CBS Still Pushing False Narrative About ‘Right-Wing’ Terror

Source: CBS Still Pushing False Narrative About ‘Right-Wing’ Terror

Fake statistics die hard, especially when they’re being pushed by the so-called “real news” cartel.

Take, for instance, CBS News host Norah O’Donnell, who claimed on Twitter earlier today that so-called “right wing” terrorism is a greater threat than Islamic terrorism:

Between the end of ’01 & Dec. ’16 there were nearly 3 times as many fatal attacks by right-wing extremists than Islamist extremists in U.S.

The first clue that you’re being manipulated? O’Donnell begins counting terror incidents AFTER the 9/11 attacks, the most lethal terror attack in modern history. Understandably, people grinding an agenda to push “right wing” terrorism as some great threat to Americans HAVE TO exclude 9/11 to make such a point.

Also, note that O’Donnell refers only to the number of incidents — not how lethal they were.

Why is that? Because Norah O’Donnell is trying to avoid having to say this: Since 9/11, Islamic terrorists have killed CONSIDERABLY MORE than “right wing” terrorists.

Jihadist: 95 killed.

“Far Right Wing”: 67 killed.

The only way to conjure up a “right wing” terrorism bogeyman is to count “by fatal incident,” and not by the actual number of people killed.

That being said, as I noted here at PJ Media more than a year ago, there are serious issues with how New American counts acts of terrorism:

Since when are bank robberies acts of terrorism? They aren’t, unless you’re trying to inflate your “right wing” terror stats to mislead the public for political motives.

I also noted that — in addition to 9/11 — several Islamic terror attacks are simply left out of their count, such as the D.C. sniper case.

….

 

Democrats Don’t Actually Believe in Democracy – Kurt Schlichter

Again, a lot of the Trump vote can be explained as “I’ll give you something to cry about”.  (Either that or, “Oh yeah? Well deplore this!”)

Democrats Don’t Actually Believe in Democracy – Kurt Schlichter

See, what makes the constitutional system work is that the losing side accepts the loss and complies with the duly enacted law. But if one side chooses not to honor this principle, then that side can’t ever lose. That’s a problem. The designated perpetual loser is eventually going to get woke, and then you end up with a President Trump and (I so hope) a Senator Kid Rock.

Democrats, how is that working out for you? You were all excited about pens and phones, but hey – look who’s dialing and scribbling now.

I warned you that you’d hate the new rules.

See, Americans are fussy about that whole democracy thing – again, I know we’re a republic as opposed to a People’s Republic, but you know what I mean. We are not going to tolerate being disenfranchised. So much of everything that’s gone wrong for the liberals lately has been because they simply ignore the desires of a large bunch of citizens in order to impose their will. And there are consequences.

You want to know why you got Trump? This is why you got Trump. He was the only nominee not telling normal Americans “You’re stupid, so shut up and do what you’re told.

….

This is about whether all American citizens have an equal say in their own governance. That can only be true when we enforce the law. You either abide by the law, or there is no law. And if there is no law, then there’s only power. Since you elitists probably never stooped to serving in the military, and since you almost certainly are neither armed nor proficient in weapons like we are, which makes us extremely dangerous to aspiring oppressors, you may want to rethink the whole “rule of power” thing.

But of course you won’t – instead, you’re doubling down by trying to nullify the results of the election because you don’t like the fact that you’ve been rejected and that you’re out of power. Except we’re not going to simply shrug and go back to letting you dictate how we live.

Donald Trump is a warning. Trump is the best case scenario. If you somehow depose him via your smarmy shenanigans, what comes along next is really going to upset you. You need to understand something.

Trump is not our last chance. He’s your last chance.

Patterico’s Pontifications » Memo To Employees From Google’s CEO Seems A Bit Inconsistent

Source: Patterico’s Pontifications » Memo To Employees From Google’s CEO Seems A Bit Inconsistent

1. Google claims to strongly support the rights of employees to express themselves. And yet when one employee exercised those Google-given rights to express himself, he was fired.
2. How does the CEO know that the vast majority of employees disagree with Damore’s memo? Would they actually want to go on record agreeing and supporting Damore after seeing him be fired for exercising his Google-given rights?
3. It’s fair to debate what is in the memo per the CEO, and yet when Damore brought up what was fair to debate, he was fired.
4. It allegedly crossed the line by promoting harmful gender stereotypes, except that Damore simply suggested that innate differences between the sexes, to some degree, contribute to the low representation of women in tech, and then he provided options to work with that possibility to increase, or at least encourage a greater participation of women. He didn’t ridicule or threaten or harass anyone. This is what an intellectual challenge looks like.
5. James Damore, in exercising his Google-given rights to express himself, was directly attempting to “do his utmost to create a workplace culture that is free of harassment, intimidation, bias and unlawful discrimination”. He was attempting to open discussion, honestly and seemingly without fear of reprisal directly because of the words and assurances in Google’s own Code of Conduct.
6. In as much as some employees feel hurt and judged as a gender, it appeared that Damore was also feeling judged and possibly hurt for his non-leftist views and resistance to conforming to the prescribed political positions held by Google – even before he wrote the memo. Because his feelings of being judged were the result of the company’s political biases, and were in the minority, does that make them invalid?
7. While the CEO does not want employees to have to worry about opening their mouths, in retrospect, shouldn’t Damore have worried about opening his own mouth via a memo? Does that freedom from concern really extend to every employee and the positions and views they value and stand upon?
8. If employees holding minority views question whether they can really freely express their views (without fear of reprisal) because they already feel under threat, and they’ve just witnessed an employee holding similar minority views be fired for doing that very thing, why on earth would any concerned employees sharing similar views believe his claims?

The “author had a right express their views on those topics—we encourage an environment in which people can do this and it remains our policy to not take action against anyone for prompting these discussions,” AND YET WE JUST TOOK MAJOR ACTION AGAINST AN EMPLOYEE FOR EXERCISING THOSE RIGHTS WHEN HE EXPRESSED HIS VIEWS.

Belgian Study: Victimhood Sets Groups Against Each Other

Source: Belgian Study: Victimhood Sets Groups Against Each Other

Racial minorities engage in “competitive victimhood” in a quest for recognition of past sufferings such as slavery and colonialism, according to a new research study published by Belgian professors.

….

Recognition of victimhood status is especially important because it can be weaponized for the benefit of the minority group in question, Guissmé and Licata write:

The victim status is highly coveted because it tends to empower victimized groups, which are perceived as morally superior, entitled to sympathy, consideration, and protection against criticism.

Conversely, the lack of victimhood status poses a problem to minorities, since it reduces their ability to garner attention, protection, and even financial rewards (reparations, for example). This explains why the denial of victimhood status can be so troubling: denial of victimhood recognition can lend credence to a denial of help and assistance.

Back in the last millennium, I wrote a piece titled “That Treasured Victim Status”. It’s nice to see academia catching up.

“The Super-Secret Handshake of the Black Community” – Allen West

Source: “The Super-Secret Handshake of the Black Community” – Allen West

Something is happening in this presidential election cycle that has some folks totally up in arms. A white GOP presidential candidate is addressing the issues in the black community. And, of course, Donald J. Trump has kicked the hornet’s nest and is consistently castigated with the ultimate denigrating moniker of “racist.” Trump is finding out that there is a super-secret club handshake in the black community. And the only white people who have been provided that code are white liberal progressive socialists.

What amazes me is that here we have someone challenging the failed progressive policies of the inner city and his sincerity is questioned? Why has no one EVER questioned the sincerity of the Democrats who have run the inner cities of America for decades? Easy answer, they have the secret sauce and Hillary Clinton even admitted she carries it in her purse. When the left, (or the appointed black gatekeepers) are challenged on their policy shortcomings in the black community, the retort is racism. That is the means by which suppression of the discussion is sought. If you are a black conservative, then you are told you are not really black, only a token, Oreo, sellout, Uncle Tom and several other denigrating titles that are too vile to repeat here.

Even those of us who have been born and raised in inner city neighborhoods are told we have no clue about the “black experience.” I was raised in Atlanta’s historic Old Fourth Ward, which produced Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Funny, I suppose a biracial fella who was raised early on in Indonesia and ended up being raised by a white grandparents in Hawaii has a clearer perspective. Then again, Barack Obama was given the code, the super-secret handshake because he is a progressive socialist.

So, it becomes very apparent that one does not talk about the decimation of the black family. No one needs to know that, prior to the policies of Lyndon Johnson, the two parent black household was at 75%-77%. Even a white, liberal Democrat senator from New York, Daniel Patrick Monyihan, admonished Johnson against instituting the policy of government checks for out of wedlock children, caveated by the condition that no man could be in the home. Monyihan obviously did not know the super-secret handshake because he was attacked and demonized for speaking out. I am reminded of his famed quote, “You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.” The fact is that many of the issues in the inner city, the black community, stem from the destruction of the black family. But, if you are not part of the secret club, you best not speak of that, lest you are attacked.

If you are a member of Black Lives Matter, you have a double super-secret handshake and membership. And your membership card is printed by a white liberal progressive socialist named George Soros. How odd is that? Trump gets the ultimate beat down for addressing issues in the black community. He is criticized for speaking before white audiences. Ask yourself, when was the last time Soros went before a black audience? Does not matter, he has the super-secret handshake, probably given by Al Sharpton himself.

But, why is it that BLM has little to say about the rise of black gangs? They say nothing about better education opportunities and choice in the black community? Consider that the only choice offered to blacks by white liberal progressive socialists is to kill their unborn children…to the tune of 13-15 million since the 1973 Roe v Wade decision. I guess those lives don’t matter, after all, they did not get the super-secret handshake. Donald Trump gets pilloried for speaking of school choice, vouchers, charter schools, homeschooling…anything that is better than the failing public schools that plague the black community. Ask yourself, when was the last time you heard any member of the Congressional Black Caucus champion the issue of school choice? You will not because they fear losing the code provided by the white liberal progressives of the teachers unions. So, generation upon generation in the black community falls behind and ends up as the two young Chicago black men, the Sorrell brothers, ages 26 and 22, who shot the cousin of NBA superstar Dwayne Wade as she walked her infant child in a stroller. These two young men were on parole for a gun conviction. They were also gang members.

Unless you have the super-secret handshake code, you cannot talk about black on black shootings and murders. Matter of fact, it is about the gun, not the socio-economic factors creating the violence. And, you had best tow the talking points line, or else have your membership card revoked — which is what we see from the liberal progressive media. Their propaganda is not focused on the real issue. How many shootings and deaths occurred in Chicago this past weekend? The message from the leftist media is all about maintaining the status quo, the 21st century economic plantation. It is about the perpetuation of the dependency society, the welfare nanny-state. They will never challenge the notion of economic enslavement to the government masters.

There is a quote attributed to George Orwell, “During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.” Indeed, in the black community, truth is condemned as hate speech simply because it exposes those who have done genocidal and horrific actions. We must continue to challenge them at every turn. Sadly, it has taken all this time for any GOP presidential candidate to elaborate on this. It cannot be about just an election cycle; this is an issue that has to be constantly engaged. No one group should ever invest all of their political capital into one ideological party agenda. And, when assessing the return on investment for the black community for their consistent electoral patronage of the Democrat party, well, it speaks for itself.

My evidencing such will draw demeaning comment, but see, I know the super-secret handshake, the code. I just refuse to be a dependent subject, and that is threatening.

Arnold Ahlert: Defeating Progressive Ideology — The Patriot Post

Source: Arnold Ahlert: Defeating Progressive Ideology — The Patriot Post

Yet what, precisely, is political correctness? It is totalitarianism — promoted as morality.

Thus one is not merely wrong for challenging the progressive status quo on same-sex marriage, transgenderism, “white privilege,” illegal immigration, global warming, “hate speech,” or a host of other leftist causes. One is evil, and the “appropriate” label defining what particular evil is applied: homophobic, transphobic, racist, nativist, anti-science, fascist, etc.

Labeling one as evil as opposed to wrong is critical. Wrong leaves room for debate. Evil makes debate unnecessary — and entrenches the progressive default position as a result.

The right thinks the left is mistaken.
The left thinks the right is evil.

Does ‘Democracy in Chains’ paint an accurate picture of James Buchanan? [with updates] – The Washington Post

Source: Does ‘Democracy in Chains’ paint an accurate picture of James Buchanan? [with updates] – The Washington Post

Seems to call for a rewrite of a song, to be titled “Nancy Made Her Stuff Up”.

There’s a link to a review of one of her earlier books, Behind the Mask of Chivalry: The Making of the Second Ku Klux Klan.  Apparently her bad habits have made an appearance in at least one previous book.

The review is interesting in that it could be read, in today’s climate, as supporting the Klan.