Archive for the ‘Elitism’ Category

THE CULTURE OF DEATH –AND OF DISDAIN

Sunday, October 8th, 2017

 

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL 

The Culture of Death—and of Disdain

Why do Americans own so many guns? Because they don’t trust the protected elites to protect them.

by Peggy Noonan    October 5, 2017
EXCERPT FROM THIS ARTICLE:  I think a lot of Americans have guns because they’re fearful—and for damn good reason. They fear a coming chaos, and know that when it happens it will be coming to a nation that no longer coheres. They think it’s all collapsing—our society, our culture, the baseline competence of our leadership class. They see the cultural infrastructure giving way—illegitimacy, abused children, neglect, racial tensions, kids on opioids staring at screens—and, unlike their cultural superiors, they understand the implications.

Nuts with nukes, terrorists bent on a mission. The grid will go down. One of our foes will hit us, suddenly and hard. In the end it could be hand to hand, door to door. I said some of this six years ago to a famously liberal journalist, who blinked in surprise. If that’s true, he said, they won’t have a chance! But they are Americans, I said. They won’t go down without a fight.

When news broke at Christmastime five years ago of what had happened at Newtown a friend, a news anchor, called and said with a broken voice: “What is the word for what we feel?” I thought for a moment. “Shattered,” I said. “We are shattered, all of us.” When people in ensuing days spoke of what had been done to the little children in the classrooms, I’d put up my hands and say no, we can’t keep putting those words in the air, we can’t afford it. When terrible images enter our heads and settle in, they become too real, and what is real is soon, by the unstable, imitated, repeated.

When Columbine happened in the spring of 1999, it hit me like a wave of sickness. I wrote a piece about the culture of death that produced the teenage shooters: “Think of it this way. Your child is an intelligent little fish. He swims in deep water. Waves of sound and sight, of thought and fact, come invisibly through that water, like radar. . . . The sound from the television is a wave, and the sound from the radio; the headlines on the newsstand, on the magazines, on the ad on the bus as it whizzes by—all are waves. The fish—your child—is bombarded and barely knows it. But the waves contain words like this, which I’ll limit to only one source, the news:

(more…)

Share

AGENDA 21 / AGENDA 2030 – THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE

Thursday, October 5th, 2017

 

The author of this article, Tom DeWeese, will be ICON’s first guest speaker for the exciting 2018 season on Tuesday, March 13, 2018 in Chapel Hill, North Carolina  .  The subject of his talk will be:
SUSTAINABLE:  THE WAR AGAINST FREE ENTERPRISE, PRIVATE PROPERTY AND INDIVIDUALITY    
For more detailed information about ICON, please see their website –    www.iconlectureseries.com     Nancy

AGENDA 21/AGENDA 2030 THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE

October 4, 2017 

EDITOR’S NOTE:

Many times in the past year, when I have continued to use the term Agenda 21, people will rush in to correct me – “It’s Agenda 2030 now!” Well, yes and no. This is what the UN does – it changes names and titles like a judo move – but the plan is the same. Remember, that’s just what ICLEI did a few years ago when they changed their name. They were originally named the International Council for Local Environmental Initiative. But when we started to reveal that they were part of a global movement to change our way of life by inserting themselves into local policy making, they quickly moved to drop the “international” from their name. Now they are simply known as “ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability.” That’s how these cock roaches seek to hide when a bright light is shown on them. The name changes, but the game is the same.             

The 2030 Agenda is nothing more than a reboot of Agenda 21. The UN uses such updates of plans to keep their people excited and involved. The 2030 Agenda simply goes in to more detail as to how and what they intend to do. Remember, Agenda 21 was introduced as the “comprehensive blueprint for the reorganization of human society.” The 2030 Agenda gives more detail on how that is to be done, along with providing a more specific date for its full implementation. In reality there’s nothing new here. It’s still Agenda 21! 

So, I wanted to reissue an article I wrote in 2015 about Agenda 2030, when it was first announced, to help build understanding of its threat, but to also assure you that Agenda 21 and its goal to restructure the world is still very much alive. As I say in the article, now we should better understand what we are fighting because they are clearly telling us. Please pass this on and help others to understand the threat. It’s very real. 

Tom DeWeese             

IT’S 1992 ALL OVER AGAIN.

A NEW AGENDA 21 THREATENS OUR WAY OF LIFE

BY TOM DEWEESE

(more…)

Share

ARE 345 DIVERSITY AND SOCIAL JUSTICE COURSES AT UNC CHARLOTTE TOO MUCH ?

Sunday, October 1st, 2017

 

www.wbtv.com/story/36488337/are-345-diversity-and-social-justice-courses-at-uncc-too-much

ARE 345 DIVERSITY AND SOCIAL JUSTICE COURSES AT UNC CHARLOTTE TOO MUCH ?

by Dedrick Russell   September 29, 2017

Share

VIDEO – WHO WAS MARGARET SANGER ?

Sunday, October 1st, 2017

Share

VIDEO INTERVIEW – RICH HIGGINS – FIRED BY MCMASTER

Wednesday, September 27th, 2017

 

PLease scroll down to view the video interview of Rich Higgins who was fired by H.R. McMaster.  Probable reason for his firing was that he wrote a memo regarding the cultural and ideological threats to undermine President Trump.  After listening to Rich Higgins warn of the dangers circulating in the White House, the Deep State and the Resistance, please consider signing my White House petition to have H.R. McMaster fired.  Please share with your email lists.   Thanks    Nancy    

National Security adviser H.R. McMaster fired Rich Higgins, an Army veteran and former national security surrogate for Trump, on July 21 for a memo he claims captured the unprecedented cultural and ideological threats meant to undermine President Donald Trump’s governance.

When Ezra Cohen from the National Security Council was fired a week later,Higgins’ memo and the back-to-back firings sparked instant intrigue on social media. “Meet The Press” host Chuck Todd invited McMaster to do an interview about Higgins’ firing in August, and both men called into question Higgins’ work and reputation.

Since then, Higgins reports that he has had no explanation for the transpired events, saying “I’m still waiting for Chuck Todd to give me a phone call” to explain what really happened, he says in this exclusive interview with The Daily Caller News Foundation. Higgins also claims that no mainstream reporter will contact him, further confirming the total corruption of the fourth estate that is deceiving the American people.

Higgins explains that what America is experiencing is far beyond any normal politics. As a military strategic planner, the venom, vitriol and barrage of narratives directed by the media and cultural elites at a duly-elected president can be seen in an ideological light. Higgins explains that the “nature of the president’s election informed the reaction to his assumption of power.”

Globalists and those who prefer international governance to constitutional are repelled by the notion of national sovereignty and American interests. Trump’s campaign refrain to “build a wall,” Higgins explains, was a clever boiling down of sovereignty to the natural need for a nation to enforce and have borders.

He says he was fired for remaining based in reality and not succumbing to the politically correct, multicultural self-delusion popular in the governing elite.

(more…)

Share

WHY THE LEFT CAN’T LET GO OF RACISM

Friday, September 15th, 2017

 

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

Why the Left Can’t Let Go of Racism

Liberals sell innocence from America’s past. If bigotry is pronounced dead, the racket is over.

By Shelby Steele   August 28, 2017

Mr. Steele, a senior fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, is author of “Shame: How America’s Past Sins Have Polarized Our Country” (Basic Books, 2015).

EXCERPT FROM THIS ARTICLE: What makes racism so sweet? Today it empowers. Racism was once just racism, a terrible bigotry that people nevertheless learned to live with, if not as a necessary evil then as an inevitable one. But the civil-rights movement, along with independence movements around the world, changed that. The ’60s recast racism in the national consciousness as an incontrovertible sin, the very worst of all social evils…….America’s moral fall in the ’60s made innocence of the past an obsession. Thus liberalism invited people to internalize innocence, to become synonymous with it—even to fight for it as they would for an ideology. But to be innocent there must be an evil from which to be free. The liberal identity must have racism, lest it lose innocence and the power it conveys.

Is America racist? It used to be that racism meant the actual enforcement of bigotry—the routine implementation of racial inequality everywhere in public and private life. Racism was a tyranny and an oppression that dehumanized—animalized—the “other.” It was a social malignancy, yet it carried the authority of natural law, as if God himself had dispassionately ordained it.

Today Americans know that active racism is no longer the greatest barrier to black and minority advancement. Since the 1960s other pathologies, even if originally generated by racism, have supplanted it. White racism did not shoot more than 4,000 people last year in Chicago. To the contrary, America for decades now—with much genuine remorse—has been recoiling from the practice of racism and has gained a firm intolerance for what it once indulged.

But Americans don’t really trust the truth of this. It sounds too self-exonerating. Talk of “structural” and “systemic” racism conditions people to think of it as inexorable, predestined. So even if bigotry and discrimination have lost much of their menace, Americans nevertheless yearn to know whether or not we are a racist people.

  A staple on cable news these days is the “racial incident,” which stands as a referendum on this question. Today there is Charlottesville. Yesterday there were the deaths of Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, Freddie Gray and others. Don’t they reveal an irrepressible racism in American life? At the news conferences surrounding these events there are always the Al Sharpton clones, if not the man himself, ready to spin the tale of black tragedy and white bigotry.

Such people—and the American left generally—have a hunger for racism that is almost craven. The writer Walker Percy once wrote of the “sweetness at the horrid core of bad news.” It’s hard to witness the media’s oddly exhilarated reaction to, say, the death of Trayvon Martin without applying Percy’s insight. A black boy is dead. But not all is lost. It looks like racism.

What makes racism so sweet? Today it empowers. Racism was once just racism, a terrible bigotry that people nevertheless learned to live with, if not as a necessary evil then as an inevitable one. But the civil-rights movement, along with independence movements around the world, changed that. The ’60s recast racism in the national consciousness as an incontrovertible sin, the very worst of all social evils.

Suddenly America was in moral trouble. The open acknowledgment of the nation’s racist past had destroyed its moral authority, and affirming democratic principles and the rule of law was not a sufficient response. Only a strict moral accounting could restore legitimacy.

Thus, redemption—paying off the nation’s sins—became the moral imperative of a new political and cultural liberalism. President Lyndon Johnson turned redemption into a kind of activism: the Great Society, the War on Poverty, school busing, liberalized welfare policies, affirmative action, and so on.

This liberalism always projects moral idealisms (integration, social justice, diversity, inclusion, etc.) that have the ring of redemption. What is political correctness, if not essentially redemptive speech? Soon liberalism had become a cultural identity that offered Americans a way to think of themselves as decent people. To be liberal was to be good.

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

ROBERT MUELLER’S MISSION

Monday, June 19th, 2017

 

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

Robert Mueller’s Mission

The special counsel needs to rise above his Comey loyalties.

 
FBI Director Robert Mueller is sworn in during a hearing before the House Judiciary Committee on June 13, 2013 on Capitol Hill. PHOTO: GETTY IMAGES

That didn’t take long. Barely a week after James Comey admitted leaking a memo to tee up a special counsel against Donald Trump, multiple news reports based on leaks confirm that special counsel Robert Mueller is investigating the President for obstruction of justice. You don’t have to be a Trump partisan to have concerns about where all of this headed.

President Trump has reportedly stepped back this week from his temptation to fire Mr. Mueller, and that’s the right decision. The chief executive has the constitutional power to fire a special counsel through the chain of command at the Justice Department, but doing so would be a political debacle by suggesting he has something to hide.

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who appointed Mr. Mueller, would surely resign, and other officials might resign as well until someone at Justice fulfilled Mr. Trump’s orders. The President’s opponents would think it’s Christmas. The dismissal would put the President’s political allies in a terrible spot and further distract from what are make-or-break months for his agenda on Capitol Hill. His tweets attacking the probe are also counterproductive, but by now we know he won’t stop.

There are nonetheless good reasons to raise questions about Mr. Mueller’s investigation, and those concerns are growing as we learn more about his close ties to Mr. Comey, some of his previous behavior, and the people he has hired for his special counsel staff. The country needs a fair investigation of the facts, not a vendetta to take down Mr. Trump or vindicate the tribe of career prosecutors and FBI agents to which Messrs. Mueller and Comey belong.

(more…)

Share

VIDEO – IF I WANTED AMERICA TO FAIL

Wednesday, June 14th, 2017

Share

WHY ELITES HATE

Thursday, June 8th, 2017

 

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
WHY ELITES HATE
By William McGurn    June 6, 2017
EXCERPT FROM THIS ARTICLE:The great irony here is that this has left Democrats increasingly choosing undemocratic means to get what they want. From President Obama’s boast that he would use his pen and phone to bypass Congress to the progressive use of the Supreme Court as its preferred legislature to the Iran and climate deals that made end runs around the Constitution, it all underscores one thing: The modern American progressive has no faith in the democratic process because he has no trust in the American people.

Nine years after Barack Obama accused small-towners of clinging to guns or religion, nearly three years after Jonathan Gruber was shown to have attributed ObamaCare’s passage to the stupidity of the American voter, and eight months after Hillary Clinton pronounced half of Donald Trump’s voters “irredeemable,” Democrats are now getting some sophisticated advice: You don’t win votes by showing contempt for voters.

In the last week or so a flurry of articles have appeared arguing for toning down the looking-down. In the New Republic Michael Tomasky writes under the heading “Elitism Is Liberalism’s Biggest Problem.” Over at the New York Times , Joan C. Williams weighs inwith “The Dumb Politics of Elite Condescension.” Slate goes with a Q&A on “advice on how to talk to the white working class without insulting them.” Stanley Greenberg at the American Prospect writeson “The Democrats’ ‘Working-Class Problem,’ ” and Kevin Drum at Mother Jones asks for “Less Liberal Contempt, Please.”

(more…)

Share
Search All Posts
Categories