Image 01 Image 03

Trump: ‘Our Nation Must Condemn Racism, Bigotry and White Supremacy’

Trump: ‘Our Nation Must Condemn Racism, Bigotry and White Supremacy’

“These sinister ideologies must be defeated. Hatred has no place in America.”

President Donald Trump addressed the nation Monday morning after two mass shootings took place in America. One in El Paso, TX, killed 20 people while the other in Dayton, OH, killed nine people.

With Vice President Mike Pence by his side, Trump lashed out at hate in America while calling for gun reforms.

From Fox News:

“In one voice, our nation must condemn racism, bigotry and white supremacy,” Trump said, in solemn remarks from the White House, standing beside Vice President Pence. “These sinister ideologies must be defeated. Hatred has no place in America.”

The president notably did not call for explicit changes to gun laws beyond red flag laws, despite tweeting earlier Monday morning about the possibility of linking background check legislation to immigration reform. However, he said he is open and ready to listen to ideas “that will actually work.”

The president also called for “cultural” changes, citing violent video games. Further, Trump said he has directed the Justice Department to propose legislation ensuring that those commit hate crimes and mass murders “face the death penalty and that this capital punishment be delivered quickly, decisively, and without years of needless delay.”

Trump did not expand on how he “wanted to couple background checks and immigration reform.” It would not be easy to do since Congress is split between the two parties.

Trump also did not address the criticism from the left, which blamed his rhetoric for the violence on Saturday.

The left screamed for Trump to condemn white supremacy, but apparently, it went over their heads and his address was not good enough for them.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Pretty sure I already condemn the whack jobs–of the right or the left. Why do we have to keep saying this crap? Why, the media of course. The media and left just keep beating the false narrative drum. Would rather he call them out on it.

    notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to Virginia42. | August 5, 2019 at 4:14 pm

    Have you seen this study?

    How The Media Inspires Mass Shooters.
    As reported on

    A paper presented to the American Psychological Association found the number of mass killings, rampage killings or “mass shootings”, may be doubled by irresponsible media aggrandizement of mass killers. The desire for fame was found to be one of the main motivators of these rampage killers.

    Even the far left publication ‘Mother Jones’ has detailed How The Media Inspires Mass Shooters. It’s to their cynical advantage to do this for several reasons. First, they get to grandstand with images of the scene of the shooting, droning endlessly on about the perpetrator and their possible motive, providing hours of live commentary and analysis. Second, all of this is but a virtue signalling telethon for their ratings, where they get to show how much they care whilst condemning 120 million innocent people for not wanting to give up their civil rights. Third, they can incessantly push the national socialist Left’s final solution to the Liberty problem with discussions of how fast and how soon the guns of innocent people should be confiscated for the ‘heinous’ crime of wanting to be able to protect themselves.

    BerettaTomcat in reply to Virginia42. | August 5, 2019 at 10:45 pm

    Trump obviously feels the need to virtue signal in the hope of winning women, minority, and soy boy votes next year. If he had begun enforcing immigration laws from Day 1, the El Paso crime may have been avoided, plus all the crimes illegal aliens do that Americans refuse to do.

No Antifa I see, just White people

Come on President Trump

You could have said “ALL” forms of supremacists!

Thinking we should start enforcing prohibitions on threatening to kill people.

That’s the root here; people threaten to kill people in lot batches, everyone around them k owe they are a threat, but no-one can do anything because merely threatening to put holes in people is not acted upon.

That’s, as I understand it, the entire 8chan thing; churning out death threats on a daily basis until someone get killed.

Further, we need to stop incentivising the fatherlessness and cut off futures that’s creating a generation of lost boys for whom death seems preferable to existance. You look at the people who do this and every one of them is either suffering severe mental health problems, or they are in a life with no future.

    Milhouse in reply to Voyager. | August 5, 2019 at 4:39 pm

    Anyone seriously threatening to put holes in someone is arrested and prosecuted. But it must be a serious threat, i.e. something that would make a reasonable person, hearing or reading it in its context, think that the speaker seriously intends to do it.

    Vague “threats” that a reasonable person would not understand to convey a serious intention of inflicting harm are protected speech, and cannot be prohibited.

      BerettaTomcat in reply to Milhouse. | August 5, 2019 at 10:52 pm

      For a threat to be criminal I believe it must be imminent. For example, threatening at the beach to put a bullet in your head while wearing nothing but a Speedo cannot be regarded as imminent, but if I did the same while carrying a gun openly the threat becomes imminent because of the proximity of a tool to carry out the threat.

      Free speech should not include threats of violence, whether imminent or not.

        Milhouse in reply to BerettaTomcat. | August 6, 2019 at 2:05 am

        No, threats do not have to be imminent. They just have to be actual threats, delivered in such a way that a reasonable person would think the speaker seriously intends to carry them out.

        I think you’re confusing this with incitement, or with self-defense, both of which require imminence.

Close The Fed | August 5, 2019 at 11:45 am

The Dayton murderer was ejected from high school, according the latest at Gateway Pundit, because he made a list of girls he wanted to shoot at school.

The fellow in El Paso, as far as I’m aware, doesn’t have that kind of past. I could obviously be wrong. But I read what he wrote. Two possibilities are 1) he meant what he wrote, or 2) what he wrote was rationalizing some other motive he had.

He favored universal basic income, fewer people in America for the environment, and less legal and illegal immigration because of the effect of immigration on American job seekers.

If he actually meant what he wrote (granted a big if), then who contributed to the problem that supposedly motivated him? Let’s see….. Ronald Reagan….(“We’ll do one amnesty and we’ll never do another and we’ll enforce our laws” 1986)… Ted Kennedy, co-author of 1965 structural changes to legal immigration…. All the big businesses pushing not to enforce our immigration laws and pushing for more immigrants… Mark Zuckerberg, et al…..All the OTHER politicians that state we should take DOWN our existing fences… looking at you Robert “Beto” O’Rourke…. The sanctuary states and cities…. Former and current governors of California and possibly New York…. Mayors of Los Angelos…..

“White Supremacy” is a manipulative term. It’s part of the Cultural Marxists’ toolbox to destroy the West. Of course our culture was made by whites for whites consistent with the normal behavior and beliefs (Christian) of whites. This is tautology.

If others can fit in, great. If not, America, love her or leave her. There’s plenty of choices for those that don’t like her…. Plenty of choices. I’m sure Venezuela would love some new blood to suck.

We may as well apologize for not being cocker spaniels….

The constant criticism of America is but a tool to destroy her, to substitute socialism/communism. I will brook no criticism of America.

As far as the EP shooter, if he meant what he wrote, he didn’t pick his targets to suit his claimed motive. This makes me doubt the sincerity of what he wrote. Or he’s just got some mental issue.

I myself favor bringing most of our troops home from around the world, and stationing them every 4 feet at our southern border, and the rules of engagement – after plenty of notice — are to shoot anyone that tries to cross at any spot other than an official border crossing.

We spend money for “defense” yet defend nothing near and dear to us. What justification is there to tax us for defense which refuses as a matter of PRINCIPLE to decline to defend us – and unceasingly insult as part of the bargain?

The Frankfurt School has infected America, and I reject it. America, a nation built on sound principles, has sought from the beginning to implement them more and more consistently. To criticize America for being American is rational only if you wish to destroy her. The dems running for prez for the most part seek power for power’s sake. They will pander to whatever will get them or rouse for them, votes.

President Trump should think more profoundly about what our issues are, and never condemn the phantom of “white supremacy.” It’s a trick term, and solves nothing. He should be as ruthless at tearing it up as he is with the “fake news.”

America is for Americans and those objecting to that simple tautology have ulterior motives which they project onto everyone that stands in their way to destroying America and her citizens.

Age 19-24 hardly lives without a future, but true, they are lost boys.
The El Paso killer came, I believe, from an intact family if I am not wrong and like the Columbine shooters, upper middle class

    MattMusson in reply to gonzotx. | August 5, 2019 at 1:26 pm

    The Columbine killers came from families. Yet, they still spent all their time brooding about the unfairness of High School and plotting to get even. In their arrogant world, they deserved to be acknowledged kings of the school. And, when they did not get their way, they plotted to kill everyone.

    Psychologists call it the Triad of Evil: Deceit, Arrogance and Resentment.

When the left looks at a person, the first and most important thing they see, the element which dictates what they think about that person, is skin color, followed by gender. They are the bigots. Their paternalistic attitude towards minorities and women is the problem.

Check Derbyshire on what gets called white supremacy. Almost all of it is benign.

Trump should have included the supremacists of other races as well. We are all descended from the same population in northeastern Africa, give or take 100,000 years or so….

I am not White.
I am a Hispanic immigrant, of mixed race.
Needless to say, I am not a White Supremacist.
I am not a racist either.
I am not a member of the Republican party, but I voted for Trump in 2016 and will vote for him again in 2020.
I am sick and tired of the condescending, disrespectful and downright racist rhetoric coming from Democrats and their parrots in the MSM.
I am sick and tired of being called “Brown”. I am not a fucking color.
I am sick and tired of being lumped in the same basket with MS-13 gang members, of the assumption that because I can speak Spanish I have to automatically support illegal immigration.
I am sick and tired of being told that my skin puts me at a disadvantage and that having white skin is a privilege.
I am sick and tired of them trying to explain to me “what he really means”. I can understand, speak, read and write in English.
I am sick and tired of being told that I am a victim, that this country hates me, when this country has been so fair and generous to me, to my family, and to my friends. It is especially insulting to hear it coming from people who have no fucking idea what is like to live in our shit-hole countries of origin.
I am sick and tired of their lies, of their “soft bigotry of lower expectations”, of their insults, their racism, their condescension.
I am sick and tired of the Democrats.
And I am not the only one.

    healthguyfsu in reply to Exiliado. | August 5, 2019 at 1:23 pm

    This is a great post from someone who probably has more first hand experience with similar fake socialist promises than most of us will ever have in our lifetimes.

    Leftists want to define and coddle special interest groups in order to buy votes from them. It’s not about benevolence, it’s about control and getting you to line up by the group that has been chosen for you.

    The only place where leftists do not show racism is in those that disagree with them. Your skin color, gender, and other demographics won’t matter because they will spit every vile label they can come up with at you even when they make no sense. Instead of recongnizing this folly, they will double down and fervently seek to crush you into silence and submission.

Trump did not expand on how he “wanted to couple background checks and immigration reform.” It would not be easy to do since Congress is split between the two parties.

Well, they’re both Holy Grails for the Left.

Background checks would do nothing for public safety but they would increase the cost of gun ownership, and increased cost has been a goal of gun controllers since at least the Civil War, when it hinged on the notion that blacks (in those days, “freedmen”) were poor, so increased costs would make gun ownership difficult, resulting in fewer blacks with guns.

And as we should all know by now, “immigration reform” is thinly-disguised code for amnesty.

The Dems would jump at any chance to advance either.

    rdmdawg in reply to tom_swift. | August 5, 2019 at 3:25 pm

    ‘Immigration Reform’ used to be amnesty, but I’m not sure that’s how Trump means it when using the phrase.

      tom_swift in reply to rdmdawg. | August 5, 2019 at 10:08 pm

      I’m sure it’s not, and it’s not DJT’s fault that the English language is subject to such continuous perversion. But perverted it has been.

    Milhouse in reply to tom_swift. | August 5, 2019 at 5:00 pm

    The explicit goal of the 1968 gun control law was to eliminate “Saturday night specials”, i.e. inexpensive guns that were affordable by poorer people, particularly black people.

      tom_swift in reply to Milhouse. | August 5, 2019 at 10:05 pm

      Also prohibited by the GCA ’68 was mail order of decent quality WW2-era guns (rifles, particularly), which were what the Panthers were threatening to buy and bring to Washington for unstated purposes. That prohibition on military surplus guns was later removed, but mail order never recovered—we’re still stuck with the requirement for a face-to-face transfer of the firearm . . . so that the federally licensed dealer can see that the buyer isn’t some random black person. (Nobody ever actually states it that way, of course.)

‘The president notably did not call for explicit changes to gun laws beyond red flag laws’

‘red flag laws’ are horrific and anti-democratic. Let .gov decide who gets guns and who doesn’t? How do you think that will eventually end up? ‘Republican voters’? Predisposed to violence, no guns allowed. ‘Conservatives’? They’re all racists, no guns.

    alaskabob in reply to rdmdawg. | August 5, 2019 at 2:37 pm

    What would be a “red flag”?

    In attempting to qualify for CCW years ago in Riverside, Ca one of the questions asked was, “do you participate in quick draw competition?” IPSC or IDPA? Really as a need to know?

    I was told I could avoid trouble and had no need for a permit.. and if there was trouble.. it would be my own fault… traveling to the hospital at night for call.

    Milhouse in reply to rdmdawg. | August 5, 2019 at 5:04 pm

    Red flag laws can be reasonable, provided they that provide swift due process. Most such laws don’t, and are only going to get people killed.

      rdmdawg in reply to Milhouse. | August 5, 2019 at 5:27 pm

      “Red flag laws can be reasonable”

      You have more faith in government than I do, friend. I’ve yet to see a law that grants such discretionary powers to bureaucrats that hasn’t been abused in the extreme.

      Sanddog in reply to Milhouse. | August 5, 2019 at 9:18 pm

      By their very nature, red flag laws can’t have actual, swift, due process. They seize your property and then they decide later if you should be allowed to retrieve it based on unproven allegations.

      Milwaukee in reply to Milhouse. | August 5, 2019 at 9:31 pm

      M: I’m very leery of red flag laws.
      “Red flag laws can be reasonable, …”

      I would say that if a person is enough of a threat they need their guns taken away, they are enough of a threat for a 48-72 hour psychiatric evaluation hold. If they aren’t enough of a threat to harm themselves or someone else then they don’t need their guns taken away.

        randian in reply to Milwaukee. | August 6, 2019 at 1:16 am

        I’m surprised California isn’t using psychiatric holds more aggressively against gun owns. A 72-hour hold is a 5 year ban, a 14 day hold is a permanent ban. In 2020 more than one 72-hour holds in a year is also a permanent ban. California naturally also has gun violence restraining orders. These are offensive weapons in the hands of vindictive wives and unscrupulous district attorneys.

There isn’t a thing Trump could have said that the left and MSM wouldn’t pick him apart over. This wounding is still raw – his haste words reflect that. So to hell with all the critics. Just lead, big fella. Work that bully pulpit.

Being honest about guns – I own too many hand guns, and carry concealed. I started carrying when the wife and I retired and began traveling, encountering some sketchy characters at rest stops and hotels … every other night in a hotel, someone feigning drunk would attempt to work the lock on our room, or people eavesdropping in the lobby during check in to scope us out and get a room number … funny how quick the 2am door fiddlers would sober up and run when they hear a semi-auto rack followed by my bark “YOU HAVE THE WRONG ROOM!”.

Being self-reflective and honest, the root of my gun ownership and carrying, goes somewhat to fear and some of the frightening things that have happened to me these last 20 years (since my mid 40’s). In addition to our retirement / travel experiences, I’ve narrowly escaped attempted muggings in an airport parking garage, at a convention down town … so I’ve come to carry when I’m out and about in unfamiliar circumstances – and I avoid known trouble spots.

Admittedly, CCW grates against my faith which places trust in God – in the sense that “if God can’t shield me from harm, what good is a gun” or IF I carry a gun and train to use it, does that mean I lack faith in God to protect me and mine – or that I am submitting to fear? I still chew on that paradox from time to time. The Creator has saved my bacon three times this summer – from what would have been fatal car accidents caused by visiting tourists. So being the introspective sort, I wonder about His protective hand on me and whether it’s time to rethink my gun ownership / use.

I’ve no intent to turn in all of my guns – though with time and experience I don’t need so many. One for home defense, one for carry, one for cheap target practice / fun. At the same time, though provided for by the 2A and technically legal, I don’t need an AK or AR. But maybe a bolt-action rifle for game.

I’ll use this occasion to reflect on my own gun ownership and make some adjustments. Perhaps that’s the way it ought to be rather than the government always trying to control things to the gnats arse … guns are an individual right and what’s needed is for people to examine themselves, their needs, motives, etc. and make adjustments. I hesitate to see the kind of knee-jerk response the pols will have to the mass shooting epidemic …

What I’d like to see instead is for the Supremes to strike down all the gun laws in all 50 states and say what part of “shall not be infringed” don’t you understand? People have the right to carry a gun – concealed or in the open – hand gun or long gun. Encourage good people to arm themselves. Maybe that’s the better way to send a strong message to mass shooters that everyone is armed – there are no more soft targets. “An armed society is a polite society”.

    walls in reply to MrE. | August 5, 2019 at 4:13 pm

    What I’d like to see instead is for the Supremes to strike down all the gun laws in all 50 states and say what part of “shall not be infringed” don’t you understand?

    You know that will NEVER happen.

      MrE in reply to walls. | August 5, 2019 at 4:39 pm

      A snowball’s chance in hell, I suppose.

      My thinking is perhaps it’s time to try something completely different. After all, every shooter broke 1 or more laws in carrying out their shooting – most several laws, I reckon. So why would any reasonable person think the solution is more gun laws when the shooters ignored existing laws? So scrap state and local gun laws and start over with an armed society.

      There was a time someone threatened me while I was CCW. An abusive verbal berating. When they let up, I said something like “The most difficult thing about being legally armed is that I have to exercise enough common sense and restraint for the both of us.” It took a few seconds for their better senses kicked in and back away. I like to think the incident made them think twice before mouthing off like that in the future. In fact, the CCW training advocated treating everyone like they were armed – and that made me more thoughtful / respectful of others.

      But yes – the Supremes don’t have the spine for that.

    Mac45 in reply to MrE. | August 5, 2019 at 9:54 pm

    Just a couple of things here.

    First, according to scripture, Jesus told his disciples to arm themselves before they went out into the world. In fact, he told those without swords to sell their cloaks and use the money to buy a sword. Also, why would anyone expect God to save their lives on this plane of existence. In the first place, God apparently expects people to die, everyone does. And, second, if there is an after life, dying here would simply denote a move to a new existence.

    Second, you should only own as many of anything as you need or want. Now, about the need for a high capacity, semi-automatic rifle in 5.56x45mm or larger. This is a wonderful tool for home defense and defense against medium sized varmints. I have such a s weapon in battery. I also have a lever action rifle in a magnum pistol caliber. It is fun to shoot and, with ten rounds onboard, it is adequate for home defense, even though it has less ammo capacity, slower reload time and slower operation than a modern high capacity, semi-automatic rifle.

    One thing to remember about owning more firearms than you really need. They are an investment. Firearms lose very little value over time, even if you use them. You can always sell your surplus firearms to supplement your cash reserves.

    Firearms as nothing more than tools. They are inanimate objects having no life or soul. How they are used is entirely up to the individual who possesses them. So, unless you are prone to acts of evil, your firearm will not be used for evil, by you.

      MrE in reply to Mac45. | August 6, 2019 at 1:21 pm

      Thanks for your thoughts and encouragement, Mac45.

      I take a more metaphoric approach to that passage. Peter obviously took a literal approach to the instruction and during Jesus’ arrest, used a sword to cut off the ear of the High Priest’s servant. Jesus healed the wound and told Peter to put the sword away, saying I believe “live by the sword, die by the sword” (Matthew 26:52, et al).

      Why would He tell the disciples to sell their cloak and buy a sword if He didn’t want them to use it? Elsewhere in scripture, we are told to put on the garment of Christ – or the whole character of Christ – and Paul uses the word “sword” as a metaphor for the living word of God. So in effect, that passage is a revisiting of the treasure in a field / pearl of great price scripture, where a person sells everything they have, even the clothes off their back, to purchase the Word of God – which is Jesus (John 1). And of course in Revelation there’s the metaphor of having washed our garments in the blood of Christ to be made righteous. So trading in our cloak/garments for righteous ones and the sword that is the Word is the message I take home from that scripture.

      I don’t however discount the literal application of it – certainly when Nehemiah et al rebuilt the temple walls, they were armed to defend themselves and the temple against the enemy. I’m just of the mind that while there is one destination and all will stand before Christ in judgment for reward or punishment, there are many individualized paths through life to get there. He’s called me to a path that’s uniquely for me and it seems to require from me a level of trust and relationship that’s uniquely for me. And that path routinely challenges me to check my fear and press on in faith/trust. That’s the root of my questioning anyway. 😉

        Mac45 in reply to MrE. | August 6, 2019 at 3:09 pm

        Christian scripture can be confusing. Probably the fact that alleged first person accounts of Christ’s ministry were written over a half century period, or more, and were translated and copied by scribes and a church which had their own preconceived notions of what Christ said and meant.

        While it is pretty clear that Christ preached tolerance and love, there is no reason to think that God does not allow for self defense or the defense of others. After all, humanity was granted the pesky gift of free will. And, it is a test of humanity, both individually and collectively, to practice free will. Is it nobler to stand idly by while another person harms or kills others, including your family and friends, or should one seek to stop that harm from occurring, even at the risk of losing one’s own life or taking the life of another? I believe that it is pretty clear that, while God, through the teachings of many proohets, seeks to have man reconcile differences without violence, He does not discourage righteous acts of defense of others or one’s self.

        The passage in Matthew is about Jesus coming to terms with his impending death in this world. A death which had been preordained by God. His admonition to his disciple to sheath his sword was because Jesus had resigned himself to his fate and did not wish any of his disciples to perish in an attempt to thwart that divine fate. When taken in context, it has a totally different meaning than is commonly attributed to it today. Context is everything.

        Luke 22, which covers the same events, contains the admonition to the disciples that they should go from Jerusalem, after Christ’s “death”. And, he suggests that they have the physical means to defend themselves from attack by his enemies. He tells them that he will still be with them after his passing. And, he tells his disciples not to interfere when confronted by the High Priests’ men.

        While people are admonished to avoid violence to reconcile disputes, they are not obligated to meekly submit to physical violence from others.

          MrE in reply to Mac45. | August 6, 2019 at 7:19 pm

          Good thoughts all, Mac45. Thanks for sharing them with me. I’m blessed or cursed with being a ponderer and I find the subject a paradox. If I hadn’t been miraculously delivered from a few likely fatal circumstances, 3 of them recently, I wouldn’t be questioning it at all.

          Even so I own and carry when out and about in unfamiliar surroundings. And I’ve given thought to escape routes in familiar surroundings if something bad starts to go down. My own reconsideration just goes to the extent that fear played in several of my gun purchases. I’ll be keeping half my guns and those I hope to trade/sell will finance a rifle for game. If it’s not obvious, I enjoy shooting and gun ownership. These recent events simply have me reexamining myself. Peace brother.

          Mac45 in reply to Mac45. | August 6, 2019 at 8:59 pm


          I went into harm’s way to protect the people of this nation and my home community. I did that for decades. And, I fully understand the meaning of the old saying, “there are no atheists in foxholes.” I have seen and experienced things which appear to be near miracles. So, I know where you are coming from. I also remember the old “joke about the man sitting on his roof as the flood waters rise and prays to God to save him. Yet he turns down the services of a high clearance vehicle, a boat and a helicopter. And when he complains that God did nothing to save him, God said, “I sent you three vehicles to save you. What more did you want?”

          I firmly believe that humanity is not on this plane at a whim. I believe that we are here for a reason. I believe that we are here to learn and develop. And, that our stay here is not permanent. God has given us an elementary school guide to what we are supposed to learn and how we are supposed to act. If we master those lessons, we are still not qualified to be brain surgeons. But, how many ten year olds have any idea what a brain surgeon actually does and what knowledge he has to have to perform that job? So, we try to follow the rules, to practice the traits we need to master [compassion, truthfulness, charity, self-sacrifice, etc] and to leave the world a better place than we found it. Eventually, we will find out if we graduated and, if so, where we go from here. Eventually, we will be qualified for service as a brain surgeon. And, using that free-will thing, I try to do just that.

          The best advice that I can give, is to keep on keeping on. If you try to be a good person, you probably will be.

          MrE in reply to Mac45. | August 7, 2019 at 12:45 am


          I wasn’t called to that kind of service, elsewise God wouldn’t have given me flat feet and a 4F rating when I graduated near the end of the Vietnam war. I’d hoped to go into the ministry, but settled for a career in defense and space and weekends doing benefit concerts of original and contemporary CCM in my 20’s and 30’s. No audience too small; churches, prisons, brigs, camps and conferences.

          Professionally, I worked manufacturing and engineering support on some of the star wars R&D projects, Minuteman, Peacekeeper, ALCM and E3A. Worked with a lot of the USAF guys on audits and readiness reviews. Lots of domestic travel – good memories of that. Now retired and giving thanks that I’m on the downhill side of things – what with the way the world is going. The Father impressed me about 15-20 years ago that life on this plane was going to become “unmoored”. I was rather shook to see Mark Levin use that word in an article on CR the other day. No better place to be these days, than anchored to the Rock. See you there man.

Will he also condemn atheism and Warren supporters?

    notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to forksdad. | August 5, 2019 at 4:19 pm

    Remember the DNC Booed God at their 2016 convention and took God out of everything there.

Our schools are leftist hate factories. Until we reclaim them, nothing will chnage.

“There is no place for hate in America…” Please direct your comments to the DemocRat Party, Mr. President. They will use these shootings politically and keep beating people over the head with their destructive agenda.

“White Supremacy” is code for Western culture: science, logic, reason, representative government, natural rights, the Protestant work ethic and self control and wealth creation: in short, European/American cultural practices that have created the most advanced civilization the world has ever known.

The barbarians at the gates who believe that “Western Civ has go to go” (according to the 1990s era chant at Stanford) are the stormtroopers of a global criminal class that want this advanced culture utterly destroyed. The attack is financial (endless debt/Cloward-Piven), bureaucratic, and spiritual. But the biggest part of the battle is demoralization–the idea that American culture (and the European practices from which it came) are morally bankrupt, racist, or just “over”.

We’ve seen this demoralization before in the generation before World War I in Europe. Then WWI laid waste to two empires and Europe’s last shred of self belief. With the defeat of Germany in WWII, Europe was ready to be re-formed, re-made as communist (called “socialist”) countries.

It’s time, then, to realize that history is repeating itself and to STOP using their terminology. “White supremacy” doesn’t exist as a coherent philosophy nor even as a social force, outside of a few fringe groups, most of which are infiltrated by the FBI.

But what the Left means by “white supremacy” is the underlying matrix of our society as a whole.

So, Mr. President, let us NOT “condemn white supremacy”, even if what we mean by it is those fringe groups and their representatives. Let us condemn violence, let us condemn hatred, let us condemn prejudice. But do NOT use their term because, to them, it is a wholesale condemnation of US.

It is fine for President Trump to call out racism but the real sickness with both the Gilroy and El Paso mass murderers, the SOURCE of their racism, is their species-ism, their hatred of the human race, born of the rotten lying global warming fraud that has been used to indoctrinate them K through 12 to believe that people, liberty and capitalism are killing the planet. Like the Christchurch shooter both of these evil morons are eco-fascists, dutiful students of the mainstream-Democrat eco-garbage that dominates primary, secondary and higher education in America.

There are not all-together more than a few thousand white supremacists or white nationalists in the country (since the philosophy of liberty created by the white founders of this nation reject non-merit-based grounds for judgment such as race). In numbers “white suoremacy” is a non-problem, non-issue.

In contrast, almost all Democrats and a huge proportion of young people fully accept the fraud of catastrophic human caused global warming. This is the REAL domestic threat. Antifa is 100% made up of eco-lunatics. That is where their self-righteousness comes from. They embrace the fiction that they are saving the planet.

The only reason most of these eco-leftists favor illegal immigration is because they see it as a path to power. The Latinos will vote Democrat they think, enabling their communist, eco-fascist take-over.

But not all eco-lunatics buy the idea that we should embrace a flood of hated HUMANS on the promise that they will bring power. The Christchurch eco-fascist, who the El Paso shooter declared himself to be a follower of, hates non-whites because he sees that ONLY only white people are giving priority to the environment by trying to reduce population growth.

For this eco-left branch THIS is the source of their horror at the “latino hordes.” Not that they think there is anything wrong with brown people. They just hate the hordes part, that these peasants from central America have no thought whatsoever for the environment. They start pushing out babies before they are 15 and they have to be stopped!

Imagine if you are an eco-leftist who buys into the idea that you yourself should forgo children for sake of the planet, while an endless river of young families with pregnant teenagers in tow comes flooding into your state? That is what the Gilroy and El Paso shooters were both by their own words reacting to.

We need to start teaching the nation’s children two crucial truths:

1. That the only actual climate danger always has been and always will be GLOBAL COOLING, which unlike the small amount of warming caused by CO2 really is dangerous, regularly hurling the planet into 100k yr. long glacial periods. With the sun now having switched from an 80-yr grand maximum of solar magnetic activity (the actual cause of 20th century warming) to what looks like the beginning of a grand minimum, the rational expectation going forward is for cooling.

To be freaking out about the possibility of warming (utterly benign) when actually dangerous cooling could well be at our doorstep, is flat out insane, but that is what $150b in purely politically-funded phony science will buy you.

2. Economic growth is NOT gobbling up the planet as the mainstream eco-left (and the Christchurch eco-fascists) depict. Just the opposite, economic growth is the absolute best possible thing for the environment. Growth is driven primarily by technological progress, which allows us to do more with less, effectively expanding available resources, which become ever LESS scarce, not more scarce.

Eco-religion is based on a radical misunderstanding of economics. Teach REAL economics, which ought to be taught in high school in any case, and it would end the fostering of humanity hatred by our public schools. Stop teaching our kids to hate babies!

    Milhouse in reply to AlecRawls. | August 6, 2019 at 6:52 pm

    their hatred of the human race, born of the rotten lying global warming fraud

    You have that backwards. Global warmening is born of the Greens’ anti-humanism, not the other way around. Green anti-humanism goes back to ancient pagan nature-worship. It lies behind nazism, and behind the concept of the “noble savage”.

    It also lies behind the Christian view of the Fall as having tainted all humans, who therefore need to be given salvation as a gift (a view introduced by Paul, that would have astonished Jesus and his disciples, who held the Jewish view that the fall affected only the body, while the soul, being part of God, remains pure and therefore needs no salvation).

I don’t have it backwards. It is true that the global warming propagandists push the climate hoax for ulterior/commie reasons having nothing to do with science. Many are just doing really bad economics, misunderstanding the meaning of economig growth, thinking that it means people are gobbling up the planet when it actually means an expansion, not a using up, of natural resources. But the kids who are influenced by these lies have no ulterior motive. They believe what they have always been taught is the truth, and hence think it is moral, as a matter of science, to hate humanity.