You read that correctly...
This post title is the claim made by "social justice warrior" students who stormed the stage while the University of Oregon President, Michael H. Schill, was giving a state-of-the-university address earlier this month in Eugene, Oregon. Mr. Schill makes a very insightful point about this growing problem in this article.
I'm going to get directly to the point... what these student have in intelligence and knowledge (as limited as that is), they lack in experience and wisdom.
The phenomenon we're seeing with these radicalized students who are convinced they're protecting democracy is, in my opinion and from my teaching experience, revealing how ignorant and caught up in "group think" they are about the concept of free speech. Many believe they're justified, in their view, that if anyone is saying something which offends their sensitivities, views, or concepts about anything, in committing violence, by any means necessary, to shut down anyone from being able to speak their opinion on it. Is this merely a spontaneous occurrence of stupidity, or is there an origin to it?
My theory on this question contains several causes; one, a lack of civics - including an explanation of the reasons and circumstances of that period as to why the concepts put forth in the Bill of Rights in the Constitution were included - being taught in public schools since the '70s, two, a combination of liberal coddling by parents who've protected them from any experience of struggle or difficulty in their lives, along with the modeling that the "Organizer-in-Chief" so subtly provided them while they were in middle-school and high school, three, note the particular choice of words used in the chant as they walked down the isles and stood on the stage; "Nothing about us, without us." On the surface, this chant seems to be demanding a voice in the decisions at the university. However, for me, this is an expression of no only their immaturity in regard to their role there, but also their self-centeredness which has been fostered by parents and prior school experience. (I wouldn't be surprised that, should future investigation reveal evidence to support the possibility that someone like George Soros, and his "Open Society" movement money, has been funneled into nearly every college and university across the country to pay insurgents - like the student speaking at the end of the video in this article - to foment the rioting and shout downs which are taking place.)
For eight years, "the police acted stupidly", "if he was my son, he'd look like me", and the fake news myth perpetuated by the media of "hands up don't shoot" became the accepted train of thinking about the race relations in our country; especially in the urban centers of our increasingly divided states.
Now that they're at colleges, their professors who engage in perpetuating the ideology that America is bad and social injustice must be corrected which took place over 150 years ago, these students believe they're engaged in moral crusade of correcting wrongs that neither side of the issue were ever involved in directly! If events like this have occurred at high schools, why haven't we learned about them in the news or on the Internet? (My guess is that the local school district's P.R. department isn't willing to let such a story out, but that may yet come.)
At this point, it appears that they have the momentum. Is it possible to turn this around? Yes, but only if there are more college and university presidents who, unlike the former president of Evergreen State College in Washington State last year, have a backbone and understanding of what's going on and how to deal with it.
Tuesday, October 24, 2017
Monday, October 23, 2017
Sunday, October 22, 2017
Are Our Constitutional Rights Gone?
Here are two recent articles which answer the question in this post's title:
California City Searches Homes Without Warrants
The Surveilance State Shifts Into High Gear
We can do two things regarding this state of affairs:
1) Read 'em and weep, or
2) Organize and tell them "hell no!" (You want to listen to this.)
I suspect the former will occur more than the latter. I pray I'm proven wrong!
How Much Will We Learn Now?
Just how much will be actually released now that President Trump has decided to release more classified documents regarding the JFK assassination investigations remains to be seen over the next few months as these files will be scrutinized by those interested in digging into them. Most likely, those who've dedicated most of their lives researching, investigating, speaking at conferences, writing books and making documentaries, are the ones most likely to be doing so, for they have the background, expertise of facts, versus rumor and opinions, about various details and connections of people involved in the event. The web is vast, and the players are legion.
For those of us who were only children at the time of the event - I was in 5th grade in a school in the L.A. area of CA - it is one of those things that is indelibly fixed in our memory with vivid clarity. I was sitting in my classroom on Friday, Nov. 22nd - we were all watching a broadcast of a Spanish language lesson (I don't recall which of the 4 stations - ABC, NBC, CBS or PBS - it was on; most likely PBS) at around mid-morning - when our teacher suddenly switched the channel after getting of his phone. Walter Cronkite broke into the show on that channel and announced that President Kennedy had been shot in Dallas, Texas. At that moment another teacher - who was standing in the doorway monitoring the class - gasped loudly in reaction, placed her hand over her mouth to silence it, and went down the hall in shock. We all sat in our seats, glued to the television set - which was only black and white then - and tried to comprehend just what the news man was actually telling us about. It was obviously serious, for, when Cronkite took his glasses off and wiped a tear welling up in his eye, this display of emotion was not common.
By early afternoon an announcement was made over the school's P.A. (Public Announcement) system that school was being cancelled, and that buses would be taking us home immediately. This was around 1:00 PM PST. I spent the rest of the afternoon sitting on the floor of our TV viewing area watching what unfolded in the news through the rest of that afternoon and evening, as well as the rest of the weekend.
Interestingly, the Press Secretary, Malcolm Killdoff, who gave a press briefing said that the doctor determined that the president died of a gunshot wound right to the head as he raised his right arm and pointed his finger directly to the area directly above the right eye on the skull. Yet, we were told that Oswald shot him with the rifle from the 6th floor window of the Texas Schoolbook Depository, from the rear. Footage from the documentary about the event titled, "The Men Who Killed Kennedy" has images of the police on the 6th floor of the building looking at the rifle with the voiceover saying, "It was an Italian Manlicher Carcano, WWII vintage, worn and rusty, and with a misaligned scope." Question... how can a marksman use a rifle with a misaligned scope to shoot someone with any chance of accuracy?
We learned of Officer J.D. Tippit being killed by a gunman, then the arrest of a suspect found in a theater not far away from there that day. Then, there was what I believe was the first ever "live on television" murder of Lee H. Oswald by Jack Ruby in the basement of the Dallas Police Hdqrts. a few days later (Sunday) when he was being transferred to another jail facility. Ruby was the owner of a strip club in downtown Dallas and it was later discovered that he was connected with the mob.
I believe it was Monday or Tuesday - school was still out due to the national mourning being observed - when the funeral procession happened. It was a long day of formal pomp and circumstance with all the trappings of state proceedings; his flag draped coffin on a wagon wheeled cart pulled by at least eight white horses and squads of soldiers from every branch of the military. Ahead of the cart was another black stallion - stunningly beautiful - with black boots placed in the stirrups backwards, full of energy to the point of the soldier who was walking next to it nearly lost control several times as he held onto its reigns. Our speculation was that someone forgot to tire this black beauty out the day before, or it was over excited by all the people lining the streets, watching in reverent silence as the coffin passed slowly by; the horses' hooves clip-clopping on the hard pavement, piercing the somber mood covering the days event.
Once the procession reached to capitol building, the coffin was moved into the rotunda underneath the vaulted dome to lay in state for a period while hundreds of thousands of mourners filed slowly and quietly passed it. At some point, Mrs. Kennedy, accompanied by Teddy & Bobby Kennedy, along with Caroline and "Little John" visited the coffin there, and the nation, if not the world, was riveted and mesmerized by the scene. A few days later the ceremony at Arlington Cemetery took place and the nation was by now, fatigued by the drawn out ordeal of mourning its loved President... almost relieved that it was coming to an end.
As the Warren Commission, led by the former Director of the C.I.A. - whom Kennedy had fired from the position earlier - Allen Dulles, and other members of the commission, interviewed Jack Ruby in jail. He pleaded to be removed from Dallas to testify in Washington, D.C. and on camera stated, in answering a reporter's question as to whether the reason the truth behind it all would be withheld from the people of the country because of individuals in high places of the government, he replied, "Yes!"
Over the next several years, the nation's innocence shattered, the new administration under Pres. Johnson began gradually escalating the war in Vietnam by sending more military advisors and troops. At the same time, the "Flower Revolution" hit the Haight/Ashbury district of San Francisco, CA only 70 miles south of where I was going to middle-school. As I reached high school, drugs were steadily proliferating our experience as our friends encouraged us to "drop out, drop in, and become enlightened" by taking an array of psychotropic drugs which supposedly would expand our horizons. At the UC Berkeley campus, protests against the "establishment" of the day were fighting police for the cause of free speech.
Amidst these years was a cultural revolution which resulted in riots in various urban areas of the country, with regular anti-Vietnam War protest marches and black arm bands worn on one arm to show "solidarity". Today, 45 years later, we're experience de ja vous,, all over again, with the new "resistance" attempting to shut down free speech because they're offended by opposing political views. How ironic! It seems our "Organizer-in-Chief" of the previous administration was effective in dividing our society using identity politics by implementing tactics and strategies espoused by his mentor, Saul Alinsky.
Footnote: I believe I understand why the CIA is not allowing all the documents released on the JFK assassination.
While others who are now combing
through the newly released documents and finding some little piece of
new information that points to something they hadn't considered, the
truth will have been in plain sight all along, but they just weren't
aware of it due to it being suppressed successfully.
Here is the complete series for this documentary produced by Nigel Turner and aired by the History Channel:
For those of us who were only children at the time of the event - I was in 5th grade in a school in the L.A. area of CA - it is one of those things that is indelibly fixed in our memory with vivid clarity. I was sitting in my classroom on Friday, Nov. 22nd - we were all watching a broadcast of a Spanish language lesson (I don't recall which of the 4 stations - ABC, NBC, CBS or PBS - it was on; most likely PBS) at around mid-morning - when our teacher suddenly switched the channel after getting of his phone. Walter Cronkite broke into the show on that channel and announced that President Kennedy had been shot in Dallas, Texas. At that moment another teacher - who was standing in the doorway monitoring the class - gasped loudly in reaction, placed her hand over her mouth to silence it, and went down the hall in shock. We all sat in our seats, glued to the television set - which was only black and white then - and tried to comprehend just what the news man was actually telling us about. It was obviously serious, for, when Cronkite took his glasses off and wiped a tear welling up in his eye, this display of emotion was not common.
By early afternoon an announcement was made over the school's P.A. (Public Announcement) system that school was being cancelled, and that buses would be taking us home immediately. This was around 1:00 PM PST. I spent the rest of the afternoon sitting on the floor of our TV viewing area watching what unfolded in the news through the rest of that afternoon and evening, as well as the rest of the weekend.
Interestingly, the Press Secretary, Malcolm Killdoff, who gave a press briefing said that the doctor determined that the president died of a gunshot wound right to the head as he raised his right arm and pointed his finger directly to the area directly above the right eye on the skull. Yet, we were told that Oswald shot him with the rifle from the 6th floor window of the Texas Schoolbook Depository, from the rear. Footage from the documentary about the event titled, "The Men Who Killed Kennedy" has images of the police on the 6th floor of the building looking at the rifle with the voiceover saying, "It was an Italian Manlicher Carcano, WWII vintage, worn and rusty, and with a misaligned scope." Question... how can a marksman use a rifle with a misaligned scope to shoot someone with any chance of accuracy?
We learned of Officer J.D. Tippit being killed by a gunman, then the arrest of a suspect found in a theater not far away from there that day. Then, there was what I believe was the first ever "live on television" murder of Lee H. Oswald by Jack Ruby in the basement of the Dallas Police Hdqrts. a few days later (Sunday) when he was being transferred to another jail facility. Ruby was the owner of a strip club in downtown Dallas and it was later discovered that he was connected with the mob.
I believe it was Monday or Tuesday - school was still out due to the national mourning being observed - when the funeral procession happened. It was a long day of formal pomp and circumstance with all the trappings of state proceedings; his flag draped coffin on a wagon wheeled cart pulled by at least eight white horses and squads of soldiers from every branch of the military. Ahead of the cart was another black stallion - stunningly beautiful - with black boots placed in the stirrups backwards, full of energy to the point of the soldier who was walking next to it nearly lost control several times as he held onto its reigns. Our speculation was that someone forgot to tire this black beauty out the day before, or it was over excited by all the people lining the streets, watching in reverent silence as the coffin passed slowly by; the horses' hooves clip-clopping on the hard pavement, piercing the somber mood covering the days event.
Once the procession reached to capitol building, the coffin was moved into the rotunda underneath the vaulted dome to lay in state for a period while hundreds of thousands of mourners filed slowly and quietly passed it. At some point, Mrs. Kennedy, accompanied by Teddy & Bobby Kennedy, along with Caroline and "Little John" visited the coffin there, and the nation, if not the world, was riveted and mesmerized by the scene. A few days later the ceremony at Arlington Cemetery took place and the nation was by now, fatigued by the drawn out ordeal of mourning its loved President... almost relieved that it was coming to an end.
As the Warren Commission, led by the former Director of the C.I.A. - whom Kennedy had fired from the position earlier - Allen Dulles, and other members of the commission, interviewed Jack Ruby in jail. He pleaded to be removed from Dallas to testify in Washington, D.C. and on camera stated, in answering a reporter's question as to whether the reason the truth behind it all would be withheld from the people of the country because of individuals in high places of the government, he replied, "Yes!"
Over the next several years, the nation's innocence shattered, the new administration under Pres. Johnson began gradually escalating the war in Vietnam by sending more military advisors and troops. At the same time, the "Flower Revolution" hit the Haight/Ashbury district of San Francisco, CA only 70 miles south of where I was going to middle-school. As I reached high school, drugs were steadily proliferating our experience as our friends encouraged us to "drop out, drop in, and become enlightened" by taking an array of psychotropic drugs which supposedly would expand our horizons. At the UC Berkeley campus, protests against the "establishment" of the day were fighting police for the cause of free speech.
Amidst these years was a cultural revolution which resulted in riots in various urban areas of the country, with regular anti-Vietnam War protest marches and black arm bands worn on one arm to show "solidarity". Today, 45 years later, we're experience de ja vous,, all over again, with the new "resistance" attempting to shut down free speech because they're offended by opposing political views. How ironic! It seems our "Organizer-in-Chief" of the previous administration was effective in dividing our society using identity politics by implementing tactics and strategies espoused by his mentor, Saul Alinsky.
Footnote: I believe I understand why the CIA is not allowing all the documents released on the JFK assassination.
I
suspect that very few have ever seen the full series. If any did,
they've long forgotten the details revealed. Produced and aired by the
History Channel years ago, the 9th episode of the series is the most
plausible regarding who had the most to win in having JFK eliminated;
for both legal and political reasons. Once gone, he would then be
protected by the Secret Service.
If
this particular presentation doesn't have the most convincing testimony
by people close to the situation, then none make sense. I urge you to watch
this one episode and determine for yourself whether there's any worth to
it.
Here is the complete series for this documentary produced by Nigel Turner and aired by the History Channel:
Saturday, October 21, 2017
Why the Media Is No Longer Credible
 |
| Oh yea, she's a "Rock Star" now! |
Why do you believe the media is no longer credible? Have you noticed what has changed in the media's coverage of almost everything? What do you feel is the reason why there's so much fake news these days? Is it any wonder that so many no longer watch their reports?
I was pleased to see the interview Sheryll Attkisson did recently with Frank Sesno titled, "The Big Ask" centered around his new book with the same title. Why? Because it confirmed something I have believed as to why the media has shifted from centrist oriented in the decades when I was a child and young adult, to leftist and liberal. Mr. Sesno points out how today's journalists who clearly lean to the left, are ask questions which are oriented in a confrontational manner, rather than phrased, or posed, in a manner which is neutral, but digs for information which is factual, rather than challenging the person being asked in an accusatory way. The most notorious example would be the CNN reporter - Jim Accosta - who went out of control with a barrage of stupid questions and wouldn't shut up. Trump gave him a "smack down" and it became it's own story for days.
What he explains is the driving force of media behind why this has developed into what it is today, and I've long known that this reality was why we've now become inundated with what appears to be an all out "fake news" assault on our current President; sensationalism drives ratings! Of course, it's already understood that a large share of today's media war against Trump is because they are furious that he managed to outfox them from the start of his campaign by manipulating them to give him press coverage and ultimately beating their "crowned princess" Hillary. They're still incensed about this and are character assassinating Trump in every conceivable way they can; even to the extent of having liberal members of Congress make absurd claims... can you spell Wilson?
Consider the fact that today we have hundreds of news outlets with the Internet compared to the 1960s when Walter Cronkite, David & Chet Brinkley, and Eric Sevaried were the only three news sources of that era. The competition today is all the more fierce, and in order to get any attention, stations such as MSNBC (MSLSD as Mark Levin calls it.) are going to extremes when reporting that, say, the President sneezed and claim it set off one of "Rocket Man's" missiles in North Korea, or some ridiculous thing like it.
You want a perfect example of just how dishonest, the New York Times for instance, as part of the leftist media can be? Check these two stories here:
Bill O'Reilly - Part 1 (Oct 21, 2017 5:40 pm)
Bill O'Reilly - Part 2 (Oct 22, 2017 10:40 am)
Footnote:
I can't help but wonder what Eric Sevaried is thinking about his press from up in heaven, now. It seems that, as he said in his farewell address (see link above) that he can no longer "... comfort ones' self in times of error with the knowledge of the saving grace that the press, print, or broadcast, is its self correcting nature...", with Cronkite signing off at the end.
Friday, October 20, 2017
I Have A Theory About Immigration
For years now I've been trying to understand why our elected officials have basically ignored our immigration problem. We all know from watching what's happened over the last 20 years how politicians have done nothing to address the porous border between the U.S. and Mexico. Why?
I figured there had to be a reason behind it, but I just couldn't put a logical, reasonable finger on it. I thought they were attempting to bolster their voter base, or bring in more from other countries who would tend to support their leftist revolutionary ideology. While there may be something to this, I seriously doubt it's the main driving force behind it all.
Allow me to explain... I'll start by asking a question: What do you think is the most critical commodity to any nation's economic viability? I suspect most of you are naming off something like precious metals, water, oil, land, food, etc. Well, while most of those are important to our modern economy, none of them are it. Very few have ever learned, or studied about cycles. Most of us are somewhat aware of them as a natural phenomenon of nature such as the seasons, or the tides of the ocean and such, but how many have studied the cycles of national populations. When correlated with birth booms due to, say wars, or famines, and the resulting rebound of the particular region, or country affected, a delayed effect takes place over decades as those new children grow up and become working, productive members of society.
So, if people impact a country's economy, whether it's growing up and contributing to an economic boom, or that boom population growing old and no longer spending as much due to going into retirement, it's not difficult to see how there's a connection between our own baby boomers - of which I'm one of hundreds of millions - and the fact that they are now reaching those lesser spending years at a rate of 10,000/day right now; and have been for several years now if one examines the stats related to them.
How does this relate to immigration, you ask? I suspect some of you may have already made the logical and obvious mental leap to what I'm going state as my basis of my theory of why our immigration situation has been ignored by our government. It's my understanding that the various committees in Congress have commissioned a plethora of studies by bean counters on future trends for the nation. I suspect that, because they've become aware of the reality of what I've cited above regarding the baby boomers going into retirement at such a high rate, coupled with the reality that Congress is addicted to spending beyond its tax revenue income stream, it's not that far of a stretch to speculate that the only solution to propping up the taxes needed to sustain a level even close to what the nation enjoyed during the 25 year period of 1975 - 2000, would be to allow a massive number of immigrants into the country; even illegally.
Think for a second... it's a known fact that our nation's immigration policy was ended in the 1920s to allow all those European groups who'd entered through Ellis Island and other points to assimilate into our culture. Then, in 1965 or so, Congress passed a new immigration policy which reopened foreigners to come into the country once again. And, it's been climbing ever since. Why? I contend that it was, in part, to address what projects indicated was to be the inevitable decline of our nation's own baby boomer spending trends which one, or more of their commissioned studies about future population trends for the country would be in the decades ahead.
What sparked this theory? An online presentation by one Harry Dent. Instead of taking the effort to provide information about who he is here, I invite you to simply use this link to his most recent page on the Internet to watch and listen to his presentation about his own research on this topic. I must warn you, it's pretty long, but it also has some very interesting and hard to argue against points which he covers over the duration of the presentation. But be patient, while it may be long, it's also difficult to discount much of what he's saying about his discovery of economic cycles.
I figured there had to be a reason behind it, but I just couldn't put a logical, reasonable finger on it. I thought they were attempting to bolster their voter base, or bring in more from other countries who would tend to support their leftist revolutionary ideology. While there may be something to this, I seriously doubt it's the main driving force behind it all.
Allow me to explain... I'll start by asking a question: What do you think is the most critical commodity to any nation's economic viability? I suspect most of you are naming off something like precious metals, water, oil, land, food, etc. Well, while most of those are important to our modern economy, none of them are it. Very few have ever learned, or studied about cycles. Most of us are somewhat aware of them as a natural phenomenon of nature such as the seasons, or the tides of the ocean and such, but how many have studied the cycles of national populations. When correlated with birth booms due to, say wars, or famines, and the resulting rebound of the particular region, or country affected, a delayed effect takes place over decades as those new children grow up and become working, productive members of society.
So, if people impact a country's economy, whether it's growing up and contributing to an economic boom, or that boom population growing old and no longer spending as much due to going into retirement, it's not difficult to see how there's a connection between our own baby boomers - of which I'm one of hundreds of millions - and the fact that they are now reaching those lesser spending years at a rate of 10,000/day right now; and have been for several years now if one examines the stats related to them.
How does this relate to immigration, you ask? I suspect some of you may have already made the logical and obvious mental leap to what I'm going state as my basis of my theory of why our immigration situation has been ignored by our government. It's my understanding that the various committees in Congress have commissioned a plethora of studies by bean counters on future trends for the nation. I suspect that, because they've become aware of the reality of what I've cited above regarding the baby boomers going into retirement at such a high rate, coupled with the reality that Congress is addicted to spending beyond its tax revenue income stream, it's not that far of a stretch to speculate that the only solution to propping up the taxes needed to sustain a level even close to what the nation enjoyed during the 25 year period of 1975 - 2000, would be to allow a massive number of immigrants into the country; even illegally.
Think for a second... it's a known fact that our nation's immigration policy was ended in the 1920s to allow all those European groups who'd entered through Ellis Island and other points to assimilate into our culture. Then, in 1965 or so, Congress passed a new immigration policy which reopened foreigners to come into the country once again. And, it's been climbing ever since. Why? I contend that it was, in part, to address what projects indicated was to be the inevitable decline of our nation's own baby boomer spending trends which one, or more of their commissioned studies about future population trends for the country would be in the decades ahead.
What sparked this theory? An online presentation by one Harry Dent. Instead of taking the effort to provide information about who he is here, I invite you to simply use this link to his most recent page on the Internet to watch and listen to his presentation about his own research on this topic. I must warn you, it's pretty long, but it also has some very interesting and hard to argue against points which he covers over the duration of the presentation. But be patient, while it may be long, it's also difficult to discount much of what he's saying about his discovery of economic cycles.
Thursday, October 19, 2017
"They tell me the budget's just a piece of toilet paper."
Senator Rand Paul, (R) Kentucky, was interviewed this morning on Glenn Beck's radio show about the tax cut package that's being debated in both the media and Congress for an intended passage some time before the Christmas holiday. What Sen. Paul is all worked up about is the actual lack of fiscal conservatism being encountered by nearly every Republican Senator regarding the tax cut package and the spending that's happening beyond limits already set in the budget.
It's a classic case of what's wrong in "the swamp" when it comes to our growing national debt; spending beyond our means which will some day bite us in the rear with very painful consequences. However, establishment Republicans, the majority in both the House and the Senate, are acting as though that's not anything to be concerned about.
I urge my readers to use the link to this page about this interview and listen to this fairly short interview. Sen. Rand Paul speaks so fast that Glenn has to slow him down a few times to clarify what he's said, but I believe you'll find this rather amazing to hear how he explains what he's up against regarding upholding any sense of fiscal responsibility by his fellow Senators.
Footnote: For those who've missed the debate held on CNN between Sen. Sanders (D) and Sen. Cruz (R) on the proposed tax cut package now before Congress, I provide the link to it here. (I believe one of the best points made occurs at the 10:00 point.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)