Tagarchief: http://wearechange.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Syria-768×471.jpg 768w

Dangerous Times for the Constitution and Freedom

Oude Media Nieuwe Media

Dangerous Times for the Constitution and Freedom

Bruce Thornton is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center.

While We the People distract ourselves with porn stars and royal weddings, the cracks in our Constitutional order continue to multiply and widen.

Evidence continues to mount that a sitting president, Barack Obama, colluded in using the nation’s security and surveillance apparatus to subvert the campaign and then presidency of a legitimately elected candidate and president. This effort consisted of numerous illegalities: a mole planted in Donald Trump’s campaign; a FISA warrant granted on the basis of false opposition research paid for by his rival; the outgoing president’s expansion of the number of people allowed to unmask the identity of Americans mentioned in passing during surveillance; a rogue FBI director, James Comey, who illegally usurped prosecutorial powers to exonerate a felonious Hillary Clinton; and other FBI agents colluding in the plot to damage Trump. And don’t forget a Deputy Attorney General appointing the close friend of the fired and disgraced Comey as a special counsel to investigate the non-crime of “collusion,” an investigation that has gone on for a year with nothing to show but a handful of indictments resulting from dubious perjury traps.

To quote Bob Dole, “Where’s the outrage” at these attacks on the Constitution?

Outrage is surely warranted. These assaults on the rule of law and accountability to the people are akin to the catalogue of “repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States,” published in the Declaration of Independence. Yet our “watch-dog” media in the main have become the publicists for this attack on the foundations of our freedom, as they flack for the political party that long has resented the limitation of power enshrined in the Constitution. Only a few Cassandras, notably FOX News’ Sean Hannity, are trying to alert the citizenry to the coming conflagration that if unchecked could leave the architecture of our freedom in smoking ruins.

In fact, what we are witnessing in the deep-state Democrats’ undermining of divided government, check and balances, and government accountability, is the culmination of a process begun over a century ago. Addled by the false knowledge of scientism and secularism in the 19th century, the progressives took aim at what they scorned as the archaic political structures based on the permanence of a flawed human nature’s susceptibility to corruption by power. Divided and balanced power, the progressives argued, is inefficient and incapable of solving the new conditions and problems created by industrialization and modern technology.

Instead, power must be concentrated, centralized, and expanded. The deliberations and votes of citizens in their towns, counties, and states must give way to the technocrats housed in bureaus and agencies, and trained in the latest discoveries and techniques of the “human sciences.” In 1925, Progressive publicist Herbert Croly expressed this hubristic and question-begging optimism for a “better future” that “would derive from the beneficent activities of expert social engineers who would bring to the service of social ideals all the technical resources which research could discover.” All they needed was the power and authority to create and apply the mechanisms of this new knowledge.

First, though, the Constitution’s antique structures must be altered. This “increased amount of centralized actions and responsibility” required, as progressive historian Charles Beard wrote in 1913, the discarding of the “strong, almost dominant, tendency to regard the existing Constitution with superstitious awe, and to shrink with horror from modifying it even in the smallest detail.” And it required discarding as well the notion of “inalienable” rights that precede government and lie beyond its power, a belief that Beard called “obsolete and indefensible.” Rights can be created by government in order to suit its own ideological and political aims, as FDR promised in his 1944 “Second Bill of Rights,” which expanded rights to include health care, recreation, and a good job, to name just a few of the gifts government would bestow on the people.

So given this long history, why are we surprised that today many of us believe we have a right not to have our feelings hurt, our opinions contradicted, or our sensibilities wounded even by statements of fact? Or that calls for weakening the Bill of Rights, particularly the First and Second Amendments, are made openly and taken seriously by substantial numbers of people? Or that agents of the government armed with all its coercive powers can violate our privacy and command our participation in politicized “investigations” that ruin our reputation and drive us to bankruptcy? Or that petty clerks across the land can force their way into our homes, businesses, schools, and churches in order to impose their visions of “social justice”?

Today we live in the world the progressives created, and that too many so-called conservatives have endorsed and enabled. The deep-state technocratic apparatus has encroached ever more deeply into citizen autonomy and freedom. Its millions of faceless, nameless functionaries are insulated from accountability to the citizens. Even when their politicized debasement of their responsibilities become known, they escape accountability and punishment, as have the IRS’s Lois Lerner and her enabling boss John Koskinen, disgraced FBI director James Comey, deputy FBI director Andrew McCabe, and of course most egregiously, quondam Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who endangered classified materials on her rogue server, and turned the State Department into the bait for attracting donations to her private foundation.

The result has been a serious erosion of the bedrock principles of equality under the law, and accountability to the sovereign people––violations whose scope and gravity have become more obvious and numerous.

But we shouldn’t be surprised. Over the decades the preconditions of today’s excesses have multiplied and become more accepted. Few of us question any longer the deep state of unelected bureaucrats, a surveillance regime empowered to run wild through our private lives, the unholy alliance between big government and big business, and government agencies usurping the power to direct and manage our lives and our opinions. We now take for granted that government should expropriate wealth and redistribute it to political favorites, the very activity that political philosophers from Athens to our own Constitutional Convention warned is the modus operandi of the tyrant. We shrug off the abuses of power that currently are manifest in the machinations of the previous administration to empower its chosen successor, and the skullduggery of its minions still infesting agencies like the DOJ and the FBI.

In short, we have accepted the progressive “fundamental transformation” of the government’s role from protecting our freedom to “solving problems” that, with few exceptions like war, a free people are supposed to solve themselves through families, civil society, and city and state governments. We have been seduced by the promise of freedom without that responsibility and the accountability that make our choices potentially tragic. And now we see the federal leviathan rampaging in our most powerful agencies, and we are surprised? As the Founders were wont to say, “power is of an encroaching nature.” No human being or human institution is immune from the temptations of power, or satisfied with whatever power has been obtained. We are witnessing the truth of this wisdom right now, as criminals run free, the innocent are hounded, federal agencies are emboldened to defy the representatives of the sovereign people, and a special counsel is unrestrained by any limits on the scope of his power, even as those like Representative Devin Nunes––who is fighting against this cardinal sin of allowing or even enabling power to burst through its Constitutional restraints––are slandered and demonized.

For a century, progressives have been undermining the Constitution as they seek to expand and concentrate government power at the cost of freedom. Their rage at Donald Trump in part reflects their disappointment at seeing the success of Obama in accelerating their achievement of their goal thwarted by a blunt-talking indecorous outsider. Now they have called on all their deep-state powers to destroy the usurper who has snatched from them the victory Hillary Clinton promised to consummate.

This continuing scandal of government agencies corrupting their Constitutionally delegated powers is one of the most important threats to ordered liberty at least since World War II, one far more dangerous than the farcical cover-up of a two-bit robbery that was the Watergate scandal. If we allow those guilty of abusing the power of the state for partisan gain to get away with it, we will embolden even more enemies of freedom to do the same as soon as they get the opportunity. It is up to we the people to demand that Mueller’s inquisition come to an end, and that the true miscreants who have abused their power be investigated, indicted, tried, and punished. Only then will the fabric of the Constitution begin to be restored, and our freedom rearmored.

Dangerous Times for the Constitution and Freedom

{$excerpt:n}


Security Theatre In Our Streets

Oude Media Nieuwe Media

Security Theatre In Our Streets

A bollard, Wikipedia tells us, “is a sturdy, short, vertical post. The term originally referred to a post on a ship or quay used principally for mooring boats, but is now used, primarily in British English, to refer to posts installed to control road traffic and posts designed to prevent ram raiding and car ramming attacks.” 

For a time I lived in a city, Amsterdam, where bollards numbering in the tens of thousands have been a feature of the urban landscape for generations. I didn’t know them as bollards, but rather by the local word, Amsterdammertjes. They’re all identical – brown and about hip-high and shaped rather like humongous dildos, which, given the city’s international image, is not entirely inappropriate. Each of them has a vertical row of three X’s on it. (They’re crosses, actually: Christian crosses, an allusion to Amsterdam’s coat of arms.)

Amsterdammertjes were originally intended to separate the sidewalk from the street and protect buildings from traffic; later they also helped prevent illegal parking. But since they date back to an era before contemporary jihadist terrorism, they aren’t nearly strong enough to forestall deliberate car or truck attacks, only accidents involving relatively light, slow-moving vehicles. They’re quaint relics, widely beloved – although for years now municipal authorities, presumably recognizing their inutility, have been gradually removing them. If developments elsewhere in the Western world are any indication, however, the Amsterdammertjes will likely soon be replaced by solider objects – dividers capable of repelling deadly truck assaults of the sort committed on Bastille Day 2016 in Nice and last Halloween in New York. 

For the fact is that throughout the West, bollards – formidable ones – and other, usually less attractive such structures are steadily becoming ubiquitous, and, in the process, dramatically altering the faces of some of the world’s great cities. In Washington, D.C., they began to be installed on a serious scale almost immediately after 9/11. “The 5.5-mile ring of steel posts around the Capitol Building is one of the largest (and most uniform) of its kind in the world,” stated one report last summer. “The waist-high steel posts installed after 9/11 cost about $7,500 a pop, and reportedly can stop ‘an eight-ton truck barreling into them at 50 mph.’” 

Last year saw the placement of huge, ugly concrete barriers in Sydney and Melbourne – and Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull called for even more of them. Similar barricades have cropped up in cities from Miami to Milan to Málaga. This past November saw the beginning of a project to install over eight thousand bollards along the Las Vegas Strip. Depending on the city, these new obstructions assume a wide range of forms and shapes. Some of them are just big, brutalist monstrosties that make no attempt to hide their identity and purpose. But others are designed to look like something else, or to be something else in addition to security barriers. 

The first ones I noticed in Oslo, when I lived there years ago, were placed outside the Parliament and doubled as planters. Now these planters are spreading all over town. As it happens, Norwegians recently commemorated Constitution Day, its answer to the Fourth of July. On this day, May 17, Oslo always fills with families in traditional costumes waving the national flag. I stayed home, but online I saw pictures of these partying patriots weaving their way around the planters. Children playfully jumped on them and kicked at them. They were having fun. But what do they know? For me, the sight of those planters turned what should have been a celebration of freedom into yet another occasion to ponder its opposite. They’re meant to be pretty, of course, and I guess they are – until you remind yourself what they are and why they’re there. After all, I can remember a time when such encroachments were unneeded. 

(The big feature of May 17, the way, is the “barnetog” – the parade of schoolchildren past the Royal Palace. A couple of days after May 17, I read that there were “extremely many cases of girls in hijab” in this year’s barnetog. The delegation from one Oslo school included 15 girls, all but one of them in hijab. Just sayin’.) 

Architectural Digest (AD) recently responded to the bollardification of the West by contemplating its aesthetic and functional aspects. According to AD, the new barriers thrown up on New York’s West Side Highway after the Halloween attack not only are ugly and “make the bike path essentially unusable” but wouldn’t be terribly successful at precluding vehicular jihad anyway. Still, New York legislators have introduced a bill that would authorize funding for 1500 more of them all over New York City. (That’s not all: the NYPD has quietly taken a variety of other measures, such as “shutting down some theater streets just before shows.”) 

Architects, noted AD, are seeking to make bollards “more hospitable” – which can mean not just camouflaging them as planters (or, in some cases, “seating areas”) but “possibly even constructing water features, which have often functioned as both setbacks and excellent security architecture.” Two years ago the magazine America ran an article about “Crisis Architecture” (a new term, apparently), which cited ever more ingenious examples of design elements – such as giant street-side letters that spell out the name of a place – that also serve as safety barriers.  

Well, three cheers for architectural innovation. But time and again, when these particular innovations are discussed, the subject that is delicately danced around is the fact that none of these radical changes in our lived environment would ever have been contemplated if not for the savagely loyal adherents of a faith that commands the murder of infidels. Indeed, what’s most remarkable about all of the discussion surrounding the advent of this new age of bollard-besmirched boulevards is the almost total absence of any reference to Islam – which is the sole reason why these objects (whether or not they are technically bollards, and whether they are handsome or hideous) are proliferating throughout our cities. On the contrary, even as mayors around the world order up bollards by the trainload, they continue to spout nonsense about the ways in which Islam has socially and culturally enriched their cities. 

For let’s make no mistake: even as these bollards represent a colossal transformation in the look and the experience of our cities, they are, in practical terms, laughably inadequate to their supposed objective. They’re lame, listless gestures in the direction of defending our civilization from an enemy that our government officials and news media routinely whitewash and appease – an enemy that, with few exceptions, they even refuse to name in connection with any of these security concerns, let alone confront with anything remotely resembling the resolve and determination necessary to ensure our ultimate victory. Although presented to us as bulwarks against barbarity, in reality they’re nothing more or less than emblems of our own suicidal half-heartedness in the face of steady subjugation. Like the TSA’s “security theater” at our airports, they’re pathetically feeble responses to a massive challenge –  ways of pretending to ourselves that we’re engaged in something other than a slow, polite surrender. 

The Norwegian children I saw gamboling in the streets of Oslo on May 17, blissfully unaware of the dark significance of those pretty planters that line the capital’s parade street, don’t recognize any of this now, needless to say. But the stark reality will become clear enough to them as they grow into adulthood and as the enemy’s conquest proceeds apace. And when – barring some continent-wide moral and psychological reversal, some sudden acquisition of cultural spine and self-assurance – the capitals of Western Europe finally fall, one after the other, and the bollards, no longer having any raison d’être, are hauled away, how will the children of today (who will then, of course, no longer be children) look upon them, except as tragic symbols of their parents’ and grandparents’ lack of values, vigor, and valor?  

Security Theatre In Our Streets

{$excerpt:n}


Big-Lie Brennan

Oude Media Nieuwe Media

Big-Lie Brennan

After a year of investigation, Robert Mueller’s probe has failed to produce any evidence that the presidential campaign of Donald Trump colluded with Russia to influence the 2016 election in Trump’s favor. Those proceedings are essentially a cover for an intelligence operation against the Trump campaign. 

“Categorically and unequivocally,” former U.S. Attorney Joseph DiGenova explained, “it has been proved that the FBI, in violation of all guidelines, all legislation — and I believe they committed crimes in doing so — purposely sent people into the Trump campaign to plant false information, then force that information to be forwarded back to CIA, and then funneled to the FBI, to be used as false information in FISA applications.” 

Everybody involved in that process “committed a crime,” said DiGenova, who suggested that former CIA boss John Brennan “get himself a good lawyer.” 

For his part, president Trump tweeted:  “I hereby demand, and will do so officially tomorrow, that the Department of Justice look into whether or not the FBI/DOJ infiltrated or surveilled the Trump Campaign for Political Purposes — and if any such demands or requests were made by people within the Obama Administration!”  That would include Brennan, who became POTUS 44’s CIA boss in 2013 and appears to believe he is still a federal government official. 

“Senator McConnell & Speaker Ryan,” Brennan tweeted. “If Mr. Trump continues along this disastrous path, you will bear major responsibility for the harm done to our democracy. You do a great disservice to our Nation & the Republican Party if you continue to enable Mr. Trump’s self-serving actions.” Brennan thus recalls the claims of Trump’s 2016 opponent, former First Lady and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. 

She is on record that if President Trump investigates her role in the sale of a uranium company to a Russian agency, that would make the United States “like a dictatorship.” And if Attorney General Jeff Sessions assigned a special prosecutor, “this would be “a signal that we’re going to be like some dictatorship, some authoritarian regime where political opponents are going to be unfairly, fraudulently investigated.” According to the former First Lady, it would be “such an abuse of power” and “goes right at the rule of law.” 

For the record of the previous administration on that theme, see Victor Davis Hanson’s “How Democracies End: A Bureaucratic Whimper,” in American Greatness. In almost every NeverTrump attack, Hanson notes, “there is almost no recognition or indeed worry that we have been living through one of the great challenges to constitutional government in our history.”

For example, Lois Lerner weaponized the IRS to help POTUS 44 gain reelection in 2012. Attorney General Eric Holder surveilled journalists of the Associated Press and Fox News. Government spooks invaded the computer of journalist Sharyl Attkisson and the previous administration, Hanson recalls, “suddenly and vastly expanded the number of agencies that could have access to classified surveillance in its aftermath.”

We also know “that members of the Obama intelligence and national security teams—Susan Rice and Samantha Power among others—requested the names of American citizens surveilled (likely obtained through improperly obtained FISA warrants) to be unmasked. Then someone illegally leaked their names to the press to damage the Trump campaign and his presidential transition.”

The threat to our civil liberties is coming from “allegedly judicious career FBI, Justice Department, and intelligence agency officials,” who all “felt that they could break the law” because “such unsavory and anti-constitutional means were felt necessary and justified to prevent and then subvert the presidency of Donald J. Trump.”  

Senator McConnell and speaker Ryan have no reason to heed Brennan, who also tweeted Cicero’s observation that “Any man can make mistakes, but only an idiot persists in his error.” Despite the classical quote, Brennan is doubtless the least impressive person ever to work in the “intelligence community,” with the possible exceptions of clueless James Clapper and the Clintons’ thieving national security advisor Sandy Berger

Brennan even voted for the Stalinist Gus Hall, Communist Party USA candidate in 1976, and for that reason alone never should have been allowed anywhere near the CIA. President Trump should demand that new CIA leader Gina Haspel provide a complete accounting of Brennan’s every move in the agency. 

Brennan was the prize pick of POTUS 44, who also has a strange back story. According to his official biographer David Garrow, winner of the Pulitzer Prize, the president’s defining story, Dreams from My Father, was “without any question a work of historical fiction,” and the author a “composite character.” 

The Dreams author is on record that the character “Frank” is Frank Marshall Davis, an African American Communist who spent his life backing Russia’s all-white Stalinist dictatorships. As Paul Kengor noted in The Communist: Frank Marshall Davis, the Untold Story of Barack Obama’s Mentor, Davis was a security risk and the FBI compiled a huge file on him.

President Trump should demand that FBI boss Christopher Wray disclose whether the FBI ever identified Davis as “Frank” in Dreams from My Father. If so, was that hushed up, like a lot of other information about POTUS 44?  And what was the role of POTUS 44 in the quest to prevent and subvert the presidency of Donald Trump? 

As anti-Trump FBI drones Peter Strzok and Lisa Page said, the president wanted “to know everything we are doing.” The people have a right to know what POTUS 44  knew, when he knew it, and what actions he ordered and approved.  The duly elected President Trump has the power to get the answers. 

Big-Lie Brennan

{$excerpt:n}


From Russia With Love

Oude Media Nieuwe Media

From Russia With Love

Robert Mueller’s investigation into whether President Donald Trump and the Russians colluded to rig the 2016 presidential election so far has borne little fruit. The Democrats and their media allies would love to find some Russian collusion and interference. I can help them discover some, but I doubt that they will show much interest. Here it goes.

For years, Russia has been the world’s largest oil producer. Within recent times, the U.S. has edged Russia out of the No. 1 spot. Much of the increased U.S. production is attributable to hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, in the shale formations in Texas and North Dakota. Now the U.S. is a net exporter of oil. Exports of oil have exceeded oil imports since 2011. This hasn’t sat well with Russia, which has taken measures to hinder our oil productivity.

An American Spectator magazine story points to the kind of Russian collusion and domestic meddling that meets the approval of Democrats, leftists and their media allies. The story is aptly titled “Russian funding of U.S. environmental groups shows how collusion is done” (http://tinyurl.com/y897kbt3). A 2014 U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee report identified that the San Francisco-based Sea Change Foundation receives funding from a Bermuda-based shell company known as Klein Ltd. Klein Ltd. was created by attorneys from Wakefield Quin, a law firm that has close ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin. Klein Ltd. operates as a “pass-through” organization for foreign funds going into the U.S.

The IRS requires nonprofit organizations to file 990 forms that report their activities. Those 990s show that Klein Ltd. contributed $23 million to the Sea Change Foundation in 2010 and again in 2011. That’s about half of the contributions Sea Change Foundation received during those years. Those same 990 forms show that the Sea Change Foundation distributed more than $20 million in grants in 2010 and 2011 to environmental organizations. It gave more than $40 million in grants to leftist environmental groups, such as the Natural Resources Defense Council, The Sierra Club Foundation, the League of Conservation Voters Education Fund, the Tides Foundation, the Union of Concerned Scientists and the World Wildlife Fund.

In return for the grant money, those leftist environmentalists were “to promote awareness of climate change,” “reduce reliance on high carbon energy,” “educate the public about climate and clean energy” and “promote climate and clean energy communications.” A U.S. House Science, Space and Technology Committee report, titled “Russian Attempts to Influence U.S. Domestic Energy Markets by Exploiting Social Media,” details that the environmental groups used the Russian money to protest the process of fracking and fight the building of the Keystone XL pipeline. If environmentalists can thwart U.S. oil production, Russia, which is a major energy supplier to Europe, stands to gain greater economic and political power.

Rep. Lamar Smith, the chairman of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee, has raised the possibility that those complicit in the scheme to use American environmentalists to advance Russian propaganda and interests could be in violation of federal statutes that apply to foreign agents lobbying in behalf of foreign interests.

Russia is also a major supplier of natural gas to all of Europe. U.S. natural gas producers long wished to export some of their product to Europe and Japan to take advantage of higher prices. But up until 2016, they were blocked by natural gas export restrictions. In the case of natural gas, the Russians didn’t have to bribe environmentalists to do their dirty work. They had willing support from U.S. industrial giants such as Dow, Alcoa, Celanese and Nucor, members of America’s Energy Advantage. These U.S. companies lobbied against natural gas exports, saying that it would be unpatriotic to allow unlimited natural gas exports. Export restrictions kept natural gas prices artificially low and gave U.S. manufacturing companies a raw material advantage. The lifting of export restrictions has raised natural gas prices in the U.S. but lowered them in the recipient countries and weakened Russia’s economic and political hold on Europe. In my book, that’s a good thing.

From Russia With Love

{$excerpt:n}


Hypocritical Educrat Arne Duncan

Oude Media Nieuwe Media

Hypocritical Educrat Arne Duncan

Educrat (ED-yoo-krat) noun, usually pejorative. A government school official or administrator whose primary function is to spend tax dollars telling other parents what to do with their children.

Beltway education bureaucrats abhor families who choose to keep their kids out of public schools — unless it’s to grandstand over gun control.

Behold Arne Duncan, longtime pal of Barack Obama and former U.S. Department of Education secretary, who called last weekend for parents nationwide to withdraw students from classes “until gun laws (are) changed to keep them safe.”

Emotions are still raw after a teen shot 10 classmates and teachers to death in Texas last week. But Duncan has no excuse for his cynical, made-for-cable-TV exploitation of the Santa Fe High School massacre. Existing state laws banning minors under 18 from purchasing or possessing guns didn’t stop the shooter. Neither did laws against possessing sawed-off shotguns or pipe bombs.

And contrary to hysterical early reports, the accused 17-year-old gunman did not use “assault rifles.” So a “common sense” ban on “assault weapons” would not have saved lives, either.

But effective solutions to maximize students’ safety and well-being seemingly aren’t Duncan’s goals. His mission is airtime. Publicity. Entertainment. Provocation for provocation’s sake. Show time — for the children, of course.

School boycotts are a “radical idea,” he admitted to MSNBC. “It’s controversial. It’s intentionally provocative.” Praising teacher walkouts and student protests, Duncan told The Atlantic he supported parent-initiated school shutdowns for gun control because “we are not protecting our kids… And the fact that we’re not doing that — we’re not willing to think radically enough to do it — I can’t stomach that.”

Ah, the royal, unstomachable “we.”

Here’s another thing I find hard to swallow: Education overlord Arne Duncan now championing the radical idea of parents exercising their autonomy to do what’s best for their children.

As Obama’s meddling power-hungry education secretary, Duncan attacked “white suburban moms” and their children who turned to homeschooling in protest of the top-down Common Core “standards”/testing/data-mining program. Duncan sneered that he found it “fascinating” that the grass-roots anti-Common Core revolt came from “white suburban moms who — all of a sudden — their child isn’t as brilliant as they thought they were, and their school isn’t quite as good as they thought they were.”

This elitist control freak revealed his fundamental disdain for rabble-rousing parents who’ve taken educational matters in to their own hands. By characterizing the movement against Common Core as “white” and “suburban,” Duncan also exposed his bigotry against countless parents “of color,” like myself, who’ve long opposed Fed Ed’s sabotage of academic excellence, local control and student privacy in school districts across the country.

Note that newly minted parents’ rights advocate Arne Duncan never once advocated boycotting Chicago public schools, which he ran for eight years, for their abject failure to quell rampant school violence.

Nor has Duncan called for parents to demand their districts withdraw from the disastrous “PROMISE” alternative discipline program that he helped create. (After Duncan’s protege, Broward County school superintendent Robert Runcie, initially denied that Parkland, Fla., shooter Nicholas Cruz had benefited from the program, he sheepishly acknowledged last week that Cruz had in fact been referred to the program and avoided criminal prosecution for school vandalism as a result.)

Nor has Duncan said a peep about systemic coddling of abusers in the classroom by teachers’ union presidents in New Jersey and Ohio, as exposed over the past month by undercover investigative journalists at Project Veritas.

Instead, Duncan has won high praise and more media interviews for his phony boycott proposal. “My family is all in if we can do this at scale,” he nobly tweeted.

But what his slavering fans in the liberal media won’t tell you is that Duncan’s wife works at and his own children attend the exclusive, private University of Chicago Laboratory Schools in tony Hyde Park, which a Lab Schools brochure brags is “patrolled by the University of Chicago Police Department and private security.”

Armed, of course, for thine and thee, Arne. But not for we.

Hypocritical Educrat Arne Duncan

{$excerpt:n}


Hoe moet u zelf thuis uw bloeddruk meten?

Oude Media Nieuwe Media

Hoe moet u zelf thuis uw bloeddruk meten?

Meet de bloeddruk steeds op dezelfde manier.

Hoe moet u zelf thuis uw bloeddruk meten?

{$excerpt:n}

Sony To Focus On Gaming Subscriptions, Entertainment To Ensure Growth

Oude Media Nieuwe Media

Sony To Focus On Gaming Subscriptions, Entertainment To Ensure Growth

Sony Corp. will likely focus on gaming subscriptions and entertainment with its new chief executive officer Kenichiro Yoshida. 
Bloomberg reported Monday that Yoshida is expected to announce his three-year plan for the Japanese company on Tuesday, May 22. The plan is said to evolve on Sony’s growing reliance on gaming subscriptions end entertainment for income. 

Sony To Focus On Gaming Subscriptions, Entertainment To Ensure Growth

{$excerpt:n}

Toto Wolff And Lewis Hamilton 'Worried' Ahead Of Monaco GP

Oude Media Nieuwe Media

Toto Wolff And Lewis Hamilton 'Worried' Ahead Of Monaco GP

Mercedes team principal Toto Wolff says the team are “bloody worried” ahead of the Monaco Grand Prix on Sunday.
The Silver Arrows team have struggled at the iconic street circuit in the last two seasons and Wolff admitted the concerns still remain ahead of this year’s race on May 27.
The Mercedes chief is concerned the team has still not been able to diagnose the problems they have had in the past. Monaco is not the only concern for the team with the reigning champions traditionally struggling on circuits that require high down force.

Toto Wolff And Lewis Hamilton 'Worried' Ahead Of Monaco GP

{$excerpt:n}

Croft Reveals Nadal's Ultimate Target, Says Federer Will Retire First

Oude Media Nieuwe Media

Croft Reveals Nadal's Ultimate Target, Says Federer Will Retire First

Rafael Nadal’s ultimate goal is to finish above Roger Federer in the record tables rather than just being known as the “King of Clay,” according to former British women’s number one Annabel Croft.
The Spaniard is undoubtedly the greatest player on clay having won 56 of his 78 ATP men’s singles on the red dirt which includes 10 French Open titles, and 11 each at the Monte Carlo Masters and the Barcelona Open. He also set the record for most consecutive sets won by winning 50 sets until his run was ended in the quarter-finals of the Madrid Open.

Croft Reveals Nadal's Ultimate Target, Says Federer Will Retire First

{$excerpt:n}

Interstellar Immigrant: Asteroid From Another Star System Discovered Around Jupiter

Oude Media Nieuwe Media

Interstellar Immigrant: Asteroid From Another Star System Discovered Around Jupiter

The discovery of ʻOumuamua, the first ever interstellar object seen in the solar system, created headlines last year. Many thought the object could be an alien probe and whatnot, but the cigar-shaped rock entered and zoomed out of our neighborhood promptly.
However, its brief appearance did suggest that many more weird space rocks from different star-systems could be hiding in our system. Scientists have been searching for these objects through a bunch of ground and space-based telescopes and just recently, they found a permanent immigrant around Jupiter.

Interstellar Immigrant: Asteroid From Another Star System Discovered Around Jupiter

{$excerpt:n}

Stephen Thompson: UFC 225 Interim Title Fight Diminishes Value Of Belt

Oude Media Nieuwe Media

Stephen Thompson: UFC 225 Interim Title Fight Diminishes Value Of Belt

Ahead of his fight with Darren Till this week, UFC welterweight contender Stephen Thompson does not believe Rafael Dos Anjos and Colby Covington should be fighting for the interim title next month.
Thompson (14-2-1) will face Till (16-0-1) in the main event of the UFC’s first-ever show in Liverpool, England, on May 27 in what will be a pivotal welterweight encounter that could have heavy implications on the state of the division.

Stephen Thompson: UFC 225 Interim Title Fight Diminishes Value Of Belt

{$excerpt:n}

The complete timeline of FBI / Obama / Comey / Clinton collusion and treason against Trump

Oude Media Nieuwe Media

The complete timeline of FBI / Obama / Comey / Clinton collusion and treason against Trump

(Natural News) Over the last two years, you have been witnessing an attempted deep state coup against the United States of America, carried out by what can only be called an organized crime ring of treasonous criminals like Robert Mueller, James Comey, Loretta Lynch, John Brennan and Hillary Clinton. Now, fearless independent journalism Sharyl Attkisson…

The complete timeline of FBI / Obama / Comey / Clinton collusion and treason against Trump

{$excerpt:n}