The citizens of Hawaii started their day Saturday with a message that a ballistic missile attack on their islands was imminent. Thankfully, it was a test message gone horribly wrong. It really should stop and make us think.
My sister lives in Hawaii. Immediately after the false alarm was issued my immediate family's text messaging lit up. We here on the mainland were confused. My sister was terrified at the thought of having to say goodbye to her family in short order. The thought is chilling.
Hawaiian officials have since apologized for the error and put in place redundancy systems for verification for both tests and actual alerts. Politicians will, no doubt, bleed this issue to justify investigations so they can say they did something in the aftermath.
This event brings to the forefront the reality of how Israelis live every single day. They live in proximity to countries and populations who pledge to them a fiery death, if not daily, every Friday at massive rallies, mostly sponsored by their governments. And some of those countries are now nuclear capable.
One has to wonder. If Americans had to live each day under the threat that Hawaiians felt on Saturday, would we tolerate it for very long? Or would we insist that our leaders eliminate that threat so we might live in peace?
Think about that the next time you hear some jackass politician claiming that Israelis should just suck it up and tolerate their aggressive neighbors. They live with the fear the Hawaiians felt Saturday for 45 minutes every day, all day and night.
Every now and again someone stands up, makes a point and does the right thing. This is what James Damore is doing with the totalitarianism of Google. Damore is claiming discrimination, not only because he is a white male, but because he holds certain Conservative points of view.
Damore has filed a lawsuit claiming discrimination against the behemoth search engine and online entity. In part, the suit claims: "Damore...and other class members were ostracized, belittled, and punished for their heterodox political views, and for the added sin of their birth circumstances of being Caucasians and/or males."
The idea that a purveyor of information, such that Google is - effectively the gatekeeper to what we can come to know in today's information age - practicing ideological discrimination at its core should be incredibly alarming. They are, for all intents and purposes, socially engineering information to suit one, exclusive and elitist point of view.
It should be noted here that First Amendment free speech rights do not apply to private sector entities. The First Amendment applies to government censoring speech or preventing the redress of government. Private sector companies - short of being deemed monopolies and broken up - can practice censorship to their hearts content.
That is, unless people like James Damore prevail.
When the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences banished sexual predator Harvey Weinstein to the netherworld, they did so in such a knee-jerk manner that they opened themselves up to a huge conundrum: What do do with all the other sexual predators they have celebrated over the years.
I would like to point out that everyone - even Weinstein - needs to considered innocent until proven guilty. That is how our legal system works. Sadly, in the court of public opinion, which these days seems to usurp our rule of law, a charge, innuendo or rumor can equate to "conviction" and the destruction of a career.
That said, there are some real scumbags in the entertainment industry (politics, too). Weinstein, faced with multiple charges of sexual harassment and assault, was quick to claim a mental affliction feigning some sort of victimhood and ceded to the accusations. Same goes for the unrepentant child rapist Roman Polanski. These pigs deserved everything that came to them. But what of the others who deny the accusations?
Kevin Spacey, Dustin Hoffman, Ben and Casey Affleck, Brett Ratner, James Toback, they all deny the allegations. For Spacey, it cost him his acclaimed HBO series House of Cards.
But I digress. This post is about Hollywood knee-jerkism.
With Weinstein banished from the Academy, what is that entity to do with the Roman Polanski's among them? Polanski continues to win awards in the industry, including from the Academy. Will they excommunicate this pig as well?
This is the hypocrisy that is allowed to exist when there is a two-tiered justice system and a society that renders verdicts in the court of public opinion. A serial sexual predator gets banished from the academy, and a convicted child rapist gets awards from the same entity.
It appears that CNN took full advantage of the post-family hour time slot on New Years Eve. CNN reporter Randi Kaye took everyone to a marijuana dispensary in Colorado were the herb is legal.
But rather than doing a simple report on the enterprise and analyzing the effects of legalized marijuana, it was obvious that Kaye was stoned. This moved the reporter from reporting on the story to becoming the story, a huge no-no in journalism.
Sadly, in our 24/7/365 news cycle culture, "journalists" have become "stars" and, thus, routinely make themselves the story. Because of this we must embrace the fact that objective journalism is dead and buried.
And because traditional objective journalism is dead and buried, we have a choice to make. We, the consuming public, must either learn to divine between propaganda, click bait and agendized reporting and truth and accuracy.
In a culture that has become self-absorbed, lazy and fraudulently self-righteous, don't hold your breath for that to happen.
With 100 percent of the precincts reporting in Alabama, it appears that, sans the tallying of absentee and military ballots -- and an inevitable recount, US Senate candidate has fallen to the propaganda attack of the Progressive Left.
Judge Roy Moore has, at this point, lost to Democrat challenger Doug Jones. Moore gleaned 48.4 percent of the vote, where Jones took 49.9 percent. This is the first time in 25 years that a Democrat has been elected to the US Senate from what the elite media call the "Deep South."
Jones's election is a paradox for Alabamans. Jones is adamantly pro-abortion and a supporter of Planned Parenthood. He is also a believer in man-made climate change and pro-Obamacare. He is pro-open borders and supports increased restrictions on gun-ownership. In essence, he is all about everything that Alabamans are against, yet he won by the slimmest of margins.
The overriding point in all of this is the sexual misconduct allegations leveled against Roy Moore, allegations that never appeared in any of his other political contests over 40 years. It will be very interesting to see if any of these allegations continue to have feet, or whether they evaporate because the election is over.
READ MORE: THE WASHINGTON TIMES
US Senator Bernie Sanders (S-VT), took to NBC's Meet the Press Sunday to say that Democrats shouldn't "jump the gun" on their attempts to impeach President Trump. He is clinging, incredulously, to the false-narrative of Trump-Russian collusion advanced by the discredited Fusion GPS Trump dossier.
"[I]f Mueller brings forth the clear evidence that there was collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians, I think you have grounds for impeachment. But I think jumping the gun does nobody any good," Sanders said. "You have to bring the American people onto this issue. You don't want to make it into a partisan issue."
A motion to start impeachment proceedings against the President by Rep. Al Green (D-TX), was crushed in the House last week by a vote of 364 to 58.
One of two things is certain here. Either Sanders is completely delusional, or he is pathetically partisan. If he is delusional then Democrats should seriously think about dismantling his potency in their party. But it's more likely that he is being caustically and pathetically partisan.
The narrative of Trump-Russian collusion has not only been debunked, evidence unearthed by the Left's quest to ruin President Trump suggests that Hillary Clinton and Democrats are actually guilty of communications with the Russians and other foreign entities to affect the outcome of the 2016 General Election. It was Democrats -- and the then-chief figurehead of the Democrat Party -- that was guilty of collusion. Once again, Progressives (and Clinton is a Progressive) accused their opposition of exactly what they did.
Further, that Sanders would be carrying water for this now-recognized-as-false narrative after it was found that Hillary Clinton -- the person who cheated him out of a fair shot at the Democrat nomination -- was the catalyst for the fake Trump dossier, is tantamount to suffering from Stockholm Syndrome.
Honest political opposition is good for the governmental process. It keep both sides in check. False outrage over false narratives that everyone knows aren't true is simply opportunistic politics. The American people are tired of taking it in the chops from power-hungry political actors.
It is time to cull the herd.
SOURCE: FOX NEWS
Anyone who has paid attention to Clinton politics over the decades knows that they have saturated the FBI, Justice Department and Treasury Department -- and any other investigative body - with Clinton loyalists who obstruct on their behalf with aplomb.
That a mid-level Clintonista in FBI Agent and Special Counsel appointee Peter Strzok has likely skewed the investigation into Hillary Clinton's illegal use of a private email server to transmit top secret information during her tenure as US Secretary of State should come as no surprise. There are literally hundreds of people like Strzok -- Clinton loyalists; Progressives -- who are willing to bend the blindfold of lady justice to affect a political outcome in any given situation.
While the term "drain the swamp" may be synonymous with President Trump at this point, the need behind the notion is quite clear. Our Federal government now serves the oligarchic class and the political parties. Even when an outsider takes the White House, the bureaucracy put in place by the political elite thwarts systemic reform at every level and at all cost.
SOURCE: FOX NEWS
President Trump is getting blowback from the usual suspect mainstream media for his comments about Sen. Elizabeth Warren (P-MA), calling her "Pocahontas" for her lie about her heritage. But the media is railing against the wrong person here.
The "Pocahontas" label came from the fact that Warren blatantly lied about having a Native American lineage in order to attain a six-figure pseudo-job at Harvard University and, when caught in that lie, made excuses instead of owning her deception.
Even more disturbing in all of this -- and more disturbing than Warren's lie (and it was a huge one, especially by Progressive standards...for everyone else but them, evidently) is that she wasn't immediately terminated by Harvard and that the people of Massachusetts didn't care that they were electing a proven liar to government.
Ultimately, we get the government we vote for. Thanks Massachusetts for this lying sack of bovine feces!
SOURCE: FOX NEWS
While Republicans in Congress continue to effectively screw-up a one-car funeral in failing to repeal Obamacare and complicate simple tax reform by arguing purity instead of incremental victory, Progressives were already strategizing a resurgence.
George Soros and Nancy Pelosi were the headliners as a Progressive gathering in Carlsbad, California titled, Beyond #Resistence: Reclaiming Our Progressive Future. Others slated to appear included US Sens. Kamala Harris (P-CA), and Amy Klobuchar (P-MN), and CNN's Van Jones and Center for American Progress CEO Neera Tanden.
So, you see, while Republicans are doing everything they can do to screw-up a wet-dream, Progressives are already plotting and scheming on how to exploit those fissures and reclaim power in Washington, DC to complete the fundamental transformation of America.
Is there a more poorly-led, dysfunctional political apparatus than the national GOP?
SOURCE: ASSOCIATED PRESS
Arrogant Progressive US Senator Al Franken (D-MN), has been outed as a sexist and a sexual predator. Accusations, accompanied by picture proving the accusations to be true, surfaced of Franken demeaning a female radio show host from Los Angeles.
What is stunningly hypocritical in it all is that Franken's colleagues in the Senate are only demanding an ethics investigation, where would the offender have been a Republican they would have been shrieking for his resignation.
Pathetically, the establishment swamp monster, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), the Senate Majority Leader, is stopping short of calling for Franken's demise, and hopping on the ethics investigation bandwagon.
Looks like Franken is going to get away with it. Meanwhile Roy Morre is already condemned, and there is no evidence, as in Franken's case, to prove the allegations.
SOURCE: LEGAL INSURRECTION
It appears that the managing editors of the Columbia University newspaper are practicing selective-omission fascism in their coverage of campus activism. It's a intellectual disease that metastasizes faster than the worst version of cancer.
Honest media, which we simply do not have today in the mainstream, reports on anything and everything fact-based. Agendized, politicized and ideologically-based propaganda outlets manipulate the truth and omit stories and facts to skew the outcome.
If one of the premier journalism schools in the country, Columbia University, has a "news publication" that practices selective-omission in their stories, the American people must jettison the status quo news sources, educate themselves on how to vet news sources, and glean their information from a new avenue. If we do not, the Republic is doomed.
The timing of the accusations against Alabama US Senate candidate Roy Moore couldn't be more questionable. Now comes some background on his accusers.
Leigh Corfman, Moore's chief accuser, has claimed several pastors at various churches have made sexual advances toward her, raising questions about whether or not she is simply a habitual accuser. Corfman has also been divorced three times and is financially unstable. She filed for bankruptcy three times.
Deborah Wesson Gibson, another Moore accuser, was employed as a sign language interpreter for Joe Biden, and was a volunteer for Moore's Democrat opponent.
If these truths aren't intensely bothersome to everyone, especially with regard to the timing of the accusations, then our electorate is brain-addled.
Can anyone say Anita Hill??
SOURCE: FOX NEWS
With former DNC chairwoman Donna Brazile now outing Hillary Clinton and her campaign for gaming and rigging the Democrat Primaries against all other Democrat contenders, the true nature of the Clinton ruthlessness becomes clear. And with that one thing becomes abundantly clear: If we are to reform our government, everything Clinton -- everything -- has to be expunged.
SOURCE: THE WASHINGTON TIMES
We are at a crossroads with this; a crossroads that will define the direction of the country. If these indictments do not focus on the systemic corruption in the Federal government today, then a two-tier justice system will be cemented forever and the Republic is, for all practical purposes, lost. If they do focus on true corruption, the first volley in the effort to taking back the government from the oligarchs is upon us.
SOURCE: FOX NEWS
This is effectively the expunging of history, plain and simple. The tunnel-visioned activism of the Progressive toadies who shriek for the destruction of monuments dedicating history are no better than Nazi book-burners. In each of these instances, an opportunity to learn, both good and bad, is being destroyed. Our society has gotten that touchy-feely stupid.
As "anti-statue-mania" continues to infest the minds of those tunnel-visioned by their ideological hobbling, we must consider the repercussions of expunging historical artifacts, and even ones with which we disagree.
Many proponents of expunging Confederate monuments have started to consider dismantling other monuments to people. One political opportunist masquerading as a "Bishop" in Chicago is demanding that the city rename and remove statues from Washington and Jackson Parks. These two men were presidents, yet the "Bishop" says celebrating them is racist because Washington owned slaves and Jackson facilitated the "Trail of Tears."
In the "Bishop's" mind, expunging these names and monuments will right a wrong. Evidently, for the "Bishop," out of sight is out of mind and that makes history irrelevant.
But history has a propensity to repeat itself. In fact, every great historian warns that if we stop learning from history, history will, indeed, repeat itself. That human beings are prone to gravitate toward tyrannical hierarchical governments (read: absolute power corrupts absolutely), without a constant reminder of history we are doomed to repeat the grave errors of generations and eras past.
The Jewish people, who bore the brunt of true fascist tyranny in Adolf Hitler's Nazi genocide against their people, have a saying they all embrace: "Never again." The point behind the saying is clear. It was originally used by Jewish resistance fighters in the Warsaw ghetto during World War II, and is interpreted to mean that the Nazi Holocaust; the extermination of over six million Jews, will never be permitted to recur.
To wit, the Jewish people did not expunge this history from their world, they embraced the history so that this atrocity is remembered and never allowed to metastasize into a threat to the Jewish people again.
Evidently, Black activists in the United States -- and those taking up their cause -- are clueless to the idea of a "teachable moment." They are removing symbols of history and, thus, removing a daily reminder of historical events, both celebratory and cautionary. They are killing a teachable moment and, therefore, dooming history to repeat itself.
Instead of pulling down or otherwise removing Confederate monuments -- and monuments to others that activists find offensive, they should be taking this opportunity in the spotlight to reaffirm the horrific past surrounding the controversial icons; they should be taking this opportunity to point at these monuments and explain to the youth of today the realities of history and the struggles to over come so that they, too, can say "never again."
By "snatching down" these historical monuments (and yes, I did paraphrase former-Chicago Alderwoman Dorothy Tillman), we are robbing our children of a teachable moment and threatening a repeat of history...and that is just stupid on every level.
Donald Trump did not defend neo-Nazis or the Ku Klux Klan in his rebuke of violence in Charlottesville, Virginia. Of course, you wouldn't know that from the incredibly disingenuous coverage of the event and the ensuing ideologically motivated blathering from the over-paid and increasingly irrelevant chattering class.
The truth of the matter is this. Trump denounce the violence in total that occurred in Charlottesville and that is, indeed, enough. He denounced violence, bigotry and racism as it was perpetrated by each and every person -- regardless of color, religion and/or ideology -- attending the event. That is the correct thing to do.
The victimhood class -- opportunistic ideologues, one and all, are blind to the absolute fact that one cannot view history through the lens of the modern era. The real-time situations of times gone by are impossible to fathom from a modern day vantage point. So too, we, today, are not privileged to the societal conversations of eras past.
To wit, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, George Washington and, later, even Robert E. Lee were all abolitionists; they wanted to end slavery understanding it to be an abomination. Jefferson even wrote abolition into the Declaration of Independence only to have to remove the measure lest the whole of independence be relegated to the trash can. Nevertheless, it was something that was sought after for these men until the days they died.
This reality -- this truth -- is lost on the activist masses, even while it is obscured by those fanning the flames of division. The only reason these people can be led down this untruthful path is because Progressives have expunged the need for US History education in our schools.
Another truth not being exposed is the disingenuous duplicity of the mainstream media. As they condemn the neo-Nazis and white supremacists who attended the rally in Charlottesville (they had a legal permit to march and assemble, by the by), they refuse to condemn -- equally and with the same gusto -- the non-permitted Antifa, Black Lives Matter and anarchist groups who descended on the rally in full battle gear. The very fact that they were wearing battle gear indicates they meant to do violence; their violence was premeditated..
As I wrote in a recent syndicated column:
"Disagreement is going to happen in a free society. It’s how members of that society engage in disagreements that define whether they are an advanced society or an adolescent society. Sadly...we are devolving from an emotional and intellectually advanced society (circa the Civil Rights movement) to an adolescent society where violence and censorship are deemed acceptable tools to employ in disagreements."
There have always been ignoramuses in society. They are the fringe, but a by-product of freedom itself. I classify the neo-Nazi and white supremacist activists in this category. But Antifa is a special kind of dangerous. They are tools of the hardcore ideological Left, employed to bring about the chaos and anarchy that has successfully brought about violent revolutions in lesser nations. They are, rightfully, classified as a domestic terror group.
We can argue about commemorating history, and I, personally, believe that any erasure of history -- offensive to some or not -- is abhorrent; it is the stuff of the Islamic State.. But violent censorship and coercion, the likes of what Antifa and the Left are executing, must be met definitively by law enforcement and the rule of law.
It is time to make examples of those who piss on our laws and those who risk their lives to enforce it. Then we need to return to educating our children on accurate US History, not the bullsh*t Progressives are shopping to us.
Now comes word that vegan activists have bullied a mom and pop butcher shop in Berkeley, California, into putting an animal rights poster in their shop window. This is literally forcing a business owner to put up a sign saying "don't do business with us."
Liberal and Progressive activists have complete abandoned the very nature of what liberal activism is supposed to be. Activism and advocacy is meant to educate; to coax people into realizing the facts that are presented in an effort to persuade the people they are talking to to come to their side. These fascists are forcing people to harm themselves and damage their livelihoods. That's not activism. It's fascism; Nazism.
There is a gigantic difference between peaceful protest, advocacy and activism, and intolerant coercion. These tyrants are strong-arming people who do not hold their points of view to kow-tow to their way of thinking or be persecuted. That's fascism.
The incredulous thing here is that the "activists" are promoting vegan-ism. These historically peaceful people have moved to forced coercion and fascism? If they respect all living things then they have to respect people, and if they respect people they must allow people to live and let live.
Individual rights -- liberty -- allows people to live their lives in the way they see fit, up to the point of encroaching upon someone else's rights. This pinheads are encroaching on the rights of these business owners.
So, they aren't "activists," they are despotic tyrants practicing fascism...Think I'll go have a steak to flip them off ideologically.
It can be argued that Attorney General Jeff Sessions should not have recused himself from the investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 General Election. Meeting with a Russian ambassador in a social capacity as a sitting US Senator is not improper. That said, Mr. Sessions' foot-dragging on all things Clinton is eyebrow-raising.
While some would spin it that Sessions should refrain from going after the Clintons and the DNC in an effort to avoid an onslaught of Democrat and Progressive charges of political persecution, it is clear to even the deaf, dumb and blind that the Clintons and the DNC have done things worthy of investigation.
Chief among the acts that should be investigated are the many instances of foreign governments -- and entities acting on behalf of foreign government -- donating to The Clinton Foundation during Hillary Clinton's time as US Secretary of State. The "coincidences" of favorable determinations by the State Dept. that occurred in proximity to "donations" to The Clinton Foundation are more than worthy of investigation.
Almost as important -- and perhaps even more so -- is the issue of Hillary Clinton having housed, received and transmitted classified information on an unauthorized private email server. Since we now know that the DNC and Clinton Campaign email servers were hacked (via Wikileaks disclosures), we simply must assume that Clintons unsecured, unauthorized, private email server was also compromised. This is -- and always was -- a very big deal. That's why the country gasped in horror when James Comey let Clinton off the hook.
Another item worthy of investigation are the meetings between the Clinton Campaign and the embassy staff from Ukraine; meetings confirmed to have been about colluding to influence the 2016 General Election.
There are so many questionable actions that have been executed by the Clintons over the years one would have trouble tallying them up. So, many of us commiserate with President Trump on this issue. When, Mr. Sessions, will we see serious and honest -- non-political -- investigations into these most serious of questionable acts at the hands of the Clintons?
The biggest lie being told about Obamacare is that it provides healthcare to people. It does not. It mandates health insurance coverage for all, but it doesn't have anything to do with healthcare. In fact, Obamacare makes it harder to even see a physician.
So, because this is the case, what opposition to the repeal of Obamacare really achieves is protection for the health insurance companies; companies that made significant profits because of Obamacare.
Not only is everyone in the country mandated to purchase health insurance in one form or another, the federal government is subsidizing the insurance companies' costs as well. You really would have to be employing a spendthrift business model not to glean profits from such a model.
Additionally, with more people having health insurance -- and no influx of new doctors -- the wait to see a physician because of the influx of patients to the doctor to patient ratio increases dramatically. In some instances, people are waiting up to 24 days to see a doctor after making an appointment.
So, while health insurance costs go up for everyone who actually pays for his or her own insurance, and the "newly insured" get their premiums paid by the Federal government, access to healthcare has diminished. The only winner in all of this is the health insurance companies, who are seeing massive profits from the citizenry being forces -- under penalty of law -- to purchase a private sector product.
There is a reason Democrats and Progressives like Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Chuckie Schumer held the creation of Obamacare so close to the vest. They were colluding with their big donor health insurance companies to create windfall profits for their corporations.
Now how do you feel about your Senator or Representative opposing the repeal of Obamacare?
To listen to Democrats and their mainstream media puppets explain it, Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin met in the "cone of silence" to systemically corrupt and gerrymander the 2016 General Election to Trump's advantage. The narrative is bullsh*t, but that's what they would have you believe.
Why do I know it's BS? Because after months of investigations -- both governmental and not, as well as a full-blown effort by the media to uncover anything that could serve as evidence of illegal activity, well, as they would say in Godfellas, "they got nothin'."
This is why Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, had to very subtlety manipulate the very basis of the complaint Democrats have been making.
“I don't want to see us continue to lower the bar here and say the only question is whether this is illegal. This was unethical," Schiff said Tuesday. "It was, I think, a violation of the oaths of citizenship to willingly solicit, receive, encourage foreign intervention in our elections.”
Did you catch that? He doesn't want to "lower the bar" by making the issue exclusively about illegality. This is after Democrats, like Maxine Waters, Hillary Clinton, and the usual caustically partisan Progressives, have insisted that illegal collusion took place. They claim that Donald Trump committed "high crimes and misdemeanors" in his "collusion" to the point of warranting impeachment!
But suddenly, because no evidence could be unearthed to prove otherwise, this matter isn't about the subject of illegality. Now, as Schiff points out, it is about "ethics."
I didn't know that a violation of ethics was the criteria for impeachment or imprisonment. If "ethics" was the litmus test then Barack Obama should have been impeached ten-fold, and Hillary Clinton would have to be secured like Hannibal Lecter to keep her away from all things government.
This serves as a perfect example of one important thing. It shows how Progressives redefine things in order to support their narratives, no matter how far the stretch and no matter how beyond the lines of legitimacy it needs to go.
Democrats are going to try to ride the Russian collusion story into the mid-term elections. Schiff's overt shift in language proves this out. It's pathetic, but it's what politically partisan Democrats and Progressives do when..."they got nothin'."
One of the tactics Progressives use in their win-at-all-cost war against freedom and sovereignty is redefinition. They are routinely redefining words and phrases so that they have more force to their ideological objectives. An excellent example of this comes to us in the subject of "racism."
Today, most on the Left believe that racism -- both the term and the act -- excludes the White demographic. If you are Black, Asian, American Indian, Indian, Hispanic, etc. you can be the victim of racism. If you are White you cannot.
Yet, the definition of racism is: "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior."
That definition doesn't exclude the White demographic. It is clear. If you view a person in a derogatory manner because of the color of his/her skin you are practicing racism. If you are elevating your race over any or all others, you are practicing racism.
So, that understood, how is the Black Lives Matter cult not a racist organization? How is the modern day NAACP not a racist organization. And why isn't the Congressional Black Caucus considered a racist organization? Each of these organization either attempts to elevate the Black demographic, or marginalize the White demographic. That is the epitome of the definition of racism.
And what of the canard of "White privilege"? Does the advancement of that false narrative not attempt to portray one racial demographic as being above all others?
The reason these groups can get away with these acts is because Progressives, who control the media and the education system, have "massaged" the definition of racism.
ThoughtCo.com explains it thusly: "[I]n response to living in a racially stratified society, people of color sometimes complain about whites. Typically, such complaints serve as coping mechanisms to withstand racism rather than as anti-white bias. Even when minorities are actually prejudiced against whites, they lack the institutional power to adversely affect Whites' lives."
In a nutshell, Blacks (or any other non-White demographic, for that matter) can't be racist, and if they seem to be racist it's the fault of the White demographic's perception and past.
Where true racism is the practice of viewing your world through the lens of skin color -- any skin color, racism in the Progressive sphere is discriminatory against the White demographic simply for political and ideological purposes.
Another example of redefinition is Obamacare. Progressives and Democrats keep talking about the law being about healthcare when, in reality, it is only about health insurance coverage. Access to actual healthcare has become more difficult under the law with more need being created than service providers can supply. Yet, we are being led to believe the law is about healthcare.
Progressives, in everything they do, are deceptive, and when their deception doesn't do the trick, they change the definitions and the rules. This is why Progressivism is poison to a free and/or sovereign society.
We like to say that we are in the information age. We point to the Internet and claim that anyone with even cursory technical skills can find anything on the Internet. But when it comes down to critical issues like the attack in Manchester by Islamofascist barbarians this claim doesn't hold water.
Michelle Malkin writes a particularly poignant piece about having a truthful, fact-based video short on her YouTube channel banned by the Progressive moderators at YouTube. She contrasts that with YouTube allowing for grotesque hate being spewed forth by Islamofascists like Ahmad Musa Jibril, "whose bloodthirsty rants." Malkin writes, "against non-Muslims reportedly inspired the London Bridge ringleader."
My original publication, The New Media Journal, suffered a similar fate via a banning from Google News and, eventually, the whole of the Google search platform. Our crime: explaining what "jihad" meant and giving examples. They called it "hate speech."
Yet, ISIS abuses the Internet through both platforms and barbarians like Jibril have a hateful presence on YouTube...countered by banned videos.
The First Amendment was meant to keep the government from infringing on the citizenry's right to free speech; our right to redress government. Since the Framer's days the "free speech" right has expanded. But in recent times, Progressives have concocted "hate speech" and created laws to censor speech.
Behemoths like Google, and through their ownership YouTube, have taken to censoring speech on their platforms based on their political ideology. They get to do this because they are not mandated by the First Amendment to grant the public free speech rights.
Something has to change. The information highway is patrolled by the censorship police. The Nazis were as bad.
A British CNN analyst - and we have to use that term in the loosest of terms - covering the recent Islamic State attack on innocents in Manchester, made sure to inject the Progressive required moral relativism into his take by saying the attack could have been a "false-flag plot" executed by "right-wing extremists."
Even the remotely intellectual have come to understand that right-wing extremists do not operate in the way Islamofascist terrorists do. The idea that right-wing radicals would seek to target children at a concert is completely outside of their traditional modus operandi. But Progressives have to float that "possibility" in order to marginalize the evil of Islamofascists.
Until there is loud and constant outrage about statements like this that only end with the termination of such imbeciles and activists, we will continue to hear apology after apology from the talking elitists in the media about Islamofascist violence.
We will continue to hear from these intellectually challenged mental troglodytes that Islam is a "religion of peace" when, in fact, Islam is a "religion of pieces."
With the report that several of Britain's major hospitals and doctors groups have been the target of a cyberattack in which individual files were encrypted and held for ransom, the question of whether or not medical records in the United States are secure at hand.
Britain's National Health Service received a ransom communication from hackers demanding $300 in bitcoin, which translates roughly into $350K in US dollars, an incredibly minute amount for a ransom ask.
With the advent of the public use Internet, the medium has exploded faster than the masters of the genre can keep up with technology meant to protect information. This reality means that any sensitive information accessing the communication avenue is vulnerable. Ask any professional or politician who has transferred provocative pictures over the medium and you will hear about it.
So, if we know anything touching the Internet - any information touching the Internet - is vulnerable, why do we continue to allow access to our most delicate information? If even discussing a person's medical information with someone other than the patient needs approval, why are we allowing this information to exist effectively unprotected in touching the Internet? Why do we transmit top secret government secrets over non-secure lines?
Our medical information - as well as all of our personal information - needs to be protected, and it is time that the private sector develop an affordable military and/or intelligence grade encryption product that can secure these files.
In the day of Alinskyism, medical records are used against people, not only to help people...much to the dismay of the overwhelming majority of people.