News of the Day

Government action comes only at the cost of personal liberty

Subscribe to FixThisNation feed
Every Voice Counts
Updated: 2 hours 41 min ago

Silly: College Holds Halloween Workshop to Ward Off Offensive Costumes

9 hours 39 min ago

It’s that time of year again, where we get to sit back and watch liberals go completely off their rockers in an absurd attempt to take political correctness to new heights of insanity. No holiday brings out the worst in the left like Halloween, where dressing up in costume has suddenly become a perilous activity fraught with innumerable minefields of offensiveness. Between racism, cultural appropriation, and joke costumes that just AREN’T FUNNY, the left is only a couple of years away from declaring a full-scale ban on the holiday.

Isn’t it funny? Thirty years ago, it was Christian conservative parents who hated Halloween. My, how times have changed.

In any event, here’s a Halloween spectacle courtesy of The College Fix. Apparently, the University of Southern Indiana held a workshop last week called “Culture Not Costumes” in which students were presented with a video, four flyers, and an activity to help them understand how and why they should go about dressing up for Halloween in an inoffensive way.

From an insider’s account of the silliness:

The two videos about people dressing up in “inappropriate costumes” included one on people donning Japanese prostitute costumes and a second on Native Americans. The words “very disrespectful” came up, a lot.

The lecture … uh, presentation, continued with the handouts.

The first described cultural appropriation, defining it as “the taking of intellectual property, knowledge, and cultural expression from someone else’s culture without permission.”

It goes on to provide examples of what cultural appropriation looks like “when it comes to first nations.” Examples included: hipsters wearing headdresses, dressing up as “Pocahotties” and “sexy Indian Princesses.”

The second handout portrays a short yes/no flowchart questionnaire to determine if a costume culturally appropriates. If it does, you’re directed to “go back and start at the beginning” until you get it right.

Man, it’s really sad when you think about all those years – decades – in which Americans were just wildly dressing up in any way they wanted on Halloween while millions of minorities were suffering. Imagine all of the Japanese/Native Americans/Mexicans/Transgenders/Aztecs/Wiccans/etc. people who spent Oct. 31 after Oct. 31 wailing in private about the horribleness of it all, unable to speak out because of that enormous, impenetrable wall of white privilege!

Or…maybe none of that was actually happening? Maybe this is just another made-up thing for stupid college kids have invented to get upset about? Noooo, it couldn’t be! We’re sure it’s all very real and very important, because why else would we see this on campus after campus and all over the internet? If it’s as silly as it seems, that would mean we’re getting ready for a world where tomorrow’s leaders have no idea how to distinguish between a trivial issue and one that actually matters. And since that’s far more frightening than any Halloween costume, we’ll just force ourselves to believe this is very, very serious. It’s better that way.

Socialized Medicine: Britain Bans Obese, Smokers From Getting Surgery

Thu, 10/19/2017 - 08:46

The largest and oldest single-payer healthcare system in the world, Britain’s National Health Service has announced that they will no longer provide non-urgent surgery to patients who smoke or patients who are above a certain BMI. The decision comes as the health services is suffering from a critical shortfall in funding and looking for ways to pinch pennies in advance of a financial crisis. To little surprise, the announcement was immediately met with intense pushback from the British public, the Royal College of Surgeons, and many others who see no reason why taxpaying Brits should be suddenly refused the services they fund.

The new rules were developed by clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) in Hertfordshire. Under the regulatory guidelines, obese patients will be compelled to lose weight before being given the green light for surgery. Likewise, smokers will have to prove that they had their last cigarette at least eight weeks prior to going under the knife. Hospitals will test these patients with breathalyzer kits to ensure compliance with the standards.

According to the CCGs, the new rules will compel Brits “to take more responsibility for their own health and well being, freeing up limited NHS resources for priority treatment.” The local CCGs are trying to save upwards of £68m this fiscal year, though they deny that the rules are a cost-saving measure.

“Singling out patients in this way goes against the principles of the NHS,” Royal College of Surgeons Vice President Ian Eardley told the UK Telegraph. “This goes against clinical guidelines and leaves patients waiting long periods of time in pain and discomfort. It can lead to even worse outcomes following surgery in some cases. There is simply no justification for these policies, and we urge all clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) to urgently reverse these discriminatory measures.”

American proponents of universal healthcare schemes like those proposed by Bernie Sanders would do well to take a long, hard look at this and think about whether or not this is the right direction for U.S. healthcare. Do we really want to create a system that will allow government officials to determine whether or not you or someone you love qualifies for surgery? Or would you prefer to have the freedom of choice that allows YOU and YOUR DOCTOR to make decisions based on what’s best for you?

Skinny non-smokers may feel justified in sneering at such a morbid future, but you can rest assured that NHS won’t stop dividing patients at obesity or tobacco usage. Have you had a soda in the last month? Have you smoked a joint in the last year? Can you pass the Congressional fitness test? Once the system starts going broke – and it will – the federal government will come up with all kinds of schemes to retain solvency. Sooner or later, those schemes will come down on you or someone in your family.

Trump Slams NFL For Refusing to Make Players Stand for Anthem

Wed, 10/18/2017 - 07:18

In an early morning tweet on Wednesday, President Trump criticized the NFL for announcing that they would not introduce a rule requiring players to stand for the national anthem.

“The NFL has decided that it will not force players to stand for the playing of our National Anthem,” Trump wrote. “Total disrespect for our great country!”

The day before, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell met with owners at their annual conference in New York City. In a subsequent statement, the NFL and the Players Association released a statement saying that they would “work together to promote positive social change and address inequality in our communities.”

But while the NFL considered a rule that would require players to stand for the anthem, the general consensus after the meeting was that such a rule would not be forthcoming.

“Everyone who is part of our NFL community has a tremendous respect for our country, our flag, our anthem and our military,” the statement said. “In the best American tradition, we are coming together to find common ground and commit to the hard work required for positive change.”

Goodell clearly understands what this controversy is doing to the health of the league; in a letter to executives last week, he encouraged teams to move beyond this particular method of protest.

“The current dispute over the national anthem is threatening to erode the unifying power of our game, and is now dividing us, and our players, from many fans across the country,” Goodell wrote. “Like many of our fans, we believe that everyone should stand for the national anthem. It is an important moment in our game. We want to honor our flag and our country, and our fans expect that of us.”

The executives and owners know they will have chaos on their hands if they “force” players to stand for the national anthem, but they also know that these protests are costing them enormously in the areas of fan loyalty, TV ratings, ticket sales, and merchandising. Unfortunately for the league, the liberals who support the players and their protests are not, by and large, the kind of people who fill the stadium stands on Sunday afternoon. And ultimately, the fans will have the final say. The players may continue to kneel for the national anthem…but they may eventually do so in a stadium that looks more like a ghost town.


Insane: Hillary Clinton Compares Russian Election Interference to 9/11

Tue, 10/17/2017 - 07:57

In her comments to a London audience on Sunday, Hillary Clinton showed two things. One, that she has lost her clear memories of that dark September day in 2001, where she presided over the recovery effort as a New York senator. And two, that she has allowed her intense anger and resentment over losing the 2016 election to cloud her sense of perspective to such a degree that she should think long and hard before doing anymore press appearances. Because this is worse than her usual babble; in comparing Russia’s hacking of the Democratic National Committee to the worst terror attack in American history, she has veered completely off the stage of sanity.

“I think there are a lot more connections that have yet to come to light,” Clinton said of the Russian interference. “We had really well-respected security, intelligence veterans saying this was a cyber 9/11, in the sense it was a direct attack on our institutions. That may sound dramatic, but we know that they probed and tried to intrude into election systems — not just the social media propaganda part of their campaign.”

Clinton said that the Russians were “not done” interfering in our democracy.

“This is an ongoing threat,” she warned.

3,000 Americans died in the 9/11 attacks, so Hillary’s allusion to that event is not just “dramatic,” it’s disrespectful and dangerous. It weakens the very memory of that dark day, trivializes the thousands who were killed or injured in the attacks, and makes a mockery of the U.S. soldiers who sacrificed so much in the subsequent war on terror. Even if Vladimir Putin’s interference in the 2016 election was exactly as bad as the worst intelligence reports say it was, it doesn’t come even CLOSE to Osama bin Laden’s grand symphony of destruction. And in an era where we should still have our eyes sharply trained on Islamic extremists around the world, the idea that Russia is now an equivalent threat is wrongheaded and bizarre.

To make matters worse, it is transparently obvious that Clinton would not be saying anything like this if Moscow had interfered on HER behalf. It’s doubtful she would be saying it even if things had gone as they did, but she won the election. Her thoughts on Russia have no sense of perspective or resonance because they reek of sour grapes. These are not ideas guided by reason and logic; they are guided by emotion and resentment. They are, in other words, another example of why she would have made such a terrible president and why, to the extent he WAS responsible for Trump’s victory, Vladimir Putin inadvertently did the U.S. a tremendous favor.

Colin Kaepernick Thinks the NFL is Colluding Against Him

Mon, 10/16/2017 - 07:41

Former San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick has turned himself into a household name over the past year – not through anything he has done on the gridiron but through his social justice routine which includes kneeling for the national anthem.

Perhaps in the hopes of using his newfound fame to pole vault to a better contract with another team, Kaepernick chose to walk away from his San Francisco contract in March only to find that he wasn’t as in demand as he thought. Still unsigned to a team six weeks into the 2017 season, Kaepernick’s attorney announced this week that he was filing a collusion grievance against the NFL.

“We can confirm this morning we filed a grievance under the CBA on behalf of Colin Kaepernick. This was done only after pursuing every possible avenue with all NFL teams and their executives,” attorney Mark Geragos said in a statement to ABC News.

“If the NFL (as well as all other professional sports leagues) is to remain a meritocracy, then principled and peaceful political protest – which the owners themselves made great theater imitating weeks ago – should not be punished and athletes should not be denied employment based on partisan political provocation by the executive branch of our government,” Geragos continued. “Such a precedent threatens all patriotic Americans and harkens back to our darkest days as a nation. Protecting all athletes from such collusive conduct is what compelled Mr. Kaepernick to file his grievance.

“Colin Kaepernick’s goal has always been, and remains, to simply be treated fairly by the league he performed at the highest level for and to return to the football playing field,” the statement concluded.

The NFL has not yet responded to the complaint, which sources say is Kaepernick’s attempt at nullifying the current collective bargaining agreement between the NFL Players Union and the league.

Kaepernick’s grievance comes as dozens of other NFL players and coaches have joined his protest against the national anthem, dividing fans and causing the league’s ratings and ticket sales to take a tumble. President Donald Trump has been in the thick of the controversy, calling on NFL owners to fire players who disrespect the flag.

Kaepernick’s assumption – that his anti-American antics have cost him his career – is probably not wrong, but there’s a leap between that reality and the claim he’s making. The NFL and the owners don’t have to “collude” against Kaepernick to all arrive at the same conclusion: That whatever on-field advantages he brings to a team are outweighed by the damage he will do to fan support. Winning is important; putting butts in seats is more important. As long as NFL owners see Kaepernick as a risk that isn’t worth the reward, he’s going to be sitting on the sidelines.


Anti-Racism Novel is Too Racist for Today’s Snowflakes

Sun, 10/15/2017 - 07:15

Harper Lee’s classic novel, “To Kill a Mockingbird” has been a classroom staple for many decades, but today’s crop of “EVERYTHING IS RACIST” snowflakes may put a swift end to that. In the Biloxi School District in Mississippi, the powers-that-be have decided that the book is too controversial to be taught to eighth graders.

“There is some language in the book that makes people uncomfortable,” said Kenny Holloway of the school board in an interview with the Biloxi Sun Herald. “We can teach the same lesson with other books.”

Yes, because the perils of racism are better taught by using sanitized texts that don’t use words that make students uncomfortable? As if these students do not hear controversial racist words every day in the halls of their school? How can you teach the students of 2017 what life was like for black people in the South if you aren’t using the kind of language that was common back then? Exactly what “other books” are getting this job done in a better, less offensive way? What kind of history are you teaching students when you only use books that carefully censor the N-word? It’s outrageous.

This is the perfect example of why the left’s sudden obsession with banning certain forms of speech and certain symbols of history is so dangerous. Here, no one is even making the argument that Harper Lee’s book is racist or a form of hate speech. So, in its way, this censorship is even worse than the battle against Confederate monuments or conservative campus speakers. It’s even worse than the Yale professors who were thrown off campus for daring to defend a student’s choice to wear whatever Halloween costume they want. This is a school administration determining that an ANTI-racism book must be banned because it uses language “that makes people uncomfortable.” Remember when the left used to be defenders of free expression? Wow…

It’s time for us to move past this insane obsession we have with making sure everyone feels “safe” and “comfortable.” That’s not the real world, and that’s not what education is all about. That’s not what THIS COUNTRY is all about. You should be uncomfortable every now and then. That’s what it takes to help you grow out of your old, tired mind patterns, or, in some cases, what helps you develop better arguments to defend your beliefs. That’s what helps you learn. That’s what helps us make ACTUAL progress as a nation, as opposed to the fake kind of “progressivism” that the left champions.

When you drive hateful ideologies and controversial viewpoints underground, they fester and metastasize into something much worse. When you bring them up into the light and destroy them with logic and reason and truth, they disintegrate and fall apart. Today’s liberals may have good intentions with their war on free speech, but you know what they say about those.



Survey Says: Most College Students Want to Suppress Free Speech

Fri, 10/13/2017 - 05:37

A new survey from the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education shows that students on college campuses around the country are increasingly willing to censor themselves when talking about controversial topics. The survey also showed that they are growing more comfortable with the suppression of free speech when that speech could prove hurtful to certain minority groups. The FIRE survey asked more than 1,000 college students about their rights, claiming it to be “the most comprehensive survey on students’ attitudes about free speech to date.”

While the results are shocking from a certain perspective, they are not particularly surprising to anyone who has closely followed the decline of liberty on the American college campus. For several years now, the left has abandoned anything that could be referred to as “liberal” values in favor of a species of fascism that dismisses any controversial viewpoint as racist, sexist, xenophobic, homophobic, and the list goes on. Open rebellion against the faculty at Yale, the University of Missouri, and Los Angeles’ Claremont Colleges have provided some of the most newsworthy spectacles, but this survey proves that the anti-freedom mentality goes well beyond those isolated incidents.

According to the survey, a majority of students have censored themselves in classroom discussions. 56% believe that schools should have the right to ban controversial speakers from campus. Left-leaning students, in particular, believe that conservative speakers should be barred from campus speaking engagements. 60% of students said it was more important for the college to maintain an “inclusive” atmosphere than to keep the door open to offensive viewpoints. 48% believe that the First Amendment should not be used to protect “hate speech.” And while the number isn’t huge (yet), it’s still troubling to see that 13% of students now believe that there is no meaningful difference between hateful speech and physical violence.

The decline of free speech will be indistinguishable from the decline of the United States. The left likes to talk about how America’s strength is its diversity? Well, that’s true in a sense: It’s strength is in its diversity of ideas. At the core, that’s what the free market is all about. It’s at work in the economy and it is at work in the marketplace of ideas. That is, essentially, what democracy is. When we start picking and choosing which kinds of ideas must be suppressed from the start, we lose the very thing that has made this country exceptional.

The threat of totalitarianism has always loomed like a dark shadow over basic human principles like freedom. We just never thought we’d get to the day where we’d see young Americans willing to trade those principles – not for national security, but for the imaginary “safety” of never having to defend one’s viewpoint.

What the Hell: Boy Scouts Now Open to…Girls?

Thu, 10/12/2017 - 07:11

Not long after the organization bowed to political correctness by allowing transgender boys to wear the uniform, the Boy Scouts of America announced this week that they would throw open the doors of membership to literally anyone who wanted to join, including, most conspicuously, girls.

“The Scouts’ record of producing leaders with high character and integrity is amazing,” BSA’s chairman Randall Stephenson said in a statement. “I’ve seen nothing that develops leadership skills and discipline like this organization. It is time to make these outstanding leadership development programs available to girls.”

We probably won’t know for some time all of the factors that led up to this decision, but we do know that the Boy Scouts were under considerable pressure from feminist groups like the National Organization for Women. And here, we get another lesson in what happens when a conservative group bows to leftist movements and their absurd demands. Because it was not until the Boy Scouts allowed transgender children to serve in the organization that NOW began asking the big question: Hey, if they’re allowed, why not girls?

“Women can now hold all combat roles in the military, and women have broken many glass ceilings at the top levels of government, business, academia, and entertainment,” NOW president Terry O’Neil said in February. “It’s long past due that girls have equal opportunities in Scouting.”

Some – including representatives from the Girl Scouts – have accused BSA of making this change because of their own dwindling membership roles. Which is the height of irony, since much of the Boy Scouts’ current problems in recruiting new members comes from their increased flirtation and submissiveness to liberal culture demands. First, they let gays be pack leaders. Next, they opened the doors for transgender children. And somehow, these two moves DIDN’T bring liberal parents out in droves to sign their kids up for the local Boy Scouts chapter! Nor did it probably help when the Boy Scouts leadership went out of its way to denounce guest speaker Donald Trump. Much like the NFL, it is all too clear to conservative America which way the Boy Scout winds are blowing.

Call us crazy, but we don’t foresee a massive rush of young girls eager to join an organization called the “Boy Scouts,” so we doubt this latest stunt will do much to improve the fortunes of this longstanding institution. More than ever before, in fact, they are at risk of becoming yet another great American organization RUINED by feminists and liberals.

Thanks, guys. Can’t wait to see what you target next.

Chew on That: Trump’s Immigration List Reminds Dems Who is in Charge

Wed, 10/11/2017 - 05:43

From the way the Democratic Party leadership has been acting with respect to Obama’s 800,000 or so “Dreamers,” you would think they had recently won an election or something.

From the moment President Trump signaled that he would be willing to sign legislation giving these illegal immigrants a way to stay in the United States, Democrats like Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer went on the offensive, insisting on a clean DACA bill that didn’t include any money for border security or a wall across the Mexican border line. Since the majority party usually gets to dictate terms to the minority party, many observers wondered just how serious “Chuck and Nancy” were about protecting the Dreamers in the first place.

Well, with a 70-point list the White House sent to Capitol Hill this week, President Trump has decided to find out the answer to that question. And in the meantime, he’s sending a message to Democrats: You didn’t win the election, I did. And this is exactly what I campaigned on. You want to protect the Dreamers? Here’s what we want in return.

President Trump’s list of demands not only fulfills the promise of his historic campaign, it is filled with legislative proposals that would effectively turn back the tide of neglect we saw during the Obama administration. When it comes to the campaign promises, the wall is clearly the top priority, and it is reflected in the White House list. Whether that comes to fruition or not will depend on Republicans and how enthusiastic they are about budgeting money for construction. On this issue, Trump supporters would do themselves and their country a big favor by calling their congressmen and telling them in no uncertain terms: We want a wall, dammit!

But even beyond the wall, there are a number of excellent, border-strengthening demands in the president’s list. On security, the administration is calling on Congress to authorize the hiring of some 10,000 new Border Patrol agents who can monitor and protect this country from illegal immigrants who want to exploit the lengthy, largely-unmanned border. Furthermore, the president wants to shore up legal loopholes that keep illegal immigrants – even those who are caught and detained at the border – in our courts for months and even years.

On the home front, Trump is asking Congress to pass legislation that would make it easier for his administration to crack down on sanctuary cities. Right now, California, Chicago, and other sanctuary jurisdictions have permission from the courts to essentially ignore federal immigration law without fear of economic penalty. How any judge can determine that a city or state has a RIGHT to a federal grant is beyond our meager understanding of the Constitution, but if the courts can’t get it right, it’s up to Congress to clear up the confusion. When and if the federal government can back up its threats with legal teeth, we’ll see this sanctuary nonsense come to a quick and decisive end.

Republicans need to take the ball from the White House and reassert their electoral dominance on Capitol Hill. Democrats mistakenly believe they hold the cards, and they’re counting on a splintered GOP to prove them right. With Steve Bannon waiting in the wings to challenge feckless, globalist Republicans who don’t support the president, the party’s incumbents desperately need to get this one into the end zone.


Twitter’s Shocking Censorship: Pro-Life Messages Banned From Site

Tue, 10/10/2017 - 10:37

Pro-life Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn is planning to run for the U.S. Senate in her home state of Tennessee, hoping to fill the vacancy being left by retiring Republican (and suddenly anti-Trump pest) Bob Corker. Blackburn filmed an advertisement to drum up publicity for her campaign last week, but when she tried to run the ad on Twitter, the left-wing social media site decided it could not allow the message to run. Why? Because Blackburn had the temerity to tell the truth about the sick practices of Planned Parenthood.

“I know the left calls me a wing-nut or a knuckle-dragging conservative,” Blackburn says in the banned advertisement. “And you know what? I say, that’s all right, bring it on. I’m 100-percent pro-life. I fought Planned Parenthood and we stopped the sale of baby body parts, thank God.”

In a series of undercover videos that were released in late 2015, the nation’s largest abortionist was caught profiting off the “donation” of fetal tissue. While Planned Parenthood was never properly prosecuted for their crime, the videos brought to light the horrible, behind-closed-doors truths about the American abortion industry and even played a role in the 2016 election. Now, apparently, it is simply too shocking for liberal ears to hear the reality of this organization in plain daylight. And if Twitter has anything to say about it, they won’t have to.

According to Blackburn, a representative from Twitter informed her campaign that the ad “had been deemed an inflammatory statement that is likely to evoke a strong negative reaction,” thus violating the site’s advertisement policy. The rep told the ad agency responsible for the spot that they would be willing to host the video again if the offending line was removed.

The candidate sent an email out to supporters, informing them of the situation.

“This is urgent. I’m being censored for telling the truth,” Blackburn wrote. “Twitter has shut down my announcement video advertising. Silicon Valley elites are trying to impose their values on us. When I talked about our legislative accomplishments to stop the sale of baby body parts, they responded by calling our ad ‘inflammatory’ and ‘negative.’”

All in all, Blackburn probably got more publicity for her campaign thanks to Twitter’s censorship than she ever would have if the ad had been allowed to stand. Still, what’s good for Blackburn’s campaign is not necessarily what’s best for the future of online free speech, and Twitter should think long and hard before they make decisions like this. As a private company, they’re free to pick and choose which voices are censored and which voices aren’t, but if they get a reputation for favoring pro-choice speech, it could be the beginning of the end for their social media dominance.

Trump Officially Guts Obama’s Job-Killing Coal Regulations

Mon, 10/09/2017 - 10:19

EPA Chief Scott Pruitt made it official on Monday, announcing that the Trump administration was set to completely scrap President Obama’s so-called Clean Power Plan, a set of regulations that was intended to cut down on emissions generated by coal-fired power plants. At an event in Hazard, Kentucky, Pruitt made the announcement that the administration would eliminate the program on Tuesday, bringing to an end a matter the Supreme Court put on hold nearly a year ago.

Several months ago, President Trump signed an executive order directing the EPA to do a thorough, top-to-bottom review of the Clean Power Plan, demanding to know if the program was necessary to achieve U.S. policy goals regarding environmental protection. The answer, of course, is a resounding no. President Obama’s EPA devised the regulations as part of the administration’s efforts to play climate saviors, recklessly moving forward despite the obvious perils. Supporters praised Obama for taking proactive steps towards curbing emissions, but detractors said that the vague climate goals outlined by the EPA were not enough to excuse the federal overreach.

In a draft proposal leaked last week, the EPA said it had found that the CPP represented an expansion of regulatory power unauthorized by existing U.S. law.

“The EPA proposes to determine that the CPP is not within Congress’s grant of authority to the agency under the governing statute,” the agency wrote. “It is not in the interests of the EPA, or in accord with its mission of environmental protection consistent with the rule of law, to expend its resources along the path of implementing a rule, receiving and passing judgment on state plans, or promulgating federal plans in furtherance of a policy that is not within the bounds of our statutory authority.”

The CPP’s real-world effects were never tested because of a Supreme Court ruling that put the program on ice until several legal challenges could be heard by the courts. Those challenges may or may not be dropped at this point, but their conclusions will likely become moot seeing as how the administration has decided to revoke the rules.

Even without going into effect, however, Obama’s federal overreach had a detrimental impact on the economy. Utilities in several states had to cancel coal projects because they expected the regulations to be codified into law and coal-fired plants were forced to schedule full shut-downs in preparation for the rules. These plants determined it would not be possible to reduce emissions to fit within the boundaries of the regulations and remain fiscally viable.

How many jobs were lost? How much did energy prices go up in areas affected by just the THREAT of the Clean Power Plan? These questions will be answered soon, and they will form another piece of Obama’s sorry legacy.

The damage is done in some respects, but we salute the Trump administration for making sure that no further damage will be inflicted on America’s energy sector. This president can’t cure all of the ills of his predecessor, but he can damn well make sure that Obama’s eight-year reign of terror does not significantly outlive his tenure in office.


The NFL Swirling Down the Death Spiral of Popularity…FAST

Sun, 10/08/2017 - 09:03

Who could have dreamed it? The National Football League, which depends on the love and support of millions of American patriots and conservatives for its ongoing popularity, is now facing a slump of historic proportions thanks to its untimely, ill-advised stance against the national anthem.

You would have thought that someone in Commissioner Roger Goodell’s office would have told him, “You know, boss, maybe we’re playing with fire here? NFL fans aren’t, by and large, known for their liberal activism.” You’d think that, but if anyone had that kind of advice for him or anyone else in the NFL’s front office, they were ignored. Instead, players have been allowed, week after week, to stage their little protests against the anthem and the flag. These protests haven’t had the slightest effect on the “problem” of police shooting black suspects, but they’ve had a terrible effect on the NFL’s bottom line.

As first reported by the Washington Examiner, a new poll shows that the NFL’s popularity has taken an enormous dive in recent weeks. The poll, taken by the Washington-based Winston Group, shows that the NFL now has the highest unfavorability ratings of any major sport in America. 40% of Americans now have an unfavorable view of the league, officially making it the least-liked major sports organization in the country. Meanwhile, the favorability ratings have also tumbled. At the end of August, 57% of the country had a favorable view of the NFL. By the end of September and the league’s silly little feud with President Donald Trump, only 44% said they had a favorable view of the institution.

“More critically for the NFL, the fall off in favorables occurred among important audiences,” reported the Winston Group. “Among males, NFL favorables fell 23 percent, going from 68 percent to 45 percent. In looking at a more specific audience, males 34-54, NFL favorables fell 31 percent, going from 73 percent to 42 percent. Among this group the NFL has a surprising negative image, as it went from +54 percent in August to -5 percent in September.”

Ticket sales are down, TV ratings are sinking like a stone, and the NFL has shown no signs of stepping in to even encourage players to make their voices heard in a more constructive manner. There appears to be nothing but contempt for the viewing audience, in fact, and the league may have already missed any chance it might have had at winning back disgruntled fans. In fact, with every passing week, the anger among patriotic Americans is only growing.


Adios, California: Democrat Governor Signs Sanctuary State Bill

Fri, 10/06/2017 - 06:47

Gov. Jerry Brown, the top liberal in a state lousy with them, just signed California’s death warrant. The governor signed “sanctuary state” legislation on Thursday, which will sharply limit how and when local law enforcement officials can cooperate with federal immigration agencies. The bill, known as SB 54, will become official state law in January.

Democrats are hailing it as a major step in the oh-so-honorable war on the Trump administration – a chance for California to stand up and protect its 2 million illegal immigrants from deportation. Great news for them, great news for the businesses that depend on them for cheap labor, but not-so-great news for California citizens who value the rule of law. Or the economy. Or, in many cases, their lives.

Under the new law, state and local law police agencies will be prohibited from using either manpower or funds to detain illegal immigrants unless they have been convicted of specific crimes. In other words, they will not only be empowered to tell ICE to take a hike, they will not have the authority to cooperate with federal immigration detainer requests even if they want to – which many law enforcement personnel throughout California do. ICE agents WILL still be allowed to work with state corrections officials, only because it was a concession the Senate had to make to get the bill onto the governor’s desk. But even there, detainer requests will be a no-go.

In a statement, Gov. Brown tried to ease fears that California was now an unlimited haven for illegal immigration.

“In enshrining these new protections, it is important to note what the bill does not do,” Brown wrote. “This bill does not prevent or prohibit Immigration and Customs Enforcement or the Department of Homeland Security from doing their own work in any way.”

Gee, how magnanimous. The bill does not prevent the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT from doing its work to enforce FEDERAL LAW. Brown doesn’t explain how the bill WOULD do that, since that would have been a remarkable accomplishment short of California seceding from the Union.

“California is building a wall of justice against President Trump’s xenophobic, racist, and ignorant immigration policies,” said Senate President Pro Tem Kevin De Leon at a press conference.

God, could you get any more trite?

In the debate between law and lawlessness, citizen and illegal immigrant, America and chaos, California has cast its lot. If you happen to live there, now would be a fine time to think about moving.

Michael Moore’s Absurd Plea for a New Second Amendment

Thu, 10/05/2017 - 10:33

It’s no surprise to see liberal documentarian Michael Moore at the forefront of the latest gun debate; Moore achieved his greatest commercial success with a movie called “Bowling for Columbine” that addressed the topic of American gun violence and he has been a staunch and persistent enemy of the Second Amendment for most of his career. This, however, may be the first time that Moore has proposed repealing the Second Amendment and replacing it with one of his own device. Ladies and gentlemen, we offer to you Michael Moore’s idea for a 28th Amendment to the Constitution:

“A well regulated State National Guard, being helpful to the safety and security of a State in times of need, along with the strictly regulated right of the people to keep and bear a limited number of non-automatic Arms for sport and hunting, with respect to the primary right of all people to be free from gun violence, this shall not be infringed.”

Now what would this accomplish? Well, Moore is happy to expound on the extraordinary gun laws we could quickly pass if we had this new, weaker version of the Second Amendment. Laws like:

  • Requiring men to get legal permission from their wives/girlfriends before purchasing a gun!
  • Banning the sale and ownership of all auto and semi-auto guns!
  • Banning guns and magazines that can hold more than six rounds of ammo!
  • Mandatory “smart gun” technology that allows only the owner of a gun to pull the trigger!

And our favorite, which we’ll leave in its original, unedited form:

One’s guns must be stored at a licensed gun club or government-regulated gun storage facility. Believing that having a gun in your home provides you with protection is an American myth. People who die from a home invasion make up a sad but minuscule .04% of all gun murders in the US. And over a third of them are killed by their own gun that the criminal has either stolen or wrestled from them.

Moore doesn’t tell us what gun owners would have to go through in order to get their possessions out of these storage facilities or how long they would be allowed to hold onto them before the police come looking for them, and we’re not sure we really want to know the answers. Suffice to say that if Moore’s new and improved “gun rights” amendment allows for these kinds of laws, he could have saved himself the trouble of writing a replacement. Just abolish the Second Amendment and be done with it.

We don’t know what this country will look like in another two hundred years so we won’t make any long-term predictions, but we do know that this kind of dystopian nightmare is not coming to the U.S. in our lifetimes. This is nothing more or less than a revealing look into a left-wing, authoritarian fantasy, and it’s just about as disturbing as you might have guessed.


Leftist Professor Blames Whites and “Trumpism” for Vegas Massacre

Wed, 10/04/2017 - 09:09

Last year, Drexel University professor George Ciccariello-Maher made the wrong kind of headlines when he tweeted, “All I want for Christmas is white genocide.”

Some eleven months later, the leftist professor seems to have gotten his wish. And shortly after a deranged gunman slayed nearly 60 people and injured more than 500 others in one of the most devastating acts of violence in our country’s history, this waste of space again took to Twitter to blame white privilege, mainstream liberals, and Donald Trump for the slaying.

“A white man,” Ciccariello-Maher first tweeted, accentuating the identity of the shooter, 64-year-old Stephen Paddock. “It’s the white supremacist patriarchy, stupid.”

Sensing that perhaps these tweets were not quite enough to get his bizarre point across, the politics professor expounded considerably.

“But liberals will drown out all discourse with a deafening chorus screeching ‘gun control,’” he wrote. “To believe that someone who would shoot down 50 people wouldn’t circumvent any gun law you pass is the height of delusion. But liberal escapism means talking about easy questions and proposing easy non-solutions rather than talking about who kills and why.

“White people and men are told that they are entitled to everything,” he continued. “This is what happens when they don’t get what they want. The narrative of white victimization has been gradually built over the past 40 years. It is the spinal column of Trumpism, and most extreme form is the white genocide myth. Yesterday was a morbid symptom of what happens when those who believe they deserve to own the world also think it is being stolen from them.”

It’s no easy feat to simultaneously be wise enough to see through the Democrats’ call for gun control and idiotic enough to believe there is some national concept of “whiteness” to blame for this mass murder, but somehow Ciccariello-Maher accomplishes the task. His rant is another window into the disturbing fringe left that is trying to wrestle control of the Democratic Party away from the “liberals” so that they can take it into an ideological dead-end: Pure, unadulterated Communism. They don’t believe in “gun control” because when they get in power, there won’t BE any guns to control.

Well, that’s the idea, anyway.

The truth is that America will never succumb to this latest, tasteless surge of Red Politics; freedom and Communism cannot co-exist. There is still too much of the former woven into the cloth of this country for the latter to ever gain a significant foothold. Especially if its messengers can barely restrain themselves from preaching openly the “evils of white men.”

Still, they walk among us, teach at our universities, and infect social media with their outlandish theories. We can’t afford to ignore them, because they are using pure propaganda to radicalize millions of young people who don’t know any better. And while we’re quite certain that freedom, democracy, and American values will win in the end, things are bound to get a little worse before they get better.

Jimmy Kimmel: The New Official Spokesman for Dumb Liberal Ideas

Tue, 10/03/2017 - 06:48

Fresh off his well-publicized rants on health care, late night host Jimmy Kimmel decided he wasn’t going to stop there when it comes to being the new official spokesman for dumb liberal ideas. On his show Monday night, Kimmel launched into a screed on gun control, taking advantage of the Las Vegas massacre to promote a typically leftist view to his largely clueless audience.

According to Kimmel, the only reason we don’t have better gun control laws is that Republican politicians have their “balls” stuck in an NRA “money clip.”

On politicians praying for the victims, Kimmel said: “They should be praying for God to forgive them, for letting the gun lobby run this country.”

Kimmel said it was shameful the lengths to which the government would go after Islamic terrorists without doing anything about the proliferation of guns.

“When someone with a beard attacks us, we tap phones, we invoke travel bans, we build walls, we take every possible precaution to make sure it doesn’t happen again,” Kimmel said. “But when an American buys a gun and kills other Americans, there’s nothing we can do about it.”

First of all, where are these “walls” we supposedly built?

Second, what exactly would Kimmel have us do about someone who makes a legal purchase and then uses that purchase to commit a crime? Especially when said purchase is specifically protected by the U.S. Constitution? Should we prosecute or kill the perpetrator? We do that. Should we beef up security protections? We do that. Should we train first responders on how to better handle mass casualty events? Check. We do that, too.

But of course, Kimmel wants us to do something else – something he disingenuously claims is not “gun control.” He wants us to exercise “common sense.”

“Common sense says no good will ever come from allowing a person to have weapons that can take down 527 Americans at a concert,” he said.

Well, that same common sense would tell you that no one should be able to purchase the kind of fertilizer and diesel fuel that Timothy McVeigh used to kill more than a hundred people in Oklahoma City. (By coincidence…or not…the Las Vegas killer apparently had ammonium nitrate fertilizer in his vehicle). And yes, there’s no question that the figure Kimmel cites is tragic – that this entire event was tragic and sick and heartbreaking – but what is the “acceptable” number of Americans one should be able to kill at one time? 3,000? You can do that with airline tickets and box cutters. One? You can do that with a hammer. So let’s dispense with the talk about “common sense” and treat this as what it is: Another attempt on the left to enact laws that will infringe on freedom without doing ANYTHING to actually solve the problem.

Trump Takes Bold Action to Save U.S. From Europe’s Tragic Fate

Mon, 10/02/2017 - 07:42

You probably can’t boil Donald Trump’s election victory last year down to any one specific issue, but if you could, you’d be hard pressed to name anything other than immigration. It was on this issue that Trump recognized what his fellow Republicans – to a large extent – could not or would not: That the unrestrained acceptance of illegal immigrants and refugees from dangerous countries around the world would mean certain doom for our country. Maybe not tomorrow or the day after, but very soon. And for proof of that fact, one need only look across the sea to Germany, France, and other European nations who realized too late what Muslim immigration had done to their communities.

Even in an environment where terrorist attacks have become commonplace, of course, globalist leaders like Angela Merkel refuse to take concrete steps to protect their countries. That is why, despite Merkel’s re-election last week, Germany put AfD party representatives in parliament for the first time. The far right is gaining steam in Germany, and there can be no doubt as to why. Citizens, “liberal” as they may be in regards to many other issues, see all too clearly that the people they’re letting into their country do not share their values. Even those who would not dream of bombing a concert hall want to implement restrictions on speech, women, and other Western liberties.

Last week, in a move that invited predictable criticism from the United Nations and the liberal media – the very same critics who think everything is just peachy in Europe – President Trump signed two orders that will prevent the U.S. from repeating our allies’ mistakes. The first, an update of the travel ban that expired last month. The new ban drops Sudan from the list of banned countries and adds Chad, North Korea, and – to a limited extent – Venezuela. The second, a new limit on the number of annual refugees the U.S. will take in. The old limit, in excess of 100,000, has been dropped in favor of a 45,000 individual cap. The actual number, given the increased vetting promised by this administration, could turn out to be much lower.

In his speech to the UN last month, President Trump outlined the reasons why limiting refugee acceptance was not only crucial, but sensible from a humanitarian standpoint.

“Over the long term, uncontrolled migration is deeply unfair to both the sending and the receiving countries,” he said. “For the sending countries, it reduces domestic pressure to pursue needed political and economic reform, and drains them of the human capital necessary to motivate and implement those reforms. For the receiving countries, the substantial costs of uncontrolled migration are borne overwhelmingly by low-income citizens whose concerns are often ignored by both media and government.

“For the cost of resettling one refugee in the United States, we can assist more than 10 in their home region,” Trump continued. “Out of the goodness of our hearts, we offer financial assistance to hosting countries in the region, and we support recent agreements of the G20 nations that will seek to host refugees as close to their home countries as possible.”

Critics of the Trump administration paint the new policies as coldhearted, racist, and antithetical to the spirit of America. They couldn’t be more wrong. The hard truth is that the U.S. is only a beacon of freedom, might, and wealth to the world as long as we maintain our strength. It does no one any good – except the Islamists and the socialists – for our country to go down with the ship. And as long as we have President Trump in the White House and a grassroots movement dead-set against turning this country into just another liberal nation of fools, the U.S. will stand strong and tall while the rest fall.

Media, Mayors, and Celebs Lying About Trump and Puerto Rico

Sun, 10/01/2017 - 09:50

The media was only too pleased to tell us the story of the mean, racist President Donald Trump going to war with the poor, determined feminist mayor of San Juan, Puerto Rico this weekend. According to Joe Scarborough, Lin-Manuel Miranda, Lady Gaga, and all the rest of the elite, this is just another example of Trump’s white supremacist colors showing. Look how eagerly he helped out in Florida and Texas, they said. Look how well he handled those hurricanes. Now compare it to the way he’s handling Puerto Rico. It’s because they’re Hispanic! It’s because they don’t represent his voters. It’s because he’s a racist who doesn’t care about brown people! Ahhh, the humanity!

It’s complete and total fake news.

The Washington Examiner this week reported that a nearby mayor, Angel Perez Otero of Guaynabo, Puerto Rico, has had nothing but praise for the Trump administration’s response the Hurricane Maria. And he accused fellow Mayor Carmen Yulin Cruz of “playing politics” with the developing story.

“I’ve seen other mayors participating,” said Perez Otero. “She’s not.”

He said that, unlike Cruz, he was in constant contact with federal government agencies, who were doing their best to coordinate relief efforts. “We are receiving a lot of help from FEMA and the Red Cross…there is lots of help coming to us,”  he said. “They won’t leave until Puerto Rico is good.”

Cruz’s fellow mayor is not the only one accusing her of being unresponsive to federal recovery agencies. In an interview with CNN, FEMA administrator Brock Long – being far more diplomatic than Trump – made the same point. “The problem we have with her, unfortunately, is that unity of command is ultimately what’s needed to be successful in this response,” he said. “What we need is for the mayor to make her way to the joint field office and get plugged into what’s going on and be successful.”

The aid is there. The troops are on the ground. The food, medicine, and supplies are getting to Puerto Rico as quickly as possible. But if those supplies simply sit there on the loading docks, they aren’t doing anyone any good. And that’s where Trump is right when he says that people like Cruz “expect everything to be done for them.” He’s not saying: “Hey, it’s your hurricane, deal with it yourself,” like the media is trying to portray. He’s literally saying that they’re doing NOTHING to help. And if you don’t believe that coming from Trump or conservative media, maybe you’ll believe the Huffington Post.

In an interview with Colonel Michael Valle, the Director of the Joint Air Component Coordination Element, Air Force – a Puerto Rico native himself – HuffPo found that the prevailing narrative about the Trump administration thumbing its nose at the territory was a false one:

“It’s just not true,” Col. Valle says of the major disconnect today between the perception of a lack of response from Washington versus what is really going on on the ground. “I have family here. My parents’ home is here. My uncles, aunts, cousins, are all here. As a Puerto Rican, I can tell you that the problem has nothing to do with the U.S. military, FEMA, or the DoD.

“The aid is getting to Puerto Rico. The problem is distribution. The federal government has sent us a lot of help; moving those supplies, in particular, fuel, is the issue right now,” says Col. Valle. Until power can be restored, generators are critical for hospitals and shelter facilities and more. But, and it’s a big but, they can’t get the fuel to run the generators.

There’s another problem, Valle told HuffPo. Hardly anyone is showing up to work. There are no drivers. The supplies are there and the trucks are there, but “only 20% of the truck drivers show up to work.”

Valle was quick to say that the drivers shouldn’t be blamed – they have families to take care of – but it just shows that there is more to this situation than the media is letting on. Trump has done – IS DOING – what he can. But he’s right – it has to be a joint effort. And right now, it isn’t. Not the way it needs to be. And the last thing that’s helpful is to have the mayor of San Juan using this as an opportunity to become part of the “resistance.”

Arrogant School Librarian Too Good for Melania Trump’s Donation

Fri, 09/29/2017 - 06:09

So you’re the librarian at an elementary school in Cambridge, Massachusetts and a card-carrying member of “The Resistance.” Suddenly, one day, a shipment of books arrives on your doorstep. Look at this: You’ve been selected by the White House to receive a donation of 10 Dr. Seuss books as part of National Read a Book Day. Your school, out of all the schools in your state, was chosen to receive this special gift from First Lady Melania Trump.

So…what do you do? You’re in a quandary. You could accept the books with a polite “Thank you,” but that would go against every bone in your leftist, RESIST TRUMP body. Sure, it would be the normal, human thing to do, but you turned your back on those ways when you marched in the street with a pussy-hat, didn’t you? No, no, this is too grand an opportunity to pass up. Forget about the students. Forget about professionalism. You’re going to use this moment as a chance to show off your liberal snobbery, turn your nose up at the gifts, and teach the Trumps a thing or two about the real world.


We can only speculate on the motivations of Cambridgeport Elementary School librarian Liz Phipps Soeiro (or whether she has, actually, ever worn a “pussyhat”), but we suspect we’re not far off the mark. Soeiro embarrassed herself and her school this week when she refused to accept the donation from Trump, instead writing a pathetic blog post where she explained how dreadfully WRONG it was for the First Lady to send THESE books to HER school.

“My students have access to a school library with over nine thousand volumes and a librarian with a graduate degree in library science. Multiple studies show that schools with professionally staffed libraries improve student performance,” wrote Soeiro in a needlessly self-aggrandizing explanation.

Besides blowing smoke up her own behind, Soerio also had some choice words for Dr. Seuss, who has apparently been deemed “problematic” by left-wing academics.

“You may not be aware of this, but Dr. Seuss is a bit of a cliché, a tired and worn ambassador for children’s literature. As First Lady of the United States, you have an incredible platform with world-class resources at your fingertips,” she wrote. Seuss’s drawings are “steeped in racist propaganda, caricatures, and harmful stereotypes,” she insisted.

Gee, a simple “No Thanks” would have sufficed.

But of course this isn’t about refusing the books, and we doubt seriously if it’s really about Dr. Seuss. This is about one lonely liberal librarian who saw a chance at the spotlight and lunged for it, absolutely clueless about how she would look to the average American. Or, maybe we’re wrong about that. Maybe she’s just fine being scorned by the “average American.” Probably she is. She probably harbors quite a lot of elitist disdain for the “average American” and their “cliché” Dr. Seuss books.

In a year that’s been filled to the brim with some of the saddest, most pathetic displays of liberal “resistance” we’ve ever seen, this one might top them all. Suffice to say, when your worldview puts you against Dr. Seuss…you took a wrong turn at Albuquerque.

Obama’s Deep State: 78 Appointees Burrowed Into Government

Thu, 09/28/2017 - 09:35

A new report from the Government Accountability Office – a watchdog organization meant to keep tabs on the federal government – shows that 78 of President Obama’s political appointees have burrowed their way into the deep state, where they now hold career positions in the Trump administration. According to the report, which was obtained by The Washington Times this week, these appointees included seven who failed to obtain permission for the job switch from the Office of Personnel Management. Subsequently, they were either denied jobs or left on their own accord.

Nonetheless, that still leaves 71 of Obama’s political appointees working in the Trump administration. And how many of them do you reckon support Trump’s agenda on environmental regulations, foreign policy, illegal immigration, spending cuts, and so forth? We’d guess…none. And sure, you can do your job to the best of your ability even when you don’t align politically with the over-arching motivations of the administration, but is that what these people are doing? Or are they leaking to the press, thwarting the goals of the Trump agenda, and intentionally sabotaging the will of the people?

There’s nothing illegal about a president allowing his political appointees to transfer over into career positions, of course, but we have to look at this in its proper light. No administration in history has been besieged by as much outright mutiny as this one. Leaks are constantly flowing to the press, agency heads are openly discussing the ideological differences within the departments, and even the president has made mention of a federal government conspiracy against him. And frankly, you don’t need that many people “off the script” to cause a hell of a lot of trouble. 71 people across a number of different agencies? That’s MORE than enough, and that probably only scratches the surface when it comes to Obama loyalists.

As the Washington Times pointed out, Congress has been concerned about the practice of “burrowing” for some time:

A Congressional Research Service report last year said burrowing frequently occurs during the transition period when one administration is preparing to leave office and a new administration is coming in. CRS said the practice can foster the belief that “the individual who is converted to a career position may seek to undermine the work of the new administration whose policies may be at odds with those that he or she espoused when serving in the appointed capacity.”

Whether this is true in reality or just in perception, we can’t say. But we do know that Trump is facing extraordinary resistance inside his administration, and this could help to explain why that might be.