“Some of us care little about the debate over public bathrooms. We do, however, care about the ongoing destruction of federalism, individual choice, and good-faith debate.
One reliable way to quash dissent and force moral codes on others is to liken your cause to that of the civil rights fight. Every liberal issue is situated somewhere on the great historical arc of “equality” and “justice.” If a person stands against even one of these causes—which were once great but are increasingly trivial—they have, according to the cultural imperialists of the Obama administration, aligned themselves with the Klan. Literally.
After U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch announced that the Department of Justice had filed a federal lawsuit to stop North Carolina from passing a “controversial law”—this is the go-to characterization of conservative bills that pass with healthy majorities—requiring transgender people to use public bathrooms matching their birth certificate, she had this to say:
This is not the first time that we have seen discriminatory responses to historic moments of progress for our nation. We saw it in the Jim Crow laws that followed the Emancipation Proclamation; we saw it in the fierce and widespread resistance to Brown v. Board of Education; and we saw it in the proliferation of state bans on same-sex unions that were intended to stifle any hope that gay and lesbian Americans might one day be afforded the right to marry.
Likening a spat over biologically segregated boy/girl bathrooms to the genuine, violent, systematic, state-sponsored, society-wide bigotry that took place in this country for a century is both intellectually and morally corrupt. It’s not all a continuum. Yet this administration peddles these kinds of risible comparisons in the cause of self-aggrandizement all the time. Hans Fiene has coined it Selma envy.”
——————————–
And speaking of crushing dissent….
Since Crowder is a named injured party of the policy, he should have standing to sue. And he has.
“Dallas, Texas—In light of the recent allegations brought to our attention by Michael Nunez and Gizmodo.com, Steven Crowder is taking steps to determine what, if any, legal action is necessary to address the assertions that he has been targeted by Facebook for suppression due to his conservative political commentary.
The Gizmodo.com story coincides with, and now potentially provides an explanation for, Facebook’s mismanagement of payments made to Facebook by Mr. Crowder and its woefully biased and unprofessional treatment of his accounts during an ongoing billing dispute. Simultaneously, Facebook has chosen to avoid any transparency in the ongoing removal of certain political posts by Mr. Crowder, ignoring all requests for explanation of purported policy violations. These issues have been ignored by Facebook and its Legal Department despite repeated attempts to resolve the issue on his behalf. Facebook’s ongoing refusal to take action regarding their clear-cut, inexcusable financial errors has necessitated that preliminary legal steps be taken.
It is fully understood that Facebook has every right to curate any content they so desire on their platform. However, Facebook’s bullying methods of operation in tandem with both the long-standing evidence of misconduct and the allegations newly brought to light require further investigation given the direct financial ramifications on business clients acting in trust with Facebook.
As part of this investigation, a petition for pre-suit discovery has been filed in Dallas County, Texas seeking discovery from Facebook regarding the actions of its News Feed curators as well as its billing department. A copy is attached. Mr. Crowder is confident that Facebook will promptly and transparently address the request for information.”
“What happens when members of a university community allege that they were victims of a “bias” incident? A team of administrators intervene—no matter how petty the complaint.
An annual report on the activities of University of Oregon’s Bias Response Team provides a frightening yet fascinating glimpse into the practices of these organizations, which are common on college campuses. Students, faculty, and staff who feel threatened, harassed, intimidated, triggered, microaggressed, offended, ignored, under-valued, or objectified because of their race, gender, gender identity, sexuality, disability status, mental health, religion, political affiliation, or size are encouraged to contact the BRT.
The team is composed of seven administrators, which include Oregon’s “multicultural inclusion support specialist,” LGBT director, and “Native American Retention Specialist.” The BRT’s goal is to eradicate bias on campus, making Oregon a safer place. Bias is defined as “any physical, spoken, or written act” that targets another person, even unintentionally. The team’s posters propose examples of bias incidents: statements like “Thanks, sweetie,” and “I don’t see color,” apparently qualify. (The former is patronizing, the latter is simply wrongthink, I guess.)”
“Actually, that’s not very helpful at all, is it? Not to fear: the report also includes summaries of all 85 of the incident reports filed last year. The BRT documented the nature of every complaint, categorized it, and recorded what response was taken. A thorough review of these summaries suggests to me that the BRT is essentially an administrative thoughtpolice that routinely intervenes in situations where one student’s constitutionally-protected speech has offended another student. The team is also not shy about referring its cases to university agencies with more robust enforcement powers.”
—————
The NC situation will be interesting to watch. As The Federalist points out, very few of us really care, frankly, about bathroom politics (it’s an issue entirely created by the left and federal government; we’ve all survived so far without a federal law being passed about which bathrooms one ought to use).
But it’s really about the bullying tactics of a federal government in awe of itself and its ability to impose its will, no matter how goofy, on the rest of the country.
Who elected these people?? Tyrants at heart. Argh.
Hillary brings more of the same. Maybe Trump, too, still not as sure about him, although neither is a “good” choice, to be sure.
Yesterday Donna posted this article by Dennis Prager in which he tells why Trump is the nominee. But he left out one major reason: Open primaries. When Democrats and Independents get a voice in Republican primaries, we get candidates like Trump, McCain, Romney and Dole. Not since Ronald Reagan have we had a Republican candidate I can get excited about, but at least the losers were decent men. I cannot ever see myself voting for Trump unless he becomes President and rules from the Right.
The problem is that the parties, both parties, are losing members in droves. The “decline to state” or “no party preference” is fast becoming the choice of many voters (I’ve been that in the past and may return to it again after this 2016 election is all over). The party “membership” structure itself is breaking down fast, people no longer identify so much with a political party.
I agree that parties should select their own candidates (through a “closed” primary election); but it’s becoming a relic, I’m afraid, as people go more and more independent and the primary election structure changes (and opens up) to match that trend.
(Although the GOP primary in California remains closed to party members only — for now.)
And polls (before Indiana) all showed Trump with a double-digit lead among Republicans in California.
I foresee Trump running a largely non-partisan campaign — which could be (for him) a stroke of brilliance considering how many non-party members there are these days. Republicans represent a minority of voters as it is (and social conservatives smaller than that within the party these days).
Making a play for disaffected Democrats and independents and the Republicans who have supported him so far may give him what he needs.
“I think I have a mandate from the people,” Trump told the NYT when asked if he would be modifying his substance or style for the general election.
Trump’s not wrong. He won about the same 40 percent share of the popular vote through the course of the competitive primaries, more than either of his two immediate predecessors. And in the state count, he will end up doing better than either Mitt Romney, who lost 13 states, or John McCain, who lost 17. Trump should end up with only 11 losses.
We know why, in part. Trump faced a hopelessly divided party and what we dubbed “the tyranny of multiplicity.” …
____________________________
But I think Peter is right in the sense that open primaries only helped Trump do as well as he did.
As for what happened to the Republican party’s perceived “strong bench” of smart, talented conservative candidates … Perhaps we didn’t understand how utterly, underneath it all, divided the party has become. The Tea Party eruption (along with the growing lure of a “pure” form of libertarianism) was perhaps the most evident harbinger of the disunity to come? I don’t know.
But so many factions won’t be easy to pull together as a single political force for some time to come, I’m afraid.
(Of course, the Democrats may be unraveling this year as well with the push to the socialist left that I’m thinking not everyone is on board with.)
THIS is what I couldn’t get to post yesterday. Matt Walsh deals with it today. Language Warning but you need to watch this. This is where people are getting their information—from a comedienne!
If I was Ryan, my primary goal would be to get out of being Chairman of (or even attending) the Trumpkin Convention in Cleveland. I would not want to be photographed on the platform at Nuremburg.
Well, you have to admit, it’ll get big viewership audiences this time around.
Not to mention what the demonstrations outside may wind up looking like 😦 Some of the anti-Trump gatherings are getting pretty scary. When you’re convinced you’re up against Hitler, almost anything goes I suppose.
Both extremes were scary in Germany in the 1930s. The Trumpkins and the anti-Trumpkins are scary now. They feed off each other. People waving Mexican flags help Trump. Trump makes people want to wave Mexican flags.
It hit me on the way home. “He’s Funny!” Like the lady in the audience in the original version of The Producers said: “He’s funny!” Trump isn’t like the real Hitler. He is like this Hitler:
Wandering Views 
Jennifer Rubin gives a number of reasons you should consider voting for my son’s dog:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2016/05/09/trumps-self-destruction-begins-early/
LikeLike
Here’s a bunch…..
Like all good dictators…. crushing dissent.
http://thefederalist.com/2016/05/10/obamas-lawsuit-against-north-carolina-isnt-about-civil-rights-its-about-crushing-dissent/
“Some of us care little about the debate over public bathrooms. We do, however, care about the ongoing destruction of federalism, individual choice, and good-faith debate.
One reliable way to quash dissent and force moral codes on others is to liken your cause to that of the civil rights fight. Every liberal issue is situated somewhere on the great historical arc of “equality” and “justice.” If a person stands against even one of these causes—which were once great but are increasingly trivial—they have, according to the cultural imperialists of the Obama administration, aligned themselves with the Klan. Literally.
After U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch announced that the Department of Justice had filed a federal lawsuit to stop North Carolina from passing a “controversial law”—this is the go-to characterization of conservative bills that pass with healthy majorities—requiring transgender people to use public bathrooms matching their birth certificate, she had this to say:
This is not the first time that we have seen discriminatory responses to historic moments of progress for our nation. We saw it in the Jim Crow laws that followed the Emancipation Proclamation; we saw it in the fierce and widespread resistance to Brown v. Board of Education; and we saw it in the proliferation of state bans on same-sex unions that were intended to stifle any hope that gay and lesbian Americans might one day be afforded the right to marry.
Likening a spat over biologically segregated boy/girl bathrooms to the genuine, violent, systematic, state-sponsored, society-wide bigotry that took place in this country for a century is both intellectually and morally corrupt. It’s not all a continuum. Yet this administration peddles these kinds of risible comparisons in the cause of self-aggrandizement all the time. Hans Fiene has coined it Selma envy.”
——————————–
And speaking of crushing dissent….
Since Crowder is a named injured party of the policy, he should have standing to sue. And he has.
http://louderwithcrowder.com/its-official-targeted-conservative-steven-crowder-files-motion-against-facebook/#.VzNCLIQrKM9
“Dallas, Texas—In light of the recent allegations brought to our attention by Michael Nunez and Gizmodo.com, Steven Crowder is taking steps to determine what, if any, legal action is necessary to address the assertions that he has been targeted by Facebook for suppression due to his conservative political commentary.
The Gizmodo.com story coincides with, and now potentially provides an explanation for, Facebook’s mismanagement of payments made to Facebook by Mr. Crowder and its woefully biased and unprofessional treatment of his accounts during an ongoing billing dispute. Simultaneously, Facebook has chosen to avoid any transparency in the ongoing removal of certain political posts by Mr. Crowder, ignoring all requests for explanation of purported policy violations. These issues have been ignored by Facebook and its Legal Department despite repeated attempts to resolve the issue on his behalf. Facebook’s ongoing refusal to take action regarding their clear-cut, inexcusable financial errors has necessitated that preliminary legal steps be taken.
It is fully understood that Facebook has every right to curate any content they so desire on their platform. However, Facebook’s bullying methods of operation in tandem with both the long-standing evidence of misconduct and the allegations newly brought to light require further investigation given the direct financial ramifications on business clients acting in trust with Facebook.
As part of this investigation, a petition for pre-suit discovery has been filed in Dallas County, Texas seeking discovery from Facebook regarding the actions of its News Feed curators as well as its billing department. A copy is attached. Mr. Crowder is confident that Facebook will promptly and transparently address the request for information.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
The thought police are combing campuses for any sign of free-thinkers to roust.
http://reason.com/blog/2016/05/10/the-university-of-oregons-thought-police
“What happens when members of a university community allege that they were victims of a “bias” incident? A team of administrators intervene—no matter how petty the complaint.
An annual report on the activities of University of Oregon’s Bias Response Team provides a frightening yet fascinating glimpse into the practices of these organizations, which are common on college campuses. Students, faculty, and staff who feel threatened, harassed, intimidated, triggered, microaggressed, offended, ignored, under-valued, or objectified because of their race, gender, gender identity, sexuality, disability status, mental health, religion, political affiliation, or size are encouraged to contact the BRT.
The team is composed of seven administrators, which include Oregon’s “multicultural inclusion support specialist,” LGBT director, and “Native American Retention Specialist.” The BRT’s goal is to eradicate bias on campus, making Oregon a safer place. Bias is defined as “any physical, spoken, or written act” that targets another person, even unintentionally. The team’s posters propose examples of bias incidents: statements like “Thanks, sweetie,” and “I don’t see color,” apparently qualify. (The former is patronizing, the latter is simply wrongthink, I guess.)”
“Actually, that’s not very helpful at all, is it? Not to fear: the report also includes summaries of all 85 of the incident reports filed last year. The BRT documented the nature of every complaint, categorized it, and recorded what response was taken. A thorough review of these summaries suggests to me that the BRT is essentially an administrative thoughtpolice that routinely intervenes in situations where one student’s constitutionally-protected speech has offended another student. The team is also not shy about referring its cases to university agencies with more robust enforcement powers.”
—————
It’s all so efficient….. 🙄
LikeLike
The NC situation will be interesting to watch. As The Federalist points out, very few of us really care, frankly, about bathroom politics (it’s an issue entirely created by the left and federal government; we’ve all survived so far without a federal law being passed about which bathrooms one ought to use).
But it’s really about the bullying tactics of a federal government in awe of itself and its ability to impose its will, no matter how goofy, on the rest of the country.
Who elected these people?? Tyrants at heart. Argh.
Hillary brings more of the same. Maybe Trump, too, still not as sure about him, although neither is a “good” choice, to be sure.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yesterday Donna posted this article by Dennis Prager in which he tells why Trump is the nominee. But he left out one major reason: Open primaries. When Democrats and Independents get a voice in Republican primaries, we get candidates like Trump, McCain, Romney and Dole. Not since Ronald Reagan have we had a Republican candidate I can get excited about, but at least the losers were decent men. I cannot ever see myself voting for Trump unless he becomes President and rules from the Right.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The problem is that the parties, both parties, are losing members in droves. The “decline to state” or “no party preference” is fast becoming the choice of many voters (I’ve been that in the past and may return to it again after this 2016 election is all over). The party “membership” structure itself is breaking down fast, people no longer identify so much with a political party.
I agree that parties should select their own candidates (through a “closed” primary election); but it’s becoming a relic, I’m afraid, as people go more and more independent and the primary election structure changes (and opens up) to match that trend.
(Although the GOP primary in California remains closed to party members only — for now.)
LikeLike
And polls (before Indiana) all showed Trump with a double-digit lead among Republicans in California.
I foresee Trump running a largely non-partisan campaign — which could be (for him) a stroke of brilliance considering how many non-party members there are these days. Republicans represent a minority of voters as it is (and social conservatives smaller than that within the party these days).
Making a play for disaffected Democrats and independents and the Republicans who have supported him so far may give him what he needs.
LikeLike
From Fox News:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/05/11/trump-puts-gop-on-notice-its-his-party-now.html
______________________________
“I think I have a mandate from the people,” Trump told the NYT when asked if he would be modifying his substance or style for the general election.
Trump’s not wrong. He won about the same 40 percent share of the popular vote through the course of the competitive primaries, more than either of his two immediate predecessors. And in the state count, he will end up doing better than either Mitt Romney, who lost 13 states, or John McCain, who lost 17. Trump should end up with only 11 losses.
We know why, in part. Trump faced a hopelessly divided party and what we dubbed “the tyranny of multiplicity.” …
____________________________
LikeLike
But I think Peter is right in the sense that open primaries only helped Trump do as well as he did.
As for what happened to the Republican party’s perceived “strong bench” of smart, talented conservative candidates … Perhaps we didn’t understand how utterly, underneath it all, divided the party has become. The Tea Party eruption (along with the growing lure of a “pure” form of libertarianism) was perhaps the most evident harbinger of the disunity to come? I don’t know.
But so many factions won’t be easy to pull together as a single political force for some time to come, I’m afraid.
(Of course, the Democrats may be unraveling this year as well with the push to the socialist left that I’m thinking not everyone is on board with.)
LikeLike
THIS is what I couldn’t get to post yesterday. Matt Walsh deals with it today. Language Warning but you need to watch this. This is where people are getting their information—from a comedienne!
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/05/10/tbs-show-host-and-guest-go-on-expletive-laced-rant-against-pregnancy-centers-pro-lifers/
LikeLike
Will be interesting to see (A) what comes out of the Trump-Ryan meeting tomorrow; and (B) who Trump’s VP will be
LikeLiked by 1 person
If I was Ryan, my primary goal would be to get out of being Chairman of (or even attending) the Trumpkin Convention in Cleveland. I would not want to be photographed on the platform at Nuremburg.
LikeLike
Well, you have to admit, it’ll get big viewership audiences this time around.
Not to mention what the demonstrations outside may wind up looking like 😦 Some of the anti-Trump gatherings are getting pretty scary. When you’re convinced you’re up against Hitler, almost anything goes I suppose.
LikeLike
Both extremes were scary in Germany in the 1930s. The Trumpkins and the anti-Trumpkins are scary now. They feed off each other. People waving Mexican flags help Trump. Trump makes people want to wave Mexican flags.
LikeLike
It hit me on the way home. “He’s Funny!” Like the lady in the audience in the original version of The Producers said: “He’s funny!” Trump isn’t like the real Hitler. He is like this Hitler:
LikeLike