#but Conservative Media absolutely has to include a progressive to mock

[starfieldcanvas]

my working definition of conservatism is "the belief that there should be a group the law protects but does not bind, and a group the law binds but does not protect." and that, too, lends itself very well to stories about protagonists who bend the rules to get things done while the narrative makes it clear it's okay because they're the good guys.

fiction in general lends itself very well to a kind of exaggerated 'fundamental attribution error'—we're inside the protagonist's situation and understand why they make the choices they do, we're rooting for them to manipulate the system or get their well-deserved revenge or whatever, but when enemy characters get ahead or get revenge on the protagonist etc etc, they inevitably come off as less deserving of our empathy. when the poor character suddenly becomes rich and can now ruin the lives of the service workers who looked down on her, we aren't stopping to think "hmm, this system where rich people get to order others around is pretty fucked up, nobody should be allowed to do that to service workers," we're just cheering because the correct person now has the power in the situation.

naturally in the moment it feels great! we know for a fact this is The Protagonist, the good character! she won't misuse the power, just threaten people with it a little when they really for sure deserve it! she's a perfect candidate for a law that protects and does not bind! buuuuut of course that designation doesn't exist in real life. which makes "reward the Good Characters" a spectacularly shitty way to run a country.

in real life, hurting someone doesn't become good just because you can point to a reason they deserve it. in real life, having one set of rules for the 'good guys' and another set of rules for the 'bad guys' is how you get boeing executing its whistleblowers while luigi mangione is charged with terrorism.

ok. so we're accustomed to this baseline level of good guy-bad guy double standard in our media, and that makes room for conservative messages. then what's the difference between media with a conservative message and Conservative Bad Art?

my theory is that when the basic underlying assumption of "empathize more with the protagonist and their cause than you do with the antagonists" becomes "empathize ONLY with the protagonist, everyone else is just trying to destroy the status quo for no real reason", as it does in conservative media that's trying to be conservative—especially religious conservative media where progressive belief is indirectly (or directly!) attributed to Satan!—it tends to ruin the audience's suspension of disbelief.

"sure global warming is bad and is killing the planet, but these environmentalists are trying to fight back by stealing alien technology to blow up chicago! they've gone too far!" is a conservative message in a mainstream movie plot. by contrast, "the environment is totally fine actually! these environmentalists are stealing alien technology to blow up chicago simply because they hate how much Americans love capitalism!" is a conservative fever dream. trying to turn a conservative fever dream into Art That Owns The Libs will not work. the disconnect from how motivations actually work in real life is too great and everything will inevitably feel forced and unsatisfying.

plenty of people with conservative mindsets are still good students of character, good enough to model human behavior fairly well in fictional works—even when they're coming to the wrong conclusions about the causes for that behavior, even when they don't really see their marginalized characters as equal to their privileged ones. as long as they're paying attention to real human interaction, real human history, etc, and trying to capture it as best they can, they'll turn out compelling works.

it's when your commitment to your ideology supercedes your commitment to modeling the reality of human behavior that the quality of your work begins to degrade noticeably.

There's currently a few videos going around tiktok trying to answer the question of why conservatives can't make good art and I think that the premise there isn't necessarily true. Lots of conservatives have made good art, and a lot of that art even has pretty blatant conservative messaging it in. But I think people who say this are getting at something in the sense that whenever a conservative idealogue makes art that is designed specifically to reinforce their conservatives views to a similarly oriented audience, those works are almost universally abysmal dogshit. Like the first Ghostbusters movie works better as conservative propaganda than like... Idk, God's Not Dead, because the people who made Ghostbusters didn't sit down to be like "hmmm how can we really own the libs with this one" like that instinct is what actually destroys the quality of a work

[chubbycaucasianchristiancloseted]

Again I hate to quote conservative media outlets. However it’s difficult to find any other article that referenced this actual incident.

Again I hate to quote conservative media outlets. However it’s difficult to find any other article that referenced this actual incident. I would encourage everyone to watch the actual video within the article. That way you can hear it with your own ears and see with your own eyes.

This slight cognitive incident should have been a sign to the world of what was yet to come. At the time I remember being confused about why he would even acknowledge the press while shopping. It would have caught me off guard and I would have done everything to delay answering the question. The perfect answer would have been “I’ve been recently briefed on the situation and my administration will make a public statement shortly”.

This article also does a great job of addressing the Biden administrations need to call on certain reporters during press conferences. During this entire presidency this has been one of the scariest things to see.

Why won’t progressive, radical democrats require Biden to take a similar cognitive assessment that they pressured Trump to take? It’s because the exam will show impairment for age-related issues that include dementia. I don’t fault the man for taking notes after being recently briefed on an incident. A year after this incident it’s only become more and more obvious of the president’s mental decline.

If any republican president showed this amount of cognitive decline this quickly, articles of impeachment would have already been brought up. 

Direct Quotes

"I'll be in better shape to talk about it – hold on for one second," Biden said, before taking a piece of paper out of his jacket and putting on a pair of glasses. He said he had just been "briefed" on the hack, but still appeared confused by the inquiry.

Social media critics suggested that the scene again proved that Biden's mental capacities are in decline, saying he was "confused" and that the clip was "embarrassing," "pathetic" and "unbelievable." "Absolute disaster," another wrote. Others admitted feeling "sorry" for Biden.

"A convenience store worker challenged Biden more than the WH press corps ever would," added Twitchy writer Doug Powers.

In addition to appearing to struggle through scripts or talking points at multiple press conferences, Biden has been mocked for admitting that he would only be calling on reporters whose names were on the list provided to him by his team, such as he declared at the outset of his solo press conference in Geneva.

"I’ll take your questions, and as usual, folks, they gave me a list of the people I’m going to call on," Biden told the media in attendance. Biden has also been known to snap at the press over the course of his political career, most recently, it seems, in regards to inquiries about Russia. At his Geneva press conference after meeting with Vladimir Putin, Biden raised his voice and pointed fingers at CNN's Kaitlan Collins after she suggested that he was confident the Russian leader may change his behavior following the summit.

"I'm not confident he'll change his behavior," Biden responded. "What in the hell, what do you do all the time?"

Rep. Ronny Jackson, R-Texas, the former White House physician for President Trump, has urged Biden to follow the lead of his predecessor and complete the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) – a 30-point exam that tests for memory impairment for age-related issues, including dementia and cognitive decline.

[snark-isms-blog]

I’ve been thinking about social outrage...

And the way the internet erupted a year ago when Donald Trump won the electoral college, and the presidency of the United States. Today I read an article where people are in utter outrage (commentators as well as media outlets) because our current FLOTUS is cutting back a tree that stands on the White House grounds. For whatever reason, it triggered a memory I have from high school, where I learnt a lot about social outrage.  It was in 2004 - I would have been in Grade 10, and the world was watching the US election to see if George W. Bush would serve a second term. My social studies teacher decided to hold a mock election to teach us about the electoral college (I’m Canadian). He wrote down the name of each state and how many electoral votes each state carried. Because there were fewer students than states, each student received at least 2 slips of paper. I had Florida and Utah. I can’t recall how our teacher organized it, but I think he had us go from smallest to largest vote, which left me as one of the last to cast my vote. The entire class was enjoying it immensely, myself included. One of the guys in my class cast his votes for the Rhino party, and several jokingly voted for the Republicans. Our teacher kept tally of the votes on the whiteboard so we could watch the progress.  Quick diversion into back story - I was raised in a highly conservative family. My father is highly politically charged, and I grew up with a stay-at-home father who ran an incredibly right-leaning news publication. I was, in my opinion, completely indoctrinated from a very young age to believe certain things, and in high school I was one of the few students who openly claimed conservative political values. I will follow with my current life views after finishing my story. Back to the moment in my memories - When it was my turn to cast my vote for Florida, the class had through their own amused devices made it so that the Republicans and the Democrats were very close to tied. My teacher called the student with Florida to the front of the class, and up I went and cast my vote for the Republican party, securing the win for that party. You should have heard the outrage in that classroom. The entire room was shrieking that it wasn’t fair, and that my vote shouldn’t count.  This is the moment I will never forget. My teacher gave me a look, of shame, apology, and guilt, and cast the vote for the Democrats instead. I have his face in that moment seared into my memory, because he knew what he was doing was wrong. I got sent back to my seat, and it was never spoken of again.  That day, I learned some hard lessons. That instance (and others quite like it) embittered me at a very young age. I learned that people act in their own self-interest no matter what the reward. My teacher gained nothing by sabotaging my choice, and in fact could have used that class as a teaching moment to teach the whole class that decisions have consequences, and if you don’t take your decisions seriously, then someone who does take it seriously instead will get what they want at your expense. Instead he decided to teach me that no one is above their own wish fulfillment. He taught me that I could be exposed to ridicule and contempt from my peers with no protection from the people in authority who weren’t supposed to let those things happen. It also taught me that social outrage trumps personal beliefs every time.  Today, I am not a conservative. My life views have shifted to a place where I am incredibly moderate - I don’t hold either the moral values that conservatives believe in, or the way that liberals choose to handle financial matters. Both parties are deeply flawed and polarized, and I can’t and won’t cast a vote for either. However I believe to my very core that the amount of virulence, contempt and outright hatred that the left subjects any conservative-leaning individual to is absolutely inappropriate. Social outrage is a tool that people use to shame them into toeing the line, but that doesn’t translate into action, and all it does is create hostility. Bush won the second election, then Obama, and then after his two terms, we thought for sure our social outrage was a key component to ensuring that Trump would never win the presidency. The roar of surprise and hatred on the internet the day after the votes were counted in November 2016 reminded me of that day in high school, and in fact parallels so strongly for me that I can hardly bear it - the popular vote was for Hillary, but Trump won the college. Likewise in my class, the class was obviously mostly Democrat, but because of whatever hubris caused them to cast their votes against the Dems, the Republicans won the electoral college.  Tell me, where is the demand for electoral reform? There is so much outrage over Trump’s vacation time, and Christmas cards, and yet I don’t see the one phrase that would ensure that this farce of an election never happens again - “Get rid of the electoral college”. All this outrage does is fuel the hostilities but doesn’t harness it into any positive or meaningful change. And our children are being subjected to it, for the crime of being born to parents who hold certain beliefs that aren’t socially acceptable. I was one of those children, and it has left marks in me that shouldn’t be there. My only hope is that one person reads this and considers that maybe there is a grain of truth in this story. I don’t want to change anyone’s mind about right vs left, right vs wrong, or any of it. I just wanted to share this memory and hopefully purge the sting I still feel from my psyche. 

tl,dr; my high school teacher staged a mock us election and when i would have cast the winning vote for the republican party took my vote away from me and embittered me forever (well not really but sorta)

[marcjampole]

FCC enables more media consolidation. The result will be less real news.

We typically blame the decline of the news media in the 21st century on one of two factors: the growth of the Internet as a 24/7 source of news and the proliferation of fake and false news.

But given much less attention is the consolidation of news media and news-gathering operations. It used to be that the federal government had strict regulations about the number of radio and television stations any company could own and forbade ownership of both newspapers and broadcast stations in the same town. Even when single newspapers came to dominate many towns, there were typically many different organizations searching for and presenting the local and national news. A series of laws and new regulations over the past 35 years—aka the Reagan Era—has consolidated media ownership.

The key law was the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which enabled companies to own more stations. Larger companies bought smaller ones and suddenly instead of hundreds of owners of TV and radio stations across the country, there were only dozens.  We saw the impact on radio as Clear Channel, and recently Sinclair Broadcasting, and other companies owned by right-wingers gained control of the editorial policies of more and more stations.  Pretty soon the range of opinion on radio narrowed and moved extremely right. While Rush Limbaugh began making a name for himself before 1996, it was the consolidation of media ownership that led to the domination of talk radio by Rush and his clones—Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Michael Medved, ad nauseum.

Last week, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) took a major step in making the problem worse by voting to allow a single company to own both print and broadcast media in the same town. The FCC also voted to increase the number of TV stations one company can own in any given market. It was a close vote, 3-2, on party lines. Don’t be embarrassed if OpEdge is the first you’ve heard of this awful decision. It received very little coverage; the New York Times buried the news on page two of the business section.

The Obama Administration FCC also announced its intentions to end the restriction on ownership of both print and broadcast media in 2011, but eventually backed down. This time, under its brand new Trump-blessed FCC chairman, Ajit Pai, an Obama appointee to the FCC known for his pro-broadcasting industry views, the FCC has made good on the threat.

The rationales today and in 2017 are similar: That local media needs to consolidate to be able to compete against the giants of Facebook and Google. Pai, for example, has argued that local media companies would have a better chance to compete against Internet behemoths by combining local market resources.

The argument is completely specious for two reasons. First of all, most broadcast stations and daily/weekly newspapers are already owned by large chains. It’s not the case that the various media in Cincinnati will join forces to do one great job on local news. Instead, one national giant that also controls Toledo, Ohio, Syracuse, New York and four dozen other localities will end up owning all the media in Cincinnati. The new rule will surely lead to ever greater concentration of media outlets in the hands of fewer companies.

The second problem with Pai’s argument is the confusion of news-gathering with news media. Despite the alarming decrease in the number of daily newspapers over the past few decades, the number of absolute media outlets has increased: Internet news sites, cable news and specialty weekly and monthly pubs have more than made up for the decline in newspapers.

The problem is that while media outlets have increased, news-gathering on both the local and national level has decreased, as recent studies by the Pew Foundation and the FCC . And consolidation of media outlets is a major cause. When a company buys more than one newspaper, it can use the same news-gathering staff for all the news, except for the news that pertains to each newspaper’s particular readership, something most often defined by locality. All the newspapers in the Gannet or Tribune chains get the same national and international news and columnists. But each local paper has to find its own local news, typically in competition with the three or four local TV stations, the local business paper and the local alternative weekly.

Now that a single company is allowed to own all of these local properties, the company will be stronger, but primarily because it is able to cut costs through using the same news room to cover stories. The impact on overall news production will be horrific: Instead or more editorial boards deciding what is newsworthy, one will. Instead of three or more points of view on a story, there will be only one. Instead of three or more sets of reporters trying to dig deeper, only one will—that is, on those stories that the editors and business sides decide is worthy of delving. Instead of three or more sets of opinions on local issues, only one. Finally, instead of three or more organizations with ties to differing networks of national and international news gathering, there will be but one. The result will be less reporting.

Instead of actual reporting, what we’ll see once large media companies start buying up local properties is more of the same filler that has been replacing real news for the past 15 years or so, including more opinion pieces like this blog; more coverage of celebrities and sports; more repackaged how-to’s and advice columns; more part-and-parcel use of news release, fact sheets and “articles” produced by the government, rightwing think tanks, large companies and public relations firms; and more “sponsored” news reports, which are advertisements pretending to be news.

If the FCC and the current administration really cared about freedom of the press and creating a stronger marketplace of ideas, instead of allowing companies to buy more media properties, it would implement regulations and put pressure on Congressional leaders to break up the media industry oligarchy and stop the pilfering of free content that occurs on Facebook and Google News that denies news-producing media outlets needed revenues. Unfortunately, it would take Congressional action to do most of what I’m recommending:

Limit ownership of media properties to a total of 10 properties, including television and radio stations, newspapers, news magazines, cable networks and websites, and push for expedited divestiture by the current media giants.

Prohibit companies from owning more than three cable networks, and make all cable networks provide at least two hours of news coverage a day.

Prohibit companies owning ISPs from also owning media outlets.

Reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine, which used to make every broadcast television and radio outlet to devote some airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. The Fairness Doctrine was the law of the land from 1949 until 1987, when the Reagan FCC voted to end it.

Allocate billions of dollars in aid to nonprofit or small for-profit media outlets to produce original reporting and fund it at least partially by taxing social media services and Internet service providers (ISPs) like Spectrum and FIOS for their “free use” of news.

Legalize strict principles of journalistic ethics and start to prosecute journalists and media company executives for knowingly disseminating fake and false news. I propose to walk a fine line between censorship and responsible reporting. But by focusing exclusively on the reporting of facts and not the spouting of opinions, I think we can protect true freedom of the press.

I am not very optimistic about any of my recommendations being pursued by either a Republican or Democratic administration and Congress. Politicians of both parties have cozy relationships with the mainstream news media and conservative ones seem not to mind that so much in the rightwing media is false or fake news. Thus we face an ironic future in which there are many ways to access the same limited and somewhat flawed set of facts and conjectures about current events, society and government activity.

We like to conceive of history as a steady progress of human ingenuity solving problems and bringing an ever higher standard and quality of life to more and more people. But our 10,000 years of recorded history has seen many eras in which people were far worse off economically than the decades and centuries before, for example, during the 300 year transition from medieval times to the industrial revolution during which the world experienced the “Little Ice Age.”

In the same way, we have not seen steady progress in the spread of knowledge. After the death of Charlemagne, for example, Europe entered a centuries-long epoch in which scientific knowledge and literacy declined and intellectual activity retreated into monasteries.

It seems to me that America is are entering another intellectual dark age, in which people in general will know less, be able to reason less effectively and have less access to the gamut of human knowledge, from science to the arts. It’s not just the consolidation of the media and the decline in the number of news-gathering operations that is driving the drift towards ignorance. The large number of ideologically inclined think tanks churning out false research. The gradual starving of public schools. The increased involvement of for-profit corporations both in operating schools and in supplying material such as learning guides to public and private schools. The blurring of the distinction between the entertainment and news divisions of media companies and between advertising and news. The politicization of text books. The denial of basic scientific facts by one of our two major parties. The continued glorification of celebrity and mocking of intellectual achievement in the mass media. Virtually every trend in the marketplace of ideas is making Americans less educated, less informed and less capable of sifting through assertions and understanding which are reliably factual information and which are sheer nonsense.

[mcdouglecompany-blog]

Prager University Part 35 and YAF Playlist.

Prager University Part 35 and YAF Playlist.

Who Does the Media Most Want to Silence?

Was Jesus a Socialist?

D-Day

National Debt: Who Cares?

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is Wrong About the Minimum Wage

The Best Book to Read to Your Kids

Happy Birthday, America!

Also included- Young Americas Foundation Playlist #TruthStraightUp

  Who Does the Media Most Want to Silence?

https://youtu.be/BP1akIYj_FM

PragerU

In the mainstream media, women on the left are almost always portrayed as paragons of compassion and virtue. But when it comes to conservative women, it’s a different story. Why is this? Heather Higgins, chairman of Independent Women's Forum and CEO of Independent Women's Voice, explains the reasons behind the double standard.  For more information on Independent Women's Forum visit IWF.org.  Published on Jun 10, 2019

Script: Who's the first woman appointed to the Supreme Court? My guess is that most Americans would answer: Ruth Bader Ginsburg. She’s so famous now that she is often referred to just by her initials—RBG. Elevated to the high court by President Bill Clinton in 1993, the left-leaning Justice Ginsburg was the subject of not one, but two movies in 2018 alone. But she isn’t the first female Supreme Court justice. She’s the second. The first doesn’t have a movie named after her. That’s because Sandra Day O’Connor was appointed by a Republican president, Ronald Reagan. We hear a lot about “the year of the woman,” “the women’s march,” and “the war against women.” But if the major media—the New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN, CBS and others—were more interested in accuracy than advocacy, it would be that they are promoting “the year of leftist woman” or “the leftist women’s march.” The major media like to pretend that all women think alike and that conservative women are just the exception that proves the rule. But according to a 2018 Pew Research study, about a third of women are Democrats; a little less than a third are Republican; and a little more than a third are independents. So if there are all these conservative women around, how does the media make it seem like they barely exist? They use three strategies. The first is Omission: If you don’t see something, you don’t have to deal with it. Open up a glossy magazine. Every liberal woman is glamorized. Stylishly dressed, beautifully photographed, their personal stories are almost always an inspirational version of Joan of Arc: they have overcome overwhelming obstacles to make the world a more compassionate and tolerant place. Glamour magazine recognized eleven Democrat women among their 2018 Women of the Year. No Republican made the cut. First Lady Michelle Obama was on the cover of Vogue three times. First Lady and former fashion model Melania Trump? So far, not once. Every now and again, the major media will do a story about a female conservative to “balance things out.” But, let’s be honest, it’s not balance—it’s tokenism. The second strategy the media uses to diminish conservative women is Mocking: Making fun of a woman’s appearance discounts what she says. You would think the major media would resist this kind of objectification. But they don’t. Not if the target is a conservative woman. Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the White House press secretary, and Kellyanne Conway, the first woman to run a winning presidential campaign, are routinely belittled for their hair, their eye makeup, or their weight. Their significant accomplishments, in contrast, are rarely acknowledged. Why? Because the media doesn’t like their boss. And it treats women who work for him as traitors to their sex. The third strategy the media uses to demean conservative women is Labeling: Using stereotypes precludes there being a valid reason for conservative women to hold the positions they do. The major media simply can’t accept that conservatives have serious and important reasons for their beliefs. So they have to come up with answers to explain this seeming anomaly to themselves: these women must be racist or self-hating or just weak-minded. For the complete script, visit https://www.prageru.com/video/who-doe...

  Donate today to PragerU! http://l.prageru.com/2eB2p0h To view the script, sources, quiz, and study guides, visit https://www.prageru.com/video/who-doe... VISIT PragerU! https://www.prageru.com Get PragerU bonus content for free! https://www.prageru.com/bonus-content Join Prager United to get new swag every quarter, exclusive early access to our videos, and an annual TownHall phone call with Dennis Prager! http://l.prageru.com/2c9n6ys Join PragerU's text list to have these videos, free merchandise giveaways and breaking announcements sent directly to your phone! https://optin.mobiniti.com/prageru Do you shop on Amazon? Click https://smile.amazon.com and a percentage of every Amazon purchase will be donated to PragerU. Same great products. Same low price. Shopping made meaningful. FOLLOW us! Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/prageru Twitter: https://twitter.com/prageru Instagram: https://instagram.com/prageru/ PragerU is on Snapchat! JOIN PragerFORCE! For Students: http://l.prageru.com/2aozfkP JOIN our Educators Network! http://l.prageru.com/2aoz2y9

  Was Jesus a Socialist?

https://youtu.be/i9EXnVitkmo

PragerU

Published on Jul 8, 2019

Did Jesus support socialism? Do the teachings of Jesus Christ condemn the accumulation of wealth while pushing for the equal distribution of resources? Lawrence Reed, president of the Foundation for Economic Education, explains the misconceptions surrounding one of history’s greatest figures.

Script: Was Jesus a socialist? Well, if socialism is nothing more than being kind to other people, then you might think the answer is yes. But you can be kind to other people and be a capitalist. John D. Rockefeller probably gave away more money than anyone in human history, and he was certainly a capitalist. Bill Gates and Warren Buffet have given away millions, too. To get an accurate answer to our question, we need to define socialism. Socialism is the concentration of power into the hands of government elites to achieve the following purposes: central planning of the economy and the radical redistribution of wealth. Jesus never called for any of that. Nowhere in the New Testament does he advocate for the government to punish the rich—or even to use tax money to help the poor. Nor does he promote the ideas of state ownership of businesses or central planning of the economy. In Luke 12, Jesus is confronted by a man who wants him to redistribute wealth. “Master,” the man says to Jesus, “tell my brother to divide the inheritance with me.” Jesus replies, “Man, who made me a judge or divider over you?” and then he rebukes the man for being envious of his sibling. How about Jesus’s Parable of the Talents (talents were a form of money in Jesus’s day)? A man entrusted three of his workers with his wealth. The two who invested the money and made a profit were praised and the one who buried his share so he wouldn’t lose any of it was reprimanded. Sounds a lot more like an endorsement for capitalism than socialism, doesn’t it? Yes, Jesus spoke of the difficulty for a rich man to enter Heaven, but not because having money is evil. It’s not money; rather, it is the love of money, the New Testament tells us, that leads to evil. Jesus was warning us not to put acquisition of money and material possessions above our spiritual and moral lives. Was Jesus promoting a socialist model when he kicked the “moneychangers” out of the Temple in Jerusalem? Again, the answer is no. Note the location where the incident occurred: it was in the holiest of places—God’s house. Jesus was not angry at buying and selling in and of themselves; he was angry that these things happened in a house of prayer. He never drove a “moneychanger” from a marketplace or from a bank. Jesus advises us to be of “generous spirit”—to show kindness, to assist the widow and the orphan. But he clearly means this to be our responsibility, not the government’s. Consider Jesus’s Good Samaritan story. A traveler comes upon a man at the side of a road. The man had been beaten and robbed and left half-dead. What did the traveler, the Good Samaritan, do? He helps the unfortunate man on the spot, with his own resources. Ask yourself: To help the poor, would Jesus prefer that you give your money freely to the Salvation Army, for example, or have it taxed by politicians to fund a welfare bureaucracy? Progressives like to point out that Jesus said, “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.” But that has absolutely nothing to do with high taxes or wealth redistribution. It was the seed for the idea of separating church and state. It certainly wasn’t the same as saying that whatever Caesar says is his must then be so, no matter how much he demands or what he intends to use it for. For the complete script, visit https://www.prageru.com/video/was-jes...

Donate today to PragerU! http://l.prageru.com/2eB2p0h To view the script, sources, quiz, and study guides, visit https://www.prageru.com/video/was-jes... VISIT PragerU! https://www.prageru.com Join Prager United to get new swag every quarter! http://l.prageru.com/2c9n6ys Join PragerU's text list to have these videos, free merchandise giveaways and breaking announcements sent directly to your phone! https://optin.mobiniti.com/prageru Do you shop on Amazon? Click https://smile.amazon.com and a percentage of every Amazon purchase will be donated to PragerU. Same great products. Same low price. Shopping made meaningful. FOLLOW us! Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/prageru Twitter: https://twitter.com/prageru Instagram: https://instagram.com/prageru/ PragerU is on Snapchat! JOIN PragerFORCE! For Students: http://l.prageru.com/2aozfkP JOIN our Educators Network! http://l.prageru.com/2aoz2y9

  D-Day

https://youtu.be/pHsAmOR5m00

PragerU

Published on May 27, 2019

On June 6, 1944, Allied forces stormed the beaches of Normandy in northern France. Their goal: to liberate Western Europe from Nazi tyranny. From a distance, it might seem that victory was pre-ordained, but no one felt that way at the time. British military historian Peter Caddick-Adams tells the incredible story of what happened on that monumental day.

Script: There were 36,525 days in the twentieth century. Of these, none was more consequential than June 6th, 1944. D-Day: the Allied invasion of Normandy in Nazi-occupied France. It did not end World War II, but without it, the Nazi war machine would not and could not have been defeated. We, of course, know the good guys – America, England and its allies – won. But in 1944, there was no certainty of success. In fact, there was just as much doubt as confidence. Winston Churchill’s senior advisor, Field Marshal Brooke, wrote in his diary, “I am very uneasy about the whole operation. It may well be the most ghastly disaster of the whole war.” Brooke’s fears were entirely reasonable. First there were tens of thousands of men and millions of tons of material and supplies that had to be moved one hundred miles across one of roughest bodies of water in the world – the English Channel. And it had to be kept secret. If the Germans knew where and when the allies were landing, they could mass forces against them and turn the beaches of northern France into killing fields. To prevent this, the Allies took every possible precaution. Their air forces destroyed bridges, roads and railways that might be used by the Germans to rush troops to the invasion site. Everyone knew the attack was coming; the key was to keep the Germans guessing. Fake radio chatter was broadcast to suggest the beaches near Calais would be the landing point. Double agents leaked fake details of units forming in South East England. And movie set designers built phony tanks, planes and ships to support the ruse of an army preparing to cross near Dover for the benefit of German reconnaissance pilots and spies. The Germans swallowed it all. But the Nazis were not the only enemy the Allied forces faced. Mother Nature was just as threatening. The 23,000 paratroopers and glider-borne infantry jumping into Normandy needed moderate winds to be effective. The twelve thousand Allied aircraft needed clear skies. The invasion fleet of six thousand vessels needed calm seas. And there had to be a low tide to expose Nazi obstacles and mines. When high winds and rain began pummeling the Channel, Allied supreme commander General Dwight Eisenhower postponed the invasion date of June 5th by twenty-four hours. That might not sound like a significant delay, but it was. All forces were concentrated and ready to go. All the plans, all the deceptions, could be exposed at any moment. Then came a new forecast. The weather appeared to be breaking. There might be a 12-hour window of opportunity. Eisenhower gave the order: We go. Immediately, the greatest invasion fleet ever assembled set sail. On board were over 130,000 young soldiers. Consider for a moment who these soldiers were. The average age of the American GI was 21. Most had never seen combat or even been fifty miles from their hometown. As they sailed toward the French shoreline, Eisenhower wrote a press release in case of catastrophe. D-Day was an all-or-nothing affair. A new invasion strategy would take months, if not years, to devise. For the complete script, visit https://www.prageru.com/video/d-day

Donate today to PragerU! http://l.prageru.com/2eB2p0h To view the script, sources, quiz, and study guides, visit https://www.prageru.com/video/d-day VISIT PragerU! https://www.prageru.com Get PragerU bonus content for free! https://www.prageru.com/bonus-content Join Prager United to get new swag every quarter, exclusive early access to our videos, and an annual TownHall phone call with Dennis Prager! http://l.prageru.com/2c9n6ys Join PragerU's text list to have these videos, free merchandise giveaways and breaking announcements sent directly to your phone! https://optin.mobiniti.com/prageru Do you shop on Amazon? Click https://smile.amazon.com and a percentage of every Amazon purchase will be donated to PragerU. Same great products. Same low price. Shopping made meaningful. FOLLOW us! Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/prageru Twitter: https://twitter.com/prageru Instagram: https://instagram.com/prageru/ PragerU is on Snapchat! JOIN PragerFORCE! For Students: http://l.prageru.com/2aozfkP JOIN our Educators Network! http://l.prageru.com/2aoz2y9

  National Debt: Who Cares?

https://youtu.be/tBb6Dh234TE

PragerU

Published on Jun 17, 2019

The U.S. national debt is massive – so massive that most Americans cannot comprehend it, much less solve it. But a crisis is looming, and a day of reckoning that will affect every American is coming. The Manhattan Institute’s Brian Riedl explains how we got here and what you can do about it.

Script: In the 1958 movie, The Blob, starring a young Steve McQueen, a giant, expanding mass—a blob—threatens to destroy an entire town and everyone in it. It keeps growing and growing, and no one can stop it. The United States debt is like that blob. Unlike the fictional blob, it threatens to destroy more than an entire town; it threatens the entire nation. Where is Steve McQueen when you need him? Here are some numbers. The national debt currently stands at $22 trillion dollars. That’s trillion—with a ‘T.’ Ten years ago, it was $10 trillion dollars. Ten years from now, it’s projected to be $34 trillion. The interest payment on our debt is currently $300 billion dollars per year, heading towards a projected $1 trillion dollars within a decade. At that point, a fifth of all federal taxes will go towards the interest on the debt, not education, infrastructure, and defense—you know, the stuff government is supposed to do. And that’s with historically low interest rates. Imagine if those rates normalized. Well, maybe you don’t want to imagine it because that picture is very dark. In a better world, voters would be marching on Washington, demanding that our politicians dig us out of this hole before we’re buried in it. In the real world… almost no one cares. But we should care. And any thinking person, left or right, understands why. No individual and no nation can accumulate debt indefinitely. Europe was able to bail out Greece with some loans a few years ago. But Greece is a small country. If the US goes ‘boom,’ there’s going to be no one to bail us out. So what’s driving the debt? And, more importantly, how do we drive ourselves out of it? The debt has been growing for decades. It got supercharged by the 2008 recession. Revenues fell while spending soared. Under President Obama, the debt doubled from $10 trillion dollars to $20 trillion. In the first two years of the Trump Administration, we’ve added another $2 trillion dollars. So what are we to do? First, we need to identify the primary source of the problem. It’s pretty basic. You can talk about defense spending, welfare spending, or bloated budgets all you want, but it really comes down to two programs: Social Security and Medicare. Unless we get a handle on these monsters, the debt blob will continue to expand until it overwhelms us. According to data from the Congressional Budget Office, these two programs alone face a $100 trillion-dollar shortfall over the next three decades. How is that possible? Well, for starters, you’ve got 74 million Baby Boomers rolling into retirement age—10,000 a day. On top of that, Medicare recipients typically receive benefits that are triple the size of what they paid into the system. Without some serious adjustments, these programs are going to fail. This is not the fault of retirees. It is simple demographics and math. Paying all promised benefits would require either raising the payroll tax from its current 15.3% to 33% or imposing a 34% national sales tax. No—squeezing the rich, slashing defense, or eliminating welfare won’t come close to paying the bill. Neither will any plausible level of economic growth. The $100 trillion-dollar hole is too big. For the complete script, visit https://www.prageru.com/video/nationa...

    Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is Wrong About the Minimum Wage

https://youtu.be/xYjfunBsk94

PragerU

Published on Jun 5, 2019

Economists everywhere agree: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is wrong about raising the minimum wage. Looks like AOC should study up a bit. Never miss a new video: https://www.prageru.com/join/

  The Best Book to Read to Your Kids

https://youtu.be/Fu6rrHAW-Io

PragerU

Published on Jun 24, 2019

What is the best book to read to your children? Which book most effectively conveys the values of love, compassion, hard work, justice, and virtue, and has the added benefit of endurance throughout history? Johnnie Moore, founder and CEO of The Kairos Company, explains the reasons why this longtime bestseller is the one every parent and child should read together.

Script: There’s a book you can read to your children that will make your job as a parent a lot easier. This book will teach them lessons in character, how to distinguish right from wrong; about gratitude, respect and perseverance. And that’s in the opening chapters! Parents have been reading this book to their children for a very long time. It’s one reason it’s a perpetual best-seller. This book, of course, is the Bible, and you don’t have to be religious to read it. And your kids don’t have to be religious to enjoy it and get a whole lot out of it. Decency, kindness, charity, selflessness and sacrifice — they’re all right there. Consider the story of David and Goliath. Nine feet tall, clad in armor, Goliath is the most fearsome warrior of his day. How could he not be? He’s nine feet tall, for goodness sake! Who wants to go against a giant like that? No Israelite, that’s for sure… except for one. A skinny shepherd boy named David. This boy has three things going for him – courage, a sling shot and faith that God is with him. As he strides out onto the battlefield to face Goliath in single combat, he holds the future of the Israelite nation, not to mention his own life, in his hands. Wrapped up in all of this tension and drama are valuable lessons that any child can profit from. David refuses to be intimidated by a bully. He’s willing to act; to show resolve even in the face of his own self-doubt. His actions paint a portrait of true heroism in the face of true danger. Isn’t that the kind of strength we want our children to emulate – to be able defend themselves and, later, their families, and their country? Or how about the story of the brothers, Cain and Abel? Abel, the shepherd, looks at his lot and he’s …filled with gratitude for his blessings. He offers as a gift to God the very best of his flock. Cain, the farmer, is selfish, unsatisfied with what he has, and he offers only a paltry gift of grain. When God favors Abel’s present, Cain allows jealousy to overwhelm him. God speaks to Cain and tells him, ‘I know you’re feeling angry, but you can overcome those feelings and master them.’ Cain doesn’t listen, doesn’t control his jealousy—and kills Abel. When God asks Cain: “Where is Abel your brother?” Cain lies and says, “I do not know,” and then: “Am I my brother’s keeper?” “Yes” should have been Cain’s answer to his own question. We are responsible for ourselves and we have an obligation to others. We all have emotions and passions. But God has given us the tools to master those emotions. And master them we must if we are live a productive and ethical life. Most important of all, life is a gift from God. We have no right to take it away from the innocent. Murder is evil. All these lessons are contained in this one story. The stories of David and Goliath and Cain and Abel are only two examples of the many invaluable lessons the Bible offers to children. Think of a lesson and there’s a Bible story to teach it: about family dynamics, friendship, forgiveness, leadership, humility; about what is important and what is not. The Bible also teaches children—more effectively than any book ever—that they are not the center of the universe. They are accountable to their parents and to God. Children who internalize this lesson are much more likely to be kinder and more mindful of how they behave than those who do not. The Bible discourages narcissism. For the complete script, visit https://www.prageru.com/video/the-bes...

  This video was made possible by a generous grant from Colorado Christian University. Learn more at https://www.prageru.com/ccu/ Donate today to PragerU! http://l.prageru.com/2eB2p0h To view the script, sources, quiz, and study guides, visit https://www.prageru.com/video/the-bes... VISIT PragerU! https://www.prageru.com Join Prager United to get new swag every quarter! http://l.prageru.com/2c9n6ys Join PragerU's text list to have these videos, free merchandise giveaways and breaking announcements sent directly to your phone! https://optin.mobiniti.com/prageru Do you shop on Amazon? Click https://smile.amazon.com and a percentage of every Amazon purchase will be donated to PragerU. Same great products. Same low price. Shopping made meaningful. FOLLOW us! Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/prageru Twitter: https://twitter.com/prageru Instagram: https://instagram.com/prageru/ PragerU is on Snapchat! JOIN PragerFORCE! For Students: http://l.prageru.com/2aozfkP JOIN our Educators Network! http://l.prageru.com/2aoz2y9

    Happy Birthday, America!

https://youtu.be/uY6gymu_x5s

PragerU

Published on Jul 2, 2019

America is exceptional. In honor of our country's national independence, here are a few things the United States has given the world. Happy Birthday, America! Never miss a new video: https://www.prageru.com/join/

    Young Americas Foundation Playlist #TruthStraightUp

https://www.youtube.com/user/YAFTV

  The hard truth about Islam ft. Robert Spencer | #TruthStraightUp

How Trump beats the media ft. Larry O'Connor | #TruthStraightUp

America is a Christian nation ft. Dinesh D'Souza | #TruthStraightUp

The five pillars of prosperity ft. Art Laffer | #TruthStraightUp

Stop punishing boys for being boys ft. Christina Hoff Sommers | #TruthStraightUp

How the Left is stealing your liberties ft. Walter Williams | #TruthStraightUp

Why conservatives should be pro-life ft. Allie Stuckey | #TruthStraightUp

How the Left ruined manliness ft. Michael Knowles | #TruthStraightUp

Free speech is for everyone ft. Todd Starnes | #TruthStraightUp

How to debate liberals ft. Liz Wheeler | #TruthStraightUp

Choose freedom, not socialism ft. Michael Reagan | #TruthStraightUp

What makes America exceptional ft. Dinesh D'Souza | #TruthStraightUp

The problem with safe spaces ft. Ben Shapiro | #TruthStraightUp

#TruthStraightUp: Nothing but the facts

YAFTV- https://www.youtube.com/user/YAFTV

  #TruthStraightUp continues with new episodes each week!

Watch more #onlyatYAF videos every day!

Click now to connect with us on Facebook: http://facebook.com/youngamericasfoun...

-------------------------------------------------------------------- 

HELP ACU SPREAD THE WORD!

Please send to friends, post on Facebook, twitter, etc…

Over 3,000 commercial free archived shows are available on our podcast site here.  

  Ways to subscribe to the American Conservative University Podcast

Click here to subscribe via iTunes

Click here to subscribe via RSS

You can also subscribe via Stitcher

You can also subscribe via SoundCloud

If you like this episode head on over to iTunes and kindly leave us a rating, a review and subscribe! People find us through our good reviews.

  FEEDBACK + PROMOTION

You can ask your questions, make comments, submit ideas for shows and lots more. Let your voice be heard.

Download our FREE iOS App.

Download our FREE Android App.

Email us at americanconservativeuniversity@americanconservativeuniversity.com

Note- ACU Students and Alumni are asked to commit to donating Platelets.  Make an Appointment Today! Call The Red Cross at 1-800-733-2767

Click here to download the episode

[citizentruth-blog]

'To Live and Die in Manila', Documenting Music's Defiance to Duterte's Drug War

We caught up with Angela Stephenson, the director behind To Live and Die in Manila (which you can watch free below), Boiler Room’s new short documentary on President Rodrigo Duterte’s brutal authoritarianism and extra-judicial killings in the Philippines and the artists who oppose it using their creative output. Since becoming president of the Philippines in 2016, Rodrigo Duterte’s war on drugs has caused widespread fear and devastation across Manila. Set in one of the world’s most dangerous cities, To Live and Die in Manila gives a vital voice to the musicians putting their life on the line for their right to showcase creativity that their country associates with drug crimes punishable by death. After coming to power with an anti-crime campaign that pledged to slaughter thousands in a national crackdown (where he also compared himself to Hitler), Duterte and his sanction on extrajudicial killings raised the alarm of global human rights watchdogs in 2016. Two years on, its death toll is reportedly over 20,000, with DIY executions committed by police and citizens alike. The targets of Duterte's "narco-state" are all those taking part or suspected of taking part in illegal drug activity. Fear has skyrocketed within underground creative communities due to their assumed ties to drug culture. To Live and Die In Manila documents the lives of musicians and artists surviving under these conditions.  Manila-born artists Eyedress, Owfuck, BP Valenzuela, Teenage Granny and Jeona Zoleta share their musical inspiration, their unique methods of production, their thoughts on the city they call home, and their fears of possible death. Enjoy the interview and To Live and Die in Manila below. There’s a lot of lessons to be learned from what is happening in the Philippines. You can also watch the short documentary itself at the end of the interview.

INTERVIEW

Hello Angela! To start things off here, what initially inspired you on this project? The artists in the film and the burgeoning music scene in Manila is what drove me to document what was going on at this particular point in time. They are all not only talented and deserved a platform to share their music with the world, but were vocal in expressing their concerns about the war on drugs and how it’s seeped into their collective consciousness. It’s both sad and kind of refreshing at the same time to see these youthful voices speaking out against the authoritarianism of Duterte. Yet, I suspect there are many more insidious and creeping effects behind his drug war than most people would think of. One thing I’m curious about there, what do you think the effects have been on freedom of expression in the Philippines in particular? I want to be able to say that there is still freedom of speech right now, but like with a lot of other places in the world currently, public opinion is extremely polarised. It means that you can say what you want, but if you go against the grain, people are going to tear you to shreds and they won’t be forgiving about it. Not unlike the US now. People are defensive when it comes to this current regime, a lot of public figures, be that journalists or politicians, have been shut down and even imprisoned in their efforts against it, so I feel like we’re starting to cross into really dangerous territory and it’s quite unsettling to witness. I fear the US may be getting closer to that sort of thing. It’s unfathomable that Duterte has got away with a lot of the statements he’s made. The one at the beginning of To Live and Die in Manila, which was taken from one of his speeches and left intact, is shocking enough, but that’s one of many absurd things that he’s said. It makes no sense that we’re discouraged by other Filipinos to criticise or question those statements, we only have concerns for the progress of the country and what damage he’s doing to the Filipino psyche by treating human beings like they are disposable. So many parallels with Trump. Do you see a larger resistance to Duterte and his drug war building? I believe his popularity rating has gone down in recent months, but I worry for any resistance being ignored and undermined. When you hear news of protests, or see articles that are critical of the government, it’s Filipinos themselves that are quick to dismiss those participants. We are mocked and ridiculed, and expected to fall in line by the majority of Filipinos that support the drug war and are unaffected by it because of their social status, they don’t understand the need for anyone to speak out on behalf of the people that have been killed unjustly. I hope by releasing this film we’re encouraging more and especially young people to continue to participate in public discourse, who need to make sure they’re ready to intelligently defend their opinions if they differ from the majority. It’s an odd thing when you look at places like the USA which are, of course, also dealing with drug issues (and variants of authoritarianism, which I have a question on below) but in many ways are choosing the route of liberalization (state marijuana laws becoming more open for instance) and treating the problem of drug abuse like a public health issue and not a penal one. Although we also dealt with people like former Attorney General Jeff Sessions who did all he could to make drug-related penalties more draconian, really not unlike Duterte, Bolsonaro in Brazil, and Erdogan in Turkey. My question there, what do you think can be done to change the current course in the Philippines? There’s a big problem in Filipino society with classism and prejudice against the poor or anyone who doesn’t fit the average mold. In order for people to sympathize with the victims of the war on drugs, they have to first see those victims as human beings, and the unfortunate reality is that a lot of people in the Philippines don’t. The heinous crimes committed by the people participating in the drug trade need to be addressed without tarring everyone that are also victims of those crimes with the same brush. Instead of engaging with the affected communities and making an effort to understand the social and physical environments that allow people to fall into the trap of poverty or drug addiction, Duterte continues to perpetuate this underlying culture of violence that the Philippines has suffered from at the hands of previous governments, and encourages them to be killed mercilessly without any evidence of wrongdoing. And the problem with that is there are so many innocent people getting caught up in it, children included. As usually happens with these things sadly. If it isn’t children being killed in the crossfire, they’re finding the bodies, and they’re attending the funerals of their friends or parents, there’s long-term damage being done here. It shouldn’t be the responsibility of these struggling communities to police themselves. Those of us that do wish for the country to improve from the ground up, have to continue speaking up for those that don’t have a voice or the means to escape their situation, but we’re up against a very conservative mindset. What should Americans (with Trump and his authoritarian tendencies) learn from A- what’s happening in the Philippines and B- the brave example of the artists in your film in advocating for change? Maria Ressa, a Filipino journalist who has just been named as one of TIME’s people of the year alongside other journalists from around the globe, is finally being recognized for her work in covering the war on drugs, and it’s people like her that we need to protect as well as the artists in this film who are being vocal. Absolutely. I fear that’s getting harder with the war on the press that is, unfortunately, being waged in the US. Ressa explained that ‘the Philippines is a cautionary tale for the United States’. In the case of the Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi who was assassinated, leaders like Trump have been slow to condemn the actions that led to his murder, and he’s not doing enough to say that journalism can continue to be a safe practice, and that’s what’s worrying. Precisely. Khashoggi was based in the US from 2017 onwards, and Ressa is questioning who is the moral leader in this case, who is going to set the right example if world leaders like the US won’t take appropriate action? Profoundly sad and scary. It’s also a scary time in which social media is being weaponized against real journalism, and I think there’s a lesson to learn in how we can protect ourselves from manipulation, companies like Facebook need to start being held accountable for the ways in which they’ve contributed to the problem, for example by failing to manage the fake news that Duterte’s campaign was built on. Indeed. Facebook is still utilized by the current regime to control Filipinos who spend a large part of their time online, I’ve witnessed some of my own family fall victim to it and I feel powerless to stop it. Yeah. The Philippines is actually the top country for social media usage in the world. Put another way with the initial question, with this seeming authoritarian trend worldwide, do you think there is hope on the horizon in finally getting the world in the right direction away from that? The recognition of people like Maria Ressa gives me hope even though her case is a bittersweet one. I don’t know if I could say that we’re going to move away from this trend any time soon, but I think we all need to continue to educate ourselves on the root causes of the issues that some of these authoritarian-leaning leaders are choosing to tackle in misguided ways, we need to learn how to put ourselves in positions to offer positive alternatives and work together towards that. Very well said. What can our readers do to help the artists in the film in their efforts for change? Just showing support helps, and being aware that these artists are in the minority in believing that changes need to be made, they’re still in the minority in believing that the deaths need to stop. Therefore they need to be encouraged to continue speaking out, it’s incredibly disheartening when a lot of people in the country continue to undermine their efforts to create awareness of the truth. Yes, it is. But their example does give some hope. Our final question, what’s next for you? I’m concerned about not being able to go back to the Philippines in the near future, but I would like to continue to make films there. There’s still a lot of aspects of Filipino culture that I’d like to celebrate as well as critique, and I hope to achieve that through either documentaries or narrative films.   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwJJPPVgx7s Read the full article

[anthonybialy]

None or Nothing

Rejecting the notion of absolutes is a favorite hobby of those who loathe dissent.  Well, that doesn't add up.  Everything and everyone is all good or bad in one of the very subtle characterizations of our social media era.  People who use phrases like “My truth” sure think everyone who disagrees is as objectively evil as a straw-user.  Do you regret not being able to punch whales right in the face, you gasoline fan?

It's easier to proclaim divergent opinions as invalid.  We value consistency, right?  And who could be stupid enough to think something that goes against our very smart brains?  The notion of looking at an issue differently is so offensive that it should result in firing.  Please provide your employer's Twitter handle if you don't think so.

There's more dividing ideological foes than issues.  Mean close-minded conservatives think those who disagree are wrong, while same disagreers think everyone else is an orphan-devouring grandma-kicker. The notion that America could use slightly less debt is portrayed as crazed. There's nothing more diabolical than letting people keep their money and sticking to a budget.

Political observers find it uncanny how anyone who disagrees with social justice warriors is monstrous.  That's the byproduct of wanting to see the poor suffer for sport.  Inhuman extremism starts with thinking maybe a few million abortions is a bit too many.  Wait: whose side is that?

True ghouls don't want their Moloch worshipping disrupted.  Brett Kavanaugh is seen as a dastard because of how he sees the Constitution, not for whatever charges his frenzied opponents invented about him leading a rape gang in between kegs.  It's nice to invent an excuse as a measure of respect for protocol.

Applying today's morality to people who didn't get the benefit of decades of societal progress is as fair as yelling at school cafeterias for appropriating culture by serving delicious tacos on Cinco de Mayo. Modern white liberals totally would've sat on the other side of a segregated lunch counter after attending Negro League baseball games. Just ask them.

The commitment to excluding anyone who dares stick to the nation's rulebook is especially annoying for people who mock anyone with standards.  It's certainly courageous on top of the willingness to demonize historical figures. You'd think those who mock Bible-thumpers would be more open about acknowledging that humans can evolve.

Those who constantly smirk about history arcing toward justice or some other such pompous attempt to sound enlightened refuse to accept people in earlier centuries may not have been tolerant enough to condemn dressing as a member of a different culture for Halloween.

Humans can't evolve, claim those who believe our species is perfectible. There's nothing more urgent than to condemn persons who are flawed by purportedly modern standards, including purported civilizational heroes.  Winston Churchill literally defeated Hitler, but that racist jerk deserves our scorn.  We're too busy blaming Christopher Columbus for genocide to appreciate that his penchant for sailing past the horizon got the Western world started. And don't even get me started on slave-owning Founders who wrote this evil Constitution that prevents the miracle of single-payer from being installed.  There's nothing braver than condemning them years later while enjoying the benefits of their accomplishments.

There's nothing subtle like expressing admiration for something from the past means endorsing everything about it.  Bringing up something that went well in America in, say, the 1830s means you're cool with chattel. Modern liberals totally would've stood up to slaveowners.  That commitment to sanctimony is also seen in shrieking at Ted Cruz while he has the nerve to patronize a restaurant.

It's bad enough to hate the guts of anyone who voted differently.  At least laugh about who you despise.  The worst part is how lousy the ideas are of the most strident.  Maniacal social engineering paired with punishing success ensures everyone of every invented gender has to choose between a bus pass and two meals per day.  Note who claims the other side hates health care for sick infants as their communal scheming ensures kids will hit puberty before they're treated.  Maybe time in the waiting room will naturally cure them.

Look to the leader for why the evil Star Trek German parallel dimension has become reality.  The endless resistors have developed a thorough political philosophy based upon noting everything the president does is evil and stupid.  Donald Trump is installing the Fourth Reich, which is especially tricky considering how inept he is.  The incumbent makes George W. Bush look like Barack Obama.  Imagine how brutal the next Republican will be.  Each day of the term will be spent pushing unlucky chosen citizens down elevator shafts.

For now, amuse yourself by noting how often the most strident would agree with Trump's doltish economical meddling were his name not attached. They're not pernicious just because the fail to know how math works.

[365footballorg-blog]

Ray Wilkins: From Mexico to Milan, football says goodbye to 'an absolute gentleman'

Media playback is not supported on this device

Ray Wilkins, who has died aged 61,[1] was one of the most enduring and popular figures of the modern footballing generation.

Wilkins had a successful and nomadic playing career, captaining England on 10 occasions while winning 84 caps and representing clubs of the stature of Chelsea, Manchester United, AC Milan, Paris St-Germain and Rangers with distinction.

He always maintained his closest links with boyhood club Chelsea, serving as a trusted and loyal lieutenant to several managers during the latter years of glory at Stamford Bridge.

From teenage prodigy to Old Trafford

Wilkins’ career was characterised by maturity and dignity, which was recognised early in his time at Chelsea, where he made his debut as a 17-year-old in October 1973 before being awarded the captaincy at just 18 by then manager Eddie McCreadie.

He went on to make his England debut in the Bicentennial Tournament against Italy in New York City in May 1976 and had a burgeoning reputation as one of the young pin-up boys of English football as well as one of its most promising talents.

<!–

Wilkins – who picked up nickname ‘Butch’ in his early career – led a group of emerging Chelsea youngsters back into the top flight, but once they were relegated again it became inevitable that top-flight clubs would pounce. So it proved as he signed for Manchester United for a fee reported in some quarters to be £777,777 but rounded up to £800,000 in others in August 1979.

He acquired an unfair reputation for a conservative playing style, with one cruel nickname of ‘The Crab’ mocking his supposed preference for sideways passes.

Those who actually played with Wilkins thought differently and spoke of an elegant, visionary midfield player and leader whose abilities were underrated, as evidenced by the calibre of clubs who were always keen to secure his services.

Manchester United, up against the great Liverpool side of the late 70s and early 80s, were unable to bring the title back to Old Trafford but Wilkins enjoyed his finest personal moment at the club with the 1983 FA Cup win against Brighton and Hove Albion at Wembley.

And he is best remembered for a brilliant goal in the original 2-2 draw at Wembley, turning inside before curling a magnificent left-foot finish beyond the diving Brighton keeper Graham Moseley.

Wilkins continued to be a regular member of United’s midfield alongside England team-mate Bryan Robson before moving to AC Milan in the summer of 1984.

The football nomad

The move to Serie A with AC Milan began a period when Wilkins was constantly on the move and he is still remembered with great respect and affection by those he represented.

He was at the San Siro during a transitional spell for the great Italian club, scoring three goals in 105 appearances, but is still recalled on the club website as “a serious and meticulous professional” known for his “exemplary correctness”.

Wilkins then had a short spell at Paris St-Germain before being signed for Rangers by then manager Graeme Souness, many times a midfield adversary during the Scot’s time at Liverpool.

<!–

He flourished in Scotland alongside England colleagues such as Terry Butcher and Gary Stevens, becoming a hugely popular figure with the Ibrox support. He won the Scottish title and League Cup, scoring a spectacular volley in a memorable 5-1 Old Firm win at home to Celtic.

Wilkins returned to England for a four-year spell at Queen’s Park Rangers. He had a one-game stay at Crystal Palace, his time there curtailed by a foot injury, before returning to Loftus Road as player-manager, taking over from Gerry Francis in November 1994.

He enjoyed a measure of early success but left in September 1996 after the club were relegated, his cause not helped by the sale of leading scorer Les Ferdinand to Newcastle United in the 1995 close season.

Wilkins finished off his playing career with short spells at Wycombe Wanderers, Hibernian, Millwall and Leyton Orient.

An England mainstay

Wilkins was trusted by a succession of England managers such as Ron Greenwood and Bobby Robson to be the foundation of their sides – but his international career was often characterised by frustration.

He played in the European Championships in Italy in 1980, scoring a brilliant lob in the opening 1-1 draw with Belgium, but England failed to progress from the group, their prospects damaged by a 1-0 loss to the hosts.

Media playback is not supported on this device

He played in every game in the 1982 World Cup in Spain but in a tournament that had two group stages, England failed to progress from the second phase after goalless draws against West Germany and Spain.

Greenwood’s side were unbeaten but returned home frustrated after a campaign undermined by injury to two key players, Kevin Keegan and Trevor Brooking.

The greatest pain was arguably still to come for Wilkins at the World Cup in Mexico four years later.

Wilkins played in the opening loss to Portugal and was then sent off following an uncharacteristic show of temper in the goalless draw against Morocco in Monterrey.

He was shown a red card for hurling the ball in the direction of Paraguayan referee Gabriel Gonzalez.

Wilkins never regained his place after a two-match suspension as England went out to Argentina in the quarter-final and his last international appearance came just a few months later – a 2-0 victory over Yugoslavia in a European Championship qualifier at Wembley in November 1986.

The trusted lieutenant

Wilkins returned to management at Fulham in 1997, with former England colleague Keegan as “chief operating officer” at Craven Cottage under the new big-spending regime of Mohamed Al-Fayed.

He took Fulham into the Second Division play-offs but was sacked before the first play-off game took place, with Keegan taking control.

The rest of his career was mainly as a loyal backroom team member and assistant manager, first with Gianluca Vialli at Chelsea and Watford and then with Dennis Wise at Millwall.

<!–

Wilkins returned to Chelsea in September 2008 as assistant to Brazil World Cup winner Luiz Felipe Scolari and, after Scolari was sacked, stayed on as right-hand man to interim manager Guus Hiddink as the Blues picked up the FA Cup in 2009.

He was also at Carlo Ancelotti’s side for the Premier League and FA Cup double in 2010 before it was announced in November 2010 that his contract would not be renewed, bringing an unexpected end to his Chelsea career.

In his book ‘The Beautiful Games Of An Ordinary Genius’, Ancelotti wrote: “Ray is one of those select few, always present, noble in spirit, a real blue blood. Chelsea flows in his veins… without him we wouldn’t have won a thing.”

He then had short spells back at Fulham and in charge of the Jordan national team before he was sacked alongside manager Tim Sherwood at Aston Villa.

Fighting demons and illness – and a popular pundit

Wilkins had darker moments in his latter years, but remained a respected figure on the media circuit and at matches as he pursued a career in punditry on radio and television.

<!–

He suffered poor health, including ulcerative colitis. He also had double bypass heart surgery in July 2017.

Wilkins went through a five-week rehabilitation programme in the Priory Hospital in Woking after he was banned from driving for four years for drink-driving in 2016, admitting he had struggled with alcohol problems.

After he suffered his cardiac arrest, former Chelsea and England player Frank Lampard called Wilkins “an absolute gentleman” while heartfelt goodwill messages flooded in from around the world from former clubs and those who had played and worked with him.

He was back on radio and was a regular at games this this season, where his warm, outgoing personality continued to make him a popular figure among the media and his former playing colleagues.

Wilkins leaves his wife, Jackie, and children Ross and Jade.

References

^ who has died aged 61, (www.bbc.co.uk)

BBC Sport – Football

Ray Wilkins: From Mexico to Milan, football says goodbye to 'an absolute gentleman' was originally published on 365 Football

[jeremyfrechette]

lies told about conservatives -

1) Conservatives are racist! Shall I quote the blissful bigotry of Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Al Sharpton, or any slew of “socially conscious” crusaders; celebrities included? If I may, which party was founded as the anti-slavery party, ended Jim Crows and spearheaded the legislative movements for citizenship, suffrage and equal rights? Here’s a hint…it doesn’t rhyme with “rat”! Conservatives welcome all races and colors in our quest to defend and preserve America’s founding ideals. Likewise, we unilaterally reject divisive victimization rhetoric used solely to incite animosity along socio-economic lines for political gain. Although racism exist in all facets of America, such hateful attitudes are infectious and only invite future bigotry upon yourself, your peers and your loved ones. Progress is not measured by the number of times race is invoked or celebrated. It is personified by the number of lives liberated from its requirement. Why again would “racist” Republicans support Allen West, Ben Carson, Dinesh D’Souza, Mia Love, Condoleezza Rice and Marco Rubio, let alone spread the transcendent wisdom of Booker T. Washington, Martin Luther King Jr. or Thomas Sowell? Refusing to support a rformer President’s spiteful, anti-American agenda doesn’t make anyone a racist, regardless of their heritage or political affiliation. It makes one increasingly cognizant of the destructive aftermath such deep-seated prejudice inevitably brings.

2) Conservatives are sexist! Naturally, because conservatives don’t have mothers, wives or daughters, nor do they care about their well being. We decry discrimination against either gender, detest violence against women in any form, and support equal rights and pay for all women. Conservatives simply reject the regressive agenda of modern feminism which seeks injustice where none exists – “psychological trauma” inflicted by patriarchal images, the sexism of “mansplaining” or the “rape culture” of “manspreading”, gender identity conditioning of children, free birth control and taxpayer funded abortions, the so-called prosecutable sexual paradox of “yes” means “no” – as a means of degrading the masculine image and traditional role of men in society. This adopted brand of radical activism ensures reverse discrimination by attempting to validate such absurd demands to the detriment of both society and all reasonable, responsible women that desire nothing more than equal opportunity and treatment under the law. Self-respecting women do no want to be coddled, made to feel hopeless and therefore given an emotionally crippled crutch of contempt. Whether pursuing a career of or raising a family full time, they deserve the right to live the life of their choosing without discrimination or the crass exploitation of bitter gender fascists. Parading around in public topless, shouting obscenities and performing vulgar acts doesn’t make you enlightened, let alone noteworthy. It makes you the willing subject of your own stupidity. Empowerment, much like equal rights, doesn’t illicit hatred or reject accountability.

3) Conservatives are Nazi “extremists”! Unless you passed a concentration camp on the way to work, hauled the smelted gold taken from numbered corpses, this is nothing more than media driven hysteria designed to justify progressive policies that are incompatible with our founding ideals, or better yet, common sense. You do realize Adolf Hitler, the infamous leader of the Third Reich, was a rabid German socialist who denounced individuality, capitalism, Christianity, and free speech? He also advocated imprisoning or executing political dissidents and all inferior ethnicities. Do you know what other fascist movement harbors almost identical beliefs? Progressivism. Conservatives aren’t the ones silencing intellectual diversity on campuses, clamoring for state-run media, physically attacking Trump supporters, rioting in the streets over a free election result, singling out Christian businesses for prosecution, mocking traditional values or publicly demonizing white Americans. Liberal fascism, the once fringe element that officially hijacked the Democratic party in 2008, is now the single greatest threat to liberty, tolerance, due process, prosperity, and the survival of America. Considering the Nazis sought absolute control and conservatives loathe intrusive, unilateral government, this accusation is about as wise as a transgender Jewish man asking to be circumcised by a Muslim butcher before he uses the little girls restroom. “Halal No” or until hell freezes over, the left is by far the greatest embodiment of extremism in America today. When the end justifies the means, truth is of no consequence.

4) Conservatives oppose immigration! Hardly. America was founded as a beacon of hope for all races, creeds and colors. On the contrary, we rightfully object to the pardoned excuses of ��illegal” immigration and the mass influx of untraceable “refugees”. Not supporting our immigration laws, those protocols every civilized nation enacts and enforces, is a slap in the face to every man, woman and child who immigrated to America legally, not to mention those 3,000 victims who died on 9/11. Abandoning our borders, not shielding citizens from criminally and medically unvetted threats, is a dereliction of duty and a clear and present danger to our country’s sovereignty and security. Encouraging, dare I say “engineering”, illegal immigration solely to win elections and demographically override our founding principles is nothing short of treason. Despite such disingenuous ploys, all are welcome who respect our sovereignty and complete the process afforded by law. Perhaps someday activists will understand this “revolutionary” concept when sentenced to decapitation by an Islamic tribunal or while picketing corporations in the progressive soup lines of socialism.

5) Conservatives are gun fanatics! Like our forefathers, we unequivocally embrace people’s right to defend themselves against all forms of tyranny; Thomas Jefferson’s most profound reason for preserving our right to bear arms. Gun violence isn’t a disease but a sociological symptom that reflects a parenting failing and an obvious psychological disconnect. Rather than addressing the obvious moral erosion infecting our communities – an endeavor Hollywood has worked overtime to achieve by mocking our religious values – progressives are content exploiting national tragedies to justify their insatiable desire to repeal the Second Amendment. Not only is gun confiscation historically the final lynch pin to uncontested subjugation, gun control does little to deter those who truly want to harm others; especially when you realize both the Oklahoma City Bombing and 9/11 were carried out without a single shot being fired. Every day firearms deter crime and save far more lives than the soulless   of any disturbed individual. You can no more regulate human nature than an inanimate object can pull its own trigger and be convicted for murder. When mass death is the ultimate goal, the weapon of choice is moot for people will always find a vessel to deliver their wrath. The fact these mass shootings rarely occurred 50 or even 25 years ago is a costly reminder that parents, schools and our elected leaders have failed to instill our children with the proper values and universal respect for their fellow man. The question isn’t why do so many citizens own a gun. The question is why are so many comfortable ending a human life? Leaving decent, law-abiding Americans helpless against thugs, terrorists and aspiring dictators is never the answer; it’s the broken promise of armed regret.

6) Conservatives hate the poor! Of course…because we never get sick, lose our jobs or struggle to provide for our families. Sorry but poverty doesn’t discriminate and any President that doesn’t create jobs, lower taxes and eliminate waste is no friend of the American people. One of the benefits of living in a nation as resourceful as America is the financial assistance available to those in need. Nearly all people struggle, require assistance time to time, and there is no shame in that. And yes, Americans are a compassionate and generous people. However, Conservatives take great umbrage with those smug parasites who view welfare as a career opportunity and conspire incessantly to defraud the system when they should treat such blessings as a stepping stone to reclaim their life. Stealing bread from the mouth of honest labor – those taxpayers who have watched the number of welfare recipients and the national debt nearly double since 2008 – is a slap in the face to all hard-working Americans, as well as those families that struggle with real misfortune and lingering disabilities. Everyone owes it to themselves, their family and their country to find a job. A paycheck is a means to a means, a self-sustaining gateway to a better life, whereas welfare is a meal ticket to endless dependence, debt and discontent. For when the fog of propaganda and entitlement clears, no economic system has liberated more people from the clutches of poverty than capitalism; that independent engine of ambition most synonymous with liberty, prosperity, and human discovery. However, please note, and much to the chagrin of Marxists everywhere, capitalism only works if you do! A healthy work ethic is the fastest path to personal success.

7) Conservatives are religious radicals! Clearly. What’s the terrorist score card of the century? Which religion has never had a reformation? Yet again, this is but another baseless claim designed to insight fear, hate and paranoia at the expense of dispelling dangerous misconceptions. America, Western Civilization, was founded upon Judeo-Christian ideals; a fact liberals malicious muddle, twist and insistently attempt to discredit. Opposing abortion – the death of a human being even in its most glorified state – or rejecting Gay Marriage – the political corruption of a “religious” institution in Western Society which threatens the family dynamic – hardly makes us harbingers of hate or the equivalent of Islamic militants; those extremists who deny women basic human rights and kill gays for merely existing. As ardent constitutionalists, Christian conservatives advocate the tolerance of all competing beliefs that coincide with our founding values. No, Christianity is not perfect or without historical indignities. Christians simply learned killing in the name of God was a fruitless endeavor that undermined every tenet of their faith. What we absolutely refuse to condone is empowering those ideologies that violate people’s natural born rights, i.e. Sharia Law, or threaten our founding values to the debasement of our culture and national ethos. Not all laws are just or justified; not all boundaries are meant to be broken.

8) Conservatives are war mongers! Yes, because once again, Conservatives, those who are most likely to serve their country or volunteer for during times of crisis, do not have families who sacrifice and grieve so that “We the People” many live free from harm and bask in those liberties so often denied to millions across the globe. Like all Americans, Conservatives detest war and view it as an absolute last resort of recourse. That being said, we do not live in a world were evil does not exist and circumstance can rely on the unwavering good nature of our fellow man. To unconditionally reject military intervention regardless of the prevailing circumstances is the equivalent of watching a rape across the street and doing nothing about it. Frankly, when did we stop caring? The question all liberals should be asking themselves, and that of the entire civilized world, is why aren’t more nations and leaders taking a stand against mass injustice and depravity? No, America cannot be the savior of the free world or right all wrongs of humanity. We simply must refuse to be the doormat of tyranny and criminal apathy. “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”

9) Conservatives hate the environment! I’d love to indulge this popular progressive fairy tale, but we too drink from the sources of water, breathe the same air, and educate our children about the ravages of pollution. Rather, conservatives refuse using science fiction as to implement unnecessary regulations, collect more taxes, solely to expand government and claim more austerity over our everyday lives. The same bureaucrats who can’t balance their checkbook, protect our borders, or give the people a straight answer, want to control every aspect of your life out of the goodness in their hearts. No, right-minded Americans aren’t fearful of science, anything but, for we eagerly embrace its universal necessity, power and wonder. What we don’t accept is a political alarmist, i.e., a pseudo scientist named Al Gore and his celebrity salesmen, proclaiming the Arctic ice shelf would cease to exist within a decade and that the entire city of New York would become the lost ruins of Atlantis due to the impending catastrophe known as climate change. Sadly, not to spoil the inconvenient truth about his “D” in Natural Sciences, or his six figure speaker fees, glacier coverage of the planet is now as prominent as it was 20 years ago and the Yankees have yet to give away floaties during a single promotion. Bummer.

As firm believers in empirical data, reputable science, conservatives recognize the existence of global cooling and warming; we merely view both as natural climatic cycles that far outweigh the shameless ploys of politicians. Now that’s not to say mankind has no negative impact on the environment, bio diversity or even global temperatures. I have no doubt whatsoever. It’s just that our presence pales in comparison to the mercurial power of the sun and the instinctive reflux of mother nature. After all, if the truth be known, one of the hottest years ever recorded in our nation’s history occurred in the 19th century during pre-industrialized America. Believe it or not, just as many if not more conservatives live off the land, utilize nature for recreation, and tirelessly work to protect and preserve the source of their greatest blessing…their preferred way of life. Protecting our environment against corporate waste and individual apathy is nonnegotiable. Listening to those politicians who manipulate scientific data for political and financial gain, on the other hand, is entirely optional.

10) Conservatives are out of touch! Or perhaps we’re painfully astute of history and vigilant to the ides of tyranny. As the proud torchbearers of the timeless ideals America was founded upon – individual liberty, limited government, God, hard work, accountability and duty – conservatives pose the biggest threat to the globalist agenda: a secular, soulless paradigm of mass conformity and institutionalized dependence. Progressivism cannot survive without inciting distrust, division and discord to conceal the truth from low information voters; those vulnerable souls most easily cajoled by such sensationalist propaganda. Any ideology that cannot stand on its own merits and is counter-intuitive to the Constitution – statism, Socialism, and Marxism – is inherently radical and a tangible threat to our way of life. If I may, how are any of these philosophies remotely synonymous with our founding creed, not to mention the supreme law of the land? Historically speaking, one must work far more diligently to protect a lie than to simply speak on the behalf of self-evident truths. Conservatives believe, and freely attest, man’s natural born rights are derived from a divine creator and not ransomed by the “benevolence” of centralized despots. At its most rudimentary core, our elected government has three fundamental duties: to protect our lives and liberties, to honor and uphold the prescribed limitations of the Constitution, and to provide transparency in all its dealings. I’m sad to report the corrupt cesspool of polarized bureaucrats known as Washington have egregiously failed on all three accounts. Defending the ideological cornerstones America was erected upon doesn’t make conservatives “extreme” or detached in any sense of the word. It makes our detractors hopelessly ignorant, toxic and irrefutably malicious.