Important stuff you won't get from the liberal media! We do the surfing so you can be informed AND have a life!
Thursday, March 22, 2018
History for March 22
History for March 22 - On-This-Day.com:
Karl Malden 1913 - Actor, Allen H. Neuharth 1924 - Founder of USA Today, Pat Robertson 1930
William Shatner 1931 - Actor ("Star Trek" television series and movies), Andrew Lloyd Webber 1948 - Composer, Reese Witherspoon 1976 - Actress ("Legally Blonde")
1457 - Gutenberg Bible became the first printed book.
1775 - Edmund Burke presented his 13 articles to the English parliament.
1841 - Englishman Orlando Jones patented cornstarch.
1903 - Niagara Falls ran out of water due to a drought.
1935 - Persia was renamed Iran.
1954 - The first shopping mall opened in Southfield, Michigan.
1978 - Karl Wallenda, of the Flying Wallendas, fell to his death while walking a cable strung between to hotels in San Juan, Puerto Rico.
1981 - RCA put its Selectra Vision laser disc players on the market.
Wednesday, March 21, 2018
LIBERTY REVIEW
LIBERTY REVIEW:
https://libertyreview76.blogspot.com/2018/03/freedom-of-speech-by-tammy-derouin-isnt.html
https://libertyreview76.blogspot.com/2018/03/freedom-of-speech-by-tammy-derouin-isnt.html
Freedom of Speech
By Tammy Derouin
Isn't it wonderful to live in a country
where you have freedom and rights? The Bill of Rights alone, is full
of examples as to why we are an exceptional nation. The Constitution
is a liberating document, which should not be taken for granted. We
live in a country where you have the freedom to think for yourself,
form your own opinions and live as you choose, as long as it doesn't
infringe on the rights of others. You do not have to agree with the
status quo, fall in lock step with a political agenda or those who
hold office.
It has become increasingly concerning
to have so many individuals believe that our God-given rights are
somehow tied to a political agenda. Freedom of speech, for instance,
is under attack by those on the political Left. Unless you are
pushing a liberal left-wing agenda, prepare to be attacked. Many,
who are center to right on the political scale, have been shouted
down and have been prevented from speaking at public forums. They
have also been called all sorts of creative names, all because they
do not agree with a stifling, left-wing agenda.
Individuals who ask questions, want
transparency (but not the Obama era definition of the word), the
government to be held accountable for their actions, want to protect
our home from those who wish to destroy it and want to preserve our
freedom for future generations, have become the target of the Left.
The Left does not embrace freedom. They say they do but if you do
not agree with their agenda, your freedom to speak, think or act is
not important and it's disregarded.
If you truly embrace freedom and the
rights of others and believe that everyone has the right to form
their own opinion, why would you want to stop them from speaking? Why
does the Left come unhinged with anyone who speaks against their
agenda? I want to hear what an individual stands for and believes.
I will decide if it makes sense.......
Victor Davis Hanson--Scandal Questions Never Asked, Much Less Answered - American Greatness
Scandal Questions Never Asked, Much Less Answered - American Greatness
"Sometimes the hysteria of crowds causes them to overlook the obvious.
Here is a series of 12 questions that do not seem to trouble anyone, but the answers to these should expose why so many of the people today alleging scandals should themselves be considered scandalous.
"Sometimes the hysteria of crowds causes them to overlook the obvious.
Here is a series of 12 questions that do not seem to trouble anyone, but the answers to these should expose why so many of the people today alleging scandals should themselves be considered scandalous.
- 1) Had Hillary Clinton won the election, would we now even know of a Fusion GPS dossier? Would assorted miscreants such as Andrew McCabe, Bruce Ohr, Lisa Page, Glenn Simpson, Christopher Steele, or Peter Strzok now be under a cloud of suspicion? Or would they instead have been quietly lionized by a President Clinton grateful for noble services in the shadows rendered during the campaign?
- 2) If Clinton had won, would we now know of any Russian-supplied smears against Donald Trump? Would a FISA judge now be complaining that he was misled in a warrant request? Would likely Attorney General Loretta Lynch be reassigning Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr for his consultations with Fusion GPS operatives? Or would Russian operatives alone be likely, at an opportune moment, to threaten to leak to the media that they had given salacious material to Clinton operatives to ensure her election, and thus they were to be owed for their supposed help in ensuring a Clinton victory? Would anyone be now listening to a losing candidate Donald Trump making wild charges that he had been smeared in the closing days of his campaign by leaks of a Clinton cabal that drew on Russian help?
- 3) Are any Russian related interests currently still donating millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation? Why is Bill Clinton not being asked to speak by various groups—including those with Russian-ties—for $500,000 and above per talk? Is he now less persuasive than he was between 2009 and 2015?
Read on!!
Amy Wax's Affirmative Action Truth Telling | National Review
Amy Wax's Affirmative Action Truth Telling | National Review
"One of the chief criticisms of affirmative action is that it devalues credentials that minorities could otherwise use to distinguish themselves.
If college admissions were purely merit-based, employers would have no reason to discount an impressive degree just because it is held by a black or Hispanic applicant.
"One of the chief criticisms of affirmative action is that it devalues credentials that minorities could otherwise use to distinguish themselves.
If college admissions were purely merit-based, employers would have no reason to discount an impressive degree just because it is held by a black or Hispanic applicant.
Under our system of racial preferences, however, it is not merely understandable but rational to suspect that minority applicants are less qualified than their paper credentials imply.
For some proponents of affirmative action, the response to this problem is simple — ban those rational thoughts!
Everyone must act as if we have a purely merit-based admissions system, even though everyone knows that we do not.
The success of affirmative action depends on it.
University of Pennsylvania law professor Amy Wax refuses to go along with the charade, and now she’s in trouble for it.
University of Pennsylvania law professor Amy Wax refuses to go along with the charade, and now she’s in trouble for it.
As part of a critique of race-based admissions, Professor Wax observed that black students at Penn Law “rarely” graduate in the top half of their class.
Her observation is almost certainly correct, but Penn Law dean Ted Ruger declaredit false without providing any evidence.
(And he has access to the evidence, so his failure to reveal it is telling.)
Worse, he forbade Professor Wax from teaching any mandatory first-year courses.
His reasoning:
This is almost Orwellian in its blame-shifting.In light of Professor Wax’s statements, black students assigned to her class in their first week at Penn Law may reasonably wonder whether their professor has already come to a conclusion about their presence, performance, and potential for success in law school and thereafter. They may legitimately question whether the inaccurate and belittling statements she has made may adversely affect their learning environment and career prospects. These students may also reasonably feel an additional and unwarranted burden to perform well, so that their performance not be used or misused by their professor in public discourse about racial inequality in academic success. More broadly, this dynamic may negatively affect the classroom experience for all students regardless of race or background.
All of the problems listed by Dean Ruger are the direct result of Penn’s affirmative-action policies. Those policies generate a racial skills gap in Penn’s first-year law class, and Professor Wax has merely voiced what every rational observer already knows..."
Read on!!!
States Win Another Major Case Against Obamacare | The Heritage Foundation
States Win Another Major Case Against Obamacare | The Heritage Foundation:
"six states led by Texas have won another round against the Obama administration implementation of Obamacare.
Judge Reed O’Connor, a federal judge in Texas, threw out the Obama administration’s imposition of a federal fee or tax on states as a condition of continuing to receive Medicaid funds. O’Conner ruled March 5 that the fee violates the non-delegation doctrine of the Constitution and the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act."
"six states led by Texas have won another round against the Obama administration implementation of Obamacare.
Judge Reed O’Connor, a federal judge in Texas, threw out the Obama administration’s imposition of a federal fee or tax on states as a condition of continuing to receive Medicaid funds. O’Conner ruled March 5 that the fee violates the non-delegation doctrine of the Constitution and the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act."
University orders student groups to ban members for ‘discriminatory’ behavior - The College Fix
University orders student groups to ban members for ‘discriminatory’ behavior - The College Fix: "School does not appear to define such behavior, does not have official ‘process’ for removal
Starting next fall, George Washington University in Washington, DC will require student organizations to ban group members accused of “discriminatory” behavior, though the school apparently has not explicitly defined what constitutes “discrimination” in this context.
Nor does the university have a standardized “member removal process” in place, instead ordering that each organization come up with a specific procedure in order to implement the university’s mandate.
It is unclear how student groups will determine what constitutes a removable offense..."
Read on!
Starting next fall, George Washington University in Washington, DC will require student organizations to ban group members accused of “discriminatory” behavior, though the school apparently has not explicitly defined what constitutes “discrimination” in this context.
Nor does the university have a standardized “member removal process” in place, instead ordering that each organization come up with a specific procedure in order to implement the university’s mandate.
It is unclear how student groups will determine what constitutes a removable offense..."
Read on!
The Fight Over Teacher Salaries: A Look At The Numbers : NPR Ed : NPR
The Fight Over Teacher Salaries: A Look At The Numbers : NPR Ed : NPR
Does NOT include benefits.
Quality of instruction.
Or pay/hour worked.
But you will see this bandied about so be prepared!
Does NOT include benefits.
Quality of instruction.
Or pay/hour worked.
But you will see this bandied about so be prepared!
Hillary Clinton Is Sorry You 'Misunderstood' Her Quip About Husbands Forcing Wives To Vote Trump | Daily Wire
Hillary Clinton Is Sorry You 'Misunderstood' Her Quip About Husbands Forcing Wives To Vote Trump | Daily Wire:
"The wording is key; Clinton isn't actually sorry for what she said. She's sorry for how insulted you were by it (but that's definitely your fault). She also claims her quote about women was said "in passing," and not as a response to a question from the event's moderator."
"The wording is key; Clinton isn't actually sorry for what she said. She's sorry for how insulted you were by it (but that's definitely your fault). She also claims her quote about women was said "in passing," and not as a response to a question from the event's moderator."
Re-education camps!-----Kindergarten Teachers Make Students Walk Out for Gun Control
Kindergarten Teachers Make Students Walk Out for Gun Control:
"...For teachers in Connecticut who are doucheburgers, they think five-years-old is the perfect age for leftist exploitation.
Thankfully, the teachers had some class (no pun intended) and didn’t mention school shootings during playtime.
The kids thought they were going outside to wave at cars.
"...For teachers in Connecticut who are doucheburgers, they think five-years-old is the perfect age for leftist exploitation.
Thankfully, the teachers had some class (no pun intended) and didn’t mention school shootings during playtime.
The kids thought they were going outside to wave at cars.
The teachers were the ones with the anti-gun rights signs.
Note: ...Click the full-screen button to view the stupid in full glory.
New London Interim Superintendent Dr. Stephen Tracy said he didn’t have a problem with the safety message, but he and the principal didn’t know about the march ahead of time and there was no written permission from parents.One student’s grandmother, Helene Thomas, said she found out about the march through word-of-mouth.The video drummed up some negative opinions from parents at the school.Harbor Elementary’s crossing guard Joyce Powers said she saw the children escorted in two lines by teachers who were carrying signs that read “enough.”“I thought it was pushing it with that age group,” Powers said. “I don’t think they understood what was actually happening.”Tracy said he’s talked to the two teachers involved but would not say if any disciplinary measures were taken.
Read on!
Why Are We Only Now Talking About Facebook And Elections?
Why Are We Only Now Talking About Facebook And Elections?
"As I wrote earlier today, the story of Cambridge Analytica that the press, public and elected officials seem to have fixated on is that of a rogue company run amok with breached data that manipulated unwitting Americans into electing the candidate of the company’s choice (the company denies all of the allegations).
A key thread of the narrative over the last three days has centered on the alleged impact of the company’s data analysis on the 2016 presidential election with the undertone that if true, the company’s actions somehow represent something new and unsettling in using data to advance a political campaign.
To add a bit of perspective to this debate, it is worth looking back at two key ways in which the Obama campaign pioneered the modern data-driven campaign that is at the center of the Cambridge Analytica debate.
At the time of his election and reelection, Obama’s data analytics researchers were heralded as technology heroes for the way they modernized how political campaigns wrangle data in the pursuit of votes.
Outlets sang their praises as “digital masterminds” and lauded their “unorthodox” approaches..."
Read it all!
"As I wrote earlier today, the story of Cambridge Analytica that the press, public and elected officials seem to have fixated on is that of a rogue company run amok with breached data that manipulated unwitting Americans into electing the candidate of the company’s choice (the company denies all of the allegations).
A key thread of the narrative over the last three days has centered on the alleged impact of the company’s data analysis on the 2016 presidential election with the undertone that if true, the company’s actions somehow represent something new and unsettling in using data to advance a political campaign.
To add a bit of perspective to this debate, it is worth looking back at two key ways in which the Obama campaign pioneered the modern data-driven campaign that is at the center of the Cambridge Analytica debate.
At the time of his election and reelection, Obama’s data analytics researchers were heralded as technology heroes for the way they modernized how political campaigns wrangle data in the pursuit of votes.
Outlets sang their praises as “digital masterminds” and lauded their “unorthodox” approaches..."
Read it all!
A bunch of chumps!-----Media Freaks After Trump Congratulates Putin | The Daily Caller
Media Freaks After Trump Congratulates Putin | The Daily Caller:
"Members of the media and a Democratic congressman freaked out over President Donald Trump congratulating Russian president Vladimir Putin on his electoral victory.
Unfortunately for them, President Barack Obama did the same thing when he was in office.
Trump confirmed on Tuesday that he called Putin to congratulate him on his win in the latest election. The election was hardly free and fair, but there is precedent for U.S. presidents making the same diplomatic move to congratulate Putin.
In 2012, according to the White House, “President Obama called Russian President-elect and Prime Minister Putin to congratulate him on his recent victory in the Russian Presidential election.”...
“Trump just congratulated [Putin] on his ‘re-election,'” Rep. Ruben Gallego said with snark, despite the fact that his own former party leader made the same move..."
"Members of the media and a Democratic congressman freaked out over President Donald Trump congratulating Russian president Vladimir Putin on his electoral victory.
Unfortunately for them, President Barack Obama did the same thing when he was in office.
Trump confirmed on Tuesday that he called Putin to congratulate him on his win in the latest election. The election was hardly free and fair, but there is precedent for U.S. presidents making the same diplomatic move to congratulate Putin.
In 2012, according to the White House, “President Obama called Russian President-elect and Prime Minister Putin to congratulate him on his recent victory in the Russian Presidential election.”...
Both Trump and Kim Jong Un have now congratulated Putin on his election win.
the Kremlin put out its summary of Putin's phone call with Trump before the White House did, saying that Trump congratulated Putin on winning his authoritarian "election" https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/world/wp/2018/03/20/trump-congratulates-putin-on-election-discusses-meeting-to-overcome-piled-up-problems-in-u-s-russian-relations-kremlin-says/ …
Read all!
Nolte: 9 Democrat Lawmakers with Ties to Anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan
Nolte: 9 Democrat Lawmakers with Ties to Anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan:
"Washington, DC, lawmaker Trayon White (D-Ward 8) is publicly blaming the Jews for creating the kind of weather conditions that will allow them to “own the cities”; thus, we can again see that anti-Semitism is a serious problem within the Democrat Party — that this hatred is tolerated, most especially, by a national media that do everything in their power to protect their allies on the political left.
Therefore, this seems like a good time to look at all the elected Democrats associated with Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, a rabid and open anti-Semite."
"Washington, DC, lawmaker Trayon White (D-Ward 8) is publicly blaming the Jews for creating the kind of weather conditions that will allow them to “own the cities”; thus, we can again see that anti-Semitism is a serious problem within the Democrat Party — that this hatred is tolerated, most especially, by a national media that do everything in their power to protect their allies on the political left.
Therefore, this seems like a good time to look at all the elected Democrats associated with Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, a rabid and open anti-Semite."
If parents give up on their community, if they aren't engaged and involved, they give up on their kids.
Fans of Best of the Web Today:
"I've been giving a lot of thought to the morphology of the school shooters/kid murders and while my take on how these kids develop is not fully formed, a few thoughts are rising to the top (in no particular order):
- If parents give up on their community, if they aren't engaged and involved, they give up on their kids.
- If parents give up on their schools, if they totally abdicate their responsibility for teaching to the schools, they give up on their kids.
- If parents focus more on the activities their kids do rather than how the kids grow from the experiences, they give up on their kids - kids should learn to lose and be disappointed before they become adults...and parents should help them learn how to deal with loss and disappointment.
- If parents give up on their church, if religious tenets are not taught in the home, they give up on their kids.
- If parents give up on discipline and order in their home, they give up on their kids.
- If parents give up on their family, if they give up on being together and stop trying to be more than just a bunch of people who live at the same address, they give up on their kids.
- If parents give up on each other, and not being married makes this far easier to do, they give up on their kids. Redefining the traditional nuclear, two-parent, heterosexual family isn't really working out..."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)