One of our group Patricia Jelbert who was actually in Prague on the day Russian tanks rolled into Czechoslovakia in 1968, sent me an explanation of the song "Rule Britannia".
This is what Patricia sent me:
The BBC tried to “de-voice” the Rule Britannia hymn on the basis, apparently, of allusions to this countries slavery history. Of course, using Covid19 as an additional cover-story justification.
Slavery, YES indeed, but brother, didn’t the BBC get it wrong as to “WHICH” slavery….
In the 17th century the seas around Britain were ruled by North African Muslim Slavers. They stopped British ships and carried off the crews to be sold as slaves in Algiers and Tripoli.
The situation became so bad that fishermen from Devon and Cornwall wouldn’t put out to sea in case they were captured by North African Slave Traders.
Between 1609 and 1616, 466 British ships were captured by Slave Traders in the Bristol channel, English Channel, Irish Sea and North Atlantic, and the crews were sold into slavery.
In 1625 a raiding party landed at Mount’s Bay in Cornwall and 60 people who had taken refuge in a local church were dragged out, loaded up and taken off to Africa to be sold as slaves.
On 12 August 1625 the Mayor of Plymouth wrote to London for military help after 27 ships had been seized by North African Muslim Slave Traders in just 10 days. In 1645, 240 people were seized as slaves in Cornwall.
The situation only began to change after the end of the English Civil War when the Navy (future Royal Navy) started building up under Oliver Cromwell. By 1700, North African Slavers generally knew better than to bother the British Isles in the search for slaves because of the Royal Navy.
It was a triumph that Britain was finally able to control its own coastal waters. And it was in commemoration of this that in 1740, James Thompson wrote ‘Rule Britannia’. It is a hymn of thanksgiving rather than a proclamation of aggressive Nationalism.
In the light of our government about to impose same sex marriage on the people of the Cayman Islands, a deeply Christian population of only 68000 souls,
I found the leading of singing of the Rule Britannia by the gross bisexual mezzo soprano, Jamie Barton , on the last night of last year's proms, macabre. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDtyJyidhlc
I can only assume that the BBC and the Promenaders were both LGBT and Palestinian supporters and would fully support the Britannia invading the Caymanian islands with gay cruise ships . Britain is neither Great anymore, nor does it rule the seas - not in any shape or form!
So I say put an end to this grotesque mockery of a real love for our nation and that of other Commonwealth countries on whom her majesty's government is going to impose imperial LGBT human rights.
On Sunday night, millions of viewers around the world will
finally find out who the big winners are in this year’s Academy Awards. But,
after an unusually tumultuous and controversy-filled Oscar season, some would
argue that one of the big losers has already been revealed before a single
envelope has been opened.
Million? The ratings were slightly higher compared to last year, but that's a pretty low standard to achieve. The fact is that fewer people every year are watching the Academy Awards. The movies are crap, filled with social justice yawns or they push some sloppy left-wing tripe shaming the rest of the country which wants to have nothing to do with the liberal progressive hate coming out of Hollywood.
Unfortunately, it’s the motion picture academy itself.
The venerable institution, which prides itself on
representing Hollywood’s best and brightest, is heading into its most important
and most glamorous night looking somewhat rudderless and half-dressed. For the
first time in 30 years, the Oscars will have no formal host after Kevin Hart
dropped out in December amid a firestorm over past homophobic tweets and jokes,
leaving empty a gig that was once coveted but is now widely considered
thankless.
The social justice warriors are eating themselves out. Such is what happens with all revolutions. Like the God Janus (or Chronos, or whatever), the revolution begins to eat its own children.
Who will stand up to this craven abuse?
As embarrassing as the Hart debacle was for the Academy of
Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, though, it was just one of a number of black
eyes the organization sustained in the run-up to this year’s Oscars, nearly all
of them self-inflicted.
Yes, indeed. The Hollywood Hatemongers find themselves without justification, without hope, without any recourse since Middle America and Middle Class California (what's left of it), no longer has to put up with being snubbed and shamed for their values.
As the academy has stumbled through a string of
public-relations crises — from a scrapped proposal to create a “best popular
film” award that was widely criticized as pandering to a much-maligned and ultimately
abandoned plan to move the presentation of several awards to commercial breaks
— questions have been raised about how the organization is being run under
President John Bailey and Chief Executive Dawn Hudson, as well as its 54-member
board of governors.
The problem is more than the CEO, more than the Board of Directors. The whole industry is collasping. The social, societal, and even sexual anarchy has caught up with the entire industry. People are tired of the arrogant, left-wing elites acting like they are better than everyone else, when in fact they are the biggest pigs, thugs, and snobs out there.
Harvey Weinstein was just the tip of the iceberg.
“Not quite sure why the Academy Awards seems to hate the
Academy Awards this year,” actor Josh Gad pointedly wrote on Twitter last week,
joining hundreds of industry professionals protesting what they saw as a
misguided plan to snub some of filmmaking’s most important crafts simply to
shave a few minutes off the often-bloated telecast.
"The often-bloated", the reporter writes. The whole thing has become even more bloated than ever.
Who wants to watch a bunch of self-serving celluloid sycophants pat themselves on the back, when even they themselves know that they are not that great to begin with? After all, they stood with perverts like Bill Cosby and Roman Polanski for decades. They even awarded him a best director Oscar in 2002, and Polanski couldn't even enter the country to claim the award since he is still on the run from justice for raping a minor!
To many, the recent missteps and reversals reveal an
institution at a crossroads, pulled in one direction by the need to adapt to a
rapidly changing entertainment landscape and in the opposite direction by
nearly a century of proudly held traditions.
The traditions have been abandoned, and perversion has become center stage in Hollywood--and yes, the pun is quite intended.
And as the academy looks ahead to further challenges,
including the opening of a long-delayed, highly anticipated $388-million museum
scheduled for late this year, the group’s leadership — which will undergo a
transition later this year with elections to replace Bailey as well as some
board members — is likely to continue to draw scrutiny.
It should. Why should anyone go to a Museum where people see the dying embers of a once proud institution? The sexual exploitation, the moral degradation, who wants to learn more about all of that?
With the ratings for the Oscars steadily sliding in recent
years, maintaining the show’s relevance is a top priority for the academy,
which derives the bulk of its revenue from the show. (According to the group’s
most recent annual report, despite last year’s lowest-ever ratings, returns
from the Oscars were nearly $131.8 million, up more than 7% from 2017.)
The Academy exists to raise money to demonstrate that the Academy has a right to exist. Someone please explain to me why this makes sense. This is another example of self-perpetuating agit-prop. The Academy was supposed to showcase the best talent, the best pictures, the best actors, etc. so that more people could learn from the styles and substance and promote the same. Now, it's all about pleasing a bunch of directors and voters whom no one cares about to showcase to an audience that no longer exists.
But as this year’s turbulent awards season has proven — with
controversies that at times pitted the academy’s leadership against some of its
most esteemed members — getting everyone on the same page about how to do that
is no easy feat.
What page?
“People in the academy have different views,” said producer
and former studio executive Bill Mechanic, who served on the academy’s board
before resigning in protest last year over what he saw as poor management of
the organization. “You have the purists who don’t want any change. But you’ve
got to come to some kind of solutions. … Or you just keep losing audience.”
They won't talk about the Jackass in the Middle of the Room, which is the quality of the films has declined considerably. The political posturing, the anti-Trumpism has turned off lots of people, even liberals who normally enjoy going to the movies and have no problem disparaging the President.
Indeed, both within the academy’s leadership and its
membership, which has grown by 30% in three years — in large part to diversify
the disproportionately white, male ranks — there is a degree of division over
what the Academy Awards, now in their 91st year, mean in today’s world.
That issue of diversity is a perfect signal for what has befallen the Academy Awards. They want to virtue-signal, they want to appear politically correct. They are not interested in talent, just diversity. They are pandering to
Some regard the Oscars as a glitzy, star-studded
entertainment show that needs to change with the times to attract an
increasingly distracted and fragmented audience. Others see it as a hallowed
celebration of the finest in filmmaking whose traditions should be upheld at
all costs, even if it means a potentially wearying running time and lower
ratings.
The same elitism shines through in this paragraphy. Instead of looking at their content and their character, the news and entertainment industry blames the stupid, insipid "audience." "If they weren't so distracted, if they weren't so busy living their lives with moral vigor and purpose, if they spent more time giving into our lies, our demands, we would be so much better off, and the Acadamy Awards would be a rousing ratings success again."
This kind of narrow-minded arrogance is precisely why they are crashing and burning. I wonder how long it will before major broadcasting stations stopping programming the Academy Awards. That will be a great day to celebrate, the downfall of Hollywood and all the damage they have done in our modern culture.
“I think the show has made many mistakes,” producer and
director Judd Apatow told The Times last week, pointing, among other things, to
an apparent early plan, also reversed, to cut performances of some of the
best-song nominees from the telecast. “I understand the demands of time, but I
think people would rather have a great show than a rushed show with less awards
and less entertainment.”
A great show, certainly, but why would they ask Professional Creep Judd Apatow for his point of view on the matter?
Even as the academy has sought ways to remake the Oscars,
the institution has been remaking itself from the inside out over the past
several years. In response to the #OscarsSoWhite controversy, the organization
has taken bold steps to diversify and expand its historically white
male-dominated membership, steps for which it has been widely applauded. Last
summer, the academy invited a record-setting 928 new members, 49% of them
female and 38% of them people of color.
The racist virtue-signalling turned off lots of people. This is reverse discrimination, and it is wrong!
But at the same time, fissures have sometimes opened up in
the group’s leadership structure — which many consider unwieldy, with
ill-defined divisions of responsibilities — over key issues such as the museum,
which has gone over budget and over schedule, and how best to respond to the
#MeToo movement.
They have to respond to the same natural forces of supply and demand, just like everyone else. It's wrong for the Academy to ignore the demands of reality and then expect then expect everyone else to go along with their delusion.
Heightening the uncertainty, changes are set to come to that
leadership soon. Annual elections for the board of governors will be held this
summer. Bailey’s run as president will conclude in August due to term limits,
while Hudson’s contract runs through 2020.
OUCH! Looks like more trouble ahead. Who wants to be captain of the Titanic at this point?
Bailey and Hudson declined to comment for this story. But,
speaking to the Times in September, Bailey acknowledged that, when it comes to
how to revitalize the Oscars, there are varying opinions among the academy’s
board, which includes such luminaries as Steven Spielberg, Laura Dern, Whoopi
Goldberg, and Paramount Pictures chairman and CEO Jim Gianopulos.
“You’ve got 54 alpha-type people that are highly creative,
highly motivated — I mean, it would be absurd to say it was unanimous,” Bailey
said of the “best popular film” proposal. “We are just trying to address what
we see as an existential problem that has been there for a number of years and
is not going to go away in terms of where films seem to be headed.”
Maybe because it's becoming more difficult to find popular films? Perhaps the real problem is that popular films do not fit the progressive narrative forced by the Hollywood Academy. They know better, and they believe in fairness at all costs, even though they are the most unfair, elitist, illegal, lawless bunch out there.
Still, Bailey brushed aside the criticism that the academy
lacked a coherent vision for how to deal with that existential problem, making
decisions in a knee-jerk fashion.
“Look, for an organization that some people like to say is
irrelevant and is out of touch with the times, there always seems to be a
tremendous amount of interest in what is going on inside the academy,” he said.
“My own feeling is, no matter what the academy does or says or determines as a
course of action, there are going to be naysayers. It’s just the nature of it.”
Bailey gets it right this one time. The Academy is very much out of touch. So out of touch, that the movies are bombing at the box office, that the private perversions of these public entertainers have sickened so many, that their preachings of tolerance and respect have fallen on deaf ears since they do not live up to their own standards!
Hudson, who has served as CEO since 2011, has at times been
a polarizing leader. While many within the organization credit her with helping
spearhead the academy’s push toward diversity and the building of an ambitious
museum, others feel that under her leadership the academy has moved too quickly
in too many new directions, drifting from some of its core missions and
alienating some members.
"Alienating some members" is not the biggest problem. The fact that she has alienated the wider audience of movie-goers, that's the problem.
Final Reflection
The Arts and Entertainment world has been corrupted by secular, leftist, atheistic elements for the last three decades. Should anyone be surprised that the Hollywood Academy Awards turned into an absolute dud that no one wants to watch anymore?
The ceremony couldn't even get a host, since anti-social injustice warriors went to great lengths to shame and diminish anyone--and ultimately everyone--who does not measure to their ever-changing, increasingly onerous demands.
The demands for cultural destruction and economic stagnation will never end with the Left. They have now pretty much destroyed the Hollywood/Movie industry, and they institution which used to recognize the best films, The Academy Awards, has taken a full-on dive.
Andrew Sullivan not only tapped into the worldwide outrage against mass migration and illegal immigration--an issue which the center-left just doesn't get--but he also called out the center-left's militant opposition to freedom of speech.
What is the matter with these people?
This is no idle problem, however. The Democratic US Senate caucus tried to pass an amendment essentially gutting the First Amendment shortly before the November 2014 Election day. Not smart. Freedom of speech is a non-partisan, bipartisan, and also fully American issue.
Too many people value the freedom to speak their minds and do so without fear of reprisal or repression.
Yet the Democratic Party in the United States wants to shut down the First Amendment. Of course they do! They can't win by shaming opponents into silence, so they need to criminalize the free exercise and exchange of ideas.
For me, as regular readers know, few things seem as ominous as the fate of free speech in the West. In democratic countries without a First Amendment, writers and speakers are now routinely hauled into court for hurting someone’s feelings or violating some new PC edict.
This is truly terrible. This assault on freedom of speech has become endemic in Canada, where it is a crime to refer to someone with the wrong pronoun. The same perverse nullity has been enacted in California in nursing homes.
In Britain, meanwhile, it is now a criminal offense to post something on social media that “is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice.” “Hostility” is defined thus: “ill-will, spite, contempt, prejudice, unfriendliness, antagonism, resentment and dislike.” In other words, if you “dislike” some idea, and someone else asserts your view is driven by “unfriendliness” to a member of a minority, you are breaking the law.
This is outrageous. This is creeping Sharia at its worst, and it's time for Britons, the men and women who championed the legacy of Magna Carta to step up and push back against this sublte, "democratic" tyranny.
In America, thanks to Thomas Jefferson et al., such policing of minds and thoughts by the government is forbidden.
This paragraph then launches into a broadside against the loony left and the "reactionary right." President Trump has slammed the press for writing lies about him. He has joked about locking up bad reporters, for example. One lawmaker in Indiana toyed with the idea of requiring reports to register with the state in order to report on goings-on in the state capital.
But the real attack on free speech comes from the left. Simple as that.
This slow-rolling censorship has laid siege to book reviews, too.
I will reprint the entire passage and exchange for your viewing, because this story is truly incredible. I cannot believe that publishing firms and print are getting clobbered by this political correct
Many now demand, for example, that young-adult fiction conform to their ideology … or they will destroy a book before it is even published and before they have even read it. That just happened to a book written by Laura Moriarty, called American Heart, which was subjected to a social-media version of book-burning. Kirkus originally gave the book a glowing review, and then retracted it under pressure, then got the reviewer to rewrite it. Vulture interviewed the editor of Kirkus Reviews about the flap. Money quote:
“Obviously we don’t like having to make corrections after the publication of a review,” [Kirkus’s editor-in-chief Claiborne Smith] adds. “The plan is to beef up our editing of reviews in this section, to have further eyes before it goes to print.”
In the future, I ask, is the goal that no problematic book will escape un-called-out?
This is insane! I do not want to silence points of view that I do not agree with. There is no way to gain people's trust or agreement by silencing them. That is insane! This is evil stuff, people. We have this stealthy dictatorship overwhelming us, and we should not just sit by and let it happen.
Or look at what happened to a speaker from the ACLU at the College of William & Mary in Virginia a couple of weeks back. She came to give a talk about — yes! — free speech, only to be shouted down by the usual mob, who were at least honest enough to chant: “Liberalism Is White Supremacy,” and “The Revolution Will Not Uphold Your Constitution.” They physically prevented the speaker from even talking one-on-one with those who were interested in a dialogue.
This "heckler's veto" must be punished by fines and jail time. There is no excuse for preventing people from speaking, from being heard in a private or public setting. If men and women do not want to hear a speech or a fair exchange of ideas, then they can take up track and run away.
Final Reflection
Freedom of speech is an essential vehicle for Making America Great Again and for ensuring a free and thriving society. If we allow the government or well-connected private individuals and persons to silence us, we are embracing tyranny and the slow road to serfdom. We cannot allow that to happen.
Let us do everything in our power to ensure that every person has the right to speak, to be heard, and for those who do not want to listen, that they can enjoy the freedom not to hear. The Democratic Party is on a crash-course for failure if they continue to destroy the fundamental rights of American citizens.
The Daily Breeze, like many marginalized, flailing liberal publications throughout the South Bay, refused to call out the true nature of the terrorist attacks in New York City yesterday.
Check out the headlines on the cover page:
"Truck Attack Kills 8 in New York"
Really?
Is it any surprise that the American public holds so much of print journalism in low esteem.
This is beyond disgusting.
Everyone with two eyes and two ears working for their minds is aware that this was a radical Islamic terrorist attack.
Do we really have to accept that the print media is so beyond in printing the truth about what is happening in the world that they cannot get the facts straight?
No, although that slow-down becomes more apparent every day.
The real problem is that the press is so addicted to its politically correct world view, that they cannot accurately report the truth about ... anything. This terrorist attack takes national security into a whole new field of major concerns.
We need a robust press which will tell the truth about horrific events and allow readers to connect all the dots as needed to come to win conclusions.
This evil Islamic terrorist shouted "Allahu Akbar" while plowing into innocent pedestrians along the New York City street. This kind of evil cannot be minimized with "Truck attack." Does the media really think that the truck committed this gross deed on its own with no human action or direction behind the wheel?
The media is facing a grim fate, indeed--and they have themselves to blame.
The Southern Poverty Law Center advertises itself as the watchdog for civil rights and anti-discrimination. Sadly, they have turned into the most discriminatory and fraudulent group out there. The whole corrupted organization has done nothing to stop poverty in the South. They have no interest in abiding by any sort of law. In fact, they try to turn whatever they believe or want to fight for into a law of its own.
The Southern Poverty Law Center has turned into the very thing it claims to fight: a hate group.
The virulently anti-Christian Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), a well-funded left-wing extremist group based in Montgomery, Alabama, has begun targeting our MassResistance chapters, particularly our chapters in California,Texas, and Missouri. It has started pushing its demonization and disinformation to local liberal activists and media outlets.
"Virulent" is the word, underscoring the heart of hate motivating this twisted special interest group. Notice the widespread targeting of MassResistance chapters. Notice the desperation to name names, going after every state. Wow, can you sense the pro-LGBT mania?
Indeed, MassResistance has taken on its fair share of hate from SPLC, but check out specific attacks against California MassResistance. Despite our relatively new status in the system of pro-family activist groups, we are already driving liberal media cohorts crazy. Here are some of the sad statements against California MassResistance, which attempted to but failed to shame me and fellow pro-family activists in the Golden State. This paragraph, filled with lifted quotes from previous writings and lacking in cohesive original content form the author, it appeared in the slowly diminishing OC Weekly:
That group supports state mandates against abortion, opposes government interference with bullying, objects to FBI and CIA hiring of gay employees, and dismisses all discussions of homosexuality that aren't condemnations. Such stances caused the Southern Poverty Law Center to designate MassResistance a hate group.
The "government interference with bullying" is the pettiest distortion. Actually, MassResistance opposes teaching gay-friendly and transgender-accepting material, much of which is advertising under the subtle, misleading guise of "anti-bullying." What can one say? Hardly “gay”, these hatchet jobs are shameful and sad.
Of course, OC Weekly's diminishing editorial and writing departments are nothing to worry about. The writers brazen editioralizing has given MassResistan more positive support (since no one takes alternative rags seriously). Of course, more mainstream liberal publications have gone along with the SPLC false narratives. Consider this report, in the Torrance-based Daily Breeze, which posted the following about me following the unjust revocaton of my club's (The Beach Cities Republicans) charter:
Schaper also is the California director for a group called Mass Resistance, which the Southern Poverty Law Center has called an anti-gay hate group.
Yawn. The very lightly-regarded journalist and his sinking flagship newspaper are struggling for readers. The paper has practically disappeared compared to its daily editions published ten years ago. The increasingly liberal bent of the paper has turned off South Bay subscribers. What's worse, this reporter didn't bother to research as much as take whatever OC Weekly had reported about me. Not much for investigative journalism. One person's comment about the article pretty much says it all, particularly slamming SPLC:
Well, the Southern Poverty Law Center calls just about any group to the right of Karl Marx an anti-"fill in the blank" hate group. Crying wolf all the time costs one their credibility.
The SPLC, traffickers in blood libel and incitement to murder, is a hate group that the left counts on to smear, defame and destroy those brave enough to oppose their totalitarian agenda. This is the hardcore leftist group whose members have targeted family group leaders for assassination.
Pretty damning words!
There's more good news, too!
Its hate group list is so tendentious and politically motivated that they were recently removed from a government website’s listing of resources on hate groups. The SPLC lists my organizations and me as hate groups.
No matter how chaotic and frustration Washington becomes, we who love truth and freedom should rejoice. But why has this sudden turn for the better emerged for conservatives against SPLC?
Obama’s eight years of rampant, hateful left-wing propagandism slammed everyone who opposed him as a de facto "hate group." Very tendentious and politicized.
The cult of political correctness has gone from intellectual one-ups-manship to a life-threatening cultural illness (i.e. radical Islam + refugees = lots of dead people).
Finally, Donald Trump ran on political in-correctness, i.e. telling the truth. He not only pledged to Make America Great Again, but Make Free Speech Great Again.
We are not reaping the rewards of these efforts. SPLC will turn into a hollowed-out relic of the progressive Left’s self-destructive past, and more Americans will boldly step out for Christ, for life, and for natural marriage and the family.
Apparently, George Soros was sponsoring another anti-Trump protest, this time in Palos Verdes!
Wow! The flailing phalanx of the illiberal Left was coming to my backyard!
Check out the ad on CraigsList here:
See the advertisement on Google here:
Within hours, these ads disappeared from the Internet.
I decided to call the Trump National Golf Course in Palos Verdes anyway, just in case.
The staffers there informed me that they know about this protest.
Can you imagine a large, rabid group of protesters clambering along the sidewalks and pathways of the Trump Golf course?
Unreal.
I drove down about an hour after the protests were supposed to begin.
I noticed a grand total of five protesters, including one boy who didn't look like he wanted to be there.
Here's the recording of my interview with these rich, white, yet barely informed anti-Trump social justice warriors:
They weren't too keen on explaining why they were there.
A young lady in a black tank-top reading off a left-wing statement about standing with "minorities."
HUH?
Some of these liberals are at a loss for words ... and ideas.
Or just about anything else.
They love to chant about "equality."
Do they even know what they are talking about?
Transgenderism is a mental disorder. Homosexuality is a behavior.
This older lady came at me, and prided herself as a 40-plus teacher in LA Schools.
I am sure that LAUSD was a great place to work ... fifty years ago:
Love Trumps Hate.
Yes indeed, and Trump is Trumping the hate of the Left, and their insipid borderline dangerous stupidity!
I asked them plainly: "How much were you paid to be here."
They claimed that no one had paid them. OK.
At length I repeatedly asked for information.
The one man in the group was willing to talk to me for a minute or two. He was willing to engage on some ideas:
His poster caught my attention particularly: "RIP Civility 11-9-16"
A strange date to write down, especially since the election was November 8th, and Trump was called the winner just before the evening hours ended.
So, why did civility die this past week?
The man repeated to me "You know why. You know why."
Actually, I did not know, since he was holding up the sign, and I wanted to understand his reason."
He them claimed that Trump was uncivil.
I would back away from asserting that Trump was coarse and blunt at times. Many times. His anti-PC take-down of the media, the political elites, the Establishment, and the Left was quite refreshing!
He then brought up the attacks against "Lyin' Ted."
No, I did not like those attacks, but Ted Cruz had gotten past the barbs and attacks during the primary, supported Donald Trump, and helped Republicans up and down the ticket win big across the country.
At this point, the woman card came up. Blah Blah Blah.
He's married, has wonderful kids, and women across the country love him.
They just had to play the gender card, claiming that Donald Trump hates women.
I know plenty of women who love Donald Trump!
Sorry if the setting of these photos seems haphazard, but there is not enough time in the day to post the number of women, singly or in large groups, on any blog the number of warm and welcoming women who stand with Trump!
The Left loves to beat down Republicans and conservatives because they are not angelic paragons of virtue, but they stand by men who have raped, assaulted, exploited women for their own perverse needs (Anthony Weiner, Bill Clinton, Joe Biden, etc.) Their double-standard is so sad, and their petty insistence on doubling-down on these dead hollow talking points has exposed how empty the movement has become.
This lady wanted to shake me hand, and I greeted her:
She doesn't share Trump's values.
But what values she specifically disagrees with, she wasn't clear.
She did talk about the things he said about immigrants
What did Trump say about immigrants that was offensive?
They couldn't tell me.
Then she mentioned refugees. I told her flatly that we have every right to determine who enters our coutnry, and who doesn't. Federal officials have admitted to the public that they cannot properly vet very refugee, especially the Muslim ones, who enter this country.
They can't, and the United States cannot afford any more terrorist attacks on soil, from domestic residents as well as foreign visitors.
As expected, the one man referred to Timothy McVeigh, an American who below up the Oklahoma City building for the Bureac of Alcohol Tobacco, and Firearms.
Indeed, I recognized that brazen, evil act as terror. But the attempt to draw a moral equivalence, as though we should ignore radical Islam as a source of terror--he never justified that argument.
The old former teacher got really close to me, she started threatening claiming, that I had not right to record them. Tough! It's a public place, and they were standing on the corner of the driveway into Trump Golf Course. Their whole point for being there was to be seen, wasn't it?
The younger lady in a black tank top run across the street after a few minutes. She simply refused to answer any questions. The older lady then told me to stop "hijacking their protest."
What protest, exactly? I am not sure they knew what they were talking about, or what they were angry about.
As I walked down the driveway to Trump Golf Course, I noticed one driver give the little group of social justice warriors the "thumbs down".
No kidding.
Well, since I was up there finally, I decided to pay a visit. Anyone can come in and say hello to staffers.
They were very kind, and the decor was really outstanding.
When Trump founded his golf course on the Palos Verdes Peninsula, he got a lot of grief from the city council over the flag pole he placed on the ground.
No one can uestion Trump's patriotism. Despite the complaints of entitled property owner son the Peninsula, who claimed that the American Flag flying in the wind was ruining their view of the Ocean, Trump refused to take the flag and remove the flag pole.
Good for Trump!
It was great to troll the silly, rich, white, spoiled, delusion social justice warriors, and take some photos there:
The gist of it comes through pretty strongly in these statements about homosexual accommodations.
Here are Biden's comments:
My father taught me the simple notion that everyone,
everywhere is entitled to be treated with dignity and respect. When it comes to
LGBT people, that simple proposition has been painfully difficult to accomplish
over the years. But in the last decade, thanks to the astounding bravery of the
LGBT community and those who have championed their cause, the United States has
made remarkable progress toward the ultimate goal of equality in law and in
life. Our progress remains incomplete, but the momentum has shifted in the
right direction.
Joe Biden makes culturally insensitive remarks, and he likes to touch women in public--who are not his relatives.
Progress has also been made in many places around the world.
But in too many places, life for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender
individuals is actually getting worse. In too many places, LGBT community
members face violence with impunity, mistreatment by police, the denial of
healthcare, or religious condemnation and social isolation.
Joe Biden (Pinterest.com)
Where do these incursions occur?
The best mechanism to confront this hatred is to speak up in
favor of universal human rights. Supportive voices must be heard. Today and
every day, let us continue to defend the rights of LGBT people, whether from
nearby cities or far-off villages. We cannot rest until everyone receives the
dignity, respect, and equal treatment under the law that all people deserve.
The funny thing is, that more people are finding their rights trampled upon.
More men and women of individual conscience cannot walk in good conscience according to the values--and the realities they witness.
Joe Biden has never let things like truth or facts get away of his shameless--and shameful--plugs for "tolerance."
His indictments suggest that Christians are the intolerant bigots slowing down true "progress" in our societies.
The lack of wholesome respect for marriage, family, and sexual relations--those problems are setting back our culture.
Joe Biden insults our intelligence and our moral foundations when he speaks.
If he would only follow the wisdom of the Proverbs:
"When a fool keeps his mouth shut, even he will appear wise."
The Library of Congress, saying a once common phrase had
become offensive, announced it will no longer use “illegal aliens” as a
bibliographical term.
Just because a term has become offensive to someone, that is no reason at all to have it removed from a public lexicon or public usage.
Give me a break. What is this? 1984?
Perhaps we should prepare for the telescreens to enter our rooms.
Should we fear that the dissidents in our societies will be relegated to Room 101?
I refused to be a member of the Inner or the Outer Party. I refuse to be told which terms are appropriate and which are not simply because someone finds them offensive.
Let us never forget the sage yet subtle adage of Confucius: "When words lose their meaning, people lose their liberty."
Repeat after me: Illegal alien. Illegal alien. Illegal alien!
The library will now use “noncitizens” and “unauthorized
immigration” when referring to individuals and the larger phenomenon of people
residing in the country illegally. The library called the words more precise as
well as less offensive.
"Illegal" means not legal. Individuals who live in this country without legal status are therefore ... illegal.
What is so difficult about this concept?
The change was prompted by a group of students from
Dartmouth College, who urged the Library of Congress to scrap the term. The
group — known as CoFIRED, for the Dartmouth Coalition for Immigration Reform,
Equality and Dreamers — was assisted by the American Library Assn.
One group agitated for this agitprop political correctness. The good news? All it will take is a more diligent, determined group of activists to restore the phrase.
Melissa Padilla, a student in her last year at the New
Hampshire university, recalls her freshman year, when she “decided to explore
[her] identity as an undocumented immigrant.”
The Library of Congress established the catalog subject
heading “aliens, illegal” in 1980 and revised it to “illegal aliens” in 1993.
Aliens do not just refer to people from outer space (that is, of course, if there are people who really think that there are extraterrestrials from Mars or Saturn ready to move into Planet Earth, undocumented and unaccounted for ...)
Though the latter has been heard frequently during the
current presidential campaign — along with “illegals” — it has fallen out of
favor in the news media and elsewhere, and the Library of Congress noted the
trend in an executive summary released on March 22.
More than "Fallen out of favor", how about censored and purged?
We the People Rising have been protesting in Huntington Park for the past nine months.
Everyone of us says "illegal alien" at the podium during public comment, but the city clerk keeps scrubbing our comments, and writes "undocumented immigrant" or "undocumented alien." These are poor, false records, and they need to be changed.
Janet West has spoken out against this poor recording and misuse of the record. More people in the city of Huntington Park need to step up and demand accurate records from their elected officials and city staff.
Will the federal government
ban this sign, too?
Many residents in Huntington Park not only live in that city legally, but they are natural-born citizens. It is an offense and affront to the rule of law not to recognize the legal status of those residents.
“The phase illegal aliens has taken on a pejorative tone in
recent years, and in response, some institutions have determined that they will
cease to use it,” the executive summary said. “For example, in April 2014 the
Associated Press announced that illegal would not be used as a descriptor for
any individual.”
The term has not taken on a pejorative tone all on its own. Political forces in the media and our universities have forced the term to take on a negative connotation. They have resorted to shaming and punishing anyone who does not comply with their politically correct strictures.
A number of news organizations made the change as well,
including The Times, which no longer uses “illegal” to describe people but does
use the term “illegal immigration.”
Well, if the individuals engaged in illegal immigration, does that not make them illegal aliens?
Now comes a sound point of view ...
It's giving in to political correctness. 'Illegal alien' is
a proper legal term.
— Ira Mehlman, media director for the Federation for
American Immigration Reform
Dennis Hernandez, co-director of CoFIRED, called the
library's action an example for others to follow.
Yes indeed. I agree with Dr. Ben Carson and more Americans of all backgrounds. Political correctness is ruining our country, stifling reasoned, necessary discussion and debate, and frustrating our citizenry's efforts to fix our problems and fight our enemies, foreign and domestic/
“We are calling on politicians and the news media to
continue the precedent set by the Library of Congress,” Hernandez said. “Now is
the time for all to recognize that referring to undocumented immigrants as
‘illegals' is offensive.” The word is dehumanizing, Hernandez said, and there
is no excuse to keep using it.
Illegal is offensive--for a reason. Committing a crime is dehumanizing to all of us, who obey the law and live in this country legally.
The Dartmouth students had recommended “undocumented
immigrants,” but the library had issues with that too, calling it imprecise.
“Not all ‘undocumented' people are, or intend to be, immigrants, and many of
them do in fact have documents of some type,” the executive summary said.
Well, well, well. PC takes a hit on the chin. If one words becomes inappropriate, then what happens when another phrase is forced on others?
Ira Mehlman, media director for the Federation for American
Immigration Reform, which advocates stricter enforcement of immigration laws,
called the change unnecessary.
“It's giving in to political correctness,” he said.
“‘Illegal alien' is a proper legal term.”
Mehlman also noted the exceptional role of the Library of
Congress — its subject headings are used by libraries nationwide and
internationally. The library “is an important institution, and they ought to
have some kind of allegiance to accuracy in language and precision,” he said.
Accuracy, precision: these deeply held values cannot go unused or into disuse. With no precision, there is no quality, no standard by which to measure excellence.
An effort to change that was launched last October by Texas
congressman Joaquin Castro, a Democrat from San Antonio, who introduced a bill
that would remove “alien” and “illegal alien” from federal laws. The bill has
not advanced in the Republican-dominated House.
Good for them!
Unfortunately, since California is still dominated by Democrats, the state legislature passed a law to remove "alien" from the state labor code.
