Latest Entries »

Organizing for Anarchy
His party may be falling apart, but Obama’s community organizing group is going strong.

by Mathew Vadum

Former President Obama’s army of community organizing thugs shows no signs of slowing down efforts to protect Obama’s policy legacy and undermine the Trump administration.

Obama directs Organizing for Action, a huge, well-funded 501(c)(4) nonprofit with more than 30,000 volunteers nationwide that doesn’t have to disclose its donors and that is at the head of Obama’s network of left-wing nonprofit groups. OfA, which grew out of Obama’s electoral campaigns, has upwards of 250 offices across America. His other nonprofit, the Barack Obama Foundation, is building Obama’s $675 million presidential library in Chicago. The library is slated to be a hub of left-wing activism.

Obama now owns and lives in a $8.1 million, 8,200-square-foot, walled mansion in Washington’s Embassy Row that he is using to command his community organizing cadres in the war against President Trump. Obama’s alter ego, Valerie Jarrett, has moved into the house to help out. Jarrett also resided in the White House when Obama was president.

No ex-president has ever stuck around the nation’s capital to vex and undermine his successor. Of course, Obama is unlike any president the United States has ever had. Even failed, self-righteous presidents like Jimmy Carter, who has occasionally taken shots at his successors, didn’t stay behind in the nation’s capital to obstruct the policy-making of the new administration.

OfA, which functions as a kind of shadow government, has been on the front lines attacking President Trump in order to defend the Obama administration’s awful legacy. Both OfA and George Soros-funded MoveOn.org have been leading the way in packing town hall meetings with unruly protesters. Many protests OfA has been involved in have turned into riots.

In 2013, Michelle Obama appeared in a video introducing the group to the public. She said OfA was “the next phase of our movement for change,” and that it would help Obama supporters “finish what we started and truly make that change we believe in.” She congratulated supporters for having “already begun to change our politics,” and declared that “the mission of Organizing for Action” is to “change our country” in accordance with her husband’s vision of how to “bridge [the] divide” between “the world as it is and the world as it should be.”

In the early days of the Trump administration, Organizing for Action activists organized protests across the country. After President Trump issued an executive order temporarily banning visitors from seven terrorism-plagued Muslim countries, OfA organized “spontaneous” demonstrations at airports.

OfA has been moving forward on many policy fronts in recent months. The group has been defending Obama-era climate change measures, oppressive gun control laws, Obamacare, Obama’s various attempts at immigration amnesty, and so-called net neutrality rules, to name just a few.

Organizing for Action developed a training manual for protesting President Trump and disrupting Republican events. Activists used tactics from the manual earlier this year to wreak havoc at GOP lawmakers’ town hall meetings. Working with MoveOn.org and a group called Indivisible, OfA has developed tools to help protesters locate town hall meetings to disrupt. Talking points and scripts for question-and-answer sessions are provided.

The manual advises activists on how to intimidate GOP office-holders into withdrawing support for Obamacare repeal, cutting immigration from terrorist-prone Muslim nations, and constructing a wall on the nation’s southern border with Mexico.

In the group’s teleconference for supporters on May 25, OfA policy and campaigns director Jack Shapiro summarized issues of importance to the group and how to apply pressure to those in Congress.

During the then-approaching congressional recess, OfA members were urged to take action to stave off the repeal of Obamacare. They were asked to “hold the House members that voted ‘yes’ accountable for their vote, and push senators to oppose any health care bill that reduces coverage or takes away protections,” and “visit the offices of your senators and make phone calls to them.”

To fight efforts to secure the nation’s borders and keep the welcome mat out for Muslim terrorists, OfA asked members to “host a film screening of The Dream Is Now to bring together people to discuss the impact of the administration’s immigration policies in your community.” MSNBC describes the film as “an interactive documentary advocating the passage of the federal DREAM Act.” OfA also asked members to press lawmakers “to reject any bill that appropriates funds for the wall, or further expands deportation forces or detention facilities.” Because a new bill funding the government will be needed by the fiscal year end on Sept. 30, “we have a few months to organize, build our teams, and get our representatives on the record.”

OfA warned at the time – presciently as it turned out – that the Trump administration was considering renouncing the Paris Climate Agreement. The group encouraged members to make noise at lawmakers’ town hall meetings to “help defend the progress we’ve made–and stress the need to protect ourselves from a changing climate before it’s too late.”

Using the left-wing euphemism “gun violence prevention,” OfA urged members to attend rallies and sponsor events aimed at promoting gun control and indicated it was partnering with Everytown for Gun Safety and Moms Demand Action. Specifically, OfA asked members to pay attention to three pieces of legislation. One bill would loosen the regulation of silencers. Another would “allow anyone who has been issued a permit from one state to carry a concealed gun anywhere in the country–including in states where concealed carry is not the law.” And a third possible bill could abolish gun-free school zones.

The Rubber Stamp Reps campaign targets 34 House members “whose districts didn’t support this White House’s agenda, yet are voting repeatedly for some of its most dangerous policies.” OfA vows to hold these members’ feet to the fire so they “they don’t get away with rubber stamping this administration’s agenda.” How the lawmakers would be held accountable wasn’t explained.

OfA has aligned itself with left-wing pressure group Fight for the Future and major pornography websites to fight the Federal Communications Commission’s push to undo Obama-era net neutrality rules.

The FCC voted in May to begin the process of reversing Obama-era Title II net neutrality rules, which for the first time in history classified internet service providers as public utilities, rather than information services. The rules subjected ISPs to broad government regulation and rules for how companies can manage traffic over their own networks. The Obama administration’s FCC began investigating Verizon, T-Mobile, and AT&T under the rules for offering packages that allowed customers unlimited data streaming.

These left-wing inquisitions were ended after President Trump’s inauguration.

Obama’s activism seems to be sucking up donations that otherwise might have gone to the Democratic National Committee.

Despite President Trump’s weak public approval numbers, the DNC achieved a record low in May fundraising this year, bringing in just $4.29 million, the weakest take since May 2003. It also reported being in debt to the tune of $1.9 million in May.

At the same time the Obama Foundation has been raking in the dough. Its website disclosed a few days ago that at least eight donors had given the foundation donations of more than $1 million each.

Barack Obama and Organizing for Action have much more in store for America.

 

 

Trump ‘shocking, vulgar and right’ – cat’s out of bag
Tucker Carlson’s assessment a devastating indictment of ‘Conservatism, Inc.’
by Liam Clancy

WASHINGTON – In a prescient article written during President Trump’s campaign, then-Daily Caller editor Tucker Carlson declared that candidate Trump was “shocking, vulgar and right.”

Carlson placed the blame for the rise of the outsider squarely at the feet of the established conservative movement, often called ‘Conservatism Inc.”

That group, he suggested, created the conditions that led to Trump’s unexpected popularity.

Trump “exists because you failed,” Carlson declared to Conservatism Inc., blasting the huge network of nonprofits and organizations surrounding Washington for a complete lack of tangible success in recent decades.

“Consider the conservative nonprofit establishment, which seems to employ most right-of-center adults in Washington,” Carlson wrote. “Over the past 40 years, how much donated money have all those think tanks and foundations consumed? Billions, certainly.”

“Has America become more conservative over that same period? Come on. Most of that cash went to self-perpetuation: Salaries, bonuses, retirement funds, medical, dental, lunches, car services, leases on high-end office space, retreats in Mexico, more fundraising,” Carlson continued.

The United States of America is on the brink of total dissolution. And the conservative think tanks and foundations in Washington, D.C. are just another part of the problem. It’s time to charge the cockpit before it’s too late. It’s time for revolution. Learn the real story behind the intellectual and political movement which stunned the dishonest media – and put Donald J. Trump in the White House. THE blockbuster of 2017:

“Unless you were the direct beneficiary of any of that, you’d have to consider it wasted.”

Carlson further faulted the intellectuals and journalists who presumed to define conservatism for essentially shaming their own grassroots supporters for backing Trump.

“Let that sink in,” Carlson wrote. “Conservative voters are being scolded for supporting a candidate they consider conservative because it would be bad for conservatism? And by the way, the people doing the scolding? They’re the ones who’ve been advocating for open borders, and nation-building in countries whose populations hate us, and trade deals that eliminated jobs while enriching their donors, all while implicitly mocking the base for its worries about abortion and gay marriage and the pace of demographic change. Now they’re telling their voters to shut up and obey, and if they don’t, they’re liberal.”

Chris Buskirk, author of “American Greatness: How Conservatism Inc. Missed The 2016 Election & What The D.C. Establishment Needs To Learn,” recognized the same problems with Conservatism Inc. as Carlson did, and is now trying to create a grassroots conservative movement that frees conservatism from the Beltway insiders.

“When Tucker Carlson wrote his now famous essay back in January of 2016, it was really an indictment of what we call ‘Conservatism Inc,’” Buskirk told WND in an exclusive interview.

“[Tucker] talked about the failure of the nonprofit establishment in Washington, D.C., which by our estimation is about a $500 million a year operation,” Buskirk stated, providing a real figure to back up Carlson’s assumption on the wastefulness of Conservatism Inc.’s spending habits.

“And what do we get for that money? We haven’t gotten much of anything,” Buskirk added, echoing Carlson. “We got Barack Obama for eight years, we got George W. Bush for eight years.”

“Can anybody say that after sixteen years of Bush-Obama that this country is better off or worse off? Is it more conservative or less conservative?”

Anyone who honestly assesses that question, according to Buskirk, would reach the conclusion that Conservatism Inc. has failed to provide any real victories for the conservative movement.

“We haven’t gotten anything from that money,” Buskirk concluded

Conservatism Inc. has become “this insular group that benefits significantly from all these donations, but has just ceased to be effective.” (emphasis mine)

The United States of America is on the brink of total dissolution. And the conservative think tanks and foundations in Washington, D.C., are just another part of the problem. It’s time to charge the cockpit before it’s too late. It’s time for revolution. Learn the real story behind the intellectual and political movement which stunned the dishonest media – and put Donald J. Trump in the White House.

THE blockbuster of 2017: “American Greatness: How Conservatism Inc. Missed The 2016 Election & What The D.C. Establishment Needs To Learn” by Chris Buskirk and Seth Leibsohn, available now in the WND Superstore.

“Conservatives like to talk about free markets and creative destruction. Well a little creative destruction needs to come to the Beltway establishment,” Buskirk believes.

“We want to see a renaissance in the conservative movement. We’re hoping to spark a conservative movement that is based in America, not inside of Washington, D.C.”

This new conservative movement would be based on the core issues championed by Trump, namely a pro-citizen immigration policy, pro-worker trade policy, and “America First” foreign policy.

Buskirk believes that this type of movement would celebrate “hopes, dreams, and principles of the American people,” rather than “a small group of people who are spending a ton of money inside the Beltway every year.”

Tucker Carlson’s article identified the problems within the conservative movement, but Buskirk has outlined the solution.

Source: World Net Daily 

Written three years ago and continues to be spot on:
The following post discusses the three major points with a clarity that will enlighten those who marvel at the hatred  and venom spewed against the opposition, none of which has any basis in reality. The enumeration and further discussion of these points are halfway through the post but preceded by cogent observation.

Reason #1: Utopianism You’re in their way
Reason #2: Fantasyland vs. Reality The WORLD is in their way
Reason #3: Preening Narcissism They are beautiful, so you must be ugly

 The Top Three Reasons Why Liberals Hate Conservatives

Posted: September 21, 2014 at 1:19 pm   /   by

“Conservatives see liberals as misguided; liberals see conservatives as evil.”
—Original source unknown

Are you a conservative, a libertarian, or a Republican? Have you ever been verbally assaulted by someone on the political left with a ferocity you didn’t quite understand? Have you seen it happen to friends and colleagues, or watched in horror as the media establishment does it to a public figure?
Of course you have. At some point or other, nearly everyone on the political right has witnessed or been the victim of an attack designed not to elucidate facts, but rather to paint him or her as a villain.
My attention was recently drawn to a typical such calumny from a Facebook exchange:

Republicans hate anything that isn’t white, wealthy, and christian at least in appearance. They hate the poor, women, and minorities. They hate science and don’t believe that the global warming we clearly are experiencing is man made. They hate any government programs that help the poor and minorities, and the (sic) particularly despise immigrants, particularly the illegal kind. They love programs that line the pockets of oil companies, mining companies, and are willing to export jobs with wild abandon.
They hate public education, and they despise public schools and the public school teachers and public university professors. And since the (sic) do not respect the market place of ideas, they hate tenure (that gives teachers academic freedom) because it prevents them from firing teachers who are Democrats and who might infect some student with their liberal ideas. They want insurance companies to make a maximum of profit, and are perfectly willing for the health insurance companies to kill people by refusing service to anyone that might cost them a buck more than the median expense. They don’t care about clean food because it might cost the food corporation a little money, and they don’t care about clean water because cleaning up the waste will cost their precious corporate persons a little money.

This is not a recitation of facts; it is a series of smears. It is the construction of a giant cartoonish super-villain, made of straw and woven together with calumny. The giant straw villain is then publicly burned, in a narcissistic orgy of self-adulation. Of course, the torches of the “best” people burn the brightest.
Another way of looking at it is this: It is the modern-day version of a witch trial. The charges are utterly farcical and cartoonish. “I saw her dancing with demons in the pale moonlight.” “She looked at me and I sneezed, and the next day, I had a terrible cold.” “She turned me into a newt.” But they are stated with great conviction and repeated incessantly, and they establish the unassailable collective will of which the accused has run afoul. The witch is made into the auslander, and the good people of the community show how “good” they are by shouting their accusations the loudest.
Either way, whether the wicker man or the witch, the effigy goes up in flames and the community is purged—for the moment—of its evil. Moral annulment now achieved, the villagers walk away feeling good about themselves. Feeling superior.
Facts are also unimportant in this perverse passion play. Like the slavering, semi-psychotic Facebook rant above, most such assaults aren’t a series of accusations backed up by facts, they are a series of character assassinations, most of which are contradicted by the facts.

The most salient example today is the charge that people of the right (conservatives, Republicans, libertarians, tea partiers) oppose Obama out of pure racism—simply because he is black. Though this charge is easily refuted—by common sense, widespread evidence, and actual studies—it is repeated incessantly by the media, the left’s foot-soldiers . . . even the president himself.
When actual studies are done (as opposed to just restating what the leftist imagines to be so as if it were actual fact), we learn that real racism is distributed fairly evenly among the population without regard to political affiliation.  In 2008, a survey was done that showed similar numbers of Republicans (5.7) and Democrats (6.8) would not vote for a black presidential candidate. Such a question gives us one of the clearest possible tests of raw racism. A loaded question like, “Do you feel blacks receive too much welfare?” might confuse attitudes about race with attitudes about government welfare programs. But this gives us apples to apples: All things being equal, would you refuse to vote for someone solely because of race?
In the 2008 survey, Democrats were slightly (1.1%) more likely to show racist thinking than Republicans, though this is well within the margin of error. A similar study on senatorial candidates was far more damning to Democrats. Bottom line: there is little evidence that Republicans oppose Obama or any candidate on the basis of race to any greater degree than Democrats.
But this should be obvious based on other facts and indicators as well. Take Mia Love. If you are on the political left, you may not have heard of her, but she is a rising star on the right. She quotes Bastiat, she believes in core principles such as subsidiarity—she is dynamic, successful, and hits all the right notes. She is a black woman, and I have not met or heard of a single conservative, Republican, or tea partier who wouldn’t be delighted to support her. (Deep down, many of the left know this, which is why they have been so vicious to her.) I have worked alongside or come in contact with hundreds of activists and partisans on the political right over the last 15 years, and I cannot think of a single one who would not exult at a Mia Love victory. If she were elected president, I myself would do the happy dance on top of the tallest mountain in my area every November!
The reason is obvious: we agree ideologically. Race is unimportant. Barack Obama is, it can be fairly argued, further to the political left than any previous president. And people on the right oppose him so virulently for that very reason—not because of his race, but because of the huge ideological gulf that lies between. Imagine that.
The other painfully incessant canard is the notion that people on the right “hate the poor.” In fact, the evidence shows the opposite. Conservatives are more charitable than liberals by fairly significant margins, even when you adjust for a variety of factors. Rich, middle-class, and poor conservatives are all more charitable than their liberal counterparts.  It’s not that conservatives are wealthier overall, either—liberal households are 6% wealthier on average. (I bet you never heard that little fact on MSNBC.) It is also not that conservatives are more religious: new data indicate that secular conservatives give more than secular liberals. These conservatives are voluntarily helping the poor with their own money, in greater numbers than their liberal counterparts in every cohort. Conservatism is a greater predictor of charity.
Leftists (they hardly deserve the term “liberal”), by contrast, are more “charitable” with other people’s money. Leftist A votes for Politician B to take money (by force) from Taxpayer C to give it to Recipient D. A and D give more support and power to B, who continues to take more and more from C, in a perverse and ever-increasing form of economic bondage. Then, A, B, and D get together and say that C hates the poor. Lather, rinse, repeat.

But we are getting dragged into the weeds here. We could go on and on refuting fact after fact, but the facts are unimportant. The leftist is creating a narrative. As a marketing guru will tell you, Facts tell, but stories sell. It’s a lesson the leftist has learned well.
Even more disturbing, in recent years, this method of “argumentation” has increasingly become the first tool pulled out of the toolbox. No longer does the leftist feel as compelled to make real arguments. All he needs to do now is shout “Racist!” or “War on Women!” and his job is done. He walks away feeling smugly satisfied of his own politically correct superiority, and the untrained observer is left addled at best, and possibly even swayed by the narrative.
So why they are so vicious?  Why do people who self-describe as “compassionate” direct such vitriolic hate and assaults at their ideological opponents? How they can justify painting you as such a monster?
Simple: To them, you are a monster. You must be.

Reason #1: Utopianism
You’re in their way

Strip everything away, and the fundamental trait of all leftists is this: They believe that through the state, they can build paradise on earth. They believe that with enough tinkering, coercion, and rule by “experts,” they can eliminate all hard choices and competing goods, perfect human nature, and bring all good things to all people.
To someone of the political right—defined by our belief in human freedom, private solutions, and individual sovereignty—this is just the modern re-telling of the age-old story: that some men should rule over other men. Ancient despotism, monarchy, fascism, totalitarianism, modern progressivism—they’re all just different flavors, and different degrees of application, of the same basic philosophy. But the person on the left does not see it that way. He wants perfection. He believes it is possible. And by gum, he’s going to get it.
This utopian thinking quickly leads to an unavoidable conclusion, echoed from the French Revolution to Lenin and Stalin to Mao to the Progressives of the modern era: “On ne fait pas d’omelet sans casser des oeufs.” (You can’t make an omelet without breaking some eggs.) To the utopian statist, “process costs” are entirely acceptable. They are building paradise, after all.
That’s why you see so much more toleration by the left’s rank and file of corruption and bad behavior by their leaders. What’s a little lying here, a little corruption there? They are building paradise. What’s a little cheating in the face of all they intend to accomplish?
That is also why you see such a prevalence of cult-of-personality adulation for strong leaders. Strong leaders resolve contradictions and sweep away the opposition. Strong leaders have the will to get the job done. Strong leaders get the trains running on time. Next stop, paradise.
But most importantly . . . these utopians—both the leaders and the rank and file—are so convinced of the nobility of their intentions that they believe that anyone who stands in their way must, by definition, have evil intentions. After all, who but a monster would stand in the way of paradise? And what consideration do monsters deserve? Why none at all, of course—they’re monsters.
That is why they do not simply disagree with you. That is why they calumniate you and attribute the worst motives to you. That is why they hate you.

Reason #2: Fantasyland vs. Reality
The WORLD is in their way

The world refuses to conform to their utopian vision. The world isn’t the neat and tidy place they want it to be. They still hold onto the childlike belief that there can be goods with no tradeoffs, and this world of endless tradeoffs proves them wrong every day, mocking their childishness in the process. That makes them very angry.
Someone once said, “Conservatives believe what they see; liberals see what they believe.” Leftists hate you for the fact that you see the world as it is, rather than as it should be. You accept the facts of reality as they truly are, and you try to make the best of it. They believe that they can make reality conform to their vision of it. (That this effort always requires massive application of force against other human beings doesn’t bother them. It’s just another process cost.)
Your acceptance of reality as it is is pedestrian and troglodytic. Their vision of how reality should be makes them noble and romantic. They hate you for not living in the same fantasy land that they do. They hate you for recognizing that life is filled with tradeoffs. They don’t see the tradeoffs, so when you point them out, it’s as if you are the one that is making the tradeoff exist. La-La-La . . . I can’t hear you! Stop making bad things happen.
Your acceptance of reality makes them so angry, in fact, that they have convinced themselves that you must be suffering from some sort of psychological malady. Over the last century, dozens of self-reinforcing  junk-science books and studies have been published labeling “conservatism” (once called “classical liberalism”) as a mental disorder. Like the mental patient permanently lost in a psychotic world of his own creation . . . he’s normal, it’s the rest of you who are nuts.

Reason #3: Preening Narcissism
They are beautiful, so you must be ugly

The ideas of the political left produce failure at best and misery, oppression, and democide at worst. In spite of this, I had long clung to the belief that at least people on the political left “mean well.”
But do they? Or do they simply want to feel as though they mean well?
Author Robert Bidinotto asks (and answers) the same question:

Have decades upon decades of liberal policy failures deterred liberals from being liberals? Have the trillions of dollars blown on welfare-state programs since the “New Deal” and the “War on Poverty” made a damned bit of difference in curing poverty? And has that failure convinced “progressives” that there is something fundamentally wrong in their worldview and approach? Have the horrendous historical consequences of appeasement policies stopped today’s politicians from appeasing international thugs and terrorists? No?
Then why does anyone assume that liberals gauge the value of their worldview by the standard of its PRACTICAL CONSEQUENCES?
Practical consequences are ALWAYS trumped by the advancement and protection of one’s core Narrative: the fairy tale that gives one’s life meaning, coherence, and moral justification. [ . . . ]
Doing that makes them feel good about themselves. And they would far rather feel good about themselves than actually achieve any of their stated practical objectives. It’s not about the objectives at all. It’s about THEM.

John Hawkins is just as unequivocal:

3) Liberals emphasize feeling superior, not superior results. Liberalism is all about appearances, not outcomes. What matters to liberals is how a program makes them FEEL about themselves, not whether it works or not. Thus a program like Headstart, which sounds good because it’s designed to help children read, makes liberals feel good about themselves, even though the program doesn’t work and wastes billions. A ban on DDT makes liberals feel good about themselves because they’re “protecting the environment” even though millions of people have died as a result. For liberals, it’s not what a program does in the real world; it’s about whether they feel better about themselves for supporting it.

If this is true, then for many, utopianism isn’t about what they think they can achieve, it’s about their own self-image.
So is it true?
The persistence of this vision in the face of centuries of evidence would seem to indicate that it may be. We know that maximizing human freedom is more moral and produces better results—the last two centuries have made that clear. And on the flip side, we know that maximizing government at the expense of the individual produces a parade of horribles. And yet, again and again, we are told that it simply wasn’t done correctly before, or by the right people.
Mirror, mirror, on the wall, who’s the fairest of them all?
Why you are, my dear—you are so compassionate and fair and noble in every way.
The leftist looks at herself in the mirror and sees that she is one of those “right people,” because that is how she wants to see herself.
And if she is so beautiful and noble and fair . . . then how ugly you must be for standing in her way.

The leftist—the utopian, the statist—sees himself as on noble quest. He is the embodiment of everything good, simply because that is how he sees himself. How he wants to see himself. In order to maintain this self-image, he must make you the embodiment of everything horrible. He must make you ugly.
To statists, you are just another process cost. Their willingness to accept process costs on the road to their utopia is limited only by national context. In the United States, an exceptional nation where we still have some rule of law, they will certainly calumniate you, and they may decide to harm your finances, career, or reputation. In less exceptional countries where there is less rule of law, the harm is often to people’s freedom or even their very lives, as more than 100 million poor souls discovered in the 20th century.
The typical leftist in America, ignorant of his own philosophical pedigree, will protest this characterization. Do not let their protestations sway you. The degree to which they will treat you—the monster standing in the way of their utopia—as a disposable process cost is limited only by the degree of power they have. For your own safety, do not let them get more.
You are in the way of the utopia they are trying to create. You are in the way of the power they need to do it.
You. Are. In. Their. Way.
mob, wicker man, effigy, mob mentality
“The conservative “thinks of political policies as intended to preserve order, justice, and freedom. The ideologue, on the contrary, thinks of politics as a revolutionary instrument for transforming society and even transforming human nature. In his march toward Utopia, the liberal ideologue is merciless.”

Western Free Press 
Knowledge Is Power: The Realistic Observer is a non-profit blog dedicated to bringing as much truth as possible to the readers.

Excellent article discussing indoctrination as opposed to education in our public schools.

Liberal Bias Starts Long Before College
Written by Maria Biery
There are too many examples of college campus craziness to count. There are entire websites—such as Campus Reform and The College Fix—that specialize in reporting the liberal bias, political correctness, and all around daily madness of institutions of higher education. However, for all the attention we give to these episodes at the collegiate level, we miss the root of the problem, and without addressing the cause we can’t hope for a solution.

The truth is, indoctrination of America’s youth begins long before college.
In my own experience, during my years at a public high school, I had a teacher who aired his left-leaning political views on a daily basis, during class hours, when we were supposed to be learning biology. I can remember sitting in the back of the class with my fists clenched asking myself, “What are we learning right now besides what he thinks about politics?” There was no space to debate him. Numerous students told their parents about it, but, at the end of the day, we all knew we couldn’t do anything. He was set to retire in a few years, he had tenure in the school district, and this was an AP class. No one was willing to risk their grade or their chances of getting into college over a forced hour and a half of frustration per day.

But the issues I had in the public school system extended far beyond this one teacher. It was frustrating that the only reason we learned certain things was so that we did well on statewide standardized tests. Every aspect of our education revolved around these tests. There was absolutely no room for critical thinking. Teachers would ask us, for example, what we thought about a Shakespeare play, and if we didn’t have the exact answer that they were looking for, crafted in the exact phrasing that was present on their curriculum guides, we were shot down.

This is problematic as we know that most teachers and educators, at all levels, lean left on the political spectrum, and if they are the ones making and teaching the curriculum we can rest assured that there will be some level of indoctrination and a lack of creative thinking.
This excerpt from a College Fix article on indoctrination in high school states the issue well:

It’s no surprise that a system that is state-funded and state-run advocates for a bigger government.The public school system is a microcosm of the socialist system, one that is bureaucratic, wasteful, and does not serve its original and intended purpose. Education is the cornerstone of Western society, a place where our youth are taught to think broadly and develop their own unique worldview. Instead, we are often taught what to believe instead of how to think. (emphasis mine)

Don’t just take this claim at face value. There are a myriad of stories from angry parents about their kids being indoctrinated in the public education system. One mom took to social media to display her daughter’s fill-in-the-blank vocabulary quiz that sported questions such as, “It was difficult for me to [blank] my feeling when I learned that Donald J. Trump had been voted in as our 45th President” and “After reading about President Trump’s immigration ban, I did not realize how [blank] the law can be.”

More parents at an upscale school in Chicago pushed back when the administration sought to have an all-school social justice day with events such as “Developing a Positive, Accountable White Activism for Racial Civil Rights.” These stories are everywhere, but how many websites, organizations, or network television shows are as dedicated to shedding light on these issues as they are to revealing the issues present on college campuses? None as far as I know.

It’s not all about what students are being taught though. It’s about what they’re not being taught. In a PragerU video titled “Why Isn’t Communism as Hated as Nazism?” Dennis Prager makes the point that, in the education system, Nazism is widely condemned for its gruesome ideology and the atrocities that have been committed in its name. Rightly so, but the problem is many students either only briefly learn about the ills of communism or never learn about them at all. The public education system almost completely ignores this part of history because, although teachers and administrators may not necessarily identify as communists, many are at least sympathetic to communist ideas. As Prager puts it, “Communism is based on nice sounding theories, and Nazism isn’t. Intellectuals, in general, are seduced by words so much so that they deem actions as less significant than words. For that reason they haven’t focused nearly as much attention on the horrific actions of communists as they have on the horrific actions of the Nazis.”

During my time in public school, I never learned about communism, the Cold War, Stalin, or Mao. I was only introduced to communism through a summer program, and, to be completely honest, at the time it didn’t sound so bad because I had no historical context to judge the ideas of Karl Marx fairly. It was only until I took a class, after switching from public to private high school, on modern Chinese history that I even began to understand the horrors of communism.

This issue stems from the fact that the public school system places little to no weight on history education. At least in Pennsylvania, when I was in school, there was no statewide standardized history exam. There was a math and reading exam almost every year, and every few years there was a writing and science exam. Only 21 of the 50 states have statewide social studies or history exams that are issued more than once throughout a child’s primary or secondary education. The results from those tests are telling, though. A 2014 National Assessment of Educational Progress report showed that only 18 percent of U.S. high school students were proficient in American history. The thought of many teachers is, why teach history when students aren’t going to be tested on it? And even if they are tested on it, it hardly matters as much as their scores on reading, writing, and math. Why put as much effort into teaching them about how the government works or about important historical figures? If any subject takes a backseat in the educational experience of an American child it’s usually history.

All of these things—the overt indoctrination, the exclusion of certain events in U.S. history to support an agenda, the overall lack of history education, and the strict adherence to teaching only what will be tested on statewide exams—set students up for failure when they go to college. Not only is there a steep learning curve, as students realize they will be tested in a completely different way than they were accustomed to in high school, but they will also be unaware of and ill-prepared to think about any range of topics at a critical level. Thus the protests and outrage when students confront an idea they’re uncomfortable with.

Luckily for me, when I started attending private school, I was thrust into the educational environment that public schools should be aiming for. I learned how to think critically and voice my opinion, and I learned that we don’t all necessarily have to see the world in the same light, only that we must show respect to one another and what we believe. Most students, however, have to figure those things out in their first year or two of college, and some, unfortunately, never do.

Colleges are slowly changing to mirror what students are used to from high school. In a documentary entitled “What Has Yale Become?”, Rob Montz of YouTube’s We the Internet TV comes to the realization that elite colleges are no longer focused on giving their students knowledge and truth. Rather, places like Yale seek to give college students an “experience”—a constant 4-year party until they graduate and fall into cushy jobs.

During the Yale controversy in 2015, which ensued after Professor Erika Christakis questioned a university-wide email that told students what they could and could not wear on Halloween, protesters marked the professor and her husband as insensitive racists. One notorious video from the altercations depicts a girl screaming at Nicholas Christakis, “It is not about creating an intellectual space! It is not! Do you understand that? It’s about creating a home here! You are not doing that. You’re going against that.” One’s knee-jerk reaction might be to say “No! It is an intellectual space! You’re wrong!” But then again, is that really what colleges and universities seek to provide these days? I’m starting to doubt that. For now, militant student protesters probably represent a minority on campus, and elite university academics still give students the education that they’re paying for on a day to day basis. But as time goes on, and protest culture permeates through campus, I think that we will begin to see the shift that Rob Montz points out. If the university system continues down this dangerous path it will, effectively, be giving in to what students want, not what they need.

My question from the beginning still remains though. If students are being prepped throughout their secondary educational years to become social justice warriors once they get to college, why do the media and nonprofits put so much emphasis on reform at the collegiate level? Don’t they realize that, for most students, it’s too late? Wouldn’t it make more sense to address the problem at its foundation?

To be clear, I have the utmost respect for organizations and media outlets that seek to spread conservative ideas and call out campus ridiculousness when necessary. Without these groups, professors, students, and administrators would never be held accountable for their words or actions. My critique is that these organizations can only ever hope to effect change by addressing the indoctrination that occurs at the secondary education level. If we want to make a difference, and curb the tide of snowflakes and SJWs entering college, we have to deal with the issues present in our education system before they manifest.

Dealing with those problems is a far greater task than meets the eye. It would require a rethinking of our whole public education system. One would have to work within the confines of Supreme Court decisions involving pre-college students. A substitute to statewide testing would have to be considered. Teachers, who may have dedicated good portions of their lives to their careers, may have to be fired (and then there’s the whole other issue of those teachers with tenure). Curricula that may not have changed too much from year to year would have to be completely redone. Who really wants to take on that monster of a project?

So maybe that’s one reason we focus on indoctrination at the collegiate level. The public school system is too broken, and it would take years, maybe decades, to fix. At least these conservative/free speech groups can win some smaller battles for college students by defending their First Amendment rights or exposing a professor who brings his or her liberal bias into the classroom. It’s better than nothing.

There’s also the fact that college students have a lot more freedom and power to fight back against their professors or administrations than younger students do. If a college professor spewed some of the remarks that my biology teacher touted daily, he would’ve ended up on a viral video for the whole country to see. The administration would’ve either fired him or his reputation would’ve been so badly damaged on campus that enrollment in his classes would’ve dropped. There would have been justice.

However, high school students would have been afraid for their grade in the class, of the consequences they would have had to pay if the school district or their parents disciplined them, or for their chances of getting into a good college with a blemish on their record. They would have had to fight on their own, whereas at the collegiate level there are more resources—and more students—to back them up if they go head-to-head with their administration. College students can form alliances with other groups so they have more influence, but at the secondary education level, groups are largely run by teachers and parents who keep the students in check. There are risks involved in challenging professors and the administration in college, but it is far less risky than it is in high school.

On a deeper level though, class differences may play a role here. About two-thirds of Americans do not have a college degree, but almost 90 percent of the population has a high school diploma. Therefore, becoming an “intellectual” by attending university is still somewhat of a rarity in American society. With the rise of Trump, we witnessed America’s resentment towards “elites” and “intellectuals.” Having a college degree or having years of political experience was not a selling point in 2016 because the American people, with the goading of Trump, pinned the country’s problems on these individuals. They were supposed to know better than anyone else how to get the country back on track after the 2008 recession, but many Americans were still feeling the side effects eight years later. So Trump, and many others, cast a dream-like quality over the common American man who didn’t need a fancy degree to make something of himself, and he assured his supporters that he would make that dream a reality yet again. It makes sense, then, that a majority of our population would place the blame for the cultivation of militant youth on colleges and universities—those institutions that created the corrupt and ineffective elites—instead of on the public education system, which most of them grew up in and still support.

A final reason we focus on the issues at the university level is that the conservative movement, and some of its most famous leaders, have made a talking point out of liberal bias and indoctrination in college. From the time William F. Buckley, Jr. wrote God and Man at Yale to the present, conservatives have been the ones to place the blame on colleges instead of on the public secondary schools. Maybe that’s because most conservative intellectuals and pundits began their professional careers critiquing their own experiences in college (Ann Coulter, Ben Shapiro, Marc Thiessen, Laura Ingraham, Dinesh D’Souza, Ross Douthat, Rich Lowry, and Jay Nordlinger are just a few examples). Or maybe it’s easier for them, and fits their agenda better, to place the blame on bad parenting habits or mass culture. Liberal bias is easier to spot and critique in college, no doubt, but the leaders of the movement that brought this issue to light haven’t seriously dealt with the question of how we got here and how we might go about fixing the problem. Maybe they don’t want to.

Source:   Illinois Family Institute

Knowledge Is Power: The Realistic Observer is a non-profit blog dedicated to bringing as much truth as possible to the readers.


The following article speaks the truth and echos exactly what legions of Americans think.The nation had enough of and saw through the Hope and Change meme. Hillary lost, not only because she was a bad candidate, but because the non-elites, aka deplorables, did not want a continuation of the failed policies of the previous occupant of the Oval Office.
Yes indeed, he was a factor in her loss!

Obama’s Ignominious Legacy
Preamble: The purpose of this blog is to highlight some of the most egregious goals and actions that underpin Obama’s ignominious legacy and betrayal of America. They were malicious and intended to destroy America’s well respected international standing as well as her traditions, culture and values. There is not a doubt in my mind that Obama is a radical black activist and most likely Muslim to whom America and Whites have always been anathema. The presidency provided him with the power to seek vengeance.

Smoke and Fire: The old adage, ‘where there’s smoke there’s fire’ is perfectly exemplified by Obama. He is a proven corrupt pathological liar who, among other things, has used multiple names, passports and social security numbers. Every meaningful record of his past has been permanently sealed and his birthplace is highly suspect. To be succinct, Obama is a fraud: He represents a catastrophic fire in America and a malignant cancer metastasizing through the civilized world.

Common Goal of U.S. Presidents: Throughout modern history, and most likely since Washington, I sincerely believe that every United States President loved America and endeavored to make her the greatest country the world had ever known. Their respective results notwithstanding, I am confident that each also wanted to leave America in a better place at the end of their term than when it began.

Regardless of party affiliation, these men were instrumental in enabling the creation of our great country as well as providing freedom and incredible opportunities for her citizenry. In part, their collective efforts facilitated a more peaceful world, as well as established America as an internationally recognized, trusted, and respected leader consistently representing a bastion of strength.

The Obama Years and Betrayal: Obama’s tragic election commenced eight years of his relentless attempts to destroy America’s long established greatness. I cannot think of one contribution he made to enhance America in the international community or to maintain her culture, traditions, values, and lives of the citizenry. To the contrary, Obama vowed to fundamentally transform America and every one of his actions was intended to militate against her best interests.
Below are some of the more abominable goals Obama sought and actions he initiated in attempting to transform and irreparably damage America.

  • Destroy her long standing, well established international leadership, trust, prestige and respect
  • Alienate her most significant allies
  • Consistently disparaged her to the world as being a racist country and apologized for her proud past
  • Bowed to and otherwise subordinated the office of President to leaders of foreign countries, particularly those with interests directly opposed to America
  • Entered into international agreements, e.g., TPP & Paris Climate, specifically intended to destroy her economy and cede her sovereignty to foreign nations
  • Appointed corrupt radical racist AGs, Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch, to effectuate his anti-American goals
  • Created more national debt than the aggregate of all previous presidents
  • Swelled welfare rolls to historic highs to create a ‘nanny state’ ala ‘Cloward-Piven’
  • Displayed total indifference towards and trashed the U.S. Constitution on a regular basis
  • Implemented an open border policy enabling massive immigration of and financial support for the world’s non-white tribal indigents without concern for applicable U.S. laws, IDs, background, and health checks
  • Waived the requisite pledge of allegiance to America for all Muslims allegedly seeking asylum and citizenship
  • Supported and funded sanctuary cities to protect illegal aliens regardless of criminal records
  • Attempted to rule as a monarch through Executive Orders
  • Enabled voting without any form of ID or proof of citizenship
  • Prohibited law enforcement from asking for ID or proof of citizenship
  • Threatened to indict people for speaking freely about Muslims and Blacks to prevent them from being ‘offended’
  • Catalyzed and fueled the fires of racial tension that created a hate filled chasm between Whites and Blacks that had not existed for over 70 years
  • Impliedly declared war on law enforcement that emboldened thugs by providing groups e.g., BLM, free reign to commit chaos and systemic disruption without meaningful consequences
  • Fostered a culture of corruption and pathological lying throughout his administration as evinced by major scandals in the DOJ, CIA, FBI, IRS, VA, and EPA involving cover ups, massive fraud, and perjury
  • Fired a significant number of experienced high ranking members of US armed forces because they wanted to perform their jobs
  • Ordered major reductions in U.S. advanced weaponry while China, Russia, and Iran aggressively enhanced their capabilities
  • Was complicit in the VA intentionally delaying appointments to and treatment of veterans
  • Lied about and shared responsibility with vile Hillary Clinton for the needless murders of 4 Americans in Benghazi
  • Fraudulently misrepresented Obamacare, Omnibus Spending Bill, and TPP
  • Publicly extolled the virtues of his ‘peaceful Islam’, its clerics who openly preach death to America and infidels, and its barbaric prophet, Muhammad
  • Routinely welcomed known radical Islamists who hate America and condone terrorism to the White House
  • Referred to Islamic terrorists/ jihadists as ‘freedom fighters’ and blamed their barbaric acts on poverty
  • Supported and funded Hamas and Muslim Brotherhood
  • Released 5 high value Al Qaeda prisoners from Gitmo in trade for a worthless US deserter who was an Islamic convert
  • Provided $Billions towards Iran’s nuclear program and secretly released multiple high value Iranian prisoners while dropping fugitive warrants on 14 Iranian terrorists
  • Destabilized the Middle East, particularly Libya and Iraq, which effectively spawned ISIS
  • Destroyed and impeded small to medium sized businesses with volumes of needless and expensive regulations
  • Drove major manufacturers out of America with confiscatory tax and onerous environmental policies
  • Mandated transgender bathrooms in public schools
  • Directed his admin staff and intel community to illegally tape, record, and advantageously leak conversations of Trump and his transition team prior to leaving office
  • Currently attempting to subvert Trump’s presidency while continuing to destroy traditional American culture and values through his shadow government – details Here

A Change for The Worst: America significantly changed for the worst during Obama’s stint in office. In addition to the short term effects of the foregoing acts, she lost international respect and trust, and was no longer viewed as a powerful, engaged allay firmly standing as a bastion of peace. To the contrary, America was perceived as weak, untrustworthy, and internationally disengaged except for relations with Islamic countries sponsoring terrorism, e.g., Iran, and those ruled by ruthless dictators.

The domestic and international ramifications of this perception were an increased sense of instability, chaos, systemic disruption, and omnipresent danger. This pervasive condition did not exist prior to Obama’s presidency, but he facilitated it to become the norm. The coup de grace was the proliferation and brazenness of Islamic terrorism along with the rise of ISIS…all thanks to Obama’s effluvium and tacit acquiescence.

It is abundantly clear that Trump did indeed inherit the mess Obama intentionally created as he betrayed America. It is also crystal clear that Obama is a malignant cancer metastasizing through our country in his malevolent quest to destroy her traditions, customs, and values.

View archived blogs here
Source: General Robert E Lee
Knowledge Is Power: The Realistic Observer is a non-profit blog dedicated to bringing as much truth as possible to the readers.

The following article is quite long but extremely informative with more links at the end. If one wants to know exactly where women stand under Sharia Law, this post will make it crystal clear and possibly give some information that the reader may not have already known.
Linda Sarsour and her ilk say that Sharia is misunderstood. If she and those like her truly believe that women are inferior, cannot make a move without their husbands’ or male relatives’ permission, deserve to be beaten and/or murdered for any immodest or immoral act, including being raped, then this mindset can be likened to “slave mentality“. When people have it driven into their psyches that they are inferior and deserve any treatment given to them, many surrender to this belief. Others do not and are often met with a gruesome end.
There are those who advocate for the end of political and legalistic Islam, but although there may be a few twinkles of light here and there, Muslim women largely remain in the abyss of de facto bondage. The likes of Sarsour would gladly pull their Western sisters into the pit into which they themselves are dwelling. Or, perhaps Sarsour does not really know what she is talking about and needs to bone up on all aspects of Sharia herself.

Towards the end of the article is information regarding what the West must recognize and accept in order to prevent being placed under the yoke of Islamism and Sharia.

A Woman Under Sharia: 8 Reasons Why Islamic Law Endangers Women
An essential, scholarly comparison of the rights of women under Sharia and in the West.
BY Immanuel Al-Manteeqi
Women in the West are viewed as being equal to men from both an ontological and juridical perspective. Now, that is not to say that women have never been unjustly discriminated against in the West. On the contrary, it is a sad truth of history that throughout the centuries women in Western societies were often discriminated against.

Indeed, suffrage was only granted to American women in 1920, with the ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment, which states that “the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.” But for at least the past few decades in the West, the predominant idea is that men and women are equal, and that women are entitled to the same basic rights that men enjoy.

Nowadays there are many principles that are enshrined in Western law to protect the rights of women. For example, in the West, the testimony of a woman is universally held—including in courts—to have the same value as the testimony of a man. Domestic violence against wives in the West is strictly prohibited, though unfortunately it is still practiced by some husbands. Furthermore, divorce is just as easy for a wife as it is for a husband to file for.

In addition, there is no discrimination against women when it comes to inheritance. Women are not disenfranchised of their fair share of inheritance just because they happen to be women. In the West women can also, for the most part, dress in any way that they desire without great social repercussions—and certainly not any legal repercussions.

The practice of polygamy is strictly prohibited in Western countries. The codification of monogamy into law goes at least as far back as Greco-Roman times. As a matter of fact, polygamy is seen in the West not only as an immoral practice but also as a practice that disenfranchises women. Moreover, Western countries take a strict stance on sexual exploitation and prohibit men from marrying or having sexual relations with pre-pubescent girls. And it goes without saying that Western countries strictly prohibit their soldiers from taking female sex slaves in times of war.

In sum, Western countries today treat women overall as equal to men, and there is no question that Western women enjoy individual freedoms. Western countries are the best places for women to live, where they can ascend to the highest seats of power in the land (think of German Chancellor Angela Merkel, UK Prime Minister Theresa May, and former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton) through democratic processes, and where this is no theoretical obstacle to female leaders.

1. Under Sharia, Wives Can Be Beaten. 

Whereas under Western laws women and men are equal, under Sharia women are not equal to men, but are considered inferior. Women are the object of many disparaging remarks in the earliest Islamic source texts, which form the basis for Sharia. For example, according to Q 4:34, husbands are allowed to beat their wives if they “fear disobedience” (which implies that actual disobedience need not occur for the beating to be justified):

Men are the managers of the affairs of women for that God has preferred in bounty one of them over another, and for that they have expended of their property. Righteous women are therefore obedient, guarding the secret for God’s guarding. And those you fear may be rebellious admonish; banish them to their couches, and beat them. If they then obey you, look not for any way against them; God is All-high, All-great.

That wife-beating is permissible given (imagined or real) behavioral misconduct on the part of the wife is also found in Muḥammad’s so-called “Farewell Address” or “Last Sermon,” which has been preserved in Ibn Isḥāq’s Sīra, the oldest and most reliable biography of Muḥammad that we possess.[1]
 
2. Under Sharia, Females Enjoy Fewer Rights than Males. 
According to Q 2:282, the testimony of a woman is worth only half that of a man’s:

And bring to witness two witnesses from among your men. And if there are not two men [available], then a man and two women from those whom you accept as witnesses – so that if one of the women errs, then the other can remind her.

According to Q 4:11 and Q 4:176, a woman may inherit only half as much as her male brother does. Furthermore, as Professor Samīr Khalīl Samīr, a native Arabic speaker with two doctorates and the former adviser to Pope Benedict XVI on Islam and the Middle East, explains, under Sharia “in a [religiously] mixed marriage [where the wife is non-Muslim], the wife legally loses the right to her husband’s inheritance if she does not convert to Islam.”[2]

3. Under Sharia, Marriage and Sexual Intercourse with Pre-Pubescent Girls is Permissible. 
According to Q 65:4, sexual relations with females who have not yet had their menstrual cycle (i.e., pre-pubescent girls) are permissible. The verse is found in the sixty-fifth chapter of al-Talāq (Divorce), which begins by stating that “when you divorce women, divorce them when they have reached (the end of) their waiting period (ʿidda); a waiting period or ʿidda is a certain amount of time that a Muslim man is supposed to wait before marrying a divorced woman, so as to make sure that she is not pregnant from her previous husband.”[3] It is in this context that we are to read Q 65:4, which states the following:

(As for) those of your women who have no hope of (further) menstruation: if you are in doubt, their waiting period is three months, and (also for) those who have not (yet) menstruated” [emphasis added].

Sayyid Qutb, the late prominent theoretician of the Muslim Brotherhood, explains in his renowned commentary on the Qur’ān (In the Shadow of the Qur’ān) that [Q 65:4] is referring to “women who are past the menopause and those who do not as yet have a menstrual cycle because they have not attained puberty or because of a malfunction in their system” [emphasis added].[4]

Thus, in the context of this Qur’ānic chapter on divorce, it seems that this verse is stating that Muslim men (or husbands) are to wait three months before divorcing pre-pubescent girls (for the reason of making sure that young and apparently borderline post-pubescent girls are not pregnant; cf. Q 2:228). This is not just some interpretation that modern Islamists like Sayyid Qutb came up with; rather, such an interpretation of Q 65:4 is mentioned at least as far back as al-Tabarī (839 – 923), one of our oldest and most important sources of early Islam.

Furthermore, the Andalusian Malikī jurisprudent and philosopher, Ibn Rushd (1126 – 1198), known to the West as “Averroes,” confirms the permissibility of having sexual relations with pre-pubescent girls in his legal handbook, Bidāyat al-Mujtahid wa Nihāyat al-Muqtaṣid (literally, “the beginning for him who interprets the sources independently and the end for him who wishes to limit himself”). In this work, and under the section entitled “the Waiting Period for Wives,” he states the following: “the divorced woman whose marriage stands consummated may or may not be one who menstruates. If she does not menstruate, she may be a minor or beyond the age of menstruation.[5]

It should be noted here that one of the most renowned Muslim figures of all times is unequivocally implying that marriage and sexual relations with pre-pubescent girls in Islam are licit.

4. Under Sharia, Wives do not Share the Same Divorce Rights as Their Husbands. 
Under Sharia, a husband can divorce his wife simply by stating, “you are divorced” three times in the presence of two adult mentally sound males, without even having to justify his decision, and he will retain custody of any children. In this connection, Professor Samir states that “the most absurd thing is that if the husband later repents of his decision [of divorce] and wants to ‘recover’ his wife [for the third time], she must first marry another man who in his turn will repudiate her (Q 2:229-30).”[6] By contrast, no such power is given to the wife. 

5. Under Sharia, Female Rulers are Frowned Upon. 
Sharia frowns upon female rulers. This originates from a ḥadīth in Sahih al-Bukhari, the most trusted Muslim aḥadīth , where Muhammad, upon hearing the news that the people of Persia had made the daughter of Khosrau their Queen, states: “Never will succeed such a nation as makes a woman their ruler.”[7] Indeed, this is one of the reasons that is often cited for why women cannot be caliphs.[8] Although this is what Sharia teaches in theory, the practicalities of life give rise to some exceptions. In the Muslim world you did occasionally have female rulers like Shajarat al-Durr (d. 1257) who ruled Egypt in Medieval times. In more recent times, Benazir Bhutto won the elections in Pakistan and became Prime Minister of that country for two non-consecutive terms (1988-90, and 1993-96). So did Shikha Hasina, who won elections three times and is currently the Prime Minister of Bangladesh. 

6. Under Sharia, Wives Should be Subservient to their Husbands. 
Under Sharia, a husband has absolute authority over his wife. As Professor Samir remarks: “A man can forbid his wife to go out from the home, even to go to the mosque, since in a ḥadīth Muḥammad tells a woman that her prayer has no value if it is done without her husband’s permission.”[9] This is confirmed by The Reliance of the Traveler, an authoritative fourteenth-century Shafiʿī legal manual written by Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misrī (1302 – 1367). The manual states that “a woman may not leave the city without her husband or a member of her unmarriageable kin….accompanying her, unless the journey is obligatory, like the hajj. It is unlawful for her to travel otherwise, and unlawful for her husband to allow her.”[10]

Furthermore, under Sharia, polygyny is allowed, for Q 4:3 explicitly permits Muslim men to marry “what seems good to you of the women: two, or three, or four.”[11] Because of this verse, till this day in many Muslim countries it is permissible for a man to marry more than one wife.

Regardless of whether this custom was deemed to be socially acceptable by the seventh-century standards of Arabia, today only the very rare wife would find it permissible for her husband to marry another woman, let alone two or three more, even if she keeps her status as first wife. 

7. Under Sharia, Women are Deemed Lacking in Faith and Intelligence. 
As students of Islam know very well, Sharia does not just draw from Qur’ānic verses for its oppressive view of women. For it also draws on the aḥadīth (the so-called sayings of Muḥammad). In one such hadīth from Sahīh Al-Bukhārī, the most authoritative Sunni collection of ahādīth, Muḥammad states that the majority of the dwellers of hellfire are women, that women curse frequently and are ungrateful to their husbands, and, famously, that women are “deficient in intelligence and religion.” The full hadīth is as follows:

 Once Allah’s Messenger [i.e., Muḥammad] went out to the Muṣalla [place of prayer] (to offer the prayer) of `Id-al-Adha or Al-Fitr prayer. Then he passed by the women and said, “O women! Give alms, as I have seen that the majority of the dwellers of Hell-fire were you (women).” They asked, “Why is it so, O Allah’s Messenger?” He replied, “You curse frequently and are ungrateful to your husbands. I have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence and religion than you. A cautious sensible man could be led astray by some of you.” The women asked, “O Allah’s Messenger! What is deficient in our intelligence and religion?” He said, “Is not the evidence of two women equal to the witness of one man?” They replied in the affirmative. He said, “This is the deficiency in her intelligence. Isn’t it true that a woman can neither pray nor fast during her menses?” The women replied in the affirmative. He said, “This is the deficiency in her religion [emphases added].”

Fundamentalist Muslims the world over insist on accepting this ḥadīth, which is virtually universally accepted as authentic or ṣahīh by even moderate Muslim scholars (who generally view just about everything in the collection of al-Bukahrī as authentic). Such aḥadīth have been a source of great injustice to women living in majority-Muslim countries.

8. Under Sharia, Raping Female Captives is Permissible. 
What is particularly egregious in Sharia is that warriors are permitted to capture the women of “infidels” and use them for their sexual gratification. According to Q 4:3, Q 4:24, Q 23:5-6, Q 70:22-30, having female slaves, “those whom your right hand possess” (ما ملكت ايمانكم, transliterated as ma malikat aymānikum), is permissible.

Furthermore, interpreting ma malikat aymānikum as “female slaves” is not something that, pace Western-Muslim apologists, is only advanced by so-called Islamophobes. Our earliest tafsīr (Qur’ānic exegesis), the tafsīr of Muqātil Ibn Sulaymān, states that ma malikat aymānikum means walā’id (ولائد), which denotes female slaves.[12] This view has been held by many mufasirīn (exegetes) since medieval times, and A.J. Droge’s recent 2013 scholarly translation of the Qur’ān, which is, in my opinion, the best English translation around, explains the phrase “those whom your right hand possess” as straightforwardly referring to female slaves.

Having female slaves, Droge explains, is permissible even when the (Muslim) male is married.[13] Indeed, the Qur’ān contrasts female slaves with married women a few times, clearly demonstrating female slaves were not considered to be wives. There can be no doubt that in using the term ma malikat aymānikum, the Qur’ān is here referring to females who have been captured during war for the sexual gratification of their male captors. Indeed, reading Ibn Iṣhāq’s Sīrat Rasūl Allāh, we can discern that Muhammad himself took female concubines and permitted his warriors to do likewise as well.
Continue here for the entire post and links for much more information 

Source:   Counter Jihad

Knowledge Is Power: The Realistic Observer is a non-profit blog dedicated to bringing as much truth as possible to the readers.

 

Sickening how law enforcement caved under the fear of being accused of Islamophobia, racism etc. Helpless children were literally sacrificed on the alter of Political Correctness! For everlasting shame upon the Dhimmies who initiated this policy. Must we lose our morals, principles, cultural identity, and toss our legal system and de facto submit to Islam in the name of respect and multiculturalism?

This pernicious trend is taking root in America and much has been written about the following, which is above outrage.
Excerpt: “A seven-year-old Iraqi boy, plus 14-year-old and 10-year-old Sudanese boys, reportedly cornered the tiny victim in a laundry room at the Fawnbrook Apartments in Twin Falls, Idaho, on June 2. They stripped her naked, sexually assaulted her, urinated all over her body and in her mouth, and videotaped the attack, according to witnesses
An Obama administration official also threatened to prosecute and punish private citizens discussing the crime and refugee resettlement. “The spread of false information or inflammatory or threatening statements about the perpetrators or the crime itself reduces public safety and may violate federal law. We have seen time and again that the spread of falsehoods about refugees divides our communities,” said U.S. Attorney Wendy J. Olson last June. She later repackaged her threat into a warning about “harassing communications” against public officials, which is not illegal activity.”

How many such incidents have happened in the U.S. that have been swept under the rug?  How many more victims and citizens were threatened into silence? Cover-up is the order of the day in Europe as well. What is behind the complicit behavior of so many Western leaders that they refuse to admit the truth? Nobody can be so stupid as not to see the de facto destruction of their cultures. Those leaders who do stand up and refuse to allow the rape of their countries are threatened with sanctions by the EU. They continue to stand against the threats.

The following article contains excellent information with many links at the end.

Upwards of a million infidel girls have been raped, trafficked and traded by thousands Muslim child sex gangs in the UK, and nothing has been done. These Muslim gangs act with impunity because they know they have a special status — a supremacist status sanctioned by the state.
“We are 15 years on now and there is not one senior police officer that has been held accountable – most of them have retired with big pensions.”
These children were sold like meat right under the noses of authorities, who knew but did nothing for fear of being “islamophobic,” or even more absurdly, “racist” (Islam is not a race).
Submission and surrender to the most vicious and brutal ideology on the face of the earth. The rape and trafficking of infidel girls by Muslims in the UK is no different from the rape and trafficking of Yazidi girls in Iraq or the rape and trafficking of Christian girls by Boko Haram in Nigeria.

Sex slavery, rape and trafficking is all according to Islamic law (sharia).
“Prosperous are the believers who in their prayers are humble and from idle talk turn away and at almsgiving are active and guard their private parts save from their wives and what their right hands own then being not blameworthy.” (Quran 23:1-6)

 A RAPIST IS A RAPIST

Rochdale cop says fears of being accused of racism led to police to shelving paedo ring investigations
She appeared on Lorraine this morning ahead of a new documentary delving deeper into the horrors experienced by the teenagers

By Ellie Cambridge, The Sun, 3rd July 2017:
She appeared on Lorraine this morning ahead of a new documentary delving deeper into the horrors experienced by the teenagers
By Ellie Cambridge, 3rd July 2017:
A ROCHDALE cop who fought to expose the grooming rings today slammed the police force for failing to tackle the abuse.
She appeared on Lorraine this morning to talk about a new documentary looking at the investigations
Maggie is a former detective constable in Greater Manchester Police who resigned claiming hundreds of cases of alleged abuse were mishandled or ignored.
Today she said she believes class divide and fears of being accused of racism caused police to change their response to the investigation.
She said: “It still chokes me up. There are some things on the TV that I just cannot watch but I have done my very best to get this message out into the public arena.
“For me this isn’t just a problem for GMP and Rochdale, for me this comes from the top and the documentary takes the issue of the grooming back to 2003 and Operation Augusta that was an identical job to Operation Span but it was dropped and we had I think 97 offenders on our database and GMP dropped that job.”
She worked on a small team assigned to Operation Augusta which looked at allegations about the grooming of white girls in the north west of England by Pakistani men in 2004.
It found 26 teenage girls were thought to have had underage sex and a list of 208 potential suspects was drawn up.
She believes class divide and fears of being accused of being racist caused police to change their response to the investigation
When Oliver returned to work following a family bereavement she found the inquiry had been abandoned and she says it was not looked into again until 2008.
When asked what she thought GMP were “scared of” she said: “Being accused of being racist perhaps, causing riots. I know that Operation Augusta was shelved or buried when the London bombing went off.
“Until that time we had a full investigation, there was not another entry entered on to that system after the London bombings.”
She added: “All those victims that have been abused in that intervening period and even to this day I draw it to a comparison to the Grenfell Tower, for now we don’t know how many victims but probably well in excess of 100 – heads have rolled very quickly.
“We are 15 years on now and there is not one senior police officer that has been held accountable – most of them have retired with big pensions.“I think it’s gone way beyond the racial debate, I see it as a class debate also.
“It’s ‘them and us’ these girls had no voice, just like the people that they stuck in Grenfell Tower. They are not living in big fancy apartments in the West End of London so those in positions of authority they have got an attitude and an arrogance that they can do what they like.
“It upsets me, it breaks my heart.”


Related: UK Muslim sex gangs: “Could be Up to a ‘Million’ [non-Muslim] Child Sex Victims”

UK: Muslim Rape Gang Victim Whose Life Was ‘Destroyed’ Slams Rotherham Authorities
Shouts of ‘Allahu Akbar’ erupt in court as Muslim gang JAILED for child sex abuse/trafficking
UK: 72-year-old Muslim repeatedly rapes nine-year-old girl

WATCH: Muslim Men Threaten British Schoolgirls With Brutal Rape and Beatings DAILY
‘All [non-Muslim] girls are good for is sex. They’re just sluts’: Eight members of ‘openly racist’ violent Muslim sex gang raped and ‘sexually degraded’ three teen girls in Rotherham
: UK: Hundreds more Muslim child rape gang cases discovered; authorities still hiding them for fear of islamophobia charges
Another 14 Muslim men guilty of running UK child sex ring
Related: UK Police Concerned for Welfare of Convicted Muslim Child Gang-Rapists
UK: Hotel footage shows Muslim rape gang member luring 13-year-old girl
UK: Muslim child sex exploitation “now normal in parts of Greater Manchester”
2007 video on savage Muslim rape gangs not used amid fears of appearing “racist”
UK: Rotherham child sex abuse files “go missing from council archive
UK: Muslim Businessman Gets 8 Years For Grooming and Sexually Abusing 12-Year-Old Girl
Another Sex Gang Bust: 6 Jihad Pimps on trial in UK enslaving 6 non-Muslim little girls
UK: Yet Another Muslim Rape Gang Convicted of Sexually Abusing Schoolgirl
10,000 schoolgirls’ victims of U.K. Muslim sex gangs
UK Police Receive 500 More Muslim Sex Grooming Allegations ‘Within The Last Six Months’
BBC finally airs the shocking truth: Muslim Men Grooming, Raping, and Pimping Young Sikh Girls
Gang of Muslim men ‘groomed girls as young as 11 for sex, trafficked them across the UK and attacked them with meat cleavers and baseball bats’
Girls, 14, ‘groomed and raped at drug den by Muslim gang who treated her with contempt’
Hundreds of members of the Luton Sikh community protest police failing to investigate Muslim sex attack on a young non-Muslim girl
Police Ignored Victims of Muslim Child Sex Trafficker who recruited non-Muslim child “prostitutes”; Detective: “the worst case I’ve ever
had to deal with in my 22 years of service”

Groups decry bogus “Asian” label
Govt Minister: “Britain Needs Open Debate” about sex grooming gangs … what about root cause?
Another Muslim Gang Busted in “Second Child Sex Ring” of young non-Muslim girls
More Muslims Jailed for Raping, Grooming Tween girls, 40 More Sought
British Judge: “Targeted because they were not part of your community or religion”: Judge blasts sex gang
UK Child Sex Trafficking Trial: Nine Muslim men guilty of exploiting
non-Muslim schoolgirls for sex and prostitution after plying them
with vodka and drugs 

Girl, 17, tried to kill herself after ordeal at Muslim sex trafficking trial
Another Muslim Child Sex Trafficking Gang Busted in the UK
UK Police probe at least 54 more Muslim child sex slavery gangs
UK Imams promote Muslim sex slavery rings brutalizing, raping very young non-Muslim girls
Police Refused to Halt Muslim Rape gang: Police and social workers apologise
to girls tortured by ‘medieval’ savage predators, but chief constable
refuses to resign

Muslim Gang Rapes, Brutalizes Kidnapped 13-Year-Old over 4 Days: ‘You treated her like a piece of meat’ Judge’s fury as he jails Muslims who forced her to be their sex slave
Jihad in UK: Muslim men in child trafficking sex ring, attacked vulnerable
girls as young as 11 for sex, subjecting them to assaults that were “perverted in the extreme”

Muslim Child Sex Trafficking Ring gang-raped, bought and sold young infidel girls aged 11 to 16 for 8 years, branded ‘M’ for Muhammed on buttocks
Gang of Muslim men ‘groomed girls as young as 11 for sex, trafficked them across the UK and attacked them with meat cleavers and baseball bats’

Pamela Geller is the President of the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), publisher of PamelaGeller.com and author of The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America and Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance.

The Geller Report

Pro-Muslim, open-borders advocate George Clooney wants to leave terrorism-ravaged England due to ‘security’ concerns. (Image: BPR screengrabs)

George no longer feels safe in a UK overrun by Jihadis with a weak kneed government that seems to shamelessly cave into Islamism under the cover of PC?
And the filthy rich liberals wonder why they are losing the war of ideas. Can we say hypocrisy on steroids?

Pro-refugee George Clooney reportedly moving family back to US: Feels unsafe in terrorism-ravaged Britain
July 7, 2017 by Samantha Chang
And now, George plans to move his wife, Amal (a Lebanese-Brit who was raised Muslim) and their newborn twins back to Los Angeles after a spate of terrorist attacks rocked England.
“He doesn’t feel like Amal and the twins are safe living in the English countryside,” an insider told Life & Style. “He’s determined to move his family to LA, where he feels much more secure.”
Sources said Clooney amped up security once his wife Amal (née Amal Alamuddin) got pregnant:

As soon as Amal found out she was pregnant, he hired former Secret Service agents to assess all his properties and make recommendations for improvement. His mansion in Studio City [California] was deemed the most secure, and it’s within minutes of an LAPD station. He’s waited so long for this family. He’ll do whatever it takes to keep them safe.
The insider said George had received threats in the past for his humanitarian work in the Sudan, and his wife’s work as a human rights lawyer has also made her the target of threats.

This isn’t the first time George Clooney has been forced out of a neighborhood. In July 2016, his neighbors in the upscale Italian resort town of Lake Como were furious after their picturesque hamlet was destroyed by a barrage of refugees.
Residents complained that their once-pristine streets were littered with trash and human waste and overrun by homeless, unemployed refugees from Muslim regions in North Africa and the Middle East.
As an illustration, check out how (once-beautiful) Paris has been transformed into a dump after refugees took over its streets:

George and Amal have vocally encouraged Europe and the United States to take in as many refugees as possible from war-torn Muslim regions in Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and North Africa.
Clooney recently praised German Chancellor Angela Merkel and her destructive open-door policy. He said he became more sympathetic toward refugees after marrying his wife, who was raised Muslim.
Clooney has repeatedly urged Germany to continue its open-door policy toward Muslim refugees despite the enormous financial costs and social chaos the decision has ignited. But that’s okay, because he doesn’t plan to stay in Europe anyway, so it’s not his problem.

Scource:  BizPac Review

Knowledge Is Power: The Realistic Observer is a non-profit blog dedicated to bringing as much truth as possible to the readers.

While many Democrats are seeing the light and want to move on, there remains a hardcore group that simply will not let go. It continues to demand investigation after investigation as well as endless calls for the impeachment of the current duly elected President, with no proof of any wrong doing to warrant such a move.

Now we have a push to remove him from office on the grounds of his being mentally ill, unfit, etc. So, who was the certified congressional psychiatrist who evaluated him?

Many of those who continually berate, vilify, and demand his removal, with no evidence that would warrant such an undertaking, are beginning to look somewhat mentally disturbed themselves.

The following post discusses a new straw for the apparently unhinged to grasp.

In case you missed this:
They STILL Have NO Proof That Trump Campaign “Colluded” With Russia
By : shawn
The latest so-called bombshell in the Russia/Trump investigation was reported by the Wall Street Journal, a paper that has been relatively sane in a media landscape that has completely lost its collective mind. And while there’s nothing wrong with their reporting – at least, as far as we know so far – the rest of the media took the story and ran with it as far as possible, claiming that it was the most damning evidence yet that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian hackers behind the DNC invasion last year. Unfortunately, despite all the juicy headlines, the story provides exactly zero evidence that this is the case.
 
The WSJ story reports that a now-deceased Republican oppo research strategist named Peter W. Smith had a theory that the Russians probably had hacked Hillary Clinton’s basement server and, therefore, probably had the 33,000 missing emails she never turned over to the feds. He had no evidence of this; it was purely based on his own reckoning. Reckoning, you may recall, that most of the conservative news media had indulged in last year and that even then-candidate Donald Trump alluded to in a press conference last summer where he supposedly encouraged the Russians to keep hacking.

According to the Journal, Smith was on a mission to obtain the emails last September as the 2016 election was drawing to its conclusion. But while the media has tried to make it seem like Smith was working directly for the Trump campaign, he wasn’t. He wasn’t even working for someone working for the campaign. And he apparently had no particular inroads into Russian sources, either. He was just an interested participant looking for the hacked emails, and you can bet that he wasn’t the only one.

So where’s the story? Well, while Smith was on his wild goose chase after the emails, he apparently told some hacker groups that he was “talking” to Michael Flynn. And…that’s about it. Smith never got the emails, and never even – as far as we can glean from the story – necessarily spoke to any hacker groups actually associated with Russia. And in his interview with the Journal before his death, he assured them that he had not been working for or with Mike Flynn.

Now, is it possible that Flynn expressed interest in the emails if Smith had been able to come up with them? Perhaps! And if so, who cares? Every journalist and oppo researcher in the country wanted to get their hands on those emails, to say nothing of federal investigators. How in the world does that prove that Trump colluded with the Russians? Even if Trump himself was out there scouring the hacker community for the emails, it wouldn’t prove anything other than that he was willing to get dirty to win the election. Which, frankly, was not a fact he ever tried to hide.

You know, it gets overlooked, but there would BE no Russia scandal if it weren’t for Hillary Clinton’s original crime! And the weaker the stories, the more the media blows them out of proportion. Soon, we’ll be reading “blockbuster” scoops telling us that Trump cheered for Ivan Drago when he watched Rocky IV in 1985.

Sooner or later, this is all going to blow up in the face of the Democrats. And in the meantime, they – not Trump – are doing Russia’s bidding by weakening trust in the American president. (emphasis mine)

Source: The Unfiltered Patriot

Knowledge Is Power: The Realistic Observer is a non-profit blog dedicated to bringing as much truth as possible to the readers.

Arrogance blinds, and blindness can lead to downfall. The 2016 election illustrates the scenario. The Democrats were positive that, after a bit of chicanery during the primary, Hillary would win. In their overconfidence the Dems mistakenly minimized the possible impact of discovered Russian hacking into the DNC, and who knows what else, as well as the Wikileaks revelations. The chief executive was so confident that Hillary would win that he did next to nothing about the intrusions and exposures that were so damaging to her image.
They completely failed to read the mood of the nation and the impact that Trump was having. He simply spoke to people’s concerns; whereas, the Dems were perceived to be Elitist. The phrase so often applied “out of touch” put it very mildly.
None the less, Hillary’s buddies in the MSM, DOJ and FBI had her back, and the chosen one threw his support behind her as well. Questionable polls showed her to be way ahead. No need for panic, all is well. What could possibly go wrong?
Well, on election night, crash, bang, detonation—Trump won!
What happened? All of the collusion, lies, votes cast by dead people and illegal aliens did not put her over the top.
What happened is that the American electorate did not buy into the Democrat narrative, saw through the glittering veil behind which Hillary  stood, and made their decision—much to the horror of the Democrats, the establishment politicians, and the elites.
What to do? When the truth wins, start lying, endlessly obstruct, begin ongoing phony investigations, utilize paid rioting, and conspire to get rid of the winner by any means necessary.
The Democrats built their election strategy with a house of cards that could not possibly maintain its structure. Can we say mindless self-destruction born out of arrogance. It appears as though they are doing the same with their post-election plan. Is it working? Not really. The voters are becoming fed up with all of the shennadigans and obstruction.
Beware, on the streets, Leftist thuggery and violence will not be met with passivity. Undoubtedly the paid useful idiots will abandon the “cause” leaving the die hard anarchists on their own. Who will win depends upon the will to keep up the battle, possibly until the last combatant falls.
Below are excerpts from five relevant articles with links.

Conspiracy:
In the post, Are Democrats behind the dubious Trump dossier that has triggered so many ‘Russia’ investigations? the National Sentinel gives much detail on the conspiring which actually began prior to the election:
Political espionage: President Donald J. Trump has so many enemies in the Deep State and political establishment swamp he seeks to drain he literally only has a small cadre of insiders he can trust.
But a new report suggests that the long-discredited “dossier” released last summer well before the election – which could not be verified by any of the scores of media outlets that had obtained it but nevertheless sparked many of the “Russia” investigations – may actually be tied to the Democratic Party.
Investigative reporter Paul Sperry, writing for the New York Post, notes that the dossier is tied to a secretive Washington, D.C., firm that commissioned it and is now thwarting congressional investigators looking into its connection to the Democratic Party.
He writes:
The Senate Judiciary Committee earlier this month threatened to subpoena the firm, Fusion GPS, after it refused to answer questions and provide records to the panel identifying who financed the error-ridden dossier, which was circulated during the election and has sparked much of the Russia scandal now engulfing the White House.
Is Fusion GPS hiding something? …congressional sources describe it as an opposition-research group for Democrats, with the founders much more political activists with a pro-Hillary, anti-Trump agenda than journalists (which could actually describe just about every other “mainstream” media journalist in D.C.).
“These weren’t mercenaries or hired guns,” a congressional source familiar with the dossier probe said. “These guys had a vested personal and ideological interest in smearing Trump and boosting Hillary’s chances of winning the White House.” continue for much more

Lies: 
Cryin’ Chuck Schumer Blasted for Lying About President Trump

Do you happen to recall the time that Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer – desperate to make political hay out of a Supreme Court nomination his party couldn’t prevent – tried to tell the country that President Trump was under FBI investigation? The Democrat playbook of the last six months has been to throw so many lies and insinuations at the public that America simply loses track of them all. So by the time their lies are exposed AS lies, everyone will have moved on to the next big non-scandal.
But now that Schumer’s lie has been exposed, at least one Republican thinks we should go back and recall how the Senate’s top Democrat tried to mislead the American people. Sen. Chuck Grassley wants America to remember exactly what Cryin’ Chuck said in March:
“You can bet that if the show was on the other foot and a Democratic president was under investigation by the FBI,” said Schumer at the time, “that Republicans would be howling at the moon about filling a Supreme Court seat in such circumstances. After all, they stopped a president who wasn’t under investigation from filling a seat with nearly a year left in his presidency.” More here

BUSTED! CNN Producer Admits Their Coverage Of Trump is a WITCH-HUNT! (VIDEO)
CNN is going up in flames with a bombshell undercover video that was released that shows a producer at CNN admitting that their coverage of President Trump is complete garbage that is designed just to get ratings.
Partial transcript below:
CNN Producer: Yeah, so even the climate accords, it’s like okay, a day or so but we’re moving back to Russia.
Undercover Journalist: So I understand it’s all ratings, right?
CNN Producer: It’s a business, people are like the media has an ethical phssss… But, all the nice cutesy little ethics that used to get talked about in journalism school you’re just like, that’s adorable. That’s adorable. This is a business. Complete post and video here

The Total Conservative asks, Can the President Really “Obstruct” a Fake Investigation?
Let’s put it plainly: If the U.S. government could prove that Donald Trump or his associates colluded with the Russians to hack the Democratic National Committee last year, Trump would not be president right now. In fact, we strongly doubt he would have ever been allowed within 100 miles of his own inauguration.
And if he HAD colluded with the Russians, the government WOULD have proof of it. Does anyone think otherwise? Does anyone believe for a second that the combined intelligence community of the NSA, the CIA, the FBI, and God knows what else could be duped by a New York real estate billionaire? We think Trump is well on his way to being a great president, but this would have been a job beyond any president in history. It’s unthinkable and ridiculous.
And with every passing day, the clarity with which we can understand that this entire investigation was a fraud all along gets stronger and stronger. It’s hardly even a matter of debate any longer. Trump did not collude with the Russians. End of story. continue

The rage:
Jonathon Clay de Hale discusses The Failure of Leftist Restraint 
in his excellent article posted on the Illinois Family Institute site.
The shooting of GOP House Whip Steve Scalise and several other Republicans during an early morning baseball practice this month is as unsurprising as it was dreadful. Some of our deepest expectations were realized in that moment, as the furious rhetoric being churned out by the Left finally expressed itself in the ultimate form of contempt: an attempt to assassinate political leaders….
It started with words from everyone from Obama to Madonna….
While the words broke an unspoken decorum, they weren’t much without action. Mobs gathered and marched with signs that read, “Become ungovernable” and “This is war” and “The only good fascist is a dead one.”
Violent protests shut down presentations deemed hate speech on college campuses: Dr. Charles Murray at Middlebury College, Ann Coulter and Milo Yiannopoulos at the University of California, Berkeley.
From there it was only a few steps to acting out murder fantasies in the form of “art”: comedienne Kathy Griffin decapitating Donald Trump; rapper Snoop Dogg shooting Donald Trump in a “music” video; and a Shakespeare play featuring the murder of “Julius” Trump.
Entire article here and well worth the read!

The Insane Intolerance:
Slate: Women Won’t Be Equal Until They Murder and Rape More People, LGBT Conservatives are ‘Villains’
“These men are more than just bad actors on the national stage: They seek influence and use it for evil means, then show no remorse,” wrote Cauterucci about gay conservatives in her article, Queer Villains Remind Us That Gay Does Not Always Equal Good. “They are comic book–level villains. And they also happen to be two of the most visible gay men in America.”
Cauterucci then claimed in her article that women won’t be equal until they start murdering and raping more people.
“This is a good lesson for straights to learn, too. I have long believed that women will not have achieved full gender equality until we make up half the world’s mass murderers and sex offenders,” she declared, adding, “Not that I would advocate for more mass murderers and sex offenders, but I do wish, kind of, that women made up a greater share.”
“If people believed women to be capable of terrible violence, they might believe us to be capable of everything else—the presidency, for instance,” Cauterucci proclaimed. “Visible gay villains teach the world that queers aren’t all lovable Ellen DeGenereses, glamorous Laverne Coxes, sharp-witted Anderson Coopers, and goofy Neil Patrick Harrises. Equality means having the freedom and power to be just as fucked up and insufferable as anyone else.”  Continue 

Knowledge Is Power: The Realistic Observer is a non-profit blog dedicated to bringing as much truth as possible to the readers.