Women’s March Organizers include Homophobic, Anti-Semitic, Racist Killers

http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/265944/womens-march-organizers-include-homophobic-anti-daniel-greenfield

 

The anti-Trump Women’s March events were supposed to represent a call for human rights. Instead you can’t seem to have one without a celebrity meltdown and a murderer.

Here’s the last monster to speak at the previous Women’s March.

The Women’s March on Washington last week featured as a speaker convicted felon Donna Hylton who, along with several others, kidnapped a man and then tortured him to death.

Hylton, along with three men and three other women, kidnapped 62-year-old real-estate broker Thomas Vigliarolo and held him for ransom, before eventually killing him. As noted in a 1995 Psychology Today article, when asked about forcibly sodomizing the victim with a three foot steel pole, one of Hylton’s accomplices replied: “He was a homo anyway.”

Speaking about Hylton, New York City Detective William Spurling told Psychology Today: “I couldn’t believe this girl who was so intelligent and nice-looking could be so unemotional about what she was telling me she and her friends had done. They’d squeezed the victim’s testicles with a pair of pliers, beat him, burned him.”

#ShePersisted.

Here’s the next monster from the next Women’s March.

 

organizers have in mind a “general strike” called the Day without a Woman. In a manifesto published in The Guardian on Feb. 6, the brains behind the movement are calling for a “new wave of militant feminist struggle.” That’s right: militant, not peaceful.

The document was co-authored by, among others, Rasmea Yousef Odeh, a convicted terrorist. Odeh, a Palestinian, was convicted in Israel in 1970 for her part in two terrorist bombings, one of which killed two students while they were shopping for groceries. She spent 10 years in prison for her crimes. She then managed to become a US citizen in 2004 by lying about her past (great detective work, INS: Next time, use Google) but was subsequently convicted, in 2014, of immigration fraud for the falsehoods. However, she won the right to a new trial (set for this spring) by claiming she had been suffering from PTSD at the time she lied on her application. Oh, and in her time as a citizen, she worked for a while as an ObamaCare navigator.

Oh and of course…

Another co-author, Angela Davis, is a Stalinist professor and longtime supporter of the Black Panthers. Davis is best known for being acquitted in a 1972 trial after three guns she bought were used in a courtroom shootout that resulted in the death of a judge.

So the Women’s March organizers include a homophobic killer, an anti-Semitic killer and a racist killer.

#Diversity

WHY PROFESSORS OBJECT TO BEING RECORDED

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/265879/why-professors-object-being-recorded-dennis-prager

After the election of Donald Trump as president, a professor at Orange Coast College in California, Olga Perez Stable Cox, went into an extended hate rant against the president-elect. Among other things, she described Trump’s election as an “act of terrorism,” labeled him a white supremacist and called Vice President-elect Mike Pence “one of the most anti-gay humans in this country.”

And this wasn’t even a political science class in which one might expect political talk, no matter how irresponsible. Cox is a professor of human sexuality.

When a student who recorded the diatribe posted the recording on social media, the professor’s union, the Coast Federation of Educators, AFT local chapter 1911, said on Facebook: “This is an illegal recording without the permission of the instructor. The student will be identified and may be facing legal action.”

According to the union, the recording “violated the professor’s course syllabus, the Coast Community College District Code of Student Conduct, and the California Educational Code (sic), section 78907, which (exists) to provide a robust, learning environment for all students irrespective of their opinions.”

The aforementioned California Education Code section states, “The use by any person, including a student, of any electronic listening or recording device in any classroom without the prior consent of the instructor is prohibited.”

The American Association of University Professors has long opposed unauthorized recording and public posting of what professors say in classrooms.

As it happens, I taught for two years at Brooklyn College. I recall students asking me whether they could record my lectures. And I remember thinking, “Why on Earth would I say no?”

I wanted whatever I said in a classroom to be heard by more than 50 people. “Who wouldn’t?” I wondered.

Here, then, is my theory as to why most professors who object to their class lectures being recorded do so: They fear having what they say exposed to the general public.

Our colleges and universities (and an increasing number of high schools and elementary schools) have been transformed from educational institutions into indoctrination institutions. With the left-wing takeover of universities, their primary aim has become graduating as many leftists as possible.

The vast majority of our colleges have become left-wing seminaries. Just as Christian seminaries exist to produce committed Christians, Western universities exist to produce committed leftists. Aside from the Christian-leftism difference, universities differ in only one respect from Christian seminaries: Christian seminaries admit their goal, whereas the universities deceive the public about theirs.

Thus, in the “social sciences” — disciplines outside the natural sciences and math — a large number of college teachers inject their politics into their classrooms. And if they are recorded, the general public will become aware of just how politicized their classroom lectures are.

But there is another reason.

Most professors objecting to being recorded know on some level that they are persuasive only when their audience is composed largely of very young people just out of high school. They know that if their ideas are exposed to adults, they may be revealed as intellectual lightweights.

Students therefore need to understand that when professors object to being recorded, it is a statement of contempt for them. The professors are, in effect, saying to their students: “Listen. I can get away with this intellectually shallow, emotion-based propaganda when you are the only people who actually hear it. You aren’t wise enough to perceive it as such. But if people over 21 years of age hear it, I’m toast.”

All rules governing the recording of conversations without permission should apply to a professor meeting privately with a student.

But when professors stand in front of a class, they are in the public domain. Moreover, the public pays at least part of these professors’ salary at virtually every university. We therefore have a right, and even a duty, to know what professors say publicly in classrooms.

In fact, I would encourage every student who cares about truth and intellectual honesty to record what their professors say in class. I would also encourage every parent to find out for what they are paying. And I would encourage professors to record themselves in order to protect themselves against doctored material.

Any professor who is not ashamed of what he or she is saying in class should welcome being recorded.

And any student taking a class with a professor who objects to being recorded should know that this objection is almost always equivalent to the professor saying: “I want you to hear what I say in class because I’m quite confident that you can’t differentiate between instruction and indoctrination. But if what I say goes public, people who do know the difference will expose me as a propagandist.”

 

College teaches American grammar is ‘racist’

 

 

The University of Washington at Tacoma writing school has found a unique way to make a statement about “social justice.”

According to poster displayed in the writing center, American grammar is “racist” and an ”unjust language structure.”  The center promises to prioritize rhetoric over “grammatical correctness.”

Daily Caller:

The poster, written by the director, staff, and tutors of the University of Washington, Tacoma’s Writing Center, states ”racism is the normal condition of things,” declaring that it permeates rules, systems, expectations, in courses, school and society.

“Linguistic and writing research has shown clearly for many decades that there is no inherent ‘standard’ of English,” proclaims the writing center’s statement. “Language is constantly changing. These two facts make it very difficult to justify placing people in hierarchies or restricting opportunities and privileges because of the way people communicate in particular versions of English.”

In the introduction to its “commitment” section, the Tacoma Writing Center pledges to “listen and look carefully and compassionately for ways we may unintentionally perpetuate racism or social injustice, actively engaging in antiracist practices” before making nine specific promises to students.

It’s true that language is constantly evolving – at least, the common usage of terms and phrases that are the backbone of communication.

But the purpose of grammatical rules and conventions is to promote exactness in writing.  ”Reading maketh a full man, conference a ready man, and writing an exact man,” said Francis Bacon.  If you want to write something no one will misunderstand, you must formalize the structure using long agreed upon conventions.

“[The statement] is a great example of how we are striving to act against racism,” said Dr. Jill Purdy, Tacoma’s vice chancellor of undergraduate affairs. “Language is the bridge between ideas and action, so how we use words has a lot of influence on what we think and do.”

The Tacoma Writing Center’s prioritization of social justice over grammar resembles previous concerted efforts to legitimize incorrect speech, such as Ebonics, “inventive spelling,” and “whole language.”

The statement by Ms. Purdy is actually spot on.  ”How we use words has a lot of influence on what we think and do” is an excellent summation of the necessity and utilitarian aspect of the written word.

No one is going to understand those ideas unless there is a formalized structure by which the writer and reader are following established, recognizable grammatical rules.  The misuse of tense, for example, could alter the meaning of what the writer is trying to get across.  Is it racist to insist that clarity and exactitude are more important than ill thought out ideas that are incoherently expressed?

I suppose it’s the thought that counts.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2017/02/college_teaches_american_grammar_is_racist.html#ixzz4ZNDvdclL
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

WHY THE MEDIA’S TRUMP LIE MACHINE IS FAILING

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.

Every five minutes the many mouths of the media broadcast, type, post and shriek that President Donald J. Trump is a liar. After months of this treatment, more voters find him truthful than them.

49% of voters believe that Trump and his people are telling the truth. Only 39% believe that the media is.

The media’s war on President Trump isn’t hurting him. It is destroying the media’s own credibility.

After Trump’s win, the media came to the conclusion that its biased attacks on him had been too subtle and understated to connect with the “dumb” voters. So it decided to be far more overt about its smears.

The New York Times, which used to be the best at disguising its biases in the omnipotent voice of professional journalism, called President Trump a liar in its headlines.  The media cheered this descent into naked partisanship by the paper of record. But it didn’t hurt Trump. It hurt the Times.

Headlines blasting President Trump as a “liar” are easy enough to find on the internet. The New York Times derives much of its influence from its appearance of serious professionalism.  Calling Trump names made it hard to distinguish the New York Times from the Huffington Post.

The first time the New York Times called Trump a liar was during the election. Times editor Dean Baquet insisted that while Hillary Clinton might “obfuscate, exaggerate”, Trump was a liar. And when the Times printed lies about Trump, it too was no doubt merely obfuscating and exaggerating rather than lying.

The Times can’t call its own candidate who lied about landing “under sniper fire” in Bosnia, negotiating peace in Northern Ireland and being kept out of NASA and the Marine Corps by sexism, a liar. And yet it expects someone, anyone, to believe that calling Trump a liar is anything more than a partisan smear.

Before the first debate, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post and Politico all ran stories accusing Trump of being a liar. The coordinated attack failed to accomplish anything at all.

“Our president is a pathological liar. Say it. Write it. Never become inured to it,” Times columnist Charles Blow ranted in January. By February, the Times was reduced to writing explainers to explain why its lies weren’t working. “Why Nobody Cares the President Is Lying.”

The public had become inured to a partisan attack from a partisan press.

The more the media attacked Trump, the less effective those attacks became. To call anyone else a liar, you need to tell the truth. And truth requires objectivity. The media had discarded objectivity in pursuit of political goals, but still “identified” as objective. In the parlance of political correctness, you are what you “identify” as, but the real world has never brought into this lie masquerading as a delusion.

Truth is not who you pretend to be. It’s who you are.

The media wanted the authority to determining who was lying without the responsibility of telling the truth. As the media made its partisan bias more obvious, it lost the credibility it needed. The more the media called President Trump a liar, the more the public believed that the media was lying.

“I think we’re in a remarkably partisan moment, where people who don’t like Donald Trump feel like the media is not doing enough about him. I think that’s just wrong,” Dean Baquet complained.

The media is doing more than ever. And it’s accomplishing less than ever.

Instead the media has become trapped in a cycle of impotence. The harder it attacks Trump, the more credibility it loses. And this makes its attacks on him even more spectacularly ineffective.

Its arrogance has become its own undoing.

There were two reasons for the media’s influence. It had the infrastructure and it had credibility. The internet has made infrastructure largely irrelevant. If you are sitting in an airport, you might be stuck in front of a monitor playing CNN. But it’s usually just as easy to punch up FOX News on your phone.

The billions of dollars in media infrastructure, printing presses, broadcast towers and licenses, are becoming more irrelevant every year. And the media’s credibility is becoming irrelevant even faster.

Without broadcasting infrastructure, the media’s reach depends on credibility. The majority of Democrats still believe the media. The vast majority of Republicans do not. The media is an echo chamber that reflects this partisan structure. And its echo doesn’t reach past the ranks of the left.

The media is baffled at the futility of its efforts against Trump. It still can’t conceive of a world in which it isn’t trusted or needed. But Americans already don’t trust the media. And they don’t need it either.

The existence of a professional class of men and women who write about events was a leftover from an era when communication speeds were rising, but distribution still required investing in infrastructure: whether it was a printing press or a broadcast tower. The internet makes distribution absurdly easy.

Even the old privileges of the press, like the press corps, can be easily stripped away from it, as the White House has demonstrated by expanding the press corps to include more conservative outlets.

The New York Times was once known as the paper of record because it set the agenda for smaller papers. As one editor declared, “We set the agenda for the country in that room.” But the Times doesn’t set the agenda anymore. The internet does. The media’s political content is driven by the talking points of left-wing Twitter and the rest of its national offerings consist of viral videos and trending topics.

The media bemoans the collapse of its influence as a “post-truth world” filled with “Fake News” and
“alternative facts”. But it was the media that destroyed its hegemony of credibility. After unveiling its “Fake News” smear, it quickly pulled it back again because it was all too easy for conservatives to use it to expose the flood of media lies.

A post-truth world rejects objectivity. The media imagines that its fact checks, which spin and editorialize shamelessly, put it on the side of truth. But truth is more than finding a factoid you can use to make a lie seem more plausible or a truth more unlikely. It’s intellectual honesty for its own sake.

The media believes that its left-wing goals are more important than objectivity or truth. But by abandoning the principles it claimed to live by, it destroyed its ability to achieve those goals.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/265832/why-medias-trump-lie-machine-failing-daniel-greenfield