U.S. Map Of Racial Segregation Reveals Something Liberals Won’t Like

Important milestones in the fight against racial segregation?

July 2, 2015

Mad World News: by Dom the Conservative

As racial tension escalates to levels of dangerous proportion, liberals claim to have all the answers for the minorities, all while pouring gasoline on the fire. Even though the left is the self-labeled hero of the migrant man, just how diverse is liberal America?

Using census data from 2010, scientists were able to map out what they believe is a visual segregation of races in the U.S., and the findings divulge incredible information.

According to the Daily Mail, an interactive map shows a stark difference in many conservative and liberal states, and the left might not be too proud of the compiled data.

To hopefully better understand racial tension, scientists created the map by using blue dots for whites, green for blacks, red for Asians, orange for Hispanics, and brown for those who identify as Native American or other smaller minorities.

It’s plain to see that American cities on the east coast are largely segregated, beginning in North Carolina and moving its way up to Maine. However, what’s even more identifiable is that the most liberal states are not only some of the most segregated, but are also the most… well, white.

Another thing that caught researchers’ eyes was Detroit, a liberal city that has a stark division of white and black between 8 mile. How is it that the most liberal city in the U.S., known for its generations of leftist government, is one of the most segregated?

Because of recent racial tension in Baltimore, scientists took a closer look at the city’s demographics. The results were an undeniable segregation that is sure to embarrass one of the nation’s most left-leaning cities.

Philadelphia, which is in the top twenty-five most liberal cities in America, looks a lot like Baltimore. The liberal policies haven’t helped the racial divide, as blacks live in much poorer neighborhoods compared to their leftist white counterparts.

Chicago, President Barack Obama’s hometown, is one of the most segregated cities in the country. Making the top twenty left-leaning cities, Chicago’s unbelievable segregation paints a literal rainbow of division, a certain embarrassment for the nation’s first black president.

New York City, one of the country’s liberal cities that boasts the most diversity, proves they also have one of the worst segregation problems as well.

Another detail that’s sure to have liberals fuming is the visible proof that many of the top liberal states are also mostly white. One the other side, the most conservative states have a high population of minorities. I guess it’s just the white privilege that comes along with being a liberal.

While liberals like to boast diversity, they certainly don’t appear to want to mix with the other races unless it buys them votes on the campaign trail. This type of hypocrisy has fooled masses of blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and Jews into voting Democrat under the guise of diversity and acceptance.

Although the left boasts it as one of their proudest accomplishments, the flooding of the U.S. with immigrants has only created more of a racial division within their own communities. Any policies they’ve implemented have only worsened the segregation that the Republicans abolished so many years ago.

Photo Credit [Daily Mail]

More at Mad World News

Disclaimer: This article was not written by Lorra B.

OUR ONCE SACRED HONOR

July 2, 2015

A TEXAS VIEW: by Mustang

If you believe the leftist rhetoric, or if you subscribe to the communist talking points, then you have probably heard that our founding fathers were all white racist males, filthy rich greedy bastards whose decisions benefitted them alone. And, of course, all of the founders owned slaves, and hated or took advantage of Native Americans —who as it turns out, were not and are not quite as simple-minded as the leftists would like for everyone to believe.

It is all twaddle, of course. It is a mystery why these people feel compelled to so passionately hate the place of their birth. My best guess is that the leftist mindset will keep psychiatrists busy for the next several decades. It occurs to me that if the leftists wanted to demonstrate their hatred for America and all that it stands for, there is no better way of doing this than by leaving —sooner rather than later.

No rational American thinks that we are perfect, but Americans are exceptional. So too were our founding fathers. One does not have to be a genius to realize that our founding fathers, the revolutionaries, did not emerge from sewers demanding bread. They were not socialists; they supported such notions as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These were enlightened ideas, which means knowledgeable, literate, open-minded, reasonable, and sophisticated in their understanding of human nature—and this made them an exception to the ordinary man. They developed such notions from the classical liberal views of John Locke and Adam Smith —urging the same opportunities for all men, not just those who were well born. This is a fact lost on most of America’s Neo-Communist acolytes, and will remain ignored by them because it does not fit their peculiar narrative.

Who were our founding fathers? We might start with those whom everyone readily recognizes: Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, James Madison, James Monroe, Thomas Paine, George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay … and a few others. None of these men were saints, but they were very deep thinkers.

In addition to the above-mentioned patriots, there were also fifty-six signers of the Declaration of Independence. By affixing their signatures to this marvelous document, which proclaimed the right of the American people to be free of Great Britain, whose king avowed to crush them, these men realized the severity of their actions. Indeed, the Declaration of Independence concludes with these words: “And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the Protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other, our lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.”

These men knew full well what they were doing was dangerous to themselves, to their families, and to their wealth and property. They had everything to lose, and little to gain by signing this instrument of the American Revolution. If the revolution should fail, these men would forfeit their lives. If these men were to succeed, then they faced years of struggling to establish a new government, a new country. Had anyone done such a thing before? No.

These men did suffer.

• Carter Braxton of Virginia was a wealthy trader whose ships were swept from the sea and whose debts were settled when he sold all of his property, including his home. He died a pauper.

• Thomas Lynch, Jr., of South Carolina was a third-generation rice grower, a wealthy aristocrat who lost his health during revolution. He and his wife sailed for France, where he might recover his health but the ship was lost at sea and neither he nor his wife were ever seen again.

• Thomas McKean of Delaware was a lawyer. He and his family became fugitives. He continued to serve in Congress without pay. The British confiscated his home and property, but he wasn’t alone. He shared this fate with George Clymer of Pennsylvania, William Ellery of Rhode Island, Lyman Hall of Georgia, Thomas Hayward of South Carolina, Edward Rutledge of South Carolina, Arthur Middleton of South Carolina, and George Walton of Georgia.

• Thomas Nelson Jr., of Virginia borrowed $2 million to provision our French allies; after the war, he paid back the entire loan, which wiped out his entire estate. Mr. Nelson never received a single cent in repayment from the government. In the final battle for Yorktown, Nelson urged General Washington to target his own home, which was then occupied by British General Cornwallis; Nelson’s home was completely destroyed.

• Francis Hopkinson of New Jersey lost his home to Hessian mercenaries; Francis Lewis of New York lost his home and Mrs. Lewis was imprisoned and died in British captivity.

• The British arrested Richard Stockton of New Jersey, who died while in captivity.

• Thomas Hayward Jr., of South Carolina was captured when Charleston fell; John Hart of New Jersey was driven away from his wife’s bedside as she lay dying and his 13 children all fled for their own safety. His fields and mill were laid waste, and when the war was over, realizing that all he knew and loved were gone, Hayward died a broken man.

• Lewis Morris of New York lost his property, his family was scattered as well … and Philip Livingston of New York died from the hardships imposed upon him by the war.

• John Hancock of Massachusetts, a wealthy citizen of Boston, urged Continental forces to destroy his livelihood in Boston rather than to accept a British boot upon the necks of a free people.

More than half of these fifty-six men suffered during the American Revolution. Five were taken into custody by the British and died in captivity; 12 lost their homes and property, two lost their sons in the war, one had both of his sons captured by the British, nine of the signers died in the war of disease or a merciful bullet. They pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor. Every man fulfilled this pledge; every man kept the faith. Every man paid the price exacted of him. If only these leftists who condemn the founding fathers had even a modicum of similar devotion … but no, they’ve chosen a different path for themselves —and for us, as well.

More at A TEXAS VIEW:

Disclaimer: This article was not written by Lorra B.

Obama Says Racism Is In DNA — Guess What Was Found In His Family Tree

June 27, 2015

Mad World News:

Liberals would have us believe that America is steeped in racism, and in order to solve the age-old problem of supremacy, those racist roots must be snuffed out. We’re chastised for our unseen white privilege and our inherent racism, but a beacon of hope shines as a bright symbol for hope of progression — President Barack Obama.

White leftists are somewhat off the hook for their support of Obama because of the color of his skin, but the rest of the pale conservative population must pay for the iniquities of our forefathers before they can look past the color of ours.

In fact, Obama chastised American citizens for the racism of their ancestors, unbelievably adding that it is biologically engrained in us because of our past relatives:

“The legacy of slavery, Jim Crow, discrimination in almost every institution of our lives, you know, that casts a long shadow, and that’s still part of our DNA that’s passed on. We’re not cured of it. Racism, we’re not cured of it. And it’s not just a matter of it not being polite to say ‘n—–‘ in public. That’s not the measure of whether racism still exists or not. It’s not just a matter of overt discrimination. Societies don’t overnight completely erase everything that happened 2-300 years prior.”

Instead of refuting this ridiculous, scientifically contradictory nonsense, we decided to run with it for the sake of every self-hating white liberal with a nauseating adoration for the Commander-in-Chief.

After digging around in forgotten files from 2007, we rediscover an inconvenient detail in Barack Hussein Obama’s family history that we can guarantee he doesn’t want resurfacing, especially right after his “DNA” speech. It appears that Obama has some “tainted” DNA in his family tree, and we mean that in the least racist way possible.

According to The Washington Post, genealogical researcher William Addams Reitwiesner struck gold while tracing America’s first black president’s bloodline:

Reitwiesner found in 1850 Census records from Kentucky that one of Obama’s great-great-great-great grandfathers, George Washington Overall, owned a 15-year-old girl and a 25-year-old man. The same records show that one of Obama’s great-great-great-great-great-grandmothers, Mary Duvall, also owned two black slaves — a 60-year-old man and a 58-year-old woman.

At least two of President Obama’s ancestors owned slaves. This atrocious racism has been “passed on” through our own leader’s DNA, and we can only assume that it is running strongly though his veins as we speak.

Obama’s then-spokesperson Bill Burton attempted to redirect focus from the president’s slave-owning history, but there was no sugar-coating his master’s past:

“While a relative owned slaves, another fought for the Union in the Civil War,” Burton said. “And it is a true measure of progress that the descendant of a slave owner would come to marry a student from Kenya and produce a son who would grow up to be a candidate for president of the United States.”

We never would’ve suspected the connection, since the words from his own mouth consistently reprimand others, but it could possibly be chalked up to closet racism. Obama might not even know he’s a raving racist, but it’s time to come out of the wardrobe and wear it proudly because, as pop star Lady Gaga would say, “Baby, you were born this way.”

Our DNA is an unchangeable part of our structure as nature intended, and it is not only foolish to try to transform it, but impossible. Obama must accept his lineage and the racist DNA that, through no fault of his own, was genetically engineered in his body.

While many of us ignorantly believed that racism is taught and learned, the left has instructed us to respect dear leader, and, as they say, we cannot possibly respect him if we disagree with him. However, we would respect our model citizen a lot more if he would just come out and be honest with who he truly is.

It is time for him to stop denying his roots. As our genetically racist president reminds, our society cannot “erase everything that happened 2-300 years prior overnight.” It’s going to take reparations. Let’s start with the over $44 million of taxpayer money he and his family have dropped on vacations.

H/T [America’s Freedom Fighters]

More at Mad World News

Disclaimer: This article was not written by Lorra B.

This Billboard Has Liberals FURIOUS Because It Insults Obama & Jenner In One Shot

June 26, 2015

Mad World News:

There really isn’t all that much that won’t tick a liberal off these days, but one Massachusetts homeowner couldn’t care less. In fact, he’s made that perfectly clear after posting a sign out front that takes a jab at both President Barack Obama and Bruce Jenner in one sweet rip.

Photo of the sign has gone viral after being posted online and many think with good reason. Of course, there’s always the leftist weenies that have found it rather “offensive” and decided that the best course of action would be to whine about it.

The picture was actually put up on Reddit by user SusanBAnthonyy for the world to see.

The word “cowardly” has two red arrows surrounding it, presumably to put emphasis on the adjective. Of course, the liberals came out of the wood work for this one, many complaining of the homeowners “sad” attempt at humor. Others simply admired the board by saying, “I need a sign like this to express my opinions to the world.”

Now look, obviously this is a joke, as Bruce Jenner stated in an interview that he had no desire to rid himself of his man parts as he still considered himself a heterosexual. That being said, we’re pretty sure Obama isn’t in any real need of an actual pair, but the joke is still rather fitting.

Obama is a coward, and a spineless one at that. If Jenner doesn’t like being a man, he may as well give those things to a man in need. However, with the current state of things in America right now, it seems like it will only be a matter of time before “offensive” jokes come under fire. What a society that will be, huh?

More at Mad World News

Disclaimer: This article was not written by Lorra B.

Rock On Texas! State Senate Passes Anti “Sharia Law” Bill — Could It Be A Trend?

May 29, 2015

By Lorra B.

In Texas Sharia law is now being called an anti-Sharia law. Liberals and Muslims are ‘outraged’ by the Senate passed law.

According to Conservative Post, Senator Campbell said, “It’s just to provide some belt and suspenders to make sure that, with judicial discretion, we don’t trump Texas law, American law, with a foreign law regarding family law.”

Texas House Bill 562 is meant to keep foreign laws pertaining to things such as parental rights and marital rights out of the American court systems.

There are those who feel this is nothing but a guise to promote Islamophobia, but there has been no merit to this claim as of yet and the bill will now head over to the desk of Republican Gov. Greg Abbott.

The fight will be on you can be assured as the Senate is not unanimously pleased with Campbell’s bill.

“What foreign law are you attempting to prevent being used, and can you give examples of where it has created a problem in the state?”

“No foreign law,” was Campbell’s response. “This just provides a contest for judicial discretion.”

Texas is not alone in their Sharian Law battle. If the bill is signed into law, it would make Texas the 10^th state to enact similar laws. Florida, Alabama, Washington, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Kansan, Arizona, Louisiana, and Tennessee have similar statutes.

Arguing that it could create ‘legal uncertainty,’ the American Bar Association has rejected the ban. This will be interesting to see play out.

SAN FRANCISCO SHOWS WHY YOU CAN NEVER TRUST A LIBERAL

April 29, 2015

Desert Musings:

I’m a big consistency nut. I think that if you’re going to have a belief in anything, that’s fine, and frankly, I don’t care what side of the equation you’re on…just be consistent with it in your life. As I’ve said here before…I can’t get how a person can be against the death penalty for someone who’s committed murder…but be for aborting a fetus. That makes no sense. You’re willing to spare the life of a condemned and convicted killer, but you’re also willing to kill an innocent yet-to-be-born baby? Where are your ethics?

So it’s with that in mind that I take you to the city by the bay…the city that never sleeps….(sorry…a throwback to Jefferson Starship days). San Francisco. As most of you probably know, and if you live in California you certainly know, they have a bit of a water problem out there. And Governor Moon Beam has thrown some extreme measures to save water. Like, everybody has to cut their water usage by 25%. That’s a lot.

Well, tell that to San Francisco. The uber-socialist enclave has continued to use DRINKING WATER to heat City Hall. Yes… in a time that they are in a severe drought situation, the city of San Francisco takes drinking water…heats it up to boiling, and uses the steam to heat City Hall. They then take the used water that’s been heated and turned to steam, and send it right down the sewer. And apparently, in the midst of people not being able to take showers or wash their clothes, this is acceptable.

They figure it to be about 250,000 gallons of water a day. That’s 1.75 MILLION gallons of water a week. I don’t care how you slice it, that’s a lot of wasted water!

And what does Tyrone Jue, who’s with the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission have to say about it? “The system has been set up in the city for many decades, as far as this steam loop. It doesn’t rely on fossil fuels or natural gas to heat these buildings. So in that sense it’s good!” Huh?

Ty, buddy….we’re talking about water here…not fossil fuels. We’re talking about your city wasting almost 2 million gallons of water a week and THAT is your response? Tell the farmers just outside your city that grow some of the best grapes in the world that you’re wasting 2 million gallons of water a week and see if they give a rat’s rear end that you’re not using fossil fuel. My hunch is you’d get lynched.

And that, my friends is why you can never trust a liberal. Consistency doesn’t mean anything to these people. If it did, they wouldn’t be backing Hillary Clinton for president.

Carry on world…you’re dismissed!

More at Desert Musings

Permission was given by Desert Musings to Lorra B. to post articles in their entirety.

Liberals Mugged by Obamanet

March 3, 2015

The Wall Street Journal: By L. GORDON CROVITZ

When Google’s Eric Schmidt called White House officials a few weeks ago to oppose President Obama ’s demand that the Internet be regulated as a utility, they told him to buzz off. The chairman of the company that led lobbying for “net neutrality” learned the Obama plan made in its name instead micromanages the Internet.

Mr. Schmidt is not the only liberal mugged by the reality of Obamanet, approved on party lines last week by the Federal Communications Commission. The 300-plus pages of regulations remain secret, but as details leak out, liberals have joined the opposition to ending the Internet as we know it.

The Progressive Policy Institute said: “There is nothing progressive about the FCC backsliding to common carrier rules dating back to the 1930s.” The Internet Society, a net-neutrality advocate, said: “We are concerned with the FCC’s decision to base new rules for the modern Internet on decades-old telephone regulations designed for a very different technological era.” Former Clinton official Larry Irving wrote in the Hill: “Most of today’s proponents of a utility model for the Internet either have forgotten or never knew the genesis of the ‘regulatory restraint’ model that helped spur and continues to support Internet expansion.”

Verizon poked fun at the FCC’s retrograde move by issuing a news release in Morse code and in an old-fashioned typewriter font, dated “February 26, 1934,” the year Congress passed the Communications Act to regulate the telephone monopoly—the law the FCC is now applying to the Internet.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation, which supports applying the 1934 law to the Internet, nonetheless objects to a new regulation giving the FCC open-ended power to regulate the Internet. “A ‘general conduct rule,’ applied on a case-by-case basis,” the EFF wrote, “may lead to years of expensive litigation to determine the meaning of ‘harm’ (for those who can afford to engage in it).”

The general-conduct rule reportedly has seven standards, one of which is the “effect on free expression.” Net neutrality was supposed to ban online discrimination based on content. Instead, it is empowering the FCC—the agency that for decades enforced the “Fairness Doctrine” and that last year proposed studying “bias” in newsrooms—to chill speech.

FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler justified Obamanet by saying the Internet is “simply too important to be left without rules and without a referee.” He got it backward: Light-handed regulation made today’s Internet possible.

What if at the beginning of the Web, Washington had opted for Obamanet instead of the open Internet? Yellow Pages publishers could have invoked “harm” and “unjust and unreasonable” competition from online telephone directories. This could have strangled Alta Vista and Excite, the early leaders in search, and relegated Google to a Stanford student project. Newspapers could have lobbied against Craigslist for depriving them of classified advertising. Encyclopedia Britannica could have lobbied against Wikipedia.

Competitors could have objected to the “fast lane” that Amazon got from Sprint at the launch of the Kindle to ensure speedy e-book downloads. The FCC could have blocked Apple from integrating Internet access into the iPhone. Activists could have objected toAOL bundling access to The Wall Street Journal in its early dial-up service.

Among the first targets of the FCC’s “unjust and unreasonable” test are mobile-phone contracts that offer unlimited video or music. Netflix , the biggest lobbyist for utility regulation, could be regulated for how it uses encryption to deliver its content.

Until Congress or the courts block Obamanet, expect less innovation. During a TechFreedom conference last week, dissenting FCC commissioner Ajit Pai asked: “If you were an entrepreneur trying to make a splash in a marketplace that’s already competitive, how are you going to differentiate yourself if you have to build into your equation whether or not regulatory permission is going to be forthcoming from the FCC? According to this, permissionless innovation is a thing of the past.”

More at The Wall Street Journal:

EVEN DEMOCRATS ARE BITCHING ABOUT OBAMACARE NOW! (Will It Come Crashing Down?)

February 18, 2015

Desert Musings:

Sander Levin is one of the most liberal people in the world. So, you know when he’s telling you that Obamacare is unfair and needs to be changed, you probably should listen to him. And that’s exactly what he’s doing.

Oh. You probably didn’t realize it because you were so busy getting ready for President’s Day celebrations, but Obamacare Open Enrollment 2.0 ended on Sunday. It ended more or less with a whimper than a bang, and that’s got liberal Dems worried. They’re afraid that their constituents that didn’t sign up by Sunday are going to find out too late (like now?) that they’re going to owe bigger fines. Much bigger than last year, and certainly a lot bigger than the $95 that had been touted in 2014!

So, Levin and some of his colleagues are trying to talk the White House into changing the law (again), and not imposing these strict penalties on people who don’t pay the tax….er…sign up for the healthcare.

And there is the dilemma that the White House finds itself in. It HAS to have everyone on board with this or the weight of the sick people signing up are going to sink it. And it HAS to have some sort of mechanism in place to force people to do it “or else”. And it’s the “or else” part that is meeting with resistance. So, don’t expect Sander Levin’s pleas to fall on anything but big (really big) deaf ears.

Of course, all of this may be for naught anyway. The Supreme Court is going to be hearing the King v. Burwell case in another month or so, and making a decision in June. And unless Bobo decides that he’s going to pass “some walkin’ around money” to the justices on the high court, I think he may be in trouble on this one. The court has already heard appeal after appeal about what’s wrong with Obamacare. They found in favor of Hobby Lobby and against the government on the last go around, and methinks they may be inclined to do it again this time around.

In case you missed it, King v. Burwell is challenging the law as it’s written. The law basically says that states that use http://www.healthcare.gov instead of their own websites to administer their healthcare are not allowed to give subsidies to their residents. This was done, as we’ve learned from Jonathon Gruber, to force states into building their own websites. After all, what state would want to deny its residents a chance to get cheap healthcare? Oh, about 37 of them. Anyway, the rest of the country has to pay for these 37 states that are not supposed to be giving out subsidies but are (or at least the IRS is allowing the subsidies to go through at the request of the White House). That’s in clear violation of the law as written. Of course, Democrats say that’s not the intent or spirit of the law…the intent is that everybody gets subsidies if they qualify. So, the Supreme Court has to determine if what is actually written is the law, or if there is some ethereal explanation that is behind the words that we weren’t privy to.

And if the subsidies are over-turned, those folks that got subsidies may have to pay them back! Can I get a “OOPS!”?

And then, of course, no one signs up for Obamacare or pays for it because they aren’t getting the subsidies that they were promised. And the whole house of cards comes tumbling down. Hee hee hee.

Carry on world…you’re dismissed!

Permission given to Lorra B. to post Desert Musing Articles in their entirety. 

More at Desert Musings:

New Required Question For Birth Certificates Has Parents OUTRAGED

(Screenshot Credit, Mad World News)

February 2, 2015

Mad World News:

It seems like an obvious question that shouldn’t have to be asked of a new mother after giving birth, but leave it to the liberal-run state of New York to deem something seemingly ridiculous as an important inquiry on an official document.

According to the New York Post, a city Health Department application for new parents requesting birth certificates asks the “woman giving birth” if she’s male or female, and it’s not a typo. The gender identification can be found on the form mixed in with all the standard questions — mother’s maiden name, mother’s legal name, mother’s Social Security number — but this may be the most difficult field to complete out of them all.

Considering gender identity can certainly be confusing for some, the state has made the question on the birth certificate request very clear and easy to follow, providing a convenient check box and asks the question in capital letters. “What is your DATE OF BIRTH, current AGE and SEX?” the form asks in the section clearly marked “Mother/Parent (Woman Giving Birth).”

What is subsequently clear from this form is that the morality of America is in the tank if so many citizens are so separated from God-given gender roles, that a government document has been adjusted to accommodate it.

But liberals are coming to the defense and hailing it as a stride in the right direction of acceptance of a new America, which includes all manner of differences in lifestyles. “To be clear, it is possible for a person who has given birth to a child to identify as male,” said Susan Sommer, a lawyer for Lambda Legal, an advocacy group for lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and transgender people.

Sommer sympathizes with individuals caught in the interim between male and female, since the process of changing identity from how you were born can be a lengthy one, and shouldn’t impede someone from procreating while en route to becoming the opposite sex. She explained that given various transgender stages, there is room for the person who gives birth to check the male box.

To be fair, the “father” is also asked the same gender question with identical check box choices, just sans the “giving birth” notation in that particular section. If determining who is father and who is mother in a gender-confused relationship isn’t mind-boggling enough, let’s not forget that this is being asked after a baby has been brought into this world to be raised by the sexually ambiguous duo, inevitably leading to a lot of confusion in the child.

More at Mad World News:

Here’s How To End Political Correctness Once and For All–[Video]

January 30, 2015

Teresa Mull, Rare: 

“It doesn’t matter what people call you unless they call you pigeon pie and eat you up.”
– Evelyn Waugh

The business of communicating in this day and age has gotten so complicated that even New York magazine has taken notice, questioning if maybe “political correctness” has gotten a little out of hand.

In his New York piece titled “Not a very P.C. thing to say: How the language police are perverting liberalism.” (I assume the period was included by some editor as an act of sensitivity toward fragments that “identify” as sentences), Jonathan Chait chronicles the evolution of p.c., up to and including its present absurd and venomous state. He documents how political correctness (as if anything associated with politics would have any chance of being correct anyways) has devolved into a climate of coercion.

When a liberal journalist labels your movement “a system of left-wing ideological repression,” you know your days are numbered. Chait regretfully sees the possibility for a p.c. resurgence during the next presidential campaign, when it’s likely “each side’s supporters [will patrol] the other for any comment that might indicate gender or racial bias.”

 

 

 

We can’t allow this to happen. Liberals have had their fun inventing and imposing weird acronyms, catchy initials, and confusing portmanteaux for long enough. The following is a foolproof plan to counter them that will leave the LGBT community wondering who scrambled the name of a perfectly good sandwich and added garlic.

Discover the motivation

This tactic is more difficult than it seems. When you first mused to yourself the innocent question “Why do these people bother being p.c.?” you probably came to some charitable conclusion like “They want to defend victims,” or “They don’t like hurting people’s feelings.”

But then you read about the “progressive” students at the University of Michigan who vandalized a fellow student’s dorm and left him vulgar messages because he wrote a column they didn’t like in a conservative paper. And about the professor of feminist studies who ripped up a peaceful protestor’s pro-life sign and shoved a bystander out of rage (in a “free-speech zone,” no less) because the images of aborted fetuses “triggered” her. (It’s not like those babies had feelings or anything, right?)

And you’ve heard dozens of other stories in which a person professed contrary (read: conservative) beliefs and was bullied into becoming the victimizer, and you realized that p.c. coercers are controlling psychopaths with a warped sense of reality who use phrases like “tone policing.”

So what exactly are they after?

Ego. That’s what it all boils down to. If these people, the same ones who invented the trophies-for-all self-esteem movement, really cared about helping the underprivileged and oppressed, they would do that and stop being concerned about what’s in a name. Jesus ate with tax collectors and prostitutes. He didn’t fuss about re-labeling them “internal revenue excise-persons” or “sexually adventuresome companions.”

But of course being p.c. isn’t really about exalting the lowly. It’s about exalting one’s own image, which is why members of the cult call so much attention to themselves going out of their way to be “sensitive,” and why they spend so much time sitting around inventing petty distinctions among races and genders, and arguing about them on social media while the people they worry about (“undocumented migrants”) go obliviously about their business.

Find their weak spot(s)

The p.c. system, according to Chait, is beginning to unravel. As tends to happen among types who live to one-up each other, there comes a point where someone cracks. “Bitter identity-­politics recriminations,” writes Chait, have been “endlessly litigating the fraught requirements of p.c. discourse.”

Apparently the people who come up with such terms as “WOC” (woman of color), “POC” (people of color), and “WWC” (woman without color) can’t keep them straight. (No offense intended if you’re gay.) They’ve created a monster they can’t control, and not taking the terminology seriously enough has led to some infighting among even the most aware political correctors.

Chait provides as evidence of the p.c. culture’s downward spiral a tirade posted by a member of a private Facebook forum (organized for women of the media) after one member urged “all participants to practice higher levels of racial awareness.”

Judge for yourself. Does the following seem like a discussion prone to stability and longevity? (The original was, of course, not censored.)

JESUS F***, LIKE SERIOUSLY F***, I SEE MORE WHITE BINDERS POLICING WOC AND DEMANDING TO BE EDUCATED/UNEDUCATED AS IF IT’S A F***ING NOBLE MISSION RATHER THAN I DUNNO SPEND TIME SHUTTING DOWN AND S****ING ON RACIST DOUCHE CANOE BEHAVIOUR; WHAT ARE YOU GAINING BY THIS? WHAT ARE YOU DETRACTING? YOU NEED SCREENCAPS OF BURNING CROSSES TO BELIEVE RACIST S*** IS HAPPENING? THIS THREAD IS PAINFUL. HUGS TO ALL THE WOC DURING THIS THREAD.

Another weakness of p.c. culture is, of course, the hypocrisy inherent in its practice. Everyone, in theory, is to be accepted, respected, and encouraged to exercise free expression, though some are more free than others. Specific labels are frowned upon, and neutrality is held as the be-all-end-all.

Except then there are labels, very specific ones, such as when a woman in the aforementioned forum satirized herself as a “gluten-free Jewish WWC.” We are subdivided so intensely into unique groups that no one feels included at all anymore. Michael Brendan Dougherty writes at The Week of there being “71 flavors of gender.” At what point does it become obvious that you’re trying to oppress yourself?

Ignore it and it will go away

In the p.c. environment, the squeaky wheel gets the oil, or, to put it more accurately, the most “offended” and hysterical person gets to bully everyone else into silence. And it doesn’t matter if they’re truly offended or not. They’ll pervert reality to fit their agenda. Heck, these people will even get offended on behalf of others.

We’ve established that the language war (the ones the politically correct wage) is a conflict with no casualties, save the bruised pride of the progressive elite. They enjoy being outraged about an easy cause that makes them look noble while not requiring them to get their hands dirty. They excel at being warriors when nothing’s at stake. You can yell, “You’re racist!” ‘til the cows come home, then go back to your yoga class in your feel-good Prius with your organic, Made in China reusable bag and call it a day.
Read more at Rare: