Author: Papa Giorgio

Women’s March on Washington

Published by Papa Giorgio

NATIONAL REVIEW notes the following: “The Women’s March on Washington has removed the pro-life group New Wave Feminists from its list of official event sponsors after backlash from feminists arguing that pro-life women are not welcome in the feminist movement. One of the most prominent of such responses”:

  • Intersectional feminism does not include a pro-life agenda. That’s not how it works! The right to choose is a fundamental part of feminism.

Christina Hoff Sommers (Camille Paglia) explains intersectional feminism is:

INDEPENDENT WOMEN’S FORUM goes further to note they exclude MANY women:

Alexandra DeSanctis wrote here yesterday that leaders of the “Women’s March on Washington” have disinvited the pro-life group that had sought to take part in the effort.   

It’s really no surprise that March organizers and hard left feminists like Jessica Valenti would reject support from a woman’s group that differs with them on an issue like this.  This March – like the progressive feminist movement – isn’t about supporting women, so much as it is supporting a specific, far-left progressive agenda.    

The March’s website claims to be inclusive – “recognizing that our vibrant and diverse communities are the strength of our country” – but they really aren’t interested in diversity of thought or belief.  As I wrote recently for Acculturated, the Left has long been able to get away with claiming to speak for “women” while ignoring any woman who has different views or beliefs: 

Just as the Women’s Centers on nearly every university campus in America provide an entirely liberal vision of women’s issues and marginalize any student with conservative leanings, these march organizers felt free to call it “The Women’s March on Washington,” not “progressive women” even though that’s what it is in fact, and leave out conservatives or anyone with different perspectives. They can rest safe in the knowledge that the sympathetic press would never challenge their presumption to speak for all women….

Professor Sommers continues on with some noted “cliches”

Gender scholar bell hooks* once complained that audiences laugh when she describes the United States an “imperialist white-supremacist capitalist patriarchy.” That laughter, she said, was a “weapon of patriarchal terrorism.” But that was 14 years ago. Today, at least on the college campus, the terrorizing laughter has subsided.

hooks is 23rd on TIME’s 2016 list of the “Hundred Most-Read Female Writers in College Classes.” And her assessment of the U.S. is foundational to “intersectional feminism.” This theory—now official doctrine in gender studies– portrays American society as a “matrix of domination and oppression.” And the list of oppressions keeps growing. Actress Laverne Cox, a frequent campus lecturer, expanded hooks’ formulation in a 2015 tweet: “Actually its cisnormative heteronormative imperialist white supremacist capitalist patriarchy.” Others have added ageist, able-ist, lookist, pro-natalist, and size-ist to the matrix. At the risk of sounding like a weapon of patriarchal terrorism, I don’t see progress here. I see a descent into madness.

Proliferating “ists” and “isms” are turning many of our campuses into hostile environments for sanity. Students are organizing themselves into aggrieved little tribes that police and bully one another for imagined slights and micro-invalidations.

[….]

It’s hard to know how our institutions of higher learning will find their way back to truth, mutual understanding, and common humanity. But interrogating the founding principle of intersectionality––Professor hooks’ claim about the U.S. being an imperialist, white supremacist, capitalist patriarchy––is a good place to start.

First, “imperialist.” America is certainly an economic, military, and cultural superpower. Yet it wields this power—in the words of historian Niall Ferguson, “to spread free markets, to entrench the rule of law . . . and to pave the way for representative government.” This is in sharp contrast to empires from Persia to Rome to Napoleonic France, Imperial Japan, and the Soviet Union—who invaded, conquered, and plundered in order to enrich themselves. Even when the U.S. has invaded other countries, like Japan, Germany, Iraq, and Afghanistan, it has done so for a specific purpose, usually defensive—and it did not colonize them or plunder. When hostilities ceased, the U.S. always attempted, with varying levels of success, to create independent democracies, usually at great expense to the motherland. Our record is not spotless. But a menacing imperialist power, we are not.

White-supremacist? The U.S. has a shameful history of racism. But we also have a long and honorable history of fighting it, from abolishing slavery to trying to overcome its legacy. A recent study of racial tolerance by two Swedish economists found the U.S. to be among the world’s “most tolerant” societies. (India and Jordan were among the least tolerant.) Intersectional feminists claim that even if most Americans are tolerant, the white population still maintains supremacy through a rigid set of political, economic, and cultural structures. If so, it doesn’t seem to be succeeding. Latino girls are now more likely to go to college than white boys. And the most successful demographic group in the US in terms of income, education, and life-expectancy is not whites but Asians. Racism remains a problem, but anyone who calls the U.S. a white supremacist society is distorting reality.

What about “Capitalist”? True as charged. The United States is a capitalist country—in other words, it is a country with economic liberty. And economic liberty is essential to human well-being. Without it, societies are miserable, poor, and oppressive. Look at Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea. Compare life in Eastern Europe before and after free enterprise. Economic freedom, like all freedoms, can be abused. In the U.S., we are constantly looking for ways to prevent that. We don’t always succeed. But the free enterprise system has alleviated more human poverty and misery, and broken down more systems of oppression, than any other force in history.

Finally, patriarchy. A patriarchy is a system in which men hold the power and women do not. Women do hold power in the United States—they lead major universities, giant corporations, and the nation’s powerful central bank. A woman almost won the presidency. (Of course, a Slate intersectionalists quickly declared Electoral College to be Is an Instrument of White Supremacy and Sexism.” In fact, the Electoral College is an instrument of our federal, representative democracy American women, especially college women, are among the freest and most self-determining human beings in human history. Are things perfect for women? No. But they are not perfect for men, either. To refer to the U.S. as a patriarchy is absurd. It’s 2017, not 1950.

With all due respect to Professor hooks, Ms. Cox, and intersectional feminists everywhere, the United States is not a matrix of oppression. It’s a matrix of freedom, opportunity, and happiness. The country has many flaws—few will dispute that. But it is also one of the most successful, diverse, tolerant, and open societies the world has ever seen. Why pretend otherwise?….

Here is an example of the type of radical speeches at the women’s march in Washington:

Totalitarian/Fascist Fits – Violence from the Democrat Left

Published by Papa Giorgio

GAY PATRIOT notes just how different the Left is:

It would not be fair to judge the left on the violence and property destruction carried out by unhappy anti-Trump protesters. After all, didn’t Anti-Obama conservatives smash windows, assault Obama supporters, and set fires after Obama won the election?

Oh, wait, we didn’t do any of those things, did we?

These people call themselves Anarchists, and yet they are committing violence because they want more socialism, socialism being a maximized amount of Government control. Do they see the irony? Or are they just violent and stupid and have latched onto the progressive left because that side of the political spectrum is more accepting of hate and violence?

And I’m sure some lefties are saying (nasal, high-pitched, know-it-all liberal voice), “Oh, I think violence is wrong no matter which side does it.” Yeah, nice virtue signaling, but you’re just evading the reality that most of the time… an overwhelming amount of the time… it’s *your side* that’s doing it. Mainly because, your side tells people that temper tantrums and hatred are okay if they are directed against…. [insert name here]

I laughed out loud when I saw this.

I have a tag [VIOLENT DEMOCRATS] for posts I use detailing the violence from the left. It extends to the violent environmental groups (like ELF), to violent unions/members, and other instances like the Democrats getting very violent at Trump rallies (and often time being paid to do so), I have even asked for analogous actions by conservative as well as noting the joke of “this week in hate” via the New York Times, etc., yada-yada-blada.

Another example that makes me put “tolerant” Leftists in air-quotes is this story via MOONBATTERY:

Some entertainers have refused to participate in the inauguration because they are moonbats who put their self-indulgent leftist posturing ahead of their profession — others, because they are afraid:

  • Opera star Andrea Bocelli backed out of singing at Donald Trump’s inauguration after receiving death threats, The Mail on Sunday has learnt.

It was rumored that Bocelli backed out because he didn’t want to face a boycott from intolerant liberal fans…

[….]

Bocelli isn’t alone:

The revelation came as another singer – Broadway legend Jennifer Holliday – last night pulled out of the President-elect’s festivities after being threatened and branded an ‘Uncle Tom’.

[….]

Singer Holliday, 56, famed for her performance as Effie in Dreamgirls, had originally said she was ‘determined’ to sing for Trump despite voting against him.

She also denounced the abuse she was getting and called it an attack on freedom of speech.

However, she knuckled under to this attack, not only canceling her performance but validating the thugs who forced her to….

NEWSWEEK points out that “A new survey report shows that 8.5 percent of current college freshmen expect to participate in a student protest while in college. That figure is up 2.9 percentage points from 2014, and it is the highest percentage to respond that way in the annual survey since 1967.”

  • As the rapper Tef Poe sharply pointed out at a St. Louis rally in October protesting the death of unarmed teenager Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo.: “This ain’t your grandparents’ civil rights movement.” (WaPo)

GAY PATRIOT notes this violence in trying to feel as relevant as the 1960s generation:

Left-wing protesters seeking to deny Milo Yiannopoulos and Martin Shkreli their right to free speech, and the right of their audience to peaceably assemble, demonstrated their superior debate skills by literally throwing feces and assaulting a cameraman.

[….]

…The protests began peacefully, but quickly escalated into violence as protesters jumped the barricades set up by campus police. The news station confirmed that one anti-Milo protester threw hot coffee at its camera crew and their equipment.

Also, Andrea Boccelli has bowed out of performing at Donald Trump’s inauguration because leftists have threatened to murder his family.

The DAILY CALLER notes the anti-free-speech movement of the fascist left:

A new Pew Research Center poll shows that 40 percent of American Millennials (ages 18-34) are likely to support government prevention of public statements offensive to minorities.

It should be noted that vastly different numbers resulted for older generations in the Pew poll on the issue of offensive speech and the government’s role.

Around 27 percent of Generation X’ers (ages 35-50) support such an idea, while 24 percent of Baby Boomers (ages 51-69) agree that censoring offensive speech about minorities should be a government issue. Only 12 percent of the Silent Generation (ages 70-87) thinks that government should prevent offensive speech toward minorities.

The poll comes at a time when college activists, such as the group “Black Lives Matter,” are making demands in the name of racial and ethnic equality at over 20 universities across the nation.

Some of the demands include restrictions on offensive Halloween costumes at Yale University to the deletion of U.S. President Woodrow Wilson’s image and name at Princeton University to “anti-oppression training” for employees at Brown University….

(NEWSBUSTERS) The Anti-Capitalist Anti-Fascist Bloc’s DisruptJ20 Inauguration protest quickly turned violent Friday morning as protestors gathered at Logan Circle in D.C. and marched down 13th Street. Footage shot by MRC Culture and CNSNews.com during the march show protestors vandalizing local businesses, destroying a limousine, and chanting “no cops, no borders, fight law and order.”

More BLACK BLOCK violence:

More Violence From the Left

Published by Papa Giorgio

(NEWSBUSTERS) The Anti-Capitalist Anti-Fascist Bloc’s DisruptJ20 Inauguration protest quickly turned violent Friday morning as protestors gathered at Logan Circle in D.C. and marched down 13th Street. Footage shot by MRC Culture and CNSNews.com during the march show protestors vandalizing local businesses, destroying a limousine, and chanting “no cops, no borders, fight law and order.”

This is a quick comparison of the Tea Party vs. Leftist protesters (Volume warning):

California Water Policy Going Out To Sea

Published by Papa Giorgio

HOTAIR notes the most recent example of California’s horrible water policy:

After five years of extreme drought, California is finally getting some relief this winter. Major rain storms have already ended drought conditions in the northern part of the state. In fact, there has been so much rain that reservoirs in northern California are releasing millions of gallons of fresh water into the ocean to prevent overflows. CBS Sacramento reports on this wasted opportunity:

California built its last major reservoir in 1979 when the population was 23 million people.

Now the population is 39 million people – 16 million more people, using the same reservoir storage supply.

[….]

But not everyone supports the creation of a new reservoir. The Sierra Club’s Kyle Jones tells CBS Sacramento, “It’s a 20th-century answer to a 21st-century problem that we have going forward with increased droughts and climate change.” He adds, “We’re gonna have to look at more innovate ways to create new water supplies.”

I find it amazing the amount of disconnect people in my state have in regards to how we have gotten to this point in our water policy. California has known for MANY DECADES of the types of cyclical droughts we encounter and had plenty of time to prepare. Instead of preparring, we pumped out 30,000 acre feet and 15,000 acre feet of water 29-Steelhead and 6-steelhead fish, respectively.

What does this mean practically? This:

  • The 15,000 acre feet of water based on a statewide per capita use average could supply 174,301 Californians with water for a year to the combined populations of Tracy and Santa Barbara. Combined with last month’s pulse flow release, the 30,000 acre feet of water is the equivalent of the combined annual water needs of the cities of Stockton, Lathrop, Ripon, and Escalon (Water Pulsing, Insane Policies Keeping California “Back-Woods”)

And why haven’t we built reservoirs? Environmentalists and the Democrats who support them (like Jerry Brown)….

California Dreamin’ of a Bygone Eras ~ Droughts vs. Politics

The Big Idea: California Is So Over: California’s drought and how it’s handled show just what kind of place the Golden State is becoming: feudal, super-affluent and with an impoverished interior.

….But since the 1970s, California’s water system has become the prisoner of politics and posturing. The great aqueducts connecting the population centers with the great Sierra snowpack are all products of an earlier era—the Los Angeles aqueduct (1913), Hetch-Hetchy (1923), the Central Valley Project (1937), and the California Aqueduct (1974). The primary opposition to expansion has been the green left, which rejects water storage projects as irrelevant.

Yet at the same time greens and their allies in academia and the mainstream pressare those most likely to see the current drought as part of a climate change-induced reduction in snowpack. That many scientists disagree with this assessment is almost beside the point. Whether climate change will make things better or worse is certainly an important concern, but California was going to have problems meeting its water needs under any circumstances.

It’s not like we haven’t been around this particular block before. In the 1860s, a severe drought all but destroyed LA’s once-flourishing cattle industry. This drought was followed by torrential rains that caused their own havoc. The state has suffered three major droughts since I have lived here—in the mid ’70s, the mid ’80s and again today—but long ago (even before I got there) some real whoppers occurred,including dry periods that lasted upwards of 200 years.

[….]

But ultimately the responsibility for California’s future lies with our political leadership, who need to develop the kind of typically bold approaches past generations have embraced. One step would be building new storage capacity, which Governor Jerry Brown, after opposing it for years, has begun to admit is necessary. Desalinization, widely used in the even more arid Middle East, notably Israel, has been blocked by environmental interests but could tap a virtually unlimited supply of the wet stuff, and lies close to the state’s most densely populated areas. Essentially the state could build enough desalinization facilities, and the energy plants to run them, for less money than Brown wants to spend on his high-speed choo-choo to nowhere. This piece of infrastructure is so irrelevant to the state’s needs that even many progressives, such asMother Jones’ KevinDrum, consider it a “ridiculous” waste of money.

[….]

This fundamentally hypocritical regime remains in place because it works—for the powerful and well-placed. Less understandable is why many Hispanic politicians, such as Assembly Speaker Kevin de Leon, also prioritize “climate change” as his leading issue, without thinking much about how these policies might worsen the massive poverty in his de-industrializing L.A. district—until you realize that de Leon is bankrolled by Tom Steyer and others from the green uberclass.

So, in the end, we are producing a California that is the polar opposite of Pat Brown’s creation. True, it has some virtues: greener, cleaner, and more “progressive” on social issues. But it’s also becoming increasingly feudal, defined by a super-affluent coastal class and an increasingly impoverished interior. As water prices rise, and farms and lawns are abandoned, there’s little thought about how to create a better future for the bulk of Californians. Like medieval peasants, millions of Californians have been force to submit to the theology of our elected high priest and his acolytes, leaving behind any aspirations that the Golden State can work for them too…..

Jerry Brown Fudges Budget

Published by Papa Giorgio

The main reason this is the case — I mean besides the Democrats tendency to “spend-spend-spend,”

HOTAIR tells the story of our fine State’s fudging of budgets:

Hey, $1.9 billion here, $1.9 billion there … pretty soon you’re talking about entirely imaginary numbers. That’s the message that Governor Jerry Brown’s administration sent to the California legislature when they admitted that they had miscalculated their expenditures in the state’s Medicaid program, known as Medi-Cal. The admission came during the new round of budget negotiations, even though the mistake had been known for months:

Gov. Jerry Brown’s administration miscalculated costs for the state Medi-Cal program by $1.9 billion last year, an oversight that contributed to Brown’s projection of a deficit in the upcoming budget, officials acknowledged this week.

The administration discovered accounting mistakes last fall, but it did not notify lawmakers until the administration included adjustments to make up for the errors in Brown’s budget proposal last week. The Democratic governor called for more than $3 billion in cuts because of a projected deficit he pegged at $1.6 billion.

“There’s no other way to describe this other than a straight up error in accounting, which we deeply regret,” said H.D. Palmer, a spokesman for the Department of Finance.

So why didn’t the Brown administration notify the legislature immediately? According to the governor’s office, errors traditionally get mitigated in the next budget cycle. Well, okay, but that would apply to errors of a small scale, wouldn’t it? A budget hole this size might prompt the legislature to fix the problems early and limit the damage. Instead, California spent more than it should, and now has to make up the money.

That’s actually not the only problem with the budget, as the Associated Press explains in this report. Not only did California spend more than it projected on Medi-Cal, it also took in quite a bit less than it projected in tax revenues. According to the revenue estimates in Brown’s proposed budget will miss by almost six billion dollars over three budget cycles:

The General Fund revenue forecast has been reduced, reflecting lower growth in wages, proprietorship income, consumption, and investment. As a result, before accounting for transfers such as to the Rainy Day Fund, General Fund revenue is lower than the 2016 Budget Act projections by $5.8 billion from 2015‑16 through 2017‑18.

Figure REV‑01 compares the revenue forecasts, by source, in the 2016 Budget Act and the Governor’s Budget. Revenue, including transfers, is expected to be $119 billion in 2016‑17 and $124 billion in 2017‑18. The projected decrease since the 2016 Budget Act is due to a lower forecast for all three major revenue sources. Over the three fiscal years, personal income tax is down $2.1 billion, sales tax is down $1.9 billion, and corporation tax is down $1.7 billion.

So much for that booming economy that the media insists that Donald Trump will inherit from Barack Obama tomorrow. California’s pursuit of progressive social and economic policies have worked their usual miracle of draining growth from what should be dynamic economic environments…..

3-Hindu Philosophies Concisely Explained

Published by Papa Giorgio

  • James E. Taylor, Introducing Apologetics: Cultivating Christian Commitment (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2006), 257-259.

JESUS AND HINDUISM

Hinduism may be the most metaphysically diverse of all religious traditions, since its practitioners have been polytheists, monotheists, pantheists, panentheists, atheists, and agnostics. This metaphysical diversity is grounded in the widespread Hindu conviction that the truth about ultimate reality is inexpressible and unknowable.

The Hindu name for ultimate reality is Brahman. In spite of the general skepticism just mentioned, many Hindu scholars have studied the Vedic texts (especially the Upanishads, the Bhagavad Gita, and the Brahma-sutra) to articulate an understanding of Brahman and Brahman’s relationship to the universe. The philosophical/theological systems formulated are called Vedanta. The three most in­fluential vedantic thinkers are Sankara (788-820), Ramanuja (1017-1137), and Madhya (thirteenth century AD).

Sankara’s view is called Advaita (non-duality) Vedanta. According to this worldview, reality is one, and the one is Brahman. It follows that the only absolute reality is Brahman, and therefore every­thing that exists is Brahman. Thus, each individual atman (soul) is identical with Atman (the world soul), and Atman is the same thing as Brahman. Though Brahman may seem to be a personal lord with a variety of divine attributes who is worthy of worship, Brahman is really impersonal (and so not appropriately worshiped) and completely without different and distinct qualities (except for being, consciousness, and bliss). This is clearly a version of pan­theism, which accounts for polytheism at the popular level: The allegedly many gods are just manifestations of Brahman. Sankara says that the assumption that there are many real things (human be­ings, animals, plants, inorganic things, different qualities of things, etc.) is due to ignorance and that this ignorance is caused by maya (illusion). According to his view, salvation comes through eliminating maya and the ignorance based on it by becoming enlightened. Enlightenment in­volves grasping that everything (including oneself, of course) is really (distinctionless and impersonal) Brahman.

Sankara’s interpretation of the Vedas is philosophically problematic, and because of this, it does not provide a plausible chal­lenge to Christian exclusivism. The main problem with his view is that it says, on the one hand, that there is only one thing and thus no distinctions between different kinds of things, and, on the other hand, that there is a distinction between maya and ultimate reality, ignorance and enlightenment, bondage to samsara and liberation from it, and so on. In short, Sankara’s Hindu theology is self-contradictory. Moreover, it does not help to distinguish, as Sankara does, between absolute reality (Brahman) and conventional reality (maya). This too is a distinction between two different things, and if Brahman is all, then there cannot be two different things. An additional problem is that Sankara’s view is inconsistent with the wisdom of collective human sensory experience, which reveals a world of many real things. An appeal to mystical experience does not save his position. There is no good reason to trust such an experience, since insofar as it supports Sankara’s view, it contradicts both reason and sense perception.

Ramanuja is a later Hindu thinker who tried to improve on Sankara’s theology by attempting to be faithful to the theme of unity between Atman and Brahman in the Vedas while avoiding contradiction. His theology is a qualified nondualism. According to his view, the universe is Brahman’s body, which emerges or emanates eternally out of Brahman and through which Brahman expresses itself. As such, the universe is coeternal with and dependent on Brahman, but it is not the same thing as Brahman. Therefore, the universe can consist in many different things, including souls, which are not identical with Brahman. If we take this to mean that the universe is part of Brahman, then Ramanuja’s theology is a version of panentheism. If instead Brahman’s body is not a part of Brahman, then Ramanuja’s view is a version of contingency monotheism. Either way, Ramanuja avoids Sankara’s pantheism. Moreover, whereas Sankara conceives of Brahman as impersonal, Ramanuja believes Brahman is a personal God who has become incarnate in many forms (such as Rama and Krishna)2 and who gives grace to save human beings who love him and are devoted to him (but this salvation does not involve atonement).i

Though Ramanuja’s picture of reality avoids the contradictory antirealism of Sankara’s approach, and though it includes some Christian themes, it faces a problem of evil that is more serious than the one afflicting the Abrahamic faiths. In the first place, if his view is panentheistic, so that the universe is part of God and the universe contains evil, then a part of God is evil. But Ramanuja says that God is perfect. Therefore, the universe does not contain evil, or God is not perfect, or the universe is not a part of God. Since it seems best to affirm the last of these alternatives, it seems best to reject the panentheistic interpretation of Ramanuja’s theology. Second, since Ramanuja affirms the eternality of souls (a consequence of his denial of creation ex nihilo), then those souls that have not yet been liberated from the cycle of death and rebirth have already suffered eternally. But this is an experience equivalent to eternal suffering in hell—at least with respect to length of time. Therefore, all of us still caught in the cycle of death and rebirth have no freedom of choice in this life to avoid eternal suffer­ing. We have already endured it! According to the Christian view, all human beings suffer only a finite amount during the one earthly existence they are granted, and they are given an opportunity to choose freely whether to suffer eternally apart from God. Moreover, there is consequently a much greater amount of pain and suffering for which Ramanuja needs to account than there is in the Christian view.

The third Hindu theologian is Madhya. According to his view, the universe is eternal and completely independent of God. His theology is a member of the cosmological dualism family. Thus, he avoids the problems facing Sankara’s panthe­ism and the panentheist interpretation of Ramanuja. Moreover, he says God is the designer of the universe but not the creator. Therefore, his theology does not have to explain why God either created or eternally generates a universe that contains evil, pain, and suffering. Like Ramanuja, he also affirms that God is personal, has become incarnate in different forms, and offers salvation by grace.

But Madhva’s account of God and the world has two serious problems. First, from the standpoint of Hinduism, it does not affirm the close relationship between God and the universe that is taught by the Vedas. Second, it can provide no satisfying philosophical explanation of the existence of the universe. Since Madhva’s position is that the universe is both eternal and independent, the universe’s existence is a brute fact. But the Abrahamic faiths and the other versions of Hinduism can all explain the existence of the universe as identical with God (Sankara), a part of or dependent on God (Ramanuja), or created by God out of nothing (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam). Therefore, these other theologies are supe­rior to Madhva’s theology in this respect.

2. In Hinduism, an incarnation of God is called an avatar.

i. RPT’s note. Ramanuja seems close to some theistic beliefs, but one should be aware that he lived around 1017–1137 AD, and so borrowed from Christianity to try and “fix” the glaring problems in Hinduism. 

Public Schools Are for Brainwashing – California Democrat

Published by Papa Giorgio

In this great short review of an article in the LOS ANGELES TIMES speaking about Santa Monica’s own Stephen Miller, we find an admission of the goals of public school education:

Rep. Julia Brownley (D-Westlake Village), who was the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District’s board president at the time, remembered Miller showing up at events in coat and tie — “unlike any other student” — to argue against special treatment for immigrants and others.

“He had very conservative views — the exact opposite of what we were trying to accomplish in the school district,” she said.

A good heads up on the article as well as commentary!

CNN’s Double Standard – Mediocre Negroes

Published by Papa Giorgio

Larry Elder was inspired in the above Tweet by me passing along a comment from my YouTube channel by “The Amazing Lucas”

  • If Don Imus can lose his jobs for “nappy headed hoes”, than this fool should be fired on the spot.

Dennis Prager slams the double-standard at CNN who touted loudly that Breitbart was anti-Semitic and gave a specific example. Prager tears down the strong assertion made in this example of David Horowitz and Bill Kristoll by highlighting Marc Lamont Hill’s “Mediocre Negro” comment.