This is the story that the Democrat Media Complex has been flogging all day.
Heroic female woman senator silenced by male Republicans for pointing out that their nominee for Attorney-General has a history of racism and bigotry.
What the more accurate version of the story would be:
Far-Left Radical senator who lied about being a Native America to score an affirmative-action job in academia impugns the character of a fellow senator based on a 30-year-old smear launched by a deranged lunatic who thought Dan Rather was sending him coded messages through the Evening News. The Far Left Senator was then rebuked for violating Senate rules against impugning the motives of a fellow senator.
Yeah, the senate has that rule, but Democrats have lately sucked at following rules… and behaving with Civility.
This Liz Warren person seems to be a consummate left-wing con artist, whose gotten rich using social justice schemes and taking advantage of the same system she says is “rigged” to benefit the wealthy. In addition to plying her phony American Indian status into a $350,000 a year job teaching one class at Harvard, she also:
One of the great things about being a Democrat, I guess, is you never have to come up with an explanation that’s plausible to intelligent people. When Liz Warren was confronted about pretending to be a Native American, she responded, “Well, my grandpa had high cheekbones.” (Or when Hillary explained that she needed a private, secret email server because managing *two* separate smartphones for private and Government business was way too complicated to her.) Any intelligent person hears those explanation and says, “Oh, come on.” But the average Democrat voter is like, “Yup. That makes sense,” and then goes back to wondering if Perez Hilton is related to Paris Hilton.
After reading the article linked in the previous post wherein lefty students at the UC-Berkeley defended the use of violence (assault and battery, arson, vandalism) to prevent a conservative from expressing an opinion on campus. The left seems to be trying to say, “Normally, Violence is not OK, but for someone as heinous as Milo Yiannopoulos… violence is good and he should be grateful it wasn’t inflicted on him personally.”
The left seems to be taking the position that “Hate Speech” (i.e. “Words that hurt, or might hurt, somebody’s feelers.”) is so bad that it should be prevented By Any Means Necessary(TM). But they seem to be leaving open a window for speech provided it isn’t being said by someone as vile as Milo Yiannopoulos.
So, I would challenge the College Democrats or any other left-wing group at UC-Berkeley, or NYU, or Mizzou or any other Asylum of Higher Education to demonstrate their commitment to civil discourse by inviting a conservative to speak on campus. And I mean a real conservative, not a Republican squish like Susan Collins, Lindsey Graham, or John Kasich. At minimum, a Marco Rubio or a Tim Scott. Let them come and speak.
I doubt they would ever do it because they know the same protests would happen because the left is not interested in a discussion, they are interested in power.
The Student Newspaper at the UC-Berkeley has published a whole series of editorials defending violence as a legitimate tool of political opposition. (Hat Tip: TnnsNE1) The basic justification: It’s OK to assault people, set fires, and destroy property if there is a risk that a conservative is going to say something that hurts someone’s feelings.
I will keep asking: How can any reasonable, decent person want to be part of the American Left?
I said I would criticize Trump when he is wrong about something important. He is wrong about Civil Asset Forfeiture reform. And that’s important.
President Donald Trump … offered to “destroy” the career of an unnamed Texas state senator who is backing a bill (to reform Civil Asset Forfeiture).
The issue that brought Trump’s threat is called “asset forfeiture.” Burton’s bill and maybe one other in the Senate would make it harder for law enforcement agencies to seize property from people who are accused of but not convicted of a crime.
Many forfeitures involve cash from drug busts, but in others the seizures before conviction amount to legalized robbery.
As reported by The Texas Tribune, Trump’s threat came Tuesday in a meeting with sheriffs at the White House. When he asked how he could improve law enforcement, Rockwall County Sheriff Harold Eavenson spoke up.
“We’ve got a state senator in Texas that’s talking about introducing legislation to require conviction before we can receive that forfeiture money,” Eavenson said.
It’s unconscionable in a free society that the state can take your stuff and then force you to go to court to get it back… without convicting you of a crime.
Article by Bill Whittle that really can’t be excerpted but must be read in its totality to be appreciated. It concerns his speech before a group of young, aspiring totalitarians and being heckled by an unkempt socialist woman.
Sometimes, I think if you look behind every bit of social justice nonsense or attempts to quell liberty, you’ll find a group of heavy, unmarried, middle-aged, publicly-employed white women.