PC insanity at Pomona College


Politically correct leftists are at their happiest when condescending to white people. White people don’t understand and need to be told what to think and how to behave.

In this new academic year, new students at Pomona College were welcomed to campus with posters counseling them on “How to be a (Better) White Ally,” reports student newspaper the Claremont IndependentThe signs insist that white people should “acknowledge your privilege” and “apologize if you’ve offended someone,” advising them against supposedly offensive language like the words “sassy” and “riot,” which are “racially coded.”

The paper describes the poster further:

“Everyone is problematic and even the most educated and well-intentioned people will screw up,” the poster states. The sign then gives three steps for white allies to follow:

  1. Be prepared to make mistakes.
  2. Listen and apologize.
  3. Make sure to change.

“Remember, just because POC [person of color] #1 isn’t offended by something, does not mean that POC #2 will not be offended by it either.”

The poster goes on to states that “social justice is about BOTH elevating oppressed groups and simultaneously unpacking the privilege of dominant groups. These aspects are equally as important!” Additionally, the sign claims that all white people are racist. “Understand that you are white, so it is inevitable that you have unconsciously learned racism,” states the poster. “Your unearned advantage must be acknowledged and your racism unlearned.”

It’s exhausting and dumb. If you’re white, you’re damned if you do and damned if you don’t.

Pomona is one member of Claremont Colleges, a consortium of five undergraduate schools (known as the 5Cs) and two graduate schools located in Claremont, which is between Los Angeles and San Bernardino. The other four undergraduate member colleges are Scripps, Claremont McKenna, Harvey Mudd, and Pitzer. All five undergraduate colleges are afflicted by a group called The 5C Students of Color Alliance which wants racially segregated “safe spaces” off-limits to white students created.

Scripps College openly encourages students to hate white people.

“Anger is a legitimate response to oppression, as is sadness, fear, frustration, exhaustion, and a general distaste or hatred of white people,” write the student authors of the college’s student handbook. The 217-page exercise in PC brainwashing is supposed to help new students adjust to Scripps College.

All of this is yet another reminder that you shouldn’t give money to American universities.

Let them starve.

When they die, we can start over again.

(photo source: http://claremontindependent.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Screen-Shot-2016-09-06-at-11.31.16-AM1.png)

Share this post!

John Kerry’s daughter scores $9 million from State Department

Vanessa Kerry

In excess of $9 million in U.S. Department of State money was funneled through the Peace Corps to a charity founded by Secretary of State John Kerry’s daughter, the Daily Caller reports:

The Department of State funded a Peace Corps program created by Dr. Vanessa Kerry and officials from both agencies, records show. The Peace Corps then awarded the money without competition to a nonprofit Kerry created for the program.

Initially, the Peace Corps awarded Kerry’s group — now called Seed Global Health — with a three-year contract worth $2 million of State Department money on Sept. 10, 2012, documents show. Her father was then the chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, which oversees both the Department of State and the Peace Corps.

Seed secured a four-year extension in September 2015, again without competition. This time, the Peace Corps gave the nonprofit $6.4 million provided by the Department of State while John Kerry was secretary of state.

Seed also received almost $1 million from a modification to the first award, as well as from Department of State funds the group secured outside the Peace Corps.

According to its website, Seed Global Health is a Boston-based 501(c)(3) nonprofit.

Its mission statement: “We strive to strengthen health education and delivery in places facing a dire shortage of health professionals by working with partner countries to meet their long-term health care human resource needs.”

Anyway, without going into details, all of this seems fishy.

Read the whole article at the Daily Caller.

(photo credit: Itajt9 at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanessa_Kerry#/media/File:Vanessa_Bradford_Kerry.jpg)

Share this post!

Impeachment of IRS Commissar John Koskinen begins


House conservatives formally introduced a resolution yesterday aimed at removing the defiantly corrupt IRS Commissioner John Koskinen from office. The impeachment resolution could see a vote this week.

Rep. John Fleming, R-La., a sponsor of the resolution, offered the measure under special procedures that put the House of Representatives on track to vote Thursday. on the effort.

As Fox News reports:

Conservatives say Koskinen hampered Congress’ effort to investigate the IRS for tough assessments of Tea Party groups that sought tax exemptions several years ago. Koskinen denies that.

“For years the IRS has abused its power to target people based on their political views. Commissioner John Koskinen not only did nothing about it, but continued the trend of deception by deliberately keeping Congress and the American people in the dark,” Fleming said in a statement Tuesday. “To date no one has been held accountable and no one will unless we move forward with a resolution to require a vote on his impeachment.”

It’s a worthy cause. Koskinen has long been out of control.

Incidentally, Joely Friedman looked at the IRS targeting scandal in the March 2016 issue of Organization Trends.

To no one’s surprise, left-winger Norm Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute attacks efforts to hold Koskinen accountable. Long an apologist for corruption, Ornstein assumes the motives of Koskinen and the IRS were pure and attacks Republicans for trying to do something about this cretin who should be rotting in prison.

Ornstein wrote previously at the worthless Atlantic magazine website that

The Republican reaction to the IRS bungling was a clever and sustained effort to use the hated agency as a way to mobilize an angry constituency on the right, to enhance turnout in subsequent elections, and to raise money. The effort already succeeded at intimidating the agency—including Koskinen—from developing a new clear and appropriate standard, a bright line test, for achieving 501(c)4 designation, and even got the IRS, in a move that defies the law and common sense, to accept Crossroads GPS as a social-welfare organization.

There is a broader motive here, coming from radical forces that want to blow up all of government as we know it. Intimidating, undermining, and destroying the IRS’s capacity to carry out its role, to collect all the tax money that’s owed, to starve government, makes all agencies perform more poorly, and leads to a backlash against government. The poor service that results from cutting personnel also alienates taxpayers, frustrates their efforts to keep up with tax law, and makes it easier to evade the law.

Blah blah blah. It’s garbage. Nobody’s trying to kill the IRS.

(photo credit: Paul Morigi Photography, April 8, 2015,  https://www.flickr.com/photos/96739999@N05/17224623735)

Share this post!

Katie Couric sued for $12 million for defamation for anti-gun agitprop flick


TV personality Katie Couric is being sued for $12 million for defamation in connection with a celluloid hatchet job that attacks the Second Amendment, Bearing Arms reports.

The movie that makes it appear as if members of the Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL) couldn’t answer a simple question is called Under the Gun.

According to what appears to be a statement issued by the plaintiffs’ law firm:

The film portrays a fictional exchange in which members of the VCDL appear silent, stumped, and avoiding eye contact for nearly nine seconds after Katie Couric asks a question about background checks. An unedited audio recording of the interview reveals that—contrary to the portrayal in the film—the VCDL members had immediately begun responding to Couric’s question.

In the filing, the VCDL, Daniel L. Hawes, Esq., and Patricia Webb allege that the filmmakers knowingly and maliciously manufactured the fictional exchange by splicing in footage that the filmmakers took surreptitiously after telling the interviewees to be silent for ten seconds so that recording equipment could be calibrated. The filing also contains side-by-side screenshots of the film’s footage of the VCDL members and anti-gun advocates, alleging that the filmmakers manipulated lighting to cast shadows on the VCDL members and to make them appear sinister and untrustworthy. “We were horrified to see how Couric and her team manipulated us and the video footage to make us look like fools who didn’t stand up for the Second Amendment,” said Mr. Philip Van Cleave, President of the VCDL. “We want to set the record straight and hold them accountable for what they’ve done. You shouldn’t intentionally misrepresent someone’s views just because you disagree with them.”

I’m no lawyer but the litigation seems like a long shot. Even so these propagandists need to be taught a lesson.

By the way, Couric is shown in the above photo at the Under the Gun premiere at the Samuel Goldwyn Theater on May 3 this year in Beverly Hills, Calif. The director of the film is  Stephanie Soechtig.

(photo credit: Helga Esteb / Shutterstock.com)

Share this post!

The deplorable basketcases of the race-baiting Left


You have to be careful when dealing with Jamelle Bouie, chief political correspondent at Slate.

He is one of those leftists who takes it upon himself to define what is and is not racist. In short, he believes left-wingers cannot be racist. In other words he lies for a living. To him, minorities cannot be racist . Racism is an accusation that can only be leveled by those without power against those who have it. Of course black Americans, like Bouie, cannot be racist, the thinking goes, because they do not have power.

It’s a heads-I-win/tails-you-lose proposition. Unless you’re the “right” color, you are not allowed to talk about racism, and this includes when defending yourself from accusations of racism. It’s an argument ender.

After Hillary Clinton smeared a huge chunk of the electorate, that is, half of those who support her opponent Republican Donald Trump, at a fancy Manhattan fundraiser Friday, Bouie leapt to her defense even as she began backpedaling.

First let’s recap what Clinton said.

To just be grossly generalistic you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic—you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up.

But the other basket—and I know this because I see friends from all over America here … but that other basket are people who feel that the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures—they’re just desperate for change. Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well.

Clinton was wrong to back away from this harsh characterization, argues Bouie.

“Last night I was ‘grossly generalistic,’ and that’s never a good idea. I regret saying ’half’—that was wrong,” Clinton said in a statement.

Bouie opined:

But “half” wasn’t wrong. “Half” wasn’t a gross generalization at all. “Half” was by all indications close to the truth.

When pollsters and researchers want to measure racial bias, they don’t ask if respondents are “racist”; the stigma of being a racist is strong enough that most people won’t answer honestly, to say nothing of the fact that racial prejudice exists on a continuum. A binary answer doesn’t capture the complexity of bias and bigotry. Instead, they ask proxy questions that try to capture attitudes associated with racism. One such question—asked in multiple surveys by Public Policy Polling, a Democratic polling firm—is whether respondents believe President Obama was born in the United States and whether they believe he’s a Muslim. These questions begin to scratch the surface of racial bias. And what are the results? In one survey, two-thirds of Republicans with a favorable opinion of Donald Trump said that Obama is a Muslim, and 59 percent said he wasn’t born in the United States.

Regardless of what Bouie says, it is not racist to believe (i) Barack Obama was born outside the United States or that (ii) Barack Obama is a Muslim. The burden is on these race-obsessed propagandists like Bouie to prove racism. The late Andrew Breitbart had the correct response to unfounded allegations of racism.

Obama is a Marxist so he almost certainly is an atheist or an agnostic. Regardless of his faith or lack of it he himself has provided his critics ammunition.

Continue reading →

Share this post!

Non-citizens are on the voter rolls


The Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) has discovered that hundreds of non-citizens have been on the voter rolls in Virginia.

In a pending lawsuit the City of Alexandria and the Virginia State Board of Elections are trying to undermine PILF’s efforts to uncover the full extent of the problem, the foundation states in a press release.

Hans A. von Spakovsky, Senior Legal Fellow at the Heritage Foundation, explains the situation at Conservative Review:

Election integrity foes mistakenly tell us voter fraud is a myth. So when legitimate voter fraud is actually discovered, these foes pretend it didn’t happen, fail to take any steps to investigate or prosecute such cases, or, even worse, try to cover it up. Take Virginia, where the State Board of Elections and some local election officials want to hide a blatant case of voter fraud involving noncitizens.

When non-citizens register or actually vote, they violate both state and federal statutes because citizenship is a requirement to vote in both state and federal elections. Falsely claiming to be a citizen on a voter registration form is a felony that violates three different federal statutes. Voting by a non-citizen under 18 U.S.C. §611 is a strict liability offense. In other words, it “does not require proof that the offender was aware that citizenship is a prerequisite to voting.” Article II, Section 1 of the Virginia constitution requires a voter to be a citizen, and §24.2-1004 of the Virginia Code makes it a felony to vote when you are “not qualified to vote” in the state. So you would think state and local election officials would treat these crimes with appropriate seriousness. Guess again.

When I was a member of the Fairfax County Electoral Board in Virginia, we discovered close to 300 non-citizens who had illegally registered in our county, about half of whom had also illegally voted in prior elections. We removed those individuals from the voter rolls and forwarded their files to both the Commonwealth Attorney (Virginia’s equivalent of the county district attorney) and the U.S. Justice Department for investigation and prosecution. Neither took any action to enforce the law against these non-citizens.

Fast forward to April of this year when the Virginia Voters Alliance and a Virginia voter (David Norcross) filed a lawsuit against the city of Alexandria, Va., claiming that the general registrar, Anna Leider, was violating the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA).The lawsuit charged that Leider failed to make her records related to the city’s voter-list maintenance procedures available for public inspection, which would obviously include all information about the removal of ineligible voters.

The Alliance also claimed Leider was not conducting the reasonable list-maintenance procedures mandated by the NVRA to clean up the rolls by removing the names of registered voters who are deceased, have moved, or are otherwise ineligible to vote (like non-citizens). As a result of the lawsuit, the Alliance was finally able to get into Leider’s office and inspect the voter registration records. Among the items they discovered was a list containing several hundred registrants who had been removed from the voter rolls because they were not U.S. citizens.

Read the full article at Conservative Review.

Spakovsky, by the way, is co-author of  Who’s Counting? How Fraudsters and Bureaucrats Put Your Vote at Risk, along with John Fund.

Share this post!

Liberal bullies attack Matt Lauer to intimidate Lester Holt


The professional Left is attacking NBC’s Matt Lauer for his performance as moderator at the Commander-in-Chief Forum in New York this week.

These people are doing this in order to intimidate Lester Holt (pictured above) into being hard on Republican candidate Donald Trump when he moderates the first presidential debate on Sept. 26. It is sending Holt and other moderators for upcoming debates an unmistakable message: play ball or somebody will get a dead fish in the mail.

That’s how these thugs operate.

In my view Lauer wasn’t great at the forum on Wednesday but he wasn’t awful either. The man was under intense pressure and it seems like he was trying to be fair on the whole. The media piling on is ridiculous. Lauer is no Candy Crowley.

But the way left-wingers look at it, asking Democrat candidate Hillary Clinton real, probing questions is somehow unfair. How dare they!

Continue reading →

Share this post!

Breaking: Donald Trump promises to repeal church-muzzling Johnson Amendment


Republican candidate Donald Trump pledged at the Values Voter Summit in Washington, D.C., to repeal the Johnson Amendment.

“We’re gonna get rid of it,” Trump said.

“I figure it’s the only way I’ll get into heaven,” he quipped.

The Johnson Amendment is a circa 1954 amendment to the U.S. tax code that blocked tax-exempt organizations from endorsing or opposing political candidates. Evangelicals and other people of faith object to the law because it prevents churches — along with other tax-exempt institutions — from political organizing.

“All section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office,” according to the IRS website. “Violating this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes.”

This isn’t the first time on the campaign trail Trump has vowed to dump the law.  The campaign was pushing the idea during the Republican National Convention in Cleveland in July.

“They understand the importance of religious organizations and nonprofits, but religious organizations in particular which is what the Johnson Amendment affects, to have the ability to speak freely, and that they should not live in fear of the IRS,” Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, said previously. “That is a priority in the platform, and from the Trump folks, it is a priority of the campaign, and will be a priority of the administration.” (Family Research Council is the principal sponsor of the Values Voter Summit which is held annually.)

Most groups on the Left don’t want the Johnson Amendment rescinded. Left-wingers claim that Republicans wants to make churches the new super PACs.

America is “in serious, serious trouble,” Trump also said. “Our media culture often mocks and demeans people of faith,” whose “values of love, charity and faith built this nation.”

(Note: This post was updated several times.)

(photo credit: Renata Sedmakova / Shutterstock.com)

Share this post!

Lynne Stewart slithers back into the spotlight


Having conned a federal judge into granting her compassionate release two years ago, America-hating terrorist lawyer Lynne Stewart is back to her old tricks.

Michelle Malkin writes:

Old age and illness have not dulled the tongue or treasonous soul of convicted jihad-enabling lawyer Lynne Stewart. She’s as vile and violence-promoting as ever.

Freed from prison two years ago on “compassionate release” after being diagnosed with advanced breast cancer, the flaming 76-year-old radical is still championing left-wing massacres against the police. And still kicking America in the teeth.

The Associated Press reported over the holiday weekend that the mouthy menace remains stubbornly devoted to “armed struggle.”

Of course Stewart, long a love object of the Center for Constitutional Rights, once referred to the 9/11 terrorist attacks as an example of “armed struggle.”

Now she hails the Black Lives Matter-inspired killers who gunned down police officers in Dallas and Baton Rouge this summer as noble freedom fighters.

“They are avengers,” Stewart said. “They spoke for some of us when they did that.”

“They are not brazen, crazed, you know, insane killers,” she said. “They are avenging deaths that are never and have never been avenged since the ’60s and ’70s.”

Stewart was released from prison in January 2014 after being diagnosed with terminal breast cancer. She was supposed to stay caged until 2018.

I’ve written about this evil waste of skin many times.

Stewart was convicted in 2005 of providing material support to terrorists. While acting as legal counsel to Omar Abdel-Rahman (a.k.a. the Blind Sheikh) she illegally relayed a message from this man who masterminded the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. The communiqué, from a prisoner who was held incommunicado specifically to prevent him from directing terrorist activities from his prison cell, was “the blessing of a return to violence from a terrorist leader,” prosecutor Anthony Barkow said. In it,  Abdel-Rahman urged his disciples in Al-Gama’a al-Islamiyya (a.k.a. The Islamic Group), to abandon a ceasefire with the government of Egypt and resume terrorist operations.

Stewart likens American conservatives to the theocratic totalitarians of the Islamic world who abuse women, treating them as chattel. “The American right,” she said, “is certainly anti-woman, anti-inclusiveness, and I certainly oppose that here in my own country for my own sake, for my children’s sake, for the way I want to live.”

Stewart should never have been released early from prison.

Share this post!

Goldman Sachs bans donations to Trump-Pence 2016


Goldman Sachs, the international investment bank that is under more or less continuous government investigation, has forbidden senior employees from giving money to the Trump-Pence campaign.

But these wizards of Wall Street drew the new rule up in such a way that they can claim they are not trying to elect Hillary Clinton president.

Fortune reports:

The rules kicked in Sept. 1 and will apply only to partners of the firm. The memo detailing the rule change was first reported by Politico. The firm says the rules were meant to remove any implication of so-called “pay to play.” Four years ago, the bank paid $12 million to settle charges that a former Boston-based banker had picked up bond underwriting business in the state while working for and contributing funds to the campaign of a then Massachusetts state treasurer and governor-hopeful, Tim Cahill.

But the people in the Trump campaign are sure to question the timing. That’s because the rules ban donations to politicians running for state or local offices, as well as donations to state officials who are seeking federal office. That makes campaign contributions to the Trump-Pence ticket a no-no. Pence is the current governor of Indiana.

While oppressive, this new rule is not all that surprising. Everybody knows Goldman Sachs is solid Democrat territory. CEO Lloyd Blankfein is a hardcore Democrat and he’s far from alone at the company. And we know Hillary gave speeches to Goldman audiences for quite a bit of money and refuses to release transcripts of what she said.

As I’ve written before, Goldman Sachs is the Left’s favorite bank. It abhors free markets with a Mussolini-like zeal. Like Il Duce and his less thuggish imitators in the welfare wasteland of modern Europe, Goldman stands for centrally managed markets, provided that it gets to make the rules.

Goldman thrives on complexity and backroom dealing. It reaps huge profits from regulations that place its smaller, less politically nimble competitors at a disadvantage.

So it should surprise no one that Goldman favors increased regulation of the economy as a matter of policy and that its leaders love Hillary Clinton.

The Open Secrets website shows that Goldman employees overwhelmingly favor Hillary over The Donald. As of June 27, Goldman people have given ZERO dollars to benefit Trump, compared to $201,119 given to benefit Clinton.

The rule comes a few weeks after Goldman was fined (well, technically, reached a settlement to pay) $36.3 million for obtaining and using confidential regulatory materials from the Fed two years ago. The $36.3 million figure amounts to one-tenth of one percent of the firm’s 2015 revenue of $33.8 billion.

(photo credit: Benguhan / Shutterstock.com)

Share this post!