Here we have Sean Spicer, Trump’s press secretary, implicitly claiming that Bashar al-Assad is worse than Hitler, as Hitler didn’t sink . . .to using chemical weapons.” Spicer apparently forgot about Zyklon B and carbon monoxide. Called out by a reporter, Spicer was unable to admit he was wrong, and instead says this: “I think when […]
A new addition to the diverse cast of the Huffington Post blog, Shelley Garland describes herself as “an activist and a feminist”, now debuting with the only article to her name: Could It Be Time To Deny White Men The Franchise?
The article starts naturally by subscribing the faults of events clearly not beneficiary to her “progressive cause” to white men (what’s more “progressive” than a referendum of self-determination? I kid). Hilariously, Garland misplaces her confidence that the white men are alone in their support of the Republican candidate and now President Donald J. Trump, failing to consider that at least 25% of each racial demographic (with the exception of African Americans) were in favor of the candidate. Now, now, I am not discounting that of all the racial categories noted, the only majority in favor of Trump were white people and that this demographic makes up the majority of the United States, around 70% to 75% as of 2010 United States census. However, Garland seems to exempt women from the category. Wasn’t it the critique of the third-wave feminist movement that men often place women on a pedestal, where women can do no wrong as the guardians of moral standards? Interestingly, CNN exit polls not only shows that a sizeable portion of white women voted for Trump but also the majority of the white women – a sharp 52% – voted for the man now currently in the White House.
Outside the remarkably low creativity, the article is honestly nothing but an entertainment piece, fashioned by a follower of a boring brand of identitarianism. The rest of her work not follows that the white men in the United States should be dealt justice for the crimes of white South Africans in the South Africa, but that the course of justice is acceptable as if disfranchisement should beget disfranchisement in spite of our country’s now general consciousness of disfranchisement as a breach of universal human rights. Unsurprisingly, the author does nothing to credit liberalism with its celebration of ideas and programmes such as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, civil rights, etc. Instead, she champions a society where membership of a group is met with marginalization and/or bounties. An example of a society such as this would be Garland’s fantasy of a United States that decides to disfranchise its majority based on the crimes of their ancestors and/or people of similar race.
However, in the end, Garland makes the supposition that her radical ideology is not only necessary albeit “unfair” but also implicates that the literal disfranchisement of the majority in favor of the minority is an acceptable choice. Whether this is through violent revolution or legislation is made vague, but the plan seems largely implausible, given the United States’ violent ties with “taxation without representation”. It was because of this, that I had trouble distinguishing whether the article was satirical or not, reducing an entire social movement to a page only championed by out-of-touch, likely privileged, and self-described “feminist” college students midst their completion of a Gender Studies MA degree.
Then, I read Garland’s bio.
I certainly hope that Huffington Post, if they continue to employ the ramblings of left-wing authoritarians, does not quickly degenerate into a hotspot for Garlands of the Western world to tinker on to produce more unproductive, aggressive solutions to global inequalities. Regardless of whether Caucasian men are responsible for the atrocities worldwide, I thank the Lord that the United States is still a functioning constitutional republic in protection against these crazed ideologues.
The use of speeches does not equal the endorsement by speaker, and please support the Justice Democrats at http://www.justicedemocrats.com.
For the 2017 Fox News’ analysis of Obamacare, read this article.
You see, the genius behind this long-standing, strong position, it is that if the DNC chairman Tom Perez doesn’t want to enact Keith Ellison’s agenda that swarms every Democrat’s senses with fear and disgust – a $15 wage and universal health coverage, for example – then he doesn’t have to because clearly, he was chosen by the people who fund the political association.
The DNC has always been friendly to ideas outside the mainstream as a minority political party; it’s been three months since Trump has been office, right? Take the example of Representative Tusi Gabbard and how the DNC reconciled progressive ideals and Democrat ideals (and in a friendly way, too):
“Representative Gabbard, We were very disappointed to hear that you would resign your position with the DNC so you could endorse Bernie Sanders, a man who has never been a Democrat before. When we met over dinner a couple of years ago I was so impressed by your intellect, your passion, and commitment to getting things done on behalf of the American people. For you to endorse a man who has spent almost 40 years in public office with very few accomplishments, doesn’t fall in line with what we previously thought of you. Hillary Clinton will be our party’s nominee and you standing on ceremony to support the sinking Bernie Sanders ship is disrespectful to Hillary Clinton. A woman who has spent the vast majority of her life in public service and working on behalf of women, families, and the underserved.
You have called both myself and Michael Kives before about helping your campaign raise money, we no longer trust your judgement so will not be raising money for your campaign.”
Source: Podesta Email, FW: Disappointed
If that doesn’t scream “unity” behind Democrat ideals, I don’t know what does. But I know what screams “hope” in light of a federal government flooded by the Republican Party in every level from the local to the White House: Keith Ellison’s emails. Substance and reflection. Perhaps.
I trust the DNC, without the guidance of those dime-a-dozen progressives, to weave Democrat legislation that will benefit the working class in the United States who complain of “representation”, or the humiliating submission to transnational powers who bleed American citizens in a race to the bottom with impoverished nations or the immense impact of lobbyists who act as brokers between special interests and the Congress. Especially refuse to yield to conflicts of interest that they keep parading in their site.
Update, 1:15 PM: I have learned that Washington Post released headlines, “DNC rolls back Obama ban on contributions from federal lobbyists.” Alternative news? Russian invasion? Third parties? Sexism?
This is a satirical piece; I am shit at satire, okay?
I don’t want to say I am the type of person who enjoys a sudden wave of cognitive collapse in a ‘debate’, but I am not saying I am not.
Though one may fixate on the moral bankruptcies of several Biblical verses such as the God of the Bible condemning the infants of Samaria to death by defenestration (in the lack of better words), socialization prevails for goodness’ sake.Read More »
- It has been eight decades since the last conviction under Section 296, and thirty-five years since the last charge of blasphemous libel was laid;
- Blasphemous libel serves no purpose in Canadian law or modern-day society, and would likely be found to contravene section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which protects freedom of expression;
- In Canada and elsewhere, blasphemy laws have been abused to suppress minorities and stifle inconvenient speech;
- Authoritarian states point to Canada’s blasphemous libel law to defend their own laws criminalizing blasphemy;
- Repealing Canada’s blasphemy law would demonstrate, at home and abroad, Canada’s commitment to the value of free speech for all; and
- Freedom of expression is the foundational human right in our society. Many others, including freedom of assembly and freedom of conscience, are derived from freedom of expression.We, the undersigned, residents of Canada, call upon the Government of Canada to repeal Section 296 (Blasphemous Libel) of the Canadian Criminal Code.”
We must declare Antifa as a domestic terrorist group, the same movement whose darkly clad members raided a peaceful protest in UC Berkeley.
Petitioning the President of the United States and 1 Other
Declare Antifa a Terrorist Organization
Terrorism is, in its broadest sense, the use of intentionally indiscriminate violence as a means to create terror or fear, in order…
According to the New York Times and SFGate, Milo Yiannopoulos’s scheduled appearance at the University of California at Berkeley last night, sponsored by the College Republicans, was canceled after initially peaceful protests turned violent. The situation isn’t completely clear, but it looks as if “outside agitators” (i.e., non-students) attacked police barricades, threw paint, and then went on […]