Breitbart: A white man in Baltimore was sitting in his car when two female er, teens got into a fight. To continue this enterprise they climbed atop his car, perhaps mistaking it for a tree. He got out and asked them to take their dispute somewhere else, whereupon fifty er, teens beat him nearly to death, leaving him with $200,000-$400,000 in medical bills. The daily grind. Life as usual. If fifty whites similarly beat an er, teen, cities would burn and the media would go crazy. In this case, silence will prevail. American-Africans can do no wrong. But something is wrong in America..

We read over and over of the Culture Wars, and the War between the Sexes, of Red States and Blue States, as if these were amusing disputes between parents and adolescents in a sitcom. Methinks something far uglier and more dangerous brews.

Almost daily, friends send me links to accounts of what seem to them, and to me, lunacy, usually accompanied by notes expressing incredulity and—this will matter one day–anger. The stories deal with things utterly repugnant to much of the country, especially the South and West, the blue collar, the military, and much of the Mid-West:: racial lawlessness, glorification of every sexual weirdity anyone can imagine, hostility to Christianity (but not to Judaism or Islam), phony charges of rape, compulsory Ritalin-ingestion, grotesque affirmative action in the hiring of cops and firemen, attacks on academic standards, little boys dragged from school in handcuffs for drawing a soldier, the anti-gun crusade, the truffle-hound search for “stereotypes” and discrimination, and the denigration of masculinity and every aspect of white European culture.

And, always, always, the suppression of news of the unending vicious attacks by er, teens, on whites. This latter goes beyond bias into undeclared censorship. Er, teens can loot, burn, and rape, and not much happens to them, but if you are white and say “nigger” in an email, you lose your job.

We have two countries that do not like each other at all.

This can’t last. A large part of America loathes these things and wants no part of them or of the country that enforces them. We see two utterly incompatible views of the world, one found chiefly among the Northeastern “elite,” academia, the upper middle class, the media, the Left Coast, and the other found in the rest of the country. With breathtaking imprecison, I call them the Center and the Seaboard.

“In April 2013, then-eighth-grader Jared Marcum was suspended from Logan Middle School in West Vriginia after refusing to take off an NRA t-shrt he wore that day. His mother is now suing the Logan County Board of Education.” To much of the country, assuredly including me, the National Rifle Association is a perfectly legitimate group, shooting an enjoyable sport, and Jared’s t-shirt none of anyone’s damned business.

I grew up in an America where kids had guns, hunted deer, slaughtered beer cans, and a first rifle was, like a girl’s first bra, a step into adulthood. Nobody shot anybody. Had home-invaders entered our houses at night, we would have made an exception, and potential home-invaders knew it. Guns didn’t kill, we knew from observation; people did. We had never known a gun to jump up and kill someone without human intervention.

By contrast, the Seaboard believes that people don’t kill; guns do. (Actually they know better but they also know who usually does the killing, and they aren’t going to go there.) People who own guns, they believe, are crazed killers, gun nuts, and if we just outlaw guns, killing will stop. Two countries.

But below the furor over guns, or any of the specific furors, lies a profounder difference. The Seaboard has the collective mentality of a hive. It believes in central planning and the imposition of values. Everything–morals, attitudes, curricula, security, everything–should be decided by a government embodying the Seaboard’s values. By contrast, the Center believes that things should be decided as locallly as possible. This translates to “Leave me the hell alone.”

In particular, the Seboard recoils at the idea of self-defense which it finds frightening, macho, and mentally unbalanced. If attacked by fifty er, teens—well, that doesn’t really happen, the New York Times says so, and anyway it only happens to other people, and if someone crawls in your window at three a.m., well, it only happens to other people. The New York Times says so.

The Center has, not always consciously, a pool-hall understanding of life, a recognition that bad things can happen, a depression and horrific “civil unrest,” cancer, losing a job with no other in sight, plague, getting the hell beaten ouf of you for no reason, riots, or civil war. “Life’s a bitch, and then you die.”

To the Eloi of the faculty lounges, this is loony-bin fantasy, but they have never been in a schoolyard fight–not yet. It is a blue-collar concepation. Truck drivers and carpenters live closer to the bone, closer to the edge. They know that men exist who will crush your face with a pool cue just to watch you bleed (see leading photo above), or torch your city and loot the stores. And they know they can’t depend on a hostile government to protect them.

To people not raised in Ivy hothouses, the Seaboard seems an inexplicable pack of milquetoasts. The men, if such they be, fear the women, and the women fear everything, are offended by everything else, and expect the world to be concerned about their petty disturbances. You know, microaggressions, hurtful words, hate speech, dirty jokes, men who look at their tits, rape–which excites them so much that they they invent it. This is especially true of the female young.

They rule the United States.

College girls displaying hairy armpits, a form of resistance to oppression. Note that they are ugly as mud walls. Attractive girls may have other things to do. College kids used to be occasionally silly because they were practicing to be adults and didn’t have the hang of it. Now they prepare for a lifetime in the tenth grade.

Consider a couple of examples of Seaboard girlisms pandered to by the nominal adults of the universities. First, we have “triggering.” This means that when, as happened at Columbia, a female (always a female) reads in Ovid of the rape of Leda by the swan, it is a “triggering event,” bringing back traumatic memories of sexual assaults, mostly imagined, and making the girls feel “unsafe.” Got it. Unsafe in an Ivy classoom. Bring back the swooning couch. What quivering little darlings.

From Inside Higher Ed: “Trigger warnings, which are common in blogs but also have begun to appear on college and university syllabuses, are supposed to signal to readers that forthcoming material may be uncomfortable or upsetting. Trigger warned-subject matter – in literature, films or other texts – usually relates to sexual assault and other kinds of violence, racism, and the like, and advocates say students have a right to know of sensitive material in advance.”

Case Two: Again at Columbia, we have one Sara Grace Powell, who was distressed because the Butler Library is named for an (Ugh!) man, presumably one Mr. Butler. Quoth Sara,“Butler is an extremely charged space — the names emblazoned on the stone facade are, for me, a stimulant for resistance.” Oh. Why not inductance or capacitance? Daddy of course pays her tuition.

What will these creatures do it if ever rains hard?

Milquetoasts and Fauntleroys seldom admit that they are milquetoasts and Fauntleroys, but it is evident in their behavior, and this is a salient strain in Seaboard life. They are afraid of Moslems and er, teens, but the Moslems and er, teens are not afraid of them. They don’t give a damn. Gordon Liddy, in his highly readable book Will, made the point that if your response to provocation is wildly disproportionate and unpredictable, no one will fuck with you. Yep. This is why reporters are afraid of Moslems, and governments are afraid of blacks. Journalists know that Moslems will not hesitiate to kill them and their families if they criticize what’s-his-name, and governments know that blacks will burn whole cities if provoked. Both groups get their way.

Any girl who feels “unsafe” on reading classical poetry belongs in an asylum (some would argue that at Columbia she already is) or else she is engaging in forever-thirteen passive-aggressive rebellion against professors confused with her fther. She obviously has no interest in Ovid.

The conversion of young women into pathetic whining goo-goos is entirely the work of the Seaboard. The women of the Center, who I grew up with, and married, and fathered, are as as tough as boot soles when the need arises. The idea of a woman saying, “Oh…oh …Ovid said rape two thousand years ago and I feel so…so unsafe!” Poor widdle fings. I assume that real women laugh.

Sara, the face of the declining birth rate, chilly, prissy, sexless, prudish, censorious, and adolescent. A likely spinster librarian. Would you date her on a dare?

It is easy to parody these twits–I choose my vowel carefullly–but they represent a class whose rule does not bode well for the country–helpless, self-absorbed, sheltered–aye, there’s the worst of it–and desirous of forcing thier values on everyone else. Arrayed against them is the Center, increasingly very angry but not organized and not sure what to do. The only solution I can imagine is for the Center to call the Seaboard’s bluff and set their own standards locally, the Seaboard be damned. We could call it “freedom.” Will this happen? I hope.

From Fred on Everything @ http://www.fredoneverything.net/Ballmer2.shtml

“The whiteness brandished by the anti-Muslim protesters – within a state where racism and xenophobia infamously thrive – was the most potent part of their protest.”  WTF?

A demonstration of white privilege

Whose rights should matter more – those of armed hatemongers or those of a vulnerable community?

In the United States, mosques have become common gathering sites for two disparate groups – Muslim worshippers, and anti-Muslim hatemongers.

On May 29, the two converged in Phoenix, Arizona, in front of the Islamic Community Center of Phoenix.

In a nation where 58 percent of the population has never met a Muslim, and more specifically, a state that boasts the Minutemen, armed xenophobic militias, and a robust history of anti-black racism – “Arizonan Islamophobia” is an especially frightening breed.

An estimated 500 anti-Muslim protesters descended in front of the Islamic Community Center, some armed with guns, clad in army fatigues, lifting signs that read: “Stop Islam”, and donning shirts reading “F**k Islam”.

Behind a backdrop of the mosque’s minaret and Muslim counterprotesters, the anti-Muslim rally promised to “take back America”.

The firearms the demonstrators openly brandished, combined with the signs and slurs they fired in the direction of the Muslim American counterprotesters, made that promise seem far more like a threat.

The police line between the two factions, notwithstanding the threat posed by the anti-Muslim rally, did not shatter.

They were on-site to preserve the free speech rights of the anti-Muslim action, and “protect both parties”.

Seemingly everybody in front of the mosque carried a gun, except the Muslims.

However, despite this fact, it is the unarmed Muslim bodies that are largely regarded as “threats” and “terrorists”.

While nativist, white factions – armed to the teeth and explicitly vowing violent action – are continuously extended the protections denied to non-white protesters.

The idea that free speech is protected equally across racial lines is a fiction.

The racial identity of the protesters are as, and sometimes more, important than the content of the speech.

This was vividly evidenced on the violent crackdown on the wave of Black Lives Matter protests that swept through the US, and on Friday, police protection of the anti-Islam protesters in Phoenix.

Friday’s protest in Arizona was as much a display of white privilege as it was an anti-Islam protest.

The overwhelmingly white throng of 500 anti-Muslim protesters – who spewed racial and religious slurs, donned camouflage as if prepping for war, and brandished guns and other weaponry – embodied every element of a “violent mob”, or an “imminent threat”.

In fact, the demonstration was spearheaded by a biker gang.

The whiteness brandished by the anti-Muslim protesters – within a state where racism and xenophobia infamously thrive – was the most potent part of their protest.

Indeed, if black, Latino or Muslim American protesters acted the same, police would be on-site to suppress, not protect.

The whiteness brandished by the anti-Muslim protesters – within a state where racism and xenophobia infamously thrive – was the most potent part of their protest.

It was a type of visual speech that did not have to be uttered, but demanded the highest grade of police protection.

Whiteness, time and again, spurs immediate imagery of peace, patriotism and Americanness – regardless of how menacing and violent it actually is – which typically results with the state protecting it far more than it punishes it.

Juxtaposed, Phoenix and Ferguson highlight that the content of speech is not as salient as the colour of the speaker.

Demonstrations of whiteness, and the privileges and power they historically and currently command, were as core to the anti-Muslim protests as their hateful messages.

This factor, combined with the fact that the target of the hate speech were Muslims and Islam, augments the First Amendment rights of the anti-Muslim protesters.

The enforcement of the First Amendment can be funny and fickle. The US Constitution’s foremost law presumptively protects the speech of actors like the anti-Muslim protesters in Phoenix.

But it also safeguards the free exercise of religion rights of their targets – Muslim Americans.

In the US, neither racism nor Islamophobia are per se illegal. The First Amendment’s protection of free speech, which falls short of inciting violence, affords racists and hatemongers with the right to stage protests. This protection of speech, no matter how hateful, must be preserved.

Yet, the long-term effects of the anti-Muslim protests are far more concerning than the immediate threat they posed to Muslims on Friday.

While carrying weapons, organised, and seemingly ready to pounce on Muslim American counterprotesters, the anti-Muslim action aimed to cultivate and spread armed Islamophobic actions throughout the state. Friday’s protest was hardly a rogue action, but on account of its head organiser, John Ritzheimer, the first of many.

An emergent, armed anti-Muslim movement in Arizona will create a culture where Muslims in the state will fear worshipping in their mosques, donning headscarves and beards, and practising in their mosques.

Protecting this speech, which rises from the very same nativist element that target “illegal immigrants” and black Arizonans, comes with the reciprocal cost of diminishing the religious rights of Muslims in the state.

Begging the question – whose rights should matter more: The rights of armed hatemongers that encourage and embolden violence towards Muslims in Arizona; or the free exercise rights of a vulnerable community, trapped within a state where xenophobia, racism, and now Islamophobia thrive?

Khaled A Beydoun is an assistant professor of law at the Barry University Dwayne O Andreas School of Law. 

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial policy. 

Source- http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2015/06/demonstration-white-privilege-150601051721617.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+aljazeera%2FgHGg+%28AL+JAZEERA+ENGLISH+%28AJE%29%29

John W. Whitehead's avatarJohn W. Whitehead, Constitutional Attorney

“The government is merely a servant―merely a temporary servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a patriot and who isn’t. Its function is to obey orders, not originate them.” ― Mark Twain

How many Americans have actually bothered to read the Constitution, let alone the first ten amendments to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights (a quick read at 462 words)?

Take a few minutes and read those words for yourself—rather than having some court or politician translate them for you—and you will be under no illusion about where to draw the line when it comes to speaking your mind, criticizing your government, defending what is yours, doing whatever you want on your own property, and keeping the government’s nose out of your private affairs.

In an age of overcriminalization, where the average citizen unknowingly commits

View original post 1,487 more words

John W. Whitehead's avatarJohn W. Whitehead, Constitutional Attorney

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Ruling in a case that will significantly impact expression on Facebook, Twitter and other social networks, a near-unanimous U.S. Supreme Court declared in Anthony D. Elonis v. United States of America that threats made over the Internet are protected unless they are malevolent or reckless. In weighing in on the case, The Rutherford Institute had argued that the First Amendment protects even inflammatory statements that may give offense or cause concern to others unless the statements were a credible threat to engage in violence against another and made by the defendant with the intent to cause fear in the alleged victim.

The case arises out of Facebook postings made by Anthony Elonis expressing his anger about events in his life, and which were based upon rap lyrics of artists such as Eminem and a comedy sketch of the group The Whitest Kids U’ Know. The Court’s ruling…

View original post 566 more words

Yesterday the Texas Legislature passed a bill that would allow open carry. Current law in Texas only allows concealed carry if a person has a pistol license. The new bill, which Governor Abbott already said he will sign into law will allow those with pistol licenses to openly carry firearms whereas before it only allowed them to carry concealed.

In New Hampshire, the legislature passed a bill that would allow Granite Staters who are legally able to purchase and possess firearms to have the option of a pistol license or simply carry concealed without one (also know as Constitutional Carry). Current law in New Hampshire allows open carry without a pistol license.

Two states – two different but similar issues at hand. Moms Demand of Texas is pushing to stop open carry while Moms Demand of New Hampshire wants everyone to open carry rather than carry concealed. Law enforcement officials (LEOs) of both states also seem to be schizophrenic on carrying because in Texas LEOs claim open carry is dangerous but in New Hampshire they claim concealed carry is dangerous and would prefer all Granite Staters open carry.

You can’t have it both ways. There are no two ways about the 2nd Amendment or the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. This is nothing more than the politics of gun control in both states. It proves they aren’t using logic for their arguments but simply fighting against the rights of Americans. It proves that the anti-2nd Amendment crowd in either state will fight against the will of the majority of citizens to continue with gun control measures.

One big difference between the states – the governors. Greg Abbott tweeted minutes after the final vote in the senate:

Open Carry just passed in both the Texas House & Senate. Next destination: My Pen.

Whereas Governor Maggie Hassan in New Hampshire sided with the out-of-state paid hacktivists of billionaire gun control extremist Michael Bloomberg and stated she will veto the bill that is overwhelmingly supported by the majority of her constituents. From her statement:

By passing Senate Bill 116, the legislature would be taking a step away from our tradition of common-sense gun laws, and I intend to veto this measure if it passes.

Hassan is aligning with Bloomberg rather than the people who actually live in her state. This is ironic since a recent poll showed that almost 90% of New Hampshire voters oppose organizations like Moms Demand spending money to change gun laws. That same poll shows that 71% of Granite Staters do not like the current pistol license law due the state-sanctioned discrimination it allows.

While each bill is different for each state, each bill had the same opponents – Moms Demand and LEOs. Each bill had the same proponents – residents of the state. Texas wants to change open carry laws while New Hampshire wants to change concealed carry laws. In either case, the schizophrenia of gun control extremists shined through. They each gave the same argument on opposite ends of spectrum.

Clearly these people can’t have the same argument under different circumstances. Moms Demand and LEOs for gun control are nothing more than schizophrenic political hacks that seek to push more hoplophobic laws and restrict freedoms of law-abiding Americans. That any governor of any state would listen to these people over her own constituency is egregious and inexcusable. Governors are supposed to represent their constituency, not out-of-state billionaires who may donate money to future campaigns.

Representatives in each state voted to pass legislation that was backed by the majority of their constituents. Score one for Texans for having a governor who understands the concept of representing the will of the people.