Britain’s largest national student union, the National Union of Students (NUS) - which includes most university student unions, has told attendees of its annual conference they would face “consequences” for cheering and clapping because these forms of expression exclude deaf people.
Beside the fact that the creation of sound produces sound waves which absolutely can be felt by the hearing-impaired, the idea that deaf people cannot engage in applause and cheering is in and of itself insulting to the non-hearing.
One of the most important aspects of engaging with those who have disabilities is to understand that they detest being treated differently from others. It is that "special" accommodation mentality that actually creates a different class to which they are condemned. It is the most insulting thing anyone can do to someone who has a disability, period, dot.
It is well past time that students, especially college students, realize that they know less than they do. It is for that very reason they are in school. To entertain demands from individuals who haven't had the opportunity to attempt surviving in the real world is the definition of "enabling."
It is time for students world-wide to think before they speak and act, and - preferably, come to the conclusion that they do not know it all and it is their time to consume information rather than issuing dictate.
Their inane protestations and assumptions, well, they just prove how little they know...
The commander of American forces in the Pacific has warned that China has a huge advantage over the United States when it comes to their stockpile of land-based short- and medium-range missiles – some which can carry nuclear warheads. Adm. Harry Harris told senators on Capitol Hill that a decades-old arms treaty between the United States and Russia prohibits the US from building its own arsenal of missiles that can fly between 310 and 3,400 miles.
So, as China bulks up militarily - to the point of building man-made island military bases, and Russia once again flexes an oppressive muscle over not only their old Soviet satellite nations, but the Middle East, our military is prohibited from making sure we can counter any attack by either.
Stupid is as stupid does.
The intellectual and ideological panty-waists that have been installed in career positions at State and the DoD wave this treaty and sing Kumbaya, even as they exist believing it makes the world safer. It does not.
As we are witnessing in Syria, Vladimir Putin's Russia will look the other way when a despot uses WMD against his own people. And China - regardless of whether or not they are "being helpful" with North Korea - is a massive oppressor of human rights in its own country.
So, why is the country that routinely defends the freedoms of all - and especially overseas (and to no fanfare) - hobble itself with inane treaties that allow the forces of oppression to flourish?
A group of Yale University graduate students are undertaking a hunger strike to bully the administration into granting them better union benefits. But a pamphlet posted on Twitter by a former Yale student says the hunger strike is "symbolic" and protesters can leave and get food when they can no longer go on.
It needs to be noted that these p*ssified millennials already earn a stipend $30,000 a year, receive free healthcare, and have their $40,000 tuition paid in full. That's an annual allowance - and I use that term loosely - of over $70,000 a year and that doesn't include the skyrocketing costs of health insurance.
Gone are the days when people had to work their way through college. Now the whinny little elitist snowflakes just go on strike until an enabling university administration gives them what they want.
Would it have been that I was the president of Yale, I would have responded to this blackmail by issuing a statement saying I would pursue the slashing - by half - of the monetary stipend and the elimination of the coverage of the first year of tuition.
I also would have immediately suspended their health insurance coverage, seeing as how under Obamacare they can stay on their parents' insurance plans until they are 26. Part of the remaining $15K they receive in "pay" could go to help their parents out wth that cost.
A hard lesson? Perhaps, but it would actually be a teachable moment and a valued lesson.
A proposal in the Texas Legislature calls for the state to - through a legislative process - ignore federal law and court rulings, and forgo enforcing national regulations. The Texas Sovereignty Act allows for overriding federal laws through the same process as passing a bill. First a legislative committee, then the whole Legislature, would vote for nullification, and then the governor would sign his approval.
Texas has a unique ability to trail-blaze on the issue of nullification because its constitution reserves the right to revert to a sovereign nation, something no other state's constitutions enshrine.
That said, the issue of nullification truly needs to be addressed at the state level. While some locales and states are ignoring federal law via their declarations of "sanctuary cities," using the activist courts to execute their defiance, that kind of activist avenue open a Pandora's box. Why couldn't states and locales that disagree with Obamacare do the same thing; refuse to acknowledge the federal law?
Nullification, on the other hand, restores the check and balance of power the states lost with the 17th Amendment; the direct election of US senators. The Constitution originally saw the Senate as a body that protected the rights of the states with each state's senators appointed by the state legislatures. Easily recallable, these emissaries were more concerned with the well-being of their own states where federal laws was concerned than their political parties.
Watch Texas on this...they have the right idea.
The Trump Administration outlined its tax reform plan Wednesday, with White House economic adviser Gary Cohn saying, “Tax reform is long overdue.”
Among the reforms proposed - and which will be vehemently opposed by elected Democrats and Progressives, and more than likely violently opposed by their street henchmen - is a slash to the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 15 percent, which will undoubtedly spur economic growth.
The plan also collapses the personal income tax system into three brackets: 10%, 25% and 35%. The current top rate is 39.6 percent, as well as doubles the standard deduction. The current standard deduction would rise from $6,300 to $12,600 for individuals under the proposal. For married couples filing jointly, it would rise from $12,600 to roughly $24,000.
The plan also eliminates all tax deductions but for mortgage write-offs and write-offs for charitable giving. It eliminates the death tax.
Make no mistake. Congressional and Senate Democrats will fight this tooth and nail. Tax cuts translate to the inability to "spend" for the Federal Government. Spending is all Democrats know how to do. They bleed taxpayers to create giveaway programs and funding for special interest initiatives. Tax cuts hobble their ability to fund those fiscally irresponsible avenues.
Viva Tax Reform!!
The United Nations, February 2nd, warned the Trump Administration that repealing Obamacare without providing an adequate replacement would be a violation of multiple international laws. The Office of the UN High Commission on Human Rights's five-page memo cautioned that the repeal of the Affordable Care Act would put the US “at odds with its international obligations.”
This coming from an organization that seats Islamic countries on human and women's rights commissions and routinely proves impotent on curtailing genocide around the world any time that it rears its ugly head.
The UN was chartered as a communicative organization; a communicative forum, meant to avoid global and regional conflicts. At ever step it has failed in its mission, even as it has authorized itself to inject itself into areas it was never meant to enter.
Now it is lecturing the country with the best healthcare system and medical prowess in the world on how we have to administer to our own people. Here is a preliminary response from one American citizen: F*ck you, UN. You should disband for the damage you have done to the world.
Obamacare is a scheme about health insurance, not healthcare. That means the legislation is about enriching some while bleeding others. Them the intellectual whores of the UN would never admit that.
A group of Progressive executives who want to fight "global warming" - which the astute eco-zealot now refers to as "climate change" - is calling for countries to spend up to $600 billion a year over the next two decades to boost green energy deployment and energy efficiency equipment. The Energy Transitions Commission is made up of green energy executives, activist leaders and investment bankers, including former Vice Pres. Al Gore, all of whom would no doubt get a piece of the action.
It would seem that the opportunistic chameleon, Al Gore, has morphed from politician to climate expert to investment banker. Of course, when you follow the trail of greed this hypocrite leaves in his wake, that just makes sense, now doesn't it.
Gore's home in Tennessee has a gargantuan carbon foot print. He flies around the world on private jets. He drags an entourage around with him who gobble up power wherever he goes and he has the audacity to lecture people on energy austerity.
The truth about the "climate change" movement leaders is that they are copulating with the cash cow. Everything they do and propose ends up putting money in their pockets, including the creation of the "carbon credits" commodities exchange; a lucrative guilt market that allows Liberal hypocrites to continue to use energy the way they always have but pay a "fee" for "borrowing" energy against their quotas. Who profits? The commodities traders and the investment bankers.
You want to help the environment? Condemn these greed merchants and clean-up after yourselves (something eco-protesters never do) and stop wasting energy. That's all you have to do.
US District Judge William Orrick III, an Obama appointee, issued a ruling that blocked Pres. Trump’s executive order that sought to withhold federal funds from “sanctuary cities.” The ruling said the order targeted broad categories of federal funding for sanctuary governments, and that plaintiffs challenging the order were likely to succeed in proving it unconstitutional.
This, of course, is a political ruling, not a legal ruling. If, in fact, it was a legal ruling Judge Orrick would have had to recognize that the grant monies the "sanctuary cities" receive are predicated on their compliance with federal immigration laws. The nine sanctuary cities affected by the DoJ effort literally violated the terms of the grants and, therefore, should be considered a terminating factor for the grant monies.
Two things are troubling about this issue at this exact point in time. First, the Federal Government, rather than continuing the issuance of the grant monies pending litigation, should deny the funding immediately. While the California locales would end up suing the Federal government for the funds, it would be they who feel the financial hurt pending the multiple appeals and not the taxpayers. How could the "sanctuary cities" force the Federal Government to remit?
But the bigger point is the second one. Judge Orrick issued a political ruling, not a legal ruling and that means he is executing judicial duties through bad conduct; political conduct. He exists on the bench during "bad behavior."
The US Constitution states, in Article III, Section 1:
"...The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour..."
Orrick is executing "bad behavior" and, therefore, is vulnerable to impeachment from the federal bench. To that end, even SCOTUS justices are vulnerable to impeachment if they execute "bad behavior."
It would seem that there is a remedy to judicial activism in the federal judiciary: Impeachment. So, why isn't the Republican-controlled Legislative Branch pursuing removal of this activist?
Have you ever noticed that whenever the subject is a possible government shutdown, even the talking heads on the Right side define it as caused by Congressional Republican? It's inevitable even though it takes both political sides to create that impasse. Such is the importance of defining the narrative.
The truth of the matter is this. Democrats routinely say that Republicans are going to "shutdown government" because Republicans won't sign on to irresponsibly spending money the federal treasury doesn't have, and in fact, most likely won't have in our grand-children's lifetime.
So, why don't the Republicans use the power of defining the narrative to paint any threat of a government shutdown as the failure of the Democrat Party to reign in frivolous and special interest spending and government waste spending?
Why not frame the narrative as Republicans preventing Democrats from causing tax increases; tax increases that would be necessary id Democrats got their way each time they talk about governm,ent shutdowns?
Each and every voter in the United States abhors wasteful government spending and tax increases. Hanging that albatross around the congressional Democrats' neck would shift the blame for government shutdowns from obstructionist Republicans to spendthrift Democrats.
So why not frame it as a Democrat refusal to not tax and spend? Because Republicans suck at messaging and capturing the narrative...they just suck at it!
It was Evelyn Beatrice Hall, who wrote under the pseudonym S.G. Tallentyre, who is famously quoted as saying, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." She wrote that in a biography of Voltaire titled, The Friends of Voltaire.
This advanced intellect is nowhere to be found on our college campuses, especially our elite college campuses. From Berkeley to Harvard, MIT to Yale, and in almost every state institution of higher learning across the country, an ideological fascism has assumed the throne. If you have an opposing view from the Progressive, politically correct (and officially sanctioned) dogma of Leftism, you are labeled a bigot, racist, phobic, etc. and ostracized.
If you are a Conservative, or hold an opposing viewpoint from the established Progressive dogma, and you are an invited speaker, you are either shouted down or eventually dis-invited because of "special interest" pressure on an all-too-willing-to-go-along-with-it administration. Opposing and/or differing views from the established fascist dogma is not allowed. It isn't even sought as an alternative argument.
Free speech is dead on college campuses. Because of that, necessarily, honest education and the quest for instilling critical thinking skills are dead on college campuses. And that means the college system, because of policy and faculty, has failed in the United States.
Unless radical policy and faculty changes are made across the country, college today is nothing more than an exercise in political and ideological indoctrination in tandem with comprehensive real-time courses in heavy drinking, drug and sexual exploration and the acquisition of a falsely elevated sense of self-esteem, all of which produce societal "snowflakes" who are stunned when life doesn't hand them a trophy at every turn.
So, the question begs to be asked: Why go to college and amass all that debt? Maybe it's time American businesses started employing the vocational tactic of apprenticeships right out of high school...at least the country wouldn't be plagued by Fascist snowflakes trying to remake the country into a failing Euro-trash State.
The office of BGLTQ Student Life at Harvard University has issued a new school-sponsored publications that promotes fighting "transphobia." The guide, which was distributed to students, declares "there are more than two sexes" and that "gender is fluid and changing," adding that gender identity can even "change from day to day."
Personally, I couldn't give a rat's behind about the issue of gender identification. It's a social issue - meaning a personal issue - that has way too many people weighing in on it with a false sense of authority on the matter. If you identify as gay, transgender, trans-species, whatever, I don't care as long as you don't put your "identification baggage" onto me. I don't judge but for whether you're an assh*ole or not.
That said, Harvard is pushing a scientific lie here. There is no fluid gender fluctuation. You either have male genitalia or female genitalia. Even those who have undergone transition surgery have either male genitalia or female genitalia, period, dot.
While a person's perception of the intellectual sexual identification may fluctuate, their genders certainly do not. And for one of our higher education institutions to be foisting this bullsh*t onto both the students and the country is both unnecessary and irresponsible.
Two Muslim physicians and the wife of one of those physicians have been arrested for conspiring to perform Female Genital Mutilations (FGM) on minor girls in Michigan. Dr. Fakhruddin Attar and his wife, Farida Attar, and DR. Jumama Nagarwala, were arrested by authorities. Their victims ranged in ages from 6 to 8 years of age.
FGM is a ritual prevalent in some predominantly Islamic countries. It involves the partial or total removal of the external female genitalia, most often performed without anesthesia. The reason for this barbarity: to ensure females remain virgins until marriage.
This is yet another piece of evidence that proves all cultures are not equal. While the West celebrates feminism and the equality of the sexes in every walk of life, the Islamic culture not only sees females as subservient to the male (a woman is worth half that of a man according to the Quran and the Haddith), many young girls are forever mutilated because of a cultural edict.
This is just one reason apologists for the Islamic culture are intellectually stunted. There is no equality between the cultures and there can be no moral relativism employed to justify the inferior nature of the throwback Islamic culture.
While the religion itself is nowhere near a "religion of peace," the Islamic culture itself is a thing of the male-dominated Stone Age, just a hair away from a time when women were clubbed over the head and dragged off.
Read more about women in the Islamic culture here.
The man in charge of the voting rights division of the DoJ, who refused to prosecute the New Black Panthers for threatening White voters with clubs outside a Philadelphia polling place in 2008, Tom Perez - the DNC's new chair, said “Republican leaders and President Trump don't give a sh*t about the people they were trying to hurt,” referencing the GOP’s plan to replace Obamacare.
Welcome to the new Democrat National Committee; a group appealing to the caustic lowest common denominator.
Even though Perez was lambasted for similar comments earlier in the week, he and fellow Democrat leaders have turned a deaf ear to their rank-and-file who are tired of the caustic rhetoric going so far as to transforming the "don't give a sh*t" talking point into a DNC battle cry. They have, additionally, created “Democrats Give a Sh*t about People” t-shirt for fund-raising purposes. The shirt sells for $30.
Again, this is the radical, irreverent, caustic, arrogant Progressive Left of the Democrat Party. They are a minority within the larger Democrat Party. Even in elected office they are a minority, numbering less than one-third in the House and even less in the Senate.
This begs the question: Why do real Democrats put up with their bullsh*t? Isn't it time for the adults in the Democrat Party to step up and take back their party; take back the leadership positions in the federal government; start confronting the anarchists within their own political sphere?!
You've heard it on just about every talking head show whether on radio or television. It's the debate about Obamacare and the Liberal argument about so many million losing their health insurance. They portray it as barbaric and black-hearted. But it was their champion who blew-up the health insurance market. That said, there is a fix.
The costs for individually purchased healthcare would decrease dramatically if we got back to the idea of hospitalization insurance, i.e. insurance meant solely to cover bill in the event of a person's hospitalization. Some call it catastrophic insurance.
If Democrats under Obama would have been smart - and the jury is back with the verdict that they were not - they would have limited Obamacare to hospitalization. The cost of the "marketplace plans" would have been dramatically less because it would have covered dramatically less. It was their insistence that Obamacare cover everything from catastrophic hospitalization to unnecessary wellness visits that made the idea untenable. It is also the reason it must die.
Not too long ago - within my lifetime, most families had hospitalization insurance and covered the cost of routine doctor visits out of pocket. When the math is all said and done the cost of an average families medical expenses is much less than the cost of maintaining a "comprehensive" plan that is seldom used.
Couple that with meaningful tort reform so that frivolous medical malpractice lawsuits are dramatically minimized or eliminated and we just may be able to see healthcare costs return to manageable levels.
Police said Kori Ali Muhammad, the man who killed three people on a shooting spree in downtown Fresno, Calif., on Tuesday while shouting "Allahu Akbar", wanted to kill as many white people as possible and that the crime was not terrorism related.
Fresno Police Chief Jerry Dyer said, Muhammad shouted "Allahu Akbar," but that the shootings had "nothing to do with terrorism in spite of the statement he made...This is solely based on race."
This is shear and wanton denial of evidence presented directly in front of Dyer's face. As they say, facts are stubborn things and you can't change the facts, no matter how badly you want to see them through your own ideological lenses.
Was the shooting a racist act? Yes, Muhammad;s targeting of White people only bears that out with stark clarity. But his declaration of triumph in shouting "Allahu Akbar" makes his crimes acts that engage in and support the global Islamofascism jihad against the West; against the free world. Muhammad;s acts were both racist and Islamofascist.
The madness of Progressive political correctness is leading some to making the most contrived of statements about a "religion" that has yet to go through a reformation to expel violence from its tenets. Every other Great Religion has done so. Islam has not. Until such time Islam is not a Great Religion, but a creed that used to advance global domination.
The longer we deny the truth as mandated by facts, the longer we remain susceptible to murderous Islamofascists like Muhammad.
A new tell-all about Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign details how she blamed everyone but herself for her loss to Pres. Donald Trump. The book chronicles how Clinton's campaign lacked strategic vision and was monopolized by a staff plagued by infighting; were more concerned about their own careers than they were about helping the candidate win.
Such is the arrogance of elitism, specifically, Progressive oligarchic elitism. For Clinton to have believed that she wasn't adored by the American electorate would have been unconscionable. But, then, that's what happens when you surround yourself with "yes people"; that's what happens when you lash out at those who tell you the truth like a petty tyrant.
While Hillary Clinton was one of the worst candidates ever to run for the office - even while being one of the most arrogant, one of the biggest obstacles she had to overcome wasn't necessarily her own ego - it was the ego of the previous administration.
The Obama Administration, wheel-housed by Valerie Jarrett, over-reached in its march to the caustic Left by leaps and bounds. They stuffed Obamacare unapologetically down the throats of the American people even while they chastised us about race relations and their perceived global arrogance of American exceptionalism. With the American people exhausted from Obama's Progressive bullying, Clinton never stood a chance.
Critical electronic voter logs used in the special election taking place in Georgia to fill the vacant Congressional seat left by HHS Sec. Tom Price were stolen from the pickup truck of a poll worker during a "grocery run." The theft of early voting check-in books raises the question of fraud in the hotly contested race. Tuesday is election day, but thousands of voters took part in early voting.
The idea that a poll worker would be vacant enough to leave such critical logs unattended in the back of an open truck is laughable. The likelihood is that this Cobb County poll manager, Craig Joe Rogers, knew damn well what he was doing when he "may have left his doors unlocked. Cobb County went to Hillary Clinton by over 2 full percentage points in 2016.
No, it is likely that this was a security blanket measure by corrupt Democrat operatives because of the absolute need for the Democrats to win this special election. They haven't carried the district since the days of Carter and taking a Republican safe seat in the wake of Donald Trump's victory would give them a talking point for the next two years.
Larger in all of this is that Republicans shouldn't be in the position that the Democrat tool of voter fraud would matter. There are a ridiculous 11 Republicans running against 5 Democrats and 2 Independents, with one Democrat leading his contingent in a very strong way. The Republicans have, once again, diluted the field by having too many "cooks in the kitchen."
Just as ridiculous as having 16 people on the Presidential Primary stage, this election wound, should it come to pass, would be self-inflicted. There should never - ever - be 11 Republicans running for an election in which other parties are on the ballot. It's political suicide; it dilutes the field to give the lesser, more concentrated opposition party candidate the edge. Even if Republicans went to the polls in a 3 to 1 ratio, a concentrated effort by the Democrat delivers the win.
Republican Party leadership must shoulder the blame for this. They are not doing their job in producing superior candidates that the whole of the party can get behind, thus the desire for others to throw their hats into the race. It could be the "it's the next in line" attitude that permeates the Republican establishment. It could be that, as they say, there are "too many chiefs and not enough Indians" in the Republican Party both locally and nationally (and no, I won't bow to the forces of political correctness to bother to rephrase that).
Whatever the reason, the failure still exists and it threatens to allow minority radicals of the Progressive ideology to capture elected office. With Democrats focused on a 50 State game plan for 2018 and 2020, this type of leadership failure will cost Republicans dearly.
Democrat and Progressive lawmakers, and their toady activists, rang in Tax Day with nationwide protests meant to pressure Pres. Trump to release his tax returns. Organizers were hoping for the biggest anti-Trump showing since January's Women's March.
To say that the onus of this activism is asinine would be an insult to asinine things. The issue of Donald Trump's personal tax returns is a false-flag narrative meant to harass. What his tax returns would show means nothing. If illegal activity were to have taken place via his income the IRS would have been all over it during the campaign seeing how the Obama Administration was using government agencies to spy and attack opponents.
So, while these blithering idiots march in the streets to protest an irrelevancy, they fail at all times to protest the real demon in government and that is the incremental increase in taxes by politicians who are robbing the productive to grease the wheels of income redistribution so that they can get re-elected; so that they can use taxpayer monies to retain power. Where are the protests about that?
This is why it is increasingly impossible to take the "street marchers" as serious, intellectually. They are basically knee-jerk, emotion driven narrative consumers who fail - constantly - to examine the issues and the consequences of their actions.
I'd use the word "dolts" to describe them but dolts can't help their stupidity...
Facebook added changes to its systems that they say will make it harder for fake news to be spread. The new "tools" enable them to "eliminate" fake accounts. The social media giant said it will incorporate patterns of activity - including posting the same content or a higher volume of messages than normal - in an effort to stop fake accounts from being accounted.
Of course, this move comes dangerously close to not allowing legitimate Facebook users from sharing their thoughts and links on the many groups and pages they may actually be members of, or even administrators or monitors of.
Additionally, they recently disseminated "helpful hints" on how to recognize "fake news" (which in and of themselves were actually common sense) and installed a feature that would let someone report a post as "fake news."
Both of these avenues present a great danger to free speech. If one has a legitimate news story that they believe is important and they want to share it to the 30 groups they belong to, who is Facebook to label that posting "fake news"? It would be up to the administrator of that group or page to warn/remove the offender and or the offending post. Facebook is inserting itself in a process in a very "Big Brotherish" way.
Additionally, one disruptive ideologue activist could wreck havoc on legitimate small business news organizations by falsely claiming posts are "fake news" and reporting them as such. After the Obama Administration and the rise of the Progressive Left to dominance, this idea is not too far fetched.
Facebook's new policies come dangerously close to censorship, especially given the government's embrace of social media. They best rethink this move before some sharp attorney goes after them for violation of constitutional rights to free speech.
The fraud that is the former NAACP leader Rachel Dolezal, who was outed as White in 2015 but who continues to insist she “identifies” as black, is headed to South Africa to speak in favor of a non-racial society. Dolezal, recently changed her name to Nkechi Amare Diallo.
Much more necessary than Dolezal's inclusion in any conference on race would be her need for intense psychotherapy. Not only is she delusional about her race, she is a serial liar who has lived a fraud throughout her adult life. The last thing honest people need in a conversation about race is a fake Black woman lecturing them about race identity.
Dolezal's delusion is endemic of a culture that has resisted the fact that there are different races, genders and cultures around the world. Like it or not, it is the natural order of things. Simply deciding that race, gender and culture don't matter isn't a brave thing to do, it isn't even revolutionary. It's a denial of reality; it's delusional.
There are realities in this world that simply must be accepted; race, gender and culture are three. Another reality that we need to start teaching our children again is that not everyone is a winner and not everything our children do is "oh so awesome." We cheat them from learning from their failures by instilling a false level of self-esteem.
Then you end up like Dolezal...
On April 4, South Sudan government militias loyal to the president, Salva Kiir Mayardit, entered the town of Pajok and began killing and raping men, women and children who were not part of the dominant Dinka tribe. Opposition forces led by the former first vice president estimate that more than 200 innocent civilians were killed.
These atrocities - easily considered crimes against humanity - are happening with the full knowledge of international bodies, including the UN, the African Union and the Troika, which includes United States, the UK and Norway.
And while the bleeding-heart Progressives in the West - especially in the United States - continue their campaign to force nations to accept "refugees" from war-torn Middle Eastern countries (i.e. Syria, Iraq, etc.), nary a peep is uttered about the victims of a true genocide in South Sudan.
I am not suggesting that we add the genocide victims of South Sudan into the "refugee relocation program," but I am suggesting that we - the United States and the West as a whole - re-evaluate how we go about aiding the threatened and oppressed in areas like Syria, Iraq and South Sudan.
Relocating people to distant lands where their cultures are foreign is a fool's errand. It doesn't create diversity, it creates confrontation and resentment. We need to craft policies and actions that allows these people to exist in their own lands while conflict resolutions are enacted.
Imagine Russia deciding for us that they were going to "relocate" "refugees" from the US South during the US Civil War...
The White House has ordered a reduction and streamlining of the federal government, replacing the hiring freeze Pres. Trump implemented upon taking office. The Wednesday directive was ordered along with a 14-page plan to federal agencies detailing the objective to hire in areas of high priority and cut back in others.
Much to the chagrin of Trump-haters, this is yet another promise kept from the campaign trail: the downsizing of a bloated, redundant and ineffective bureaucratic government machine.
In many ways, modern day elections have done little to bring relief to the people. The bureaucratic machine is so expansive and filled with careerist ideologues that continue their preferred agendas instead of the empowered administration's that true change almost never takes place. A perfect example was the Lois Lerner/IRS scandal. To this day many small conservative non-profits haven't achieved status and many more lost theirs. No one has been held legally accountable to date, either.
Government is not supposed to be the largest employer in the United States. It is supposed to be held to a bare minimum; refraining from over-reach and performing only constitutionally mandated services. It has grown far from what it was supposed to be...and We the People are suffering for it.
United Airlines CEO Oscar Munoz said the passenger seen in a viral video who was dragged, bloodied off his company’s plane had “defied” security officers and had become “disruptive and belligerent.” This has cause some lawmakers to call for an investigation into the incident.
Munoz defended the airline’s heavy-handed actions in forcibly removing a passenger from a Chicago flight bound for Louisville because they had over-booked and needed to move employees from one airport to another. Their policy is to boot paying customers to shuttle employees.
It goes without saying that the airline industry in the United States leaves a lot to be desired. From insane ticket costs to extra charges for just about everything that used to be complimentary just a decade ago, to travel date restrictions requiring people to stay longer at their destinations than they need to constant delays and refusal of disembarkation during prolonged delays, there is no question that the industry needs desperately to be retooled.
Add to this the fact that in many cases it costs more to fly 250 miles than it does coast-to-coast and/or overseas and the airlines themselves are making it harder for Americans to travel - to freely travel - then just a few years ago.
As for the cost of air travel, one can safely say that the over-regulation of the industry contributes. An examination of government fees from local to federal shows how the airline passenger is gouged by the government for the "privilege" of air travel. And now they want to "investigate" the United incident, which promises another round of government mandates on the airlines.
The private sector can handle the incredibly bone-headed move by United. As of today, I don't know of anyone who will choose to fly United willingly until something is done to rectify what happened to that paying passenger. The government should butt out unless it is called upon to act in a judicial capacity via a lawsuit.
Leading Democrats are castigating one of their rising stars, Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D), for appearing to defend Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad against allegations his regime dumped chemical weapons on a rebel-held area. Gabbard's perceived crime: Being skeptical that Syrian strong man Bashar al-Assad was the mastermind behind the recent chemical weapons attack in that country.
Knee-Jerk political hack and rally screamer Howard Dean tweeted: “This is a disgrace. Gabbard should not be in Congress.” Truly, the man is a dolt. But his statement personifies the Democrat leadership's ardent desire for a lemming-like devotion by its elected rank-and-file.
What we do know about the Syrian crime against humanity is that prohibited WMD was used on innocents. And while we know that the chemical weapons were deployed by Syria air force aircraft, it would be highly unlikely that Assad would have authorized the use of WMD without at least the tacit approval of Moscow and/or Tehran. To believe that he would go it solo on the use of WMD - and act that everyone knew would bring down the wrath of the world community - and risk rebuke by his allies is unreasonable to suppose.
So, it is reasonable for Gabbard to have voiced her skepticism when the fingers of probability point to more than just Assad.
To wit, instead of Dem/Progressive leadership calling for Gabbard's resignation, perhaps the Dem rank-and-file should be calling for a culling of the dysfunctional old guard that has lead the party into the minority on every level of government.
US Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg erroneously labeled South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham (R) as one of the "women of the Senate" Monday. Ginsburg's misstatement came in her remarks upon accepting an award given to her and the late Justice Antonin Scalia for civility in public life. Hours after Justice Neil Gorsuch was sworn in to replace Scalia, Ginsburg took to the podium in calling on lawmakers to work together, but mistakenly identified South Carolina's senior senator as a woman.
Excuse me if I find Ginsberg's error mildly amusing. Graham, who exists as one of the few Republicans who likes to solve legislative problems by assembling "Gangs of (insert number here)" and, thus, usurping the regular order and roles of both the House and the Senate, is an elitist oligarch and a Progressive big government champion, so I have no love for the man.
Aside from the humor of the situation, Ginsberg's confusion - misidentifying one of the most recognizable members of the Senate GOP - sends up a blazing flare indicating that Ginsberg's cognizant wherewithal may very well be slipping. At a time when incredibly important decisions lay before the SCOTUS, We the People can hardly entertain the thought of a compromised mind on the nations highest deliberative judicial body.
This, in a nutshell, was the reason why Schumer's imposed filibuster of Justice Gorsuch and the resulting use of the nuclear option to seat him, was one of the biggest political blunders in modern legislative history.