The Banal Evil of Isis Davis-Marks

Mama’s don’t let your babies grow up to be Yalies. They’re the worst. And, as it turns out, evil. Isis Davis-Marks, a staff columnist for the Yale Daily News wrote a piece titled, “Evil is banal.” Indeed. Ms. Davis-Marks then proceeded to unintentionally illustrate that fact.

Her first sentence is a tip-off, “Everyone knows a white boy with shiny brown hair and a saccharine smile that conceals his great ambitions.” The word “saccharine” is used multiple times throughout her piece. There is no such thing a sweet smile from a white boy.

She fleshes out her argument:

When I’m watching the white boy — who is now a white man by this point — on CNN, I’ll remember a racist remark that he said, an unintentional utterance that he made when he had one drink too many at a frat party during sophomore year. I’ll recall a message that he accidentally left open on a computer when he forgot to log out of iMessage, where he likened a woman’s body to a particularly large animal. I’ll kick myself for forgetting to screenshot the evidence.

And, when I’m watching him smile that smile, I’ll think that I could have stopped it.

She wonders at the solution to stop this evil and comes to this conclusion:

To be honest, I’m not sure what the solution is. This expands beyond vocalizing problems about sexual assault: The core of this problem has to do with our values. The problem isn’t just the Yale administration; it’s Yale students. We allow things to skate by. We forget. We say, “No, he couldn’t have done that,” or, “But he’s so nice.” No questions are asked when our friends accept job offers from companies that manufacture weapons or contribute to gentrification in cities. We merely smile at them and wave as we walk across our residential college courtyards and do nothing. Thirty years later, we kick ourselves when it’s too late.

But I can’t do that anymore — I can’t let things slip by. I’m watching you, white boy. And this time, I’m taking the screenshot. [Emphasis added.]

It’s worthwhile to note her standards here.

  1. Judge someone based on his skin color.
  2. Judge the whole group based on the individual.
  3. Note any “offense” – this seems broad as offenses change.
  4. Ruin the reputation of said “evil” white boy in real-time if possible “boldly and publicly”.
  5. Hold onto evidence of “evil” for the white boy’s later success.
  6. Ruin the “white boy” at some later date with screenshots.

In other words, good people like Isis gather information against their peers and use it to ruin them, based on their race and gender, later.

Isis demonstrates the banality of evil. She shows how facile it is to make blatant racist statements. She illustrates the absurdity of her own argument.

Would anyone trust someone so misandrist, sexist, and racist to judge anyone or anything? And who gets to define what’s offensive?

There’s a reason we have the legal system we have, with a presumption of innocence and a jury of our peers. This Yale senior wants to be judge and jury against a group she despises – white men.

One could argue that being a Yale senior is privileged and that to utterly destroy someone and to have innate credibility due to the color of one’s skin and gender is also privileged. But that’s not how this very privileged young woman sees it. She sees the white boy/man as the “other”. She is what she claims to hate.

Heaven help us from the banal evil of people like Isis.

Go to Source
Author: Melissa Mackenzie

The Whole Lot of Them Are Bat-Crazy

If you have been walking quietly through the week, keeping this thought to yourself because you dare not express it to your clients, patients, customers, kids in northeast liberal-arts colleges’ social-sciences programs, or your coworkers, here is your validation: Yes, indeed — the whole lot of them are absolutely bat crazy. Smile at them as Nick Sandmann of Covington Catholic wisely did. But know quietly that you are correct in your political assessment, which — go figure! — makes you politically correct! They all are crazy.

I. Women in White Straitjackets

My first question:Who paid for the straitjackets? Did you and I get stuck paying for that one, too?

The various and sundry (and, after their recent Democrat Hawaii and Puerto Rico junkets, sun-dried) Democrat Congresswomen all showed up to the President’s State of the Union (SOTU) address wearing matching custom-tailored white straitjackets. Each outfit surely cost more than one or two thousand dollars, for custom fitting and professional tailoring. A D.C. hack would not accept anything less with your money. With some 90 Democrat women in Congress, they cost between $45,000 and $200,000 plus tax. Who paid? Yes, socialism is great until you run out of other people’s money. Will those outfits soon be donated to Christian charities and to Jewish Gemachs for the poor to be clothed? Don’t hold your breaths.

The President’s speech was great. The common echo of the Left, the Mediacracy, the Never Trumpers is that he should be “Presidential.” Well, he was spot-on perfect at the SOTU. No invective or cheap shots. A good sport, smiling as the Democrat women narcissistically cheered themselves during his announcement that many more women now have jobs. He announced that African Americans enjoy their lowest unemployment ever recorded in history. For that they did not cheer and hate his success. They want Blacks unemployed so they can call Trump racist and blame him for their economic malaise. But the horrible years for African Americans were the Wasted Obama Decade when employment was depressed while cities like Baltimore (Freddie Gray — all accused police acquitted) and Ferguson (Michael Brown — never did “Hands Up”; police officer not even indicted) were ablaze. So they sat on their hands when the President announced the successes of Black America, of Hispanic Americans and their lowest-ever unemployment numbers. Then he mentioned women — and suddenly they stopped complimenting each other’s new outfits and all stood up and started celebrating themselves by clapping like seals.

It was a brilliantly crafted address that highlighted the enormous achievements of the Trump Administration’s first two years on all fronts — the economy, national defense, energy, trade, foreign relations, Veterans’ affairs, manufacturing, taxes, farms, education — all without the braggadocio that annoys critics. None of his elegance or eloquence did him any good with the usual gang of critics who reign dominant over the Mediacracy. One by one, often having prepared their criticisms before he even spoke, they blasted away at him like the phony “fact checkers” who call him a liar when he condemns open borders that cause one in three women to get attacked; the idiot fact-checker responded that the actual number is not one-third (33.33 percent) but 31 percent. Jerk.

One still recalls Obama glaring at Supreme Court justices, insulting them during his SOTU. Many of the justices never attended another Obama SOTU. It was great seeing Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh in attendance this year, along with Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kagan. Class. We also got a sneak preview of what that row looks like without Ginsburg. Nice.

Van Jones, who really is a very deeply plagued person who sees racism and White privilege in every spoonful of Cocoa Krispies in milk, in every appearance of black ink printed on a white piece of paper, called the President psychotic. Have you ever walked down a Manhattan or Los Angeles street and been called a “filthy slob” by a homeless person on the curb who has not bathed since the invention of indoor plumbing? That is how to receive a Van Jones insult. Sick.

In his SOTU address, the President showed deep compassion for African Americans, for Hispanic Americans, for women — for all the groups that the liars and real haters allege he disdains. All the haters who accuse this President falsely of racism and anti-Semitism and Islamophobia and all are self-serving liars who themselves view every person with bigotry, identifying each by gender, race, sexual preference, religion. That is what their Identity Politics is all about: “Vote for me because I am your Identity, too, or will try to change myself to be.” Stacey Abrams was the perfect Democrat counterpoint: not Caucasian, not male, and still whining about losing. The Loser as counterfoil to Make America Great Again.

II. Virginia is for Lovers — of Infanticide and Hypocrisy.

Can you keep up with what is going on in Virginia? As of this writing, I am the only person in the United States still qualified to hold office in Virginia. I just checked my yeshiva high school yearbook, and I can confirm:

A. No blackface:

(i) We all were White, except for Jimmy the Custodian.

(ii) In our all-boys yeshiva high school, it was Jimmy who taught us about girls, so we respected him deeply.

(iii) Jimmy taught us all the dirty words that people speak, so he prepared us for college and for watching television and movies.

(iv) Whenever Jimmy would enter a classroom, he would shift from the demeanor we knew in the lunchroom and would become deeply respectful to the rabbi teaching class as he entered to attend to a custodial matter, always prompting the rabbis to lecture us that we should learn to be less chutzpah-like and instead should learn to be more like Jimmy. We dutifully followed our rabbis’ instructions.

B. No “#MeToo”:

(i) There were no girls in the all-boys yeshiva.

(ii) We were not allowed to date girls outside of school during our yeshiva high school years.

(iii) We were not allowed to attend mixed-gender parties.

(iv) We were not even allowed to touch girls’ hands as in a common-courtesy handshake.

(v) The only females we were allowed to talk to were our Moms, sisters, aunts, cousins, and Bubbies (grandmothers).

So my high school Yearbook has cleared me for Virginia Governor. Meanwhile, look at the crazy Left Democrat hypocrisy:

1. Joy Behar dresses in blackface. Ted Danson in blackface. The always-despicable Sarah Silverman in blackface. Jimmy Kimmel: OMG — He even do da tawkin’ in blackface like a slave on da plantation. They all are a bunch of racists of the worst sort — or maybe they just were stupid and grossly insensitive. Like, honestly — take the politics out of it, and let’s be fair: Is it racist for a White guy to dress in blackface if he is doing it as part of a celebration of his Black girlfriend? How can that be taken as racist, even as she laughs and signals approval? Meanwhile, only one week has passed. Give it some time, and we soon will find that the only person in Hollywood who has not dressed in blackface these past thirty years is Harvey Weinstein.

2. Ralph Northam announces he would kill babies. That is a governor of a state in America. We expect that of a regional governor in Afghanistan, in northern Syria — heck, in all of Syria — in Iraq, in Iran, in Saudi Arabia, in Pahhhkistahhhn. But Virginia is for lovers, no? Well, yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus, but you better watch out, Virginia, for your governor’s Infanta Claws. For this Northam should have been ousted from office, along with all other Democrats backing their new Gosnell-Mengele Abortion bill. One thinks back to the scene in My Cousin Vinny where Marisa Tomei gets on Joe Pesci for deer hunting:

“Yaw gonna shoot a deeuh? A sweet, hahmliss, leaf-eatin’, doe-eyed little deeeuh. Imagine yaw’r a deeuh. Ya put yaw cool deeuh lips down to da cool cleeuh wawttuh. [And then] Bam! A [ ] bullet rips off paht of yaw head. Yaw brains ahh layin’ on da ground and in little bloody pieces.”

That is the new abortion vision proffered by Virginia Democrats and certified by Dr. Northam, M.D. If he personally ever actually did one of those post-birth “hospice abortions” he should be moved to a new movie script — from My Cousin Vinny to Judgment at Nuremberg where he gets to be portrayed as a Nazi War Criminal.

3. It turns out that Northam also had a page in his medical school yearbook with a photo of a guy in blackface and a hooded Klansmen (presumably aspiring to emulate former Democrat Senator Robert Exalted Cyclops Byrd). Thoughts:

(i) They have Yearbooks for Medical School? Like, aren’t they busy learning to be doctors and doing 48-hour shifts? They bother with Yearbooks?

(ii) What kind of idiot puts such a photo pairing on his page? Would you undergo surgery conducted by such a moron?

(iii) Even though he is an Infanticidal Liberal Democrat, he should not be punished for a mistake of 30-plus years ago. Once we begin punishing people for what they did and said thirty and forty years earlier, when they were morons in their teens — wow! Now we are talking Stalinism and the NKVD because everyone has a mistake in his closet. Adam ate the citron, fig, date, pomegranate, olive, wheat, or whatever Eve gave him. (It was not an apple. Bereishit Rabbah 15:7.) What is the point of repentance and self-improvement if you never can be allowed redemption to emerge greater than your past? What is the point of prison rehabilitation programs that liberals love so much if people cannot be forgiven for teenage idiocy from forty years earlier? And if we now adopt the policy that mistakes of forty years ago, during the Moron Years of High School, are unforgivable, what do we do with political phonies like Kamala Harris who salaciously and meretriciously slept their way up the political ladder in public extramarital affairs with political sugar-daddies thirty years their senior, all while brazenly publicly shaming her paramour’s wife? What do we do with vicious Jew-haters like Al Sharpton who, as adults, helped incite not one but two different pogroms that each resulted in street deaths and who made regular speeches attacking the Caucasian race and urging attacks on police?

(iv) Bottom Line: A person should not be destroyed politically for a mistake of forty years earlier when he was a teen-aged moron.

4. It turns out that the next guy in line, Lt. Gov. Fairfax, allegedly forced a dignified woman professor to service him orally, by allegedly pushing down her head forcibly towards his crotch and allegedly coercing her to service him. Thoughts:

(i) Not a good thing.

(ii) Perjury Blasey Ford could not identify when the supposed party happened, where it happened, how she got to the party, how she got home from the party, what she was doing at the party… and the few names she proffered as witnesses all unanimously derided and denied her hokey story. Meanwhile, Perjury Blasey Ford was on record as a Leftist in the Berkeley region, an anti-Trump donor, and she needed an excuse for adding a second front door to her home to make it a rental property in a locale not zoned for leasing. She lied about her door, her air travel. Nary a word of her voice-fry testimony held up. The only thing saving her from the hoosegow is that the people who need to investigate her lies are Republicans, and “GOP” stands for “Gutless OMG-clueless Powerless” — even when in power.

(iii) This accusing professor tells a much more compelling story. She knows the year. It was at the Democrat Convention. (Priceless.) It was at the guy’s hotel room. She vividly recounts details of the incident. She is a Black Democrat Liberal who would love to see a Black Democrat Liberal step in as next Governor of Virginia. I believe her — so far. Not because I automatically believe women — never automatically have and never automatically will. It just rings true on initial blush. But politics must not allow anyone to be denied the justice and fair play that these liars and hypocrites denied to Justice Kavanaugh. This guy deserves his right to confront his accuser, to demand evidence and a fair hearing. Maybe she is lying like Dr. Perjury Ford and like the Avenatti client who next came after Justice Kavanaugh or like the liar who falsely accused the students of the Duke lacrosse team or the liar who falsely accused the University of Virginia students or even the liar Tawana Brawley whom Al Sharpton (see above under “Jew Hater”) catapulted to fame. But it don’t look good for the Lieutenant Guv.

5. It turns out that the next guy in line, Virginia Democrat #3, also dressed in blackface. Thoughts:

(i) What’s with the Democrats, Liberals, and Blackface? Like, really, who does this? In feeding Halloween kids for more than thirty years, I don’t ever remember a kid costumed in blackface. I remember a kid dressed like an Indian. I think Elizabeth Warren (Princess Speaking Bull) once trick-or-treated while masquerading as a Paleface. There was something with Megyn— oh, what’s-her-name-again? (The one who left Fox for NBC.) But, really, who dresses in blackface?

(ii) The thing about this guy is that he demanded that Jerk #1 (the Dr. Gosnell/Dr. Mengele post-birth “hospice aborter”) should resign for having donned blackface thirty or forty years ago. Although Jerk #1 should be entitled to atonement and redemption for that one — but not for advocating infanticide as recently as 2019 — this Jerk #3 absolutely must resign because he set the standard that Blackfaces must resign, no redemption, no explanation, no matter what. So, the only advice to him: Don’t let the door hit your keisteron your way out.

III. Green Hams and Eggheads

Meanwhile, with the whole lot of these Leftist Democrats crazier than each other, somehow The Hyphen managed to escape from the butterfly nets and her white straitjacket, and she ended up announcing her new Green Economy. Remember: The Hyphen got into Congress by beating an Old Caucasian Gas-Expeller by a vote of 15,897 to 11,761 in a Bronx-Queens Democrat primary in a predominantly Hispanic district of 691,813people. (Whoever wins the Democrat primary in New York’s 14th Congressional District automatically wins the November election.) Now she is crowned the Star of Congress, although she could not have appeared more clueless during the State of the Union Address. (“Uh, is this when I should stand? When do I sit again? Is it OK to smile now? Is this when we clap?”) Now she has a plan for an America of the future, having determined that we all have only twelve years left to planet earth so we may as well spend more time at home. The Hyphen’s plan includes but is not limited to:

(i) No more oil or natural gas. So no more cars that run on gasoline. Weep for 800,000 government employees on three-weeks’ furlough from making paper-clip chains, but disregard the millions who will lose their jobs in the energy sector. They all will be dead in twelve years anyway.)

(ii) No more air travel because planes run on fossil fuels. Just high-speed rail. Thoughts:

(a) This means: No more visits to Hawaii, but at least it isolates Crazy Mazie from the mainland. And we better pull the troops home from Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Germany, Japan, and everywhere else quickly while we still have the planes. Putin and the Korean Doughboy will have to come here if they want meetings.

(b) The model for the nation’s high-speed rail transit is California. Its original projected cost was around $60 billion. Now it is up to $100 billion. It was supposed to be done with Phase One in 2022. No one now knows when it will be ready, but they talk of it being completed in 2033 — which is after the earth will explode. Check back in fourteen years for an update.

(iii) No more meat because cows belch. Thoughts:

(a) Yet another justification for infanticide: babies burp, so kill them.

(b) If the Government can regulate the soda you drink and your sugar intake, why not regulate your sources of protein? But if gas-passing causes a carbon footprint, shouldn’t she be banning beans, too?

(c) Next on the list of banned substances presumably will be white bread and white rice: (i) bad for A1C; (ii) reeks of white privilege.

(iv) Every single American building and house to be retro-whatevered to make them green-friendly. (Any comment is superfluous.)

(iv) Healthcare for all. (See here for that commentary.)

(v) Income guaranteed to all, regardless of whether they even will accept work. Pay them with money borrowed from China, or print more.

All this in one week. The Narcissist Democrat Women in Coutured Straitjackets that we paid for. The Last Families of Virginia. The Hyphen gone from White to Green. Know that your innermost thoughts are validated: The whole lot of them are bat-crazy.

Go to Source
Author: Dov Fischer

Pelosi Outsmarted Herself on the SOTU

When House Speaker Nancy Pelosi withdrew her original State of the Union invitation, preventing President Trump from delivering the address as scheduled on January 29, she was probably surprised when he responded with such calm forbearance: “This is her prerogative. I will do the address when the shutdown is over.” By the time Trump finished the rescheduled speech Tuesday evening, she no doubt understood that her petty political ploy had been a blunder. Trump, being no mean showman, had long since realized that the highly publicized delay would increase public interest in the speech — and that is precisely what happened.

By the time he entered the House chamber, it was already obvious that the national audience would very likely exceed last year’s larger-than-usual viewership for such speeches. This is not typical for the SOTU address. The normal pattern is a reasonably large audience for a president’s first address, followed by a gradual decline in public interest each year thereafter. This was certainly true for Trump’s predecessor. Tuesday evening’s speech, however, drew a larger audience than did the President’s 2018 address. According to a report in the Hill, broadcast TV numbers from Nielsen show the audience share was 10 percent over last year’s speech:

The four major broadcast outlets — CBS, NBC, ABC and Fox — combined for a 16.3 overnight rating during the address Tuesday night, which could result in total viewership of approximately 49 million when final numbers, to include the cable news networks and other outlets, are in later Wednesday.

Moreover, CBS and CNN conducted polls of public reaction to Trump’s words and the vast majority of viewers liked what they heard. The CBS/YouGov poll found that 76 percent of the public approved of the address, including 97 percent of Republicans and a whopping 82 percent of Independents. And a majority of viewers agreed that the President accomplished one of his primary goals for the address — improving national unity. According to CBS, “Fifty-six percent of Americans who watched tonight feel the president’s speech will do more to unite the country.” On specific issues, an unambiguous majority of viewers agreed with the President.

And, in more than one case, their answers debunked Democrat talking points. A particularly glaring example of this was the public’s response to his points on illegal immigration. The Democrats have consistently attempted to convince the public that President Trump and his administration is exaggerating the seriousness of the problem. They have frequently accused him of unnecessarily stoking racism and xenophobia in order to “manufacture a crisis.” Indeed, this is the primary basis for their consistent yet evidence-free claims that he himself is a racist. That is not, however, how the Americans who watched last night’s SOTU address view the issue:

Most viewers had a favorable opinion of what Mr. Trump had to say about immigration.… From what they heard tonight, 71 percent of speech-watchers think there is a crisis at the southern border.

It goes without saying, of course, that such unexpected and unwelcome findings forced the people at CBS to downplay the significance of their own poll. To that end, they devoted a lot of irrelevant verbiage to the number of Republicans who watched President Trump’s speech:

In the latest CBS national poll released last month, 25 percent of Americans identified themselves as Republicans. Among those who watched Tuesday night’s address, that figure was 43 percent.

Oddly, the folks at CBS neglect to explain how that datum applies to the extraordinarily high approval figures among the Independents who watched the President’s speech. Moreover, on other issues, the approval ratings on Trump’s speech are also too high to explain away:

On North Korea, 78 percent of speech-watchers think a second meeting between Mr. Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un is a good idea.… Most viewers [74 percent] approved of Mr. Trump’s comments on the Middle East.

The analysts at CNN also conducted a survey of the people who watched the State of the Union address, and found higher rates of approval than they evidently expected. It’s unlikely that these number crunchers were pleased to find that the percentage of viewers who rated the speech as “very positive” or “somewhat positive” was identical to the CBS result — 76 percent. Not coincidentally, CNN also tried to explain that away with the “more Republicans watched” argument. But the positive effect of Trump’s performance was very real and clearly taking its toll on Speaker Pelosi as the speech went on. Former Speaker Newt Gingrich felt her pain:

She had to listen politely.… and pretend to be a good hostess (the President is the guest of the House). When even her most radical new members began standing and applauding, she must have experienced a bit of despair.

This was obvious to anyone watching Madam Speaker gnaw her lip and writhe for the 82 minutes Trump spoke. To paraphrase the immortal P.G. Wodehouse, it was clear that, if not actually disgruntled, she was far from being gruntled. But she could have compromised with Trump on the wall and prevented an unnecessary fight. And she certainly didn’t need to postpone the SOTU. But she refused to do the former and insisted upon the latter — setting Trump up for Tuesday night’s triumph. A classic example of poetic justice. Now the country sees him as more presidential and her as less reasonable. On the shutdown fight, she was too clever by half.

Go to Source
Author: David Catron

CNN’s Poll Of Trump’s SOTU Speech Produced Some Surprising Results

A CNN poll conducted shortly after President Donald Trump delivered his State of the Union speech Tuesday appeared to show many of the channel’s viewers thought the president’s comments hit the right note.

Nearly 60 percent of viewers had a very positive reaction to the speech, 17 percent were somewhat supportive of Trump’s address, according to a poll from independent research company SSRS. Roughly 23 percent of those polled had a negative reaction. CNN surveyed 584 adults through cellphone and landline interviews  Results for the poll have a margin of sampling error of +/- 5.4 percentage points.

Viewers were roughly 17 points more likely than the public to identify as Trump supporters, the poll notes, making this year’s State of the Union a historically partisan affair. Another poll conducted at the same time by CBS showed similar results.

CBS News’s instant poll, which was conducted shortly after Trump’s speech Tuesday, found that Republican viewers approved of the speech (97 percent), while only 30 percent of Democrats shared that opinion. More than 80 percent of independents said they approved.

The survey interviewed 1,472 U.S. adults who watched the SOTU, and the survey had a margin of error of +/- 3 percent.

Trump spent the bulk of the remarks championing his presidency, while trying to draw a stark contrast to congressional Democrats, who he said must help him fix the problems the country is facing.

Delivered by The Daily Sheeple

We encourage you to share and republish our reports, analyses, breaking news and videos (Click for details).

Contributed by Chris White of The Daily Caller News Foundation.

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available
without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For
licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact

Go to Source
Author: The Daily Caller

The Big Ditch: A Grand Canyon Centenary

February 26 marks the centenary of Grand Canyon National Park, its designation issuing from the pen of President Woodrow Wilson in 1919. Coincidentally, the Grand Canyon’s great champion, ex-president Theodore Roosevelt — who had named the canyon a national monument in 1908 — had passed away only seven weeks before (January 6, 1919). The timing of Wilson’s action is interesting: Did he sign the designation as a tribute to Roosevelt’s memory as a conservationist, or withhold it so his most prominent political critic couldn’t take the credit? Maybe both.

A Spanish conquistador named Lopez de Cardenas, who was associated with Francisco de Coronado’s southwestern explorations, first saw the great canyon in 1540. Except for the local Indian inhabitants and the occasional wandering mountain man, the vast canyon went mostly unnoticed (the entire Colorado Plateau being a blank area on the map) until John Wesley Powell’s devil-may-care 1869 expedition descent of the Colorado River in dories. In his book The Explorations of the Colorado River and Its Canyons, he wrote: “You cannot see the Grand Canyon in one view, as if it were a changeless spectacle from which a curtain might be lifted, but to see it you have to toil from month to month through its labyrinths.”

Roosevelt was an early canyon enthusiast, first visiting when president in 1903, and before leaving office naming the area a national monument in 1908 using the executive powers inherent in the 1906 Antiquities Act. Upon his first viewing of the technicolor marvel of massive cliffs and spires, TR famously remarked: “Leave it as it is. You cannot improve on it. The ages have been at work on it, and man can only mar it.”

What the writer Edward Abbey (a frequent visitor) in his book Desert Solitaire called “Industrial Tourism” began during the pre-national monument days. Stagecoach travel on primitive roads started from Flagstaff in the 1892, and in 1901 a railroad line opened up connecting the canyon to nearby Williams, Arizona, though early on more revenue accrued to the railroad from transported copper ore than from tourist traffic. The early decades of the 20th century saw much political and legal wrangling between conservationists and mining interests, but national park status mitigated much of this conflict.

But it was America’s love affair with the automobile that opened up the canyon to the masses. Improved roads from Flagstaff and Williams permitted better access through the 1920s and ’30s. After a visitation lull during World War II, numbers boomed in the postwar years, and 1956 saw the first one million visitors- year. Twenty eighteen recorded six million people enjoying the grandeur of the Grand Canyon. Thirty miles of paved roads and interconnecting parking lots line the South Rim. Ed Abbey’s nightmare. Huge crowds are also noted at the neighboring Utah national parks: Zion, Bryce Canyon, Canyonlands, and Arches. Because of its small size, Zion is so overwhelmed that it is developing a future reservation system for visitation to ease congestion. The canyon country has certainly been discovered.

For those seeking a better degree of solitude, the Grand Canyon’s North Rim is open from May to November, and is accessible from southern Utah. Higher elevations and snow keep this vantage point closed all winter, but when open it is the less crowded option. The North Rim is popular for its vista-rich hiking trails: North Kaibab, Cliff Springs, Roosevelt Point, and Point Imperial, among others.

“Of all places on earth, the Grand Canyon of Arizona is the most inspiring in its pictorial possibilities,” wrote the landscape painter Thomas Moran (1837-1926) in a letter. One result of his legendary Western wanderings and multiple canyon visits was “The Chasm of the Colorado” (1873), which depicts the primeval scene shadowed by storm clouds, and hangs in the Smithsonian American Art Museum today. “Grand Canyon of the Colorado River” (1892) was a magnificent follow-up.

In his book Beyond the Hundredth Meridian: John Wesley Powell and the Second Opening of the West, Wallace Stegner describes the immensity of the canyon: “The Grand Canyon was beyond the reach of superlatives….” It was a “vast 217-mile avenue, a mountain range in a ditch, any of whose subordinate buttes is larger than the mass of any mountain east of the Rockies.”

For good or ill, Grand Canyon National Park has realized Ed Abbey’s prophetic thundering about tourism in the West. Mostly lacking wildlife as a tourist draw, Grand Canyon — unlike, say, Yellowstone — has marketed itself as a Disney-like experience replete with stunning vistas. There are buzzing helicopter tours probing the canyon’s depths; there are mule train rides up and down the Bright Angel Trail; and river outfitters guide rafts full of dazzled visitors down the silt-brown Colorado River as it surges along at the bottom of America’s billion years-old gorge. The thirty miles of road along the South Rim are handy for shuttle bus touring. And for the not-so-faint-of-heart (and an $80 ticket price) there is the glass walkway built in 2007 that extends out over the abyss, creating the illusion of walking on air. The Grand Canyon is a year-round spectacle of animated — and sometimes scary — recreation.

Though some beautiful architecture is seen as a compliment to the natural grandeur. The El Tovar Hotel was designed by Charles Whittlesey and built in 1905 on the South Rim. Other sites are the Hopi House, Desert View Watchtower, and the Phantom Ranch compound, which is on the river at the bottom of the canyon. These three, plus more, were designed by Mary Colter (1869-1958), a prominent architect in a time when few women were trained in the art. Employing rustic and Native American motifs, she created what we can today call the “Southwestern” style of architecture.

The Grand Canyon is indeed a billion years old. From a geological perspective, its multi-hued layered strata are immense, not measured in centuries or millennia, but in periods of geologic time contemplated by scientists, and only truly understood by its artist, God Himself.

Go to Source
Author: Bill Croke

Is It Beginning? 10 Significant Earthquakes Rock The California Coastline As Mount St. Helens Rumbles Back To Life

Scientists tell us that someday the “Big One” will strike California and large portions of the coastline will plunge into the ocean “almost instantly”.  Could it be possible that we are a lot closer to that day than many had anticipated?  Over the past several days, there has been a lot of shaking along the North American portion of the Ring of Fire.  In particular, during a 24 hour period over the weekend one area of the California coastline was hit by 10 earthquakes of at least magnitude 3.0, and this created such a stir that it made the front page of the Drudge Report.  The following comes from a local California newspaper

Ten earthquakes of preliminary magnitudes between 3.0 and 4.5 struck off the coast of Northern California between Saturday and Sunday, the United States Geological Survey reports.

Hopefully all of this shaking will turn out to be nothing, but many are concerned that they could potentially be “foreshocks” of a larger event.

Once the first quake hit early on Saturday, they just kept happening one after another

The first earthquake struck early Saturday morning at a magnitude of 4.3, while a second earthquake, of 3.2 magnitude, rumbled about 30 minutes later. Three additional earthquakes hit between 4:30 p.m. and 5:38 p.m. Saturday in the same area, registering magnitudes between 2.9 and 3.6, USGS reported. A 3.0-magnitude earthquake struck that night, at 11:37 p.m.

The geological activity continued into Sunday. USGS reported four earthquakes near Petrolia between 2:18 p.m. and 4:05 p.m. The earthquakes ranged in magnitude from 3.4 to 4.5.

Further south along the Ring of Fire, Mexico was hit by an even larger earthquake on Friday

A strong earthquake jolted southern Mexico on Friday, rattling nerves and swaying tall buildings hundreds of miles away in the capital, but there were no reports of serious damage, injuries or deaths.

The U.S. Geological Survey reported that the quake had a magnitude of 6.6. It was centered about 10 miles from the city of Tapachula in Chiapas state and struck at a depth of 40 miles.

If you follow my work on a regular basis, then you already know that I have been regularly documenting the dramatic rise in global seismic activity.

The crust of our planet is cracked, and we are just floating on the pieces.  Now those pieces appear to be getting increasingly unstable, and that could mean big trouble for all of us.

I know that the weather is nice and that there are lots of good paying jobs out there, but at this point I don’t know why anyone would still want to live along the California coast.  In a previous article, I shared a quote from a news story about a scientific study that had come to the conclusion that a massive earthquake “could plunge large parts of California into the sea almost instantly”

The Big One may be overdue to hit California, but scientists near LA have found a new risk for the area during a major earthquake.

They claim that if a major tremor hits the area, it could plunge large parts of California into the sea almost instantly.

The discovery was made after studying the Newport-Inglewood fault, which has long been believed to be one of Southern California’s danger zones.

And there probably will be little to no warning when that occurs.

One day it will seem like everything is just fine, and then disaster will strike.

According to Cal State Fullerton professor Matt Kirby, it is something “that would happen relatively instantaneously”

Cal State Fullerton professor Matt Kirby, who worked with the Leeper on the study, said the sinking would occur quickly and likely result in part of California being covered by the sea.

“It’s something that would happen relatively instantaneously,” Prof Kirby said. “Probably today if it happened, you would see seawater rushing in.”

In other words, by the time you have figured out what is happening it will be too late.

Meanwhile, scientists are alarmed by the drama that continues to unfold at Mount St. Helens.

Most Americans think that it no longer poses an imminent threat, but the truth is that the area around the volcano has been very active in recent years

Since 1980, the area around the volcano has experienced tens of thousands of small earthquakes and numerous minor eruptions.

Most notably, as of 2004, the volcano has been continuously erupting lava, which has created a large dome that is still growing.

Scientists tell us that the dome is “now taller than the Empire State building” and that it continues to grow about five meters a day

He added: “What is really phenomenal is how much rock is still coming out of the ground.

“It’s now taller than the Empire State building.

“It’s coming up at five metres a day, more than 200 metres wide and it’s right here in our back yard.”

It is just a matter of time before we see another eruption like the one that we witnessed back in 1980.

We live at a time when global seismic activity is going to continue to increase, and North America is going to get hit particularly hard because the entire west coast sits directly along the Ring of Fire.

And if you have been a regular reader of my work for a long time, than you already know that I am even more concerned about Mount Rainier than I am about Mount St. Helens.  But that is a topic for another article.

I know that there are a lot of people out there that plan to leave the west coast once things start getting really crazy, but when it comes to major seismic events, you might not get any warning.

Hopefully there will not be a major seismic event in the U.S. in the very near future, but without a doubt global seismic activity is on the rise, and all of this shaking on the west coast has a lot of people very, very nervous right now.

Delivered by The Daily Sheeple

We encourage you to share and republish our reports, analyses, breaking news and videos (Click for details).

Contributed by Michael Snyder of The American Dream.

Michael Snyder is a writer, speaker and activist who writes and edits his own blogs The American Dream , The Truth and Economic Collapse Blog.

Go to Source
Author: Michael Snyder

Howard and Ralph

Last week was a delicious one for observers of the Ragnarok that the politics of the Left has become, particularly as it signaled the difficulties confronting some of the purveyors of the “smart set” PC culture as they attempt to cash in on their contributions to our national status quo.

Starting with Howard Schultz, the billionaire former Starbucks CEO who, having positioned his company as a leftist cultural icon by such actions as publicly backing gay marriage and imploring customers not to carry firearms in Starbucks stores (though stopping short of banning them), announced on 60 Minutes a week ago that he’ll run for president as a centrist independent.

Why an independent? After all, Schultz was a thoroughly reliable Democrat moneybag throughout his professional life. The answer, as he somewhat furtively explained, was that he knows he could never win his party’s nomination.

“It concerns me that so many voices within the Democratic Party are going so far to the left,” he lamented. “If I ran as a Democrat, I would have to say things in my heart I do not believe.”

Schultz went even further in a CNBC Squawk Box interview back in June of 2018 when he was first beginning to think of himself as a potential presidential hopeful, sounding far saner than the typical candidate within the chaotic Democrat field.

“It concerns me that so many voices within the Democratic Party are going so far to the left. I say to myself, ‘How are we going to pay for these things,’ in terms of things like single payer (and) people espousing the fact that the government is going to give everyone a job.”

“I don’t think that’s realistic,” he said. Then he added: “I think we got to get away from these falsehoods and start talking about the truth and not false promises.”

His bid, which apparently includes having hired former Obama political guru Bill Burton and former John McCain consultant Steve Schmidt, fell flat immediately. So much so that by the middle of the week Michael Moore, the supersized Leni Riefenstahl of today’s Democrat Party, was calling for a boycott of Starbucks until Schultz demurred from running.

Worse, at a signing of his campaign book From the Ground Up, Schultz was heckled by an unhinged leftist who screamed “Don’t help elect Trump, you egotistical, billionaire a–hole!“ at him. The exchange was recorded on video and shortly went viral on social media.

And then there was the treatment of Schultz from the Democrats’ newest purveyor of political wisdom, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who said of his presidential bid “Why don’t people ever tell billionaires who want to run for President that they need to ‘work their way up’ or that ‘maybe they should start with city council first’?”

That came as a response to Schultz’s criticisms of AOC’s far-left policies, and it was similar to the brushback he received from fellow 2020 hopeful Elizabeth Warren, about whose draconic wealth tax Schultz had said was “ridiculous” and nothing more than a “good headline” that would never pass. Warren fired back at Schultz saying, “What’s ‘ridiculous’ is billionaires who think they can buy the presidency to keep the system rigged for themselves while opportunity slips away for everyone else. The top 0.1%, who’d pay my #UltraMillionaireTax, own about the same wealth as 90% of America. It’s time for change.”

University of Virginia political science guru Larry Sabato wasn’t impressed with Schultz’s rollout either. “The truth is the guy has announced for president, gotten an enormous amount of coverage and doesn’t appear to have support from anybody,” said Sabato. And Rolling Stone, in reviewing his book, called him a “banality supervillain,” whatever that means. “From the Ground Up is exceptionally dull, so completely devoid of ideas that it’s almost interesting. Schultz makes the Romney family cookbook read like Dante’s Inferno.”

Then there was New York magazine’s Eric Levitz, who seems so violently opposed to the idea of Howard Schultz as a presidential candidate that he actually called upon Democrats to reject Schultz and his “radical centrist ideology” — specifically decrying Schultz’s naysaying about single-payer health care and his worries over the national debt as a more urgent problem than climate change.

It was such a rude awakening for Schultz that by the end of the week word came that maybe he wasn’t so enamored with the idea of running after all. Nonsense, came the response from his camp, but clearly the anger the coastal smart set Schultz built his business on serving displayed at the idea of his running for president was a surprise. “Everybody expected blowback. He was absolutely prepared for that,” said an unnamed campaign aide. “It was the vitriol that was the surprising thing, this idea that there shouldn’t be free speech. It’s a free country.”

Perhaps it’s naive on Schultz’s part to believe his cultural coreligionists join him in thinking it’s a free country. What’s a surer bet is he’ll find out differently if he continues running, particularly as the Democrat base continues reacting to him as it has so far.

But Schultz’s ordeal was nothing compared to what happened to Virginia governor Ralph Northam over the weekend.

Remember, Northam — a Democrat, despite what lies about his party affiliation might appear on CNN chyrons — was elected over Ed Gillespie in 2017 amid a campaign wherein Northam’s party ran a mailer tying Gillespie to the white supremacist demonstrations and subsequent deadly street conflagrations in Charlottesville earlier that year, and also ran a TV ad insinuating that Gillespie and his supporters would be running down children of color in pickup trucks.

The supreme irony of that campaign, particularly given the vicious lies about Gillespie which were told in it, came back to bite Northam in spades when a page from his medical school yearbook surfaced showing what appears to be him in a photo in blackface, standing next to someone in a Ku Klux Klan costume.

Or perhaps it’s Northam under the white hood. We can’t say for sure, because after a mealy-mouthed initial response Northam is now denying he’s either person in that photo, and he’s also rejecting demands from virtually everyone in Virginia and outside of the state that he resign. For a little extra color, Northam also revealed that in the 1980s he participated in a dance contest dressed as Michael Jackson and even wore black shoe polish on his face and learned to “moonwalk” like the late King of Pop.

And in the surreal press conference where he dropped that little bomb, Northam was about to attempt to display his ability to perform the dance in question before being stopped by his appalled wife.

Not to mention it also came out that Ralph Northam’s nickname in school was “Coonman.” He says he has no idea why.

This came after what should have been a far more devastating gaffe — in which Northam was heard in a radio appearance discussing a Democrat-sponsored bill legalizing abortion all the way to term and making an almost inhuman reference to discussions between mothers and doctors as to the fate of already-born children. That exchange put the Democrat Party’s position on abortion perilously close to, if not clearly beyond, the line of supporting infanticide and therefore exploding any possibility of that party assuming moral equivalence, much less superiority, going forward.

Virginia Democrats are particularly aggrieved at the medical school yearbook photo and much less so over the infanticide comments, as the former is an affront to the party’s multicultural, identity-politics brand and the latter is, well, no big deal to them (look at the legislative atrocity the Democrats just celebrated in New York, after all). Calls for Northam’s resignation are particularly loud given that the state’s Lt. Governor is Justin Fairfax, a 39-year old African American Democrat who has a Barack Obama air about him and was backed by the former president when he won a narrow victory over Republican Jill Holtzman Vogel.

Fairfax has so far been silent about the question of Northam’s potential resignation, but he sure wasn’t quiet over the idea the Virginia Senate would honor Robert E. Lee on his 212th birthday. Seems it’s a lot easier to show outrage over the unenlightened tendencies of dead white Democrats than to do so over those of the living, apparently. Robert Byrd notwithstanding, of course.

For those who don’t wish Schultz or Northam well in their political pursuits, it’s like Christmas in February, if not perhaps an early Mardi Gras. The beauty of the Left as it eats its own — and particularly as it dines on its white guys, who after all have cynically stoked the fires of racial, ethnic and gender strife as a means of tearing apart our common culture and impinging on our free expression — is more fun than we can describe.

But one thing which does stand out as troubling is this: how on earth could Gillespie’s campaign not have found that medical school yearbook photo? That seems like an unforgivable error in opposition research — yearbook photos are among the easiest and most obvious bits of political background checking, as they reveal all kinds of potentially embarrassing information. Not finding it, and not finding out that Northam went by “Coonman” as a youngster amid a campaign where Gillespie was smeared as a homicidal racist, is pure malpractice on the part of the Republican Governors Association, which Gillespie put in charge of oppo research in that campaign.

In the future, perhaps it’s best to let the Democrats handle that bit of work for their own candidates. They seem exceptionally good at self-destruction, as this past week demonstrates.

Go to Source
Author: Scott McKay

Shock Body Cam Video: Armed ANTIFA Member At MIDDLE SCHOOL Shot And Killed By Cops

You didn’t see this one in the mainstream media because the man at the center of this report was not wearing a MAGA hat, but we’re going to show it to you anyway.

According to reports, Charles Landeros, a man linked to the ANTIFA-related “Community Armed Self Defense” group, was involved in a custody dispute at Cascade Middle School in Eugene, Oregon. When police showed up to escort the man off campus, law enforcement body cam videos show he went completely nuts and attempted to evade them.

As officers became more aggressive in forcing him out of the school, Landeros reaches for a concealed handgun (visible for a short moment in his right hand, as body cam video below shows).

The situation immediately goes from bad to worse for Landeros, as police reach for their own weapons and fire back.

Landeros was shot and killed in the doorway area of the school.

According to The Daily Emerald, Landeros led a student protest at Oregon University in 2017 and was a member of left-leaning activists groups.

About an hour before the shooting Landeros reportedly posted a threatening comment on Facebook:

About an hour before the shooting, Perlow said, someone tipped the police department that a Facebook account with the name “Charlie Landeros” had commented “Death to all pigs” in a comment section of the post. The police department’s social media manager attempted to locate the comment but both it and the “Charlie Landeros” Facebook account had been deactivated or deleted.

Video of the shocking incident:

It’s not clear if Landeros was one of the members of ANTIFA groups preparing for armed confrontation as noted previously in Leftists Are Preparing For Armed Confrontation.

Delivered by The Daily Sheeple

We encourage you to share and republish our reports, analyses, breaking news and videos (Click for details).

Contributed by Mac Slavo of

When it hits the fan, don’t say we didn’t warn you. Mac Slavo is the editor of, a resource hub for alternative news, contrarian commentary and strategies that you can take to protect yourself from the coming global paradigm shift.

Go to Source
Author: Mac Slavo

Probably An Accident: CNN Labels Racist Democrat Virgina Governor As A Republican During His Video Statement

You’re likely aware that recently surfaced yearbook photos of Democrat Virginia governor Ralph Northam show him standing either in black face or a KKK hood. How these pictures never made it into the media during his election is a story all unto itself, especially considering that yearbooks are now the go-to investigative strategy used  by media operatives, as we saw recently during the Brett Kavanaugh hearings.

Following the revelations of his racist past, Northam first appeared to admit that it was him in the photos and apologized for his actions, only to come out today to suggest that he is neither of the men pictured.

Democrats quickly began to distance themselves from the Governor, and media pundits tried to excuse away his behavior, with some suggesting that there is no reason to dig up old high school or college pictures.

CNN, for its part, took a completely different approach and has attempted to rewrite history by suggesting that Northam is not actually a Democrat, but rather, a Republican:

CNN aired a chyron Friday evening labeling Virginia Democrat Gov. Ralph Northam a Republican during a report on the Virginia Democrat apologizing for a racist medical school yearbook photo depicting two men— one of them himself— in blackface and Ku Klux Klan garb.

The chyron aired at 9:00 p.m. EST during a CNN broadcast of Anderson Cooper 360, which showed a video of Northam addressing the inflammatory yearbook photo in a video posted to his Twitter account.

Via: Breitbart

Watch the video with the chyron here:

Delivered by The Daily Sheeple

We encourage you to share and republish our reports, analyses, breaking news and videos (Click for details).

Contributed by The Daily Sheeple of

This content may be freely reproduced in full or in part in digital form with full attribution to the author and a link to

Go to Source
Author: The Daily Sheeple

Papal Headfakes

On his trip back from Panama, Pope Francis appeared to defend the tradition of a celibate priesthood in the West. He said, “Personally, I believe that celibacy is a gift to the church. Second, I’m not in agreement with allowing optional celibacy.” That sounded pretty strong. But then a note of wavering came. Was, reporters asked, he closed entirely to the question of a married priesthood? “Maybe,” he said, before discussing the “possibility” of ordaining married men in remote parts of the world.

This has been a pontificate of head fakes, and here was another one. In fact, it is pretty clear that he favors a revision to the Western tradition, one that would permit married men to serve in “remote” countries of the world, a position to which he has long been drawn. During the press conference on the plane, he made reference to the need for priests in places such as the Amazon. He says that he willing to “study” the question of ordaining married men for such assignments. “Studying” questions is one of his methods of changing tradition: he has already set up a commission to “study” the possibility of female deacons.

For much of this pontificate, Francis has sent mixed signals on the issue of married priests. He has spoken of the value of a celibate priesthood but in the same breath has emphasized that “it could change” and that discussing changes to the discipline “is on his agenda.”

Several bishops have acknowledged conversations with the pope in which he seemed to express an openness to a married priesthood. After the German bishops raised the matter with him, “he made no sign of refusal,” Bishop Hans-Jochen of Hamburg told the press. One of his advisers, Brazilian bishop Erwin Krautler, has even said that Pope Francis urged him to make “bold, daring proposals” about a married priesthood and that the pope was leaning toward permitting national conferences to settle the question.

Pope Francis is planning a conference with South American bishops this year, during which “the question of ordaining married men of proven virtue — so-called ‘viri probati’ — is expected to figure on the agenda,” according to the Associated Press.

None of this points to the preservation of tradition but to tinkering with it. One often has to look at the fine print in papal messages in order to understand what’s really happening. Take the WikiLeaks disclosure this week of a papal letter in which it sounded like Pope Francis was defending the Church’s prohibition on the use of artificial birth control in a 2016 matter related to the Knights of Malta. In the letter, the pope appears to express concern that the organization might have been violating the Church’s teaching in the course of its charitable work. He said that he would be “disappointed if high officers were aware of practices such as the distribution of any type of contraceptives and have not yet intervened to end such things.” But in fact the letter was all a ruse: the pope ended up defending the officials responsible for the contraceptive scheme and punishing those who brought it to light.

Far from disappointed in Catholic organizations that distribute condoms in the Third World, this pope, who is famous for his situation ethics, has run interference for them. In 2016, on his way back to Rome from Mexico, he delighted reporters by approving of contraceptive use by women infected with the Zika virus. He also told reporters a story, which turned out to be untrue, of Pope Paul VI approving contraceptive use in the 1960s by missionaries in Africa who were in danger of rape.

His comments about the Zika virus caused an uproar and charges that the pope had been misquoted. But the press had reported his position accurately, as the Vatican press secretary acknowledged in a later statement: “So contraceptives or condoms, especially in cases of emergency and seriousness, may also be the subject of a serious conscience discernment. This is what the pope said.”

A year earlier he had appalled Catholics with large families and wowed environmentalists when he told the press that Catholics shouldn’t be “like rabbits.” Such remarks have captured the undeniably subversive quality of this pontificate. Even when he says he is defending tradition, more than often than not he is pushing an exception or an innovation under its guise.

Go to Source
Author: George Neumayr