The Holy Inquisition of Political Correctness and toxicity

WOW! Magazine  "Watching the goings-on in the modern academia is a hazardous occupation. From the point of view of many actors on that scene, all they are doing is cleaning the scene of “toxicity” – real or imaginary. The viewer, though, gets the full dose of the toxicity directly in his/her face… but it is rather a personal complaint.

"Here is a really heart-wrenching example of the juggernaut of Political Correctness squashing under its wheels an innocent and well meaning young person. Because of some overly sensitive human embryo, whose pea brain and overwhelming sensitivity and entitlement don’t bear a shadow of debate.

Lindsay Shepherd, a graduate student at Wilfrid Laurier University, said she ran afoul of school authorities after she aired a clip in two tutorials of a debate on gender-neutral pronouns featuring polarizing University of Toronto professor Jordan Peterson.

"At this point I feel the need to stop for a moment and to explain. Jordan Peterson is a Canadian clinical psychologist, cultural critic, and professor of psychology at the University of Toronto. His ascent to notoriety came with his opposition to the use of genderless pronouns and his attacks on political correctness. Here he explains some of his views.

"Now, does Lindsay Shepherd share the views of the illustrious professor? Not at all, rather the opposite:" . . .

Dr. Pimlott is currently working on an anthology of Karl Marx’s journalism as well as developing research on strategic communications and social justice movements in Canada.

Trump's popularity tops that of leaders of every major Western power

The nightmare of  Obamacare has yet to be thrown out, which probably accounts for some of the hold-back on popularity that the media are so fascinated by.  Same with the tax cuts and the wretched stance a few congressional Republicans are stooping to to block all economically helpful legislation solely because they hate Trump.

 Monica Showalter  "For all our intelligentsia's gloating claims about President Trump being unpopular, it's worth nothing that his socialistic counterparts in Europe are even less popular, according to a new Zogby poll.

"Zogby Analytics reports the following:

Citizens of France, Germany and UK not happy with Macron, Merkel and May; A majority of adults in France and UK dislike Macron and May; Nearly half of adults in Germany dislike Merkel

Zogby Analytics conducted online surveys of adults in the UK, France, and Germany 11/3/2017-11/7/2017. Based on a confidence interval of 95%, the margin of error for each sample is as follows:

"The Washington Examiner summed up the findings from the Zogby charts as the following:

Zogby found the three European leaders below that:

• Merkel approval 40 percent, disapproval 49 percent.
• Macron approval 28 percent, disapproval 52 percent.
• May approval 28 percent, disapproval 61 percent.

"So much for the Beltway intelligentsia's gloating emphasis on President Trump's supposed low poll numbers compared to President Obama's." . . .

How a New York Senator Can Rag on the Clintons without Risk of Death

Michael Nollett

And Kirsten Gillibrand?  Why does she act as if she's free of Clinton blackmail worries?  Simple.  She didn't enter the House of Representatives until 2007.  The Clintons never assembled blackmail files on her.

. . . "So the national Democrats had excellent reason to resent Bill Clinton in1999 and every motive to seek revenge.  And the Republicans gave them the golden trigger by which to get that revenge: impeachment and conviction.  All that would have been needed was for at least seventeen of the forty-five Democrat senators to vote to convict Clinton of one of the impeachment charges that had been voted on by the House.  That's about 40%.

"Instead, all forty-five Democrat senators stood, phalanx-like, behind Clinton.

"Why did they do this?  He had caused them nothing but electoral losses and loss of power.  Why not just dump him in 1999 and then complain to the public about how unfair it was?  Gore would have been golden for at least six more years and probably ten.  He probably would have had coattails, too, at least in 2000.

"Did the Democrats stand by Clinton because they sincerely believed that the Constitution was in peril if the Republicans could get away with getting rid of one of theirs?  That was Clinton's defense, but the premise is so absurd as to be laughable." . . .

. . . 

"So why did the Democrats stand by Clinton in 1999, when it would have been to their advantage to get rid of him then, as well as giving them the chance to wreak their revenge on him?

"Only one reason comes to mind: blackmail files.  The Clintons did have those900 FBI raw files.  They also had their own minions of paid hacks.  Does anyone think that only Republicans' dossiers were contained in those files?  The Clintons must have had dirt on everybody, of both parties.  That's an obvious reason for the iron hold Clinton was able to wield over them." . . .

Hillary is caught lying, but she just shrugs her shoulders and brushes it off

Since this woman never, never goes away, keep this all in mind as you watch her unending campaign. TD

William Safire justified: Hillary Clinton is a congenital liar  "In a notorious 1996 New York Times essay, pundit William Safire famously saidthis of Hillary Clinton:

Americans of all political persuasions are coming to the sad realization that our First Lady – a woman of undoubted talents who was a role model for many in her generation – is a congenital liar.

Drip by drip, like Whitewater torture, the case is being made that she is compelled to mislead, and to ensnare her subordinates and friends in a web of deceit.

"Could anyone who has followed her political activities since make any sensible rebuttal to Safire's observation?  As many of her critics have noted, Hillary Clinton will lie when she'd be far better served by the truth." . . .

Andrew C. McCarthy: FBI Rewrites Federal Law to Let Hillary Off the Hook

. . . "It is a common tactic of defense lawyers in criminal trials to set up a straw-man for the jury: a crime the defendant has not committed. The idea is that by knocking down a crime the prosecution does not allege and cannot prove, the defense may confuse the jury into believing the defendant is not guilty of the crime charged. Judges generally do not allow such sleight-of-hand because innocence on an uncharged crime is irrelevant to the consideration of the crimes that actually have been charged." . . .  Read more

Yet Democrat women still sing hymns of worship and Praise for Hillary. Democrats are the darlings of daytime and nightime TV sycophants.

Would North Korea Attack the Olympics in 2018? (By the Way, They Will Be in South Korea)

The National Interest

“ 'The United States needs a new set of ideas and principles to justify its worthwhile international commitments, and curtail ineffective obligations where necessary,” argue Jeremi Suri and Benjamin Valentino, in the introduction to their edited volume Sustainable Security: Rethinking American National Security.

“Balancing our means and ends requires a deep reevaluation of U.S. strategy, as the choices made today will shape the direction of U.S. security policy for decades to come.”

"Though rarely spelled out in such stark terms, this question would appear to be at the core of America’s grand strategy debate—if such a debate were actually occurring. We should ponder why it isn’t, and therefore why an arguably “unsustainable” strategy persists. (As the economist Herb Stein famously said [7], “If something cannot go on forever, it will stop.”)

"I foresaw this problem not quite two years ago. “U.S. foreign policy is crippled,” 

"I warned [8] in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee:

by a dramatic disconnect between what Americans expect of it and what the nation’s leaders are giving them. If U.S. policymakers don’t address this gap, they risk pursuing a policy whose ends don’t match with the means the American people are willing to provide.

"And I concluded as follows:" . . .

This Is How America Would Fight North Korea in a War  "U.S. forces in the northwest Pacific are considerable, amounting to two ground combat brigades, approximately seven wings of fighters and attack aircraft, a handful of strategic bombers, an aircraft carrier, submarines, hundreds of cruise missiles and an amphibious assault task force. That already formidable force can be swiftly augmented by even more combat forces from Hawaii, Alaska, and the continental United States, including F-22A Raptors, airborne troops, and more aircraft carriers, submarines and bombers. It is a robust, formidable, adaptable force capable of taking on a variety of tasks, from disaster relief to war." . . .

Top Nuclear General Says He Would Refuse 'Illegal' Order From Trump to Launch Nukes

PJ Media "Air Force Gen. John Hyten, commander of the U.S. Strategic Command, told a security conference in Nova Scotia that he would refuse to obey an "illegal" order from Donald Trump to launch nuclear weapons.

"Asked if he has given much thought to how he would handle a nuclear strike order from President Trump that he thinks is unlawful, Hyten, who oversees the U.S. nuclear arsenal, answered, "I think some people think we're stupid. We're not stupid people. We think about these things a lot. When you have this responsibility, how do you not think about it?"

""I provide advice to the president, he will tell me what to do," Hyten said. "And if it's illegal, guess what's going to happen? I'm going to say, 'Mr. President, that's illegal.' And guess what he's going to do? He's going to say, 'What would be legal?' And we'll come up options, with a mix of capabilities to respond to whatever the situation is, and that's the way it works. It's not that complicated."

"He explained that if he were to execute an unlawful order, "You will go to jail. You could go to jail for the rest of your life."

"The key word here is "illegal." In fact, no U.S. military officer is bound to obey an order he believes to be "illegal," so why this is being made into a big deal is something of a mystery." . . .

It should be noted the general did not declare, as C.E.M. Joad's disciples did in the 30's, that he would not ever fight under any orders from President Trump. He declared simply what, hopefully all military leaders would, that he cannot wage what he might feel was an "illegal" war.

But the Nazis in the 1930's did hear and consider what Joad's  followers declared and knew the road was clear for Germany to aggressively swallow up country after country under Hitler's orders. The Tunnel Dweller

. . . Professor Cyril Edwin Mitchinson Joad, even while witnessing the rise and stated goals of Adolph Hitler, supported the proposition debated on Thursday 9 February 1933, was "that this House will in no circumstances fight for its King and Country.” 

It should be noted that In his early life, as a Wikipedia contributor states, "Joad very much shared the desire for the destruction of the Capitalist system". . .


Churchill called WW2 "the unnecessary war", because Britain, France and their allies had no stomach to risk war with Germany. When they finally realized - as Hitler long knew - that pacifists such as Joad and millions of others had no stomach for military courage, it was too late to stop the Nazis without war. Millions would die because of pacifism.  TD

Those of us who are committed to facing the facts should condemn these peaceniks for what they really are: warmongers for our enemies.. . . "The absence of a peacenik peace plan is no accident. Pacifism is inherently a negative doctrine–it merely says that military action is always bad. As one San Francisco protester put the point: “I don’t think it’s right for our government to kill people.” In practice, this leaves the government only two means of dealing with our enemies: to ignore their acts of aggression, or to appease them by capitulating to the aggressor’s demands." . . .

Obama Concealed Strength of al-Qaeda Before 2012 Election

Bin Laden Docs Show Obama Misled, Politicized Intelligence During 2012 Campaign  

 By the way, this story has been embargoed -- at least so far -- by all major media.

. . . "The only thing really surprising here is the lengths to which Obama went to justify pulling troops from Iraq -- that he would risk so much just to please his liberal base. Intelligence in this case was cynically manipulated to paint a false picture of American security." . . .

Legal Insurrection

"Bin Laden was dead, but al-Qaeda was very much alive."

"At the 2012 Democratic National Convention, the big moment was Joe Biden triumphantly declaring “Osama bin Laden is dead, and General Motors is alive.”

"It turns out that in order to make that narrative stick, Obama had to downplay the actual strength of al-Qaeda.

"Saagar Enjeti reports at the Daily Caller:

‘Cherry Picked’: Obama Downplayed Al-Qaida Strength In Lead Up To 2012 Election

The Obama administration deliberately sought to downplay how robust the al-Qaida network was in the lead up to the 2012 election by selectively releasing documents that enforced a preferred narrative, The Weekly Standard reports, citing experts at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and New York Times Correspondent Rukmini Callimachi.

The revelation of the al-Qaida network’s strength in 2011 comes after the final release of thousands of documents obtained by U.S. Navy SEALs in a 2011 raid to kill Usama Bin-Laden in Abbotabad, Pakistan. The documents reveal that Bin-Laden was minutely managing the day-to-day operations of his terror network all while former President Barack Obama assured the American public the group was “decimated.”

“Think back to when bin Laden was killed. It was 2011, it was right before a major campaign season. I don’t want to underplay the role that the killing of Osama bin Laden had,” Callimachi told the Friday audience, adding “But I think that that was theorized into something much bigger.”

"The obvious subtext here is that Obama and Democrats put his re-election above national security concerns. The fact that we’re just learning about this now also suggests that the media either knew this and ignored it, or was too busy cheering at the DNC to look into it. Anyone surprised?

"Jenna Lifhits of the Weekly Standard has more:" . . .

In the Franken Scandal, Be Careful What You Wish For

Peter Barry Chowka . . . Thomas Lifson had a summary of his similar concerns about the Franken story and what it might lead to, in the November 17 American Thinker, “Al Franken’s career is collateral damage for the Dems on the way to getting Trump:”

That sinking feeling Al Franken is experiencing is the realization that his career is now a pawn in the fanatical efforts of Democrats to get President Trump out of office. . . The logical steps for getting Trump are clear.

Step one: Establish that sexual harassment before taking office is sufficient grounds to remove someone from office. This is the necessary predicate. Franken’s departure from office will establish the purported sincerity of the Democrats in establishing this brand-new principle. . .

Step two: Apply this doctrine to Roy Moore if he should win the Senate seat for which he is running. If he loses, triumphantly announce that even the reddest of red states agrees that previous misbehavior is dispositive in removing an incumbent.

Step three: Throw Bill Clinton under the bus. . . .

Step four: As the hysteria mounts, following the blood sacrifices, demand that President Trump be impeached for actions before he took office. Failing that, tell voters that by hanging onto office, he is disgracing the nation and telling little boys to grope their little girl classmates in first grade.

. . . 

Hillary Clinton Says Bill Wouldn't Have Survived 1992 If Fox News Had Been Around

Townhall

"Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton appeared with her husband President Bill Clinton on Saturday evening, and made some surprising admissions regarding the news media, specifically Fox News.

"The political duo appeared together on stage to celebrate the 25th anniversary of Bill’s 1992 presidential election victory over incumbent George H.W. Bush.

"As reported by the Daily Caller, Hillary had harsh criticisms of conservative media outlets.

“Unfortunately our body politic’s immune system has been impaired because there has been a concerted effort starting with the creation of the Fox network — it wasn’t there when Bill first ran, it was one of the reasons he probably survived, it was there when he ran the second time — it and all of its associated media outlets who are by no means delivering news. They are delivering partisan advocacy positions irrespective of the truth, the facts, the evidence,” Clinton said. (Emphasis Added) . . .

 

The NY Times comments on "The Hillary Effect".  Good luck reading it.

Emergency! Soros, Pelosi handing out new Resistance playbooks in Calif.

Canada Free Press

Michelle Malkin  **Written by Doug Powers

Is there a certain billionaire Dem Party puppet master out there who isn’t happy with his return on investment in recent years? It sounds like updated “Resistance” playbooks are being handed out in California this weekend:

Liberal billionaire George Soros and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi were listed as the main attractions Friday at a California gathering of the anti-Trump elite.

The four-day event in Carlsbad, titled “Beyond #Resistance: Reclaiming our Progressive Future,” asked that guests refrain from contacting the media or posting to social media, the agenda shows.

Other speakers appearing in person or via video were expected to include U.S. Sens. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., and Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn.; U.S. Rep. Ben Ray Lujan, D-Minn.; and Democrats Gov. Tom Wolf of Pennsylvania and governor-elect Ralph Northam of Virginia.

Special guest speakers were listed as CNN contributor Van Jones and Center for American Progress CEO Neera Tanden.

The conference, which began Wednesday and runs through Saturday at La Costa Resort, was organized by the Democracy Alliance, a network of liberal donors

"The Washington Free Beacon obtained the conference agenda (at least one progressive conference attendee possesses sensitive party material about as responsibly as Hillary Clinton handled classified emails):" . . .

Trump Brought Back A Great Deal From China, But No One’s Talking About It; Too Favorable To Trump And Must Not Be Seen

President Trump represents this nation well, unlike feckless Democrats. Maxine Waters herself could not have done better.

Weasel Zippers

Glen Dale, W. Va. — Bad news travels fast. Good news, meanwhile, doesn’t seem to travel at all.

Last weekend in Beijing, as part of his 12-day trip to Asia, President Trump announced that the US and China had signed an $83.7 billion deal to create a number of petrochemical projects in West Virginia over the next 20 years.

If the agreement holds tight, it is an economic game changer for the state.

And yet, speaking to the locals here, you wouldn’t even know it had happened.

“I am surprised I heard nothing about it on the national news, nor in my local paper and newscasts,” said Jerald Stephens, 67, a West Virginia native and union rep, who has been a keen observer of local politics for as long as he can remember.

The BBC and CNN covered the news in their business sections, while The New York Times picked up a short story by The Associated Press on the deal. The stories’ headlines were muted; their placement low-key.

Keep reading…

Stunning evidence of the power of the MSM to kill news favorable to Trump

. . . "As a candidate, Donald Trump promised to “make deals” that would benefit America. He is precisely delivering on this promise. In addition to the project in West Virginia, deals amounting to a quarter trillion dollars were announced in the wake of the visit to China.

"[media crickets]

"In addition, the deal reveals that President Trump has gotten the Chinese to consider becoming dependent on America for important energy supplies. That makes them far less likely to be antagonistic toward us, and addresses the chronic huge balance of payemnts deficit we suffer with China, keeping two more promises: to keep us safe and to keep us from digging that trade deficit hole deper.

"But this is news too helpful to Trump to be reported."  Thomas Lifson

Obama's 'unaccompanied children' turn up big in latest MS13 gang sweep

Monica Showalter   . . . "The "unaccompanied minors" who were encouraged and let into the country by Obama back in 2014 and up until his last day in office are worth a look, because Democrats did so much to browbeat Republicans and neighborhood groups who tried to stop it. such as the multiracial (this fact was never noted) people of Murrieta, Calif., who protested the dumping of these 'unaccompanied minors' in their community, unwilling to turn their small city of 100,000 into 'another Pomona' as one told me.

Here's what got the press narrative on CNN:

"It is deplorable that people espousing anti-immigrant hate language created unnecessary tension and fear for immigrant mothers and their children," Pedro Rios, a community representative of the San Diego Immigrant Rights Consortium, said in a statement. "Even more concerning is that elected officials in the City of Murrieta instigated this tension. Mothers and their children on these buses have suffered through enough trauma."

"Here are the kinds of pictures that got printed:

"Here's what came along with them as they were all lumped in one big group we owed our 'compassion' and 'justice' to:

Full article 

Obama wanted these guys to get to know you better:

Obama’s ‘Fair Housing’ executive order to force ‘diversity’ in neighborhoods across the US  " . . . President Barack Obama is pressing forward with new Department of Housing and Urban Development regulations that will withhold block grants to communities if they don’t build enough “affordable housing in wealthy neighborhoods.” The executive order, known as the “Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Act,” was issued by the president last year and will be used to promote racial quotas in white suburban neighborhoods. It will also force thousands of communities to house the nation’s burgeoning population of new immigrants." . . . From 2015