90 Miles From Tyranny

infinite scrolling

Tuesday, July 23, 2019

Stupid Politically Correct Decisions from Our Public Schools



There has been a concerted attempt over the past several years by progressive teachers and school administrators to unilaterally make decisions about eradicating vestiges of our culture, because they alone have determined that these symbols or icons of the past may be offensive to others. This disconcerting practice by progressive vanguards has become more prevalent and absurd, the latest example manifested in Colin Kaepernick's suddenly taking offense at Nike's use of a Betsy Ross colonial flag emblem on one of its shoe models.

Recently, the San Francisco School Board voted to remove a mural of George Washington at one of its public schools because they divined it racist and degrading for its depiction of black Americans and American Indians.

The rationale offered for the mural's removal is instructive, as it reveals not only the pernicious nature of the identity politics underpinnings of modern-day progressivism, but also the inevitable censorship practices that logically flow from a philosophy that views America as an irredeemably racist country.

Here is the justification offered by vice president of the school board and third-grade teacher Mark Sanchez for ridding the school of the image of the nation's founding father, without consulting the student body, parents, or other members of the community. Sanchez claimed that students who must walk past the mural during the school day don't have a choice about seeing the harmful images. "Painting it over represents not only a symbolic fresh start, but a real fresh start," he said.


A question arises: how many students told Sanchez the image of George Washington that has adorned the school for 83 years was harmful? In a progressive world, the question answers itself: there is no need to demonstrate any actual harm sustained by any students. For identity-politics progressives, all that is needed for the whimsical exercise of their notion of social justice is the mere likelihood — however remote — that the historical image could cause harm, if not in the present, then in the indeterminate future or, perhaps, for students not yet born.

For Sanchez, "[t]he starting point has to be from those who feel they are harmed and how that is unacceptable, especially given the history of this country. When we don't listen, we don't learn." If only one student is offended by the image, for progressives, that is a sufficient reason to spend $600,000 of the taxpayers' money to remedy the injury by extirpating the historical image of George Washington.

Other instances of this type of monumental progressive silliness abound.

In 2016, Principal Scott Masini of Bruce Vento Elementary School, in Minnesota, whose student body is overwhelmingly nonwhite, decided on his own to eliminate all traditional Christian holidays, including Valentine's Day. His rationale for taking it upon himself to implement such draconian measures? Masini stated, "My personal feeling is, we need to find a way to honor and engage in holidays that are inclusive of our...

"You Cannot Sleep Next To A Mad Dog"


When Peaceful Monks Cannot Coexist With Muslims...





Trans Activist With Penis Organizes Topless Swimming Session For Girls as Young as 12, Parents Not Allowed to be Present

Isn't she lovely? And so deadly. Her kiss is fifteen times as poisonous as that of the Rattlesnake.


Jessica Yaniv filed human rights complaints against fifteen female beauticians for refusing to wax her penis and balls.

A trans activist who gained notoriety for attempting to force beauticians to wax their balls and penis is now arranging a swimming session for girls as young as 12 where parents will not be allowed to be present.

Yes, really.

Jessica Yaniv, who was born a man, has filed complaints with the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal against fifteen female aestheticians for their refusal to wax her male genitalia.

The controversy prompted comedian Ricky Gervais to wade into the debate.

“How did we get to the point where women are having to fight for the right to choose whether they wax some big old hairy cock & balls or not? It is not a human right to have your meat & 2 veg polished,” tweeted Gervais, who was accused of “transphobia” for defending a woman’s right not to wax male genitalia.

How did we get to the point where women are having to fight for the right to choose whether they wax some big old hairy cock & balls or not? It is not a human right to have your meat & 2 veg polished.
8,648 people are talking about this
But the situation gets even more bizarre.

Yaniv has now organized a “youth all bodies swim” event at the Al Anderson Memorial Pool in Langley, British Columbia. The promotional material for the event states, “Parents and/or caregivers are not permitted in...

Scarlett Johansson Flap Shows How Identity Politics Could Ruin Acting



Actors make a living portraying other people’s identities. It’s what they do, and they’ve done it for millennia.

Yet today, loud voices for political correctness are seeking to redraw the lines of acceptable identity portrayal.

The question is: Who has the right to play who on the big screen? Political correctness says: Only actors with the right identity and lived experience.

Scarlett Johansson has become Exhibit A in this debate.

First, she took flak in 2017 for playing a Japanese character in the live-action remake of the 1995 anime film “Ghost in the Shell.” The following year, controversy erupted when she accepted the role of a transgender character in “Rub and Tug.” Many thought that role should have gone to a real trans person.

Succumbing to public pressure, she withdrew from the role, and in doing so she hit the predictable PC notes:
Our cultural understanding of transgender people continues to advance, and I’ve learned a lot from the community since making my first statement about my casting and realize it was insensitive.

I have great admiration and love for the trans community and am grateful that the conversation regarding inclusivity in Hollywood continues.
But it hardly ended there.

In a more recent interview with As If magazine, Johansson may have let her true feelings slip. She expressed regret at losing the role, saying she “should be allowed to play any person, or any tree, or any animal because that is my job and the requirements of my job.”

Of political correctness, she said:
I feel like it’s a trend in my business, and it needs to happen for various social reasons, yet there are times it does get uncomfortable when it affects the art because I feel art should be free of restrictions.
But soon after those comments went public, she clarified yet again, saying they were taken out of context:
I personally feel that, in an ideal world, any actor should be able to play anybody, and art, in all forms, should be immune to political correctness. I recognize that in reality, there is a widespread discrepancy amongst my industry that favors Caucasian, cisgender actors, and that not every actor has been given the same opportunities that I have been privileged to.
Johansson is clearly caught between two poles: the acting profession as it’s always been, and the ascendant moral code of identity politics—and the two cannot both win out.

No doubt, you might be thinking, “So what if she’s not actually transgender? If she plays the role well, if it’s compelling, who cares what she is in real life? That’s the nature of...

Morning Mistress

The 90 Miles Mystery Box: Episode #691


You have come across a mystery box. But what is inside? 
It could be literally anything from the serene to the horrific, 
from the beautiful to the repugnant, 
from the mysterious to the familiar.

If you decide to open it, you could be disappointed, 
you could be inspired, you could be appalled. 

This is not for the faint of heart or the easily offended. 
You have been warned.

Hot Pick Of The Late Night

Monday, July 22, 2019

Girls With Guns

Blogs With Rule 5 Links

These Blogs Provide Links To Rule 5 Sites:

The Other McCain has: Rule 5 Sunday: Kathy Zhu
Proof Positive has: Best Of Web Link Around
The Woodsterman has: Rule 5 Woodsterman Style
EBL has: Rule 5 And FMJRA
The Right Way has: Rule 5 Saturday LinkORama
The Pirate's Cove has: Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup

Remember That Time When Ilhan Omar Supported Voter Fraud?



Happy Anniversary To Ilhan Omar And Her BrotherHusband!

Democrats Cheered When They Deported This Child Refugee To An Oppressive Regime...


Comey Under DOJ Investigation For Misleading Trump While Targeting Him In FBI Probe



Former FBI Director James Comey has been under investigation for misleading President Trump - telling him in private that he wasn't the target of an ongoing FBI probe, while refusing to admit to this in public.

According to RealClearInvestigations' Paul Sperry, "Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz will file a report in September which contains evidence that Comey was misleading the president" while conducting an active investigation against him.
Even as he repeatedly assured Trump that he was not a target, the former director was secretly trying to build a conspiracy case against the president, while at times acting as an investigative agent. -RCI
According to two US officials familiar with Horowitz's upcoming report on FBI misconduct, Comey was essentially "running a covert operation" against Trump - which began with a private "defensive briefing" shortly after the inauguration. RCI's sources say that Horowitz has pored over text messages between the FBI's former top-brass and other communications suggesting that Comey was in fact conducting a "counterintelligence assessment" of the president during their January 2017 meeting in New York.

What's more, Comey had an FBI agent in the White House who reported the activities of Trump and his aides, according to 'other officials familiar with the matter.' 
The agent, Anthony Ferrante, who specialized in cyber crime, left the White House around the same time Comey was fired and soon joined a security consulting firm, where he contracted with BuzzFeed to lead the news site's efforts to verify the Steele dossier, in connection with a defamation lawsuit. -RCI
According to the report, Horowitz and his team have examined over 1 million documents and conducted over 100 interviews - including sit-downs with Comey and other current and former FBI and DOJ employees. "The period covering Comey’s activities is believed to run from early January 2017 to early May 2017, when Comey was fired and his deputy Andrew McCabe, as the acting FBI director, formally opened full counterintelligence and obstruction investigations of the president."
McCabe’s deputy, Lisa Page, appeared to dissemble last year when asked in closed-door testimony before the House Judiciary Committee if Comey and other FBI brass discussed opening an obstruction case against Trump prior to his firing in May 2017. Initially, she flatly denied it, swearing: “Obstruction of justice was not a topic of conversation during the time frame you have described.” But then, after conferring with her FBI-assigned lawyer, she announced: “I need to take back my prior statement.” Page later conceded that there could have been at least “discussions about potential criminal activity” involving the president. -RCI

Comey coordination

Sperry notes that Comey wasn't working in isolation on the Trump effort. In particular, Horowitz has looked at the January 6, 2017 briefing on the infamous 'Steele Dossier' - a meeting which was used by BuzzFeed, CNN and others to legitimize reporting on the dossier's salacious and unsubstantiated claims.

Comey’s meeting with Trump took place one day after the FBI director met in the Oval Office with President Obama and Vice President Joe Biden to discuss how to brief Trump — a meeting attended by National Security Adviser Susan Rice, Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson, Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates and National Intelligence Director James Clapper, who would soon go to work for CNN. -RCI

While Comey claims in his book, "A Higher Loyalty" that he didn't have "a counterintelligence case file open on [Trump]," former federal prosecutor and National Review columnist Andrew McCarthy notes that just because Trump's name wasn't on a formal file or surveillance warrant doesn't mean that he wasn't under investigation.

"They were hoping to surveil him incidentally, and they were trying to make a case on him," said McCarthy. "The real reason Comey did not want to repeat publicly the assurances he made to Trump privately is....