Disrupting the Narrative of the New Left, its allies in Academia, Hollywood and the Establishment Media, and examining with honesty the goals of cultural Marxism and the dangers of reactionary and abusive political correctness.
THE NARRATIVE AND POLITICAL CORRECTNESS
“Threats to freedom of speech, writing and action, though often trivial in isolation, are cumulative in their effect and, unless checked, lead to a general disrespect for the rights of the citizen.”-George Orwell
This video of Chris Christie talking to the editorial board of the Des Moines Register is absolutely disgraceful.
First,
Christie boasts that he is proud to have signed a billthat deprives
New Jerseyans who end up on the "terror watch list" of their Second
Amendment rights. And then - as casually as can be - he concedes that
there are no due process protections for those who have been affected.
Worse,
Christie demonstrates that he "understands" how widespread the problems
with the systems are, but indicates that he doesn't especially care.
Having cited the bizarre case of Fox's Stephen Hayes, Christie admits
that "from what I understand, it is a very, very difficult thing to be
able to work your way off of it." It should, he suggests, be "easier."
And
yet, when asked whether he thinks his endorsement of the bill was a
mistake, Christie flatly says "no." Of course there will be people who
are unfairly punished, he proposes. But that that is not a good reason
to limit the government's power.
Naturally, I disagree - and
strongly. We are talking here, remember, about an enumerated
constitutional right. In fact, we are talking about two enumerated
constitutional rights: the right to due process and the right to keep
and bear arms.
If Chris Christie believes that the unfounded suspicions
of the executive branch should trump those protections, that is his
prerogative. But those voting in the upcoming primaries should think
long and hard about whether they agree with him.
Do we really want to put a man with this attitude in the Oval Office of the White House?
What do you do if you throw a big party but nobody shows up? That wasn't quite the case for Hillary Clinton this week, but it was close. It seems that one of her high profile, Big Apple supporters set up a private, "women only" event where the ladies would get some one on one face time with the presumptive Democrat nominee for the bargain basement price of only $2,700. Sadly, as the deadline approached, it became clear that not enough of Gotham's ladies were up for the trip.
Hillary Clinton had trouble attracting high-powered women to a New York talk hosted by Silda Wall Spitzer two weeks before her campaign officially kicks off. Sources said that after ticket sales fizzled for an intimate, $2,700-per-person, "just for women" meeting on Monday, the event was thrown open to men at the 11th hour, and the deadline extended to buy tickets.
The "Conversation With Hillary Clinton" event at Midtown law firm Akin Gump was originally aiming to attract 125 women. An email invitation seen by Page Six said the event is "just for women." But by Friday, "They'd only sold 50 tickets, so they threw it open to men," a source said. "Ticket sales were supposed to close at 10 a.m. Sunday, but the hostesses were working the phones and pushed the deadline till Monday."
If you can't attract 125 wealthy liberals in Manhattan on a few days notice, something is going seriously wrong.
Hillary generally attracts all sorts of female star power, whether it's socialites like Spitzer or the casts of TV shows like Sex and the City or Girls. Is her liberal base of support actually beginning to crater along with her poll numbers? This event should have been a walk in the park for her but they couldn't sell out the tickets even with an extended deadline. That's in no way conclusive of anything, but it certainly looks bad. Plus, the inevitable first female president is supposed to have the women of the nation simply fluttering with anticipation.
A "women only" event is sort of insulting, but if anyone can get away with it and escape media criticism, it's Hillary Clinton. Having to allow a bunch of testosterone laden men into the room must have really stung...
Fox News may block some GOP contenders from its presidential debate, arguing that only the top 10 candidates deserve to be on stage. Should they decide who is a top candidate? Will Republicans fight the Fox block? Hear what John Phillips, Scott Ott and Stephen Kruiser think.
The city of Baltimore received over $1.8 billion from President Barack Obama's stimulus law, including $467.1 million to invest in education and $26.5 million for crime prevention.
President Obama claimed last Tuesday that if the Republican-controlled Congress would implement his policies to make "massive investments in urban communities," they could "make a difference right now" in the city, currently in upheaval following the death of Freddie Gray.
However, a Washington Free Beacon analysis found that the Obama administration and Democratically-controlled Congress did make a "massive" investment into Baltimore, appropriating $1,831,768,487 though the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), commonly known as the stimulus.
According to Recovery.gov, one of Baltimore's central ZIP codes, 21201, received the most stimulus funding in the city, a total of $837,955,866. The amount included funding for 276 awards, and the website reports that the spending had created 290 jobs in the fourth quarter in 2013.
Of this amount, $467.1 million went to education; $206.1 million to the environment; $24 million to "family"; $16.1 million to infrastructure; $15.2 million to transportation; $11.9 million to housing; and $3.1 million to job training.
ZIP code 21202 received $425,170,937, including a $136 million grant to "improve teaching and learning for students most at risk of failing to meet State academic achievement standards."
Twenty-nine other ZIP codes listed in Baltimore city received a total of $568,641,684...
That was my favorite day ever. RT @jackshafer: Too bad Breitbart isn't alive to rush the mike and give his two cents.
— Mollie (@MZHemingway) March 10, 2015
.@HillaryClinton There should be #NoCeilings on how high a corrupt woman with no marketable skills who endangered us can rise.
— Anthony Bialy (@AnthonyBialy) March 9, 2015
Reporters I beg you to point out Hillary had a different position in 2007 when she praised Pelosi's trip to Syria to meet with Assad.
— Dana Perino (@DanaPerino) March 10, 2015
When I was on nuclear alert, it would have been convenient for me to bring home classified study guides. I didn't, because it's illegal.
— John Noonan (@noonanjo) March 10, 2015
.@charlescwcooke TBF, he only SENT 2 emails. Maybe SHE sent HIM thousands, and he just never replied to them. That actually sounds plausible
— Kevin Bowen (@kevin_bowen) March 10, 2015
Brutal in what way? In its pathetically transparent attempt to deflect attention from her criminal activity?
Perhaps...
@ezraklein
— The 48th Dude (@TheDudeOfLa) March 10, 2015
