College Students Attack Man’s ‘Make America Great Again’ Hat As ‘Hate Speech’

“You have to take the hat off” commands a female student at Mount Royal University in Calgary, Canada. ‘You’ve got to take the hat off or I’m going to write to the president of the university…’

The reason given was that the slogan “Make America Great Again” means [to her] “make America all for white people, no immigrants, no people of different sexual orientation”. This bigoted smear is of course supported by nothing in the Donald Trump platform which has no mention of “white people” or anything discriminatory towards any non-traditional sexual orientation whatsoever, and whose only comment on immigration is to curtail illegal immigration and vet immigration from terrorist supporting nations harder. The concept that “Make America Great Again” means to disallow immigration into the country is not only fabricated at the start, but also refuted by the fact that the candidate himself is married to an immigrant. Coincidently, the wearer of the hat in the video is also evidently married to an immigrant, further debunking the specious and bigoted smear that America can only be great without immigrants, which is not something the wearer of the hat or the Candidate the hat supports has ever said or implied. The student said that his marriage to an immigrant “doesn’t mean anything” because she could “have a brother who is gay and not support gay people”, forgetting evidently, that no one chooses their brothers but everyone in Wester civilization (not so in many Islamic countries) chooses their spouse.

The demand that he “HAD to take the hat off” was later revised to a request due to her safety issues, which is exactly the sort of hysterical hypochondria the wearer of the hat was baiting:

The snowflake who threatens to tattle to the president of the university admitted afterward that “He is allowed to wear the hat.” She simply asked him to take it off, she explained, because “a university should be a safe space.” A more committed left-wing campus fascist would claim he has no right to wear it because it’s “hate speech” and would want to see him punished and/or the hat confiscated — as it is at the very end of this clip, when a different student snatches it off his head. The Trumper isn’t an alt-righter either: He’s wearing their tribal symbol (well, that and Pepe) knowing, no doubt, that it will antagonize the progressives around him, which is in keeping with the alt-right’s trollishness. But he doesn’t say anything racist. His only so-called offense is the hat itself. Which, I guess, makes this more of a microcosm of the friction over Trump between the left and right generally. The right enjoys the frisson of political incorrectness in supporting him; the left can’t quite believe anyone could support Trump for non-menacing reasons.





Leftists Blame NRA for Terrorist Murder

In service to increasing government control over personal freedoms via demonizing their opponents, the Left now proclaims that the protection of civil rights is an endorsement of terrorist murder:

This is false. The NRA has not tried to stop weapons from getting in the hands of bloodthirsty terrorist murderers. It has battled attempts to keep firearms from law-abiding citizens.

“It was designed for the United States military to do to enemies of war exactly what it did this morning: kill mass numbers of people with maximum efficiency and ease,” lawyer Josh Koskoff, who’s representing Newtown families in their lawsuit against the gun industry, said Sunday.


The truth about Flint Michigan’s water

Flint Michigan’s water problem is not a Republican scandal. But that doesn’t stop the opportunistic smear artists from claiming otherwise.

What we learned from Hurricane Katrina: No matter what happens, it’s never the governor’s fault. What we’ve learned from the contaminated drinking water in Flint, Mich.: It’s always the governor’s fault.

Flint no longer wanted to get their water from the usual place, switched, and the new source is all kinds of contaminated.

Snyder wasn’t governor when that change started and had no control over the decision, yet the Democrats are calling it a Republican scandal. Why?…

-the Democratic governance in a Democratic city obliterate the cities finances
-the Democratic emergency manager signs off on a consensus plan to use a temporary water source,
-the municipal authorities in this Democratic city fail to do their job of treating and monitoring the drinking water,
-a state agency whose workers work under the SEIU (liberal union) didn’t do their job overseeing local authorities,
-and Barack Obama’s EPA failed to do it’s job

…but it’s Republicans fault.


It’s legit to ask if the truth can survive this “scandal”

This is the kind of complex government scandal where no one looks good. Incompetent local Democrats managed their city into near-bankruptcy. Their Democratic friends in next-door Detroit sucked them dry with water-rate hikes. The decision to change water sources was defensible enough, but then Republican state officials and Democratic federal bureaucrats both failed in their statutory duties to protect the public from its own water supply. RELATED: Political Poison: How Many Flints Before We Learn Our Lesson? But the Left is unmatched in its ability to capitalize on a crisis to call for more money and more control. Writing in the Washington Post, Katrina vanden Heuvel says the real lesson is that government just wasn’t big enough, declaring the crisis “a direct consequence of decades of policies based on the premise that government spending is always a problem and never a solution.” Yet Flint’s extraordinary government spending was the reason for its near-bankruptcy. A more than billion-dollar unfunded pension liability is not a sign of municipal frugality.

The link at the top is worth reading in full, but in closing:

Governor Snyder, of course, does bear some responsibility here and, to his credit, has acknowledged as much. No, no reasonable person expects the governor to show up in Flint with a white glove and personally eyeball what the local water-treatment plant is up to, but the people he appointed did an insufficient job. It is ironic, given the tenor of the denunciations, that Governor Snyder is as guilty of excessive bipartisanship as of any other offense: In his desire to keep Flint under the watch of an emergency manager with whom the locals were comfortable — a Democrat — he may have overlooked better candidates with more thoroughgoing approaches to reform. If you’ve followed Flint’s history of nearly criminal misgovernance, you know that what was needed was more iron fist and less velvet glove.

So while those who fault Governor Snyder are not entirely wrong, what is deeply dishonest is the story put forward by such people as the filmmaker Michael Moore, who enjoys pretending to be from gritty, blue-collar Flint (he actually hails from an affluent suburb nearby), that this is, somehow, the result of the Republican approach to government or conservative governing ideas. That is absurd. Flint is a mess made by Democrats, made worse by the Democrats in Detroit, and ignored by the Democrats in the White House. The worst that can be said of the Republican on the scene is that he failed to save the local Democrats from the worst effects of their own excesses. But that is the Democrats’ approach to calculating the chain of responsibility: Go up the ladder or down, as needed, until a Republican is located, or a private firm, in which case capitalism can be blamed. The Democratic monopolies in Flint, Detroit, Philadelphia, Cleveland, Newark? Somehow, somewhere, there’s a Republican responsible for that, even if he has to be brought in on an overnight flight from Oklahoma. Flint is nothing more than a miniature Detroit.

And Detroit is what Democrats do.


The Desperate Tactics of Hillary Clinton in the 2016 Primary

Dick Morris points out that the Clintons deploy the B Team:

The aging and raging ex-president, meanwhile, speaking to a half-filled gym in a New Hampshire school, ranted about Sanders’s “hypocrisy” in condemning his wife’s paid speeches. Sanders, too, has given paid speeches, Bill Clinton claimed.

He’s got a point. In 2013, for example, Sanders made all of $1,500, which he donated to charity as required by federal law. In 2014, he raked in $1,850 for paid speeches. By contrast, Clinton made, and kept, over $21 million during the same time period. Sanders was only reimbursed for coach class airfare, while Clinton demanded private jets. Sanders’s hosts were the TV show “Real Time with Bill Maher,” Avalon Publishing and a machinists union. Clinton’s were Goldman Sachs, the big banks and the pharmaceutical and energy industries. What hypocrisy for Sanders to use that as an issue!

Both Brock and Blumenthal share the former first lady’s enthusiasm for discussing the “vast right-wing conspiracy” in America. Now that they’ve been outed as being back on her team, it’s easy to understand why Clinton sees conspiracies everywhere. This paranoia, egged on by the B Twins, explains her failure to grasp the cataclysmic changes her own misconduct has wrought on her image, to say nothing of the societal and economic tectonic shifts at work. No, it’s all the GOP’s fault.

Blumenthal worked to spin Monica Lewinsky as a crazed stalker of an innocent president, and his hundreds of gossipy emails urged Clinton to do all she could to topple Moammar Gadhafi when she was secretary of State without realizing that it would open the door and let the terrorists waltz in. He hides in the shadows, ducking subpoenas and frantically emailing his crazy self-serving ideas while flattering his way into Clinton’s affections.


Thinking For Yourself is not part of the Leftist Playbook

Leftism uses “diversity” as a club against it’s enemies because it is a much better sounding ideal than the doctrine it is a cover for, which is adherence to absolute conformity to speech and social constructs designed to attack critics and break their power structures. Leftism inherently removes individual thought.

Under the current rules of the progressives’ game, a gay man’s mind — a black man’s mind, an immigrant’s mind, Bruce Jenner’s mind — is not his own. If you are a gay man, you are forbidden from finding your situation “pretty comfortable” and hence believing that it is more important to enact Marco Rubio’s national-security agenda than Hillary Rodham Clinton’s gay-rights agenda, whatever that is this week. That simply is not permitted. The price of enjoying the special status associated with cultural victimhood is mandatory conformity with the self-appointed progressive advocates who tell others what to think about you and tell you what to think about you, too. RELATED: Liberals Now Find Gender Identity Itself Oppressive That is one of the reasons why the Left works so tirelessly to destroy prominent conservatives who are not white men, savaging the likes of Clarence Thomas and Nikki Haley. That is why the success of immigrants from India and Nigeria so scandalizes these so-called progressives: These immigrants aren’t going along with the game, which insists that we pretend that this is an oppressive, abusive, racist society that hates blacks and the foreign-born even as its armed forces salute a black man with a Kenyan father. Amy Chua became a hate totem for suggesting that “tiger moms” see to the success of these communities by declining to coddle their children too much, rejecting the ethos of minority victimhood for the practical proposition that nobody can look down on you if you’re at the top. That kind of thinking, left unchecked, would mean a lot of unemployment among kindergarten diversity officers and media censors tut-tutting about celebrities’ oppressive attitude toward parts of speech.

And that is not how the game is played. One wonders why so many people choose to be pawns in it.


Big Government obstructs a persons “Right to Try” [to stay alive]

If a ship was sinking, you would want the right to cling to anything that might save your life, even if not officially sanctioned by the government. If lifeboats were available but not Federally approved due to the possibility of leaking, should a person not be allowed access to that chance? Leftist government says no.

Opponents of the approach call it an ill-advised effort that circumvents federal law, undermines the drug development process and threatens to harm more people than it helps by providing access to medications that haven’t been proven safe and effective.

“The notion is based on the ‘Dallas Buyers Club’ — the idea that you have to get around the indifferent and cruel government to get access to drugs,” said Arthur Caplan, director of the bioethics division at New York University Langone Medical Center, referring to the Oscar-winning movie based on an AIDS patient who smuggled unapproved drugs into Texas during the 1980s.

The truth is that the system desperately needs reform.

For decades now the Food and Drug Administration has maintained an onerous and slow approval process that delays the debut of new drugs for fatal diseases, sometimes for years longer than the life span of the patients desperate to try them. Attorneys and scholars at the Goldwater Institute of Arizona have crafted legislation for the states that would allow terminally ill patients to try experimental drugs for cancer or degenerative neurological diseases earlier. These “Right to Try” bills are so scripted that they overcome the usual objection to delivery of such experimental drugs: safety. Under “Right to Try,” only drugs that have passed the crucial Phase 1 of FDA testing could be prescribed, thereby reducing the possibility of Thalidomide repeat. Second, only patients determined to have terminal cases would be eligible to purchase the drugs, making it harder to maintain that the drug will jeopardize their lives. Representatives in Colorado, Louisiana, and Missouri approved the “Right to Try” measure unanimously. Citizens of Arizona will vote on the effort to circumvent the FDA process this fall.

In cases of terminal illness, there is just no argument to ban access to potentially life saving medicine. This is not a case of the government protecting people from wasting time and money in unfounded “rhino horn” style scam cures. These are people trying to improve their terminal conditions with medicine that has been tested but continues to be tested for FDA approval, and in some cases approved in other countries.

Regulators and others in the pharmaceutical industry say sidestepping the later stages of testing exposes patients to unknown hazards. The first stage, usually involving only a few dozen subjects, is designed to learn whether a compound is safe for consumption. The laws would give patients medicines before rigorous second- and third-phase trials have established their safety and efficacy compared with placebos. Those later-stage studies help scientists determine proper dosages and understand how a drug affects sick patients who may be taking other medications. “These products have serious risks, and maybe even more concerning, we don’t even know what the risks are,” says Coleen Klasmeier, a former attorney for the FDA who represents drug companies at Sidley Austin. “You can’t just say, ‘Sure, take it. It might kill you, but vaya con Dios.’ ”

The new laws can’t compel pharmaceutical companies to make their newest drugs available before they’ve been vetted. It takes about 10 years and $1 billion to win FDA approval for a compound, and only 16 percent of treatments that begin clinical trials ultimately hit the market. Giving an experimental drug to terminally ill patients could tarnish the safety profile of a new drug out of the gate. “We have serious concerns with any approach to make investigational medicines available that seeks to bypass the oversight of the Food and Drug Administration and clinical trial process,” Sascha Haverfield, vice president for scientific and regulatory affairs at the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, wrote in an e-mail.

Everyone deserves the right to try


Hillary ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


Sheldon Adelson is not a conservative. Not even close

When you think of “big-money Republican donors”, Sheldon Adelson is always at the top of the list.

The Las Vegas billionaire has a compelling story, growing up from nothing as the son of poor Jewish immigrant parents, to buying The Sands and building the Venetian — one of the most opulent casinos on the Strip. He’s worth $34 billion, with a “B”, entering rarefied air occupied by names like Warren Buffett and Bill Gates.

Adelson is consistently vilified by the Left for his unwavering support of Republican candidates in recent years — most notably, propping up New Gingrich’s failing 2012 campaign to the tune of $15 million. He’s spoken of in the same negative terms as the Koch Brothers, who are incidentally not conservatives either, but that’s another story for another day.

Here’s what surprises most — Adelson isn’t a conservative by any stretch of the imagination. He’s famously said:

I didn’t leave the Democrats, the Democrats left me.

His main issue with the current Democratic Party are Israel and free enterprise. Adelson is a staunch supporter of Israel and distributes, for free, the most popular newspaper in the country. He’s even rumored to have such influence that he has Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu lobbying Japan on his behalf to grant a first-of-its-kind gaming license in the country.

He’s also called for lowering taxes, relaxations of regulations, and a decrease in the power afforded to unions.

But that’s where Adelson’s conservative bona-fides hit a screeching halt.

Adelson also claimed that he was “basically a social liberal,” and that his views differed sharply from the Republican Party on a number of issues.

His social liberal views?


“I’m pro choice,” he pointed out. “You can take your own religious beliefs …and live your life with your own beliefs. But to make it a portion of the government’s policies?” Adelson also maintained “Abortion shouldn’t be brought up as a political issue,” he said.

Embyronic stem-cell research:

“Number one, I’m supporting stem-cell research.” As exemplified by the new Adelson medical research foundation that is funding some stem-cell based science.”


“I’m pro-Dream Act, I’m pro the Dream Act. My parents were immigrants to this country,” he said. “What are we going to do? Listen, I’m sure a lot of my parents generation ….. snuck onto the ship and they came into the country.”

“It would be inhumane to send those people back , to send 12 million people out of this country to disrupt a whole potpourri of family issues” over what happens to the children.

“I mean it’s all ridiculous. So we’ve got to find a way, find a route for those people to get legal citizenship,” he said.”


“If one goes to Israel, he said, one chooses among four or five HMO’s. “You go in there you get all your health care from cradle to grave.”

“When I learned about that [Israeli] system, to my own surprise I said, ‘Oh, I’m in favor of socialized medicine’– which is such a bad word here,” he said.”

Adelson’s support for these policies is not a surprise because he’s not a conservative — he’s at best an New-Deal-era Democrat. That includes his pro-Israel stance as well as the fact that Democrats during the New Deal were in favor of some regulation, but certainly not public sector unions, near-50% income taxes, or the onerous regulations current Democrats support.

Keep all this in mind as many 2016 hopefuls, from Rand Paul, to Ted Cruz, to Scott Walker, to Bobby Jindal, to Bob McDonnell, to Chris Christie, to Jeb Bush, to John Kasich, to Mike Huckabee, have all touched down on the Vegas sands to kiss Adelson’s ring in what former White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer calls, “The Sheldon Adelson Primary”.