political correctness

Having ‘white nuclear family’ promotes white supremacy, says New York professor, report says

A City University of New York sociology professor reportedly said in a tweetstorm last week that “the white-nuclear family” promotes racism, prompting a backlash on social media. Jessie Daniels, described as an expert on “the Internet manifestations of racism” on her CUNY page, infuriated social media users after reportedly saying that white families promote racism by default. The professor began her argument saying she learned that “the white-nuclear family is one of the most powerful forces supporting white supremacy,” adding that that families “reproducing white children” are “part of the problem” as they facilitate white supremacy in the country, Campus Reform reported. She reportedly tweeted: “I mean, if you’re a white person who says they’re engaged in dismantling white supremacy but … you’re forming a white family (and) reproducing white children that ‘you want the best for’ – how is that helping [and] not part of the problem?” She reportedly ended her arguement suggesting that “white people” should confront their racism and stop perpetuating inequality by leaving their homes for their children. “Until white people are ready to confront their own family’s racism (and) participation in systemic white supremacy, it’s not getting dismantled,” she wrote. “Beyond just calling out interpersonal racism, white people who want to be engaged in the work need to ask themselves about housing wealth.” She added: “White people: do you own your home? When you die, where’s wealth in that house going? If it’s to your children, you’re reproducing (inequality).” The professor locked her account in response to the criticism.

I bet!  And no, this is NOT The Onion…  The irony here is that if you click on the text above, you’ll see that Ms. Daniels is, herself, white.  Talk about self-loathing!  To follow her psychobbable to its logical conclusion, she is advocating the genocide of white people.  This is political correctness gone crazy!  CUNY needs to fire this lunatic.  Unreal…

Snoop Dogg stands over Trump’s corpse on new album cover

Snoop Dogg is pictured standing over President Trump’s dead body on the cover of his new EP titled, “Make America Crip Again.” Snoop posted a copy of the cover on Instagram, showing himself holding a party cup while standing over a corpse covered with the American flag and complete with a toe tag reading, “Trump.” It appears to be an homage to Ice Cube’s 1991 cover for “Death Certificate.” “The President says he wants to make America great again. F— that s—. We gonna make America crip again,” Snoop raps on the song “M.A.C.A,” Rolling Stone reported. The rapper, who has spoken out against the president in the past, told the magazine that the album is not meant to be viewed as a political stunt. “It’s not a statement or a political act: it’s just good music. Certain people feel like we should make America ‘great again,’ but that time they’re referring to always takes me back to separation and segregation so I’d rather Make America Crip Again,” the rapper said earlier this month. “In my lifetime, that’s when young black men in impoverished areas organized to help their communities and to take care of their own because society basically left them for dead. “A lot of people glorify the gang-banging and violence but forget that in the beginning, the Crip’s main and sole purpose was to be the reflection of the Black Panthers,” he said. “They looked after kids, provided after-school activities, fed them and stepped in as role models and father figures.” This isn’t the first time Snoop has imagined the death of Mr. Trump. In March, he was filmed shooting a toy gun at a clown dressed as the president in a music video for “Lavender.” Mr. Trump responded to the video on Twitter, writing, “Can you imagine what the outcry would be if @SnoopDogg, failing career and all, had aimed and fired the gun at President Obama? Jail time!”

Well, maybe not “jail time,”  But, there certainly would be non-stop hand-wringing, protests, and probably even riots courtesy of the usual list of self-righteous, sanctimonious, entitlement-minded, black, liberal race hustlers (i.e. Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, the NAACP, etc. etc.).  And we ALL know it..   Calvin (aka “Snoop Dogg”) is a former member of the Crips gang, and has been in and out of prison for selling and using cocaine, among many other things.  In short, he’s garbage…and yet, he is revered by the liberal entertainment media.  It figures he would idolize the Black Panther Party; a socialist/communist, black, domestic terrorist organization whose members have assassinated cops.  Word..

French: Progressives Are Now Arguing that the First Amendment Is Profoundly Limited on College Campuses

There are a few ways to respond to radical demands for campus censorship. One is rather simple: Enforce decades of constitutional jurisprudence, and clearly signal to disruptive protesters that lawbreaking is grounds for serious discipline. Follow the law and the debate about free speech won’t end, but the wave of shout-downs will pass. Students, after all, don’t want to sacrifice their shot at a degree to stop, say, Ben Shapiro or Charles Murray from speaking. As a general rule, they’ll do what the college allows them to do, and nothing more. Then there’s the opposite response: A number of progressive administrators, professors, and activists (over the objection of more liberty-minded colleagues) are seeking to redefine and ultimately eliminate the very concept of a “marketplace of ideas” on college campuses. They argue that the ultimate mission of the university is education, not providing a platform for any crazy idea someone wants to share, and that school administrators should thus have the right to determine who speaks on campus and how they speak based on whether the speech in question furthers this educational mission. That, in a nutshell, is Yale Law School professor (and former dean) Robert Post’s argument in an extended piece in Vox. To justify an administrative role in determining not just who speaks on campus but what they are permitted to say, Professor Post says this: “The entire purpose of a university is to educate and to expand knowledge, and so everything a university does must be justified by reference to these twin purposes. These objectives govern all university action, inside and outside the classroom; they are as applicable to nonprofessional speech as they are to student and faculty work.” This is remarkably similar to the arguments made to my colleague Charlie Cooke in a recent and heated debate at Kenyon College. If speech is so offensive, hurtful, or maybe just plain wrong that administrators believe it would impair the educational mission of the university, then, the thinking goes, they should have the power to restrict that expression. There are multiple problems with this argument, but I’ll focus on two: It’s both unlawful and absurdly impractical. First, the law. When analyzing a free-speech case, the first question you need to ask is, “Who is speaking?” In the context of a public university, there are usually three relevant speakers: administrators, faculty, and students. Administrators have the general ability to define the mission and purpose of their schools’ academic departments. They can mandate, for example, that their science departments operate within the parameters of the scientific method and on key issues apply accepted scientific conclusions. But this power isn’t unlimited. They can’t lawfully decide, say, that evolutionary biology will be taught only by atheists. In that case, the speech of the administrators collides with the First Amendment rights of the professors, and the professors win. Similarly, while professors have the right to shape and control their classroom (some permit profanity and insults while others sharply limit discussion) and even have the right to require students, within the classroom context, to defend views they may find abhorrent, their control is not absolute. They can’t mark down conservatives for being conservative or silence Christians for being Christian. They can grade ideas and expression for academic rigor, but they cannot discriminate purely on the basis of ideology or faith. Just as you can’t “punch a Nazi,” you can’t “flunk a Nazi” if their work meets the standards of the class. One of my old cases is instructive. Shortly after California voters passed Proposition 8, a ballot measure that defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman, a speech professor at Los Angeles City College walked into his class and declared that any person who voted for Proposition 8 was a “fascist bastard.” One of his students, a young man named Jonathan Lopez, decided to respond in a speech assignment. Lopez was asked to deliver a speech on “the topic of his choice,” and he chose to discuss and define his Christian faith. In the course of discussing the fundamentals of his faith, he briefly addressed marriage. His professor stopped his speech, angrily confronted Lopez, and then dismissed the class. Rather than grade his speech, he wrote on the evaluation paper, “Ask God what your grade is.” The professor’s “speech” thus collided with the student’s First Amendment rights, and the student’s rights prevailed. In sum, individuals at each layer of university life enjoy considerable First Amendment protection. Indeed, no lesser authority than the Supreme Court has decisively declared that “the vigilant protection of constitutional freedoms is nowhere more vital than in the community of American schools.”

Exactly..  To read the rest of this outstanding legal op/ed by attorney David French, click on the text above.

Opinion: Christ Church Should Be Ashamed

Christ Church is a historic religious institution in Alexandria, Va., that has had some very important parishioners. George Washington was a member and regular attendee at the congregation. Most churches, I reckon, would be honored by this, but Christ Church, the Washington Times reported, has suddenly grown embarrassed: ” This week the church announced it was pulling down a memorial to its one-time vestryman and the country’s first president, saying he and another famous parishioner, Robert E. Lee, have become too controversial and are chasing away would-be parishioners. “The plaques in our sanctuary make some in our presence feel unsafe or unwelcome. Some visitors and guests who worship with us choose not to return because they receive an unintended message from the prominent presence of the plaques,” the church leaders said.” Christ Church is a private religious institution, and it can do what it wants with the Washington monument. The First Amendment right to religious freedom allows churches to do whatever foolhardy thing they choose. I would have it no other way. Still, we are likewise free under the First Amendment to criticize this harebrained decision to disrespect the nation’s first president. Christ Church should be ashamed of itself. For starters, Washington actually freed his slaves after he died, the only major Founding Father to do so. Reverend Richard Allen, who cofounded the African Methodist-Episcopal Church, eulogized Washington in 1799, shortly after his death, as a patron of black Americans: ” To us he has been the sympathizing friend and tender father. He has watched over us, and viewed our degraded and afflicted state with compassion and pity — his heart was not insensible to our sufferings.” Washington, of course, could have freed his slaves earlier in his life. He did not, and it is fair to criticize him for this (his posthumous manumission certainly indicates a guilty conscience). But it is awfully punctilious for Christ Church to target Washington’s memory.

Indeed..  This is a follow up to the story we posted earlier today (scroll down three articles).  Christ Church in Alexandria SHOULD be ashamed of itself for this affront to the memory of our first President, and our American heritage.  Anyway, to read the rest of this article by author Jay Cost, click on the text above.  Awful…

Timpf: How to Stay Sane in an Unhinged World

I don’t know if you guys have heard about this yet, but our culture is going bananas. In March, a campus-wide email at Pitzer College in California instructed all white girls to remove their hoop earrings because they were cultural appropriation. In April, a British student union tried to ban clapping and cheering at its conferences over concerns that it was not inclusive to deaf people. (Note: A previous conference’s attendees had been instructed to use “jazz hands,” apparently unaware of how exclusive that might be to the blind.) In July, a Seattle-area councilman was reportedly opposed to hosing down sidewalks that reeked of excrement over concerns that doing so might be racially insensitive. In August, a fraternity retreat at one school ended early because some students were so frightened of a banana peel that it could not continue, and another school deemed the size of chairs on campus to be a microaggression against overweight people. In October, a school district in Toronto announced that it would be banning the use of the word “chief” in job titles over concerns that the word could be interpreted as a microaggression against indigenous people — even though the word is not of indigenous origin and its original meaning had nothing to do with indigenous people. That same month, students at the University of California, Berkeley demanded that they be excused from an in-class exam because they didn’t have enough privilege to be emotionally equipped to handle it. Oh, and it gets worse. As the list of things deemed unacceptable to say or do grows, we’re also seeing huge numbers of our country’s young adults not just disrespect, but actually misunderstand the First Amendment. In fact, a recent study found that a whopping 44 percent of United States college students believe that hate speech is not protected by the Constitution — no, not that it should not be protected, but that it is currently not protected — and the only thing that surprised me was that the number was not higher. After all, I’m constantly seeing stories like the one I wrote about in October, where a group of student protesters crashed a College Republicans’ meeting demanding it be shut down because “white supremacists” and “fascists” don’t have a “right of free speech,” and their very presence was making the library too “unsafe” for other people. It’s not just the students, either: In September, Princeton University’s Constitution Day lecture was titled “F%*# Free Speech,” and detailed how “the academy has never promoted free speech as a central value.” The list of crazy things I’ve seen in just the past few months is far too long to include in just one single post, but there is some good news: Not only do I still wear large hoop earrings almost every single day of my life, but I also spend many of my days detailing cultural craziness in columns…

And we’ll continue to keep reading them, Kat.  Millennial reporter Katherine “Kat” Timpf is responsible for that piece.

George Washington’s Church Says Plaque Honoring First President Must Come Down

Leaders at the church that George Washington attended decided that a plaque honoring the first president of the United States must be removed. Christ Church in Alexandria, Virginia will take down a memorial marking the pew where Washington sat with his family, saying it is not acceptable to all worshipers. “The plaques in our sanctuary make some in our presence feel unsafe or unwelcome,” leaders said, a reference to the fact that Washington was a slaveholder. “Some visitors and guests who worship with us choose not to return because they receive an unintended message from the prominent presence of the plaques.” “Many in our congregation feel a strong need for the church to stand clearly on the side of ‘all are welcome- no exceptions,'” they concluded. A memorial to Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee will also come down. The decision comes in the wake of renewed controversy over whether statues honoring Civil War figures should be no longer honored. The debate broke out again over the summer after a white nationalist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia killed one and injured others. President Trump expressed concern that the censoring of Confederate generals would lead to dishonoring Thomas Jefferson and George Washington as well.

Clearly he was right…  This erasing (or revising) of our American history is very dangerous stuff.  George Washington DID own slaves.  That’s true.  The perpetually offended should get the hell over it.  That was just something that happened back then.  We don’t excuse or condone it.  We simply acknowledge it as a fact.  Washington also was our nation’s first President (a title he never wanted), and lead our country’s war for independence against the British.  He held our country together when it almost fell apart. Instead of erasing our heritage, we need to celebrate these contributions by our founding fathers.  Shame on this church for caving to the whining of a few tourists, who probably wouldn’t go back anyway, and denying the rest of us the opportunity to be awed by this piece of American history.  Unreal..

Opinion/Analysis: ‘Whackapedia’ and its error fest

As a Wikipedia editor, I’ve made many edits and updates over the years to the American Civil Rights Union’s Wikipedia page without interference. So, imagine my shock when I was alerted this past Monday that someone had made the page revert to a very old version with content deleted and outright errors inserted. I went online and corrected a couple of things, but my corrections were instantly undone. Then, it got worse. On Wednesday, another editor removed a lion’s share of the content describing the ACRU’s activities and issues. Gone were entire sections on election law, environmental regulation, gun laws and religious freedom. Some of the worst damage was done to the personnel section. Judge Robert Bork, who died in December 2012, was updated as a current ACRU Policy Board member. So was James Q. Wilson, the celebrated political scientist who died in March 2012. On Friday, another editor restored the severely outdated issue sections but left the personnel errors. Earlier, an editor “nominated” the entire ACRU page for “deletion.” What might seem at first like a trivial nuisance is indicative of the power those hostile to liberty have over those who defend it. To a new generation, Wikipedia is Britannica — but without factual safeguards. Virtually all of the updates I added over several years were deleted. According to the site history, the revisions by several “editors” began this past April, and continued right up through this week. When I contacted a Wiki administrator who was listed as one of the revisers, I was told that because of my ties to the group (I am an ACRU senior fellow) I have a conflict of interest and could not fix anything myself. Instead, I should review a complicated procedure for suggesting edits — which may or may not be made. My request to restore my previous edits in order to correct the many errors was flatly denied. This is very serious business. It amounts to sabotage. When people want to learn about an organization or person, they often go straight to Wikipedia. While it’s bad form to cite Wikipedia as a sole source, it’s an excellent starting point for research on any topic. Millions of people access it daily, making it one of the top six websites in the world. If viewers see an absurdly outdated, sloppy page, it could deeply affect an organization’s ability to get out its message. Frustrated by the intransigence, I looked up Wikipedia’s conflict of interest policy, which is murky and geared toward preventing hostile edits that are defamatory or false, or self-serving inaccuracies, not edits of an entirely factual nature, such as listing current personnel or programs. One of Wikipedia’s cardinal rules is: “If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.” In the essay, “Wikipedia: Ignoring all rules — a beginner’s guide,” it states, “Perhaps the spirit of the rule could be said in an even better way: Use your common sense over anything else.” Common sense tells me that fixing blatant errors is something that Wikipedia should appreciate.

One would think…  The takeaway here is..  Don’t trust Wikipedia!  Its usually a good starting point.   But, don’t rely on it.  I, too, have done some edits to correct some things on Wikipedia, and have gone back and seen my edits erased.  So, I appreciate what author Robert Knight is saying here.  To read the rest of his op/ed, click on the text above.