Month: January 2020

Two days ago, we hailed the good news that a trial court judge in Wisconsin held the Elections Commission and three of its Democrat members in contempt because they refused to abide by his December order that they remove 200,000 non-viable names from the state’s voting records. One day later, on Tuesday, the state appellate court stepped in to stop the Elections Commission from cleaning out the cemetery vote:

The removal of as many as 209,000 names was put on hold a day after an Ozaukee County judge found three members of the Wisconsin Elections Commission in contempt of court for ignoring an order he gave in December 2019.

An appeals court judge also blocked the contempt finding in a separate order, putting on hold a decision that fined the three Democratic members $250 a day each until they voted to purge the names.

The appeals court on Tuesday ordered the lower court’s order against the commissioners, and a Dec. 13 order to purge the names from voter rolls, “stayed until further order of this court,” the court clerk wrote.

The rulings will ensure, temporarily, that thousands of names will not be removed from the rolls, until the appeals court reviews the dispute. Democrats have raised the alarm over the potential removal of so many names from the voter roll in a state set to be a battleground when President Donald Trump seeks reelection in November.

The same judges — Michael Fitzpatrick, JoAnne Kloppenburg and Jennifer Nashold — had on two previous occasions refused to step in to block the purge. This time, however, they moved so quickly they did not even have time to write an order explaining their reasoning:

They wrote that they issued the order quickly because they knew the commission was meeting Tuesday. They will spell out their reasoning in a later opinion, they wrote.

It should be noted that the decision to remove names was not arbitrary or under the control of a single person or party. Instead, it was the last phase in a formal notice procedure:

The order to remove hundreds of thousands of names was initially made last month, and came after the state Elections Commission sent notices in October last year to more than 230,000 people that were thought to have moved, requesting that they update their voter registrations or indicate that they hadn’t moved.

The letters were sent to the voters based on data from the Electronic Registration Information Center that suggested they had potentially changed addresses. If they didn’t respond, they were in danger of being removed from the rolls by 2021.

Commissioner Julie Glancey, a Democrat, complained that it just wasn’t fair to remove people from the rolls because once upon a time, in the past, they had been valid voters:

Responded Commissioner Julie Glancey, a Democrat:  “These are eligible, registered voters. They are not by any stretch of the imagination illegal or anything else. They are true people who registered to vote and are eligible to register to vote. They may or may not have moved.

“This is not an example of 200,000 illegal registrants on our voting list.”

Glancey ignores the fact that, in Wisconsin, it’s incredibly easy to re-register on election day, whether online, at the polling place, or at the county clerk’s office. Glancey’s complaint therefore cannot be about the risk of disenfranchising legitimate voters.

Same-day re-registration means that no one can argue that the Republicans are pushing to purge voter rolls in order to suppress voter turnout. That leaves one to conclude that the only reason Democrats want to keep 200,000 names on the rolls, even though the people attached to those names have moved on, is to have a roster of names that people who cannot vote can “borrow” for the day, also known as voter fraud.

Two days ago, we hailed the good news that a trial court judge in Wisconsin held the Elections Commission and three of its Democrat members in contempt because they refused to abide by his December order that they remove 200,000 non-viable names from the state’s voting records. One day later, on Tuesday, the state appellate court stepped in to stop the Elections Commission from cleaning out the cemetery vote:

The removal of as many as 209,000 names was put on hold a day after an Ozaukee County judge found three members of the Wisconsin Elections Commission in contempt of court for ignoring an order he gave in December 2019.

An appeals court judge also blocked the contempt finding in a separate order, putting on hold a decision that fined the three Democratic members $250 a day each until they voted to purge the names.

The appeals court on Tuesday ordered the lower court’s order against the commissioners, and a Dec. 13 order to purge the names from voter rolls, “stayed until further order of this court,” the court clerk wrote.

The rulings will ensure, temporarily, that thousands of names will not be removed from the rolls, until the appeals court reviews the dispute. Democrats have raised the alarm over the potential removal of so many names from the voter roll in a state set to be a battleground when President Donald Trump seeks reelection in November.

The same judges — Michael Fitzpatrick, JoAnne Kloppenburg and Jennifer Nashold — had on two previous occasions refused to step in to block the purge. This time, however, they moved so quickly they did not even have time to write an order explaining their reasoning:

They wrote that they issued the order quickly because they knew the commission was meeting Tuesday. They will spell out their reasoning in a later opinion, they wrote.

It should be noted that the decision to remove names was not arbitrary or under the control of a single person or party. Instead, it was the last phase in a formal notice procedure:

The order to remove hundreds of thousands of names was initially made last month, and came after the state Elections Commission sent notices in October last year to more than 230,000 people that were thought to have moved, requesting that they update their voter registrations or indicate that they hadn’t moved.

The letters were sent to the voters based on data from the Electronic Registration Information Center that suggested they had potentially changed addresses. If they didn’t respond, they were in danger of being removed from the rolls by 2021.

Commissioner Julie Glancey, a Democrat, complained that it just wasn’t fair to remove people from the rolls because once upon a time, in the past, they had been valid voters:

Responded Commissioner Julie Glancey, a Democrat:  “These are eligible, registered voters. They are not by any stretch of the imagination illegal or anything else. They are true people who registered to vote and are eligible to register to vote. They may or may not have moved.

“This is not an example of 200,000 illegal registrants on our voting list.”

Glancey ignores the fact that, in Wisconsin, it’s incredibly easy to re-register on election day, whether online, at the polling place, or at the county clerk’s office. Glancey’s complaint therefore cannot be about the risk of disenfranchising legitimate voters.

Same-day re-registration means that no one can argue that the Republicans are pushing to purge voter rolls in order to suppress voter turnout. That leaves one to conclude that the only reason Democrats want to keep 200,000 names on the rolls, even though the people attached to those names have moved on, is to have a roster of names that people who cannot vote can “borrow” for the day, also known as voter fraud.

In the 36 years before then-senator Barack Obama promised “Change We Can Believe In” during his 2008 presidential campaign, won the presidency, and made history by becoming America’s first black president, shootings at Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) were infrequent and rare events.  During that time, 13 shootings occurred at HBCUs, killing four students and injuring another 12 victims, 11 being students.

While change did occur during the Obama presidency, it wasn’t hopeful change we can (or even should) believe in.  Empirical data of shootings at HBCUs, available at www.schoolshootingdatabase.com, have uncovered that during the eight years of the Obama administration, shootings at HBCUs surged 430% (in roughly 28 less years) to 56 shootings, with gunfire killing 12 and injuring 66 more.  Ten of the 12 victims (83%) killed during the Obama presidency were students, as were 39 (59%) of the injured.

The chart below shows that during President Obama’s eight-year reign as commander-in-chief, gun deaths at HBCUs spiked 300%, and gun injuries went up by 550% from the previous 36 years.

Shootings at HBCUs Throughout the Years

Eras	Time Span	Number of Years	Number of Shootings	Number of Victims Killed	Number of Victims Injured
HBCU Shootings During Pre-Civil Rights Era	1918–1953	35	1	1	0
HBCU Protest Shootings During the Civil Rights Era	1954–1972	18	5	8	40
Post–Civil Rights Era (36 years before Obama Administration)	1973–1981	9	1	0	1
	1982–1990	9	1	1	0
	1991–1999	9	2	0	5
	2000–2008*	9	9	3	6
Obama Administration	January 20, 2009 to Jan 19, 2017	8	56	12	66
Trump Administration	January 20, 2017 to Present Day	3	12	4	8
Totals	–	101	87	29	126

*During the Bush administration, eight shootings occurred, killing two and injuring six.

When comparing the Obama administration’s record on gun violence at HBCUs to that of its predecessor, the Bush administration, the numbers surge to a 700% increase.  During the eight years of the Bush administration, eight shootings occurred at HBCUs, killing two and injuring six.  Only eight months into President Obama’s first term in office, two students were shot and killed, and 19 others received gunshot injuries in eight shootings at HBCUs, eclipsing the eight shootings that happened during the entire two-term Bush presidency.

Even the racial tensions at HBCUs during the Civil Rights Era don’t compare to the devastation brought to HBCUs by the Obama presidency.  HBCUs endured five high-profile racially motivated shootings by law enforcement during Civil Rights protests with eight people getting shot and killed, 40 receiving gunshot wounds, and scores more getting roughed up and injured in the race riots.  It’s profoundly sad and ironic that the 56 shootings at HBCUs that occurred during the eight years of the Obama Administration are 11 times greater than the number of shootings that occurred at HBCUs in nearly 20 years of turbulent racial hatred of the Civil Rights Era.

Most of the shootings at HBCUs are incidents that arise from fights over petty grievances, involve gangs, or are crimes stemming from drugs or robberies.  Rival gangs from Missouri City and Fresno, about 30 to 40 minutes away from Texas Southern University, were responsible for a drive-by shooting that occurred at TSU during a concert and community rally that “featured a voter registration drive, HIV testing and appearances by Houston rapper Trae the Truth” that injured eight people, ages 14 to 21, including one male TSU student.

With all the violence that HBCU students are constantly subjected to, students at the time, like 19-year-old freshman at TSU Daijsa Fowls, are left to ask, “How do you study and watch your back?  Daijsa also said, “A bullet has no name.  It can happen to anybody.”  Another TSU student fearing for her safety, Kendra Horn, also voiced her concerns, stating, “It’s literally here in front of our faces. I can’t feel safe walking all the way to class; how am I supposed to focus in class without thinking I’m going to get shot?”

To better understand the depth of the plague of shootings at HBCUs during Obama’s tenure in the White House, the list below illustrates 34 shootings that occurred at 11 HBCUs while President Obama was in office.  Sometimes the frequency of the shootings is a matter of years, months, weeks, or even days.  It is also important to keep in mind that students also have to be concerned with shootings that happen just off campus and in the surrounding area, which occur even more frequently than on-campus shootings.

HBCUs With Multiple Shootings during Obama Administration

Langston University: 5 Shootings

August 16, 2009: 4 Injured
September 28, 2009: None Injured or Killed
October 14, 2010: 1 Injured
October 18, 2014: 1 Injured
October 15, 2015: None Injured or Killed

Lane College: 5 Shootings

September 16, 2011: 1 Injured
February 1, 2012: 1 Killed
September 17, 2013: None Injured or Killed
April 2, 2015: 1 Injured
December 18, 2015: None Injured or Killed

Texas Southern University: 4 Shootings

July 22, 2009: 8 Injured
August 26, 2015: 1 Killed, 1 Injured
October 6, 2015: 1 Injured
October 9, 2015: 1 Killed, 1 Injured

Elizabeth City State University: 4 Shootings

November 5, 2011: Assailant injured by law enforcement
April 11, 2013: None Injured or Killed
April 13, 2013: 1 Injured
October 8, 2014: None Injured or Killed

Savannah State University: 3 Shootings

September 21, 2013: 1 Killed
September 5, 2014: 1 Injured
August 27, 2015: 1 Killed

Tennessee State University: 3 Shootings

May 18, 2009: 1 Killed, 1 Injured
January 28, 2014: 1 Injured
October 22, 2015: 1 Killed, 3 Injured

Morgan State University: 2 Shootings

September 12, 2012: 1 Injured
November 3, 2012: 1 Injured

Bethune-Cookman University: 2 Shootings

February 23, 2015: 1 Injured
March 29, 2015: 1 Injured

Paine College: 2 Shootings

May 4, 2015: 1 Injured
May 5, 2015: 1 Injured

Delaware State University: 2 Shootings

February 13, 2009: 2 Injured
April 13, 2015: 3 Injured

Grambling State University: *2 Shootings

April 16, 2013: 3 Injured
*January 28, 2015

*alleged shooting — “The Gramblinite, the student newspaper of Grambling State University, tweeted that the university was on lockdown due to an allege(d) campus shooting.”

Gun violence wasn’t the only destructive force HBCUs suffered through under the navigation of President Obama.  Devastating budget cuts and low enrollment also hindered the prosperity of HBCUs while President Obama was in office.  Even though the Bush administration had designated $85 million for HBCUs, within months of becoming commander-in chief, President Obama decided not to renew the “$85 million pot of money earmarked for HBCUs by his Republican predecessor.”  Obama’s failure to financially support HBCUs also led economist Julianne Malveaux, who was the president of Bennett College in North Carolina at the time to ask, “Why is it that a recalcitrant Bush would do more for HBCUs than an ostensibly sympathetic Obama would?”

From 2000 to 2008, HBCUs “received on average 3.5 percent of federal money going to institutions of higher education,” but by 2013, even as the overall federal higher education budget grew, the HBCU share was down to 2.8 percent, according to the Thurgood Marshall College Fund, which lobbies for black colleges and supports students with scholarships.”  In February 2015, Hampton University president William Harvey attended a meeting of the White House’s advisory board and “delivered some blunt criticism” of the Obama administration’s poor treatment of HBCUs.  Harvey, who is the advisory board chair, said, “We are not consulted when it comes to policy changes and decisions impacting — in a major way — the institutions on whose behalf we are to advocate. Overall support to black colleges is down.”

After HBCUs were forsaken by the Obama administration for eight years, the former Thurgood Marshall College Fund president and CEO, Johnny C. Taylor, pointed out the difference between the Obama and Trump administrations.  After President Trump signed an executive order titled “The Presidential Executive Order on the White House Initiative to Promote Excellence and Innovation at Historically Black Colleges and Universities” in just 45 days once he took office in 2017, Taylor explained that President Trump’s actions were “something that, frankly, the black college community assumed would have been easily accomplished with the first African-American president, and after over eight years of repeated requests, to think that within 45 days of his presidency we were able to convene all of the [HBCU] presidents in the Oval Office [Monday] and [on Tuesday] a subset of us were able to come back and sign the executive order the same day that the [president] is preparing for first State of the Union address. [That] gives this tremendous importance. It’s bittersweet, but at the end of the day, we focus on the sweet.”

As 2019 comes to an end, President Trump also signed the FUTURE Act, which is a “bipartisan amendment to a bill that would permanently re-authorize millions of dollars in federal funding to historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs) and other minority-serving institutions (MSIs) for a decade.”

How did the Obama administration honestly hope to effect real positive change for HBCUs without addressing the skyrocketing gun violence during its two terms in office and by slashing their already strapped budgets?  After the Sandy Hook tragedy, President Obama could be seen wiping away a single tear in a press conference as he predictably pushed for the agenda of gun control.  How come President Obama didn’t hold a press conference or shed any tears for any of the HBCU victims and their families as an epidemic of shootings at HBCUs surged under his leadership?  Were tears not appropriate for the 12 people killed and 66 others who received gunshot wounds under the neglect of President Obama’s tenure?

Ironically, President Obama’s idea of “Hope and Change” increased shootings at HBCUs by seven times and put black American students at risk of being killed threefold and 11 times more likely to be injured from gun violence under his leadership compared to the previous eight years of the Bush administration.  What does President Obama leaving behind a legacy of neglect, less money, and more violence for HBCUs, a cornerstone of the black community, say about America’s first black president?  President Obama’s tattered legacy of dereliction, financial neglect, and escalating violence for HBCUs has proved that the Trump administration is the real driving force for actual “Hope and Change” at HBCUs, as opposed to the never-ending line of empty and broken promises of the Obama administration.

Image: Ari Levinson via Wikimedia Commons.

In the 36 years before then-senator Barack Obama promised “Change We Can Believe In” during his 2008 presidential campaign, won the presidency, and made history by becoming America’s first black president, shootings at Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) were infrequent and rare events.  During that time, 13 shootings occurred at HBCUs, killing four students and injuring another 12 victims, 11 being students.

While change did occur during the Obama presidency, it wasn’t hopeful change we can (or even should) believe in.  Empirical data of shootings at HBCUs, available at www.schoolshootingdatabase.com, have uncovered that during the eight years of the Obama administration, shootings at HBCUs surged 430% (in roughly 28 less years) to 56 shootings, with gunfire killing 12 and injuring 66 more.  Ten of the 12 victims (83%) killed during the Obama presidency were students, as were 39 (59%) of the injured.

The chart below shows that during President Obama’s eight-year reign as commander-in-chief, gun deaths at HBCUs spiked 300%, and gun injuries went up by 550% from the previous 36 years.

Shootings at HBCUs Throughout the Years

Eras	Time Span	Number of Years	Number of Shootings	Number of Victims Killed	Number of Victims Injured
HBCU Shootings During Pre-Civil Rights Era	1918–1953	35	1	1	0
HBCU Protest Shootings During the Civil Rights Era	1954–1972	18	5	8	40
Post–Civil Rights Era (36 years before Obama Administration)	1973–1981	9	1	0	1
	1982–1990	9	1	1	0
	1991–1999	9	2	0	5
	2000–2008*	9	9	3	6
Obama Administration	January 20, 2009 to Jan 19, 2017	8	56	12	66
Trump Administration	January 20, 2017 to Present Day	3	12	4	8
Totals	–	101	87	29	126

*During the Bush administration, eight shootings occurred, killing two and injuring six.

When comparing the Obama administration’s record on gun violence at HBCUs to that of its predecessor, the Bush administration, the numbers surge to a 700% increase.  During the eight years of the Bush administration, eight shootings occurred at HBCUs, killing two and injuring six.  Only eight months into President Obama’s first term in office, two students were shot and killed, and 19 others received gunshot injuries in eight shootings at HBCUs, eclipsing the eight shootings that happened during the entire two-term Bush presidency.

Even the racial tensions at HBCUs during the Civil Rights Era don’t compare to the devastation brought to HBCUs by the Obama presidency.  HBCUs endured five high-profile racially motivated shootings by law enforcement during Civil Rights protests with eight people getting shot and killed, 40 receiving gunshot wounds, and scores more getting roughed up and injured in the race riots.  It’s profoundly sad and ironic that the 56 shootings at HBCUs that occurred during the eight years of the Obama Administration are 11 times greater than the number of shootings that occurred at HBCUs in nearly 20 years of turbulent racial hatred of the Civil Rights Era.

Most of the shootings at HBCUs are incidents that arise from fights over petty grievances, involve gangs, or are crimes stemming from drugs or robberies.  Rival gangs from Missouri City and Fresno, about 30 to 40 minutes away from Texas Southern University, were responsible for a drive-by shooting that occurred at TSU during a concert and community rally that “featured a voter registration drive, HIV testing and appearances by Houston rapper Trae the Truth” that injured eight people, ages 14 to 21, including one male TSU student.

With all the violence that HBCU students are constantly subjected to, students at the time, like 19-year-old freshman at TSU Daijsa Fowls, are left to ask, “How do you study and watch your back?  Daijsa also said, “A bullet has no name.  It can happen to anybody.”  Another TSU student fearing for her safety, Kendra Horn, also voiced her concerns, stating, “It’s literally here in front of our faces. I can’t feel safe walking all the way to class; how am I supposed to focus in class without thinking I’m going to get shot?”

To better understand the depth of the plague of shootings at HBCUs during Obama’s tenure in the White House, the list below illustrates 34 shootings that occurred at 11 HBCUs while President Obama was in office.  Sometimes the frequency of the shootings is a matter of years, months, weeks, or even days.  It is also important to keep in mind that students also have to be concerned with shootings that happen just off campus and in the surrounding area, which occur even more frequently than on-campus shootings.

HBCUs With Multiple Shootings during Obama Administration

Langston University: 5 Shootings

August 16, 2009: 4 Injured
September 28, 2009: None Injured or Killed
October 14, 2010: 1 Injured
October 18, 2014: 1 Injured
October 15, 2015: None Injured or Killed

Lane College: 5 Shootings

September 16, 2011: 1 Injured
February 1, 2012: 1 Killed
September 17, 2013: None Injured or Killed
April 2, 2015: 1 Injured
December 18, 2015: None Injured or Killed

Texas Southern University: 4 Shootings

July 22, 2009: 8 Injured
August 26, 2015: 1 Killed, 1 Injured
October 6, 2015: 1 Injured
October 9, 2015: 1 Killed, 1 Injured

Elizabeth City State University: 4 Shootings

November 5, 2011: Assailant injured by law enforcement
April 11, 2013: None Injured or Killed
April 13, 2013: 1 Injured
October 8, 2014: None Injured or Killed

Savannah State University: 3 Shootings

September 21, 2013: 1 Killed
September 5, 2014: 1 Injured
August 27, 2015: 1 Killed

Tennessee State University: 3 Shootings

May 18, 2009: 1 Killed, 1 Injured
January 28, 2014: 1 Injured
October 22, 2015: 1 Killed, 3 Injured

Morgan State University: 2 Shootings

September 12, 2012: 1 Injured
November 3, 2012: 1 Injured

Bethune-Cookman University: 2 Shootings

February 23, 2015: 1 Injured
March 29, 2015: 1 Injured

Paine College: 2 Shootings

May 4, 2015: 1 Injured
May 5, 2015: 1 Injured

Delaware State University: 2 Shootings

February 13, 2009: 2 Injured
April 13, 2015: 3 Injured

Grambling State University: *2 Shootings

April 16, 2013: 3 Injured
*January 28, 2015

*alleged shooting — “The Gramblinite, the student newspaper of Grambling State University, tweeted that the university was on lockdown due to an allege(d) campus shooting.”

Gun violence wasn’t the only destructive force HBCUs suffered through under the navigation of President Obama.  Devastating budget cuts and low enrollment also hindered the prosperity of HBCUs while President Obama was in office.  Even though the Bush administration had designated $85 million for HBCUs, within months of becoming commander-in chief, President Obama decided not to renew the “$85 million pot of money earmarked for HBCUs by his Republican predecessor.”  Obama’s failure to financially support HBCUs also led economist Julianne Malveaux, who was the president of Bennett College in North Carolina at the time to ask, “Why is it that a recalcitrant Bush would do more for HBCUs than an ostensibly sympathetic Obama would?”

From 2000 to 2008, HBCUs “received on average 3.5 percent of federal money going to institutions of higher education,” but by 2013, even as the overall federal higher education budget grew, the HBCU share was down to 2.8 percent, according to the Thurgood Marshall College Fund, which lobbies for black colleges and supports students with scholarships.”  In February 2015, Hampton University president William Harvey attended a meeting of the White House’s advisory board and “delivered some blunt criticism” of the Obama administration’s poor treatment of HBCUs.  Harvey, who is the advisory board chair, said, “We are not consulted when it comes to policy changes and decisions impacting — in a major way — the institutions on whose behalf we are to advocate. Overall support to black colleges is down.”

After HBCUs were forsaken by the Obama administration for eight years, the former Thurgood Marshall College Fund president and CEO, Johnny C. Taylor, pointed out the difference between the Obama and Trump administrations.  After President Trump signed an executive order titled “The Presidential Executive Order on the White House Initiative to Promote Excellence and Innovation at Historically Black Colleges and Universities” in just 45 days once he took office in 2017, Taylor explained that President Trump’s actions were “something that, frankly, the black college community assumed would have been easily accomplished with the first African-American president, and after over eight years of repeated requests, to think that within 45 days of his presidency we were able to convene all of the [HBCU] presidents in the Oval Office [Monday] and [on Tuesday] a subset of us were able to come back and sign the executive order the same day that the [president] is preparing for first State of the Union address. [That] gives this tremendous importance. It’s bittersweet, but at the end of the day, we focus on the sweet.”

As 2019 comes to an end, President Trump also signed the FUTURE Act, which is a “bipartisan amendment to a bill that would permanently re-authorize millions of dollars in federal funding to historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs) and other minority-serving institutions (MSIs) for a decade.”

How did the Obama administration honestly hope to effect real positive change for HBCUs without addressing the skyrocketing gun violence during its two terms in office and by slashing their already strapped budgets?  After the Sandy Hook tragedy, President Obama could be seen wiping away a single tear in a press conference as he predictably pushed for the agenda of gun control.  How come President Obama didn’t hold a press conference or shed any tears for any of the HBCU victims and their families as an epidemic of shootings at HBCUs surged under his leadership?  Were tears not appropriate for the 12 people killed and 66 others who received gunshot wounds under the neglect of President Obama’s tenure?

Ironically, President Obama’s idea of “Hope and Change” increased shootings at HBCUs by seven times and put black American students at risk of being killed threefold and 11 times more likely to be injured from gun violence under his leadership compared to the previous eight years of the Bush administration.  What does President Obama leaving behind a legacy of neglect, less money, and more violence for HBCUs, a cornerstone of the black community, say about America’s first black president?  President Obama’s tattered legacy of dereliction, financial neglect, and escalating violence for HBCUs has proved that the Trump administration is the real driving force for actual “Hope and Change” at HBCUs, as opposed to the never-ending line of empty and broken promises of the Obama administration.

Image: Ari Levinson via Wikimedia Commons.

Megan Rapinoe’s roaring again.  The International Olympic Committee published new rules that prohibit “political, religious or racial propaganda” “at medal ceremonies and Olympic venues,” and Rapinoe says she “will not be silenced.”  She later added that she will kneel anyway, which would force the IOC to enforce its rules or back down.

Not one for fine distinctions, Megan understands the world only in relation to herself and, as usual, completely misses the point.  The IOC said nothing about silence.  They said she couldn’t use the Olympic stage to push politics.  You can noisily talk about anything else — your girlfriend, the state of soccer, the game you just played, your house, your car, your dog.  Just don’t use the Olympics to push politics.  That would include kneeling.

If you get to do it, then everybody gets to do it, and in short order, WWIII would erupt.

But that’s okay, Megan — keep running your face.  It would give many of us satisfaction to see this woman barred from play at Tokyo in 2020 because of her obnoxiousness.  She’s trying to bend the world to her will and we don’t like it.  We don’t like her scowling mug, her snotty comments, her arrogance, or her presumption.  Those of us who follow soccer may like to watch her play, but we turn the channel when the interviews begin.

It remains for the IOC to show that it has the scrote to keep Megan off the field.  She will doubtless be joined by some of her teammates on the U.S. women’s soccer team.  That may be when Megs notices that America really doesn’t care much about her crusade.  Not only Americans — nobody else much cares, either.  Women’s soccer just isn’t popular the way men’s soccer is.  That’s nobody’s fault.  Not Megan’s, not mine, not the IOC’s.  That’s just how it is.

Megan, you get paid right well to do something you love to do.  Many of us don’t have that privilege.  If you don’t like your job, do something else.

Image: Jamie Smed via Flickr (cropped).

Megan Rapinoe’s roaring again.  The International Olympic Committee published new rules that prohibit “political, religious or racial propaganda” “at medal ceremonies and Olympic venues,” and Rapinoe says she “will not be silenced.”  She later added that she will kneel anyway, which would force the IOC to enforce its rules or back down.

Not one for fine distinctions, Megan understands the world only in relation to herself and, as usual, completely misses the point.  The IOC said nothing about silence.  They said she couldn’t use the Olympic stage to push politics.  You can noisily talk about anything else — your girlfriend, the state of soccer, the game you just played, your house, your car, your dog.  Just don’t use the Olympics to push politics.  That would include kneeling.

If you get to do it, then everybody gets to do it, and in short order, WWIII would erupt.

But that’s okay, Megan — keep running your face.  It would give many of us satisfaction to see this woman barred from play at Tokyo in 2020 because of her obnoxiousness.  She’s trying to bend the world to her will and we don’t like it.  We don’t like her scowling mug, her snotty comments, her arrogance, or her presumption.  Those of us who follow soccer may like to watch her play, but we turn the channel when the interviews begin.

It remains for the IOC to show that it has the scrote to keep Megan off the field.  She will doubtless be joined by some of her teammates on the U.S. women’s soccer team.  That may be when Megs notices that America really doesn’t care much about her crusade.  Not only Americans — nobody else much cares, either.  Women’s soccer just isn’t popular the way men’s soccer is.  That’s nobody’s fault.  Not Megan’s, not mine, not the IOC’s.  That’s just how it is.

Megan, you get paid right well to do something you love to do.  Many of us don’t have that privilege.  If you don’t like your job, do something else.

Image: Jamie Smed via Flickr (cropped).

Amazon named the forthcoming investigative blockbuster Profiles in Corruption: Abuse of Power by America’s Progressive Elite its “most anticipated” nonfiction book for the week of January 12.

“MOST ANTICIPATED—There were more pre-orders for Profiles in Corruption than any other book on this list,” stated Amazon Charts.

Slated to hit bookstores nationwide on January 21, Profiles in Corruption by Government Accountability Institute President and Breitbart senior contributor Peter Schweizer hit #1 in Amazon 10 days before its official release. The book is said to contain never-before-published revelations about Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Joe Biden, Eric Garcetti, Kamala Harris, Sherrod Brown, and Amy Klobuchar—several of whom are featured on the book’s cover.

On Monday, Sean Hannity announced that he plans to launch the book on his show.

“Our friend Peter Schweizer, I have learned, has his new book coming out one week from tomorrow. He will launch it one week from today on this show. It’s Profiles in Corruption,” Hannity said. “It hit #1 on Amazon ten days before the release. You know why? Look how ahead of the curve he was on so many other occasions. I mean, he does a lot of really good work. He was the first one to discover the Clinton Foundation, Burisma Holdings, etc.”

According to Axios’s Mike Allen, Profiles in Corruption took Schweizer and his GAI team of investigators a year and a half to research. Amazon says the book numbers 368 pages in length.