The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

They Have a ‘Right’ to Your Money

Posted on | December 30, 2016 | 1 Comment

Did you ever wonder why the “healthcare crisis” became such an issue? Why did Democrats ram ObamaCare through Congress with Nancy Pelosi claiming, “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it”? Most people already had health insurance, and Obama dishonestly promised, “If you like your plan, you can keep your plan.” Democrats also promised that ObamaCare would reduce the cost of healthcare when, as everybody now knows, health insurance premiums have skyrocketed since the passage of ObamaCare. Federal taxpayers will subsidize ObamaCare to the tune of more than $40 billion — that’s billion, with a “b” — next year, and there is no end in sight to the escalating costs.

The myth of a “crisis” that required this costly intervention was created to sell voters on the idea of mandates — government forcing insurance companies to provide certain types of coverage without regard to costs — so as to create a “right” to this coverage. This idea of health insurance as a “right” means that moochers are getting “free” health care that other people are being forced to subsidize. And there is no limit to what the moochers expect to get for “free”:

Three same-sex female couples are suing the US state of New Jersey for what they claim are discriminatory rules regarding the funding of fertility treatment.
The plaintiffs complain that a state insurance mandate from 2001 unfairly discriminates against non-heterosexual women. The mandate requires insurers to fund fertility treatments, but only for couples who can demonstrate infertility through ‘two years of unprotected sexual intercourse’.
Two of the plaintiffs, Erin and Marianna Krupa, have spent more than US$25,000 on failed treatments after their insurer, Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield, refused to pay. The plaintiffs argue that the insurance mandate is unconstitutional as it discriminates on the basis of sex and sexual orientation and, owing to the high costs of fertility treatments, they now have to choose between ‘starting a family and financial security’.
Grace Cretcher, lawyer for the plaintiffs, told the New York Times: ‘These women are already going through what can be a difficult experience, and they have the added stress of affording it financially and the added insult of being treated like a second-class citizen.’
New Jersey is one of fifteen US states that require insurers to fund treatment for infertility, defined as the inability to impregnate another person, to carry a pregnancy to live birth or to conceive after two years of unprotected sex. Even though one of the couples could demonstrate one year of unsuccessful home insemination, and the plaintiffs also presented medical evidence of their fertility status — including diagnoses of endometriosis and polycystic ovaries — their circumstances were said to fall outside the definition of infertility as having unprotected sexual intercourse with a man for two years.
Cretcher contends that this definition violates the rights of non-heterosexual women, adding: ‘The specific wording of the New Jersey mandate is particularly egregious and one of the most specific and exclusionary.’
The landmark case is thought to be the one of the first to challenge the legal definition of infertility, and the plaintiffs hope to make it easier for lesbian couples to access fertility treatment.

How did we reach this level of insanity? Where did people get the idea that they had a “right” to in-vitro fertilization and to have the cost of this expensive treatment covered by their health insurance, so that the state of New Jersey mandated such coverage, and now lesbians are claiming to be victims of discrimination because they can’t get it? We’re living in a dystopian novel — Atlas Shrugged meets Brave New World.

 

Category: Uncategorized

Did Queer Feminist @TheHeatherHogan Just Compare Lesbians to the ‘Alt-Right’?

Posted on | December 30, 2016 | Comments Off on Did Queer Feminist @TheHeatherHogan Just Compare Lesbians to the ‘Alt-Right’?

 

Heather Hogan is a senior editor at Autostraddle, a lesbian feminist blog that publishes anti-male/anti-heterosexual hate propaganda from such writers as Carmen Rios, while also offering helpful advice about dildos and celebrating “International Fisting Day.” Anyway . . .

For the past few years, there has been an ongoing battle within the online LGBT community between (a) so-called “queer feminists” who favor an “inclusive” approach toward sexual identity, and (b) actual lesbians, who are tired of being told by their alleged allies that it’s wrong for them to prefer the exclusive companionship of women. Much of the “queer feminist” pressure comes from transgender activists who label lesbians “TERFs” (trans-exclusive radical feminists) for wishing to avoid dangerous creepy dudes with lingerie fetishes. At the same time, lesbians also find themselves accused of “biphobia” or “bisexual erasure” if they ever call attention to the notorious fact that most so-called “bisexual” women are manipulative opportunists who exploit lesbians for fun and games, but usually end up married to a man. Anyway . . .

There have recently been management issues at the lesbian site AfterEllen (“AE”) which, obviously, is competing for the same readership niche as Autostraddle, and this rivaly may have been what inspired Heather Hogan to lash out at new AE editor Memoree Joelle:

 

You have to study these conflicts a while to understand what’s really happening. This is not just two lesbian bloggers fighting over commercial market share for their sites. What happened is that in October, Memoree Joelle signed a petition at Change.org arguing that some gay activists were hostile to the feminist concerns of lesbians:

This is a statement by Lesbians and our supporters that we are NOT part of the “LGBT” umbrella. Our interests both as lesbians in particular and women in general are not represented by any alphabet organization. We have had enough of our voices silenced and our protests ignored. The “LGBT community” is actively harming women with its insistence of focusing on transgender issues. We, the L, are going our own way to focus on our own community. . . . The L will speak for ourselves.

The background is that transactivists have demanded that what should be “women-only spaces” — public restrooms, gym locker rooms, etc. — must be open to “transwomen” with penises. Any woman who objects to this “inclusive” agenda is accused of “transphobia.” Many lesbian feminists have noticed that “transwomen” have secured leadership positions in major LGBT organizations, which are promoting transgender causes in ways that ignore legitimate concerns for women’s safety. Just ask any woman if she wants to share a public restroom with a 6-foot-tall 200-pound man in a dress and wig, or if she would want her daughter to be forced into such a situation, and the nature of this conflict becomes clear. There have been enough incidents involving transgender criminals — e.g., Albert “Aliea Rose” Brown, Dennis “Allison” Woolbert, Christopher “Jessica” Hambrook, Alberto “Ally” Robledo, Paul Ray “Paula” Witherspoon — to raise concerns about this kind of “inclusion.”

As tempting as it might be to look at this quarrel between Heather Hogan and Memoree Joelle as just a couple of kooks arguing, the fact is that there are legitimate policy issues involved, and Memoree Joelle is on the side of those who care about the safety of women and girls. What the “queer feminists” like Heather Hogan are doing is using “inclusion” as a  weapon against women, and they don’t like it when radical lesbians like Memoree Joelle call them out on it. There is a core principle of liberty at stake here — i.e., the right of voluntary association — and the “queer feminists” are against this freedom. As always, the friends of liberty find that their side of the argument gets them accused of “hate,” and I hope that Memoree Joelle now understands how conservatives feel when we are called racists, sexists and homophobes for opposing the totalitarian Cult of Social Justice. Remember what Vox Day says:

  1. SJWs always lie.
  2. SJWs always double down.
  3. SJWs always project.

You either believe in liberty or you don’t. “Social justice” is a cult, and “queer feminists” like Heather Hogan are enemies of liberty.

 

 

Hey, did I mention that Heather Hogan is a crazy cat lady? Nobody really enjoys hanging out with totalitarians, which is probably why Heather Hogan spends so much time alone in her apartment with her cats.

 

That’s Heather (left) and her girlfriend on Election Day, near their apartment full of cats, showing their support for Hillary Clinton, because she shares their hatred of men, capitalism, Jesus and America.

And they wonder why they lost the election . . .

 

Category: Gays, Sex Trouble

Agreeing With Noam Chomsky?

Posted on | December 30, 2016 | Comments Off on Agreeing With Noam Chomsky?

The Politically Incorrect Australian has this quote:

“Mass public education was introduced in the United States in the nineteenth century as a way of training the largely rural workforce here for industry — in fact, the general population in the United States largely was opposed to public education, because it meant taking kids off the farms where they belonged and where they worked with their families, and forcing them into this setting in which they were basically trained to become industrial workers.”

That’s from an interview with radical leftist ideologue Noam Chomsky. As an advocate of Christian homeschooling, and a libertarian enemy of the government educational bureaucracy, this is a quote that makes me nod in agreement, even while hastening to say, “But wait — there’s more!”

If you have actually studied the history of American education, you know that Horace Mann was the first secretary of the Massachusetts state board of education and, arguably, the father of the public school system. A critical study of Mann’s career, and of the development of public education in New England, will reveal that a major goal of Mann’s “reforms” was the consolidation of cultural authority by the 19th-century Whig elite. Whereas previously, American education had been an enterprise of families, churches, and local communities, Mann and his allies sought to create a taxpayer-supported, government-regulated one-size-fits-all system. This system was under the authority of a political establishment which in Massachusetts was (not coincidentally) a Protestant Whig elite concerned about challenges from Catholic immigrants, and from Jacksonian populists. As his model for “reform,” Mann chose the state school system of imperial Prussia, and the consequences of this importation of a foreign idea are the root cause of what’s wrong with American schools today, which is everything.

Advocates of Christian homeschooling can recite the Bible verses to show that parents are responsible for the education of their children, and efforts to evade this responsibility — to “outsource” education to government — are therefore an act of sinful disobedience to God.

In the 1960s, after the Supreme Court banned prayer and Bible reading in public schools, many Christian leaders began clamoring about the need to “take back our schools.” O, ye of little understanding! They’re not your schools, they are the government’s schools and, having abdicated your parental responsibility to government, you thereby also surrendered your own authority over your children. It was predictable from the beginning of modern public education that those who craved political power would seek control of the educational bureaucracy as a mechanism to propagate beliefs favorable to their own goals and purposes.

Because the Bible represented an obstacle to the agenda of this political/educational elite, they declared war on the Word of God. Yet they would never have had this kind of power, had it not been for parents eager to have government take over the job of educating children and — to make this a bit more specific — had it not been for Christians who were employed as teachers within the government education system. This has been the great hindrance to churches seeking to make Christian schools a viable alternative. The lucrative salaries provided by the taxpayer-funded public school system lead many Christians to take jobs teaching in those schools and, once on the payroll of these atheist government institutions, they become enemies of Christian education. Pastors who wish to start a church school, or who encourage parents to homeschool their children, can expect to face vehement opposition from any member of their congregation who works for the government schools.

What is now greatly to be feared is that, as the government education system’s moral and intellectual bankruptcy becomes more apparent, Christian schools eager to be perceived as inclusive (in order to attract more tuition-paying students) will gradually abandon their religious purpose, so that they will become “Christian” in name only.

Beyond my own Christian perspective on this, however, there is a basic principle of liberty involved. My children are my children. When parents bring children into this world, their offspring do not become government property. Citizens have a duty to uphold the law, but the government of a free state belongs to the citizens, and not the other way around. Any government which does not recognize the legitimacy of parental authority is an enemy of liberty. A free society cannot force Jewish parents to teach Christianity (or Islam or Hinduism) to their children, nor can a free society force the children of Catholics to attend “comprehensive” sex-education classes that promote contraception and abortion.

If you pay attention to what’s going on in public schools nowadays, however, you know that the government now claims a right to impose any number of controversial beliefs on your children in the guise of “education.” The government schools are controlled by the teachers unions, so that the system is staffed with Democrat Party loyalists, and faculty are prohibited from expressing support for Republicans. Under these conditions, what goes on in public school classrooms is a program of political indoctrination that teaches children to vote Democrat.

This is why university students now erupt in riotous protests whenever any identifiably conservative speaker appears on campus. These young people have been indoctrinated in Democrat-controlled schools where they were taught to consider “Republican” a synonym for evil.

Well, that’s nearly 900 words so far, and I could go on for hours about what’s wrong with public education, but there are other things going on in the world, so I’ll end it here. I’ve hated public school system ever since I was forced to attend public school as a child. Having studied the system so long, I can declare what’s wrong with it, and that’s everything.

 

Category: Education

In The Mailbox: 12.29.16

Posted on | December 29, 2016 | Comments Off on In The Mailbox: 12.29.16

— compiled by Wombat-socho


OVER THE TRANSOM
EBL: Man-Baby Obama Throws Another Fit Before Leaving Office
Twitchy: Shannon Watts Puts Bass Pro Shops In Her Crosshairs
Louder With Crowder: Boy Scouts Reject Transgender “Boy”, LGBT Activists Lose Their Minds


RIPPED FROM THE HEADLINES
Adam Piggott: Mike Cernovich Shows How Not To Handle A Disgruntled Employee
American Power: Leon Kass – The Beginning Of Wisdom
American Thinker: Leave The UN
Animal Magnetism: Animal’s Daily News
Da Tech Guy: Jews Discover The Ghastly Tom Hagen Judenrein Jerusalem Democrat Math
Don Surber: Dumbest Headline Of 2016
Dustbury: Which Explains The Ho, Ho, Ho
Joe For America: Obama Livid As 31 States Rise Up, Say No To Syrian Migrants
JustOneMinute: Let The Vigorous Debate Begin!
Power Line: Obama Orders Sanctions On Russia, But Why Now?
Shark Tank: Obama Administration Announces Controversial New National Monuments
Shot In The Dark: What Is Best In Life?
STUMP: The 80% Funding End Of Year Extravaganza!
The Geller Report: Thirteen Years A Slave
The Jawa Report: Debbie Reynolds Dies One Day After Carrie Fisher
This Ain’t Hell: Kerry Makes Us Glad He’s Gone
Weasel Zippers: Democrats Legalize Child Prostitution In California Effective January 1, also, Fake Black Man To Join Fake News Show On Fake News Channel
Megan McArdle: Why Predictions Matter (Even The Wrong Ones)
Mark Steyn: Speaking As A Man Of Views…


Today’s Digital Deals
Amazon Warehouse Deals

Category: Linkagery

Anti-Semitism Ruins Everything

Posted on | December 29, 2016 | 1 Comment

One of the weird effects of the recent election is how the Left has tried to taint Donald Trump’s supporters as anti-Semites when, during the presidency of George W. Bush, the Left deliberately exploited anti-Semitism by portraying Republicans as beholden to “neoconservatives” (nudge, nudge) and “international bankers” (wink, wink).

Because most accusations of “anti-Semitism” are made in the context of partisan politics and are therefore as bogus as most accusations of racism, sexism and homophobia in such a context, I have a high threshold for judging what is or is not worth condemning as anti-Semitic. It ill behooves conservatives to mimic the Left in hurling such accusations haphazardly, especially considering how many conservatives have been unfairly impugned on this basis. Also, I think it is important to distinguish between (a) what I call vulgar anti-Semitism and (b) conspiratorial anti-Semitism.

Vulgar anti-Semitism is simply a general dislike of Jews, a prejudice based upon certain stereotypical negative traits. America is a free country, and we cannot compel people to like other people. If you do not like rednecks or hillbillies, for example, I may object to your unfair prejudice against my own ethnic group, but that doesn’t mean you should be fired from your job or excluded from public life. There is no Appalachian-American Anti-Defamation League to keep track of anti-redneck prejudice in the media, nor is there any Hillbilly Student Alliance to protest against university faculty who express bias against NASCAR fans, bluegrass musicians or trailer-park residents. Because we cannot be forced to like any particular ethnic group, therefore, the accusation of “hate” ought not to be made except where the expression of prejudice can be shown to be dangerous and harmful. It is entirely fair to call “Black Lives Matter” an anti-white hate movement, because these protests so often erupt in violence and, by undermining public support for effective law enforcement, “Black Lives Matters” jeopardizes the lives of police officers and innocent civilians. (If you haven’t yet read Heather Mac Donald’s The War on Cops: How the New Attack on Law and Order Makes Everyone Less Safe, do so immediately.) Criticizing a genuinely dangerous racial hate movement, however, isn’t the same as saying that black people can’t express dislike for white people. Heck, there are lots of white people I don’t like and, as I said, America is a free country. You can like who you like and hate who you hate, and I will defend your right to your own opinion, even while I call you an idiot for disagreeing with me.

Just because you don’t like Jews doesn’t mean you should be on a list of dangerous extremists, but what I must warn against — and this is where the real danger exists — is conspiratorial anti-Semitism, i.e., the belief that Jews are engaged in nefarious subversive plot. At least since the infamous forgery “Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion” surfaced in czarist Russia, the idea that Jews are all part of an infernal conspiracy has incited violence against Jews. Like every other clever conspiracy theory, paranoid Jew-hating is a toxic mixture of facts, lies and invalid logic, yet people continue falling prey to it. Part of the problem, of course, is that some of what is involved in these conspiracy theories is actually true.

It is true, for example, that many left-wing intellectuals are secularized Jews, and that this has been true from Karl Marx to Leon Trotsky to Wilhelm Reich and so forth on down to the present day. In my own study of radical feminism, for example, I could rattle off many dozens of names — from Shulamith Firestone and Andrea Dworkin to Jaclyn Friedman and Judith “Jack” Halberstam — of influential Jewish feminists. Would it therefore be fair to say feminism is a Jewish plot? No, because there were and are plenty of Gentile feminists (including lapsed Catholics and renegade Protestants) and also because Jews have also been prominent among the critics and opponents of feminism. Jewish authors like Midge Decter (The New Chastity and Other Arguments Against Women’s Liberation) and Steven Goldberg (The Inevitability of Patriarchy) attacked feminism early and effectively, and to this day, some of the most outspoken critics of feminism are conservative Jews.

To say that Jews have been prominently associated with feminism is certainly true, and it is not anti-Semitic to say so. In this regard, I’m reminded of my late friend Andrew Breitbart who, when encountering the claim that Jews run Hollywood, answered, “Yeah. So what?” This is simply a fact, and therefore not controversial, but turning it into a paranoid conspiracy theory is where we encounter the real danger.

All of this is merely a preamble to discussing something I saw today at the so-called “manosphere” site, Return of Kings, “4 Ways National Geographic Is Furthering A Degenerate Leftist Narrative.” This article references the latest issue of National Geographic, which is devoted to promoting the transgender agenda, and I began reading it but came to a screeching halt when I reached the fourth paragraph:

With the nomination of Gary Knell (former CEO of Sesame Workshop) as the CEO of the National Geographic Society and of Susan Goldberg as editor in chief of National Geographic magazine, the now 100% Jewish-controlled National Geographic network is ready to promote usual globalist narratives, like in their recent edition entitled “the New Europeans,” openly defecating on millennia of European cultural heritage, in a giant “F–k you dad!” move, that would have made Angela Merkel proud.

WHISKEY TANGO FOXTROT?

Nice of you to drop by from Stormfront, buddy, but would you mind leaving your Völkischer Beobachter diatribes out of this? While I suppose one could theorize a connection between (a) National Geographic‘s advocacy of transgenderism, and (b) the Jewish ancestry of its executives, I’m pretty sure (c) this non sequitur is unnecessary to your argument, and (d) would tend to alienate many potential allies who share your opposition to radical postmodern Third Wave “queer feminism.”

More to the point, however, I’ve got a hunch you’re barking up the wrong tree. “The personal is political,” as feminists say, and so when you find people engaged in promoting sexual degeneracy — which is what National Geographic is doing — you have every reason to suspect that those involved in this effort are perverts of one sort or another.

Susan Goldberg (left) and Gary Knell (right).

This is not to suggest that Gary Knell or Susan Goldberg are into BDSM or peodphilia or bestiality, but rather to say that I don’t think the editorial staff of National Geographic would welcome investigative scrutiny of their private lives. Did I ever mention my work in exposing the pedophile activist Lawrence Stanley? Because I’ve got a pretty solid track record of smart hunches in this regard, I’m going ask readers to remember my suspicion about the problem at National Geographic. We’re talking about a huge iceberg. Sometimes it can take years to uncover the truth about these weirdos, but they usually slip up sooner or later.

Anyway, my point is that throwing in an anti-Semitic jab while making an argument about something like transgenderism is self-defeating, not only because it is needlessly offensive, but more importantly because it leads you into a cul-de-sac of failure and irrelevance. There’s a reason why people avoid Jew-haters, you know: Genesis 12:3. Selah.

This degenerate crap? It’s a shanda fur die goyim, and I expect that conservative Jews will help lead the fight against it.



 

 

RELATED:

 

Category: Sex Trouble

Bitches and Hoes and Feminism

Posted on | December 29, 2016 | Comments Off on Bitches and Hoes and Feminism

Mac Miller performs in a 2011 hiphop video.

What’s the worst thing about feminism? The hypocrisy, perhaps. Let’s remember what Vox Day says about social justice warriors (SJWs):

  1. SJWs always lie.
  2. SJWs always double down.
  3. SJWs always project.

It’s the lying and psychological projection that produces feminism’s trademark hypocrisy. When morally corrupt people are engaged in crusades to prove how morally superior they are — for such is the point of “social justice” politics — it is predictable that they will accuse others of sins that they themselves flagrantly engage in. Consider the case of anti-GamerGate activist Brianna Wu (neé John Walker Flynt) who considers himself/herself a qualified candidate for Congress, despite his/her long record of shabby ethics. Wu/Flynt is forever projecting his/her faults onto scapegoated enemies, in order to maintain the fiction of his/her own victimhood. The pretense of victimhood is necessary to the SJW’s sense of being a heroic figure battling against forces of evil. Because they are often highly privileged people, feminists cannot honestly claim to be suffering from oppression and therefore, well, SJWs Always Lie.

Mac Miller sings a duet with his girlfriend Ariana Grande.

Ariana Grande is a multimillionaire 23-year-old pop singer who got her start in show business doing musical theater as a child and, as a teenager, starred in the Nickelodeon series Victorious. She made headlines this week by claiming to be a victim of sexist “objectification”:

In a message posted to Twitter Tuesday night, Grande shared that she and her beau, The Way collaborator Mac Miller, were picking up food when they had a run-in with one of Miller’s fans. “He was loud and excited and by the time M was seated in the driver’s seat, he was literally almost in the car with us,” Grande explained. “I thought all of this was cute and exciting until he said, ‘Ariana is sexy as hell, man. I see you. I see you hitting that!”
For Grande, being discussed as if she were not present — and being reduced to a “piece of meat” in the process — left her feeling “sick and objectified.” . . .
“Things like (this) happen all the time and are the kinds of moments that contribute to women’s sense of fear and inadequacy,” she wrote.

A chorus of guffaws greeted Ms. Grande’s complaint, but what caught my eye was her use of Gender Studies jargon — what does it mean to be “objectified”? — and the fact that her boyfriend is a hiphop performer:

Far be it from me to say that Mac Miller (neé Malcolm James McCormick) doesn’t have talent, because obviously he does, but what’s up with white boys doing this tattoo-covered ghetto thug style? Like, this upper-middle-class kid from Pittsburgh — his daddy’s an architect — is supposed to be gangsta? ’Cause he’s been rollin’ with his homies in the ’hood since his bar-mitzvah?
Look, I don’t want to accuse Mac Miller of “cultural appropriation,” I’m just saying he’s inauthentic. And also scruffy. He needs to shave that beard, do something with his hair and buy himself a decent suit of clothes instead of dressing like every other dude-bro loser hanging out in the college dorm.
You can do better, Ariana, but let’s talk about Mac’s punk-ass fans, OK?
Why do you think your boyfriend’s fan felt he could disrespect you? Isn’t it because Mac’s style — his tattooed hiphop motif — expresses an affinity for underclass culture, where disrespectful attitudes toward women are part of the whole swaggering urban Bad Boy image? If your boyfriend is representing himself as a player, doesn’t that imply that you’re the game? . . .

You can read the whole thing at The Patriarch Tree, because when I go to preaching, I want the whole congregation to shout, “Amen!”



 

 

RELATED:

 

Category: Celebrities, Sex Trouble

In The Mailbox: 12.28.16

Posted on | December 28, 2016 | Comments Off on In The Mailbox: 12.28.16

— compiled by Wombat-socho


OVER THE TRANSOM
Proof Positive: When They’re Really Better At Pandering
EBL: Obama And Kerry – Let’s Screw The Jews!
Michelle Malkin: Thank You, Professor Sowell
Twitchy: Here’s What’s Next For Shaun King
Louder With Crowder: John Kerry – “Israel Can be Jewish Or Democratic. It Can’t Be Both.”


RIPPED FROM THE HEADLINES
Adam Piggott: Turn Off The Tap
American Power: At The Crossroads Cafe
American Thinker: The Media That Cried Wolf
Animal Magnetism: Animal’s Hump Day News
BLACKFIVE: How Will I Know You? by Jessica Treadway
Da Tech Guy: Fausta – Stop Blaming 2016
Don Surber: President Trump Doesn’t Need You, Don Lemon
Dustbury: A Defiring Moment
Jammie Wearing Fools: “If You Voted For Trump, You Cannot Eat Here! No Nazis!”
Joe For America: Drexel Prof Under Fire For White Genocide Tweet
JustOneMinute: Even Lame Ducks Will Quack And Be Lame
Power Line: The McArdle Prophecy
Shark Tank: Israel Giving Trump Evidence Obama Was Behind UN Resolution
Shot In The Dark: The Strib’s New Editorial Writer
STUMP: NCPERS And Its Public Pensions Blacklist
The Geller Report: Italian Schoolchildren Banned From Singing “Silent Night” Over Fears It’ll Offend Muslims
The Jawa Report: War Porn – Syrian Crater Edition
The Political Hat: Queering The Shirt, Redux
This Ain’t Hell: Nine Terrorists Arrested Near DC
Weasel Zippers: Congress Moves To Cut UN Funding In Wake Of Anti-Israel Vote, also, Kerry Claims Obama Administration Has Done More For Israel Than Any Other
Megan McArdle: Obamacare Didn’t Fail Because It’s Timid
Mark Steyn: The Year Of “Enough”!


Today’s Digital Deals
Amazon Warehouse Deals

Category: Linkagery

Unhinged by Hate: Georgetown Professor Harasses Trump Voter @AsraNomani

Posted on | December 28, 2016 | 1 Comment

 

The paranoid rage, anxiety and depression within the Democrat Party in the wake of Hillary Clinton’s defeat has been most intense inside elite academia. At Yale University, students were reportedly traumatized by the election results, a Rutgers University professor was sent to a mental ward after his bizarre Twitter rant, and a Women’s Studies professor at the University of New Hampshire accused Trump supporters of “terrorism.” Universities have become insane asylums run by lunatics.

Georgetown Professor Christine Fair (left) lashed out at Asra Nomani (right).

Georgetown University Professor Christine Fair is, among other things, a member of the International Institute of Strategic Studies and the Council on Foreign Relations, and also, a deranged hate-filed nutjob:

A Georgetown University associate professor had a month-long meltdown after a Muslim woman explained why she voted for President-elect Donald Trump.
Asra Q. Nomani, a former Georgetown journalism professor and Wall Street Journal reporter, wrote an op-ed in The Washington Post Nov. 10 explaining why she, as a Muslim woman and “long-time liberal,” voted for Trump. “I support the Democratic Party’s position on abortion, same-sex marriage and climate change,” Nomani wrote. “But I am a single mother who can’t afford health insurance under Obamacare.”
C. Christine Fair, a previously “friendly colleague,” went on a 31-day screed against Nomani spanning across Twitter and Facebook. According to Nomani’s Dec. 23 follow-up complaint to the university, the “Peace and Security Studies” professor called her a “wretch,” “clueless dolt” and a fame-monger.
Fair also compared Trump to Adolf Hitler and asserted that Nomani’s vote for Trump “helped normalize Nazis in DC.”

After weeks of enduring Professor Fair’s online abuse, Asra Nomani complained to Georgetown on Dec. 2, and the university took no action. Then on Dec. 23, Asra Nomani sent a lengthy letter detailing Professor Fair’s abuse, which clearly violates the university’s policies. What has Georgetown done? Nothing, as Powerline’s Paul Mirengoff observes:

Georgetown has taken no action to curb Fair’s attacks, and Fair has continued to launch them. . . .
I take no position here about whether Georgetown should try to rein in its vicious associate professor. The unhinged Fair does seem like a dubious choice to be teaching America’s future diplomats, but that’s Georgetown’s call.
My point is that there’s probably not a major university in America that would stand by while one of its professors spewed Fair’s kind of venom against a Muslim-American — venom that includes questioning the Muslim’s religious sincerity. Unless the target had strayed from left-liberal orthodoxy.

Georgetown University, like nearly every other institution of higher education in America, is controlled by left-wing Democrats, who use their institutional authority for partisan political purposes. It is impossible even to imagine a Republican being hired as a professor at Georgetown, but if there were an avowed GOP supporter on the faculty, can anyone imagine the university would tolerate such behavior by them? However, because Georgetown is run by Democrats, Professor Fair is permitted to abuse and harass her former colleague, Asra Nomani, with the complete approval of the university’s partisan administration.



 

 

Category: Democrats, Education, Election, Islam
« go back — keep looking »