The Fabric of Our Lives: Lipscomb University and Hobby Lobby Face Racism Charges Over Cotton Decor

cotton-1721144_1280On college campuses, faculty and students are facing new microaggression rules of ill-defined terms or images that, while not expressly racist, still constitute offensive speech. This week the President of Lipscomb University, Randy Lowry, apologized for hosting African American students at his house with a display containing cotton.  Likewise, in Killeen, Texas.  Hobby Lobby has been criticized on Facebook by Daniell Rider for selling cotton decor products because it raised painful memories of slavery.  The Cotton Industry (which advertises “Cotton: The Fabric Of Our Lives”) has not been heard from on the latest claim of cotton as a fiber microaggression.

21742893_10211616952874293_5945780672874647370_nimages-3In her posting, Rider wrote “This decor is WRONG on SO many levels, There is nothing decorative about raw cotton… A commodity which was gained at the expense of African-American slaves. A little sensitivity goes a long way. PLEASE REMOVE THIS “decor.” It is actually fake cotton sticks that sell for $6.99 to $15.99 online and up to $29.99 in stores as a way to “Offer your space a touch of natural beauty with Cotton Bouquet.”  The store promises that such displays offer “a stunning, long-lasting centerpiece without the pesky water!”

lowrey_cotton-800x430lowrey_cotton-800x430Perhaps but they can come with a microaggression complaint.  President Randy Lowry discovered that danger after he held the event at his home.  Lowry was sent an apology letter to black students after the controversy was triggered by a posting from one of his guests about the centerpiece and cuisine.  Instagram user nakaylayvonne wrote  “As we arrived to the president’s home and proceeded to go in we seen cotton as the center pieces,” she wrote. “We were very offended, and also the meals that were provided resembled many ‘black meals’ they had mac n cheese, collard greens, corn bread etc. The night before Latinos also had dinner at his house and they had tacos. They also DIDN’T have the center piece that we HAD tonight.”


332 thoughts on “The Fabric of Our Lives: Lipscomb University and Hobby Lobby Face Racism Charges Over Cotton Decor”

  1. asinine.

    The problem now is that anyone can raise the rubric of racism to unleash a torrent of paper tiger outrage and schools and companies just rollover and sheepishly beg for forgiveness. All this leads to is more ridiculousness.

    Some people’s complaints and perpetual outrage are best left ignored.

  2. Since Diane refuses to detail the questions raised by a former article I will present still another side of the case where she probably felt Devin Nunes was lying. It’s hard when the truth smacks you in the face. Diane will explain this lie by saying Susan Rice wasn’t under oath. The author asks the same question Diane refuses to answer: “was it [the unmasking] abused for political purposes. [This was written by David Harsanyi who I believe greatly disliked Trump and perhaps dislikes him just as much today. I think he called voting for Trump “crazy”. That should make his viewpoint more acceptable to those on the left.]

    Reminder: Susan Rice Lied About Her Role In The Obama Admin Unmasking Scandal

    Susan Rice lied. Devin Nunes did not.

    David Harsanyi
    On March 22, Rep. Devin Nunes made his ham-fisted disclosure that the Obama administration had conducted incidental surveillance collection and unmasking of Trump administration officials. It was a revelation that ignited widespread criticism from nearly every corner of Washington

    “I have seen intelligence reports that clearly show that the president-elect and his team were, I guess, at least monitored,” the House intelligence chairman said at the time. “It looks to me like it was all legally collected, but it was essentially a lot of information on the president-elect and his transition team and what they were doing.” Nunes went on to claim that the information was spread across a number of agencies and had “little or no apparent intelligence value.”

    Perhaps Nunes’ reasons were partisan. Perhaps his framing was exaggerated. We’ll see. But if CNN’s reporting is correct, everything Nunes claimed that day was basically true. Which is a lot more than we can say for others.

    On the same day, former National Security Adviser Susan Rice was interviewed by PBS’s Judy Woodruff and asked to respond to Nunes’ accusation that she had unmasked those Trump officials in the waning days of the Obama administration. Here is the exchange:

    Woodruff: We’ve been following a disclosure by the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Devin Nunes, that in essence, during the final days of the Obama administration, during the transition, after President Trump had been elected, that he and the people around him may have been caught up in surveillance of foreign individuals in that their identities may have been disclosed. Do you know anything about this?

    Rice: I know nothing about this. I was surprised to see reports from Chairman Nunes on that count today.

    As we now know, Rice wasn’t surprised. At all. Wednesday, CNN reported that Obama’s former national security adviser told House investigators that she had unmasked those senior Trump officials in an effort “to understand why the crown prince of the United Arab Emirates was in New York late last year.” According to the report, the Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed al Nahyan had circumvented some diplomatic courtesy, which, apparently, was enough justification to spy on American citizens.

    The meeting had reportedly come on the heels of efforts by UAE officials to create a back-channel communication between Russia and incoming Trump administration. According CNN, the get-together, which included Michael Flynn, Jared Kushner, and Steve Bannon, was completely Russia-free:

    ‘The meeting was about ascertaining the Trump team’s view of the region and sharing the UAE’s view of the region and what the U.S. role should be,’ a senior Middle East official told CNN. ‘No one was coming in to sell anything or arrange anything.’

    Trey Gowdy and other House members seem okay with this precedent, so I guess there’s nothing to see here. “I didn’t hear anything to believe that she did anything illegal,” Florida Rep. Tom Rooney explained to CNN. Unless Rice or some other Obama official admits to leaking classified information, this statement is surely true.

    Then again, there has been a constant conflating of illegality and abuse by those covering this story. Unmasking is a legitimate power. Few argue it should be illegal. The question is, was it abused for political purposes. When it was convenient, Bernie Sanders, Al Franken, the American Civil Liberties Union, and numerous others on the Left warned that Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance could be legally weaponized for political gain. There is no genuine oversight. We are asked to have faith in those in power.

    Has Rice earned that trust? This, after all, is the woman who went on national television and repeated a bunch of Ben Rhodes-authored falsehoods regarding the September 11, 2012, Benghazi terror attacks, claiming they were a “spontaneous reaction” to “hateful and offensive video.” This is the woman who went on PBS to lie about her role in unmasking, although there was apparently nothing wrong with it. Rice didn’t tell Woodruff “I can’t disclose that kind of sensitive information,” or “no comment,” she told her “I know nothing about this.” Rice is extraordinarily comfortable lying to the American people.

    As I’ve noted many times, I’m willing to believe the worst about the Trump administration. This a courtesy I try to extend to every administration. So I do hope that Rice explained to House investigators how this unmasking helped protect Americans from foreign threats since unmasking is typically reserved for law enforcement in anti-terror or espionage investigations. Otherwise, it sure looks like members of an incoming Republican administration were spied on by a Democratic political operative who happened to find a meeting suspicious. Some of us troglodytes might view this kind of thing as an abuse of power. So it’ll be interesting to hear Gowdy and others explain why it wasn’t.

      1. David, Reference to Diane discussion:

        “Let us take your none response to Greenfield’s answer one by one.

        “After lying about it on MSNBC, Susan Rice admitted unmasking the identities of Trump officials to Congress.”

        Is this untrue Diane? Do you support using our national security apparatus to spy on one’s political opponents? “

          1. Mr. Benson, Allan may have thought that Daniel Greenfield’s article was on topic for this thread because Obama and Rice are African American.

            1. You have pointlessly distended this discussion with your crappy little games. You’ve got chutzpah.

              1. O! Grandee of Integrity. Have you read the Daniel Greenfield article that Allan posted on this thread?

                If not, then you lack integrity. If you have, then your pose as Grandee of Integrity is just that–a pose.

  3. Getting so tired of reading about these snowflakes and triggers. As a white women who has a Southern mother from Appalachia I can assure you collards, mac n cheese, corn bread, etc is not black people’s food – it’s southern food. Now if the centerpiece had been a watermelon I could see some taking offense.

    Another question comes to mind –why would blacks want to attend that school?

    1. Yes, black eyed peas on New Years, but we had them more often than that. My grandmother made the best chicken and dumplings and fried okra that you could eat. The best meal I’ve ever had, though, is fresh caught walleye, lightly breaded and pan fried, with fried potatoes, fresh onion, sliced tomatoes, and cornbread. And iced tea, of course. It doesn’t get any better than that.

    2. Now you know why the Founders did not allow “the poor” or women to vote. The “poor” sell their votes and there is no use for national nurturing, empathy, incoherence or hysteria. The malignant incoherence and hysteria of the 19th amendment have endured far beyond the absurdity of Prohibition by 9 decades.

    3. By “white woman,” do you mean American as opposed to hyphenate?

      Naturalization Acts 1790, 1795 and 1802; three iterations of the definition of an American and intent of the Founders, beginning one year after adoption of the Constitution:

      “…free white person(s)…”

  4. OK, I looked up her profile on Instagram. The African American students were invited by the President. She seemed confused as to why he would invite them if he didn´t want to discuss some issues with them that might be unique to African Americans at a predominantly white school. I think that´s a legitimate complaint.

    1. Also, she seemed like a very sweet girl with a good heart. Kind of breaks my heart that she needs funding fo r her tuition. Kids that age aren´t allowed to drink a beer but they are allowed to get into debt. Sad!

        1. Paul, that school is one of those insane Christian right colleges like Liberty or Bob Jones – so no she’s not imbibing unless she wants to be kicked out.

            1. Paul, Catholics, from my eperience are way more cool with cocktails – like Whyskypaliens (sp?)

      1. Maybe the President was extending some southern hospitality, and had no ulterior motives. The South is the only part of the country that does this.

  5. I think part of the problem was that the president was perceived of as rude to the students. Perhaps not intentionally, but in such a way that made his conduct more suspect. They’d come in to discuss issues as black students and were ignored.


    Why Obama Really Spied on Trump

    Obama had to spy on Trump to protect himself.

    Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical left and Islamic terrorism.

    Last week, CNN revealed (and excused) one phase of the Obama spying operation on Trump. After lying about it on MSNBC, Susan Rice admitted unmasking the identities of Trump officials to Congress.

    Rice was unmasking the names of Trump officials a month before leaving office. The targets may have included her own successor, General Flynn, who was forced out of office using leaked surveillance.

    While Rice’s targets weren’t named, the CNN story listed a meeting with Flynn, Bannon and Kushner.

    Bannon was Trump’s former campaign chief executive and a senior adviser. Kushner is a senior adviser. Those are exactly the people you spy on to get an insight into what your political opponents plan to do.

    Now the latest CNN spin piece informs us that secret FISA orders were used to spy on the conversations of Trump’s former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort. The surveillance was discontinued for lack of evidence and then renewed under a new warrant. This is part of a pattern of FISA abuses by Obama Inc. which never allowed minor matters like lack of evidence to dissuade them from new FISA requests.

    Desperate Obama cronies had figured out that they could bypass many of the limitations on the conventional investigations of their political opponents by ‘laundering’ them through national security.

    If any of Trump’s people were talking to non-Americans, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) could be used to spy on them. And then the redacted names of the Americans could be unmasked by Susan Rice, Samantha Power and other Obama allies. It was a technically legal Watergate.

    If both CNN stories hold up, then Obama Inc. had spied on two Trump campaign leaders.

    Furthermore the Obama espionage operation closely tracked Trump’s political progress. The first FISA request targeting Trump happened the month after he received the GOP nomination. The second one came through in October: the traditional month of political surprises meant to upend an election.

    The spying ramped up after Trump’s win when the results could no longer be used to engineer a Hillary victory, but would instead have to be used to cripple and bring down President Trump. Headed out the door, Rice was still unmasking the names of Trump’s people while Obama was making it easier to pass around raw eavesdropped data to other agencies.

    Obama had switched from spying on a political opponent to win an election, to spying on his successor to undo the results of the election. Abuse of power by a sitting government had become subversion of the government by an outgoing administration. Domestic spying on opponents had become a coup.

    The Democrat scandals of the past few administrations have hinged on gross violations of political norms, elementary ethics and the rule of law that, out of context, were not technically illegal.

    But it’s the pattern that makes the crime. It’s the context that shows the motive.

    Obama Inc. compartmentalized its espionage operation in individual acts of surveillance and unmasking, and general policies implemented to aid both, that may have been individually legal, in the purely technical sense, in order to commit the major crime of eavesdropping on the political opposition.

    When the individual acts of surveillance are described as legal, that’s irrelevant. It’s the collective pattern of surveillance of the political opposition that exposes the criminal motive for them.

    If Obama spied on two of Trump’s campaign leaders, that’s not a coincidence. It’s a pattern.

    A criminal motive can be spotted by a consistent pattern of actions disguised by different pretexts. A dirty cop may lose two pieces of evidence from the same defendant while giving two different excuses. A shady accountant may explain two otherwise identical losses in two different ways. Both excuses are technically plausible. But it’s the pattern that makes the crime.

    Manafort was spied on under the Russia pretext. Bannon may have been spied on over the UAE. That’s two different countries, two different people and two different pretexts.

    But one single target. President Trump.

    It’s the pattern that exposes the motive.

    When we learn the whole truth (if we ever do), we will likely discover that Obama Inc. assembled a motley collection of different technically legal pretexts to spy on Trump’s team.

    Each individual pretext might be technically defensible. But together they add up to the crime of the century.

    Obama’s gamble was that the illegal surveillance would justify itself. If you spy on a bunch of people long enough, especially people in politics and business, some sort of illegality, actual or technical, is bound to turn up. That’s the same gamble anyone engaged in illegal surveillance makes.

    Businessmen illegally tape conversations with former partners hoping that they’ll say something damning enough to justify the risk. That was what Obama and his allies were doing with Trump.

    It’s a crime. And you can’t justify committing a crime by discovering a crime.

    If everyone were being spied on all the time, many crimes could be exposed every second. But that’s not how our system works. That’s why we have a Fourth Amendment.

    Nor was Obama Inc. trying to expose crimes for their own sake, but to bring down the opposition.

    That’s why it doesn’t matter what results the Obama surveillance turned up. The surveillance was a crime. Anything turned up by it is the fruit of a poisonous tree. It’s inherently illegitimate.

    The first and foremost agenda must be to assemble a list of Trump officials who were spied on and the pretexts under which they were spied upon. The pattern will show the crime. And that’s what Obama and his allies are terrified of. It’s why Flynn was forced out using illegal surveillance and leaks. It’s why McMaster is protecting Susan Rice and the Obama holdovers while purging Trump loyalists at the NSC.

    The left’s gamble was that the Mueller investigation or some other illegitimate spawn of the Obama eavesdropping would produce an indictment and then the procedural questions wouldn’t matter.

    It’s the dirty cop using illegal eavesdropping to generate leads for a “clean” case against his target while betting that no one will look too closely or care how the case was generated. If one of the Mueller targets is intimidated into making a deal, the question of how the case was generated won’t matter.

    Mueller will have a cooperative witness. And the Democrats can begin their coup in earnest. It will eventually turn out that there is no “there” there. But by then, it’ll be time for President Booker.

    There’s just one problem.

    If the gamble fails, if no criminal case that amounts to anything more than the usual investigational gimmick charges like perjury (the Federal equivalent of ‘resisting arrest’ for a beat cop) develops, then Obama and his allies are on the hook for the domestic surveillance of their political opponents.

    With nothing to show for it and no way to distract from it.

    That’s the race against the clock that is happening right now. Either the investigation gets results. Or its perpetrators are left hanging in the wind. If McMaster is fired, which on purely statistical grounds he probably will be, and a Trump loyalist who wasn’t targeted by the surveillance operation becomes the next National Security Adviser and brings in Trump loyalists, as Flynn tried to do, then it’s over.

    And the Dems finally get their Watergate. Except the star won’t be Trump, it will be Obama. Rice, Power, Lynch and the rest of the gang will be the new Haldeman, Ehrlichman and Mitchell.

    Once Obama and his allies launched their domestic surveillance operation, they crossed the Rubicon. And there was no way back. They had to destroy President Trump or risk going to jail.

    The more crimes they committed by spying on the opposition, the more urgently they needed to bring down Trump. The consequences of each crime that they had committed spurred them on to commit worse crimes to save themselves from going to jail. It’s the same old story when it comes to criminals.

    Each act of illegal surveillance became more blatant. And when illegal surveillance couldn’t stop Trump’s victory, they had to double down on the illegal surveillance for a coup.

    The more Obama spied on Trump, the more he had to keep doing it. This time it was bound to pay off.

    Obama and his allies had violated the norms so often for their policy goals that they couldn’t afford to be replaced by anyone but one of their own. The more Obama relied on the imperial presidency of executive orders, the less he could afford to be replaced by anyone who would undo them. The more his staffers lied and broke the law on everything from the government shutdown to the Iran nuke sellout, the more desperately they needed to pull out all the stops to keep Trump out of office. And the more they did it, the more they couldn’t afford not to do it. Abuse of power locks you into the loop familiar to all dictators. You can’t stop riding the tiger. Once you start, you can’t afford to stop.

    If you want to understand why

    Samantha Power was unmasking names, that’s why. The hysterical obsession with destroying Trump comes from the top down. It’s not just ideology. It’s wealthy and powerful men and women who ran the country and are terrified that their crimes will be exposed.

    It’s why the media increasingly sounds like the propaganda organs of a Communist country. Why there are street riots and why the internet is being censored by Google and Facebook’s “fact checking” allies.

    It’s not just ideology. It’s raw fear.

    The left is sitting on the biggest crime committed by a sitting president. The only way to cover it up is to destroy his Republican successor.

    A turning point in history is here.

    If Obama goes down, the left will go down with him. If his coup succeeds, then America ends.

    Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.

    1. Thank-you for the information. Shows how corrupt the swamp truely is. I hope this journalist does not commit suicide by shooting himself in the back 5 times.

        1. I was referring to the article you posted about Obama’s surveillance of Mr. Trump. The suicide reference was more about the untimely deaths associated with people who had information about the Clintons. Seems like there is an Obama-Clinton connection.

          1. Roydenoral, I was happy that you spent the time to read the article. Thanks. I also appreciated your suicide reference and understood you were talking about Clinton and have a tendency to agree with you.

    2. All roads lead to Obama.

      If Hillary goes down, she will take Obama with her.

      Obama willfully and deliberately contacted Hillary using an illegal e-mail address and an illegal server.

      Obama was complicit with Hillary in the perpetration of crimes.

      If Hillary was/is charged/convicted of the crimes that Comey provided clear evidence of, Obama will similarly be charged/convicted of the same crimes.

    3. Sheer unadulterated poppycock. Phantasm on steroids. Absolutely pathetic twerpery. Allan is demented, unhinged and completely off his rocker, now. This will not suffice as a defense of Trump. To the contrary, if Trump takes executive action on Daniel Greenfield’s lame-brained farrago, then Trump will be impeached, convicted, removed from office and disqualified from holding public office ever again.

      1. Daniel Greenfield alleges that Obama, Rice, Powers and McMaster are staging a coup d’état against the Trump administration. But actually being POTUS, Trump has immediate access to all of the classified information necessary to prove the coup d’état against Trump that Greenfield alleges. Trump could easily preempt this supposed coup simply by exposing it via immediate declassification of all of the information necessary to prove the alleged coup d’état.

        Ask yourself why would the target of a coup attempt fail to preempt that coup by exposing it when he clearly has the means to do thus and so?

        Does Allan secretly believe that Trump is a co-conspirator in Obama’s coup d’état against Trump?

        Is there anything that Allan won’t believe?

          1. Andrew Mc Carthy is a smart man and one with a lot of opions you seem to disagree with, but you hinge your argument on only this one article. I would like to see more classified material released, but I am not sure that many of the releases will move the nation forward and won’t sink it. Obama likely distanced himself from criminality, but we are rapidly learning that people like Susan Rice have intentionally mis-used the law for political advantage. Susan Rice worked for the President and was close to him.

            Let us say we had good evidence Obama committed crimes that should put him away for life. This is an hypothetical. Let’s say Trump had the needed evidence. Would putting putting Obama in jail be good for the nation or might it destroy it? That is the question we have to deal with.

              1. frankly, I actually meant Samantha Power who it is said unmasked about 1 person for every business day of the year. As far as your citation you need to provide a quote along with a date. This is rather old news and I don’t know if McMaster maintains that opinion, but I am not a fan of McMaster so I don’t necessarily agree with his conclusions.

                Remember we have had people like Clapper swear under oath all sorts of things that weren’t true. Right now we are seeing that it appears Trump’s tweet on wiretapping was legitimate and Clapper said it didn’t exist. It seems that you have no concern about our intelligence services being used by politicians for political ends. It demonstrates a lack of faith in our Republic.

                1. allan – we also have the FBI saying there was no evidence of wiretapping. Who are we to believe?

                  1. PauI, I believe logic more frequently tells us the truth than filtered facts. For eight years we literally had a criminal enterprise in power, but then again I consider most politicians criminals. 🙂

                  2. PCS, the head of the FBI was just fired. What’s that tell you? Can you say J. Edgar Hoover? Can you say Chief Justice Earl Warren? Can you say Oswald killed JFK according to Hoover, his FBI field investigations and Chief Justice Earl Warren?

                    1. George – DJT is supposed to release FBI files from the Kennedy assassination this year. At least I hope he does.

            1. Enough incoherence and hysteria. Repeal the unconstitutional 19th Amendment and end “Affirmative Action Privilege.” 13 years were enough for Prohibition. 100 years are more than enough for the “Theater of the Absurd” that is the 19th Amendment.

              James Madison,” And if there are amendments desired, of such a nature as will not injure the constitution…”
              James Madison intended for amendment of the Constitution to be accretive and beneficial not deleterious.
              The injury to America and its Constitution from the mortal 19th Amendment consists of a welfare state of “free stuff” for parasites in which the inmates are running the asylum, the genocide of abortion and a “birthrate in a death spiral,” which is not only injurious to the Constitution but performing an abortion on America itself.

              1. ” Repeal the unconstitutional 19th Amendment ”

                George, Are you sure you are talking about the 19th amendment? There was controversy, but it met Constitutional guidelines for passage.

                1. “…if there are amendments desired, of such a nature as will not injure the constitution,…”

                  Injuring mortally the Constitution and America, the consequences directly attributable to the liberal redistributionist women’s suffrage movement and the 19th amendment itself:

                  – 60 million abortions since legalization constituting genocide.

                  – The American birthrate in a “death spiral” aborting America itself requiring the population to be imported.

                  – $22 trillion cost of the feminine, coddling and nurturing, redistributionist welfare state.

                  James Madison

                  Proposed Amendments to the Constitution, June 8, 1789

                  ” And if there are amendments desired, of such a nature as will not injure the constitution, and they can be ingrafted so as to give satisfaction to the doubting part of our fellow citizens; the friends of the federal government will evince that spirit of deference and concession for which they have hitherto been distinguished.”

                  “It met constitutional guidelines for passage.”

                  Like “Crazy Abe” Lincoln’s successors’ “Reconstruction Amendments,” counted by their functionaries under the duress of post-war military occupation with a “gun to their heads?”

                  And JFK beat Nixon in 1960, right?

                  Joseph Stalin –

                  “It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything.

                  1. OK ,George, you believe in the portions of the Constitution you like and you trust selective quotes. Unfotunately the Constitution was a compromise so not everyone agreed with you and that is one of the reasons an amendment process was created.

                    By the way abortions were taking place when abortions were illegal and as they became easier to do one could assume with or without the law being in place more abortions would occur. Without judging the morality of abortion it has been a practice since acient times. In early America I don’t think it was considered criminal if the abortion took place before quickening which occurs in the second trimester. Many physicians in colonial times didn’t consider significant life to exist before quickening occurred.

                    1. Allan, the vote is a “state” issue. The power to establish the vote is left to the states. The 19th Amendment violates the Constitution on establishing who can vote. The original intent was that voters were to be vested – the vote was not to be “sold” by the “poor” and, in a representative republic, the vote of men represented their family while women focused on perpetuating the race/population, the birthrate now being in a “death spiral” which is terminal for the nation. Madison implied that deleterious, injurious amendment was antithetical and presumably unconstitutional. I’m not aware of anyone who believes it is rational or even possible to amend the Ten Commandments – the Constitution was written to stand in perpetuity and it still fits the national body. Defacto, the Constitution, 1789, has been “amended” out of existence, most freedoms having been destroyed by the imposition of the welfare state and the principles of the Communist Manifesto, primarily “redistribution of wealth.” Do you subscribe to communism?

                    2. “Allan, the vote is a “state” issue. ”

                      George, the question of how the vote takes place is a state issue, however, an amendment to the Constitution makes it a federal issue. The amendment process was put into place for a reason, even though you might disapprove.

                      By the way, do you know the first state in the Union where women had the right to vote along with the date?

                    3. Allan, I stand corrected and concede the point. An amendment, with the exception of Lincoln’s successors’ “Reconstruction Amendments” which were ratified with a “gun to their heads” under the obvious duress of post-war military occupation – the environment was not conducive to an objective, unbiased, calm and rational amendment process – while the legal status of freed slaves changed from “property” to “illegal alien” as the Naturalization Act of 1802 was in effect requiring citizens to be “…free white person(s)…” on the date the unconstitutional Emancipation Proclamation was issued, causing the amendments to be unconstitutionally retroactive as deportation as the penalty must have been enforced, is the rule of the People and cannot be modified by any act.

                      I will start a petition to repeal the 19th amendment hoping that sentiment similar in intensity to that which drove the repeal of Prohibition still exists. America came to its senses on Prohibition, perhaps it will come to its senses in opposition to national incoherence and hysteria as engendered by the 19th Amendment. Will you sign it? Please?

                    4. “legal status of freed slaves changed from “property” to “illegal alien”

                      No George, the legal status of former slaves changed to citizens of the US and the state they resided in along with the right to vote. Amendment 14

                      “I will start a petition to repeal the 19th amendment ”

                      Constitutional amendment requires a 2/3rd’s majority vote in the House and Senate or a constitutional convention for amendments called for by 2/3rd’s of the state legislatures. More than half the voters are women.

                      There is a Convention of States Project that exists and I think eleven states have signed on with Texas being the last one to sign a few months ago.

                    5. Allan, what was the date of the Naturalization Act of 1802, the date of the unconstitutional Emancipation Proclamation and the date of the “Reconstruction Amendments?” Primarily, the Emancipation Proclamation had no legal basis; the Constitution does not provide for a “secession” proclamation only insurrection, rebellion and war. Lincoln had no Congressional approval. Executive orders do not allow the President to become an omnipotent dictator. The CSA legally seceded as have Catalonia, Britain in its Brexit, Scotland, Pakistan, Bangladesh, West Virginia and every nation in the former Soviet Union. Lincoln must have been impeached for militarily invading a sovereign foreign country. Understanding that it was unconstitutional, the Emancipation Proclamation was issued in 1863 changing the status of slaves from “property” to “illegal aliens,” two years before the “Reconstruction Amendments” were improperly ratified. The fundamental law required deportation in that interim period.

                    6. George – the South doesn’t call it the War of Northern Aggression for nothing.

                    7. George, you can argue the Civil War over and over again, but Lincoln could see to the destruction of the nation or its preservation. He chose preservation, won the war and we are one nation today.

                      “Emancipation Proclamation was issued in 1863 changing the status of slaves from “property” to “illegal aliens,”

                      American slaves were NEVER property. They were always people. They were held based upon the power of their captors. Some were freed or escaped and lived as citizens in the free states until emancipation freed all the slaves. The states controlled whether or not Black people could vote until the 15th amendment was passed in 1869 and ratified in 1870. The ugly truth is that slavery in this nation should have NEVER existed and there should NEVER have been a distinction between black and white.

                    8. Allan, everything Lincoln did was unconstitutional. “Crazy Abe” is the greatest constitutional criminal in American history. The freed slaves were “property” with deeds and bills of sale. The status of slaves after being freed changed from “property” to “illegal aliens” before unconstitutional “citizenship” was illegally provided by “amendments” preposterously and improperly ratified in an environment of fear and coercion under the duress of post-war military occupation by Lincoln’s zealous successors. That’s just not the way governance in a republic is conducted. Before the “freed” slaves were illegally “awarded” citizenship by the residual corrupt administration of Lincoln, they must have been deported under the Naturalization Act of 1802. That was the law.

                      Could Lincoln and his gestapo nullify and void the Constitution and impose his will over the law? Yes. Did he? Yes.

                      The irony is that, as Lincoln wrote much earlier, emigration and compassionate repatriation would have been for the benefit of the freed slaves providing them a sense of belonging, nationhood and self-esteem.

                      You are correct. The CRIMINAL won. The law lost. The Constitution lost.

                    9. George, slavery is the imposition of one’s will upon another. Slavery existed all over the world and both white and black peoples were enslaved along with a lot of other colors. In this country, where slavery existed, yet all men were created equal, a cruel story had to be developed for its continuation, the inferiority of Blacks. If you wish to continue to espouse that type of thinking it is your choice, but it is too despicable a choice for me to continue having a cordial dialogue. I don’t accept racist behavior just like I don’t accept race baiting. We seem to have both extremes on this blog.

                2. PCS, is the EU going to attack the very Brexiting Britain, interpreting secession as rebellion? Or Scotland or Catalonia? Of course the CSA legally seceded and Lincoln illegally placed military forces in a sovereign foreign country, exposing his forces to fire. The second the CSA signed the secession document, the deed was done – kinda like all it takes to score a touchdown is to break the plane of the end zone; just one millimeter will do.

            2. Allan says Trump is enabling the ongoing slow-as-molasses Obama coup d’etat against Trump FOR THE GOOD OF THE COUNTRY.

              Allan further claims to be LOGICAL and, therefore, anything but demented.

                1. Allan Says Trump was elected President and the Obama administration used our national security apparatus during the election and after the election for partisan reasons. That is not what our intelligence service is supposed to be used for. Only a dolt is so partisan not to be concerned. …And yes, logic is important, however, Diane all we see from you is insult, errant facts and a stupid way of behaving. You should be ashamed of the way you act, but you haven’t been bred well enough to know.

                  1. If, as you say, Allan, the Obama administration used our national security apparatus for partisan political purposes, then why won’t Trump declassify whatever information might exist as to substantiate your charge against the Obama administration?

                    Do you, Allan, seriously expect anyone to suppose that a man who sued for release of Obama’s birth certificate is now protecting Obama, Rice, Powers or McMaster from jail for the good of the country?

                    The Daniel Greenfield article that you posted, Allan, specifically accuses Obama, Rice, Powers and McMaster of staging a coup against Trump. When you now change Greenfield’s words to “using our national security apparatus . . . for partisan reasons,” it is your statement of supposed fact that becomes errant, Allan.

                    Your accusation against the Obama administration is unsubstantiated because it is false. If it were true, Trump would have proved it by now.

                    1. Diane – Clapper, the NYT, CNN, etc. have all decided that Trump was right when he said he was wiretapped. Wiretapping Manafort is wiretapping him. And when the first FISA warrant found nothing, they got a second. You are just behind on the news here. Clapper lied, Comey lied, Susan Rice lied and Obama lied. What more do you want?

                    2. Finally dealing with an issue.

                      “If, as you say, Allan, the Obama administration used our national security apparatus for partisan political purposes, then why won’t Trump declassify whatever information might exist as to substantiate your charge against the Obama administration?”

                      Diane, firstly I think it is no longer an “if” question rather how extensive the abuse and illegality was. Time will tell. You ask me to look into the mind of Trump. I can’t answer those questions even though I would like him to declassify certain things as well. However, I am not there and perhaps he cares more about the nation’s health than those implicated in the unmasking and leaking.

                      “a man who sued for release of Obama’s birth certificate is now protecting Obama,”

                      The man is now President of the entire nation, not just those that agree with him. That is something ideologues of your nature don’t understand. I don’t know if he is presently protecting Obama, but in the future he might have to for the sake of the nation.

                      “staging a coup against Trump. When you now change Greenfield’s words to “using our national security apparatus .”

                      You have confused opinion with fact. Fact: Our “national security apparatus” has been used for political reasons and not for national security reasons as desired and promised to the American people. Opnion: “staging a coup against Trump.”

                      You may have a different opinion, but first you have to deal with the facts. Did unmasking exist? Why? Then you have to look at history and see what Trump said that you, I believe, disagreed with. It appears Trump, Trump Tower and people working for Trump were wire tapped. Clapper’s latest statements indicate it is possible that Trump’s conversations exist on the wire taps. Months ago the consideration of any of that wire tapping was considered crazy.

                      Samantha Powers appears to have unmasked about one person every business day of the year. The mainstream news media is on your side so a lot of anti-Trump articles have been written and those bad things involving Hillary Clinton haven’t been followed appropriately. This can lead to confusion so we have to deal with the facts as they stand instead going off tangent forgetting about what is happening.

                    3. Paul, I’m well aware of The FISA warrants. Are you aware that the statements that you call lies each referred only to the impossibility of wiretapping Trump or his campaign officials without a FISA warrant. They were not statements to the effect that there were no FISA warrants. Because none of those speakers would have known whether there were or were not FISA warrants. They weren’t lies at all, Paul. And Allan is grasping at straws.

                    4. Diane, you are terribly unhinged. In a discussion with Paul about another portion of the subject matter you gratuitously decided to include me: “Allan is grasping at straws.”

                      You can say that all you want, but the question remains:

                      “After lying about it on MSNBC, Susan Rice admitted unmasking the identities of Trump officials to Congress.”

                      Is this untrue Diane? Do you support using our national security apparatus to spy on one’s political opponents?

                    5. Allan, that’s the fifth time you’ve repeated a question that I’ve answered twice. Deal with the answer I gave you, Allan. Stop trying to make the answer disappear by repeating the question.

                    6. You could quit being evasive and just answer his question, Diane. All your replies are time-stamped. If you actually had answered his question, you could just refer to one.

                    7. Paul, Clapper said that he would have known, as DNI, if there had been FISA warrants for surveillance of Trump. He was not asked about FISA warrants for surveillance of Manafort. The theory that surveillance of Manafort is equivalent to surveillance of Trump ignores the perfectly legitimate national security reasons for surveillance of Manafort as well as the fact that a FISA court would have had to have approved any warrants for surveillance of Trump. There were no FISA warrants for surveillance of Trump.

                      Clapper did not lie about Obama wiretapping Trump. Trump lied about Obama wiretapping Trump. And Trump’s own Justice Department said so in a court filing for American Watchdog’s FOIA lawsuit.

                      Had evidence existed to prove the truth of Trump’s claim, Trump could have declassified that evidence and waived State Secret privilege at any time since he accused Obama of tapping Trump’s wires. The most likely reason that Trump did not do so is that no classified information ever existed to prove the truth of Trump’s claim. The notion that Trump is suppressing that supposed evidence for the good of the country is absurd in the extreme.

                      Trump’s wiretapping claim was supposed to poison the well of the Russia investigation by insinuating that whatever evidence might someday be entered against Trump should be regarded as having been illegally obtained and, therefore, inadmissible. That’s about the same as saying that Trump didn’t do anything wrong, even if any evidence someday shows that Trump may have done something wrong.

                    8. Diane – I do remember Obama declassifying all those documents that Snowden released and also those found in Hillary’s emails, so we could read them. Thank you, Baby Jesus. Clapper knew exactly what was happening. And when he was testifying, he was cutting a very fine line.

                    9. Touche Paul. But I think the point is that Trump could help himself by declassifying anything that proves that he’s the victim of the greatest witch hunt in human history–if such classified information exists.

                    10. Diane – I think Manafort is going to force Mueller to declassify everything for him. This will save Manafort the trouble. And since Manafort was being wiretapped, he knows what is missing.

                    11. Diane, it is almost useless to discuss facts with you for you color them to make your conclusions match your ideology and that is only when your facts are correct. You see evasion of appropriate answers as a solution to your problem and Clapper’s. That makes both of you liars and demonstrates your mutual lack of regard for the Bill of Rights and our Constitution. You are one of the fools that will lead to the downfall of this nation.

                      Trump’s initial tweet about wiretapping now appears to be almost completely correct. You look at these inappropriate wiretaps and leaks as inadmissible evidence. There isn’t going to be a trial. All of this is show, but what has happened is that in the negotiations with China, North Korea, Russia and Iran we have closed certain doors that were previously open. That means your type of thinking has increased the chance of significant violence in the world we live in. That is the result of small minds that think like you.

                    12. Diane writes: “Touche Paul. But I think the point is that Trump could help himself by declassifying anything that proves that he’s the victim of the greatest witch hunt in human history–if such classified information exists.”

                      Diane, maybe he is thinking, something you should do more of. Maybe his hands are tied and his job is to run the nation, not to satisfy his own needs. We won’t know everything and maybe that is for the best. I believe if the nation completely recognized what Obama tried to do and did we might be in for a bad surprise. I find it more important that the nation be put on a better course and that our Constitution along with the Bill of Rights be more closely adhered to.

        1. Take note, Diane, that some have called for the impeachment of the President from the start of his administration. Also take note that the President has been basically correct about the wiretapping tweet he made early on. Take note that the President is in a cesspool where no one wants to give up their perks and their positions whether that be government officials or members of Congress on either side. Everyone is afraid to say much because they might have some involvement.

          The major problem faced by Trump is that being an outsider he has few people with government experience he can rely upon. The nation still has to be run and weare under security threats from Korea, Iran, Russia, China and others, but the security of our nation seems to have been more focused on the political opposition. This is something you don’t address.

          Instead of your usual broad generalities why don’t you take a couple of quotes of fact or opinion that you disagree with and let us see if any of them have merit. We have already demonstrated that there are those that wish to remove the President from office. Let us see if you have enough intellecutual capacity to draw an argument based upon specifics. So far when you have tried you have failed miserably.

          1. Obama must have been impeached for manifest ineligibility as the Founders derived “natural born citizen” from the Law of Nations which was “…continually in the hands of the Members of our Congress, sitting…” per Ben Franklin’s letter of December 9, 1775, thanking Charles Dumas for copies of that legal text and reference of the era.

            “…it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen;…”

            Law of Nations, 1758
            Book 1, Ch 19
            § 212. Citizens and natives.

            “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”

          2. Allan, the Daniel Greenfield article that you posted on this thread is sheer unadulterated poppycock. And you know it. And you don’t care about knowingly posting preposterous poppycock on this blog.

            Refuting Greenfield was child’s play, Allan. Thus it is you who have failed to salvage the Greenfield article that you posted on this blog. You excel at fooling yourself, Allan. But you’re unequal to the task of fooling anyone else . . . except Crazy George who had already fooled himself, anyhow.

            1. Diane, Let us take your none response to Greenfield’s answer one by one.

              “After lying about it on MSNBC, Susan Rice admitted unmasking the identities of Trump officials to Congress.”

              Is this untrue Diane? Do you support using our national security apparatus to spy on one’s political opponents? This is just one of the many things you call poppycock. In other words you don’t have the intellectual ability to respond to Greefield’s points. All you seem able to do is throw insults. I’m waiting for you to respond on the issues not on your present mental state.

              1. Was Susan Rice under oath when she lied to MSNBC? Do you support our national security apparatus telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth to MSNBC?

                Greenfield has no evidence. Because there is no evidence. That’s why Trump can’t declassify any information to make Greenfield’s case against Obama, Rice, Powers and McMaster.

                What Rice told Congress in sworn testimony is that she unmasked Trump officials involved in a secret meeting with crown prince of The United Arab Emirates who bypassed protocol specifically to avoid our national security apparatus for two reasons: to set up a secret back-channel between Trump and Putin; and to get Putin to back off his support for Iran.

                Do you support candidates for the Presidency of the United States doing end-runs around our national security apparatus for the sake of secret meetings with foreign potentates?

                P. S. You’re not getting out of this trap with two legs to stand on, Allan.

                1. Diane – Trump does not have to declassify any information to prove the guilt or innocence of Clapper, Rice or Obama. It will show up in Manafort’s trial.

                  1. Paul, POTUS can, indeed, waive State Secret privilege. Likewise, Manafort can make evidentiary requests under The Classified Information Procedures Act. Ordinarily that would be done for the sake gray-mailing the government into reducing or dropping the charges against a defendant.

                    Nevertheless, had Trump used the power of POTUS to declassify information the information necessary to prove Greenfield’s allegations against Obama, Rice, Powers and McMaster, Trump could’ve stopped the entire Russia thing–you know, with Trump and The Russians–dead in its track way far back in February of 2017. So why would Trump sit around waiting for Bobby Three Sticks to indict Manafort?

                    1. Diane – we cannot even get the FBI and State Dept to declassify Hillary’s emails. What makes you think the NSA is going to be any faster?

                    2. Manafort asked the DOJ to make public all ontercepted communications involving him.
                      He made the request a few days ago.

                    3. Tom Nash – Manafort will be lucky to get the wiretapped material five years after he gets out of jail.

                    4. Paul, Admiral Rodgers ordered that all signal intelligence related to the Russia investigation be kept on file. He did that several months ago. If the information exists, NSA already has it. And that means that Trump has it, already, too.

                  2. Paul Schulte,…
                    If Manafort goes to trial, I think the discovery process would force the release of the FISA-obtained ontercepts… a minimum, a redacted version to his defense team.

                2. “Was Susan Rice under oath when she lied to MSNBC?

                  This is crazy. You find it appropriate for Susan Rice to be lying to the American public because she is not under oath. Try and look at how silly this statement sounds.

                  “Greenfield has no evidence. ”

                  I think the words of Obama officials and the evidence of lying is quite evident even though you choose to close your eyes so you don’t have to debate their inconsistencies.

                  “Do you support candidates for the Presidency of the United States doing end-runs around our national security apparatus for the sake of secret meetings with foreign potentates?”

                  I’m not sure what you are talking about. Are you talking about Hillary’s involvement with Ukraine and the Ukranian government’s subsequent appology?

                  “P. S. You’re not getting out of this trap with two legs to stand on, Allan.”

                  I don’t know what trap you think you have created. I am dealing with the facts on the ground and willing to debate them while you are evading facts by disregarding anything said that isn’t said in a court of law or under oath.

                  1. Allan, you evaded the reason Rice gave for the unmasking of Trump officials, because you have no reasonable explanation for Trump officials and the crown prince of the UAE bypassing protocols and the national security apparatus for the sake of secret meetings to set-up back-channel communications between Trump and Putin and to get Putin to stop supporting Iran, which in turn supports Bashir al-Assad just like Putin does.

                    Nice try, Iktome. But you’ve still got one leg in the trap. Time to start gnawing it off, Wylie E.

                    1. Diane, look at the history. Trump was called crazy when he initially tweeted about wiretapping. Now it is becomming obvious that wire tapping was performed at Trump Tower, on Trump officials and even Clapper has finally admitted he can’t guaratee Trump wasn’t included in any of the tapes after previously saying the opposite.

                      What are Rice’s excuse and what are Smanatha Powers excuses for the unmasking. Why was this information suddenly permitted to be spread all over? I guess you don’t care about the privacy of the American public or American style democracy as long as win.

                      You are still dealing with Trump and Russia when so far after investigations by the FBI Comey said Trump had not done anything wrong. Now we have Mueller and we still haven’t seen anything that was done that was wrong and Mueller can release his data today if he wishes.

                      Yet you forget about the Ukrainian dealings with Hillary and that the Ukraine officials apologized to Trump for their involvement in the election.

                      Take a look at Hillary refusing Congressional demands and destroying her computer. This is real, but not a peep about it. It is obvious. You don’t care about America. You care only about your ideology and are willing to put up with lies as long as you get what you want.

      2. If Trump takes any executive action . . . [other than declassifying the information needed to prove Daniel Greenfield’s allegation against the Obama administration] . . . then Trump will be impeached, convicted, removed from office and disqualified from holding public office ever again.

        1. http://the|TheHill

            1. Allan, if there were any evidence to substantiate the contentions in the Daniel Greenfield article that you posted on this blog, then Trump could have and would have declassified that information long ago. Trump has not done thus and so. Ergo, there is no classified information to substantiate the contentions in the Greenfield article that you posted on this blog (Modus Tollens).

              You have reduced yourself to pedaling wild-eyed conspiracy theories of the Crazy-George variety, Allan.

              Are you sure you will appear to be smart, Allan, whilst standing atop Crazy George’s shoulders?

              1. Diane, you are making things up. The President has limitations as to what he can do under the present circumstances. Right now North Korea is in the limelight as are the three disasters that have faced American citizens, Houston, Florida and Puerto Rico. People like you support violent groups like Antifa and then complain about the violence, but that seems to be changing so the fact that the police actually permitted the speech by Ben Shapiro probably has you unhinged. In the meantime Trump is pushing for a bill replacing ObamaCare.

                But, what Greefield discussed were things provided by the left leaning CNN so let us get to detail number one that is the first sentence of Greenfield’s article and then we can go sentence by sentence.

                “After lying about it on MSNBC, Susan Rice admitted unmasking the identities of Trump officials to Congress.”

                Is this untrue Diane? Do you support using our national security apparatus to spy on one’s political opponents?

                Do you have the intellectual ability to discuss what Greenfield actually said or are you only able to throw insults?

                1. You’re repeating yourself again, Allan. The question you’ve repeated three times already has been answered once. It will not be answered again.

                  Take note that you have not dealt with the answer to your repeated question. Because you have no answer to that answer. So you repeat the question as though that might somehow make the answer go away and stop bothering you the way you badger everyone else around here.

                  Nice try, Wylie E. Have you got that leg of yours gnawed off yet?

                  1. You have never answered the question to me. The problem is this proves that you have no answer.

                    “After lying about it on MSNBC, Susan Rice admitted unmasking the identities of Trump officials to Congress.”

                    Is this untrue Diane? Do you support using our national security apparatus to spy on one’s political opponents?

                    1. September 22, 2017 at 7:03 am. That was the first answer to your question.

                      September 22, 2017 at 8:00 am. That was the second answer to your question.

                      There will not be a third answer to your question.

                    2. Diane, your reply was non response and not very bright. The opening dialogue for 7:03 is as follows way below.

                      But we have to remember your statements about the police and the statistics you provided in another thread, totally fallacious, but on you went with your absurd argument that ‘the police were unsurprisingly saver than us’. I can’t be sure of the exact words so consider the statement to possibly be slightly innaccurate regarding the words, but not the meaning. You had to retract what you said. Then we had conversations on Antifa where once again you made absurd comments that as we learn more about Antifa you will gradually retract. On and on we have been subjected to your nonsence, insults and of late racist comment.

                      Diane: “Was Susan Rice under oath when she lied to MSNBC?

                      Allan responds: This is crazy. You find it appropriate for Susan Rice to be lying to the American public because she is not under oath. Try and look at how silly this statement sounds.

                      Diane: “Greenfield has no evidence. ”

                      Allan: I think the words of Obama officials and the evidence of lying is quite evident even though you choose to close your eyes so you don’t have to debate their inconsistencies.

                    3. Allan, the statement “was Susan Rice under oath when she lied to MSNBC” clearly and distinctly answered the question which you have repeated incessantly. Take not of the words, Allan . . . “when she lied to MSNBC.”

                      Had Susan Rice not told the truth in sworn testimony before Congress, you would never have known that . . . “she lied to MSNBC.” Note those words the second time, Allan.

                      Now stop evading the answer that Rice gave in sworn testimony to Congress. It is a perfectly legitimate national security reason for unmasking Flynn, Bannon and Kushner’s secret meeting with the crown prince of the UAE to discuss back-channel communications with Putin and getting Putin to stop supporting Iran.

                      Do you support Trump campaign officials circumventing our national security apparatus for the sake of setting up back-channel communications with a hostile foreign power that interfered in our elections, Allan?

                      BTW, if there exists any classified information to back up your allegation that crooked Hillary did something wrong involving uranium sales to The Ukraine, then Trump could’ve declassified that information as soon as he took office as POTUS.

                      Why would the man who campaigned on a recurring theme of “Lock her up; throw away the key; she never should’ve been allowed to run, crooked H” now suppress evidence that would supposedly prove HRC’s guilt? For the good of the country? Or because the supposed evidence from classified information proving HRC’s guilt does not exist and never existed?

                    4. Correction: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was one of several U. S. government officials who approved the sale of the Canadian company Uranium One to the Russian company Rosatom.

                      A Ukrainian American woman named Chalupa did research on Manafort’s ties to Russia and ousted Ukrainian President Yanukovich while Chalupa was also employed by the DNC.

                      The uranium story is not connected to the Ukrainian story.

                    5. ““she lied to MSNBC.””

                      We are not talking about one lie. We are talking about repetitive lies on an almost continuous basis from Susan Rice and many others from the Obama administration. We had a weaponized IRS where the FBI and justice department gave immunity and did nothing. We are talking about Benghazi where an innocent American was put in jail to hide the actions of the administration and Hillary Clinton. We are talking about claims created and potentially paid for by the FBI that weren’t true. We are talking about an incomplete investigation into HC emails and the break into the DNC computer. All of these things and more appear not to have been done for national security reasons, rather to use the bureaucracy as a weapon against any political opponents.

                      You keep repeating claims to produce political guilt of members of the Trump campaign and organization when no guilt was found or was apparent while neglecting the political acts of the entire Obama government subverting the law and weaponizing agencies for political gain. I don’t think in our history we have seen the executive branch so permeated by illegalities as we had under the Obama administration. In the past people stretched the law for what they believed was in the national security interest, but the Obama administration seems to have forgotten about the national interest and stretched the law in political fashion which is a method used by despots.

                      Back to the questions asked and except for evasion remain unanswered: Yes, Susan Rice wasn’t under oath, but she and other lied over and over again to the American public for political reasons and not for reasons beneficial to the nation.

                      “After lying about it on MSNBC, Susan Rice admitted unmasking the identities of Trump officials to Congress.”

                      Is this untrue Diane? Do you support using our national security apparatus to spy on one’s political opponents?”

                    6. Diane writes again: “The uranium story is not connected to the Ukrainian story.”

                      They are not connected to each other, but both are connected to Hillary Clinton and both have illegal aspects to them.

                    1. That would’ve been too upsetting to the children in those days, Paul.

                      The kids nowadays would probably love it.

                    2. Diane – I was a big fan of Wile E. who had the worst luck with the equipment he bought from Acme. You just knew that whatever plan he had was not going to succeed and he had wasted his money again. I had more empathy for the Coyote than the Roadrunner.

                    3. I believe the status letter you’re looking for is Omega.

                      Road Runner was obviously Iktome.

                    4. Paul, thanks for the spelling correction. I, too, identified with Wile E. Coyote. I think we were all supposed to see Road Runner as The Trickster, Iktome, and Wile E. as fully human.

                      Who does the Acme corporation represent? The Fates?

                    5. Diane – in mythology, the coyote is always the trickster, so the roadrunner has to be the innocent victim. It is the coyote’s elaborate plans that go wrong. Acme means the top, so he is getting the best equipment possible, even though he seems to be a Zeta tester. I don’t think Acme represented anything more than a place he got his equipment from. I think you might be trying to read more into this than is there. It is a cartoon for goodness sake!!!!

                    6. Paul, The Trickster can take any animal form. Most often a raven or a crow. But a road runner would not be stretching the myth too far. Yes, the coyote is also a traditional form for Iktome to take. But then so is the tarantula.

                      Can there be two Tricksters in one cartoon?

                    7. Diane – to the best of my knowledge, the Roadrunner has never been considered a trickster. 😉

      3. If you disagree with the information in the article, then why do you not present evidence that refutes it? What is the point of going on a name-calling rant?

        1. If you agree with Daniel Greenfield’s article, then read the links and refute the argument that I provided you, Roydenoral.

          1. I did read the articles you posted and thank-you for posting them. I enjoy reading information from both sides and view this as a learning opportunity. Think debate is good, just do not see the need for so much name-calling that occurs from so many people who post here.

            1. Roydenoral, Allan is a pesky-pestering pain in the posterior who routinely badgers, belittles and disparages other posters on this blog for the sake of his own aggrandizement.

              Allan erred egregiously in posting Greenfield’s lame-brained farrago. It is an honor and a privilege to rub Allan’s sick-puppy nose in the mess he has made on Turley’s carpet.

              1. “Allan is a pesky-pestering pain”

                Allan sticks to the facts and you Diane lose it and start throwing insults.

                You say it is a mistake to have quoted Greenfield’s argument so let us examine one thing he said starting at Greenfield’s first sentence.

                “After lying about it on MSNBC, Susan Rice admitted unmasking the identities of Trump officials to Congress.”

                Is this untrue Diane? Do you support using our national security apparatus to spy on one’s political opponents?

                Eventually, Diane, you have to respond to the content of Greenfield’s op-ed or live with the label ‘jerk’.

                1. I answered your question twice. Repeating that question does not make the answer disappear.

                  If you were a prosecutor, you’d lose every case you tried.

                    1. You are right DSS, Diane has no integrity (at present). When she runs out of answers she starts insulting people.

                      This isn’t the first time Diane has been shown to be wrong, but she has turned away from a graceful discussion with admission of error to one that responds only with insult instead of responsive rhetoric. I guess the ugly revellations against those she supports is making her become edgy.

                  1. Diane you remain without an answer to a simple question.

                    “After lying about it on MSNBC, Susan Rice admitted unmasking the identities of Trump officials to Congress.”

                    Is this untrue Diane? Do you support using our national security apparatus to spy on one’s political opponents?

            2. Roy,
              I agree about the name-calling. The strength of one’s arguments should be sufficient.

              And, people are more likely to consider opposing arguments and perspectives if they have not been called names, thereby putting them on the defensive.

              1. Thank-you. I believe when people resort to name calling, it changes the debate to an emotional level and any possibility of civil discourse is over. I wonder if there would be all this name calling if people were talking face to face vs using social media.

      4. “Allan is demented”

        Tell me Diane what is demented by posting an op-ed?

        Your insults only reveal your lack of intellectual ability.

        1. Two things, Allan. First, that you thought you would get away with posting Greenfield’s wild-eyed conspiracy theory on this blog is demented. Second, that you still haven’t learned the meaning of the phrase reductio ad absurdum, let alone the proper use of that argument, whilst proudly proclaiming yourself to be a logician is demented on the scale of Tartuffe.

          Just take a look and see who’s got your back now, Allan. Lo and behold. It’s Crazy George.

          1. Over and over again Diane, you have responded to an intelligent op-ed with insult and not one response to content. It is getting boring. The question remains and I will start at sentence one of Greenfield’s article.

            “After lying about it on MSNBC, Susan Rice admitted unmasking the identities of Trump officials to Congress.”

            Is this untrue Diane? Do you support using our national security apparatus to spy on one’s political opponents?

            Take not how you insult while I try and steer you back to the discussion over and over again.

            1. You’re grasping at straws, Allan. Read Greenfield’s article. I did. Did you stop at the opening line, Allan, but post the whole lame-brained farrago anyway? It’s still right here on this very thread, Allan. Go read your own posting, already.

              Take note of the accusation of coup d’état that Greenfield hurls at Obama, Rice, Powers and McMaster. Do you support wild-eyed conspiracy theories about our national security apparatus? Trump does.

              1. Diane, you are refusing to deal with facts and claims. One can’t even get passed one documented fact without the insults.

                True of false?

                “After lying about it on MSNBC, Susan Rice admitted unmasking the identities of Trump officials to Congress.”

                1. That’s the fourth time you’ve repeated that question. Asked and answered, Counselor. Either deal with the answer that has been given twice. Or withdraw the question.

                  1. The question is littered all over the blog and I haven’t seen a responsive answer though I have read a lot of your insults.

                    1. September 22, 2017 at 7:03 am. That was the first time I answered your question.

                      September 22, 2017 at 8:00 am. That was the second time I answered your question.

                      You have done nothing but evade that answer while repeating the question seven times already.

                      Learn how to use your brain before you lose it, Allan. After you lose it, it’s too late to learn how to use it.

    1. Repeal the 19th Amendment.

      13 years were enough “Prohibition.”

      100 years are enough incoherence and hysteria.

      How do people “…climb…” downward, considering that to climb is to ascend?

      How do people “…climb down off their…crucifixes” with nails in their hands and feet – perhaps spears in their sides?

      And does the “climb” occur before or after expiration which is the purpose of the crucifix?

      It’s clear why the Good Lord assigned perpetuation and expansion of the race, as child-bearing and nurturing, to women.

    2. Yes Debbie! As a good friend used to remind me when I feel into a bout of self pity: “Time to get off the cross, someone else needs the wood” =)

  7. Good question! He apparently hasn’t seen “rows and rows of cotton fields”.

    The No. 1 problem among blacks is the effects stemming from a very weak family structure. Children from fatherless homes are likelier to drop out of high school, die by suicide, have behavioral disorders, join gangs, commit crimes and end up in prison. They are also likelier to live in poverty-stricken households. But is the weak black family a legacy of slavery? In 1960, just 22 percent of black children were raised in single-parent families. Fifty years later, more than 70 percent of black children were raised in single-parent families. Here’s my question: Was the increase in single-parent black families after 1960 a legacy of slavery, or might it be a legacy of the welfare state ushered in by the War on Poverty?

    Walter Williams

    1. Great quote Olly, but do you really think the race-baiters will give up on race-baiting? Of course not. Why should they expend a lot of time and effort looking at things to improve the lives of others when it is so easy to race-bait and pretend to be a victim.

        1. Great article, Olly and it shows that many appearing on the left are trying to voice certain opinions that are being drowned out. The Trump group gave them the opportunity to speak and we find that we are all Americans seeking the same things.

    2. Great article, and quote! I copied and pasted the quote and link, because I am sure it will come up again in arguments. I could just swear that there is someone around here who keeps harping on that same point. . .


      Squeeky Fromm
      Girl Reporter

  8. Does this mean I’m going to have give up my HANES Comfort Fit, 100% Cotton Briefs?

    Get a real life——Get a Job!

  9. These weak spineless apologies just make things worse. The only apology any one needs to make is:

    “I’m sorry. Yes, sorry that you are such a weak, hypersensitive fool. I hope you will get some help with that, because as I see, it you are in for a long, miserable life otherwise. I hate to be so harsh about this, but it’s best you straighten yourself out now, rather than having me reinforce your insane delusion that every situation you step into has to be just so. I would remind you also that taking offense at simply being reminded of slavery, an institution, by the way, with which you have no personal experience whatsoever, trivializes the experience of the people who actually had to live through it.”

    1. Or that. 🙂

      If their dining experience was deserving of a Yelp review he should at least present them with the bill.

    2. Bingo! Post of the day. There are very real problems in the community which these students may want to look at before occupying themselves with cotton decorations. They might want to address issues that actually kill people in their community, like the deaths of unarmed black men at the hands of police. When contrasted against a very real issue such as this, the preoccupation with decorations reveals a surplus of vapid, self-centered minds, focused on trivialities.

      1. Yeah, the death of unarmed black men by police. What a huge and horrible problem! And all the black men, innocent of any crime whatsoever, and not a rap sheet as long as your arm among them! They dindu nuffin, eever! Oh, they must number in the thousands each year! Even more than the unarmed black men killed by other black men, I bet! Oh, if I only had the time to research how many poor unarmed black men are killed by the popo each year!

        Squeeky Fromm
        Girl Reporter

        1. Mark doesn’t give a sh-t about the Blacks that have to live and bring up their children among criminals and crazies that Mark worries excessively about. At the midpoint of this year 323 people were killed in Chicago while Mark was busy trying to file the paperwork provided by his bosses.

          Lives don’t count to Mark for he believes his ideology is more important.

        2. First, unless a jury convicts them, they are manifestly innocent. Second, even if guilty, that doesn’t allow the police — who operate in our name — to execute unarmed people. Third, see point number two, whatever other civilians may do has nothing to do with what our public servants — who, again, operate in our name — do to unarmed detainees. Fourth, you mockery of this travesty yet again reveals that you don’t miss a white sale down to the Piggly Wiggly.

          This is to “I wanna run the klavern coffee klatch today” suzie

          1. P.S.S. I am gratified (tickled) that the usual suspects came out of the woodpile; thanks for playing.

            1. The usual suspect see you for what your are, Mark. You’re not quite there, yet.

          2. Michael Brown was not ‘manifestly innocent’ (as seen on security video). He had two arms, which he used to commit larceny and assault a store manager. He also attacked a police officer and tried to take the man’s duty gun away from him. Yes, that will get you killed, and that is why few people are so bizarrely aggressive to try to do that.

            1. Excellent. Assuming arguendo that your characterization of this lone incident is remotely related to accurate, you somehow have formed a belief that the actions of a single individual in a nation of 325 million supports your “argument” ? Pro tip: when you have to resort to Pravda Faux News narrative, you’ve already lost. Anecdotal evidence is just that, and nothing more. Although it does feel good to talk about it down to this week white pride meeting, doesn’t it?

              This is to “I get my criminal justice ‘facts’ from Hannity” suzie

              1. This is to “I get my criminal justice ‘facts’ from Hannity” suzie

                Actually, from the autopsy report, the security video, and the grand jury in St. Louis County.

                1. Haha, avoiding the elephant in the room about anecdotal evidence. Choice. Schwing!!!

                  this is to “if the facts are against you, argue about the weather” suzie

                  1. I doesn’t seem to occur to you that the BLM cretins have only (badly understood) anecdotal evidence.

        3. Squeeky, the FBI UCR Use of Force data collection will not be available until 2018–if the current pilot project succeeds. In the meantime, the total number of justifiable homicides committed by sworn officers from 2011 through 2015 were: 404, 426, 471, 453 and 442. There’s no telling how many were black, how many were men, nor how many were armed or unarmed until 2018 at the earliest.

          1. That should’ve read “There’s no telling how many of the victims were black, men, armed or unarmed.”

      2. s. They might want to address issues that actually kill people in their community, like the deaths of unarmed black men at the hands of police.

        The Bureau of Justice Statistics has been undertaking an occasional census of this for over 40 years. The number of people killed by police officers in a typical year bounces around a set point of about 370. There isn’t much of a secular trend in this datum. About 1/2 of such people are black (which is about the share of blacks among identified perpetrators of homicide). There aren’t many dubious cases, and you know that because so many of the cases rabble-rousers use for publicity (e.g. Michael Brown) fall apart on inspection. You have 8,000 blacks who die by homicide in a typical year in this country. About 2% are typically killed by police officers and 7% are typically killed by whites. Police homicides are a small and non-systematic problem.

        A real problem (to which progtrash have no policy response) is ineffectual policing of slum neighborhoods, on top of which is the “Ferguson effect’ manifest wherever BLM cretins have been active. In 1980, Baltimore and New York had similar homicide rates. In 2013, Baltimore’s was more than 7x New York’s. That’s because New York’s political class expanded their police force, deployed them optimally, and made use of best practices in patrolling. Baltimore’s political class didn’t give a rip. Of course, the disparity has grown worse post Ferguson.

        1. DSS said, “A real problem (to which progtrash have no policy response) is ineffectual policing of slum neighborhoods . . .”

          Does that mean that “Bilge Clinton’s” extra hundred-thousand police offers were not enough? Or that “Bilge” is not “progtrash?”

        2. Local law enforcement agencies have been resisting Congressional authorization for the FBI UCR Use of Force data collection for decades. The real Fergusson effect is that Congress finally authorized the FBI UCR Use of Force data collection which should be available in 2018.

          BTW, the 439.2 five-year average for justifiable homicides committed by sworn officers from 2011 through 2015 is 69 incidents greater than 370. Assuming that roughly half the victims were black is presumably by analogy to known criminal offending rates. That assumption might not hold. And testing that assumption is at least one of the reasons for the FBI UCR Use of Force data collection.

          1. Rubbish. The data is collected by the Bureau of Justice Statistics and they’ve issued occasional reports since 1975.

            1. FBI UCR is the gold standard. Mandatory reporting. Not census taking. Annual reports or better. Not “occasional” reports. Just look at the difference in the numbers.

              Do you seriously think Fergusson had nothing to do with Congress authorizing the FBI UCR Use of Force data collection?

              1. The FBI and the BJS use different data collection methods useful for different purposes. The BJS studies are ‘occasional’ because they’re conducted at irregular intervals rather than at periodic intervals. It says nothing about the validity of the studies.

    1. CCS–If we are not psychiatrists, can we still violate the Goldwater rule? I ask because Trump is hardly the only recent victim of pop psychology. And, also, because a fair number of the negative comments about micro-aggressions assert the mental-illness of the people complaining about micro-aggression. Which, in layman’s terms, I will not dispute. But what if the psychiatrists, themselves, are now bat-guano insane? In layman’s terms, that is.

      1. Which psychiatrists are you calling bat-guano insane Diane? All of them?

        WRT your question, any non-MD can discuss a public person’s health all they want to whomever they want, as long as they are not disclosing any information personally given to them. Frankly, I think neurologic impairment is apparent in many cases and verification does not need to be provided by a bona fide mental health professional. Such was the case with Hillary, despite the efforts of her campaign and her bought-off MD. Maybe for micro-agressions, we should rely on micro-expression professionals such as Paul Ekman and this body language expert.

        1. CCS, so long as we limit ourselves to layman’s terms, I will exclude no psychiatrists, nor even myself, from the extension or denotation of the layman’s term, “bat-guano insane.”

  10. As a grade-A American mutt of Indian (feather, not dot), and Eurasian ancestry, I’m highly offended by hybrid anything. So no more displays of polyester/cotton, nylon/wool, nylon/acetate, ramie/polyester, ramie/acrylic, wool/cotton, linen/cotton, linen/silk will be tolerated in any place I visit or patronize.


    I mean it.

    I’ll throw a hissyfit.

    I might even tweet about it. (Cuz I need some attention…)

  11. Randy Lowry says:“ I understand that cotton represents something to some of the African American community that takes us back to the deplorable times of slavery. “

    What would happen if he said ‘please excuse me, I have to stick the chicken into the oven’ to a bunch of Jewish students. Should the Jewish students complain because ovens were used in an action attempting to exterminate the entire Jewish population? Jews are considered a privileged group even though one-half of their population was subjected to genocide and annihilated.

  12. When were those complaining last in a cotton field? For that matter, do any of them even know what a cotton field is or looks like? Perhaps they think cotton grows on trees! How many hundreds of years back does :whitey” have to apologize for past transgressions? Slavery has been around for thousands of years and exists today. It was and is a horrible practice then and now. We can’t do anything about then, we can do something about now. Stop complaining and do something good.

  13. What is next, banning Johnson & Johnson cotton balls from all stores? Raw cotton is a beautiful plant. Many people use it for home decor and in crafting. I really wish black people could see how ridiculous this makes them look. Wonder if the Latinos complained the taco centerpiece at the college. Nothing in the article about that. As long as blacks look for racism in everything, they will surely find it.

  14. Our education system is failing us. We need to stop this at once, million of lives and minds are being destroyed

    To me, it looked like snow on a branch after a snowfall.

    Pretty, going to buy some today ❄

    1. When my kids were growing up in the 80s and 90s, I saw cotton used to represent clouds in murals, snow on trees, Santa’s beard. There’s no sane reason cotton shouldn’t be used in decorations anymore than there is a sane reason we should stop wearing cotton clothes or using cotton balls to clean wounds or remove makeup.
      The left is looking for some way to hurt Hobby Lobby because the company dared to defy the left’s birth control / abortifacient agenda. So they’re pretending cotton used in arts and crafts is offensive to them and that Hobby Lobby has been, at best, insensitive. This is typical lefty viciousness.

      1. Taking the cotton out of the context in which the cotton was presented is a classic straw-man fallacy.

    2. CV writes: “Yes, I think about the slavery. How could you not. I think about that. That it being over, done and gone. I think about how far and fast we’ve come in such a relatively short period of our history. That’s what it is all right. It’s our history..our past. It’s not our present and surely not our future. Why in God’s name would anyone want it to be.”

      CV says it right in this paragraph. This is the take-away point of the whole discussion. Take note of ” how far and fast we’ve come”. Note the word ‘we’ rather than a tribal name because ‘we’ all should recognize that we are in it together as Americans, not as Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Catholic, Jews, LBGT,mothers, fathers, children, etc.

      1. Neo-Marxist purveyors of identity politics do not want Americans to believe we are all in this together.
        Their aim is to divide and pit groups against one another.

        1. I posted the full editorial Why Obama Spied on Trump as a new comment. Right now there is an attempted coup by the left to get a victory they could not get in accordance with the law. That is how all despots work.

          1. Or not. But, you may get to see how a federal grand jury works when your incompetent clown and his keystone cronies face the music.

            This is to “but Hannity swore on a Bible that it wasn’t real!” allan

            1. I’ll repeat the comment of DSS “Agreed. MM is repellent.” and confused.

              Maybe justice will be done and many from Obama administration will go to jail for misusing our national security apparatus against citizens instead of our foreign enemies whichis what they are supposed to do. Anyone who wonders why our intelligence service misses so many important international opportunities only has to recognize that their efforts were applied instead to political assasination of the opposition.

            2. your incompetent clown

              Our ‘incompetent clown’ has for more than 40 years prospered in real estate development, resort development, entertainment, and marketing. His predecessor’s experience in commercial employment consisted of a two-year stint as a copy editor of corporate newsletters and his foray into ‘management’ consisted of running the Chicago Annenberg Challenge into the ground.

              1. Oh, you are referring to President Barack HUSSEIN Obama, who was the greatest President of the United States and Commander in Chief since Harry Truman? Former law professor, respected member of the bar, Editor of the Harvard Law Review, graduate of Harvard Law, and Senator from Illinois? I also might add, that prior to his marriage, he quite likely dated the white women.

                This is to “but, I don’t want to change the channel” suzie

                1. Oh, you are referring to President Barack HUSSEIN Obama, who was the greatest President of the United States and Commander in Chief since Harry Truman?

                  As I said to Schlinger, I’m not interested in fantasy, your’s or anyone else’s.

                  Former law professor,

                  He was a 40% time lecturer who was never granted tenure, never published any scholarly articles in 12 years drawing a salary from the University of Chicago, performed no university service, taught boutique courses, and, by some accounts, was hired in a manner contrary to customary procedure.

                  respected member of the bar,

                  He was an associate at a 12 lawyer firm from 1993 to 1996, not really working f/t there. He practiced a mix of landlord-tenant and labor law. He was never granted a partnership. He was ‘of counsel’ from 1996 until his license to practice law lapsed in 2002.

                  Editor of the Harvard Law Review

                  He was the ‘President’ of the law review, an office-political position chosen quite differently from the editor of an ordinary law review. One person who worked on the Review at the time said, “He always seemed more interested in being the President of the Review than of doing anything with the position. See Wm. Dyer’s commentary on how the editors were chosen when he was on the law review at UT Austin ca. 1975. Obama’s critics were eventually able to identify a single unsigned case note written by BO in 1989.

                  graduate of Harvard Law,

                  Recent presidents with law degrees have included Richard Nixon (Duke), Gerald Ford (Yale), Bilge Clinton (Yale). Trump is a graduate of the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania. Big whoop.

                  and Senator from Illinois?

                  He got elected to Congress because moles in the Cook County court system purloined confidential papers from the divorce proceedings of two of his opponents and shills in the Chicago media were willing to publish this pilferage in order to assist him. He was a working member of Congress for 2.5 years and a member of the Illinois legislature for 8 years. He’s an established maven in no area of policy. Not exactly Bill Bradley or Daniel Patrick Moynihan. Given time and diligent effort, he might have established himself with his colleagues to the exalted level of John Kerry.

                  I also might add, that prior to his marriage, he quite likely dated the white women.

                  Lindsey Graham has also dated white women.

                  1. DSS, precious few know about how Obama became a State Senator so I don’t expect Mark M. to know that fact, but his unawareness of all the other material simply demonstrates that Mark isn’t too bright. I am surprised he even holds the title of file clerk.

                  2. More hilarity. I regret to inform you, but when your sources are some guy in a disguise at your last tinfoil-hat convention, your information may be considered “sketchy” by real people. Just sayin’.

                    This is to “but the guy seemed so sincere, and sane” suzie

                  3. His career highlights are a matter of public record, Mark, inconvenient as that may be to your fantasy life. Here’s a tidbit. Go to an academic library which will let you use their Lexis-Nexis subscription and search for law review articles published under Obama’s name between 1991 and 2005. You will find bupkis. Examine the news reports from the 2004 U.S. Senate election in Illinois. The news about his opponents’ divorce papers are splashed all over them. And if you fancy there are lawyers in Chicago who have scads of ‘respect’ for a randomly selected associate not hired until two years after completing his degree, I’m vending bridges.

    3. CV Brown – here they are still doing the square bales. The harvester (?) poops them out the back and then they are moved to the edge of the field for the large trucks to take them to the cotton gin.

Comments are closed.