Harsh Reality

Thursday, November 10, 2016

Election 2016: America Strikes Back! My Latest Column at WND.com

Congratulations to all my fellow Deplorables. You did it!

Donald Trump's victory Tuesday was the culmination of something that had been building since 1988.


In my latest column at WND.com I take you down Memory Lane and remind you of many of the things that got ordinary Americans to the boiling point and what ultimately all but guaranteed a Trump victory in the 2016 general election. Check it out! And if you'd like to share it on your social media platform, please do so from the buttons on the right side of the story on WND.

My latest column is linked here:



Sunday, July 31, 2016

Even Her "Surprise & Delight" Are Painfully Scripted



Here's the Democrat nominee doing her scripted "surprised & delighted" face.

Every single thing this woman does is scripted, focus-grouped, controlled & rehearsed.

It's a reflection of her entire adult life. Ambition above all else. Everything is for the purpose of advancing herself politically.

She does terrible when she has to speak or do anything without a script. Which is why it has been almost 9 MONTHS since she did a press conference. How is that even possible?! She's a major party's nominee for President of the United States. And she refuses to take questions that aren't screened by her staff.

Everyone knows she's terrible on her feet, so her campaign is coordinating with the media to rig up the debates the same way they did with Bernie Sanders by burying them in the TV schedule so as few people see them as possible.

And all of this explains how Benghazi happened. There was no teleprompter to tell her what to say or how to act during those deadly 13 hours. So her staff coordinated with the White House to come up with a narrative and talking points for her to repeat about what had happened. All lies, as we knew at the time and was confirmed later. But she has no idea what to do when she's not surrounded by handlers insulating her from reality.

The corruption and stupidity of all this is so profound one cannot help but laugh.

Friday, July 1, 2016

America Arrived At Bolshevism Without A Shot Being Fired

AP Sources: Obama To Reveal Civilian Deaths From Drones
The story linked above was shared on social media by my friend Sean with this sarcastic comment:
"I'm sure we can rest assured the assessment will be honest and accurate."
His comment is funny because it is sarcastic. But it got me thinking. How sad is it that the American people now have the same dismissive view of our government and media that Soviet citizens had of Pravda & TASS?

Everything in America is being communized. (I may have created a new word there.) Only instead of a bloody revolution, they've done it little by little, classroom by classroom, boardroom by boardroom and political office by political office.

We know our government lies to us, spies on us, punishes dissenters and runs a shameless propaganda division that tells us whatever story advances the agenda of comrade Dear Leader. It's Bolshevism. We arrived without a shot being fired.

My friend's snarky comment is something uttered by the beleaguered people of the USSR.

Thursday, June 30, 2016

Transgender Troops Prove The U.S. Military Now Exists Only To Serve The Leftist Social Agenda

In the summer of 2006 I was a U.S. Army Soldier serving in Iraq. During my time there I suffered a severely cracked molar. A Pennsylvania National Guard dentist, a "full-bird" Colonel who had a successful private practice back home when he wasn't serving his country and had begun his military career in Vietnam, did an amazing job of extracting that tooth for me in less than ideal conditions in Baghdad, Iraq. I was so thankful for his great work that I got my picture taken with him, swollen face and all. I would share that photo, but I haven't spoken to him since that time. In a moment, we will revisit this story to explain the irony of the current state of the military.

President Obama's Secretary of Defense announced at the Pentagon today that the United States military's ban on cross-dressers is being lifted. From now on, people the mental condition "gender dysphoria" - i.e. they are one sex, but mentally believe themselves to be the opposite sex, formerly called "Gender Identity Disorder" (they recently changed the name to make it not sound like the mental disorder that it is) - are welcome to join the military.


Secretary Carter justified the change by saying:
"[W]e don't want barriers unrelated to a person's qualification to serve preventing us from recruiting or retaining the soldier, sailor, airman, or Marine who can best accomplish the mission".
Okay.

But then Mr. Carter went on to describe how medical services would be provided by the military, including surgery, to medically change that service member into whatever sex they tell military leaders they want to be. Medical services for this type of, uh...situation, include the genital surgical deconstruction and construction, breast augmentation, facial plastic surgery, "voice therapy" (training a man to talk with a higher voice like a woman) and mental health services to assist with the emotional difficulties of surgically altering oneself into something that resembles a person that one is biologically incapable of actually being.

A search for reliable sources on the recovery time for sex change operations yielded a wide range of time from a few months to a few years, depending on several factors. So, one can reasonably expect to have to be off work recuperating and rehabilitating various medical procedures for several months to a year. Possibly longer. And those times are for a typical civilian job. Not a military position. With this in mind, how can cross-dressing Soldiers, Marines, Sailors or Airmen possibly be considered the one who "can best accomplish the mission"? They will be entering, or remaining in, military service with a built-in medical disability to perform their job for a substantial period of their service.

Secretary Carter also explained that these special troops will be allowed to use the living quarters, bathroom and shower facilities, wear the uniform and be held to the fitness standard of their preferred gender. This means biological men, with altered genitalia, will be held to the lower women's physical fitness standards. It will also be interesting to see the effect on female moral, recruitment and retention at having a bunkmate who is biologically a man. One has to believe that there will be some effect on female troops. Whether it results in fewer actual women remaining or joining the military, or different types of females joining or remaining, one thing is for certain: Changes like this cannot be made without consequence. What those consequences are remains to be seen.

If budgets were not an issue and the world were at peace, this would still not make any sense. But we know neither one of those are the case.

The U.S. Army is slashing troop levels to the lowest real number of troops since before World War Two, and the lowest level as a percentage of the population since before the Civil War. (See my column at WND.com on that topic.) Commanders are having to figure out a way to accomplish missions with fewer people, fewer dollars and older equipment. The Navy and Air Force have sounded the alarm that budget cuts have severely diminished the operational capabilities of aircraft to the point that airplanes are being grounded and cannibalized for parts to keep other airplanes flying. Just this month several fighter jets have crashed, including a Navy Blue Angel and an Air Force Thunderbird that had just flown over a commencement speech given by Obama at the Air Force Academy. In a single month last year five F-16 fighters crashed due to engine failure or other breakdown.

But, no worries, Secretary Carter assures us. In these times of tightened budgets and slashed personnel levels while we face an enemy who is cutting the heads off American citizens on YouTube and detonating suicide vests anywhere they can find a crowd, Mr. Carter assures the American people that commanders will be given flexibility in how to serve the needs of the transgender servicemembers in their ranks and how to best provide them medical care and job assignments. After all, he reasoned, not all cross-dressers are the same.

Sex change operations and related medical treatments are expensive. They are also elective procedures. When troop levels are being slashed to 150-year lows and fighter jets are using pieces pulled off other airplanes just to be able to fly, while American service members and civilians are slaughtered around the world, one might be forgiven for wondering if we have entered a time of national insanity.

Back to that cracked molar that was pulled out in Baghdad ten years ago this week. I still have a hole back there where that tooth used to live. I have inquired several times since I got back home about getting a tooth implant. They are surprisingly expensive. As an Army Reservist I had a civilian contractor dentist try to help me get it paid for by the Army. He reasoned that, since the tooth was lost while in a combat zone on active duty and removed by an Army dentist, that the Army should fix it. I believe he has put the request through a few times. They refuse to pay for it. I have also asked about getting an implant at my VA visits, but have been denied there, as well. It is not a huge deal. I am a blessed man to be only missing a molar. Annoying, but not noticeable to anyone. Since the Department of Defense suddenly has all the money it needs to surgically mutilate the genitals and other body parts of otherwise physically healthy servicemembers - on purpose - maybe I should put in another request to get that tooth fixed.

Saturday, June 25, 2016

"Brexit" Explained in Terms of a College Situation

First, my congratulations to the people of the United Kingdom for striking the most massive blow yet against globalism by voting to leave the European Union. Your stand against collectivist globalism has given a shot of adrenaline to freedom-loving people everywhere. Here's praying that the momentum continues to build.


A friend of my college-age daughter shared on social media recently that she was a bit confused by what to think about the "Brexit" news. Major Western media, of course, portrayed the vote in terms of how bad it is. But the people of the UK seem pretty happy with it. So I left the following explanation to help her and her friends with what Brexit was all about in terms they could understand.
There's nothing to be confused about! Think of European countries as people. Pretend YOU are a European country. You've got a bunch of friends. Some have great jobs, some have no job. Some have a nice car, some have no car at all. Some are slobs, some are neat & tidy. Some pay their bills on time and some are constantly having their phone disconnected or are in collection status. So, all of you are sitting around one day and someone proposes you all move into a big house together. Share all the bills. Share all your vehicles. Share all the food.
The guy who works odd jobs doesn't contribute much to the finances, but he IS a really good musician, so he's a fun guy to come home to. And the girl with the really nice car doesn't make a lot of money and made a really poor choice with the car she selected. But now, shell be able to make her payments okay as long as she's able to eat the food that "everyone" is buying for the pantry. And besides, everyone will get to use her nice car. And a million other collective benefits come into the conversation.
 Except it doesn't work like that.
The broke-ass, irresponsible roommates continue being irresponsible - only NOW they're being irresponsible with the food and the cars and the bills that the responsible roommates brought to the deal. Eventually, it becomes clear that basically everything is being averaged out. Which is great for the lazy roommates and the perpetually under-employed ones. And musician guy wrecked the girls' really nice car and she thinks the whole group should get it fixed.
It gets to a point where the 2-3-4 responsible roommates are just completely carrying the rest. And one of the responsible ones says "I'm out of here. I'm not happy with others wrecking my credit, eating my food, running up bills that I'm expected to pay and keeping me up all night with noise because they don't have to go to work in the morning. I wish you well. Goodbye."
Obviously, the loser roommates will beg & plead for the responsible one to stay. And the other responsible roommates - realizing that they're going to have an increased burden carrying the losers - first pleads with them to stay and then threatens them with all kinds of consequences if they leave. Then throw into the mix that one of the roommates is black or muslim, and the roommates start telling the one who wants to leave that he's a racist and is only leaving because he hates brown people. 
Finally, the responsible roommate says I'm out of here. I've got my own place, my own job, my own car and my own credit. I just want to be responsible for myself and not dependent on everyone. I care more about my own interests than the collective does. My own personal well-being is worse off for joining this collective house, so I'm going to just be independent. 
That is what the UK did. They voted to leave. That is "Brexit". 
Germany is the only responsible roommate who's going to stay. Switzerland and Iceland have withdrawn their petition to join, France and others may vote to leave, Austria will probably also vote to leave. The house is coming apart.
Congratulations for the people of the UK reclaiming their independence. America gets our turn in November to make a profound statement against globalism.


Wednesday, June 15, 2016

While Americans Are Slaughtered, Our Leaders Refuse to Lead

In our modern 24-hour news cycle there can be hundreds of angles, theories and bad information reported in the immediate hours after a large-scale calamity like the one that took place in the Pulse nightclub, an Orlando gay bar, on Saturday night. No matter the setting, victims or specifics, however, the basic facts that come out are just a mundane repetition of every other recent jihadist attack around the world.

With no intention of being insensitive, is there anyone else who can recite the basics of a Muslim terror attack without even reading the stories? They are always the same: "Muslim gunmen"; “allahu akbar!"; "dozens dead" and Western leftist demands that we "don't judge". Oh yes, and our leaders do nothing about it. These are constants in modern jihadist mayhem.

There appear to be details of this particular attack, however, that should be more problematic for the left and their narratives than normal. In the immediate aftermath liberal attack dogs seized on the opportunity to claim to be victims of homophobic American Christian gun culture. Hate, bigotry and the usual slurs were thrown around freely as the professional victim class commentators clutched the occasion to air their disgust with America’s foundations.

As it turned out, though, Omar Mateen was yet another Muslim whose family, like Muhammad Abdulazeez in Chattanooga last year and the Tsarnaev brothers in Boston, were refugees given shelter by the United States. While this pattern of murder-by-refugee is unhelpful to the left’s current immigration policy, which is to import millions of Mateens, Abdulazeezs and Tsarnaevs, reports from several sources indicate that Mr. Matteen was homosexual. In any rational discussion the fact that the terrorist was a gay Muslim would serve to de-fang an argument that this slaughter was the result of Christian anti-gay bigotry. But Western leftists are not rational.

The New York Daily News blamed the National Rifle Association for Mr. Mateen killing his fellow gay patrons at a club he had frequented many times, even though he was not a member of the NRA. He was a self-described Muslim and follower of ISIS. But those memberships are ignored because they are unsupportive to their claims and causes. Like David Letterman’s rant on live TV after the 9/11 terror attacks, many liberals are using this latest terror attack as an opening to assault “religion”, in general. Notwithstanding that there are no reports of Buddhist monks, Hindus or Episcopalians rampaging anywhere on Earth.

In his statement to reporters on Tuesday, Obama claimed to not know what could have motivated Mr. Mateen or what associations he may have had. This despite specifically telling police in the middle of his massacre that he was an Islamic State loyalist. What Obama is certain of, is that this was an “act of hate” (again, a generic deflection that is a useful slur hurled at Christians), and the result of Americans having too much access to guns.

A narrative has begun to coagulate on the left, though. The excuses being settled on appear to be the internet and guns.

In the words of former Obama advisor and current Chicago Mayor Rahm Immanuel: Never let a crisis go to waste. In other words, use every tragedy as an opportunity to force your agenda while everyone is in shock or mourning. Strike while the public’s guard is down. Reports that Omar Mateen may have been “self-radicalized” on the internet offers a chance for the President to score a rare double play with demands to restrict firearms and tighten government controls on the internet. All while excusing Islam from any culpability and continuing the narrative of the “religion of peace”. He is opportunistic, if nothing else.

Adding yet another layer of modern routine to this story are reports from co-workers, an ex-wife and others that Mr. Mateen was dangerously unstable and claims that he escaped scrutiny or punishment because people were afraid to say anything due to his status as a Muslim. Most Americans are familiar with the current culture that attacks honesty as "racism", "sexism", "homophobia" or some other slur and promotes narratives that we can all see are not true. The purpose is to shut down honest speech and shield privileged classes of people to advance leftist political and social agendas.

To blame the NRA, one must question how this attack could be essentially identical to the Muslim terror attacks in Europe where guns are banned? Explosives are illegal both in the United States and in Europe, but somehow Muslim terrorists keep using those, also, to blow up gatherings of people. Suicide vests, pressure cooker bombs, weapons caches in Germany, Belgium, France and the UK...the NRA has exactly nothing to do with any of these things. There is, however, one common denominator in all these attacks. But that brings us back to where Mr. Mateen’s co-workers and acquaintances found themselves. Specifically not permitted to notice or comment for fear of being castigated as a bigot. Does anybody remember the denunciation of Texas school officials and police over the “clock boy” incident? Or the gun store owner sued by an Islamic group for posting a sign reading “Muslim Free Zone”?

So jihadist attacks keep happening and our leaders keep pretending it's the fault of something else. But this is not unique to our government’s treatment of terrorism. The same thing is happening with the collapse of the American education system and the burning of our inner cities. The obvious problem is ignored and an alternative narrative is created and blamed. "White privilege" is one that's particularly amusing. Satan is the father of lies. We all see how damaging our national embrace of lies has been. Yet we nod our heads as though the lies are true.

Dozens of Americans were murdered in cold blood in America. We have an enemy who has openly declared war on the West, in general, and America, in particular. They are killing us by the dozens and hundreds. And our leaders refuse to even acknowledge there is a war. An actual war. With guns and bombs and dead Americans. What kind of nation refuses to even defend itself as it is being invaded and attacked? America's "leaders" are simply refusing to lead.

Monday, June 6, 2016

Remembering The Culture, Bravery & Sacrifice Of A Day That Is Slipping From Our National Memory.



Pre-flight briefing of American air crews before their D-Day missions.
By the next day, many of these men had given their lives.

Today is the 72nd anniversary of the D-Day invasion.

I just wanted to share a few personal thoughts on this day we should remember.

With some of you undoubtedly growing up in the 1970s and later American public education system, I'll give you some brief history as to what that's about.

Germany and its allies had conquered Europe one nation at a time since the late 1930s. Their influence stretched from North Africa all the way into the Soviet Union. They owned all of Europe and had been relentlessly softening up Great Britain with arial bombardments that were taking their toll until the U.S. got involved. Everyone knew there had to be an invasion of the European continent, but nobody knew when, where or how it would happen. On 6 June 1944 the world learned how the allies would do it. The largest armada in human history poured across the English Channel. Thousands of aircraft, thousands of sea-going vessels and hundreds of thousands of men. But German troops were well-equipped, well-trained and were dug in, expecting an invasion. The fight was chaotic and costly in terms of lives and equipment. But it was a fight worth having and everything was given by a lot of soldiers, sailors and pilots. Some gave their lives. Families gave their sons, husbands, fathers and brothers. It was the 1st day that America, Great Britain, Canada and our allies were on the attack.


The cost was so high and the day such a turning point in such a monumental conflict that it was remembered every year by Americans everywhere after the war and commemorated in some way or other. Maybe just by reading a blurb above the headline of the day's newspaper. Maybe just watching a news item about it on the evening news. Or maybe by lifting a pint at the local watering hole to toast the men who fought that day, living and dead.

I've noticed over the years that the remembrances of the day have faded away from our collective American conscience. Same thing with remembrance of December 7th and the beginning of the war for Americans at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. My grandfather was in the European theater. Patton's 3rd Army. 6th Armored Division, 16th Tank Battalion. The "Super Sixers" crossed the channel and joined the fight weeks after the foothold had been secured at Normandy, but famously fought like tigers at the Battle of the Bulge during the next horrifying winter at Bastogne. My grandparents never let a D-Day anniversary go by without talking about where they were that day. What they saw. How they found out. The confusion, fear and chaos. But they were in it together with their neighbors, extended family and friends. My grandma had no idea if her young husband was alive or dead or part of the invasion or missing or captured or going across later. My grampa had no idea if his brothers or friends were alive or dead or missing or captured.
My grampa SSG Norris Harshey is kneeling front left.
Photo taken by another soldier in his unit
somewhere in Europe.

It's easy to look backwards and relax, knowing that it turned out okay. America's great sacrifice was a success, the war was eventually won, my grampa came home and started a family and lived an All-American life in the heartland with my grandma. And eventually took in a punk 15 year old named Sean Harshey to live in their home. But, on 6 June 1944, nobody knew how it would turn out. But they pushed on, anyway. They paid the price.




The scale of the invasion of Europe 72 years ago today was something that could probably never be duplicated. There's no national consensus on anything anymore. There's no "good" or "bad".

Nobody can agree on "right" or "wrong". Criminals are victims, evil is good, good things are "oppressive". Everything is relative. Even the simplest things have become gigantic national issues. The effect is that we can no longer accomplish big tasks that need to be done. Our ancestors may have been the last generation to be mostly unified in ideals and purpose and patriotism. I'm thankful for that.

My daughter's history class watched Saving Private Ryan this semester as part of their 20th century studies. I'm impressed at how much she learned about the causes of WW2 and the resulting geographic divisions of the Cold War. I'm very thankful to her teacher and her high school for impressing on the students the heavy sacrifices made for them by people they don't even know. On D-Day, nobody knew if these terrible sacrifices would accomplish the task. But they gave it their all. They did their duty. And won. They went through a terrible war to secure peace. For us.

My grampa being silly with my grandma
before he shipped off overseas. They were married almost
50 years before he passed away in 1991. Photo taken
in Louisiana, 1942.
When I was a kid, the World War Two generation seemed larger than life to me. The sacrifices, the achievements, they were all bigger than what I could imagine. The men that did all that - that liberated a continent, that liberated the entire Pacific Ocean - they were Super Men to me. And when I would see members of the Veterans of Foreign Wars wearing their side caps I always revered them as giants. Even as they got older and more frail and fewer in number.

Shortly after returning from Iraq in 2007 I was invited to join my local VFW post. It seemed very strange that I would be able to do so. I never felt worthy. I thought it my duty, though, as these organizations are becoming smaller in number and membership as a natural result of a smaller and smaller number of the American population having military service.

So, for the past nine years I've been a proud member of both the American Legion and the VFW. I served a brief stint as an officer at my VFW post and I've made a lot of friends. This past week an officer of my post (a Vietnam veteran) presented me with my own VFW side cap. I am honored and thrilled to have it. But I have mixed emotions about wearing it. I am very, very proud of my service and my comrades at my VFW post, but I honestly don't feel worthy to wear the same hat that those Super Men who liberated Europe came back home to wear at their local posts. I hope you will believe me when I say that this is not about me. I only share this anecdote about my own experience this week as an example of how much we owe to the generations before us who sacrificed so much. My year in the desert with email, occasional phone calls home and the ability to watch NFL games and the Indy 500 live on American Forces Network TV cannot possibly compare to the 2-1/2 years my grampa spent fighting his way across Europe. So the pride I felt in wearing that cap was more than off-set by the humility of the sacrifices and cost of the men who wore it before me.

They paid for something that we enjoy. They sacrificed for us. And there is nothing we can do to repay them. All we can do is be thankful and try to follow their example and be faithful in our duty for future generations.

Very honored to wear this cap.
CPT Sean Harshey in a Blackhawk helicopter somewhere
over Iraq. 24 September 2006


Tuesday, May 17, 2016

My Latest Column At WND.com: "Whatever Happened To 'MYOB'?"

Check out my latest column, published exclusively at WND.com.

Have you ever wondered how social media and traditional media can explode over something that might actually effect less than 1% of the population? Have you wondered why someone in New York or California has any opinion at all about whether a bakery they'll never visit in a town they've never heard of in the middle of America wants to bake a wedding cake?

I attack these oddities this week on the Commentary page at WorldNetDaily. Check it out!


Friday, May 13, 2016

We Are Now All George Zimmerman

Whatever else can be said about George Zimmerman, he is a man who is not afraid of negative publicity. He unwillingly got a lot of practice after being thrust into the national spotlight when a routine turn as neighborhood watch guy ended with him killing a man with a single shot while the man was beating him unconscious. Zimmerman’s investigation, arrest and jury trial was the biggest media event of 2013 and his acquittal continued the debate long after the verdict.

By way of side note, regardless of the disbelief expressed at his acquittal by the perpetually-offended set on the left, it was never in any serious doubt. As a former deputy prosecutor and a long-time criminal defense attorney, I was somewhat surprised that Zimmerman was charged at all. Only “somewhat surprised” because the media and leftist pressure to charge Zimmerman was deafening, but it was clearly only charged for that reason. It turned out as they tend to do when a decision to go to jury trial is made on some basis other than the strength of the case. If you recall, the prosecution’s weak case against Zimmerman only got worse as the evidence was presented at trial.

Once the Not Guilty verdict was read, Zimmerman’s life would forever be under the microscope of social justice warriors who still seethe with anger at his ability to slip their grasp and characterize his defending himself while being beaten as having hunted and murdered a young black man.

Zimmerman made news this week when he put up for auction the gun that he used to shoot Trayvon Martin that rainy Florida night in 2012. Zimmerman previously has made news with scuffles with a man he described as a “Black Lives Matter supporter” and his auctioning of his own artwork to help pay his legal fees. Zimmerman also tweeted a picture of himself relaxing in a pool and taunted those who tweet death threats at him. The outrage on social media has been predictable with the lines drawn pretty much where one might expect, with one certain exception.

Several commenters who otherwise believed Zimmerman properly defended himself when he shot Martin found his auctioning of the gun to be unnecessarily taunting his liberal accusers and re-igniting a social media firestorm.

It is actually very fascinating. While it is easy to be disappointed in this kind of un-civil discourse, George Zimmerman is a man whose life has been unfairly changed forever.

Like many Americans he was fed-up with the crime in his neighborhood, so he volunteered to help. During his turn walking the neighborhood, he saw a man he did not recognize and called 9-1-1 and followed him. Martin, on the phone to his girlfriend at the time, told her there was a "creepy ass cracker" following him and indicated to her that he was going to confront him. As he was beating Zimmerman's head against the concrete, Zimmerman fired a single shot. For this, Zimmerman's life has been changed forever. He was arrested, prosecuted, vilified in national media and now has to live in hiding, forever looking over his shoulder. While the auction of the gun may be a bit ghoulish, he is in a situation that he didn't ask to be in. He was in his own neighborhood, he was attacked, and he did the only thing he could do besides let himself be killed. The people who hate George Zimmerman are going to keep hating him whether he mocks them or not. In light of that, it is hard to blame him for flipping the bird, so to speak, at the people who hate him.

Most people don’t have a sizable group of persons who want to kill them. Or even one person, one would hope. But George Zimmerman can't live a normal life like the rest of us. At last report, Zimmerman still has a bounty on his head by the Black Panther Party. And who knows how many Black Lives Matter thugs would love to be famous for killing him? He cannot mow his lawn. He cannot go to the grocery or stand at a gas pump without looking over his shoulder and wondering if his killer is nearby. If Zimmerman was just a normal guy, the auctions of these paintings and the gun used to kill Martin would be unfortunate and tasteless. But with all that he has been put through and what they have taken from him, it is difficult to judge him for not just going away and hiding like a scared worm without flipping said bird.

Zimmerman killed a man who was trying to kill him.

So what should Zimmerman have done differently? What lessons can we all take from his situation? Should we not form a neighborhood watch or otherwise try to impede criminals? Should we not call authorities and try to see where a stranger is going or what he might be doing? Should we not carry a lawfully owned firearm? Should we refuse to defend ourselves when attacked? When it is legally settled that we committed no crime, should we show the left that we are unafraid of their death threats?

For many on the left, we should do none of these things.

In this way, it is reflective of the theme on the left that any interference with someone identified by liberals as a member of an “oppressed” group is an act of racism, regardless of facts, or the safety of an individual or community.

We are seeing this play out in the presidential election with regard to illegal immigration and the flood of Muslim “refugees”. There comes a point where the outrage and cries of racism from liberals no longer matters. Their threats no longer matter. Any attempt to stop the devastating effects on our safety and our economy are met with accusations of bad intentions and racism. We are all George Zimmerman now. And Donald Trump is America’s proverbial bird that’s being flipped at our accusers.

Wednesday, May 11, 2016

Published Again! Check Out My Latest Column At WND.com.

The Orwellian transformation of American culture from one that celebrates accomplishments and things that further the human condition to one that values being a victim above all else is the topic of this week's column at WND.com. Cleck it out!


Tuesday, May 10, 2016

The Gap Between Reality & Politically Correct Mania

An interesting news item about VE Day celebrations in Russia demonstrated the collective insanity in Western culture that goes under the banner of political correctness. Adherents of this brand of insanity typically don't call it that. They call it "tolerance" or "inclusiveness" or some other such nonsensical doublespeak. Doublespeak, because their positions are anything but tolerant or inclusive. They are exactly the opposite.

Only one approved point of view is permitted among these types, and they work very hard to silence or even prosecute anyone with a different opinion. Speech codes, hate speech, hate crimes and allegations of "microagressions" are some of the made-up justifications they have created to officially stomp out the viewpoint of anyone with a different perspective.

Is there a chance that prohibiting dissent is making the left intellectually flabby? It's devolved to the point where they never have to actually engage anyone with a different opinion on the merits of the different points of view. They simply run away to their safe spaces, shouting all the way for authorities to silence the offending person.

On a larger scale, this can have bad consequences in the future.

Take our Russian celebration example. Vladimir Putin's Russian military forces put on a massive display recently for the stated reason of commemorating the end of World War Two. With recent concerns of Russian troops incursions into Ukraine, the weekly harassment of U.S. military aircraft or naval vessels by Russian fighter pilots and the news of a newly developed Russian nuclear missile system that uses stealth technology and is largely undetectable to American radar, one would presume that reporting on this military show might focus on one or more of these concerns. You would be wrong.

What is the biggest concern among Western journalists covering the Russian military celebration? The female soldiers' uniforms. Politically correct Western journalist think they are sexist.


Russia's female soldiers participated in their VE Day festivities celebrating the defeat of Germany and the end of WW2. Looking fit, tough & patriotic. What I found more interesting, however, is the Western media's derogatory reporting of the ladies. Lashing out at them as a "Miniskirt Army", accusing Vladimir Putin of sexism and howling with protest that these Russian soldiers aren't politically correct like the females in the UK & US militaries.

Feminists are the most miserable people in the world. Of all the military concerns in an unstable world, the most important thing to the politically correct journalist is that the Russian female soldiers look too good. One can only presume that the male writer of this absurd story wants feminists to know that he is on their side and will take up their struggle to insult and demean women who are more attractive than they are.

I have a high level of confidence that each of the females Putin would deploy will be highly effective in their military specialty. And I doubt any of these women or Putin cares that screechy American or British journalists disapprove of their uniforms.

Wednesday, May 4, 2016

Deconstructing The Powder Keg That Trump Used To Blow Up The Republican Party


It is too soon to conduct a post-mortem on the Republican Party’s establishment wing because there are still remnants to be rooted out. Most notably those in leadership positions on Capitol Hill who spend their days alternating between laying prostrate before liberal Democrats and thinking up talking points to try to explain their profound impotence to Republican voters. It has been like walking a tightrope for them, to be certain. They enjoy the perks of power, but have to appease the Washington political establishment. So they are burdened with the balancing act of looking like they are doing something in order to keep GOP voters sending them back while not actually doing anything to disrupt the liberal Democrat agenda and make them and the media say bad things about them and disinvite them from cocktail parties. In other words, being a de facto liberal while claiming to oppose liberalism.

Donald Trump’s landslide victory in Tuesday’s Indiana primary is a game-changer.

In spite of the importance of his victory – his final rival has tapped out, he is now the presumptive nominee, the GOP establishment has been profoundly rebuked by voters – it is the culmination of 28 years of a steadily building revolution.

Now is an appropriate time to review how we arrived at this point.

While conventional wisdom holds that “Republican voters are conservative”, we all know there are enough exceptions to this rule to make that statement untrue. A more accurate statement is that “conservatives vote Republican”. There are far fewer exceptions when stated that way. It is this truism, the lack of any alternative party for conservatives to support, that has bred the contempt of the GOP for its own voters. Knowing that their base had nowhere else to go, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford and the Rockefeller wing of the GOP embarked on a campaign of “me too” style of governance where they chased the approval of liberal media by appeasing Democrats and their constituents in the futile effort to cross the aisle. Wage and price controls, expanding the War on Poverty, ending the Vietnam War, trying to solve actual economic problems with phony jingoistic public relations efforts like the WIN (Whip Inflation Now) button campaign. There was no liberal idea too ineffective for the GOP of the 1970s to refuse. Like Charlie Brown repeatedly trying to kick the football with the assurances of Lucy that she wouldn’t pull the ball away this time, the Republican leadership continued trying to be bipartisan while the Democrats and their leftist constituents only became emboldened and responded with a legislative agenda that moved ever leftward. Larger government, higher taxes, less freedom, more bureaucracy. Seem familiar?

With Washington Democrats rushing to the left in an attempt to see how far they could push the boundaries and the GOP leadership chasing after them trying to compromise at every turn, the spiral into the domestic malaise and foreign policy embarrassments of the late 1970s were the fault of both parties. It was against this backdrop that the Republican base began to mutiny. Ronald Reagan challenged the incumbent President Gerald Ford in 1976 and came close to unseating him for the party’s nomination. While that attempt was unsuccessful, it took hitting rock bottom in the Carter administration with stagflation, energy crises, massive unemployment, the Iran hostage humiliation and Carter’s inexplicable banning of U.S. Olympic athletes from participating in the 1980 Moscow Summer Olympic Games as America’s protest of the Soviet Union’s invasion of Afghanistan. The last effort a liberal tantrum so ineffective and self-defeating that it defies logic even 36 years later. Like punishing your own kids to protest what the neighbor is doing.

In the 1980 presidential race, Reagan was back and the base was determined that he would be the nominee. The establishment selection was George H.W. Bush. In the primaries, the party establishment mocked Reagan and his supporters mercilessly. He was portrayed as a senile, old-fashioned simpleton who stupidly believed in quaint ideas of American power and exceptionalism that were as outdated as he was. The Yale-educated Bush and his base of political insiders insisted that the Midwestern-raised, Eureka College graduate (the horror!) would further crash the economy with his “voodoo economics” and only make the Soviets angry and that he was too unstable to have his finger on “the button”. But Reagan not only swept to the nomination, but led America to an economic and military resurgence and back from the malaise of liberal Democrat and “me, too” Republican policies of the 1970s. In hindsight, his biggest mistake was being talked into taking on Bush as his running mate. Reagan foolishly went along with the GOP establishment’s insistence that he would be demolished by Carter in the general election without a sensible, serious running mate to offset his crazy conservative ideas in which nobody but the kooky fringe of the party was interested.

After eight spectacular years of Reagan leadership, Bush ran for President as a “compassionate conservative”, promising a sharp departure from the boldness of Reagan and a kinder, gentler Republican party that would reach out to liberal Democrats. Americans were having none of it and polls showed Bush losing to Mike Dukakis. Shortly before the 1988 general election, Bush’s handlers made a strong pivot back and promised voters that Bush’s presidency would be “Reagan’s 3rd term”. Bush said all the right things, promised no new taxes and to continue the agenda that had served America so well for the previous eight years.

It was at this point that our current state of affairs took shape.

In 1988 George H.W. Bush realized that he had to sell himself to voters as a conservative, but immediately began governing as a “moderate”. Which became nothing more than a daily attempt to appease critical liberal Democrats and media who harassed him at every turn. The more he caved on issue after issue in an attempt to be bipartisan, the more they mocked him and demanded additional concessions. There was nothing Bush could not be bullied into doing.

While Reagan and Bush both enjoyed the support of blue-collar workers, this support evaporated as he began pushing the globalist NAFTA. By 1992, Bush had compromised and flip-flopped his way into being challenged in the primary by Pat Buchanan and ultimately lost the general election when a large hunk of disaffected GOP voters cast their ballots for Ross Perot. Add to this the fact that “Reagan Democrats” jumped ship to support the Southern good ol’ boy Bill Clinton, and Bush never had a chance at reelection.

There was profound buyer’s remorse at Clinton’s presidency, though. His first years were marked by Democrat scandals and enough voter disgust that the Republican Party won a historic landslide in 1994 on the strength of the “Contract With America”. A series of promises made by newly elected Republicans. But, once again, GOP voters were frustrated as the GOP establishment proved ineffective, was burdened by scandals of their own and broke the sacred promises they made in the Contract With America. It was another stab in the back to voters. In 1996 a weak and unpopular Clinton was ripe for defeat, but the establishment assured the party that the only way to win was with Washington insider Bob Dole. The results were predictable.

Throughout the George W. Bush presidency the establishment tried everything to play nice with Democrats and only earned derision and the loss of both the House and Senate. As Barack Obama came from nowhere and rode to victory on a tsunami of vague promises, the GOP establishment could only muster a weak John McCain. Who, as every GOP insider does, held as his finest trait his friendship with and tireless efforts to compromise with liberal Democrats. The results were predictable.

For the first two years of the Obama administration Republicans were such a tiny minority that they could do little to stop his agenda. But they promised that they could stop Obama if only voters would give them control of the House of Representatives. In 2010 the Republican base answered, but John Boehner and his establishment cohorts spent their days trying to make friends with Obama and backtracked on their promises, claiming that they didn’t have the power to actually do anything because they didn’t have control of the Senate. After pushing Mitt Romney as the wishy-washy 2012 GOP presidential nominee, with predictable results, the base delivered the U.S. Senate into the hands of Republicans in 2014. Mitch McConnell then joined John Boehner in excuse-making for why they had no power to do anything to stop Obama’s highly unpopular agenda.

This powder keg that blew up the 2016 GOP primaries for the establishment had dual fuses that were lit by John Boehner and his understudy Paul Ryan.

The series of undercover videos exposing Planned Parenthood for selling parts of human babies in violation of numerous laws was the first fuse. That Planned Parenthood is funded at all by money forcibly taken from taxpayers’ paychecks is enough of an outrage to most Americans. Especially considering that the dysfunctional and shockingly expensive Obamacare was sold as the solution to every medical need of every American. But to know that their gruesome business was carving up the babies and selling human pieces while collecting hundreds of millions of our tax dollars was shocking and unjustifiable to most Americans. And what was the GOP’s response? A John Boehner shrug. Business as usual. There is nothing that will make the establishment stand up to Democrats. At this point, most Republican voters knew that the party could not be saved in its current form with its current leaders.

In January 2016, the second fuse was lit that assured that Republican voters would blow up the party as it had existed since 1988. Obama and Paul Ryan announced an agreed budget deal. In it, Obama got every penny he demanded and Republicans actually caved and gave him even more than he asked for. Barack Obama, Harry Reid and Dianne Feinstein held press conferences expressing disbelief that Republicans had surrendered everything so easily and so completely. This humiliation was accomplished with large Republican majorities in the House and Senate. Republicans voters properly wondered what the point of Republican leadership could be?

Just as their forebears in the 1970s, the definition of compromise to establishment Republicans and their Democrat counterparts in Washington is liberal Democrats setting the agenda with demands which Republicans are expected to concede most or all in an effort to be bipartisan. Which results in an unending lurch to the left on every issue and, curiously, ever-angrier liberal constituent groups. But it was the dishonesty of the GOP establishment that was hatched in the 1988 Bush presidential campaign that began packing the powder keg with lies, broken promises and naked contempt for their voters.

A love for Donald Trump is not the reason Trump dominated the Indiana primary and will be the nominee. He won, and will be the nominee, because the Republican establishment has stabbed their voters in the back since 1988.

Tuesday, May 3, 2016

Published at WND.com! Check it out.

Check out my column on today's primary election in Indiana and Ted Cruz's unfortunate acceptance of the banner of GOP favorite.



Monday, April 25, 2016

Is There Anything That Can Make Western Men Fight Back?

A recent news item about the rape and murder of the pregnant wife of an Indianapolis minister in the couple’s home struck me as sadly representative of current Western culture.

On November 10th, 2015, Amanda Blackburn, a pretty 28 year old wife and mother of a toddler was found in a pool of her own blood on the living room floor of her family’s home. She was partially nude, her underpants were near her body and her shirt was pulled up. She had been shot in the head while her 1 year old was in his crib nearby. She was pregnant. Both she and her unborn child died. Her debit cards were stolen and used.

DNA evidence was collected, three men were arrested, confessions were given and charges were filed. The confessed shooter told police that, after shooting her in the head, he leaned in close to look at her face and watched her bleed.

Amanda’s husband Davey was quickly reported to have forgiven the animals that did this to his wife and child in their own home. On Sunday, he sat in a South Carolina church and explained his forgiveness to thousands of congregants. Media reports there “was not a dry eye in the room”. An 18 year old young man in attendance shared that he hopes to respond to pain the way Davey Blackburn did. The response from a room full of people to the shocking, violent deaths of innocents – instead of anger - is to cry and aspire to greater levels of forgiveness?

It comes across as insensitive to question the response of any man who has endured such a personal tragedy. And the additional factor of his being a man of the cloth requires further pause since he is held to a different, higher standard in matters of personal relationships. So his unique position is acknowledged. But what of the others in Amanda's life? What of the community? It is fair to ask if this doesn’t justify anger and a call for justice then what does? The response is reflective of modern Western culture.

Speaking to the larger reality in America and Western Europe, Christians and non-Christians alike should be forgiven for struggling to understand the passive, almost inhuman, lack of emotion in response to violence committed against those we are entrusted with loving and protecting. Christianity has always sought to balance grace & justice. Forgiveness versus payment in full. Idealism versus truth, if you will. Always pushing for what we hope for while dealing honestly with the reality in front of us. Too much of one without the other is disastrous. In the end, being badly out of balance either way leads to brutality and death.

For an outstanding movie showing this struggle, watch the Academy Award winning 1986 film "The Mission" starring Robert DeNiro & Jeremy Irons. The friction between Godly meekness and submission versus fighting back with the tools and skills God has provided is played out in the jungles of 18th century South America. The conflict among Christians as to the correct way to deal with violent injustice might look familiar.

America and Western Europe are badly out of balance.

Many (not all) Christian leaders are reflecting the weakness and apathy of Western masculinity, and our women and children are paying the heaviest price. They are the easiest prey. Europe is now overrun with a violent foreign culture responsible for the epidemic of rapes of European women, child sex slavery and a level of street violence not seen since World War Two. The U.S. has seen the fall and destruction of major cities into chaos, corruption, bankruptcy, filth and an orgy of blood.


Meanwhile, the Pope and other Western church leaders preach tolerance and condemn any effort to protect our homes, communities and families. They preach grace, forgiveness and mercy while ignoring justice. All this serves to excuse and encourage more violence. More murder. More rape. More destruction.

Christians are being purged from the middle east. Their history, artifacts and property destroyed. Christian people are openly killed in YouTube videos or driven into exile. In response, the American President lectures Americans about tolerance while accepting an ocean of Muslim "refugees" who are not being persecuted, but simply don’t like living in nations they control. Even the Pope this week left Christians to languish in a refugee camp – the people that he is supposed to be leading – while taking Muslims from the same camp to enjoy a new life in Europe.

One must wonder what Amanda Blackburn’s killers think of her husband’s public forgiveness of them? What message does it send to those who would commit the same crimes against others? Do terrorists wonder what they have to do, whom they have to kill, to provoke the West to defend itself? What can possibly make these victims get angry, much less fight back? American and Western men and Christianity have been softened and neutered into such utter pacifist submission that it seems nothing will make them fight for their own lives or protect their own families, communities or nations. Nothing.

In 1941 the Japanese Navy killed 2,400 U.S. troops in a military strike on an American Naval base in Hawaii. The response of American men was violent and overwhelming, ending in the complete devastation of Germany and nuclear incineration of portions of Japan. And peace for Americans.

By 2001, even attacks on New York City and Washington, D.C., and the violent death of 3,000 American civilians by Saudis and other Muslim terrorists was not enough to provoke America to meaningfully defend its own people and nation. The primary government response to every terror attack is to protect Muslims from "backlash". Any truthful reaction to Muslim aggression is condemned as racist intolerance. And the violence escalates.

Likewise, the rape and murder of a man's wife in his own home isn't even enough to provoke righteous anger or any response but forgiveness and love of the men who did it?

If these things, from a single private home to the experience of entire nations, aren't enough to justify the protective instincts of Western men to finally fight back then what will?

The brainwashing and feminization of American and Western men is so thorough and so profound that one must question whether Western civilization can survive.

America and all of the West appear irredeemable.

Thursday, April 21, 2016

It's Time For A Reset On Exactly Who Is The Victim

Did you know that any business owner may permit anyone to use any bathroom they choose in their place of business? Were you aware that any bakery may bake cakes for any homosexual event they choose? There are no legal restrictions on the freedom of any business to extend their services or operate their premises in the way that they believe serves their customers best and will help their business thrive.

You would never know these simple facts from public discussions surrounding leftist victim politics.

As social media has devolved into a never-ending political cycle and every conceivable nook and cranny of all our daily activities has been infected with liberal politics, this is a good time to stop for a moment and reset the table as to the now-common method of attack of leftists and how we got to be where we are in the current version of sociopolitical America.

The left has discovered a remarkably effective weaponized process by which they are able to cut off at the knees anyone who disagrees with any of their positions. They have perfected a method of using the law to bully anyone who disagrees with them while simultaneously portraying themselves as victims of hateful legal persecution.

The fact that it keeps working has to be surprising, even to its practitioners.

What prompted this examination was Donald Trump on Good Morning America this morning. He was asked a question about the LGBT community and a portion of his response jumped out from the rest. He raised the "North Carolina bathroom law". He told the hosts and viewers that North Carolina should not have passed 'HB2', and that "everyone should leave the laws the way they are".

His response indicates that he sides with those who favor local governments forcing women to use toilet and shower facilities with sexually-confused men. In reality, Trump seems to have accepted the false premise of liberals that the state of North Carolina is punishing a victimized minority.

With that, let us examine the pattern to this political shell game of the left.
1. A liberal constituency group desires to have some activity or conduct accepted as normal by the rest of society; 
2. They demand that others participate in and accommodate their conduct and begin referring to it as a "right"; 
3. From there, it's a small step from their expression being a "right" to anyone - especially private individuals - "discriminating" against them by not participating in the conduct with them; 
4. At this point, they begin using the legal process. A friendly local judge or a few members of the City Council. The group then makes an example of a resistant local business or individual for "violating their rights". This is done in a local court or by means of a local ordinance; 
5. Businesses or private individuals are left with only two choices: Participate in the activity or conduct against their will or seek redress from a higher authority; 
6. The state legislature passes a law prohibiting such legal bullying and protects the rights of businesses to operate however they choose. Put another way, freedom is restored to those who are the targets of the leftists seeking to force their way on others; 
7. The group enforcing their agenda through local ordinances and local courts finds themselves blocked from forcing their way on others and begins screaming at the top of their lungs that they are being victimized by the law that's putting a stop to their incursion on others' freedoms; 
8. Protests are arranged, social media campaigns flood cyberspace and the usual cast of celebrities are trotted out to lash out at the hateful "attack" on the "rights" of the group who's actually using other laws and legal processes to force their agenda on others.

This was the pattern of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act debacle in Indiana and other states. And the same plan of attack is being executed in North Carolina, Mississippi and everywhere that states are taking on leftist special interests that are using local laws to force private citizens to participate in activities against their will.

Somehow, the bullies manage to repeatedly portray themselves as victims of those defending themselves from legal attacks by the bullies. It is a truly Orwellian masterpiece of transforming facts and reality into completely false talking points and self-righteous outrage and victimization.

This plan of attack has been so successful that liberals are now using variations of it everywhere.

Black Lives Matter shows up to Donald Trump events to protest and disrupt proceedings with outrageous conduct, and then splashes themselves across media as innocent victims of attacks by Trump's violent supporters. Black Lives Matter has also used this effectively in blocking highway traffic and throwing tantrums when drivers push through their barricades.

Major media outlets act as willing accomplices in this sleight-of-hand. They join the left and their celebrity supporters in pushing the narrative that these laws defending the freedom of businesses from legal attacks by liberals are actually attacks on the liberals that are taking away their freedoms. For the past several days news sources have written about Target stores "defying the North Carolina transphobic bathroom ban".

Target, or any business, can do whatever they like. That has always been the case. There are no laws preventing businesses from allowing patrons to use whatever toilets they want or prohibiting bakeries from making homosexual event cakes. But everyone is also free to not shop at Target or not patronize businesses that cater to these fringes. It's freedom. But Target and other sympathetic businesses don't want to suffer the loss of business that comes with caving to liberal demands, so they support these local laws that force the same conditions on every business. At the end of the day, it's the use of local government as a gun to the head of private businesses to force their compliance with an agenda that the public is not buying.

The whole matter is like an argument with a child who changes the subject so often that it becomes difficult to recall what their original tantrum was about, and they've switched their arguments and protests through so many layers of accusations and screaming outrages that they actually manage to portray themselves as the victim, when in fact, they were the initiators of the entire conflict.

Do not fall for the trick. Governments removing freedom is a bad thing. But it's the new favorite weapon of the fascist left. Forced compliance while portraying the attackers as victims of those simply defending themselves and wanting to be left alone.

Wednesday, April 13, 2016

There's Only Free Speech On Campus For One Point Of View

Every time one thinks American campus culture can't get any more ridiculous, a new standard in absurdity is set.

Just this week we have three separate examples from different universities in different parts of America. The common theme through all of them, though, is that campus leftists claim to be offended by some speech or activity they don't like and demand that others be banned from saying or doing whatever they don't want them to say or do.

It almost always follows this basic formula:
1. Someone on campus does or says something that leftist students claim is "offensive" to them; 
2. Some sort of protest breaks out by said leftists, which may or may not include violence or property damage; 
3. The protesters take their hurt feelings to campus administrators and demand the speech or activity be silenced or banned; 
4. Administrators either cave to the demands of the leftists in an attempt to appease them or join forces with them in feigned outrage and twist logic and torture words trying to justify their banning of the speech or activity the leftists are protesting.
It's quite pitiful.

Our first example is from the Ivy League. The Dartmouth College chapter of Kappa Delta Epsilon sorority has traditionally spent the first Saturday in May the way many Americans do: Watching the annual running of the Kentucky Derby and enjoying mint juleps with friends. Somehow, this is now considered racist.

At last year's party Black Lives Matter showed up to protest, interrupting the festivities and accusing the girls of "racism", "genocide", "police killing of blacks" & "elitism" (Being an Ivy League school, this one is probably true. But most of the BLM protesters were also students there, so there’s a reasonable chance they're all elitist.) The sorority has relented and canceled their race party for 2016 because they don't want black students to be uncomfortable. The girls are now going to dress as hippies and have a Woodstock party. No word on whether the Afro-American Student Union approves of that idea, or if they are finally happy now.

Our next example of higher education high-mindedness comes to us from the deep South. Clemson University in South Carolina has had a tremendous problem lately with liberal students "protesting" by damaging things on campus while claiming to be victims.

In the way of background, the founder of Clemson University was a man named Benjamin Tillman. Like many Southerners with the considerable wealth to found a university, he had owned slaves at one time. And, like most people who establish a university, there is at least a building on campus named after them, if not the entire university.

Liberals will have none of it, however, and demand that Tillman Hall be renamed because, well...because they demand it. To demonstrate how offended they are, they've taken to spray painting graffiti onto the building accusing Mr. Tillman of "violence" and "racism". They've also destroyed a display belonging to a pro-life student organization. The pro-life organization is not obviously related to the charges of racism, but it’s another point of view that liberals find disagreeable, so their property gets destroyed, also.

The university administration's response to these acts of violence and property damage? Nothing. Presumably, they believe it to fall under the umbrella of free speech. And the precious snowflakes cannot be expected to control themselves when they're so angry.

So, what did set the administration off? What caused the university to distribute mass emails, denounce something in the strongest possible terms and generally completely freak out?

Bananas.

Someone hung a small bunch of bananas on a banner celebrating African-American history. The irony of the fact that there is an official celebration of a specific race at all was sadly lost on the administrators. Instead, their fury was directed at the single instance of a non-violent, non-destructive (if not tasteless) gesture. The political statement made by the banana, whether calculated commentary or, more likely, drunken hijinks, was the speech of a private individual. The celebration of a specific race is an official, university sanctioned event. But the one to elicit howls of racism and cause convulsions of hysteria is the one simple gesture by an anonymous person that was not paid for by taxpayers or through the tuition and fees of other students.

Our final example of campus tolerance this week comes to us from Ohio University, where Greek Week activities were cancelled in response to a pro-Donald Trump artwork featuring the phrase "build the wall". The university has a designated surface for students to leave graffiti. The offending words were so upsetting to some students that an emergency meeting had to be held by a multicultural politburo and denunciations poured out from university leaders and national fraternity and sorority representatives.


The artwork, which the school acknowledged is free speech, was nevertheless branded as hurtful, divisive and non-inclusive.


These adjectives are never applied to liberal students who engage in actual violence, destruction and protests and who demand that opposing viewpoints be silenced.