Ponderable

Sheriff Joe said:
DYGfePUVAAA6Hd3.jpg


Clapper Accused of Misleading Congress Over Media Contact...
Click to expand...
Shocking. Just like he did before Snowden dimed him out.
 
Sports
Michael_Bennett_Seahawks-e1521832684852.jpg
Newly signed Philadelphia Eagles defensive end Michael Bennett has been indicted by a Harris County grand jury for hurting an elderly person.
Michael Bennett Charged For Attacking An Elderly Paraplegic Victim



Newly signed Philadelphia Eagles defensive end Michael Bennett has been indicted by a Harris County grand jury for allegedly assaulting an elderly person.

According to local Houston news outlet KHOU, Bennett was indicted on Friday for “injuring a 66-year-old paraplegic who was working at NRG Stadium to control access to the field at Super Bowl LI.”

Authorities claim Bennett was a spectator at the game and was cheering on his brother Martellus, then New England Patriots tight end. After the Patriots won, Bennet reportedly tried to storm the field but the victim told him to use a different entrance. He resisted and ultimately pushed the 66 year old paraplegic, causing “bodily injury.”

The incident reportedly took place on February 5, 2017 and Bennett was charged shortly charged for “intentionally and knowingly, causing bodily injury to a person 65 years or older.” Bennett faces a $10,000 fine and up to 10 years in prison.


Bennett’s lawyer is currently negotiating the terms of his surrender.

Michael Bennett is in the third year of a 5 year, near $40 million contract. It’s unclear whether the NFL will honor the contract now.

During his time on the Seahawks, Bennett gained considerable notoriety for protesting the national anthem for much of the 2017 season. He also falsely accused the police of racial targeting last season, which was later disproven.

Follow Jena on Twitter.
 
Good Riddance to Disloyal Mr. McMaster
DANIEL JOHN SOBIESKI
McMaster may have served his country well while in uniform, but he is not serving his country well as national security adviser.

The departure of national security adviser H.R. McMaster and his replacement by former U.N. ambassador John Bolton are both significant and welcome. Bolton will be a team player on Team Trump and not someone with his own agenda who seeks the advice and counsel of those trying to undermine the Trump administration.

Leaks such as the one of the memo warning President Trump not to congratulate Vladimir Putin on Putin's re-election will undoubtedly stop, as McMaster and his staff were viewed as the source for many of them.

The White House national security team, already facing calls for the ouster of top adviser H.R. McMaster, was tagged by a key lawmaker with leaking confidential notes ordering President Trump not to congratulate Russian President Vladimir Putin for his election win.

Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., a conservative leader and foreign policy expert, expressed outrage at the leak and suggested that it and others thought to come from the national security council are crimes[.] ...

Meadows said that since it dealt with a foreign leader, the leak "had to" come from the president's national security staff, headed by McMaster.

It is no mystery why former national security adviser general Michael Flynn was unmasked by the Deep State and became the early target of a series of illegal leaks targeting Team Trump. Flynn was an unabashed critic of President Barack Hussein Obama and someone who would take a bullet for Trump in any political battle. The Deep State had no use for someone like Flynn and preferred someone less loyal to Trump and more accommodating to the "resistance" put in his place. That man was to be H.R. McMaster, and the story of how he got to be President Trump's national security adviser speaks volumes about his true loyalties.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/03/good_riddance_to_disloyal_mr_mcmaster.html
 
America's Lost Antidote to Political Correctness
By Kimberly Bloom Jackson
One year ago this month on Jimmy Kimmel Live, conservative comedian and Trump-supporter Tim Allen warned: "You gotta be real careful around here [in Hollywood]. You get beat up if you don't believe what everybody else believes."

Two months later, ABC abruptly pulled the plug on Allen's hit conservative-leaning family comedy Last Man Standing (2011-2017), citing "business and scheduling" conflicts. Fans didn't buy it and immediately took to social media to boycott the network. What made this particular cancelation so insulting was the fact that at the time it happened, LMS was the second highest rated show for its time slot, with 8.1 million viewers.

The series was a rare gem from Hollywood that featured a likable and outspoken conservative central character named Mike Baxter (Tim Allen), a marketing director for Outdoor Man stores who was into classic cars, hunting, and collecting firearms. His temperament was constantly being tested due to his wife's job forcing him to be more hands-on at home, where he had to help navigate the hectic lives of their three daughters: a working single mom, a self-centered socialite, and an overtly athletic "tomboy" who also excelled in ROTC.

What I found refreshing about Last Man Standing was how it artfully challenged the political correctness that flourishes in the leftist bastions of academia, media, and Hollywood. Today, ideas perceived to threaten any P.C. message are increasingly met with accusations of bigotry and hatred, as well as intimidation and violence intended to shut down competing speech. It's like the old totalitarian regimes of the twentieth century that demanded complete conformity of thought, or else.

This political correctness is culturally corrosive and gains strength when we choose to remain silent rather than express potentially unpopular opinions that risk social fallout. Incredibly, LMS was able to disrupt this with the character of Mike Baxter, whose conservative voice made fun of liberalism in its various manifestations.

One of the sitcom's most popular episodes, "Precious Snowflake," shined a spotlight on the anti-free speech "safe space" mentality found on college campuses. In the show, Mike agrees to give a speech at his daughter Mandy's business school graduation. There's just one catch: his speech must be checked against the school's official list of "micro-aggressions." What are those? "It's the latest liberal attack at free speech," Mike quips.

When Mike reads his speech to Mandy, she flags nearly every phrase as a micro-aggression. For example, it's against school policy to address an audience as "Ladies and Gentlemen" because "it excludes those who don't identify as either." Mike is also forbidden to say "America is the land of opportunity," because that would be "implying that everyone has the same opportunities." Nor can he suggest that "if you live here and work hard, you can succeed," because it "hurts the feelings of those who work hard and don't succeed."

Eventually, Mandy defends her dad's right to tell his personal success story. In doing so, she exposes the school's anti-free speech policies intended to protect students' feelings at the expense of shutting down critical thinking and civil debate. Meanwhile, Vanessa surrenders to the inevitable reality that her daughter will face social fallout for merely speaking her mind. As for Mike, he finds the whole campus safe space thing as amusing as ever.

For conservative-leaning audiences, Last Man Standing didn't seem like a bunch of television elites exclusively pushing pretentious liberal social messaging. Although Mike's conservative voice was often mitigated by others who didn't agree with him, everyone seemed to share a basic standard of morality and civility that transcended differences. For six seasons, the show was America's antidote to political correctness in that it offered viewers a fresh look into aspects of American culture that the left has long suppressed on and off screen.

Was Last Man Standing too much for liberal Hollywood to take? Consider that ABC officially canned LMS shortly before green-lighting a one-year revival of a more progressive Roseanne. This presents a problem. How does ABC plan to woo back LMS viewers, a conservative-leaning, working-class demographic that came out in droves to support President Trump and his new jobs growth agenda? This is the very audience who is still boycotting the network for canceling LMS.

Unsurprisingly, in January, Roseanne Barr, also a Trump-supporter, announced that her television character would be pro-Trump, thus creating political tensions within the Conner family. The news prompted LMS fans to launch an online petition asking ABC to reinstate their beloved show. After all, it was "Mike Baxter," not "Roseanne Conner," who was first to come out of the conservative closet as a Trump-supporter.

Could the new Roseanne be a clever attempt by executives to subtly pull audiences to the left in a way they could never get away with on LMS? We'll find out beginning March 27.

As for a Last Man Standing revival, Tim Allen had a message for fans:

The support from all the fans to bring back 'Last Man Standing' is truly overwhelming to me and so appreciated. I, along with the talented writers, wonderful crew and terrific actors, would definitely entertain the idea of bringing the show back as there is so much gas left in the tank, more to be said, and laughs to be had.

With this, I thought it would be fun to ask LMS fans: What would you like to see in a Last Man Standing revival? Some 300 hopeful viewers promptly responded on Facebook! Here's a little unedited taste of what they had to say:




College snowflakes seem to be melting down in larger numbers
Dan H.: Laraby coming over too Trump because of what he has done for minorities!

Tim B.: It would be funny to have VP Pence tweet re: one of Mike's blogs and have Ed get all bent about whether its PC or not.

Kim M.: I would like to see Eve go into the service, Kyle and Mandy having a baby, and Kristin and Ryan having another kid.

David F.: I think Mike would be able to give the everyman support for pro-American policies as well as honest chagrin at President Trump's more juvenile comments.

Gina H.: Maybe a little more romance between Mike and Vanessa…And when it does come time to end, I want closure.

As for me, an anthropologist who escaped the grips of leftist academia, I would like to see LMS take on "cultural appropriation" – a wave of hardcore P.C. that has swept across college campuses and into K-12 schools, ruining many traditions. Given the wildly popular "Precious Snowflake" episode, any show exposing the hypocrisy of cultural appropriation – for example, during a Baxter Halloween event – would surely be talked about for years to come.

Perhaps, one day, Last Man Standing will return to television. However, I think Tim Allen said it best: "There is nothing more dangerous right now than a funny, likable conservative character." The entertainment landscape has been consumed by a culture of intolerance and radical groupthink, a concern voiced by Allen during his interview with Jimmy Kimmel.

I hate to be a skunk at the LMS fan picnic, but Hollywood's contempt for conservative American values is nothing new. The cancelation of LMS is just another reason so many Americans have tuned out Hollywood, and I suspect there will not be a new antidote any time soon.
 
Harvard Conference 'of Color' an Exercise in Hating Whitey
By E. Jeffrey Ludwig
Harvard University's Graduate School of Education held its Annual Alumni of Color Conference earlier this month in Cambridge, Mass. These annual conferences are distinguished by their radical perspective, wherein the USA is depicted as a racist society in need of a complete restructuring.

This year's program had an even more extreme, left-wing theme than those of earlier conferences. The passionate theme this year was "Grappling with Antiquated Systems and Designing Alternatives to Capitalism, Systemic Oppression, and Monolithic Identities." The intent is to eliminate any possibility of accommodation with the status quo. It is clearly an anarchist-communist declaration of war.

Before looking at the three rubrics under which this theme went forward, it might be useful to consider the incredible hypocrisy of this theme being advanced at Harvard University. These people are seeking an alternative to capitalism. However, Harvard University is far and away the most highly endowed of all universities in the USA, with an endowment of over $35 billion. During the year 2015 alone, Harvard alumni giving topped $650 million. The very students, alumni, and professors organizing this conference are the direct beneficiaries of these resources. Capitalism has enabled these endowment funds to flow into the coffers of Harvard, yet the organizers of the conference wish to repudiate capitalism as a model for ongoing progress.

Chapter 1 | Radicalize

Chapter one is rooted in the term 'Radical.' We intentionally chose this word for two purposes. First, when we think of the term 'radical,' the word 'change' automatically comes to mind. In a reductionist era of Trump, radical change and movements are key to our survival as leaders and educators of color. Our second purpose recognizes that 'radical' also refers to the idea that people of color are mathematically 'rooted' in oppression by design[.] ... We won't be able to provide substantive and sustainable alternatives, unless we look these oppressive systems in the face, name them, dissect them, and know exactly how they were designed in order to dismantle them.

The rhetoric of this rubric is pathetic. "Reductionist era" is an empty phrase, since there is no reference as to what is "reduced." We are told that "radical" refers to the mathematical rooting of people of color. One wonders if the writer is referring to square roots, plant roots, or the root of a tooth. The entire paragraph comprises puffed up language. To quote Shakespeare's Macbeth, it is "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

But the writer really does not care about language. The writer has an in-your-face mentality ("look these oppressive systems in the face, name them..."). Some people are going to be called to account by this conference, and guess what: if you are white, you might expect to be one of them. Elizabeth Barrett Browning asked, "How do I love thee? Let me count the ways." The conference organizers put the white folk on notice by suggesting, "Let me count the ways you oppress me."

Chapter Two | Reimagine:



https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/03/mass_hysteria_and_the_antigun_marches.html

Chapter Two is entitled 'Reimagine,' inspired by our nation's desperate need for 'radical imagination.' Radical imagination is the ability to re-imagine the world, life, and social institutions not as they are but as they could and should be[.] ... This chapter is about drawing on the past, telling different stories from different perspectives about how the world came to be the way it is, remembering the power and importance of yesterday's struggles and honoring the way they live on in the present.

Again, the reader is struck by the sophomoric language of this rubric. The writer believes that its language is soaring, but like a glider that fails to catch the wind, it comes crashing down by the weight of its humdrum prose. In the first part, imagination is linked abstractly to radicalization. Imagine a world run by haters like the ones who organized this conference – people who will steal your hard-earned cash and give it to a person of color and laugh in your face. I can see their grinning faces saying, "I have a Harvard degree – haha, haha – and I'm taking your unimaginative dollar bills and your unimaginative job and your unimaginative vote and putting them all in the shredder. From now on, you're old news. And if you don't like it, then go get some Imagination." You see, dear reader, the "I" in imagination stands for the ego, and this pure, ahistorical ego fails to appreciate stuff like "natural rights" (of every individual), freedom (my responsibility in a universe of choices), and equality (a person not "of color" has just as much justification to live his or her life as a person of color).

Chapter 3 | Reconstruct

Our final chapter of this conference dives into 'Reconstruction.' The idea to recreate is the perfect coalescence after defining and rethinking how to approach these antiquated systems of oppression. To reconstruct is to take the planning done from day 1-2 and build something tangible and actionable, a prototype idea ready to permeate our respective communities[.] ... The US is already entrenched in a complicit nightmare for people of color and marginalized communities. 'Reconstruct' is a commitment to staying woke, or rather, staying awake through the praxis of action.

The author of this paragraph catches his misuse of the words "to staying woke" by saying "or rather, staying awake" but fails to edit out "to staying woke." He wants the reader to know that despite his affiliation with Harvard, he is still a citizen of the street. Correct English is all part of that "white privilege" that is so oppressive and to be despised. Further, the vapid prose throughout the rubrics continues with reference "to take the planning done from day 1-2 and build something ... actionable[.]" The reader must ask, "What planning?" There was no mention of planning, but only of destroying oppression and the economic system, and then of imagining something into existence.

Planning? That is an archaic concept introduced by the oppressors who seek, through their plans, to mislead their people into such horrible concepts as K-12 education; cures and therapies for heart problems and cancer; social security; a minimum wage for the unskilled; freedom to look for one's own dwelling, business start-up, or job; promotion at regular intervals for the committed and skilled employees; pensions; highways with the wonderful opportunities to travel and live where one pleases; and engaging with others to worship God in spirit and truth. Planning? Is that not a favorite term of white, European civilization? Harvard thinks it is better to imagine, dream, and to drive the oppressors into the sea rather than get involved with the uptight white world of planning. Planning is for the sycophants among the oppressed peoples, not for the macho in-your-face fighters against oppression.

From the above summary, we can see that this conference just past was another splenetic exercise in railing against the so-called oppressors who are white and capitalistic. The tone of the rubrics describing the conference is more vitriolic and more sophomoric than in previous conferences. The language used represents the dumbing down of Harvard at the same time as the social justice warriors intensify their shrill rhetoric.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top