Leftism is an Ideology of Convenience

ACLU attorney Omar Jackoff Jadwat shows just how “principled” ACLU attorneys are

NTK – ACLU Lawyer Omar Jadwat, arguing against President Trump’s travel ban before the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday, admitted that the same exact travel ban “could be” constitutional if it were enacted by Hillary Clinton.

Jadwat argued that Trump’s campaign animus motivated the order, making it illegitimate. This claim was challenged by the Fourth Circuit’s Judge Paul Niemeyer.

“If a different candidate had won the election and then issued this order, I gather you wouldn’t have any problem with that?” Niemeyer asked.

Jadwat dodged on directly answering the question at first, but Niemeyer persisted, asking the question again.

Jadwat again tried to avoid the question, asking for clarification on the hypothetical, but Niemeyer once again demanded an answer.

“We have a candidate who won the presidency, some candidate other than President Trump won the presidency and then chose to issue this particular order, with whatever counsel he took,” Niemeyer said. “Do I understand that just in that circumstance, the executive order should be honored?”

“Yes, your honor, I think in that case, it could be constitutional,” Jadwat admitted.

Jadwat also denied that presidents’ actions should be nullified by campaign statements, despite the fact that his entire argument seemed to rest on that claim.

What a weasel! I wonder if it ever bothers Omar that he has no principles? Everything is ideological with him, and that ideology is Left of Lenin, which should not surprise anyone given that he works for the ACLU 

*VIDEO* David Horowitz: Big Agenda – President Trump’s Plan To Save America

.
Click HERE to purchase Mr. Horowitz’s newest book Big Agenda.

.

.

This year’s Super Bowl is a big moment for the NFL

Yes, it is the Super Bowl, an NFL champion will be crowned, but that is not the biggest thing at stake. The NFL is the biggest sports draw in the country, it is wildly successful, but, the popularity of the NFL took some hits this season. Some of those hits were self-inflicted. Referees that do not know the rules, and make obviously bad calls seemingly every game. A continued campaign to stamp out the fun in the game with silly penalties, and of course “Deflategate” which drug on and on and on. But the biggest hit was the players who took a knee during the national anthem during too many games. That, together with the sports media injecting “social justice” into much of its reporting hurt the NFL. The message to players was they needed to speak out, get involved. Well, as long as they spoke out on the “correct side” of course.

Certainly NFL fans consist of a broad spectrum of ideological views. But the NFL put a thumb in the eye of Conservative fans, and any other fan that might actually just want to watch the game free of ideology. Football fans do not watch games to be sermonized, or talked at. They watch because they enjoy the game. And this years Super Bowl will tell us how much respect the NFL has for its fans. And the halftime show, featuring Lady Gaga will show how non-political the NFL wants to be.

If we go back to last year’s halftime performance with Beyonce, we recall how very political she got, with the NFL’s blessing. Her song “Formation” was anti-cop, and pro Black Panthers. And that performance rubbed many the wrong way. Now, this year Lady Gaga has been asked by the NFL to not get political. Such a request is the right move, but, if that request was given with a wink and a nod……….

Gaga held a press conference on Thursday in Houston. During the Q&A session, a reporter asked Gaga, “I know you spoke about kinda taking this moment to unify America a little bit. Are you going to do that at all? Are you going to make any kind of statements during the performance?”

The pop star responded, “Well, I don’t know if I will succeed in unifying America. You’ll have to ask America when it’s over. But the only statements that I’ll be making during the halftime show are the ones that I’ve been consistently making throughout my career.

“I believe in a passion for inclusion. I believe in the spirit of equality, and the spirit of this country as one of love and compassion and kindness. So my performance will have both those philosophies.”

Well, that is not the best sign for anyone hoping to have a politics-free Super Bowl is it? Gaga has a history of making very political statements, and when liberals start throwing words like equality around, well, we know where that usually leads. It leads to a Liberal preaching to us, usually about things they are vastly misinformed about. And we have seen this year the NBA cave in to a noted social justice warrior

So, we will wait, until tomorrow. We will root for the Pats, or the Falcons, or maybe against one of those teams, we will hope that maybe advertisers will bring us some funny spots, like they used to before they were bitten by the “do not offend anyone” bug, and we will watch Lady Gaga to see if the NFL gets it or not. We will see if lower ratings this season woke the NFL up. We will see if the NFL execs are bright enough to realize that left wing activism during the Super Bowl is not a way to keep its fans. This should seem obvious but, Liberals are blind to the fact that not everyone agrees with them.

So, all there is to add is Go Falcons, and Lady Gaga, just sing!

Houston store sells Confederate memorabilia, Offendeditis outbreak ensues

Here is the story

Several Houstonians are calling for customers to boycott a store inside The Shops at Houston Center because the store owner sells confederate flag merchandise.

Dorothea Harris is the owner of Designs by Dorli. She said she has been selling confederate-themed items for years. Recently, she has received backlash from some customers.

Ashton Woods with the Houston chapter of Black Lives Matter said he does not support the sale of confederate flag merchandise.

“A lot of people would like to say that Houston is a welcoming and diverse city, but Houston is a fractured, segregated city,” Woods said, “And we’re working on coming together, I think that’s something that should happen, but when a display like that is seen, we should see the good with the ugly.”

Segregated? No, no American city is segregated. And what racial divisions there are created by people like Woods and the BLM groups. If you want to see and hear hate, listen to the rhetoric of BLM. This is the type of divisive and false rhetoric the Left uses to divide people and further their agenda. What is that agenda?

Let me say, I have studied the War Between the States for many years, and had many ancestors who fought in the war. I am proud of their sacrifice, and gallantry, and I always will be. I have never, and will never stop defending both their honor, and history as it happened. The story of the war is about as complex as you could imagine, and those that seek to make the entire war entirely about slavery are deeply ignorant. Those that would try to remove slavery as any cause would also be mistaken. Likewise, those that would allow the Left to erase all vestiges of the Confederacy, and the rest of American history are fools. The cultural Stalinism that has been waged against all things Southern, is also being waged against all things American. 

Every “sin” the Left can accuse the Confederacy of they can accuse America of. I said years ago that when the Left was done demonizing Lee, Jackson, Davis, and Confederate soldiers they would do the same to Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, etc. Make no mistake that the cultural Stalinism we are fighting today is not about sensitivity, or racial harmony, or coming together. Rather, it is about destroying American history, heritage and culture. It is simply another front in the Left’s insidious and evil campaign to destroy America. Consider the assaults on our right to be a sovereign nation, our right to set our immigration standards, the right to self-defense, on individualism, parental rights, religious liberties, property rights, freedom of association and freedom of speech. Simply put, the Left is seeking to destroy every last vestige of American greatness.

Shakespeare portrait removed to promote diversity

Because exclusion is the new inclusion

Students at the University of Pennsylvania have removed a portrait of Shakespeare from its Fisher-Bennett Hall and have replaced it with a picture of a black lesbian poet Audre Lorde in the name of “diversity.”

The most obvious question is this. Why not add the portrait of Lorde, rather than replacing Shakespeare? I mean Shakespeare is one of the most important literary figures in history after all. The answer, of course, is that this is not about diversity at all. It is about payback for all those “oppressed” students who are bitter, angry, and bigoted. It is also about racism. Shakespeare was White, so he is bad. Really these students are no different than any other bunch of racist buffoons are they? They are ignorant, hateful, and wish to force their views on others.

Perhaps more upsetting is the reaction of fellow students at UPenn and an English professor, who were all thrilled at this act of “inclusion”

Penn English professor and Department Chair Jed Esty was surprised to find a large portrait of William Shakespeare waiting in his office.

Now imagine, imagine an English professor reacting with apparent glee that Shakespeare is outta there!

“Students removed the Shakespeare portrait and delivered it to my office as a way of affirming their commitment to a more inclusive mission for the English department,” Esty wrote in the email. He added that the image of Lorde will remain until the department reaches a decision about what to do with the space.

Good Grief! There is nothing “inclusive” about their action. Adding a portrait, picture, whatever of Lorde and keeping the Shakespeare portrait would be inclusive. Now, consider what some students said

College sophomore and English major Katherine Kvellestad commended the students’ action. She said the choice of replacing the original portrait with one of Audre Lorde sends a positive message.

“You don’t necessarily need to have a portrait of Shakespeare up,” Kvellestad said. “He’s pretty iconic.”

Well, thanks for those deep thoughts Katherine. I wonder if she ever considers if simply removing Shakespeare might not be the last step. Perhaps his writing ought to be removed too? After all, diversity!

College junior Mike Benz, also an English major, agreed. He said that he thought the students’ action was bold and admirable, adding that the students acted in a positive way by taking matters into their own hands.

“It is a cool example of culture jamming,” Benz said.

Bold? Admirable? What planet is this buffoon residing on? What is bold about removing a literary legend? But, Shakespeare was like Western dudes, and all European, so, he has to go because CULTURE JAMMING! And, yes, by the way culture jamming is, of course, more of the social justice warrior garbage

a form of political and social activism which, by means of fake adverts,hoax news stories, pastiches of company logos and product labels,computer hacking, etc, draws attention to and at the same time subverts the power of the media, governments, and large corporations to control and distort the information that they give to the public in order to promote consumerism, militarism, etc

Yes, that is so much more important than educating English majors. What is next? Perhaps those majoring in music should stop studying Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, and other composers? After all, those were a bunch of White Europeans right? Certainly they should be excluded too!

Yes, Virginia, there is a war on Christmas

It is starting to look a lot like Christmas

Lots selling Christmas Trees? Check!

Christmas lights going up? Check!

Christmas specials on TV? Check!

Fascists trying to stamp out all  vestiges of Christmas? Check!

With Christmas approaching, universities are cracking down on potentially offensive religious decorations, all but banning displays of the “Nativity Scene” and images of the “crucifixion.”

At Missouri State University, for example, a list of “holiday decoration guidelines” warns that it would “generally be inappropriate” to display items such as “a cross,” “drawings of Jesus or Mohammed,” “the Nativity Scene,” and “the Bible or Koran” in common areas of the university

Similarly, the College at Brockport, State University of New York encourages students and faculty members to select “culturally sensitive holiday decorations” that are “general and non-specific to any religion.

“Create a winter theme with lights and color rather than religious icons, or include decorations from all the cultural traditions represented in your department,” the guidelines suggest, adding that academic departments should “consider a grab bag instead of a ‘Secret Santa’ gift exchange.”

The school asserts that the suggestions “are not meant as rules, but as a starting point for cross-cultural dialog,” warning that “displays that feature exclusively single-themed decorations may be well intentioned, but they can marginalize those who celebrate other religious and cultural beliefs during this season.”

Meanwhile, Oregon State University has published a set of “inclusive strategies” for holiday decorations on its website, which warns students and faculty to “focus decorations on the winter season by using images that are not associated with religious traditions,” identifying “snowflakes, snow, sculptures, [and] sleds” as acceptable alternatives.

Or, how about people who do not celebrate Christmas leave those that do the fuck alone? Heck, most folks who do not celebrate it already do that. Now let’s see the radical Atheists and other whining panty waists do the same? In short, if you want tolerance, then practice it!

A question for the CEO of Grubhub

Moonbattery points out that the CEO of Grubhub is backpedalling after sending out this email I am giving it to you in full context

SUBJECT: So… that happened… what’s next?

I’m still trying to reconcile my own worldview with the overwhelming message that was delivered last night. Clearly there are a lot of people angry and scared as the antithesis of every modern presidential candidate won and will be our next president. 

While demeaning, insulting and ridiculing minorities, immigrants and the physically/mentally disabled worked for Mr. Trump, I want to be clear that this behavior – and these views, have no place at Grubhub. Had he worked here, many of his comments would have resulted in his immediate termination. 

We have worked for years cultivating a culture of support and inclusiveness. I firmly believe that we must bring together different perspectives to continue innovating – including all genders, races, ethnicities and sexual, cultural or ideological preferences. We are better, faster and stronger together. 

Further I absolutely reject the nationalist, anti-immigrant and hateful politics of Donald Trump and will work to shield our community from this movement as best as I can. As we all try to understand what this vote means to us, I want to affirm to anyone on our team that is scared or feels personally exposed, that I and everyone else here at Grubhub will fight for your dignity and your right to make a better life for yourself and your family here in the United States. 

If you do not agree with this statement then please reply to this email with your resignation because you have no place here. We do not tolerate hateful attitudes on our team.I want to repeat what Hillary said this morning, that the new administration deserves our open minds and a chance to lead, but never stop believing that the fight for what’s right is worth it. 

Stay strong,

Matt

Forget, for a moment, that this clown is guilty of bullying his employees. And yes, when the CEO of your company sends that message, he is threatening people’s jobs if they hold views that he finds offensive. Forget the hypocrisy of Trump’s behavior, which, at times deserved criticism. I would ask only one question of Matt Maloney. Would he have sent a similar email had Hillary Clinton won Tuesday? Does her corruption, gross negligence handling classified, and top secret emails? Would he dress her down for her repeated lies about Benghazi? Or about her smearing half of Trump supporters as “deplorable”. Does he find such rhetoric respectful and tolerant? Would his moral outrage meter be as pegged over Clinton’s behaviors as they are over Trump’s?