Author: Papa Giorgio
Christina Hoff Sommers vs Safe Spaces on Campus
#BabyGate! Do you NOT KNOW what type of “safe-spaces” universities set-up?? Listen to Georgetown’s “safe-space” via Prager. Below is more Christina Hoff Sommers:
Christina Hoff Sommers (Host of The Factual Feminist) joins Dave Rubin to talk about trigger warnings, free speech, and safe spaces on college campuses across the country from Oberlin and Yale to University of Missouri. Watch the full interview here.
The Cultural Marxist Brainwash Exemplified ~ Dennis Prager (Updated)
An instructive call into the Dennis Prager show from a larger interview (below) exemplifies how well the university brainwashes young people. Amazingly sad.
Here is the fuller interview:
Dennis Prager interviews Olivia Legaspi of Haverford College about her recent column, “What Working At McDonald’s Taught Me About Privilege.” Some interesting calls into the show cause great insights by Dennis Prager.
This is some excellence in air time explaining what the colleges are doing to young people.
For more clear thinking like this from Dennis Prager… I invite you to visit: http://www.dennisprager.com/ ~ see also: http://www.prageruniversity.com/
Rat-Hunting Dogs In NYC
Via The Blaze:
On a freezing night in late December, a group a of dog-lovers gathered on a quiet corner by a park in lower Manhattan.
Their purpose? To deploy their household pets as soldiers in the never-ending war against New York City’s legendary population of rats.
Mike Rowe, host of CNN’s “Somebody’s Got To Do It,” spent an evening with the group, which calls itself R.A.T.S. (Ryder’s Alley Trencher-fed Society), last year.
Speaking with TheBlaze, Rowe described the nocturnal outing as something “unlike anything I’ve ever seen.”
Of State Department’s and Cuban Hellfire Missiles
“You’re not suggesting that you actually sold this to the Cubans?” one reporter asked Kirby. ”I don’t understand why you can’t say, ‘No, we didn’t sell this to the Cubans, it got there by accident by mistake.’” (The Blaze)
Misusing Terms ~ Neoconservative
I posted a story noting that some terms are losing their meaning in the run-up to the Republican primaries. This term was abused during “Dubyas” Presidency.
The term is “Neo-Con,” and the article deals with Rubio via National Review, “If Marco Rubio Is ‘Establishment’ Then ‘Establishment’ Has Lost Its Meaning,” a must read… here are a couple excerpts:
I must confess that I’m confused. I still have vivid memories of the tea-party revolution of 2010, when insurgent conservative candidates toppled incumbents and establishment favorites from coast to coast. This was the year of Rand Paul in Kentucky, Ron Johnson in Wisconsin, and Nikki Haley in South Carolina.
Perhaps most momentous of all, it was the year of Marco Rubio, who overcame long odds to beat Charlie Crist, a man who’s since proven himself to be exactly the kind of soulless politician the tea party exists to oppose. Since his election, Rubio has delivered, becoming one of the most consistent and eloquent conservatives in the Senate. My colleague, Jim Geraghty, has outlined his stratospheric ratings from the American Conservative Union, National Rifle Association, National Right to Life, and the Family Research Council.
In fact, Rubio is largely responsible for the single most effective legislative attack on Obamacare….
[….]
Here’s the reality: In the battle — launched in 2010 — between the tea party and traditional GOP powers, the tea party largely won. The contest between Rubio, Cruz, and Trump is a fight between Tea Party 1.0, Tea Party 2.0, and classic American populism. And each one of these candidates would need traditional Republican or “establishment” support in the general election.
If Rubio is “establishment,” the term has lost any real meaning. He’s a consistent conservative whose positions and ideology largely align with whomever his critics prefer, Cruz included. He’s a tea party champion who effectively expelled Charlie Crist from the Republican party and dealt a serious blow to Jeb Bush. For the most part, a fight between Rubio and Cruz is a fight over matters of tone and style, not substance. A fight between Rubio and Trump is a battle between a conservative and a populist. Unless something dramatic happens between now and the New Hampshire primary, the establishment has already lost this cycle. Only the insurgents remain.
Another article worth reading is via Powerline, and continue the misuse narrative:
…Throwing the neocon label around isn’t an argument; it’s name-calling. Cruz argues well enough that he shouldn’t have to rely on name-calling. It must have gone over well with focus groups.
Name-calling is bad enough. To make matters worse, as Goldberg explains, the name doesn’t really fit the view Cruz disagrees with — support of military intervention to bring about regime change.
Goldberg says that “neoconservatism is a product of the Cold War.” But his article suggests that it is actually the product of a debate over domestic policy.
As I understand it, neoconservatism is the product of the rise of the New Left and the failure of President Johnson’s Great Society. The New Left was a movement of juveniles (including me). It left more mature leftists with two obvious alternatives: first, embrace the New Left and have a second childhood; second, applaud the spirit of the New Left but reject its more outrageous tactics and flirtation with the likes of Chairman Mao, and double down on democratic socialism.
Neoconservatives rejected both alternatives. They were appalled by the spirit of movement with a clear totalitarian strain (manifested, for example, by attacks on academic freedom). In addition, the Great Society experiment, animated in part by the thinking of democratic socialists like Michael Harrington, helped move them well to the right of their socialist former comrades.
Goldberg reminds us that the most important early neoconservative foreign policy manifesto — Jeane Kirkpatrick’s famous 1979 article in Commentary — was a brief against democracy promotion in authoritarian states friendly to the U.S. Moreover, Kirkpatrick was not a supporter of the war waged by President George W. Bush in Iraq. Indeed, she said she had serious reservations about it.
It’s true, of course, the most neoconservatives supported that war, in many cases avidly. But the decision to invade Iraq was not made by neoconservatives, and neither was the decision to remain in post-invasion Iraq rather than “get the heck out” (as Cruz likes to say). Bush, Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld were not part of the neoconservative movement. As for the Congress that voted to authorize war, only a handful of members were.
Neoonservatives (by now referred to, disdainfully and even venomously, as neocons by people who knew little about the movement) became scapegoats for the war. In part, as Goldberg says, this was because they continued to defend it and, above all, advocate that we win it. Some neocons pushed for the successful Iraq surge of 2007. For this, they should be commended….
Ooops, Wrong Answer (Powerball)
Ooops… not the answer this reporter was expecting (via Gay Patriot):
A Spider Eating Spider!
[fbvideo link=”https://www.facebook.com/BBCOne/videos/1035967569756994/” width=”690″ height=”400″ onlyvideo=”1″]
FACEBOOK Antisemitism ~ Exemplified
…The page inciting against Jews was left active.
Even though it contained nearly identical content, Shurat HaDin said that Facebook replied that the anti-Israel page had not violated any rules.
Nitsana Darshan-Leitner, head of Shurat Hadin, said in a statement quoted by the Jewish Press, “The in-depth investigation we conducted proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that [Facebook’s] claims of equality in the face of its conduct against any individual or group of people are at best erroneous and false in the worst case.”
“Jews and Israelis around the world should be very concerned over the results of the investigation and understand that the most famous social network in the world is working actively in favor of the Palestinians,” she added.
The legal nonprofit is currently engaged in a lawsuit against Facebook over claims the social media giant allows Palestinians to post violent content that incites deadly attacks on Israelis.
Social media posts calling for violence against Israelis have been flooding Palestinian social media ever since a wave of nearly daily stabbing, shooting and car-ramming attacks against Israelis began in September.
“One of the significant characteristics of the current terror wave is the incitement on the social media networks, headed by Facebook,” Shurat HaDin said on its website.
“This incitement consists of the Facebook pages of many young Palestinians who inflame their friends to embark on terrorist attacks, provocative videos glorifying and encouraging terrorist attacks, instructions for terrorists ‘How to Carry out a Terrorist Attack’ — all on Facebook,” Shurat HaDin added.
Facebook did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
In an older post of mine, I point out the same bias on NPR:
- For instance, NPR: 18,321 words in pro-Arab only segments, 4,934 words in pro-Israel segments. Bias in number of Arab-only vs Israeli-only segments: 63-percent Palestinian/pro-Arab only segments, 37-percent Israel/pro-Israel segments. (CAMERA)
Reality: 1 / State Department: 0
AP’s Lee Calls Out Obama Administration For Living In A Fantasyland Of Their Foreign Policy Failures (January 6, 2015)
Fascism with Tears
Five Outrageous Facts In Obama’s EOs (via Breitbart):
1. The main policy would not have stopped any recent mass shootings.
2. 225 years of precedent, destroyed–without any legislative due process.
3. You can be denied a gun for purely financial reasons or if you are on Social Security.
4. It adds more burdens to gun dealers who are already following the law.
5. Tax dollars for “smart guns” that nobody wants.
MRCTV Blog has this excellent story by Craig Bannister that should be read in total, and this comes to me via Climate Depot:
Today, Pres. Obama announced new executive orders on gun control designed to keep “mentally ill” people from buying guns – but, will they be used to prevent climate skeptics from buying firearms?
Under Obama’s new rules, doctors can now report people deemed “mentally ill” to the FBI so they can be denied gun licenses.
As the official White House fact sheet on the new gun control regulations states (emphasis added):
“Current law prohibits individuals from buying a gun if, because of a mental health issue, they are either a danger to themselves or others or are unable to manage their own affairs. The Social Security Administration (SSA) has indicated that it will begin the rulemaking process to ensure that appropriate information in its records is reported to NICS.”
If, as Pres. Obama has repeatedly claimed, climate change is a greater threat than terrorism, then aren’t people who deny the climate threat “a danger to themselves or others” and unfit to own guns?
The idea that climate skeptics are mentally ill is nothing new:
Oregon-based professor of “sociology and environmental studies” Kari Norgaard has declared climate skepticism a mental illness that must be “treated.”
Psychology Today published an article listing three warning signs that you are in “climate change denial”:
- “You think climate change is bad, but not that bad.”
- “You don’t have an emotional reaction to climate change.”
- “You aren’t getting political.”
Thus, if you don’t think the climate threat is great enough, or you’re not furious about it, or you’re not politically active in the climate fight, then you’ve got mental issues….
A newer story is by WaPo saying “Inaction On Global Warming Is As Reckless As Drunken Driving,” and many Democrats think deniers should be thrown into jail. If we are criminals and worthy of jail as well as mentally ill… who would allow such a person to own a gun. I wonder what Professor Turley would have to say about this?
Of Land Grabs and Militias ~ Oregon
Here is the David French article from National Review that Prager interviewed French about:
Watching the news yesterday, a person could be forgiven for thinking that a small group of Americans had literally lost their minds. Militias are marching through Oregon on behalf of convicted arsonists? A small band of armed men has taken over a federal building? The story practically writes itself.
Or does it? Deranged militiamen spoiling for a fight against the federal government make for good copy, but what if they’re right? What if the government viciously and unjustly prosecuted a rancher family so as to drive them from their land? Then protest, including civil disobedience, would be not just understandable but moral, and maybe even necessary.
Ignore for a moment the #OregonUnderAttack hashtag — a rallying cry for leftists accusing the protesters of terrorism — and the liberal media’s self-satisfied cackling. Read the court documents in the case that triggered the protest, and the accounts of sympathetic ranchers. What emerges is a picture of a federal agency that will use any means necessary, including abusing federal anti-terrorism statutes, to increase government landholdings.