Morning Ethics Warm-Up, 3/7/ 2018: Murder, Fake Journalism, Hatch Act Games, And California Defiance

Good Morning!

1  “A Murder in the Park.” The 2014 documentary about how the Northwestern University “Innocence Project” freed a guilty murderer hours before his execution and framed an innocent man who was eventually exonerated is now available on Netflix. I wrote about the case, which had the unanticipated consequence of causing Illinois to ban the death penalty, in 2014. Then I concentrated on how badly the whole mess reflected on the justice system. As I watched the documentary last night, however, what struck me was the self-satisfied smugness and certitude of the journalism students who participated in selective investigation, advocacy instead of objective reporting, manipulation of witnesses, cause driven conclusions and more. The documentary shows us why journalism has become whatever it can be called now–certainly not journalism. Northwestern has one of the elite journalism schools in the nation, and David Protess, then the professor who ran “The Innocence Project,” was teaching students that corrupt journalism was honorable. Protess at the time was perhaps the most praised journalism teacher in the nation. It seems that he was less the exception than the rule.

2. Real discipline would be nice for a change. The Office of Special Counsel (OSC) informed the Trump yesterday that White House counselor Kellyanne Conway violated the Hatch Act twice.  The  findings were referred to President Trump “for appropriate disciplinary action.” The White House promptly denied the charges, so we should assume that Kelly won’t be disciplined at all.

The Hatch Act allows federal employees to express their views about candidates and political issues as private citizens, but forbids them from using their official government positions try to influence elections. Of course Conway violated the Act. On Fox and CNN, she made it clear that voters in Alabama should reject Democrat Doug Jones. The White House ludicrously claims that Conway did not advocate for or against the election of any particular candidate. Nah…she just told Fox viewers last November,

“Doug Jones in Alabama, folks, don’t be fooled. He will be a vote against tax cuts. He is weak on crime, weak on borders. He is strong on raising your taxes. He is terrible for property owners.”

On CNN,  she said in part,

“The only endorsement that matters in this race is President Trump’s,” Conway said the week before the vote. “And he came out questioning the ideology and the vote of Doug Jones. He’ll be a reliable vote for tax hikes. He’ll be a reliable vote against border security. He’ll be a reliable vote against national security and keeping [Islamic State in Iraq and Syria] ISIS in retreat. He’ll be the reliable vote against the Second Amendment and against life.”

I’m sure the news media and Democrats will make a fuss about Conway’s breach of Federal law being ignored, as they should, except for the general silence surrounding Obama Cabinet members–there were two–who also violated the Hatch Act, and also were not disciplined. The most egregious of these was Juan Castro, HUD Secretary. The Obama White House didn’t deny the violations; it just dismissed them as “mistakes.”

You know, like Megan Barry’s “mistake.”

 

House Oversight and Government Reform Committee ranking Democrat Elijah Cummings called for President Trump to issue “swift and serious” punishment for Conway’s violations, saying,

“The President must take swift and serious disciplinary action against Ms. Conway. Anything else sets a terrible example.”

Oddly, Rep. Cummings made no such declaration when the violator was an Obama official. Elected representative who so obviously wield double standards also set a terrible example.

3. Good! The Justice Department is finally suing California over three state laws that specifically interfere with the federal ability to deal with illegal immigration. If the Trump Administration doesn’t take hard and serious action, California and other states will escalate efforts to declare federal laws nullified—just like Southern states did in the decades before the Civil War. Jerry Brown, California’s governor, proves the point, responding to the lawsuit with this dishonest bravado:

“At a time of unprecedented political turmoil, Jeff Sessions has come to California to further divide and polarize America. Jeff, these political stunts may be the norm in Washington, but they don’t work here. SAD!!!”

Amusing. California is the epicenter of the unprecedented political turmoil, from its universities’ disrespect for free speech, to its elected officials, like Maxine Waters, urging pre-election over-throwing of the Trump Administration. California has primed the national conflict over illegal immigration, and its removal from the nation would reduce polarization dramatically, especially since its governor regards enforcing the rule of law as a “stunt.”

31 Comments

Filed under U.S. Society

31 responses to “Morning Ethics Warm-Up, 3/7/ 2018: Murder, Fake Journalism, Hatch Act Games, And California Defiance

  1. Isaac

    California’s “Bully Law” is currently being reviewed by the Supreme Court. In a nutshell, if you operate an abortion-alternative center that provides services such as ultrasounds, adoption counseling, and pregnancy tests, the law forces you to actively promote the nearest abortion clinic to your clients, including giving them the phone number of the clinic. With specific wording drafted by Planned-Parenthood-funded lawmakers.

    If you aren’t medically licensed just offer counseling and such, you are required to post huge disclaimers about your lack of a license, in 13 languages in large font, effectively drowning out your actual message.

    The law is flagrantly unconstitutional and a case of government-forced speech, essentially using the power of the state to force anti-abortion activists to participate in sending fresh grist to the abortion mills. The creators of the bill are on the record making it clear that that was exactly the intended purpose.

    My state is going completely rogue. Someone please put a leash on them.

    • valkygrrl

      You mean the law says you can’t bait and switch women who think they’re visiting an abortion provider? Cry me a river,

      • It is alleged to do more than that.

      • The law seems to wildly overstep that objective. If so, then you shouldn’t be so eager for the particular law, even while you are eager for the objective.

      • Rusty Rebar

        You might think that would become very clear when a person seeking an abortion at one of these places is not offered the opportunity. Tell me, should McDonalds be forced to have a sign up declaring that they do not sell tacos? I mean, they say they are fast food, and if I want a taco and go to McDonalds I might be tricked into buying a burger instead. Isn’t the fact that they do not have taco’s on the menu enough for me to know they do not sell tacos?

        I think you are denying women agency here. If a woman in California is seeking out an abortion, it is not a very difficult thing to find. This is not Mississippi, we are generally pretty pro-choice as a state and we do not restrict it to only a few locations state-wide. I would wager in any city of 100,000+ in the state you will be able to find a provider. I think women, are perfectly capable of determining for themselves where they want to obtain advice and treatment.

      • Since you like this law so much, wait until you see the ones the Alt-Right are going to enforce on you!

        I am not supporting the move, simply observing that the standards (HA!) progressives use are being turned upon them.

        Ugly, unethical, but has a certain poetic (karmic?) justice to it.

        • A couple of things. The major feature I would say about politics in the US right now is that it is almost impossible to sort through the chaos and to see any issue and any event with clarity. Take any contentious issue and investigate it and you quickly find that, because it is contended, settling the issue becomes nearly impossible. I read not long ago a book that specifically dealt on the American culture-wars and it seems to me that the contentious battle has increased in shrill tone.

          What I find, and what perplexes me to no end, is that deciding any issue, any important issue, hinges directly on interpretation (hermeneutics). One cannot make a decision, or a rational and reason-based decision about anything, without a pre-clarification of essential values. Therefor, to hope to arrive at clarity of any sort and at any level requires a profound anaylsis which also, inevitably, involves a deep self-analysis.

          But who is in a position to carry this out? I would answer: almost no one. Why is this? That in itself requires a somewhat lengthy explanation! In my own view, and definitely in relation to American politics and the American intellectual environment, the image of the perceiver, fastened to his viewing chair, forced to watch the unending array of images pass before him (his eyes toothpicked open like in A Clockwork Orange) and simultaneously unable to ‘turn around’ to see where the images come from, which means incapacitated and unable to understand causation: the causal chain that has led to things as they are. That is a reductive descripion but I do not think it a bad one, and it is useful.

          Your view of the ‘Alt-Right’, Slick, is in my opinion shallow. But to speak fairly requires careful statements. To understand any present form of alternative right politics one has to be able to ‘turn one’s head around’ (take one’s eyes off the flickering screen both as real TV and the shimmering traces of it left in the mind’s imagination). It is an adventure in examination of ideas. But fundamentally it is reactionary and profoundly questions how it has come about that ‘liberalism’ so-called has resulted in the rotting of our culture and our civilization. Remeber: Communism rots the body but liberalism rots the soul. I would begin with a simple statement which nevertheless seems highly true: We lve in a time of encroaching rot. We are surrounded with all its effects. We see it, we feel it, it deeply affects our peace and compusure, yet we are victims of it, can do nothing about it, and because we are ‘fastened to our viewing-chairs’ and ‘cannot turn around’ we cannot arrive at anything but a superficial analysis of ‘what is going on in the present’. We have no idea what is required to stop the rotting onslaught. Yet neurotically we resort to certain mental mechanisms which are not, in my opinion, original to us but come from outside us.

          So, what is the ‘Alternative Right’ when considered against this background? At its best it is a reaction within the individual to confront ‘rot’, both interior and exterior. Desperate it may be. Impetuous? Insufficiently informed and prepared? Could be …

          But it cannot be said to lack genuinity nor intellectual foundation. It is ‘conservative’ in many senses (certainly not all) but it also identifies institutional ‘conservatism’ as having been infected by rot. And it attempts to define a position that can be described on one hand as ‘right-wing criticism of convervatism’, and why such institutional conservatism has failed against the ‘rot’ of (so-called) ‘liberalism’. But it is important to say the following: with any venture into any sort of critical declamation, with any statement that speaks about ‘liberal rot’, it is immediately attacked in the most viscious and overt manner. And the reasons why this is so, as with all the important definitions that have to be carefully worked out, require a slow and thorough description. Nothing is easy here. Nothing!

          If you follow any of the more thoughtful Alternative Rightists who are now writing in relation to ‘the American scene’ you will quickly notice that they recognize that ‘our position’ is very weak. We recognize —- and perhaps it has come slowly becayse we are, after all, subject to having to view the same ‘screen’ (in the widest possible sense) as everyone else —- that certain of our self-chosen spokesmen are not doing such an expert job. We are also aware that ‘the media system’, tied with no doubt to a particular political establishment both industrial and commercial and governmental and academic, is doing everythin in its power to fight against, to slander, to misrepresent, our attemots to define some sort of position against ‘the rot’. And more: it will stop at nothing.

          Even *you* recognize what has happened in journalism and media over a few short years. We are aware that we have *powerful ideas*, *important ideas*, but that we face an established current, a fast moving and poweful current, that moves inexorably into ‘rottenness’, and has us in its grip just as much as anyone else, The face of this current is now clearly visible, to us at least, though not to *you*. *You* cannot arrive at defining statements about the present nor about ‘rot’ and can only speak in PC conventional terms. In this way you are tied to a PC determined thoughtcontrol which is so obviously, so painfully, so agonizingly and frustratingly evident everywhere!

          If there is going to be a renovation of true conservative values, these have to be defined down to the last detail. Obvioulsy, it involves a concerted effort to define such values. These values are not only political and sociological, they are essetially spiritual and religious. One has to start from ‘grand ‘perspectives to catcha glimpse of what is needed, and what stands opposed …

          Waldo Frank wrote:

          “You can guage the state of Europe’s cultural decomposition, by contrasting it with the Body wherein Dante dwelt. Everything there had a place, moved with purposeful rhythm into the Whole. From God to priest, from Emperor to serf, from Heaven to Hell, from star to atom, from good to evil, all was integral. This was a world, moreover, in which Dante lived together with his cook. That Whole is gone. But organic death does not mean inanation. Look at any corpse advanced in its decay, and see how live it is. Europe swarms with death”.

          He writes convincingly of a ‘breakdown’ in internal structures:

          “If Church and State mean anything at all, their divorce is that of spirit and body, of thought and deed. To make of this a social goal is to crown chaos. Religion and politics must form a whole, if either is to be part of health. The peace that is gained by disestablishing their union is the peace of death”

          The allusion here: to examine causal chains. To ‘turn the head around’ to be able to distinguish and understand how it is that we have gotten to this point. Although my own ‘take’ on these matters is distinct and I also think personal, nevertheless this is what the European Alternative Right is basically up to: trying to arrive at sound definitions that help people, carried away by powerful (hyper-liberal) currents into rot-land and what is understood to be DEATH. Our culture, our values, our ground, our accomplishment, our own bodies.

          There you have, my dear Slick Willey, some I hope constructive ideas in regard to your sense about what this terrifying ‘alt-right’ will set out to do!

          • Dear, sweet Alizia,

            ‘What we have here is a failure to communicate’

            My use of the alt-right is the use of a handy term, and refers to those in the American ‘right leaning’ political spectrum who used to have principles and ethics, and have decided to use the oh-so-effective progressive tactics against progressives, thus violating themselves as much as their enemy. Alinsky is not our friend!

            You obviously read much more into the label, and add a global connotation that I am not addressing. If you have a better idea how to describe these once fellow travelers that is common enough for the hit post you replied to, I am all ears.

            As I have told you before, while you may have some ‘deeper’ truth, such is not useful if I wish to engage in conversation or debate from within my nation. I have to uses the language, the terminology, the common thought concepts of my opponent in order to succeed.

            I am communicating: you are not. Communication needs both the speaker and the listener to understand and accept the thought concepts being expressed. Sometimes, in rare events these days, the listener becomes the speaker, and the speaker listens to the feedback, and understanding is enhanced.

            Still got nuthin’ but luv 🙂

            • It would be helpful to me if you could provide an example of the right-leaning who used to have principles and are now employing Alinsky-tactics against the progressive-left. If you describe those ‘once fellow-travelers’ as you understand them I will better understand what you are getting at.

              It is quite possible that many people and even most people will not be able to or may not desire to understand the perspectives I am trying to speak from. According to many they don’t bother to read what I write (therefor it is doubtful they are interested in my ‘Ten Week Email Course’ 😉 )And you are right if you condemn me for speaking in terms that are unintelligible to them. But this blog is not ‘them’.

              Just by virtue of Jack’s backgound, professional training and link with the primier American university, and the level of intelligent thought and discourse such training entails, the blog must be considered to be designed for and also composed of ‘professionals and decision-makers’, those who receive ideas and mold those ideas for others. If I used the term ‘America’s intellectual class’ to refer to most who write here I would not be wrong. Here, we find the progressive liberal as well as the so-called ‘conservative’.

              Since I have participated on this blog I have learned a great deal and I continue to learn. I had the stated intention of maximizing my time here to get from it all I could. I said that at the beginning. All I have done is learnt.

              Disappointingly though, I have also learned first-hand about a dire problem: the closed-mindedness of the American intellectual (of the decision making, professional) class. And I have written often about what I see as moral and ethical failures. I have written of this (often) and gotten zero response.

              My orientation is that of ‘vanguardist’. If I am incompetent at my role, well I have to accept that. Yet I am satisfied, intellectually,with the perspectives that I bring forward. I will leave it to others to judge their utility or foundation in truth.

              I am working —- very hard —- to define a cogent, ethical, and useful foundation for what I see as vital and necessary: European regeneration.

              I have said it before (though I have not, as yet, quoted Milton!):

              Instruct me for thou know’st […]
              What in me is dark illumin,
              what is low raise and support;
              that to the heighth of this great Argument
              I may assert Eternal Providence,
              And justify the ways of God to men.

              I seek correction … and no one corrects.

              • I will address each paragraph by number, rather than repeat and extend this thread. Read that paragraph before my answer as I address it directly, with little introduction.

                1. Many of the people I describe are not ones you could look up online. Others are suppressed by progressives, and have had their access restricted. However, I will give you a link that describes those I am talking about:
                https://www.politico.com/story/2010/03/right-loves-to-hate-imitate-alinsky-034751

                google ‘conservatives using alinsky tactics’ for more

                2. In all honesty, you write a lot. Some of it is… dense, in the ‘hard to push through’ definition. Even here at EA, you are addressing many who are looking for light, or casual, intellectual reading without the insanity found most places on the general Internet. They are not here to work hard to understand a viewpoint from outside our common discourse, even if it has glimpses of truth. Maybe you tighten your responses and go a bit less deep? Just a suggestion.

                3. There are some of what you call ‘intellectual class’ here. I do not call myself one of them, as the very term has connotations those on the right associate with progressive academia, but I am a professional who wishes to understand the thought processes of other viewpoints, in order to sharpen my own thinking and discussion skills.

                I represent what is left of true conservatism, American style, dating back to the late 19th century, springing from a time when there was no government social safety net, where communities helped each other, and standards were enforced. I also am a product of the culture in which I was raised, and strive to correct the false narratives imposed by both the liberal marxists and military industrial complex of my youth. (You are correct in that the goalpost HAS been moved, such that most true conservative concepts are no longer ‘thinkable’ in America. Not sure if your solution is palatable at this point in history without baby steps to undo the damage to our national psyche, but there it is)

                4. I also participate here to learn

                5. I also see the closed mindedness of ALL people in this age of instant communication, where it is easier to be told what to think than to learn how. In order to be corrected, one must first communicate the problem, and agree with the listener that it IS a problem, before solutions can be sought.

                A certain level of mutually agreed-to thought concepts must be established, and a certain number of lazy or irrational positions must be overcome before all can clearly see the root causes. Many will not want to challenge the concepts they are comfortable with. Others have other reasons (politics, personal, or what have you) to cling to concepts even after they are proven false. You have to have a dialog, in other words, with those who will, before progress can be made.

                5. I have learned something in my 5 decades upon this earth, and am ashamed to admit it is a relatively recent realization on my part: sometimes you have to remain quiet when you know better, if you forcing the issue will push the other in a deeper entrenched position where they quit listening. This is sometimes an ethical decision, in that you know their position will damage the other person, and you cannot help that at this point, so therefore pushing forward will end up hurting that person as they double down on stupid and lock you out. You keep the lines of communication open, in the hope that their position will moderate to the point where you can help.

                6. Most people here will understand ‘European regeneration’ as ‘white supremacy’ no matter how illogical that conclusion is. For almost 100 years being white, having connections (even if it is just skin color) with those who colonized and dominated for centuries has been cast as somehow ‘bad.’ This has resulted in victim status for anyone who was ‘dominated’ even if their association is just skin color. Facts do not matter. The common meme after decades of such intellectual gibberish going unchallenged is that whites cannot be discriminated against, that they have no say, that they should be marginalized and have their rights stripped (look at South Africa!) based on muddled thinking and emotional balderdash.

                6. If you wish to communicate, I have given ‘correction,’ or ways to make your message heard, here and elsewhere in my dialog with you. Are you listening?

                • Slick wrote: ”Even here at EA, you are addressing many who are looking for light, or casual, intellectual reading without the insanity found most places on the general Internet. They are not here to work hard to understand a viewpoint from outside our common discourse, even if it has glimpses of truth.”

                  Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts. I always take critique into consideration.

                  I have been reading an interesting short work on philosophy by a Frenchman Pierre Hadot. His perspective is interesting and refreshing. In discussing the figure of Socrates he includes this quote from the Theaetetus: “I am utterly disturbing [ατοπος], and I create only perpelexity [απορια]”. He also presents the idea that Socrates, in our traditions, represents ‘the first individual’. A man dedicated to living in accord with inner promptings, with his sense of the true and the good. I certainly grasp what you say about average people and what they are seeking so please don’t presume that I am not listening to you. And I do grasp that you suggest that I modify my methods of communication. Fair enough. All will be taken under consideration. But as I see things you are opening the door even with these comments to more needed analysis. And doing that analysis, one arrives at conclusions. And having concluded things one develops strategies, takes decisions.

                  This is a time for breaking out of received thought-molds. Change is afoot. Crisis is upon us. Obviously (or so it should be to anyone with an superficial familiarity with history) we are headed for difficult times. I desire to speak to that, about that, and I desire to maximize perplexity and to accentuate what is ‘disturbing’.

                  I must remind you that right at the beginning here (when I first came on) that after just a few posts I was shunned, disrespected, branded, and it was recommended that I get ‘therapy’. That’s ‘America’ talking. That is a mind and a mental structure captured and determined by powerful forces unlike the ‘individual’ that Socrates represents. I desire to speak to ‘the soverign individual’ and I do not care — I cannot care! — if what I say is shocking or strange,

                  ”There are some of what you call ‘intellectual class’ here. I do not call myself one of them, as the very term has connotations those on the right associate with progressive academia, but I am a professional who wishes to understand the thought processes of other viewpoints, in order to sharpen my own thinking and discussion skills.”

                  No, most of those who show up here are of the American intellectual class. That means middle and upper-middle class with university training and some degree or other. If the academy has been infiltrated by progressive-leftist neo-Marxists, and if these people dominate ideas, it is quite clear that the universities need a counter-conquest. And so does the entire domain of ideas. I remember reading somewhere that Americans are ‘anti-intellectual’ taken on the whole. To get a sense of the contempt that should be brought against such people I would refer to HL Mencken. If I have any desire (comparable to the desire you expressed, above) it is to expand horizons of thought. If someone is inspired or intrigued, that is good. But I don’t think I am interested in adapting my message, insofar as I have one, to the comprehension-level of ‘the masses’. It is a huge problem that ‘the masses’ have been given that sort of power: to weigh and decide things they are not qualified to weigh and decide. I do not desire to represent ‘democratic’ or ‘progressive’ discourse but rather the pole that represents authority. I don’t turn to ‘the average man in the street’ to get anything of enduring importance, I turn to the great figures who have molded the higher dimensions of thought.

                  ”I also am a product of the culture in which I was raised, and strive to correct the false narratives imposed by both the liberal marxists and military industrial complex of my youth. (You are correct in that the goalpost HAS been moved, such that most true conservative concepts are no longer ‘thinkable’ in America. Not sure if your solution is palatable at this point in history without baby steps to undo the damage to our national psyche, but there it is)”

                  What you will see, I predict, is the emergence of the American police state in the coming years. I am sorry to have to be the one to say it but it is already there, operating behind the scenes. This is not paranoid speculation though it is speculative to a degree. There is an on-going battle of proportions that no one on this blog has ever specified. I see it in spiritual terms and through Christian and neo-Christian (excuse the term) lenses. The question(s) revolve around ‘what one serves’. God or Mammon. True, this ‘God’ has to be defined and revisualized, and so very much indeed does Mammon. As the police state emerges, and as the clamps and the controls come down on people, the nature of ‘Mammon’ will become more clear. Essentially, this is the perspective in which I am oriented, the essential platform of my ideas. I have always revealed this and never concealed it.

                  ”I also see the closed mindedness of ALL people in this age of instant communication, where it is easier to be told what to think than to learn how. In order to be corrected, one must first communicate the problem, and agree with the listener that it IS a problem, before solutions can be sought.”

                  I don’t see it like that. One has to desire to gain a correct platform on which to build one’s entire life. The first order of business is in gaining a perspective and a platform where one can make any sort of decision. True, people are swayed by exterior powers that seek to influence and dominate them. But that can only mean that one turn against *that* and construct an inner foundation from which to view the world. The problem in that is obviously that people without solid mental training fall into traps laid by others. Instead of being capable of thinking in sovereign terms they end up in ‘cults’ of thought. But that is what really defines America today: a thought-cult.

                  The problem is very large — vast really. And this is why I speak in terms of ‘European regeneration’ and why I specifically choose to speak to those of European descent. That means to get involved again with the ‘categories of European thinking’. To go back into real conservatism which is the original stuff that made up ‘our world’ and of which our souls are composed.

                  When I refer to ‘closedmindedness’ I am referring to people who are under the sway not only of neo-Marxian academics, or guilt-slinging lefty-progressive neo-communist Maoists, but a US establishment and a ‘deep state’ which is operating to chain people through false-ideas to … Mammon. However, instead of falling into the trap of paranoid suspicionism, I advocate for clearly defined philosophical terms and an analysis of the present that can be communicated reasonably and rationally.

                  ”A certain level of mutually agreed-to thought concepts must be established, and a certain number of lazy or irrational positions must be overcome before all can clearly see the root causes. Many will not want to challenge the concepts they are comfortable with. Others have other reasons (politics, personal, or what have you) to cling to concepts even after they are proven false. You have to have a dialog, in other words, with those who will, before progress can be made.”

                  And with this I again suggest that the first order of business is recovering a spirtual plaform. But I would not force you to agree with me. In my own case, and after lots of struggle and confusion, I define this spirtual area as ‘Greco-Christian’. By returning to the founts in philosophy, ethics, morality, religion, and politics, one simultaneously recovers the very ground on which the European self has been constructed. If we do not do this we will die. It is death that approaches, it is death that reveals its face and intentions. To turn against death is to turn back to life. To define life is the larger part of the question. And that definition, for us, is revealed in our own history and traditions.

                  ”Most people here will understand ‘European regeneration’ as ‘white supremacy’ no matter how illogical that conclusion is. For almost 100 years being white, having connections (even if it is just skin color) with those who colonized and dominated for centuries has been cast as somehow ‘bad.’ This has resulted in victim status for anyone who was ‘dominated’ even if their association is just skin color. Facts do not matter. The common meme after decades of such intellectual gibberish going unchallenged is that whites cannot be discriminated against, that they have no say, that they should be marginalized and have their rights stripped (look at South Africa!) based on muddled thinking and emotional balderdash.”

                  Sure, 60-70 years of hard indoctrination will do that! And that is ‘the dagger set in the chest of Europe’ that must be removed and the wound heal. Unlike you (to all appearances) I do not discount the perspectives of someone who comes to understand how they have been a ‘victim’ (because I made a substantial and extended effort to understand Black History and have read many of the radical authors). My perspective is: now is the time to establish separate polities. But the first order of business for us is: reestablishing ‘white identity’ and redefining America as a ‘white country’. If you cannot make that statement, this I well understand. But as things progress, and the system itself reveales its own intentions which do not serve *you*, that you and many others who seem to be intellectually paralyzed, will wake up. That waking up is the beginning of the recovery of self-consciousness, power and will.

                  I fully understand that ‘America’, right now, is in intellectual chaos about and around these ideas. It is ‘intellectual chao’s that defines America. But the first step that we make in recovering our identity’ provides the foundation for the recovery of more and more. But the first step must be taken. Obviously, I am speaking much more to larger, civilizational questions (the survival of Europe) and these all need to be brought out into the open, put on the table for examination. There is no other way to do that … but by doing that. And to that I dedicate myself. And there are many thousands like me. And millions we hope to communicate with.

                  I have never misrepresented myself. I always made it clear who I was and what I represented.

      • Isaac

        You are making even less sense than usual. Abortion-alternative centers are exactly that, and it is not humanly possible to mistake them for abortion providers except in the addled brain of a delusional culture-warrior who needs villains for the story playing in his head.

        • Isaac

          (And when your rebuttal to anything is “Oh yeah! Boom! Slate article!” you might just want to take a break from the keyboard.)

        • valkygrrl

          They go out of their way to deceive women seeking abortions.

          https://jezebel.com/5842125/the-time-i-tried-to-get-an-abortion-from-a-crisis-pregnancy-center

          And if you want a cherry on top, open your phone and pull up your map app and type in abortion. If any of your results don’t provide the service what does that tell you?

          • philk57

            “And if you want a cherry on top, open your phone and pull up your map app and type in abortion. If any of your results don’t provide the service what does that tell you?”

            It tells me that “Abortion Clinic” and “Abortion Alternative Clinic” both have the word abortion in them. Kind of a duh when it comes to internet or map searches.

          • And if you want a cherry on top, open your phone and pull up your map app and type in abortion. If any of your results don’t provide the service what does that tell you?”

            Uhhh, that you are an moron?

            So let’s see, just who created those search engines that you phone will default to use? Google? Apple?

            So your contention is that these very lefty organizations who support abortions have decided to use their products to prevent them? That they want to confuse women who just want to get that scrap or tissue out of their bodies?

            Wow.

            You are past irrational where abortion is concerned.

          • Isaac

            False. And you have now managed to one-up the cringe of posting a Salon article.

            I don’t know what to tell you except that I LIVE in California. I have been to abortion-alternative centers in person. I know volunteers who work in them. They have names like “Birth Choice” and “Life Care.” They show up in the Yellow Pages and online under the category “abortion alternatives.” In no possible universe is there some kind of “deception” going on in which people go to one of these places looking for an abortion and somehow ending up victimized by pro-lifers. You are just plain delusional, because you get your opinions about the world from delusional articles written by 20-something women’s-studies majors with no life experience, instead of from the real world.

            No one but you can help you with this. Go on a road trip. See America. Talk to real people. There is no substitute for actually knowing things.

            I can tell you something else about “abortion-alternative” centers that you are never likely to learn for yourself. They don’t get paid by commission. They don’t make money off of adoptions the way that Planned Parenthood profits from every abortion. They don’t buy politicians. They are staffed mostly by volunteers. They actually help women, most of whom are decent and don’t want to kill their babies if they feel that they have other options. (It is well-documented that PP “counselors” are abortion hard-sellers.) And since at least half of abortions are coerced, usually by men, if you were the independent-thinker sort you’d probably want to support their existence even if you believe that abortion is a right.

  2. 1. Marxists took over schools, and this is the result. Journalism is propaganda (and on both sides) and fair play is openly mocked.

    2. I am conflicted about wishing for there to be discipline for Conway. See, we have decades of the rules being exclusively enforced upon non progressives, culminating in Hillary still walking free today. My feelings are unethical, but this is almost beyond ethical considerations: making one side stick to the rules while the other violates them in ever greater ways with impunity has become an existential risk to the two party system. Democrats routinely flaut laws they arrest Republicans for. ‘Process’ indictments are corruptly used to destroy one side, ala’ Flynn. Progressives increasingly demand that opposition to their politics be criminalized.

    So hell no, no enforcement from Trump here. And Rep. Cummings can suck wind until he calls for the same for the actions of my fellow Texan Castro, of the Joaquin and Julian show.

    3. I never thought that I might be on the side of the Federal Government when considering an American Civil War. The thought is initially unsettling, as all such ‘thought games’ I have ever entertained made the Fed the bad guys. California has reversed the paradyne. They are acting exactly like the South did pre Civil War, in terms of nullifying Federal laws.

    Jerry Brown’s little rant about an AG poking his nose into a State is ironic. Hey Jerry, Welcome to OUR world! Texas gets this all the time from progressives.

  3. Inquiring Mind

    1. We’re supposed to be surprised that journalism has sunk this far? I had it figured out when the media gave Obama a pass over Jeremiah Wright.

    2. Except… Kellyanne Conway said nothing that Donald Trump hadn’t already tweeted. Sorry, but when POTUS says something his staffers shouldn’t be penalized for saying the same thing.

    The big divide on the right is how to deal with the fundamental transformation that Barack Obama’s administration created – and you can thank Lois Lerner getting off scot-free for that. Some have realized the rules changed, others are trying to hold to the old way of doing things.

    Steve Schmidt and Nicolle Wallace are among those who don’t like that many on the right are deciding to adjust to the new rules. If they had been remotely competent in their jobs with the McCain campaign, ads about Wright would have been hammering Obama during the general election.

    3. California has brought back nullification – and it’s time to rein them in. They are routinely violating the First and Second Amendments.

  4. Steve

    Jack not sure if I should thank you or curse you. Just finished Murder in the park and it is truly disturbing. During the movie I would pause to look up different individuals and it is stunning to see just how many unethical individuals were part of it.

    Curious of your take but I think the attorney for Alstory takes the prize for most unethical. Who is your pick? How does that attorney still have a licence?

    Thanks, I think, for pointing this documentary out to us.

  5. So the state is threatening to send men with guns to deter people from cooperating with federal authorities.

    Why is it different when the Crips, the Mafia, or MS-13 do it?

  6. More on the California lawsuit.

    http://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1041436/download

    California cannot plausibly assert that it has authority to directly prohibit the United
    States from entering private property with consent from the property owner. Its effort to do so is
    no more permissible when achieved indirectly through regulation of the property owner. Because
    “a regulation imposed on one who deals with the Government has as much potential to obstruct
    governmental functions as regulation imposed on the Government itself,” the Supreme Court
    “has required that the regulation be one that is imposed on some basis unrelated to the object’s
    status as a Government contractor or supplier, that is, that it be imposed equally on other
    similarly situated constituents of the State.” North Dakota, 495 U.S. at 438 (plurality op.). Here,
    the state enactment is imposed based solely on the private entity’s decision to deal with the
    United States. Similarly, California cannot plausibly assert that it has authority to impose a tax
    only on those businesses that enter into agreements with the United States. See, e.g., South
    Carolina, 485 U.S. at 514-15. That basic principle does not yield when the tax takes the form of
    a civil penalty, and the agreement with the United States takes the form of cooperation with
    immigration officers.
    That AB 450 regulates private property owners in a manner that discriminates exclusively
    against the United States is made plain by the fact that California law does not establish any
    similar proscription on a private employer’s consenting to inspections by any California law
    enforcement agencies, some of whose regulatory schemes in fact mandate that regulated places

    of employment provide state inspectors “free access” to their premises, often on penalty of
    criminal prosecution, and with no warrant requirement. See, e.g., Cal. Lab. Code §§ 90, 1174,
    1175(b) (Division of Labor Standards Enforcement); id. §§ 2666, 2667 (Department of Industrial
    Relations); id. § 6314 (Division of Occupational Safety and Health); see also id. § 1151
    (Agricultural Labor Relations Board shall have “free access to all places of labor”). None of
    these provisions forbid private property owners from consenting to a State inspection. Nor does
    California law require private employers to refuse State officers consent unless a judicial warrant
    is presented. Rather, “[e]mployers have the right to consent to a police search,” People v.
    Shields, 205 Cal. App. 3d 1065, 1068 (6th Dist. 1988), or to a regulatory “inspection.” Appeal of
    Rudolph and Sletten, Inc., Employer, 2004 WL 817770, at *5 (Ca. O.S.H.A. Mar. 30, 2004).
    Moreover, law enforcement entities may rely on consent and need not normally procure judicial
    warrants before fulfilling their regulatory mandates. See, e.g., Walnut Hill Estate Enters., LLC v.
    City of Oroville, No. 09-cv-0500, 2010 WL 2902346, at *3 (E.D. Cal. July 22, 2010); Salwasser
    Mfg. Co. v. Occupational Safety & Health Appeals Bd., 214 Cal. App. 3d 625 (5th Dist. 1989).

  7. https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/twenty-thousand-hertz/id1171270672?mt=2&i=1000400419037

    Interesting discussion on music in News casts and how it manipulates our attitudes toward any particular story.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s