Archive for the ‘Social Justice’ Category

CAIR DEMANDS REMOVAL OF ALL CONFEDERATE MONUMENTS

Wednesday, August 16th, 2017

 

A prime example of how the demands of Islamic organizations become louder as their influence and numbers grow in the U.S.    Nancy   

Council on American-Islamic Relations: Tear Down Every Confederate Memorial

by Eric Owens, Education Editor     August 15, 2017

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), America’s largest Muslim civil rights group, is calling on state and local governments all over the United States to tear down all monuments and memorials commemorating Confederate leaders and the short-lived Confederate States of America.

CAIR joined several groups asking for the removal of Confederate memorials in the wake of a “Unite the Right” white supremacist rally that turned violent over the weekend. At the Charlottesville, Va. rally, James Alex Fields, a rally attendee, allegedly plowed his grey Dodge Challenger through a large group of people on a pedestrian mall. One woman, Heather Heyer, died in the incident. About 20 other people suffered injuries.

Nihad Awad, CAIR’s national executive director, urged state and local governments to erase every symbol and every vestige of Confederate history immediately.

 

“A fitting response to the deadly terror attack on anti-racist protesters in Charlottesville would be for officials in states and cities nationwide to immediately announce that every street, every school, every flag, and every public memorial honoring those who took up arms in defense of white supremacy and slavery will be removed or have its name changed to instead honor those who fought for civil rights,” Awad said in a statement to The Daily Caller.

“Removal of these memorials would be a small step forward in turning the page on the darkest period in our nation’s history,” Awad also said.

(more…)

Share

VIDEO – THE TRUMP EFFECT – DEPROGRAMMING THE AMERICAN MIND

Wednesday, August 9th, 2017

Share

THE BIG LIE OF SOCIALIZED MEDICINE BY DANIEL GREENFIELD

Saturday, August 5th, 2017

 


Daniel Greenfield’s article: The Big Lie of Socialized Medicine

http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/

Posted: 04 Aug 2017 11:17 AM PDT
As the health care debate goes on, Senator Bernie Sanders will toss in a socialized medicine bill.

Bernie’s bill won’t be a realistic piece of legislation. The 1 percenter Socialist from Vermont has three successful bills to his name. Two of those involved renaming post offices. He was a marginal figure during the ObamaCare debate. The financials of the plan won’t work. But they never do.

ObamaCare insurers are losing billions. Aetna pulled out after $700 million in losses. United Health jumped after losing $720 million. The single-payer that Bernie wants to propose will be even worse.

Vermont’s single payer experiment cost $4.3 billion out of a $4.9 billion state budget. The California Senate passed single-payer with no way to cover the $400 billion cost in a $183 billion budget.

Democrats who wouldn’t vote for it faced death threats and accusations that they were “murderers”.

That’s what every argument about socialized medicine comes down to. Either you support it or you want people to die.

Bernie Sanders has been accusing Republican repealers of killing thousands. If ObamaCare is repealed, “36,000 will die yearly”. Then he claimed, “up to 28,000 Americans every single year could die.”

Is it 36,000 or 28,000? Who cares? The point is, if you’re against socialized medicine, you’re a murderer. The right numbers, either the budget or the casualties, don’t matter. Emotions trump statistics.

In 2015, the year after ObamaCare took effect, the death rate rose for the first time in a decade. 2,471,984 deaths occurred in this country in 2008. In 2014, we were up to 2,626,418.

That’s a difference of 150,000. And going up, not down.

You would think that if the ObamaCare mandate is saving so many lives, we ought to be seeing fewer deaths, not more of them.

Share

TRANSGENDERS IN THE MILITARY

Saturday, August 5th, 2017

 

Why Trump Is Right About Transgender Service Members By David Lampo

By David Lampo   David Lampo is author of A Fundamental Freedom: Why Republicans, Conservatives, and Libertarians Should Support Gay Rights.  He previously served on the boards of Log Cabin Republicans and Equality Virginia.
August 4, 2017

President Trump’s tweets are legendary, but few have aroused such fierce reaction as the one recently rescinding the “right” of transgender Americans to serve in the military. Not only have Democrats and leaders of the gay rights movement denounced this change; even some Republicans like Sen. John McCain have publicly expressed opposition, and pro-gay conservative organizations such as Log Cabin Republicans and American Unity Fund have also come out against it.  Unfortunately, the president’s opponents have trotted out the usual clichés, accusing him of “discrimination,” a pejorative term used to demonize those who question the current policy as bigots and shut down debate by attacking their motives and character rather than address the real issues.

In fact, there is not, and never has been, the “right” of any class of citizens to join the armed forces.  The military, in fact, “discriminates” against many classes of U.S. citizens.  It’s ageist, for example: The maximum age for Army enlisted recruits is 35, while the Navy and Marines top out at ages 34 and 28, respectively.  Those with serious medical conditions such as diabetes or obesity or who have physical limitations or impairments, those with any form of mental illness, those who aren’t U.S. citizens or have criminal records, to name just a few, are also prohibited from serving. Until recently, gay men and lesbians were banned, but that policy was rightly changed in 2010.

As with other groups of people excluded from service, there are a number of compelling reasons why the current policy of allowing transgender individuals to serve in the military should be reconsidered.  Despite the fact that there are transgender Americans currently serving, “gender dysphoria,” as it is labeled in the medical literature,

is still considered a mental illness in

every country in the world except

Denmark.

 Some of the most influential medical references in the world, including the World Health Organization’s International Classification of Diseases (ICD), continue to categorize gender dysphoria as a mental disorder.

(more…)

Share

REAL CLIMATE SCIENCE SHOWS TRUMP WAS RIGHT TO EXIT THE PARIS CLIMATE CHANGE AGREEMENT

Monday, July 10th, 2017

 

REAL climate science shows Trump was right to Exit Paris


If you don’t have time to read it, please read this much…

The Paris treaty is not about climate change 

In actual intent and practice, the Paris Agreement is a political tool for suppressing growth, instituting global governance over energy use and economic growth, and redistributing wealth.

Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, former chairman of the IPCC, clearly spelled out that aim. Ms. Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change until last year, openly stated that it was not about climate but that, for the first time, it gave them the tools to replace capitalism. Former UNFCCC section director Ottmar Edenhofer bluntly said climate agreements are actually about how “we de facto redistribute the world’s wealth by climate policy.”

Under the Paris accords, developed nation payments to the “Green Climate Fund” (for redistribution to underdeveloped countries) are to begin at $100 billion per year, of which the US share would have been $23.5 billion had President Trump not taken the United States out of the agreement. Ms. Figueres has suggested that $450 billion a year by 2030 would be appropriate, Competitive Enterprise Institute climate expert Myron Ebell notes.

Concerning the transition away from fossil fuels, during its October 7-9, 2016 annual group meeting, the IMF and World Bank declared: “One estimate suggests that around US $90 trillion will need to be invested by 2030 in infrastructure, agriculture and energy systems, to accomplish the Paris Agreement. …[S]et against the US $300 trillion of assets – held by banks, capital markets and institutional investors – we’re faced with a problem of allocation, rather than outright scarcity.”

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

Yes, the climate change gurus are now openly
admitting it’s not about global warming/climate change.
It’s about squeezing us for money to create their
world government. “Us” means developed countries…
especially the U.S. It didn’t work.
Liberals are incensed that Donald Trump refused to
cave in to this scam. Eyeballs squirting blood…
heads exploding… sleepless nights… some may
have to start looking for jobs. Their scam is dying.
No surprise the  MIT president is upset. MIT routinely
gets money for grants to “study climate change”.
Take that money away and they will have to start
driving another scam.
Share

VIDEO – ANARCHY IN FRANCE

Tuesday, July 4th, 2017

Share

LIBERAL COMPANIES PAYING EMPLOYEES TO PROTEST AGAINST TRUMP

Wednesday, June 28th, 2017

 

LIBERAL COMPANIES PAYING EMPLOYEES TO PROTEST AGAINST TRUMP

JUNE 8, 2017

There’s this odd thing that has been going on since Donald Trump became President. He says something and the liberal media spends a week “proving” that he was wrong, only to be shown he was 100% right. He said Obama was spying on him and that turned out to be true. He said there was voter fraud and there was. Another thing that the liberals were outraged over was when Trump said leftist protesters were paid to oppose him. Guess what? That’s true too.
The San Francisco Chronicle, of all media outlets, were the ones to break the news that liberal companies are now paying their employees to take up arms in the anti-Trump Resistance.

(more…)

Share

THE TYRANNY OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE STATE

Tuesday, June 27th, 2017

 

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

The Tyranny of the Administrative State

Government by unelected experts isn’t all that different from the ‘royal prerogative’ of 17th-century England, argues constitutional scholar Philip Hamburger.

New York

What’s the greatest threat to liberty in America? Liberals rail at Donald Trump’s executive orders on immigration and his hostility toward the press, while conservatives vow to reverse Barack Obama’s regulatory assault on religion, education and business. Philip Hamburger says both sides are thinking too small.

Like the blind men in the fable who try to describe an elephant by feeling different parts of its body, they’re not perceiving the whole problem: the enormous rogue beast known as the administrative state.

Sometimes called the regulatory state or the deep state, it is a government within the government, run by the president and the dozens of federal agencies that assume powers once claimed only by kings. In place of royal decrees, they issue rules and send out “guidance” letters like the one from an Education Department official in 2011 that stripped college students of due process when accused of sexual misconduct.

Unelected bureaucrats not only write their own laws, they also interpret these laws and enforce them in their own courts with their own judges. All this is in blatant violation of the Constitution, says Mr. Hamburger, 60, a constitutional scholar and winner of the Manhattan Institute’s Hayek Prize last year for his scholarly 2014 book, “Is Administrative Law Unlawful?” (Spoiler alert: Yes.)

“Essentially, much of the Bill of Rights has been gutted,” he says, sitting in his office at Columbia Law School. “The government can choose to proceed against you in a trial in court with constitutional processes, or it can use an administrative proceeding where you don’t have the right to be heard by a real judge or a jury and you don’t have the full due process of law. Our fundamental procedural freedoms, which once were guarantees, have become mere options.” ​

In volume and complexity, the edicts from federal agencies exceed the laws passed by Congress by orders of magnitude. “The administrative state has become the government’s predominant mode of contact with citizens,” Mr. Hamburger says. “Ultimately this is not about the politics of left or right. Unlawful government power should worry everybody.”

  (more…)

Share

Friday, June 23rd, 2017

 


Michael GoodwinMichael Goodwin is the chief political columnist for The New York Post. He has a B.A. in English literature from Columbia College and has taught at the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism. Before joining the Post in 2009, he was the political columnist for The New York Daily News, where he served as executive editor and editorial page editor and led its editorial board to a Pulitzer Prize. Prior to that, he worked for 16 years at The New York Times, beginning as a clerk and rising to City Hall Bureau Chief. He is the co-author of I, Koch and editor of New York Comes Back.

The following is adapted from a speech delivered on April 20, 2017, in Atlanta, Georgia, at a Hillsdale College National Leadership Seminar.

I’ve been a journalist for a long time. Long enough to know that it wasn’t always like this. There was a time not so long ago when journalists were trusted and admired. We were generally seen as trying to report the news in a fair and straightforward manner. Today, all that has changed. For that, we can blame the 2016 election or, more accurately, how some news organizations chose to cover it. Among the many firsts, last year’s election gave us the gobsmacking revelation that most of the mainstream media puts both thumbs on the scale—that most of what you read, watch, and listen to is distorted by intentional bias and hostility. I have never seen anything like it. Not even close.

It’s not exactly breaking news that most journalists lean left. I used to do that myself. I grew up at The New York Times, so I’m familiar with the species. For most of the media, bias grew out of the social revolution of the 1960s and ’70s. Fueled by the civil rights and anti-Vietnam War movements, the media jumped on the anti-authority bandwagon writ large. The deal was sealed with Watergate, when journalism was viewed as more trusted than government—and far more exciting and glamorous. Think Robert Redford in All the President’s Men. Ever since, young people became journalists because they wanted to be the next Woodward and Bernstein, find a Deep Throat, and bring down a president. Of course, most of them only wanted to bring down a Republican president. That’s because liberalism is baked into the journalism cake.

(more…)

Share

NEARLY 30% OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT CHILDREN HAVE TIES TO MS-13 OR OTHER CRIMINAL GANGS

Friday, June 23rd, 2017

 

THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Nearly 30% of illegal immigrant children at border have ties to MS-13 or other gangs

 – The Washington Times – Wednesday, June 21, 2017
EXCERPT FROM THIS ARTICLE:

Mr. Albence singled out the Chicago area as one of the most prominent sanctuaries. “Chicago is a large one. We haven’t been able to get into the Cook County Jail for a long time,” he said……….We know who they are, we know they’re gang members, we know they’re criminals. But if the city, the county, doesn’t allow us to get into that jail then they’re released back into the community,” he said.

Nearly 30 percent of the illegal immigrant children the U.S. is currently holding in its secure dormitories have ties to criminal gangs, the government revealed Wednesday, suggesting the Obama-era surge of Central Americans has fed the country’s growing problem with MS-13 and other gangs.

Federal officials refused even to guess at the true scope of the problem, telling the Senate Judiciary Committee that they can give only small snapshots of what they see. But they said the devastation on communities across the country is clear: killings and chaos, particularly among other immigrants — both legal and illegal.

The Border Patrol identified 160 teens who were known or suspected gang members when they first showed up at the border, but whom the Obama administration said it had to admit under U.S. law.

(more…)

Share
Search All Posts
Categories