Artists vs. "Old Navy Exec"

So-called artists are resorting to twitter to express their disdain for a couple of Old Navy toddler shirts encouraging the tiny ones to become astronauts, the next President or some other occupation besides an artist. The horror. Personally, I don't find it offensive and I consider myself artistically inclined. Here's the items that are causing butt-hurt all over the hearts of "artists":

Here's a comeback from an "artist" -

It's a silly comeback because it's clearly a backlash towards "the suits" and it shows the pathetic caricature that "artists" have when thinking about "the suits." Also, I was expecting a more interesting font since this was a response by a professional artist. It's awfully plain looking.

"I'm an artist. I don't cheat people out of money and I know what it mean to be 'human'!"

The shirts were deemed offensive and disrespectful. The anger become so great that Old Navy hase decided to discontinue them.

A similar incident, a day after Memorial Day, when PacSun displayed a shirt with an upside down American flag. Now this I fully understand the outrage for - it's highly idiotic to not display the flag in its correct manner aka not upside down, especially during a week devoted to remembering deceased military men/women. It's like putting the a crucifix upside down after Christmas. I understand hanging the American flag incorrectly, with the stars to the left instead of the right, as an honest mistake but an upside down flag? Yea, I bet an "artist" though it would be a cool/edgy thing to do.

The outrage that these shirts inspired makes me recall the outrage displayed on Yale's campus over an email response saying that students should be deemed responsible for their own costume awareness. Let's just say people had a meltdown and it was embarrassing to those that aren't psychologically and emotionally infantile.

Even better, the outrage is very much the "cousin" of the irritation showed when Marco Rubio said that the USA needed more welders and less philosophers. Again, I am more inclined towards the arts and I studied philosophy during my undergraduate years. I was not offended and I perfectly understood what Rubio was trying to convey. Apparently other degree holders of the liberal arts did not interpret what I interpreted as they delved into self-importance, which isn't too surprising given the modern health of the disciplines that make up the humanities and social sciences.

What I want to know if an Old Navy executive approved of this t-shirt. I want to know because if it wasn't an MBA executive, it's just a blind attack on corporate by mushy brained "artists." An "artist" probably made this print so in a way it could be self-deprecating. Many artists will probably say, "Why would one of ours do such a thing?" Why  not? What replaced the word artist were occupations that are looked upon as highly impressive in today's society. An astronaut. A country's president. Even becoming a company's executive is impressive since it takes years to reach that level.

Yes, the world needs artists. The world also needs astronauts and presidents. The world needs welders as well as philosophers.

As stated before, I'm not offended by these t-shirts and if I were an Old Navy executive deciding whether or not to pull these shirts, I wouldn't. I'd say, "These weren't meant to be offensive. Deal with it. Your occupation isn't sacred and no one's taking your occupation away from you. We're trying to inspire, so stop being a toddler."

Banned from Red State.

According to the writer I was being an ass (hence the motivation of my last post.) I tried to post this on a separate article which earned my ban and got this message.

The ruckus came from me explaining that Santorum's wish "to fight" abortion, same-sex "marriage," and the legalization of marijuana wasn't a "theocracy."

I later asked why my post was getting such a response. A Red State moderator helped me understand.

So in other words don't correct or question what's written in the article especially if the piece is written by the editor.

A post of mine was deleted as well since I guess I was "being an on-line ass" to others. My post, in a cheeky manner, responded, "Did you think of that yourself?" or something to that effect; I cannot remember exactly.

It was ultimately a stupid question since it was implying that I was supporting Santorum's process of legalizing his social views. No where did I say that he was right in his efforts. What Santorum wants to do isn't a "religious dogmatic view" (though the editors and others on Red State think it is, or else why the writer's frame Santorum in such a way) since such views can also be perfectly and soundly be held on a secular stance.

Another post was wiped out of existence because it spoke ill of libertarians even though the post I was responding to also did, but that post wasn't deleted.

From what has happened as detailed above tells me the editors of Red State aren't too high on people who may be a little sympathetic to candidates that aren't be triumphed in a given article.

Others have noted this issue as well when denouncing any "theocracy" accusation (I get the feeling that social conservatives who aren't on the whole "let the state choose their own morality" wagon are immensely unpopular among the Red State editors). See below.

Okay, I read 1689's comment. I don't see anything "passive aggressive" or rude or inconsiderate. Wait, he questioned the "theocracy" usage which was written by the editor. He wrote this: "All would be better than some free-wheeling, do-whatever-you-want small-government! society." Nevermind. He also "attacked the site" by writing, "NR has enough authors trying to fundamentally transform what it means to be a conservative. Apparently the problem is not limited to NR." Bill S. won't have that. On the "blacklist" you shall go.

The overall tone of Bill S.'s reasons on banning fall apart when he turns to the "you're mean" reason. The whole "keeping the peace" is talk because it's him really saying, "We don't want conservatives who have different opinions - who cannot form their opinions with the most softest snow so not to harm the feelings of the editors - to share their thoughts." It's such a cop-out move.

I learned that another has-been poster was also banned, back in 2012. The comments on his article that  explained his disdain of the ban got the trolls out of the wood work. I'm not sure of the politics of those that mock him, but I wouldn't be surprised if they were socially "progressive" libertarians or douchebag liberals. It seems like that the day he wrote it those that were aware of the ban took advantaged of the moment - they maybe Red State posters who agreed with the moderators.

Here's what Calvin and another has-been poster said:

I remember reading that Red State doesn't tolerate birthers, truthers and Palin haters and for good reason: They're idiots. But why ban people who "attack" the editors regarding the content of which they post? This tells me they're cowards, and assholes.

I sorta don't care.

I sorta don't care if you think I'm being an ass if we talk politics. I know I'm right. So, in the end, even if the policy swings to your side of history - you can't debase what I propose and say. And you know deep down I'm right even if I lose the decision.

One's Status According to Modernity.

I've always enjoyed The Art of Manliness website, mainly managed by Brett McKay. Today I came upon a fine article about how to build status (not necessarily monetary or celebrity-wise) within one's community. Ya know, for the Average Joe who isn't in the entertainment business, a state senator, or making bennies in i-banking.

Here's a snippet -

For the last few months, we’ve been discussing the complex nature of status — an individual’s position within a group of people and how much approbation, respect, recognition, and attention he or she receives from others.

We’ve talked about the fact that status encompasses way more than wealth, and can constitute anything and everything that offers others some kind of value. It can be linked to our physical appearance, skills, fitness, intelligence, insights, creativity, personality traits, social connections, and even the ability to find and share information. Status gains and losses are thus not only felt in the size of one’s bank account, but whether or not people laugh at your jokes, compliment your appearance, like your social media posts, respond to your texts, invite you to a party, envy your cool vacation or job, admire your integrity or resilience, seek your advice, think you’ve got great taste in music or books — and in a thousand other ways.

We’ve shown that because the traits and behaviors that different groups value can vary, status is relative and context specific; you can have high status in one group, but low status in another.
We’ve demonstrated that men are more sensitive to status losses and gains than women, and that the status drive is hardly a mere cultural construct, but rather is deeply rooted in our very physiology. Status defeats and wins in fact affect nearly every system of the body, and intensely activate our neurocircuitry.

The series, linked above, is sobering for those that have been pompous and insufferable due to status success and  a wake-up call to anyone who has been slacking.

Chreasters

I can tell whether or not someone's a Chreaster.

They can have an apathetic look on their face,  if not a "why the fuck am I here?" face. They wear a beanie inside when locks of their hair are poking out underneath. They seem a bit confused on when to sit, kneel and stand. And the Big Kahuna: They have little clue on how to receive the host.

At my parish the guys are standing awkwardly,  a little uneased,  as if they know they're in an environment that's foreign to them. Usually they're there with the girlfriend to make her happy and not embarrass her in front of her parents who are Sunday church goers. Awkward.

This isn't judgmental of me. It's strict observational practice. And I find it always amusing.

Lyrics: Hide Away

Daya, an American pop singer, released a single in August 2015 called "Hide Away."

What's striking about this song is the lyrics which calls for "decent" boys and sexual restraint, at least on the first couple of dates. Nowadays that's a rarity. Here are the words.

Boys seem to like the girls who laugh at anything
The ones who get undressed before the second date
Girls seem to like the boys who don't appreciate
all the money and the time that it takes
to be fly as a mother
Got my both eyes out for Mr Right
Yeah, see I just don't know where to find them
but I hope they all come out tonight

Where do the good boys go to hide away, hide away
I'm a good, good girl who needs a little company
Looking high and low, someone hardly know
Where do the good boys go to hide away, hide away

Boys seem to like the girls who like to kiss and tell;
Talking them up about things that do so well
I want to find a boy who is down for the chase
putting in the time that it takes
To be fly as a mother
To supply all of my hearts amends
Suit and tie 'cause undercover
He's gonna save a life like superman

In the music video the dads are portrayed as overprotective, but in a funny and lovable way.

The "Where do the good boys to hide away, hide away," part can mean two different things. The first, the audience can reason that the boys are driven away from the dads who chase away boys they deem unworthy - or just any boy in general in order to shield their baby girl. The second interpretation, without the visuals, is literally. Daya is upset that modern dating has devolved into a give-and-take where if you want to "get it," you can "get it," that it's just a matter of finding someone willing to shed their clothes, open their legs and open their mouth for the member. I'd even say that this critical look at dating has a sense yearning for "the good old days" where women, though 'chased' after, found men who courted their possible life partner. Their 'invisible chastity' belt was their dignity and self-respect, all with the aid of social norms.

I'll also commend the music video for being quite uneventful. There wasn't any make-out scenes with tongues intertwined. No implied sex or nudity. It just featured a girl going out on the date (hopefully not ruined by the overprotective dads) and enjoying herself. Food. Bowling. A pool party where the swimmers keep swimsuits on, just enjoying each others company and their youth. It's the fathers that worry.

The line -

Girls seem to like the boys who don't appreciate
all the money and the time that it takes
to be fly as a mother

 reverberates with me. In the past couple few years I'm gotten into men's style. Though the lyrics tell about the effort to get ready for a date sartorially, which I think it's safe to say everyone does, I'm wondering about our everyday dress when not at work. In some circles jeans are a no-no, like the trad/ivy circle. The trad/ivy circle is seen as conservative dress to the likes of the more metrosexual GQ circles. I like what both have to offer since I don't consider myself belonging to one group for personal style. Fitting jeans that aren't baggy; wearing a button-down with the right length (wearing a dress shirt as a casual shirt, untuck, is sloppy; wearing sneakers on certain occasions and opting for brogues instead etc. are just some of the things I've "upgraded" to since I graduated from college where my style was an eyesore (a dear miss kindly said she was glad I ditched my pre-distressed baggy jeans after we met up a year after graduation).

Within a society whose moral standards haven't actually progressed, but devolved, and where dress standards have also gone south, I am pleased to know this song exists. It touches on a couple of issues that have been in my mind for quite some time.

Of course I'd support it. How could I not?

Do college Democrats actual know the underlying philosophy and details of the stances of which they support and advocate? I don't think they do. If they do, it's a superficial understanding.

How about college Republicans? I have the same concern, but less so. This group tends to know why they support a certain issue and a certain candidate beyond the simple bullet points. There's a deeper understanding of the concepts of the issues they oppose.

Why is this? I think it's because college campuses are highly liberal places. Expressing thoughts that are deemed "anti-woman" and homophobic or anti-gay are quickly squashed -- not because such thoughts are thoughtfully refuted, but because the zeitgeist carries them unto victory. It's intimidation.

What are these stances that are deemed anti-woman, homophobic and anti-gay stances? Not supporting a women's "choice" is deemed anti-woman. Thinking that women are more natural caregivers is deemed anti-woman. Thinking that there are prominent physical, emotional and psychological differences between a man and a woman is deemed anti-woman. Thinking that modern day feminism is a sham is anti-woman. Thinking that a woman who engages in casual sex, and them thinking nothing of it, is unattractive is deemed anti-woman.

Let's move on to supposed homophobic or "anti-gay." If you think same-sex acts are wrong and unnatural then you're called a homophobe. If you do not support same-sex "marriage" you are chastised. If you believe that having same-sex attraction is a disorder, and that nothing about it is okay or beautiful, you are labeled a bigot. Accusations of being narrow minded, unintelligent and redneckish shall be in full force.

Never mind the philosophy behind these views. Those that disagree with you might want to hear about it, but often times they fail to fully grasp the concepts presented even when they do. Why is this? That's another issue that should be talked about thoroughly. I suppose it's due to pride, arrogance, naivety and idealism. Add in smugness and how they were raised. It truly is not enough to "raise kids who don't harm anyone"; that's the bare minimum. It's like teaching your kid to write his full name or know his home number or his address.

New link.

The John Pope Center For Higher Education Policy, otherwise known simply as The Pope Center, has been added to link column.

The site publishes articles concerning political correctness and the decline, or "evolution," of higher education compared to days where disciplines like English wasn't completely politicized and Sociology had integrity. It looks as the SJW's and their grievances, scandals of various sorts that shame higher education to ideas that move away from the traditional classroom.

It is a worthwhile site because, depending on the subject of the article, it attracts the academics who think The Pope Center is the Fox News of online higher education sources. They just don't like it. It also gets lackeys of The Left out of the wood work as well.

The Pope Center's combox is a fine example of contempt and condescension of The Left. Here are the regular douches that share their "brilliancy":

Mike
DrOfnothing
Andrew J. Perrin (UNC Sociology professor)
Guest (I have a strong feeling this just one person)

The bridge is sound. It's made by Modernism.

Go ahead. It's like when Indiana Jones took a "leap of faith" in the Last Crusade.

Okay, not really.

Exhibit A

Jim: Anal sex may be gross at first, but don't knock it until you try it. You can actually make the anus feel like the vagina if you go at it enough times, and with enough lube; it's all about conditioning the rectal canal to open up in order to accommodate the penis.

John: So how about reusing your socks twice if your feet haven't perspired and if the socks aren't covered in dirt?

Jim: That's gross. I'd never do that.

Oh great, Muslim teenagers are the new LGBT victim group.

This wasn't said directly, but that's what I get from the "after show" of the Republican debate hosted by CNN.

Val Jones is saying that Muslim teenagers are victims, saying they're calling suicide prevention hotlines since they feel not welcomed in America. He goes on to say that Donald Trump and the GOP are broadcasting that one can only be a particular religion to be accepted.

Dear, Allah. I can't wait till "statistics" and stories that have Muslim kids being sent to the streets because of their religion. I. Cannot. Wait. It'll be true because the feels.

Conservative and cities.

Conservatives that you see in comboxes, when talking about urban issues, aren't "the best and the brightest" that The Right has to offer. They delve into emotional drivel like The Left who do this everyday when people oppose, say, illegal immigration or amnesty, or "progressive" social issues.

Take for example conservatives commenting on Chicago. Things like calling the city "Shitcagoland" do them no favors. It's like calling Michelle Obama, "Moochella", or Barack Obama "Obummer." It's empty headed an immensely juvenile. Calling Chicago a "dump" and predicting that it's the next Detroit shows their ignorance. This is not to say that Chicago cannot be the next Detroit, but given the diverse economy Chicago has over Detroit the analogy somewhat falters.

What rubs me the wrong way is the utter contempt of urban areas that combox conservatives show with bluntness. It's the same utter contempt that "progressives" (remember such people don't like labels, but I'll call them that anyways) for the suburb and small towns -- basically the vast majority of America. Both sides seem to be immune to actually reasonable, respectful discussion without resorting to cliche name calling (e.g. yokel, redneck). This is where people live, work and call home, so the hatred and bitterness compels me to think it's more of a psychological reaction to an easy target, something like Anti-Americanism that's alive in most of Europe.

The Right has their idiots like The Left. How to get them out of the woodwork? Mention any city, like LA (or just CA in general), Chicago or NYC. Everyday conservatives are less idiotic about cultural artwork, but they do have a tendency to prove the "neanderthal" jab. How to get the idiots on The Left to come out (no pun), just mention W. Bush, Sarah Palin and anything traditional in social views and they'll have hives over their bodies.

Besides, Roger Scruton, Roger Kimball,  the folk over at New Criterion, and Ben Shapiro, conservatives lack people that can call out fellow conservatives for being "bare bone" types. Utilitarianism and pragmatism has its place, lik doing the grunt work that makes cities and municipals function. The Right's lack of care to be urbane has hurt them. In order to fight The Left, a couple of shots of sophistication is needed. You don't need to drop the wrench or the gun, you just need to be willing to learn about classical beauty - whether that be in music, art galleries or performance art. Once you do you'll be that much prepared to battle The Left.

New links added

PJ Media and Frontpage Mag.

Both focus on conservative and libertarian perspectives on the latest political discourse.

Conspiracy theories with Thinking Housewife

A quick read-through through Thinking Housewife's posts concerning national shootings and bombings tells me she's a bit paranoid.

9/11: government did it.

Paris shootings/bombing: planned but not by extreme Islamists.

Sandy Hook: There's a book she's eyeing that was then down by Amazon and InfoWars called Nobody Died at Sandy Hook.

Boston Marathon bombing: white mercenaries were part of it, not the two immigrant brothers.

San Bernardino shooting: see Boston Marathon bombing.

She thinks all of the massacres that were attributed to extreme Islamists are false and that something, not the original perpetrators, were behind it.

I wonder what she thinks of college shootings like Virginia Tech and NIU, or the infamous high school shooting, Columbine. She's bound to find some conspiracy.

As much as I admire her for analysis on Pope Francis,  her orthodoxy, and her advocacy for Wester civilization she's a Truther. A hoax believer.

Angry people, The Left are.

Today I was said to be the "definition of a dumbass, right-wing fuck."

Why? I didn't support the following:

feminists
manginas
SJW's
victimhood claiming  types (which can intersect between anything like feminists and SJW's)
LGBT activists and their supporters
communism/socialism sympathizers
modern leftists and their useful tools like liberals and left-leaning libertarians

So in order to not be a "dumbass, right-wing fuck" I'd probably need to support all of the above. But I don't.

Oh well, there are worst things in life than being a "dumbass, right-wing fuck." Like being a leftist. 

We Have Candy. Come on In.

CJ Pearson renounces conservatism. This is similar to Jonathan Krohn's case.

Pearson is the same young man that got some flack for being a (black) conservative while being patriotic by wearing the stars & stripes top hat. That was back in 2013. Two years have almost eclipsed and things change; people change. Pearson no longer is a conservative for obvious reasons.

As he states from a youtube video -

"I was tired of being a champion of a party that turned a blind eye to racial discrimination," Pearson told CNN. "Tired of being a champion of any cause that denies equal rights to every American. Tired of being a champion of a party that doesn't care about the issues important to young people."

Now I will guess that the racial discrimination may have something to do about Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown. Add the Yale and Mizzou campus protests of insensitive remarks fueled by racism. Then he brings up "equal rights." Same-sex "marriage", perhaps? In years past he said he was socially liberal and fiscally conservative, so his was he expressed to CNN wasn't anything new. Now the last part is rather chilling (though not really, once you think about it) in the sense that this is how "young people" think. They all think alike.

What this also shows is how the MSM projects their own skewed understanding of the conservative sect by how they frame the headliner. In an ironic fashion, TalkingPointsMemo is tying to make this into a very big deal. It's not. A 13 year old thinks many things that can differ from when he was two years younger, or this in case, two years older (check Pearson's birth date, though).

Pearson's renouncement of conservatism is no surprise since he appeals to the usual falsities of why conservatism is a bad thing, and why anyone who cares what he cares about would not be a conservative. He's young. He may give conservatism another look, though he never showed any true understanding of what it is besides showing sartorial patriotism. He may forever be lost and make a comfortable home in The Left.

What Pearson expressed in his video is exactly what The Left wants to happen. They want people to get mad that the government and conservatism aren't best buddies. That conservatism, true conservatism, practices social retrains. They want young people, though bright in some way are naive beyond the doubt, to think "Hey, the GOP are mean people. They don't care what I care about (they do, they just go about relieving society's warts in different ways). To hell with conservatism!" Then again a more astute political thinker would note that the GOP and conservatism aren't necessarily one in the same thing.

CJ Pearson is the perfect recruit for The Left. He his young - puberty is on the horizon. He is naive. He has some anger within him. Perfect.

Since he has signed on the dotted and is "on their team," now he'll be educated well throughout his high school, college and adult years in all things Leftism. It would be interesting to see if Pearson becomes a public figure in politics and to see his face get owned on "the issue important to young people" when faced with a competent conservative.

Does Krohn's and Pearson's renouncement of conservatism speak about conservatism? No, because the age they favored liberalism tells us nothing than a kid latching onto things he didn't understand. They never said how conservatism does not address the issues they care about; they just said that conservatism doesn't care. In fact, the reasons why both these young men have moved to the left, as they admitted to the public, have turned out to be reasons that are the talking points used by many on The Left that can easily be refuted (I'll probably write a rebuttal to Pearson's video). In Krohn's case he read philosophy. That's rather typical for a naive 17 year old. College does that to the easily swayed and the easily impressed.

I wonder how Krohn will fair against Ben Shapiro. Eh, that's not a fair match. Shapiro's support for conservatism is highly unusual because, from my own knowledge, wasn't ever a liberal (at best he hold a few libertarian stances on social issues) and was raised in the city of LA, though he was raised by parents who are the only Republicans within his immediate family.  Shapiro, entering college at the age of 16, was also usually aware of the leftism that pervaded his classes.

When a young kid projects his enthusiasm for conservatism before he hits puberty, actual conservatives should think it's cute. It sort of is. But don't bank on his enthusiasm to lead up to a fine understanding of what the Found Fathers and what leading conservative minds think. A teenager moving to the left, as I previously said, is to be expected. Teenagers tend to be socially liberal and social conservatism is lost on them, but not because it's a silly or absurd stance, it's because "young people" don't truly understand what social conservatism is and why such stances are held. Debt isn't a comforting thing, so being fiscally conservative speaks to the "young people." The real interesting question is where should expenses be focused, why and how much should be spent. Another thing to remember is how money should be raised. Through Taxes? Should we subsidize? It's a complex issue.

So good-bye, Pearson. The Left's plan is working perfectly.

I'm not a cop apologist.

At least not in this case. Red State reports that a case a year ago has been re-opened by an independent journalist. The killing of LaQuan McDonald by Chicago Police Officer Jason Van Dyke.

A black teen running down the road was shot sixteen times by a Chicago police officer. He had PCP in his system and a small knife on his person. At no point did he seem to make any threatening moves toward any of the multiple police officers who were on the scene that night. Here we are, months later, and we are seeing the video for the first time.

Once again, we are having a discussion about a police officer shooting a black person to death in the street. The LaQuan McDonald case has been one with its own share of controversy – like the alleged deleting of 86 minutes worth of video from a surveillance camera in the area – but there are very familiar patterns here: A teen was on the street, committing a minor crime, and was killed by a police officer. That police officer was today charged with first degree murder.

Now, the timing of the release of the video isn't a coincidence given the resurgence of #BlackLivesMatter on campuses nationwide and "safe space" riots - the independent journalist, going with my gut, knew that the content in the video would result in a protest and aid in the current racial tension that has plagued the month of Novemeber. The timing is also chilling because it's the anniversary death of Tamir Rice who was killed by a Cleveland Ohio cop who mistook Rice's Airsoft gun for a real one. Protesters, oddly, blocked the Manhattan Bridge in NYC in his memory. In cases of McDonald and Rice, the #BlackLivesMatter have a case for highly questionable police brutality - but not so much with Treyvon Martin and  Michael Brown.

What I don't like are rogue journalists who stoke the fire that take advantage of the vulnerability of America, especially if it's about race relations. This is not to say that McDonald's case should never have been reopened, but if the journalist really cared about the case and not about raising more havoc, then he would've requested release of the video months prior this November. He needed the perfect storm and Yale University and Mizzou gave it to him.

The other thing I don't like is the corruption to protect Officer Jason Van Dyke. Due to this video being released he is just recently been charged for first degree murder. He should've been charged last year. That's Chicago for you. The video said it all and to wait an entire year for justice for McDonald's death is absolutely unacceptable.

I don't agree with #BlackLivesMatter, but I do agree with them that procedures to deal with armed suspects, or suspects that resist, need to be re-evaluated. It's shared responsibility: the black culture puts these young men into questionable positions and the corrupt police department teaches the officers to "shoot" when triggered. The irony.

The video showed that McDonald brandished a small knife, but did not charge at the officers. He may have disobeyed their orders to put down the knife or to stand still, but that still doesn't call them to lethally shoot him. Shoot to kill is just dumb protocol.

Which brings to another point: Why do officers shoot to kill? Common sense would tell me to teach the officer to not shoot these body parts (A) the head, (B) chest and (C) abdomen unless it's absolutely necessary. These necessary cases would be if (A) if the suspect has a hostage, (B) if the suspect is engaging in a shootout with the cops, and (C) if the suspect charges at the cop - whether he has a weapon or not.

Whatever is being taught at the police academy needs to be questioned. Something isn't right. The police have great responsibility and just because they serve & protect does not mean they are protected for poor decisions.

If I had the opportunity, I'd stand with the Chicago protesters arm-in-arm.

"With great power comes great responsibility." - Uncle Ben, Spider-Man

"Birthers" sorta had a point with Obama. Now they're idiots.

 This is beyond stupid.

Here's my problem with Cruz, Rubio and Jindal: They are all Naturalized Citizen of the US, at best; maybe, they are not *Natural Born Citizens of the US. Their birth citizenship follows their father’s, not the mother’s in the case of Cruz. Cruz, born in Canada, his father's citizenship was Cuban, his mother's citizenship is US; in the case of Rubio, born his father's citizenship was Cuban as was his mother’s, and in the case of Jindal, born his father's citizenship was Indian as was his mother’s; the Law of Nations explains this very well and it’s in the 1st volume of Vattel's Law of Nations... So why do they feel they are eligible for POTUS when they clearly know they are not?

Because Obama refused to show is birth certificate and got elected does our Constitution become irrelevant for all future elections?

Are they simply self-serving their ego? Are they misleading the people who support them? Are they really Progressives trying to hide in Conservative clothes?

The key to this issue, in my opinion, is in the first sentence of Amendment XIV: "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"; jurisdiction can only apply if one has legal standing to be in our nation. Illegal aliens have no standing and therefore not subject to US jurisdiction since they are here illegally. Therefore, any off springs born of them is also illegal when born here. This reason that foreign diplomat’s, who are posted here, children born to them here are not US citizens by birth since these diplomats are not subject to US jurisdiction.

Senator Jason M Howard (1866) the author of the 14th Amendment explained this is his published writing and state:

Amendment XIV

Section I.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of
law; nor deny to any per­ son within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the
laws.

The Fourteenth Amendment was ratified July 9, 1868.

Senator Jacob M Howard (MI) 1866 author of the 14th Amendment wrote:

I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by the virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.

Our Founding Father used the Law of Nation as a reference source when forming our nation and drafting our Constitution and therefore the Law of Nations more definitively describes the requirement referred to in Article II of our Constitution, read this from Volume One:

§212. Citizens and natives.

"The citizens are the members of the civil society: bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to [218] all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see, whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country."

With Obama, birthers had more grounds to question his validity as a US citizen. When he refused to show his birth certificate, that brought up red flags. But his he was actually born in Hawaii by an American mother, so the birthers lost. Then when people could barely remember Obama at both Harvard and Columbia, the birthers were sorta saved from the whole "wacky-right" label. But still, his mother was an American citizen who gave birth to Obama on American soil.

Now, for this particular poster, he resembles the ridiculous religiosity of the Christian dad in Ken Park going over the Bible verses with a magnifying glass. Birthers are straddling the fence between moonbat idiots and "You got a point" greenery. Birthers (and truthers) are the bottom barrel of politics.

* If we read the eligibility in a modern lens then that basically disqualifies probably the most intelligent person on the GOP side to run for president in the past decade. As I read about this issue online, another poster noted that at the time of the writing the position of the POTUS needed a person to have undying loyalty to the country - so no loyalty to Britain or to France or to Mexico etc. At that time American citizenship was the stamp of a non-traitorous candidate.

Now, in the case of Obama it's rather clear his version of a strong America is a traitorous version. He is a 'natural born' US citizen according to statutes. I don't believe he's a Muslim, but I do think he's protecting the religion and the extreme aspects of it for whatever reason. I can see why the writers wanted a person to have America in his best interest, so their emphasis on country loyalty only to America stands. But I don't see why Obama's rise to presidency and his actions would put Cruz in the hot seat in terms of country loyalty. Obama wasn't reciting the constitution and the Bill of Rights around Hawaii as Cruz was in Texas during his high school days.

Take me for instance. I was born in the US to two immigrants who dropped their homeland citizenship for American citizenship years before I was born. Here's the thing: I have an affinity towards my parents homeland but if I ran for president, reached as far as any of the GOP candidates have so far, my loyalty and citizenship would receive little to no vetting. (Well, according to poster who I quoted I would questioned since Jindal was listed, even though Jindal was born the US and has been in the US since his birth.) If I supported amnesty that would be rather traitorous, but "All American" Jeb Bush does and he passed the 'natural born' criteria with flying colors. His wife is Latino, now will the birthers say that everyone must have a spouse that is American born - naturally - and must be of second generation if they're non-white?

I see this whole birther thing the same way I see people saying "Not conservative enough" (and a good number are Trump fans -- maybe these groups overlap?): ridiculous and is a fine example of idiocy.

If I had it my way, I'd clarify on citizenship for eligibility for POTUS on two grounds:

(1) *naturally born and raised in the US or
(2) naturalized citizen

* By at least one US citizen or by legally immigrated residents

I'd eliminate citizenship for babies born to an American parent on a military base and apply (2) to them.This would go against the Nationality Act of 1940.

It's that simple.

The whole 'natural born' is outdated since The Founding Fathers feared that someone would have dual loyalty to another country (as I previously mentioned, England). Given the circumstances they were under it makes sense since the US was a newly formed country. They needed players who'd only play for their team - Team USA.

But let's go back to Obama. Obama was indeed born in Hawaii. His mother is an American and his father is clearly from Africa without any loyalty to the US or to his wife (sorry, Mama Obama, your heart and loins created a traitor, and should've kept your legs closed). He's cleared to become POTUS. He's nominated and carries out his presidency in the way that is now known. It's still a lose lose situation.

This is why "country loyalty" when backed by "natural citizen" is rather shaky. It does not guarantee anything. This is where the eyes, the ears and minds of the American people should be the vetting machine; the constituents should be ones who decide on whether or not the candidate has the country's interest in mind. Of course, a morally sound and self-educated populace is the ideal.

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.

- President John Adams, 1798

And let's  not forget journalism - this is were MSM should also do its job and vet each candidate's policies and their character.

In short, this is my views of the 'natural born' criteria:

It's an outdated concept, though the meaning behind it still is important. Loyalty to America should be seen through actions and words -- not whether if ones parents are citizens of the US at the time of birth with you being born in the US. We have American who perfectly fits the 'natural born' criteria who hates what the country stands for and would love to move to France, Brazil or Sweden. If Cruz, Rubio and Jindal were disqualified then 2016 would be a Trump GOP nomination with G_d knows who as VP. Are you serious?

Is the 2nd Amendment outdated? Nope. Does the 14th Amendment, under the "equal protection" clause support same-sex "marriage"? Nope. At worst it's agnostic. At best the Found Fathers would laugh at the "evolution" of marriage.

In this rare moment, I will deem The Constitution as outdated.

What a bunch of obnoxious beings.

I've come across a handful of Yale SOM fanboys. And I can't stand them.

EDIT: To update the statements above, the conversation I had turned out to be rather illuminating in terms of how I view MBA holders from elite MBA programs. First, they're not nearly as smart as they think they are. Second, they really are followers. And third, they fit the douchebag stereotype to a 'T.' The schools that I slapped up against were Wharton, Yale SOM, Stanford and Harvard.

Show Your True Stripes.

The co-songwriter, Frank Sullivan, is suing Mike Huckabee for using "Eye of the Tiger" when introducing infamous Kim Davis.What's with these songwriters and musicians suing conservatives for using their songs?

According to the Reuters article -

The co-writer of 1980s hit "Eye of the Tiger" has filed a federal lawsuit against Republican Mike Huckabee's presidential campaign for playing the song at a rally for Kim Davis, the Kentucky county clerk who refused to sign gay marriage licenses.

Frank Sullivan, a guitarist and founding member of the band Survivor, sued Huckabee for President for unauthorized public performance of the song. The lawsuit, filed on Wednesday, claims the campaign infringed on Sullivan's copyright, which he holds through his publishing company, Rude Music.

Sullivan, who filed the suit in federal court in Illinois, where he lives, asked that Huckabee's campaign be prohibited from unauthorized performances of the song and asked a federal judge to determine damages.

The comment box is one entire gem and I believe Sullivan shares similar views. It's a strange lawsuit (I don't buy the "you didn't ask permission" card) since I can't remember a Democrat getting sued over this sort of thing. According to this CBS list, eight Republicans have been asked to stop using the songs they've played when they're introduced to a crowd. So you're telling me Republicans seem to fail to ask permission to use the original song and Democrats are on top of it? Gimme a break.

Scott Walker was told outright that he was hated by Dropkick Murphys due to his stance on unions.

It's become a staple of politics: a politician walks onstage to a song. Musician gets mad. The latest flare-up came when the punk band Dropkick Murphys instructed Republican Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker to "please stop using our music in any way," they tweeted, then added: "We literally hate you !!!"

Barack Obama was also told to stop using "Hold On, I'm Comin'", but the cease & desist was given in a very generous manner.  "Sam Moore of the duo asked the campaign to stop, saying that he hasn't endorsed a candidate although he found it "thrilling" a black man was running."

Who the heck is Charlie Crist? I don't know. Apparently ee's a Republican, who at the time of being sued, was running for the Republican Senate seat for Florida. A Republican? Well, sue him!

The music industry basically hates every Republican - it's a liberal, if not leftist, industry, so it comes to little surprise that they do not want their music to be played, let alone associated to people & a party they loathe for various reasons. Did the musicians who didn't want Rubio to play their song know anything about Rubio? I doubt it. How about Romney, besides that he was white religious man who made millions in business? Probably not. He was a Republican. That's all they needed to know to reject him.

Back in 2012, Fox News also noticed this bizarre bigotry. Yet Attorney Larry Isler states -

"I would say certainly in recent years, there's been a greater unlicensed use of songs by Republican candidates,” Iser, said. “The point that the musician is making is not about the [political] party. The position they're taking is: This is what we do for a living, we are protected by copyright, and if you're running for election, you need to respect the law. It just is a coincidence really, simple as that."

Iser stresses that when it comes to music and campaigns, artists and songwriters only want to protect their intellectual property rights and ensure that they aren’t involuntary endorsers of candidates and campaign messages.

"If you're Jackson Browne or you're David Byrne or if you're Kid Rock, you have the right, just like you and I have, to choose to endorse somebody or not,” he continued. “When the song is used without permission, you've taken away the choice that the songwriter has to say 'yes' or say 'no.' Another reason, which is more fundamental, is that when you take somebody's song and use it without permission, then the songwriter and the singer, the performer, they don't get paid. People often forget that writing songs and performing them and selling records and actually licensing music for use in advertising, that's how these guys make a living. That’s how they put food on the table."

 Hiding behind "property rights," I see. As Joe Scarborough heatedly said that Republican anchors almost never held a major seat on any of the major news networks.

Liberalism & leftists aren't diverse. Conservatism is.

Here's an interesting article on American Thinker about the current slate of POTUS candidates for 2016.

The Republican presidential debate process makes clear the true diversity of conservatism.  When the left talks of "diversity," it means diversity of identity: blacks speaking for blacks, women speaking for women, Hispanics speaking for Hispanics.  But even here, the left is not diverse at all. 

Look at everyone who has been considered at one time or another during this campaign season to have been a serious potential candidate for the Democrat nomination: Clinton, Sanders, Warren, Biden, and Kerry.  All four Democrats are very rich (Socialist Sanders is simply well off), and all five of these folks have spent their whole adult lives "working" in politics or law.  All five also live in the hothouse environment of the Beltway, where no one drills for oil or grows crops or builds trucks.

The contrast with the Republican field is stark.  At the last Republican debate, half of the candidates were women or members of minority groups.  Two of the eight were physicians; two of the eight were business executives; and five of the eight – Carson, Rubio, Cruz, Kasich, and Fiorina – came from very humble backgrounds.  These eight also live in places scattered around the nation – Florida, Ohio, Texas, Kentucky, New York, and Virginia.

The real difference in diversity, however, is in the diversity of ideas and policies.  The rhetoric of Hillary and Bernie is virtually identical, and both are saying exactly the same things that the left was saying twenty years ago.  There is never any serious reflection that what has been tried and failed ought to be modified or even rejected.  The dull, gray, silly theories of socialism are still clung to reflexively by the left.

The author of the article goes on into the policies and how conservatism is the saving grace of American politics and the nation. Overall, a decent read that brings up valid points that "diversity" when talked about on the DNC/leftist side is only skin deep. As an ideology they're lock step.

New link added.

The College Fix.

This is a great site that keeps an eye on the leftist soaked, hallowed halls of higher education.

Curiosity shouldn't kill the cat.

I fail to see how being comfortable with dying suddenly makes atheism a rational proposition. I’d have to lose a lot more brain function than that to agree with atheism.

This quote I don't completely agree with. I see atheism as a somewhat reasonable position. Certainly many intelligent people through out history did not believe in God. I can understand why someone would not believe in God or why someone would question his existence - as a skeptic or agnostic. What I can't seem to grasp is the failure of people who do not really care on personally seeking if there is a divine. I'm a bit lost when someone says religion doesn't play a role in their life, as in "I don't really care." I can understand if someone was raised an atheist by non-believers or by the non-religious, that the concept of God is a strange if not absent aspect that had little to no role while growing up. It is the indifference towards seeking God - to either "disprove" or to discover the divine that's troubling. It reeks of intellectual laziness.

Whether there is a God or not is one of the fundamental questions in life that everyone should examine. The agnostics I can "get," but the apathetic people are the ones left to be slaughtered by modernism. It's fine to be agnostic after serious reflection; it's not fine to be apathetic. It's fine to not care about learning how fishes breath under water. It's fine to not care why leaves change colors when a new season enters. It's fine to not care about learning the stock market. But like any reasonable adult, curiosity and the hunger for knowledge - the hunger "to know" and "to learn" - should be present in a certain amount.

So when it comes to God, pick a side. Read. Research. Vet your sources. Write. Debate. But don't be apathetic. 

At least she's cute.

On the bright side she can say she was on national television and has "student organizer" on her resume for One Million March. She can also say to her grandkids, if she even decides to have kids, that during her college years she was part of an "exciting" time where she fought for "equality" and "fairness."

 Here's a gem of a comment -

"Fuck you Neil Cavuto - and fuck all you idiots who don't get it - it's simple - the system is rigged and we're sick of it."

I suppose the person who made this comment is under serious educational debt.

And another -

Person A: "Fox news propaganda at it's finest! They are really good at misleading their base."
Person B:  "Liberalism at its dumbest."
Person A: "Its not because liberalism is too nuanced for you to understand that makes it dumb. But I see  where your coming from."

You heard it here, liberalism is too nuanced for troglodytes. 

Another poster said that since he couldn't find information on One Million March and on Keely Mullen, the students, that the movement and "Keely" was all "fake." He said that Fox News (not Fox Business News) was trying to intentionally paint those who dedicated their lives advocating for free education, higher minimum wages and free health care in a bad light. That's a lot of effort if it were even slightly true. He also said that Fox News had a past on making fake stories up. 

How could you NOT believe!

If you don't believe that racism/sexism/rape happens on a daily basis on college campuses, or even daily on a single campus, and if you deny that such incidents are growing, then that's the same as denying anthropological global warming. Poster "robinhoodOO7" mentioned "isolated events" - by this he means Yale's Halloween Costume Chaos.  

"Lacykat66" misread his post and thought he was referring to campus rape and racism incidents. Way to go, Lacy, you reveal how a SJW's mind, filled with stupidity, works.  

Perez Hilton and Carrie Prejean.

Sort of like same-sex partners seeking out services that do not accept requests for same-sex ceremonies, there's little doubt that Perez Hilton sought to put 2009 Miss America runner-up Carrie Prejean on the spot when asking if she supported same-sex "marriage." She didn't, all hell broke loose and add in her leaked "sex" tape Hilton and same-sex "marriage" supporters gleefully burned her at the stake - or at least made her into a national mockery.

But hey, Prejean is now married - real marriage (hopefully it'll last) - with the potential of having babies, which Hilton and all same-sex partnerships can't accomplish unless a third party is involved. At least all the same-sex partners have their bizarre "wedding" photos and that ring on their finger! Sort of how Dave Rubin desperately proclaimed on the Steve Crowder show, "I'm married!" (not really) with pictures of his partner in the background.

Homosexuals are desperate. They're desperate for approval.

New link added.

It's called askthebigot.com.

Like Robert Oscar Lopez, the writer - Katy - was raised in a household with two parents of the same sex -- that were in an intimate relationship. Like Lopez she does not support same-sex adoption. And like Lopez, she - and a very telling way - has been threatened and cyber stalked by actual homosexuals.

I want to drive more traffic to her site because I believe it's a place that's worth visiting, reading and knowing the side that opposes children to being raised in same-sex households that were actually in that very same situation.

The "telling" which I mentioned is that her site wasn't really well-known to the traditional family crowd or even to the pro-equality BS crowd. It's my hunch that the LGBT Gestapo, with their tentacles deep in the pockets of lobbyists and education, have scoured the internet for sites that oppose their view. Now, these sites can't be the run-of-the-mill sites (like mine, I admit), but those that (1) are strongly known in the conservative blogosphere and (2) have writers that can potentially damage the narrative of "Gay Is Good" and "Nothing To See Here." That's why National Review, Breitbart, American Thinker and Daily Caller have so many assholes from the modern leftist side posting.

Katy has mentioned that a homosexual from Spain (?) found about her site and threatened to reveal her personal information - her real name, her home address and where her husband worked. Eventually her information was leaked. People who do this are unbalanced, seek revenge and have vitriol in their hearts. If this isn't evidence that same-sex attraction isn't 'normal' then I don't know what is.

So, please, visit Katy's site. Read the posts. And read the combox section. I guarantee that the crazy, narrow-minded side will be those who support same-sex "marriage" and adoption. Oh, and many of the crazy, narrow-minded side are homosexuals. Talk about desperation.

Khitchary & Andy sitting in a tree.

Warning: Foul language ahead.

Even though same-sex "marriage" has been legalized (I will forever remember June 26, 2015 but not for good reasons) and the decision most likely will forever be in "the books"as a "right," that all the sane, normal people have to deal with the bullshit that is same-sex "marriage," the supporters are still a bunch of indignant cunts. And the supports think the oppositions are cunts. Fair enough.

Take for instance posters like Khitchary and Andy.

It's safe to conclude that Khitchary is just a dumb person. Andy's character is revealed when he admits that even if studies revealed that children in households led by same-sex parents showed to be worse off than children in a household led by opposite sex parents he'd still vote for "their right" to adopt. Let alone his questioning of what is "traditional", because ya know, "traditional" according to Andy is just a vague word with little meaning aka same-sex parenting is nowhere to be found when one thinks of "traditional family" therefore the word and concept should be rendered near meaningless.

Don't worry, "love" may have "won" and "equality" may have been achieved, but your side still has shitty arguments.

#Lunacy

The oxygen in safe spaces has caused you to go full-retard. Students across the nation have marched in support of Mizzou's and Yale's racial "crisis" while attaching movements like "free tuition."

Even though I'm irritated by the arrogance that resides in the hearts of all those that participated, I can't but admire their cleverness to bandwagon the current racial tension.

#MillionStudentMarch will be a day of local actions all across the country to show support for tuition-free public college, a cancellation of all student debt, and a $15 minimum wage for all campus workers. Each action will be a march followed by a rally.

Never go full-retard.

Someone said this about #MillionStudentMarch, "You see why now Hillary is going to win…… its the entitlement generation that is ruining America and their ranks continue to grow."

This is a huge gain for HRC and Bernie Sander if they were struggling to find traction. Every thing the movement wants Clinton and Sanders promise. Let's list 'em: Free tuition ("Hey, Europe does it, why not the US?"). No student debt ("Capitalism just doesn't work!"). Rise of the minimum wage ("It's inhumane to pay so low!"). 

There's one demographic that the GOP will never win over: The college students. It's not because the student know any better or see what the GOP really is, it's just that The Left have taken over college campuses. The college campus is their church; the professors & administrators are their priests. Obama is the pope that will be "replaced" in November of next year. Who will be the next pope for The Left, Clinton or Sanders?

I will call it before it even happens - I don't believe the GOP will win the 2016 POTUS race. The momentum is too strong for the DNC and The Left - culturally. I don't think it'll be a blowout, though. I have Hilary beating out Sanders for the DNC nomination and later defeating whoever the GOP nominee is.That's three terms of Democratic power in office. I know the Reagan Administration and Bush H.W. Administration counted three for the Republicans, but that seems like it really had no stronghold on the nation. The Left took over academia, entertainment and journalism. They now control the courts. This POTUS race will be defining in that it will dictate how the economy in the US is reformed, the further irrelevancy of how religion plays into the lives of the country's citizens, and how the GOP will further slip down the path of irrelevancy due their inability to actually accomplish something when they do win elections. 

Lights out, America. And shame on you conservatives over 35 for failing to fight. Shame on you.
 

Put down what you're drinking. Swallow what's in your mouth.

I don't want you to spit it all over your monitor and keyboard.

Now read this -

Just another form of control and teaching of hate brought to you by the organized religions. This is exactly why I left the Catholic faith before the rush to get out and swore never again join any religious group be it Baptist, Jehova witness , Luthern etc. They to me are all cults designed to brain wash and teach hate in the name of the lord. My Lord and God taught forgiveness and tollerance and told me he is the sole judge.

This was in response to The Church of Latter-Day Saints, otherwise known as Mormonism, currently deciding to accept children of same-sex partnerships into their organiztion.

According to this poster Catholicism is a cult alongside all organized religion. Well, I can't wait to dabble in unorganized religion. I heard it's simple stupendous and without corruption, neither is it brainwashing nor is it filled with hate. Except hate for organized religion and the brainwashing that all organized religion is a cult. I would attribute the personal corruption which is brought forth by pride as well.

Whoops. We got a smart-cookie in our midst. 

No Whites. Anti-White?

Mizzou blacks segregates itself from their white activists brethren.

This is comedy gold.
 
The ConcernedStudent1950 activist group do not need their "white allies" right now. Maybe later.

"I stand by my blacks! I stand against racism! Let's all lock arms together!"
"Yea, uh, we appreciate your solidarity, but you gotta leave."

It's All Good: We Spit On You

William Buckley Jr. Program, a Yale student organization dedicated to conservative ideals, invited the President of FIRE (a college free speech advocacy group) to talk at the university. As with most talks done by conservative speakers, there's at least one audience member whose ears and tape recorder are peeled to catch any controversial statement. The audience member sort of succeeded this time.

“Looking at the reaction to [Silliman College Associate Master] Erika Christakis’ email, you would have thought someone wiped out an entire Indian village,” Lukianoff said, according to Gian-Paul Bergeron ’17, who was present at the event and posted the quotation online just after 4 p.m. According to seven other attendees interviewed, the remark was followed by laughter in the crowd, although students present gave different accounts of how many audience members laughed. Lukianoff is president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, a nonprofit organization committed to defending individual rights on American college campuses. In addition to speaking at the Buckley conference, Lukianoff was also a guest at a Silliman College Master’s Tea Thursday evening about the importance of free speech on college campuses. He is the author of “Coddling of the American Mind,” an article in The Atlantic that Erika Christakis tweeted last week in response to criticism of her Oct. 30 email defending students’ rights to wear costumes that might be deemed culturally appropriative.

Once this "controversial" statement went viral students at Yale did as they did when they were offended by Yale professor Nicholas Christakis' email concerning the free speech - or non censorship - of objectionable Halloween costumes, and the (probably false) allegations towards SAE fraternity of racism: They acted like passionate idiots young adults who proved once again they have no clue about the world are willing to stand up against social injustice.

Before the comment was made, Edward Columbia ’18 — a white male who did not register for the event — walked into the room and began putting up signs along the front of the room  which read “Stand with your sisters of color. Now, here. Always, everywhere,” according to Columbia and Bergeron. They both said a security guard asked Columbia to leave because he was not registered and because he was putting up posters, but he refused to do so. Shortly after, Lukianoff made the comment about the Indian village, and Columbia shouted at Lukianoff and asked him why he thought it was funny, according to Columbia.

Mr. Columbia, feeling very self-righteous, enters a conference to protest when he isn't even registered. Because social justice and then shouts (it seems like if you're offended shouting without waiting your turn is the default choice) at the speaker because he's offended.

(Edward Columbia, a freshmen, according to his Yale athletic bio took a gap year to study theater before coming to the university. He has something in common with Jonathan Butler and Jerelyn Luther: Privilege).

While Columbia resisted, the guard dragged him outside of the room, where he was pinned down and handcuffed before being taken to a squad car, Columbia said. Both Bergeron and Columbia said the officer used an appropriate amount of force. Columbia was given a citation, which he called “a mere slap on the wrist,” and said he will appear in court, though he declined to specify when this will happen.

“I couldn’t let the joke go. It was too f—ed up,” Columbia said. “All of the officers treated me well, and I feel bad for putting a security officer who was just doing his job in a position where he had to drag me out. But I also wonder whether I would have been released so quickly … if I weren’t a white male.”

Some Buckley fellows present at the event gave a slightly different account. They said they were not bothered when Columbia put up signs and only asked him to leave when he interrupted and shouted at the speaker. The signs were taken down after Columbia’s removal.

How is "“Looking at the reaction to [Silliman College Associate Master] Erika Christakis’ email, you would have thought someone wiped out an entire Indian village," 'fucked up'? It's not. Maybe a but insensitive but not 'fucked up.' What's fucked up is Columbia's reaction and all those that feel the same way - they think any comment about race when it's not talked about in the context of injustice is "offensive" and 'fucked up.'

 Lukianoff;s Indian village comment quickly found its way to 'Overheard At Yale' Facebook page (a gossip/'did-you-hear-what-so-and-so-said?' interest) and was read by a Yale Native American student, which inspired her and several students of color to gather outside the conference room and protest.

The situation escalated when Young [Buckley Program President] and another attendee left the room where the conference was taking place to offer food to the protestors in the hallway. Students demanded that a representative from the protesters be allowed to join the conference and voice their views. But one attendee engaged with the protesters, stating that unregistered students were not allowed into the room and adding that speakers within the conference were entitled to their views as well. The standoff quickly became confrontational, with speakers on both sides raising their voices. Young said he did not stay to address the protesters because he was busy organizing the event. He stressed that the protesters were not allowed into the event because they had not registered.

“I will share the University’s policy on free speech,” Dean of Student Engagement Burgwell Howard, who arrived near the end of the conference, told the crowd. “You have a right to free expression, and so do the people inside. As long as there’s a clear path [to allow attendees to leave the conference] you can hold up your signs.”

Howard reminded the student protesters that any attempt at blocking the attendees’ departure would risk arrest, which the students acknowledged.

Around 5:45 p.m., as attendees began to leave the conference, students outside chanted the phrase “Genocide is not a joke” and held up written signs of the same words. Taking Howard’s reminder into account, protesters formed a clear path through which attendants could leave. A large group of students eventually gathered outside of the building on High Street. According to Buckley fellows present during the conference, several attendees were spat on as they left. One Buckley fellow said he was spat on and called a racist. Another, who is a minority himself, said he has been labeled a “traitor” by several fellow minority students. Both asked to remain anonymous because they were afraid of attracting backlash.

Mitchell Rose Bear Don’t Walk ’16, a Native American student and one of the leaders of the protest, said she has spoken to the fellow who said he was spat on. She emphasized that spitting is “disgraceful” and not the message the protestors were looking to convey, but she confirmed that it did happen.

“The spitting happened,” she told the News Sunday night. “Our movement is founded in the idea that all people’s voices should be heard. We cannot maintain the integrity of this message whilst questioning or silencing other accounts.”

Well, if you can chant in protest I don't see how spitting in a fine alternative. It's clear that the student protesters could not block the pathway of exit and no one said they could not chant, so resulting to spitting and saying that they couldn't "maintain the integrity of this message whilst questioning or silencing other accounts" is just pure bullshit.

An emotional rally soon followed as the last attendees emerged from LC and left the conference. Bullhorn in hand, Bear Don’t Walk shared her anger with the crowd, which had grown in size, about the comment made at the Buckley event. She expressed despair that this comment came on the heels of discussions about racial issues on campus.

“About an hour ago, we were sitting at the Native American Cultural Center and we were talking. We said today was one of the only days we felt okay on this campus,” Bear Don’t Walk told the crowd. “Then we looked at our Facebook feed and we saw this message about what someone at this freedom of speech conference said. But we rallied and we gathered here to tell them that this is not okay.”

Ending on the chant “We out here, we’ve been here, we ain’t leaving, we are loved” — a phrase that was also used during Thursday’s gatherings on Cross Campus with Yale College Dean Jonathan Holloway — protesters soon dispersed. Before leaving, protesters left their signs along the building’s walkway.

Buckley Fellows interviewed said the Facebook post misrepresented what occurred during the conference. Connor Wood ’19 said while there was laughter following Lukianoff’s comment, many attendees were made uncomfortable by the statement. Gabriel Ozuna ’15 added that most audience members were Yale alumni and donors who were not fully aware of the past week’s racially charged events.

“Although I think the protesters misinterpreted the ‘Overheard at Yale’ post, I think the protest is a good sign of healthy debate and free speech at Yale,” Woods said.

They were uncomfortable about it because they were sure that another Yale bitch fest was going to happen, not because it was a racist joke. And that bitch fest happened.

Also, what's with every controversial statement about race, sex and sexuality, when things have calmed a bit after the initial anger, needing to have a "healthy debate" or "open dialogue" as the silver lining? There's nothing to really debate about. Lukianoff's statement was a joke. I'm not even white and I immediately caught it. The man was mocking the anger over Christakis' email to an actual horrid event: The genocide of a group of people. He did this because you would think a few Yale students were hanged in one of Yale's courtyards from the reaction. You can debate that the joke was ill-advised but this shit storm was the true thing that was uncalled for.

#YaleFail 

My eye on Yale.

I've decided a couple of months ago that an MBA might actually help my career & personal goals. The recent student bitch fest is making me hesitant to even apply to Yale SOM.

I'm starting to think the students at Yale aren't nearly as smart as they, their parents and the institution's administration believe to be. It just feels Yale's a poser of enlightenment and brilliance. The vibe is of regression. Honestly, I'm not even impressed with most Yale alumni I've come across - in fact, I was turned off by them and it made me question the quality of the student body not it terms if they can test well on an entrance exam or their book smarts, but their ability practice critical thinking and their maturation to surrender to humility. There's almost zero humility in what I've witnessed.

The saving grace is that Yale College and its graduate programs tend to keep to themselves, so if I ever do apply, am accepted and attend I'd mostly avoid the arrogant know-it-alls in the College for the most part due to the segregation of the programs. The flip-side is that it's an MBA, and the top MBA programs - so I heard - tend to have its own arrogant students. 

"But it's Yale!"

It is, but given some reflection and the recent pathetic chaos - So What. The Yale brand is shield against criticism and that's what I detest in the institution's dealing of its child-like tantrum among the student body.

Below is a parody done by a handful of Harvard undergraduates that poke at Yale students and what they say about their institution. It's mostly harmless stuff and plays off the (friendly) rivalry between each institution.

Given the recent events at Yale I think the video should updated to include Shrieking Girl. The great irony of this video is at the 3:59 mark. Does the man in the blue oxford shirt look familiar? That's professor Nicholas Christakis who almost became a sacrificial lamb because he dared to allow un-PC costumes to be worn on Halloween at, you guessed, Yale. He was a Harvard professor during the time of this video. 

Voting patterns: Catholic immigration is the "enemy."

I presume that poster "orson" is a non-Catholic or maybe is fallen away, or he's a Christian but non-denominational. I'll throw in the possibility he's a non-believer even. This type of conservative who is suspicious of Catholicism to a degree that "Catholicism is the enemy" is probably the most frustrating of the conservative type that I've come across, especially on sites like American Thinker. His issue with Pope Francis is understandable, but it's been a common characteristic of anti-Catholics on The Right to constantly bring up the religious figure to prove that the entire denomination has gone sour. He writes -

America can accept immigrants, of course. However, we face the largest tidal wave in history.
We the need them to spend time here, so that their offspring can learn American political and cultural values.

While it worked in the past, can it work with Marxist, American-hating teachers and profs today? Of course not.

About 10 years ago, those under 30 embraced American Exceptionalism by a healthy 70%. Today, that figure is around 50%.

American liberty will only survive via ‘time out’ on immigration and new citizenship. Followed by a revolution to undermine the corrupt educrat establishment.

A buddy of mine argues that the enemy of liberty is Catholic immigration. Look at California, Maryland, Massachusettes – all states with the highest percentage of Catholics…. And places most welcoming to socialism.

The reason? Probably the doctrine of Original Sin, which leads them to distrust other people, thus requiring FORCE of STATE to succor altruistic performance. People cannot be trusted to choose on their own, for them.

By contrast, Gordon Wood’s short history of the American Revolution points out that the Founders famous Deism and wide Renaissance reading were impossible for the common man to replicate. So, how were they moved to join the Revolution?

Because their pastors were imbued with the value of radical Protestantism – self-ownership, direct relationship with God, covenantal obligation and self-responsibility – all values missing from immigrants whose Latin culture produced the first Commie Pope in Francis.

Official statistics offer this exception to the rule – Nebraska!

It is also very high in percentage of Catholics, and yet is a loyalist to Republican right. Why? I’ve long puzzled over this genuine outlier.

Until I realized that this was a classic proof of early versus later immigration: Nebraska Catholics are dominated by German arrivals from late 19th and early 20th Centuries. Thier second and third generations became American by acculturation, and thus more conservative, unlike later arriving Catholics, eg, most obviously California.

What about Texas? Well, I’ve not got an answer for that, yet. Except that Mexican Catholics there both came earlier and long ago (pre-statehood), as well as more recently. And the answer probably lies somewhere in this division among migrants there.

He does have a point when it comes to Catholic immigrants who vote (D) because they've been told or even truly believe that (D)s are "for the middle class." These are low information voters. But then again so are many young teenager who could vote if of legal age would lean left. Another large demographic that votes (D) when it comes to social issues are college students.

Another poster, "snopercod," followed up -

Excellent post. I never thought much about the Catholic factor, but it makes sense. My late grandmother was soft spoken and never talked about politics. She did take me aside once and warn me about Catholics, though. She didn’t elaborate so I pretty much put it out of my mind.

 Maybe dear old grandma didn't understand Catholicism and she was of the Protestant bent, if she was anyway religious that is.

I agree with many things on the right but their evaluation of the Catholic Church is like I stepped into paranoia land. Basically everything is threatening America except, well, themselves.

"Michael Adams" entered the discussion and put a more reasonable perspective forth, yet he made crystal clear he wasn't a part of Catholicism -

Orson, I skipped down past your comments re:Roman Catholic immigrants, so some one may have covered this, but, Mexico is only about one third Roman Catholic. There are tons of Evangelicals and Pentecostals. Also, Texas has had a Mexican Baptist tradition for about a century. OTOH, Mexico has had a very authoritarian government for nearly a century, too, and that has a definite, strong influence on how Mexican immigrants and even second generation Mexican-Americans see things. AND, of course, importing poor and unskilled people is guaranteed to make them gravitate to the candidates who offer the most goodies.

BTW, I am most assuredly NOT a member of that denomination.

 Why the determined clarification, Adams?

Are these posters even Catholics? Maybe they view Catholicism as some Catholics view the Seventh Day Adventists: Sort of like a cult. Maybe they just think Catholicism is "big religion." Whatever the reason I can assuredly say they have a skewed vision of Catholicism; it's no doubt anti-Catholic in nature. It's not "disagree" it's "be weary of them." You'd think Catholics are extreme Muslims, or that Catholic immigrants are Middle Eastern immigrants flooding Europe. 

Catholicism are the like Jews of the world when it comes to religion. If it were a nation it would be Israel.

EDIT: "Orson" is an atheist.  In his words, "One fervently prays for it (and I’m an atheist)."

GOP #4 Debate: Fox Business Network

John Kasich is a smart man. Kasich is an experienced politician and is a positive asset to the Republicans. He's also a "time" theft interjecting in almost every question focused on another candidate.

People tweeted #GoHomeDeRay for not wanting any violence when it came to protests against brutal and questionable police actions because they didn't want encouraged violence. In this case people should start tweeting #GoHomeKasich for the debate to not turn into Late Night With Kasich.

EDIT: A point for Kasich for saying that being for free markets is a great thing but such a system, or any economic system, needs a sound moral foundation when practiced by humans - it needs values.