalism, destruction, chaos, bottles and rocks thrown, shots fired, cars overturned, and roaming arsonists wreaking havoc across the community. Over a dozen buildings now lay in rubble in Ferguson. Reduced to rock and ash by the very people who say they care so much for their town. And all because a criminal was shot for attacking a cop. All for nothing, in other words. Yet supporters contend that the thieves, antagonists, and anarchists are but a small portion — out of town usurpers, for the most part — and are not representative of the group as a whole.

And you know what? Fine.

I’ll go with that.

I’ll accept that argument.

Whatever. Who cares? This discussion about the exact proportion of violent vs. non-violent protestors is irrelevant. It’s exactly the sort of conversation the agitators and race baiters want us to have because it distracts from the larger problem. Frankly, I don’t think it matters how you are protesting. Whether you’re on the streets of Ferguson or spreading conjecture and false accusations on Twitter, whether you’re a peaceful group or a band of vandalizing thugs — let’s talk instead about the fact that you are protesting in the first place. Are these demonstrations violent? Some definitely are, but that’s not the point. The greater concern is that you’re being dishonest. You are lying. You brazenly disregard every piece of evidence, every witness statement, and the grand jury’s determination in order to propagate a falsehood. You say you want to know what happened, but you preemptively reject any explanation beyond the explanation you conjured up within 24 hours of the event itself. You, along with many politicians and media members, made up your minds three months ago, and you have not allowed any preceding fact or reality to penetrate. You established your narrative and have built your movement upon that foundation. ‘We want justice,’ you declare, but not a single one of you will consider the possibility that justice includes Officer Wilson being cleared of all wrongdoing, even after the science and most reliable firsthand accounts conflict with your mythology.

This is beyond a mere misinterpretation. This is blatant deception, and you’re all complicit in it.

But still, justice won the day, in spite of you and in spite of every attempt to sabotage the process. Officer Wilson will not be charged with murder because he is not a murderer. Incredibly, the system worked. The truth prevailed. These grand jurors were facing interference from the Governor, the Attorney General, and the President of the United States. They were made to fear for their lives and for the safety of their community if they returned anything but a murder charge. The integrity of the process had been compromised by you and your supporters, yet the jurors decided to consider only the evidence, rejecting the threats, the blackmail, and the baseless assumptions of so many.

So let’s review the two competing stories:

On one hand, we have your version. In this fantasy, Officer Wilson, consumed with his racist passions, randomly grabbed and began brutalizing an innocent kid whose only crime was jaywalking. Brown managed to escape, at which point Wilson shot him in the back, and then, while Brown kneeled with his hands up, Wilson executed him in broad daylight, in the middle of the street, in front of 60 witnesses.

On the other hand, we have Wilson’s story, which is the one that matched the evidence and the one the grand jury found much more believable. In this account, Wilson first noticed Brown walking in the middle of the street. He asked Brown to move to the sidewalk, but Brown refused. At this point, Wilson realized that Brown matched the description of a robbery suspect. He stopped his car and attempted to get out, but Brown attacked the officer while he was still inside the vehicle. Brown tried to reach for the officer’s gun, and during the struggle the gun went off. This claim is supported by the forensics, ballistics, and witness testimony. Brown then took off running and Wilson pursued. Just seconds later, Brown stopped, turned, and began to charge the officer again. Wilson, knowing that Brown is a large and powerful man who has already attempted to take his gun one, was forced to defend himself with lethal force. More shots fired. Brown is killed. Analysis at the scene showed a trail of Brown’s blood which went on 20 feet past his body, indicating that he did stop, turn, and advance on the officer.

In short, Officer Wilson was a law enforcement officer doing his job when he was suddenly attacked and thrown headfirst into a fight for his life. That’s what the forensic evidence shows. That’s what several eye witnesses report. That’s what logic and reason always pointed to.

You demonized an innocent man. This should weigh heavily on your conscience. This should bring you a profound sense of grief and guilt. A man who serves your community was forced to defend himself against an unprovoked and unnecessary assault, and what did you do? You made a villain out of him. You cast him to the wolves without hesitation. You crucified the man.

You should be ashamed.

And all for the sake of Michael Brown, your gentle giant, your cause celebre, your excuse, your reason to act like you were Standing For Something. Michael Brown, another grown man who tragically bought into thug culture, paid the price for it, and then was posthumously canonized by a mob of ill-intentioned propagandists. Michael Brown, who walked up to the counter at a store, took some items without paying for them, and then grabbed the store clerk by the neck and shoved him into a display case. Michael Brown, who returned from a strong arm robbery to encounter Officer Wilson, who had himself just returned from helping a sick child. Michael Brown, who picked a fight and lost. Michael Brown, the maybe not-so-gentle giant who brought his bloody fate upon himself.

Oh, but we’re told that this is about more than Michael Brown now. It’s about police brutality, and race, and social inequality, and so on.

Indeed, it’s about police brutality even if Officer Wilson wasn’t guilty of police brutality, and it’s about race even if Officer Wilson shot Brown because he was trying to kill him, not because he was black, and it’s about social inequality even if that has absolutely nothing to do with anything that transpired on that fateful afternoon. It’s about all of these things, even if it’s really about none of them. And Officer Wilson? Well, innocent or not, he just has to be the lamb slaughtered on the sacrificial altar in the name of progress.

Makes sense, doesn’t it?

It’s like if I slap you in the face for kicking me in the shins, except you tell me that you never kicked me in the shins, but I respond that you must be slapped anyway because sometimes some peopleare kicked in the shins, and sometimes the shin kickers look an awful lot like you.

Sometimes, you see, positive change is sparked by a fabrication, spurred on by a lie, promoted through deception, and advanced at the expense of the innocent. This happens all the time, like, for instance never.

Man, I’m so sick of this.

I’m tired of the theatrics, the charade, the race hustling. The lies. The lies upon lies upon lies. Isn’t anyone sincere anymore? Are any of you concerned that you’re villain is a cop who defended himself and your martyr is a drugged up bully who went out of his way to start trouble?

I guess not.

And the problem isn’t just you, I admit. It’s the media, too.

Oh, the media.

Believe me, they deserve their share of the blame. Morally bankrupt sociopaths, many of them. They flew in like vultures to feed upon the hysteria. To exacerbate the tensions. To inflame the violence. To encourage the chaos. I thought they’d reached a low point with Trayvon Martin. Doctoring 911 tapes and digging up Martin’s 4th grade yearbook photo, I figured they couldn’t possibly descend to an even more shocking level of dishonesty, slander, and sensationalism. But then Ferguson happened, and those scavengers reached into the cavernous pit of their blackened souls and found a way to top even their most deplorable previous performances.

I watched CNN in the minutes before the grand jury announcement. Wolf Blitzer interviewed the head of the NAACP, who proceeded to let loose a string of falsehoods and assumptions, all of which were completely unchallenged.

He said that Brown was shot with his hands up, but Blitzer didn’t both telling him that physical evidence and other witnesses have debunked that claim.

He said the NAACP expects an indictment based on the evidence, but Blitzer didn’t bother asking how in the world he could declare that the evidence warrants indictment without access to most of it, and with a clear misunderstanding of the evidence that is available.

He said that Brown was stopped only for jaywalking, but Blitzer didn’t bother informing him that Brown was wanted for a robbery and reports indicate that Wilson did quickly recognize him as the suspect, and the altercation proceeded from there.

He said that black men are tired of being killed by cops, but Blitzer didn’t bother querying whether this exhaustion with being killed by police also includes an exhaustion with being the group guilty of committing a disproportionate percentage of the violent crimes in our society.

No, Blitzer just allowed his airwaves to be used as a propaganda arm for the NAACP, very much in keeping with how most of the rest of the non-Fox news media has operated.

And that can’t compare to the media’s performance in the press conference with the prosecutor, making inflammatory statements disguised as questions, and then shouting ‘how will you sleep at night?’ as the man left the room. And left the room, I should add, after delivering a thorough, fair, and thoughtful recitation of the facts, which was inexplicably panned by the liberal media who, we all know, were destined to criticize anything he said if it didn’t include an announcement of a first degree murder charge.

But that’s the media for you.

And then the politicians.

Oh, the politicians.

Governor Nixon announced only days after the events that ‘vigorous prosecution’ should be pursued against the officer. Prosecution. Not investigation. Not inquiry. Prosecution. There are only two ways that Nixon, the gutless worm, could have arrived at this conclusion:

1) He had no information other than what the public had, but he threw one of his police officers to the lions because it would help him politically.

2) He had information that the public didn’t have, but he threw one of his police officers to the lions because it would help him politically.

Eric Holder and Barack Obama weren’t much better. At least Obama didn’t announce that Brown looked like his son this time, but he again, as a surprise to nobody, declined the opportunity to show real leadership. Instead, he sent his lackey Holder to the scene in an attempt to literally make a federal case out of a violent criminal being shot by police in Missouri. Then he made a statement last night where he declared that ‘anger about the decision is understandable.’ Understandable to be angry that an innocent man wasn’t charged with a crime? Understandable to be angry that the justice system did its job? UNDERSTANDABLE?

Good lord, help us.

Look, protestors, if you’re not ready to go home, if you still want to protest something, why not protest the culture that encourages young black men to act like Michael Brown? Why not protest the thousands of black men who kill black men every year? Why not protest the black men who kill cops every year, or have you convinced yourselves that such violence is always justified? Why not protest the black men who abandon their families and create the chaotic family situations that lead to these tragedies? Why not protest the black rappers who actively teach young men like Michael Brown to behave like bullies and gangsters? Why not protest the infantilizing white liberals who treat minorities like children who can’t be expected to take responsibility for their actions? Why not protest years of Nanny State policies which have bred poverty and kept many minority populations from achieving the success they are capable of?

Why not protest the media that feeds flames and obscures the truth?

Why not protest a president who has done nothing positive or constructive for the black community?

Or go home and tend to your families. Find something real to be worried about.

You were wrong about this.

You were wrong from the beginning.

But justice was done anyway, and you aren’t happy because justice was the last thing you ever wanted.

original article: Hey Ferguson Protestors: Justice Has Been Done, But You Never Wanted Justice

abuse, bias, bigotry, bullies, civil rights, corruption, criminal, culture, discrimination, extremism, hypocrisy, ideology, news media, pandering, philosophy, political correctness, propaganda, protests, racism, relativism, scandal, tragedy

Filed under: abuse, bias, bigotry, bullies, civil rights, corruption, criminal, culture, discrimination, extremism, hypocrisy, ideology, news media, pandering, philosophy, political correctness, propaganda, protests, racism, relativism, scandal, tragedy



January 2020
« Dec