Tragedy Strikes Dallas Police Again: One Officer Dead After Shooting At Home Depot

One Dallas police officer has died following a call at a Home Depot yesterday where three men — two Dallas police and one Home Depot loss prevention officer — were shot by the suspect.

It was announced Wednesday morning that 27-year-old Officer Rogelio Santander had succumbed to his wounds. His fellow officer, Crystal Almeida, remains in critical condition.

Loss prevention officer, Scott Painter, was also shot and remains in critical care.

Police Chief Renee Hall said both are “making remarkable recoveries.”

The suspect, 29-year-old Armando Juarez, was taken into police custody Tuesday night following a police chase that ended at Dallas’s Love Field airport.

The post Tragedy Strikes Dallas Police Again: One Officer Dead After Shooting At Home Depot appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State


The Right Should Stop Denying that Americans of Color Still Face Injustice

Two incidents over the weekend caused many Americans to reflexively fall along partisan lines regarding race, racial mistreatment and disparity, and our criminal justice system and law enforcement. But what these situations also provide is ample opportunity to listen to fellow Americans about their experiences, as these incidents seem, unfortunately, increasingly common.

On Saturday at a Pennsylvania golf club, a man who identified himself as the club’s owner told a group of five black women they were playing too slowly and requested they leave, then called the police to remove them.

All five women were members of the club. The man confronted them on the second and ninth holes, though the women said they checked with other club staff regarding their pace and were told they “were fine.”

According to the York Daily Record, the women completed their first nine holes in one hour and 45 minutes, so “doubling the time of the first nine would have put the women under the total course rule of four hours and 15 minutes,” even with breaks.

Following the arrival of the police and subsequent interviews, the county police chief concluded “the issue did not warrant any charges.” The police did a remarkable job in how they handled this issue — despite being frivolously treated as a personal security force.

The man who called the police and treated the women so poorly was apparently not even the club owner, as he had told the women, but the father-in-law of the club co-owner who serves in an advisory role.

Meanwhile, on Monday a white judge in Texas who forged fake signatures in order to secure a place on a primary ballot was sentenced to five years of probation.

Russ Casey pleaded guilty to tampering with government records and providing fake signatures to get on the primary ballot to represent Precinct 3 in Tarrant County.

Casey violated Texas election law — not to mistakenly cast a vote he thought he was allowed to cast, as in the case of Crystal Mason, but to get himself elected to office. Even so, he received a much more lenient punishment than Crystal Mason, who was sentenced to five years in prison for her election-related crime — though Casey received five years of probation for his.

There was pushback on the notion that either Mason’s or the Starbucks stories were affected by race, just as there has been pushback that either of the two recent incidents were influenced by race.

But I believe part of this pushback is due to opposition to the Left and to the media — and the (sometimes accurate!) belief that both entities intentionally push narratives and the (sometimes valid!) frustration that occurs as a result.

However, regardless of what the Left says, and regardless of how the media tells us to think, conservatives should still give these incidents the careful examination they deserve. In situations similar to these, many of us on the Right are not only too quick to insist there is no evidence of racism, we are too quick to dismiss even the possibility race played a factor.

Many have argued committing election fraud is worthy of prison, and disparities in punishment for similar crimes are simply due to different criminal jurisdictions, and the men in Starbucks were loitering and trespassing because they hadn’t yet made a purchase so therefore calling the police and the police arrests were appropriate responses.

That instinctive defensiveness and refusal to even consider other possibilities prevent us from engaging in thoughtful and useful analysis, such as asking the following questions to fairly assess the incidents:

Is five years in prison really a reasonable punishment for a non-violent crime?

Is calling the 9-1-1 emergency hotline really a reasonable reaction to two men peacefully and quietly sitting in your store?

Is arresting two non-disruptive men for hanging out in a coffee shop without yet making a purchase and then holding them for eight hours without any charges really a reasonable response by the police?

Is calling the police really a reasonable way to handle a group of golfers you believe are playing too slowly?

I believe the answer to each of these questions is “no.” And as advocates of limited government, we conservatives should not defend but criticize such blatant misuse of the enforcement arm of our government.

Secondly, it is doubtful white individuals would have encountered the same treatment; for example, the American Psychological Association found black men are often perceived to be more threatening than white men:

Wilson and his colleagues conducted a series of experiments involving more than 950 online participants (all from the United States) in which people were shown a series of color photographs of white and black male faces of individuals who were all of equal height and weight. The participants were then asked to estimate the height, weight, strength and overall muscularity of the men pictured.

‘We found that these estimates were consistently biased. Participants judged the black men to be larger, stronger and more muscular than the white men, even though they were actually the same size,’ said Wilson. ‘Participants also believed that the black men were more capable of causing harm in a hypothetical altercation and, troublingly, that police would be more justified in using force to subdue them, even if the men were unarmed.’

With that knowledge, let’s rationally re-examine how these Americans of color were treated.

Crystal Mason committed a non-violent crime and made an honest mistake — one that poll workers did not catch, either.

Starbucks welcomes its image as somewhere to work, study, read, and hold meetings, which countless people do every single day — sometimes for hours, with or without purchases. And it is a sit-down coffee shop; sometimes people do not make purchases right away. People may believe it is rude to sit in a Starbucks without making a purchase or argue it would be polite and simple to buy something small, but calling the police is still excessive.

The golfers were stopped on the second hole for playing too slowly; they occasionally caught up to the group in front of them; they were on pace to complete the course in the required time; and when three of the five women left, so ostensibly the group would move much faster, the two remaining women were still asked to leave, until the police were called to yet again act like a personal security detail.

Based on these circumstances, it is logical to wonder if there were other issues behind the decisions to see these Americans as more threatening, impose strict punishments on Americans of color, or oust black Americans from the premises.

And it may seem unusual we are increasingly hearing about such incidents, just like we suddenly heard more about police brutality, racial injustice, or sexual misconduct. Unfortunately, it is without doubt these situations have been occurring for years; the only difference is Americans of color finally have evidence (in the form of cell phone footage) and a platform (in the form of social media and its reach).

It’s better for America we are being forced to acknowledge and confront these issues, and this is an opportunity to ensure every single American receives justice.

There was no explicit racism present in any of these incidents. No racial slurs were uttered. None of these individuals were told they were not welcome at these establishments, or they were being punished, because of their race.

But racism exists in forms other than just obvious acts, and it would behoove the Right to understand this — if not for their fellow Americans’ sake, then at least for their own self-preservation. The United States is becoming a more diverse country every day, and if the Republican Party wishes to continue to be a competitive national party, it must make inroads within minority communities and ensure they receive justice. That starts with at least trying to understand their experiences.

The views expressed here are those of the author and do not represent those of any other individual or entity. Follow Sarah on Twitter: @sarahmquinlan.

The post The Right Should Stop Denying that Americans of Color Still Face Injustice appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State


Marble Halls & Silver Screens e.16 – Reaching Across The Industries

 

Covering the convergence of DC politics and Hollywood entertainment where it contributes to our culture.

Many stories this week on pols wanting to be stars, stars wanting to be pols, and beers wanting to be chronic.

(This week’s Intro: “Pearl Harbor Sucks & I Miss You” — Theme from Team America)

 

— Amy Schumer’s new film is not woke enough

— James “Eddie Haskell” Comey casts himself in his movie

— Hollywood celebrities hate guns…unless they are working???

— Yeezy makes a right turn (for Brad, that’s Kanye West)

— On 4/20 The Feds crack down on marijuana beer

 

 

BRAD’S TWITTER MOMENT

 

BAD MOVIE (News) OF THE WEEK

The 25 Worst Super Hero Films

A mostly solid list, with the exception of — The Lone Ranger?!?!?!?

The post Marble Halls & Silver Screens e.16 – Reaching Across The Industries appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State


Trump VA Pick Earned an Alarming Nickname From White House Medical Staff

Things for Dr. Ronny Jackson just seem to be getting worse.

I’ll reiterate here that much of what has been alleged still lacks substantiation, but senators with the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee are digging into it, having postponed Jackson’s confirmation hearing, in the meantime.

The news first broke on Tuesday that Democrats with the committee are saying they’ve received somewhere around 20 misconduct allegations against Jackson.

I told you earlier this morning about overseas trips, where medical staffers claim he’d become intoxicated, and in one instance, began banging on the hotel room door of a female staffer. It became so obnoxious that the Secret Service had to step in, because they feared he’d wake the president.

It’s a serious charge, considering the need for the White House doctor to be on call, at all times, in the event of a medical emergency with the president. It’s not really a job you can do if you’re fall down drunk.

To that point, there’s even a story of the White House attempting to reach Jackson, on at least one occasion, and after failing to do so, finding him passed out in his hotel room.

Now, further details of the allegations against Jackson are coming out.

Apparently, Jackson had a nickname among the medical staff: “The candy man.”

So what had to happen to get the nickname, “candy man”?

Tester, the top Democrat on the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee, said on CNN’s “Anderson Cooper 360” that “in overseas trips, in particular, the admiral would go down the aisle way of the airplane and say, ‘All right, who wants to go to sleep?’ and hand out the prescription drugs like they were candy.”

Stunning.

I’m not even going to pretend that a medical professional occasionally dipping into the meds cart for something to help them rest or to ease off a backache is an unusual occurrence. I know it happens. It doesn’t make it right, but it’s not the worst thing in the world, either – as long as it doesn’t become a routine, or it’s not the heavy stuff.

We can’t ever allow ourselves to get comfortable with anyone in the medical profession riding with King Percocet.

All that being said, if this is going on with Jackson enough that it earned him a nickname, then there’s some abuse of the system, if not abuse of substances going on.

“That’s the reports that we got from the people, 20-something people, who got a hold of us and said, ‘We have a problem. This doctor has a problem because he hands out prescriptions like candy.’ In fact, in the White House they call him the candy man,” Tester said.

“That’s not a nickname that you want in a doctor and if you consider the prescription drugs we have a problem with in this country right now, it’s not the example we need to have set,” Tester added.

That’s a good point.

On Tuesday, President Trump seemed to be willing to step away from his VA secretary pick, but Jackson has said he intends to push on, rather than withdraw his name. Hearing that, the White House seemed satisfied and are maintaining their support for him.

For now, the investigation into the allegations against him continue, but if there is even a whiff of truth to any of these claims, then Jackson is simply not a good fit to serve in a Cabinet position.

He’s not even fit to continue on as the White House doctor, so let’s hope Trump has somebody else in the wings.

 

 

The post Trump VA Pick Earned an Alarming Nickname From White House Medical Staff appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State


British Appeals Court Will Hear Alfie Evans Case

Maybe the pressure being put on the UK by the world at large is working, or someone in the UK government has something resembling a heart, but a spark of hope has appeared in the case of Alfie Evans, the baby holding onto life even after UK courts sentenced him to die.

According to Express, the Evans family will now be able to appeal Aflie’s case in the Court of Appeals, hopefully allowing the UK government to release its unnecessary grip on the child and allow him to go to Italy where he will receive an experimental treatment.

Parents Tom Evans and Kate James wish to move their son to Rome, which has already offered to look over the baby at their expense, but the parents were denied by UK courts on the advice of doctors at the Alder Hey Children’s Hospital in Liverpool. The doctors deemed Alfie not long for this world, and judged that any treatment would be prolonging his suffering.

They took Alfie off of life support on Monday, but Alfie continued to live. The doctors have also deprived the baby of any food, and he is now 40 hours without sustenance as of this writing but still hanging on.

According to Express, a medical team from Rome is already there and standing by:

A spokesman for Christian Legal Centre said an air ambulance is waiting outside Alder Hey Hospital ready to take Alfie to hospital in Italy.

President of the Bambino Gesù Children’s Hospital, Mariella Enoc, said his doctors and medical staff are ready for Alfie’s arrival should today’s appeal mean his parents can take their son to Italy for treatment.

Mr Enoc said: “We are ready, the plane is at Rome Ciampino Airport with the doctors on board.

“The Italian Embassy in England is also looking for an ambulance to take the boy from the hospital to the airport.

At this point, no one is certain as to why the British courts are stopping Alfie from receiving care outside of their system. It costs them nothing, and the doctors overseeing Alfie have already been proven wrong on multiple occasion.

As Kira Davis writes, at this point the only reason for Alfie’s predicament is that the UK government is simply torturing Alfie to death in order to keep their socialistic medical system intact by not allowing Alfie to seek better care elsewhere, proving that the UK’s medical system is flawed and worthy of leaving.

The post British Appeals Court Will Hear Alfie Evans Case appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State


Federal Judge: To Hell with Trump! Long Live Barack Obama’s DACA Program!

A third federal judge has ruled that President Trump is not allowed to terminate Barack Obama’s illegal DACA program. This is not the first time a judge has done this, so I’ll quote myself from one of the previous times:

This decision is outrageous. Immigration is Congress’s business. Obama overstepped his authority in issuing a blanket amnesty to a group of people under the guise of prosecutorial discretion. Trump had every right to undo that decision and return the issue to Congress, where it belongs.

. . . .

I hope that this order is swiftly appealed and reversed. It’s a naked power grab by the courts and has no basis in law.

But this decision is worse than the previous ones. Until yesterday, judges had simply ordered that Homeland Security process renewal applications from who had already applied. But this ruling is different:

But the ruling by Bates, an appointee of President George W. Bush, is far more expansive: If the government does not come up with a better explanation within 90 days, he will rescind the government memo that terminated the program and require Homeland Security to enroll new applicants, as well. Thousands could be eligible to apply.

The judge has put his absurd decision on hold for that 90-day period.

Here’s the centerpiece of the “reasoning” offered by the court:

The Court further concludes that, under the APA, DACA’s rescission was arbitrary and capricious because the Department failed adequately to explain its conclusion that the program was unlawful. Neither the meager legal reasoning nor the assessment of litigation risk provided by DHS to support its rescission decision is sufficient to sustain termination of the DACA program.

This is nonsense. Obama’s proffered justification for undermining Congressional legislation in the area of immigration was that he was making a resource allocation decision in enforcement, which is an executive function. Decisions like this mean that one president’s decision about how to allocate resources binds the hands of all future presidents, who are not allowed to make different decisions unless they can explain to a judge’s satisfaction why the previous decisions were illegal.

Even if you accept the resource allocation justification (and I don’t), it makes no sense to say that all future presidents are bound by a previous president’s resource allocation. Obama’s not the President anymore. Donald Trump is, and he’s the one who gets to decide how to allocate the resources available in his administration.

I can’t wait for the Supreme Court to overrule this and decisions like it.

P.S. Today is the day that the Supreme Court hears arguments on Trump’s travel ban. I’ll do my best to offer analysis later today or tomorrow.

P.P.S. This has nothing to do with the subject matter of this post, but if you haven’t read Kira Davis’s post on the tragic and infuriating Alfie Evans case out of the U.K., read it now. I was going to write a post about that myself, but realized that I’d never be able to write anything as effective as her piece. So instead of writing my own piece, I’m promoting hers, and recommending that everyone read it. It’s that good.

The post Federal Judge: To Hell with Trump! Long Live Barack Obama’s DACA Program! appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State


The Real Reason Britain Won’t Release Alfie Evans to Italy

In recent weeks many people across the globe have been moved and outraged by the story of little Alfie Evans, whose life hung in the balance in a British hospital and whose fate was taken from the hands of his parents by the National Health Service (NHS) and the courts.

As of the time of this publication, Alfie was forcibly removed from his breathing devices but continues to breathe on his own. The NHS and the courts would not even allow Alfie to go home with his parents, and when the nation of Italy offered to fly him to a Rome hospital for experimental treatment (at their own expense) the courts told Alfie’s parents they would not be allowed to leave the country.

Even after Alfie surprised doctors with his will to live he was denied water for nearly six hours. He continued to be denied nourishment. With the denial of his exit from England altogether it was clear that the British courts and the NHS had no intention of letting Alfie live.

But why?

Though still morally squishy there’s a valid argument to be made that when a nation votes for socialist healthcare they are agreeing to let the government treat their lives as algorithms. When the bottom line is measured in dollars rather than lives, the risk a society takes is illustrated in cases like Alfie’s. The NHS simply cannot afford the extremely expensive prospect of keeping alive a little boy who most likely will not live much longer due to an incurable condition. Alfie’s chances of any meaningful recovery were slim to none. It isn’t outside the boundaries of reason that the government tasked with his treatment would deem it simply not worth the effort expended.

It’s cruel, but logical…the inevitable result of a single-payer system.

I may not agree with such reasoning, but I can at least derive the path that such woeful decisions must take in a place like the UK.

What is not logical and nearly incomprehensible is the decision of the court not simply to deny Alfie further treatment, but then deny his right and the right of his parents to leave the country to seek treatment elsewhere. Even that decision might make a tiny bit of sense if it were to add to the NHS’ costs. That would be a problem for that pesky algorithm. However, Italy had already sent an airlift equipped to take the young child. His transportation and hospital provisions were covered by donations and the state of Italy. In fact, to move Alfie out of the care of the NHS would only save them money and labor. Alfie’s parents would have one more shot at rescuing his life. It seems like a win-win for everyone.

And still the courts have barred the family from leaving the country.

Let’s ponder that for just one moment. Great Britain is a nation with a proud history of freedom and democracy. Most other nations around the world and Britons themselves would describe it as a “free country”, and yet here is a case where it’s free citizens are not allowed to leave it’s borders.

Is this something that should happen in a “free country”? Would Alfie’s parents be barred from taking a vacation? Would anyone in their right mind in that country find it acceptable or consistent with British values to deny any family the right to leave for a vacation or to visit a relative abroad? Why then is it allowable for this family to be virtual hostages in their land simply because their reason for travel is medical care rather than pleasure?

Some years ago I watched a documentary on the design and building of the Berlin Wall between East Germany and West Germany. It included extremely rare clips of interviews with the architects (I was shocked to learn there was actually a deliberate design to that monstrosity).

I searched high and low for the film, but was unable to locate it. If any reader has any clue where to find it please do let me know…I’ve been desperate to watch it again.

In one clip, an aging (former) East German Wall architect spoke briskly about the strategy of his designs. Although the interview was conducted during what must have been the last years of his life, he still seemed deeply resentful that he was being asked to defend the wall’s erection even after the fall of the Eastern Bloc. I’ll never forget what he said in that interview – it made the hair stand up on my arms.

With great sincerity – almost pleading with the interviewer – he said,  “We had to build the wall. Too many people were leaving for the West and you need people to make socialism work. We had to build the wall to keep them in so they could see how great socialism was, so they could see that it works.”

As I can’t find the clip, you’ll just have to take my word for it (or not). The point is – this man and his comrades felt that the only way to sell people on their socialist vision was to force them to live in it. Those leaving were just too stupid to understand that it was the best thing for them.

This is exactly the point in the ruling by the NHS and the courts to forbid their free citizens from leaving the country. If they are allowed to flee the heart-wrenching consequences of socialism, then others will want to do the same. How can a socialist system work without the cooperation of everyone? And how can you force people to participate in that socialist system when they discover that system may kill them or their loved ones?

You build a wall.

Great Britain doesn’t yet have a wall to keep it’s citizens in, but the courts have built one with the law. Just as East Germany could not tolerate the massive loss of defectors who were leaving with their training, intellect and tax dollars, Great Britain’s healthcare system cannot tolerate the defection of those who might find better healthcare somewhere else.

After all, how would it look if Alfie were allowed to leave England (allowed to leave a free country! Even to write the words feels absurd!) and then found a successful treatment in another country?

It would be an abject embarrassment to a government that holds up their socialist healthcare as one of the wonders of the Western world. Not only would they be forced to admit that their own doctors and bureaucrats were wrong for denying this baby life-saving measures, but they would then have to deal with hundreds, maybe thousands of other citizens fleeing the bondage of NHS algorithms for a chance at swifter, more modern healthcare.

For some bizarre reason, a nation that boasts figures like Winston Churchill and Margaret Thatcher, a tiny island nation that was once so powerful and broad it was said that the sun never set on the British empire…for some inexplicable reason that nation has chosen to hang it’s pride and joy on socialized medicine.

If you think I exaggerate just look up the opening ceremonies of the London Olympics.

To release this child to the care of any other nation would be to admit failure, and heartless bureaucrats who will never have to watch young Alfie struggle for air or dehydrate to death have decided that their misplaced pride is more valuable than the lives of their citizens.

As a born Canadian I’ve often heard friends and family condescendingly mock the United States for our dogged refusal to bow to socialized medicine. They have the woefully ill-informed idea that people without health insurance here don’t receive care or expensive treatment at all.

“I’d rather pay higher taxes for “free” healthcare than deal with America’s health system”, they often say.

To anyone who echoes such sentiments, let me point to poor, sweet Alfie Evans and his helpless parents as to why most Americans still abhor the idea of the government having the last say in whether or not you get the treatment you need to live.
Ask anyone here and 9 times out of 10 they’ll tell you they’d give their last dollar, sell their last possession, go into debt for the rest of their lives to save the life of someone they loved rather than sit helpless as their government sentences that person to death because it just isn’t “worth it”.

It’s never “worth it”…until it’s your child. When government controls your healthcare, they ultimately control what your life is worth to the people who love you. I’ll take the system we have here in America over what Canada or the UK shoves down the throats of it’s citizens every day of the week and twice on Sunday. Given how many Canadians seek surgeries and treatments south of their border every year, I reckon they would too.

Alfie Evans may indeed have never really had a chance to survive his illness, but if there were a chance – one that would not cost the taxpayers of Great Britain – shouldn’t his parents be allowed to seek it out? Shouldn’t they, as citizens of a “free country” be allowed to leave it’s borders whenever they please and for whatever reason they please?

Sadly, Alfie – and little Charlie Gard before him – is doomed to be the sacrificial lamb at the alters of pride and socialism.

You will never convince me that this is right in any way. Never.

The post The Real Reason Britain Won’t Release Alfie Evans to Italy appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State


UPDATE: Veteran David Brayton’s Life-Changing Phone Call From UCLA

This is an update in the #DavidBTransplant series, detailing David Brayton’s multi-year fight for approval to receive a lung transplant through the VA and UCLA. Other installments can be found here and here.

In the last #DavidBTransplant update (January 2018), we reported on the questionable denial letter sent by the transplant team at UCLA to David Brayton. It was questionable because Brayton had already been through an intense and thorough procedure with the VA and approved for transplant. The only circumstance that had changed was that instead of Brayton being required to relocate to Washington State while waiting (for years, potentially) for a transplant, he could receive the transplant locally, at UCLA.

Courtney Brayton wouldn’t take no for an answer. Though she’s a petite woman, she’s fierce and determined – and that’s on a normal day. When faced with losing her husband that determination went into overdrive, and David was finally put on the waiting list for a lung. A lung, singular, even though he’d been approved for a double-lung transplant initially, but that’s better than nothing.

Then it was time to sit around and wait and pray and hope that a lung became available before it was too late. At one point David commented on Facebook that it felt awkward to pray for a lung to become available, knowing that would only happen if another person lost their life.

Still, they prayed.

David and Courtney Brayton’s prayers were answered Tuesday morning.

(function(d, s, id) { var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0]; if (d.getElementById(id)) return; js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id; js.src = ‘https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/sdk.js#xfbml=1&version=v2.12’; fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, ‘script’, ‘facebook-jssdk’));

Got the call! On our way to UCLA right now!- this is the day we have been praying for! Thank you for the continued prayers!

Posted by David B Transplant on Tuesday, April 24, 2018

He drove himself to the hospital, oxygen mask in place, wearing a 2A t-shirt, while Courtney filmed him for Facebook live.

(function(d, s, id) { var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0]; if (d.getElementById(id)) return; js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id; js.src = ‘https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/sdk.js#xfbml=1&version=v2.12’; fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, ‘script’, ‘facebook-jssdk’));

On our way to UCLA!

Posted by David Heisenberg Brayton on Tuesday, April 24, 2018

At the time of this post (10:30 p.m. Pacific), David and Courtney are at UCLA and he is expected to go into surgery about 12:30 a.m. The Braytons are asking for all of our prayers – both for David and for the transplant team. I’ll update as soon as there is more information.

The post UPDATE: Veteran David Brayton’s Life-Changing Phone Call From UCLA appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State


Did Nancy Pelosi Actually Risk Reelection by…Supporting Free Speech?!

 

Maybe she feels untouchable. Perchance her base will never leave and she’s courting others. Possibly she has just become tired of it all and no longer cares?

Whichever theory prevails here, there is a deep curiosity that bears notice when the longtime fixture of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi says something that is this sensible, steeped in logic, and rooted in the core values of this nation.

Surely some in her offices must have grave concern about her faculties.

The former Speaker of The House was in a town hall setting, fielding questions from a room filled with predominantly millennial-aged individuals. She took a question from one member on stage with her who referenced the divisions in this country, and his question became pointed.

Mentioning how frequently people are shouted down, and speech they don’t like is silenced, he asked specifically: “How do you believe we can move forward as a nation, to heal this cultural division, and revive respect for free speech rights of political opponents?”

“Put me down as one who just says, ‘Don’t make a fuss – if somebody’s going to come and speak, let them speak.”

I know. Borderline jarring. Not the words, mind you — those are just fine and salient. But the fact they spewed forth from the maw of one of this country’s foreleast political figures is the shocker. Watch the video and see if you have the same unsettling feeling in trying to reconcile the paradox on display.

 

 

See this display gives a similar sense of dysphoria that you get from the uncanny valley.

Pelosi even realized she had strayed afield from the borders of her usual agenda. She made mention how this position would not go over well in her home district of San Francisco, and on this note, she is also correct. She may have let fly with this Constitutional pragmatism given she was safely in the confines of Georgetown University. (Thus, the tepid applause to her radical free speech views.)

It remains to be seen if she has a political price to pay for this controversial position, given the region from where she originates. After all, though just outside her district, Berkley has been the focal point of much of the campus hostility towards opposing viewpoints.

It was just last fall when tensions rose in the city when a group intended to stage what it dubbed a “free speech” rally. Counter protestors promised tensions until the day before the organizers called off the event. The counter-protesters in one area had a pinata made to look like Donald Trump that they set on fire.

This could serve as a harbinger of what may be ahead for Nancy Pelosi if her harsh support for the First Amendment becomes revealed in her district.

The post Did Nancy Pelosi Actually Risk Reelection by…Supporting Free Speech?! appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State


Racist, Sexist Fresno State Professor: Everyone is Mad at Me Because of Racism, Sexism

Fresno State Professor Randa Jarrar threw herself into the national spotlight by celebrating the death of Barbara Bush and describing her as a racist. She then continued her rants against the Bush family, saying she was happy because former President George W. Bush was somewhere being sad.

Since then, much has been uncovered about Jarrar. Namely that she’s a psychotic social justice warrior of the highest order who treats men, white people, the right, and pretty much anyone not like her with utter contempt. Her bigotry, racism, sexism and hatred for all things is not at all disguised in her speeches and talks, but for Jarrar it goes beyond just words.

Jarrar has openly advocated for the bombing and leveling of a house of someone she didn’t like named “Spencer.” I’m going to assume it was Richard Spencer, a high-profile alt-righter. While it’s perfectly fine to have a healthy loathing for Spencer, if that is the correct one, encouraging his home be leveled or that grenades be tossed in is still a terrorist act.

But if that’s not enough for you, Jarrar is also on camera promoting the hijacking of planes, albeit “non-violently,” and also purchasing guns and getting stupid in the face of Trump’s election.

Jarrar went beyond speech at one point and directed much of the hate she was getting at a help line for people with mental health issues, clogging their lines and preventing help getting to those who needed it.

Needless to say Jarrar is disturbed individual, and she’s currently getting paid with taxpayer dollars to teach kids to think just like her.

But if you think this entire thing has caused Jarrar to reflect upon her actions, or has urged her to apologize for being so heinous you’d be completely wrong. But one must remember that a social justice warrior is never at fault for their own actions. They’re perpetual victims. Everything is the fault of someone else.

Jarrar sent an email to Yahoo News blaming the backlash for her behavior on every social justice warrior’s favorite straw man. It’s because America is, wait for it…racist and sexist:

Jarrar is of Egyptian, Greek, and Palestinian heritage and her writing — including her semi-autobiographical novel, A Map of Home, and her short story collection, Him, Me, Muhammad Ali — often touches upon Arab-American and Muslim-American themes. When asked if she believes she received more abuse because of her ethnic background, Jarrar said she does. “I am not the only person who has stated the belief that Barbara Bush was a racist,” she explained. “But women of color routinely have their tone policed, their justified anger painted as hatred, and their criticism of injustice framed as racism toward white people.”

How original.

It’s not because this woman is vile from top to bottom, but because she’s a victim of the patriarchal system soaked with racism that she’s had so much hate thrown at her.

Jarrar also addressed her gloating over her tenure at the college as a sexist act as well:

“Some may characterize those tweets as gloating,” she explained. “I would say that when a woman states any facts about her employment, she is usually met with charges of arrogance.” She added that her salary, which she came under fire for sharing, is publicly listed.

The reason many are calling for her firing are pardonable. Despite the support for free speech many hold, her promotion of terrorist acts and her actions involving the mental health hotline put the public in the mind of relieving her of our taxpayer dollars at her state funded college.

It’s clear that Jarrar has no intention of changing her mind about how she goes about conducting herself, and if she comes out of this with little more than a tarnished reputation it likely will only embolden her to act out further.

The post Racist, Sexist Fresno State Professor: Everyone is Mad at Me Because of Racism, Sexism appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State