Day: July 18, 2017

1500363620699.jpg

Washington state enacts new 'E-DUI' law for driving under the influence of phones


A new law in Washington State kicks in next week that imposes stiff penalties against those who drive under the influence…of electronics.

The new distracted driving law, referred to as “E-DUI,” goes into effect Sunday in the Evergreen State. Drivers will no longer be able to use a cell phone or any electronic device while driving, even when stopped at a traffic light. The bill was drafted in response to a 32 percent increase in deaths from distracted driving from 2014 to 2015.

“Put the cell phones down, preserve life,” Gov. Jay Inslee said on the steps of the Capitol in Olympia, according to Q13 Fox.

Inslee says the bill is called “electronic driving while impaired” for a reason.

“When you are driving with a cell phone, you are a more dangerous driver than if you are driving drunk with a .08 blood alcohol level,” he said.

State troopers will give out warnings for the first few months before tickets get written. The first citation will cost drivers $136. A second citation within five years of the first one will increase to $236.

Tickets issued for driving while using hand-held electronics will go on a motorist’s record and reported to their insurance provider, according to a website set up by the state explaining the new law.

The E-DUI prevents drivers from using their phone at nearly any time while they are behind the wheel—even if they are stopped in traffic or waiting for a red light.

Inslee says he expects this law to be as successful as the “click it, or ticket” seatbelt law that now has 95 percent compliance in the state.

“There’s hardly anything we’ve done in the last several years at the state Capitol to save more lives than this distracted driving law,” said Inslee.

Under the new law, drivers can also get a $99 ticket for other types of distractions like grooming, smoking, eating or reading if it interferes with safe driving and you are pulled over for another traffic offense.



Source link

694940094001_5510833009001_5510811037001-vs.jpg

Key Obama officials scrutinized in 'unmasking' probe – VIDEO: Rice expected to be grilled on unmasking


The number of people thought to be involved in the alleged “unmasking” of American citizens under the Obama administration could be expanding, according to a source close to the House Intelligence Committee’s review.

The source with knowledge of the review told Fox News the records suggest the unmasking “goes beyond” key officials like former National Security Adviser Susan Rice, former CIA Director John Brennan and former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Samantha Power.

The source said more than a half-dozen former senior Obama administration officials are now of interest to House committee investigators.

Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, R-Calif., issued subpoenas in May to the CIA, FBI and NSA for records about the identification of American citizens in intelligence reports, also known as “unmasking.”

The subpoenas covered 2016 and were issued after allegations Rice and others unmasked associates of now-President Trump. Fox News is told the agencies have now “fully complied.”

While Nunes has taken himself out of the committee’s Russia inquiry following an ethics complaint which he has denied, the chairman remains involved in the unmasking inquiry. Committee Democrats have criticized Nunes for issuing subpoenas in his current capacity.

Separately, the committee has been preparing to hear from Rice in a closed-door session as early as Tuesday, though the former national security adviser is no longer expected to testify that day.

The “unmasking” issue is likely to be a central focus of her eventual testimony.

The source said some of the unmasking in question could be routine – though other requests appeared “unwarranted” and will require “more explanation.” The source said House investigators are only at the beginning of their assessment and described the paper trail as containing “a significant number of records.”

The congressional scrutiny at this stage does not mean investigators have concluded any official violated the law or internal regulations.

Rice spokeswoman Erin Pelton previously told the Associated Press that Rice is cooperating with House and Senate intelligence committees.

Rice in March had told PBS she “knew nothing” about Trump associate unmasking.

But in early April, she acknowledged she asked for the identities of U.S. citizens in intelligence reports, while defending those requests as routine and denying leaking any Trump-related information.

“I leaked nothing to nobody, and never have,” she told MSNBC.

Catherine Herridge is an award-winning Chief Intelligence correspondent for FOX News Channel (FNC) based in Washington, D.C. She covers intelligence, the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security. Herridge joined FNC in 1996 as a London-based correspondent.



Source link

The Tyranny of Pseudo-Science


The hysterical reaction of the left to Scott Pruitt’s plan to create two competing teams of scientists to study from opposite positions the left’s pet myth, man-made global warming, shows just how anti-science the left has become.  The left is a single, stupid collective mind that is utterly incapable of truly independent and free thought.  The left is very much like the Inner Party in Orwell’s classic, 1984, where party members believe things that are obviously not true and in which dissent is – quite literally – unthinkable.

All totalitarianism purports to rest upon “science,” and all totalitarian science slavishly follows what the state and the party of statism desire.  Institutions are inevitably infiltrated by leftists and used to rubber-stamp whatever the state wants.  Ben Stein in his documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed showed how any academicians who question Darwin’s increasingly silly theory of evolution by natural selection are hounded, denied tenure, and even fired for questioning authority and deviating from orthodoxy.

The drones turned out by academia who willingly put on blinders and indifferently accept as scientific dogma whatever the left wishes are not scientists, whatever credentials institutions may give them.  They are simply cadres or hacks who reject scientific inquiry and embrace political correctness by blessing it as “science.”

Global warming is a perfect example of how this works.  Leftists parrot the line of “settled science,” oblivious to the fact that “settled science” is murdered science.  Science is a process, not a result, and science demands that conventional opinion be rigorously questioned.  The true scientists are those who do just that, but institutions vomit these true scientists out and recoil in horror that anyone dare question the party line.

The history of science has often been the history of a Newton or Maxwell or Kelvin or Einstein or Heisenberg proposing new explanations for phenomena that turned “settled science” on its head.  The consensus opinion of scientists has been wrong so often that it is a wonder that anyone who professes to be a “scientist” would ever present this sort of “majority rules” science as anything but comedy.

It is a sad commentary on life today that the will of the majority permeates almost everything we do as social creatures, including, now, the pseudo-science of institutionalized “science.”  As sad as that is – because it means the death of real science – it is frightening that so many political leaders have so suspended any critical thinking or independent reflection that they follow the herd mentality even in this area.

What conservatives ought to do is push hard for Scott Pruitt to produce two teams that critique seriously global warming.  Conservatives also ought to push this approach for a whole raft of issues that have been presumably resolved by scientists dedicated to and beholden to institutions. 

Why not have two teams of biologists and related disciplines each marshal the best arguments for and against evolution by Darwinian natural selection?  Why not have the Department of Education create two opposing teams to study the relative merits of public education and homeschooling?  Why not have two teams of economists, historians, and statisticians examine the success or failure of Keynesian economics?

So many things have been foisted on us without any real scientific method at all simply to conform to the party line of leftism.  Homosexuality is deemed normal, though psychologists and psychiatrists several decades ago believed just the opposite.  DDT was banned (and hundreds of millions of innocents in the Third World doomed) because the pop science of Rachel Carson went unchallenged – why not review that finding through competing arguments of teams of zoologists and related experts?  Many other topics could be put on this list.

The real benefit of this that if it can be shown that again and again, “science” is simply the tyranny of pseudo-science, then the whole rotten structure of modern academia can be forced into contrition and reform, assuming that we even need academia any longer.  All the awful and failed government policies based upon this pseudo-science could be thrown into the dustbin of history, along with the racial “science” of the Nazis and the bogus botany of the Soviet charlatan Lysenko.

At the federal level and at the state level, where Republicans dominate most states, this ought to be a high priority.  The danger of going with the slothful, craven flow of pseudo-science is great, and the blessings of debunking it are profound.

The hysterical reaction of the left to Scott Pruitt’s plan to create two competing teams of scientists to study from opposite positions the left’s pet myth, man-made global warming, shows just how anti-science the left has become.  The left is a single, stupid collective mind that is utterly incapable of truly independent and free thought.  The left is very much like the Inner Party in Orwell’s classic, 1984, where party members believe things that are obviously not true and in which dissent is – quite literally – unthinkable.

All totalitarianism purports to rest upon “science,” and all totalitarian science slavishly follows what the state and the party of statism desire.  Institutions are inevitably infiltrated by leftists and used to rubber-stamp whatever the state wants.  Ben Stein in his documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed showed how any academicians who question Darwin’s increasingly silly theory of evolution by natural selection are hounded, denied tenure, and even fired for questioning authority and deviating from orthodoxy.

The drones turned out by academia who willingly put on blinders and indifferently accept as scientific dogma whatever the left wishes are not scientists, whatever credentials institutions may give them.  They are simply cadres or hacks who reject scientific inquiry and embrace political correctness by blessing it as “science.”

Global warming is a perfect example of how this works.  Leftists parrot the line of “settled science,” oblivious to the fact that “settled science” is murdered science.  Science is a process, not a result, and science demands that conventional opinion be rigorously questioned.  The true scientists are those who do just that, but institutions vomit these true scientists out and recoil in horror that anyone dare question the party line.

The history of science has often been the history of a Newton or Maxwell or Kelvin or Einstein or Heisenberg proposing new explanations for phenomena that turned “settled science” on its head.  The consensus opinion of scientists has been wrong so often that it is a wonder that anyone who professes to be a “scientist” would ever present this sort of “majority rules” science as anything but comedy.

It is a sad commentary on life today that the will of the majority permeates almost everything we do as social creatures, including, now, the pseudo-science of institutionalized “science.”  As sad as that is – because it means the death of real science – it is frightening that so many political leaders have so suspended any critical thinking or independent reflection that they follow the herd mentality even in this area.

What conservatives ought to do is push hard for Scott Pruitt to produce two teams that critique seriously global warming.  Conservatives also ought to push this approach for a whole raft of issues that have been presumably resolved by scientists dedicated to and beholden to institutions. 

Why not have two teams of biologists and related disciplines each marshal the best arguments for and against evolution by Darwinian natural selection?  Why not have the Department of Education create two opposing teams to study the relative merits of public education and homeschooling?  Why not have two teams of economists, historians, and statisticians examine the success or failure of Keynesian economics?

So many things have been foisted on us without any real scientific method at all simply to conform to the party line of leftism.  Homosexuality is deemed normal, though psychologists and psychiatrists several decades ago believed just the opposite.  DDT was banned (and hundreds of millions of innocents in the Third World doomed) because the pop science of Rachel Carson went unchallenged – why not review that finding through competing arguments of teams of zoologists and related experts?  Many other topics could be put on this list.

The real benefit of this that if it can be shown that again and again, “science” is simply the tyranny of pseudo-science, then the whole rotten structure of modern academia can be forced into contrition and reform, assuming that we even need academia any longer.  All the awful and failed government policies based upon this pseudo-science could be thrown into the dustbin of history, along with the racial “science” of the Nazis and the bogus botany of the Soviet charlatan Lysenko.

At the federal level and at the state level, where Republicans dominate most states, this ought to be a high priority.  The danger of going with the slothful, craven flow of pseudo-science is great, and the blessings of debunking it are profound.



Source link

British Muslims Fund Terror, Says UK Government Report


The British Home Office have just clarified something which many British people have known for well over a decade: that Islamists and terrorists are being funded by ordinary British Muslims to the tune of hundreds of thousands of pounds a year.

That means that this isn’t about the usual extremist British Islamic organisations which have already been well-documented. This is about people who may well pass for “ordinary” or even “moderate” Muslims. 

Many people have also known — for a long time — that Islamic charities are often fundraisers for Islamic terror. Indeed the report includes the information that Islamic organisations pose as charities because charity — though only for fellow Muslims and Islamic causes — is very big in Muslim communities. Thus, it’s all very late in the day for the British Government to decide to work with the Charity Commission on these issues. However, better late than never.

As the Home Office put it, pro-terror money is coming from small, anonymous public donations. According to the British Home Secretary, Amber Rudd:

“In some cases, these organisations receive hundreds of thousands of pounds a year. This is the main source of income.”

Rudd also said that the report (which was commissioned in 2015 by David Cameron)

“gives us the best picture we have ever had of how extremists operating in the UK sustain their activities”.

However, Rudd has decided not to publish the report for reasons of “national security” and also because it contains a lot of “personal information.”

Rather predictably, the Labour Shadow Home Secretary, Diane Abbott, chose to make a party-political point about all this; rather than a point about what can be called “the enemy within.” After all, the enemy within has brown skin; whereas the Tory Party is white. Thus, Abbott tells is that there’s a “strong suspicion” that facts are being

“suppressed to protect this Government’s trade and diplomatic priorities, including in relation to Saudi Arabia”.

(The Green Party — which, just like a melon, is green on the outside and red on the inside — has got in on the act. Caroline Lucas also attacked the Tories for withholding information.)

What Dianne Abbott fails to mention is that Rudd also stated that the report contains lots of personal information about British Muslims. That would mean that if that personal information were made public, then lots of British Muslims would be put under the spotlight. Now, I wonder how the anti-white anti-racist Diane Abbott would respond to that? Would she — and other Labourites — talk about “Islamophobia” and the “victimisation of the Muslim community?” After all, Rudd is white and most Muslims are brown.

Saudi Arabia has just been mentioned.

This is the latest British left-wing sport: tying literally all Islamic extremism and terror (including ISIS and the attacks in England) to Saudi Arabia. Now why is this the case and why is it such a recent phenomenon in left-wing circles? Again, for party-political reasons; not for a genuine antipathy towards Islamic terror or Saudi Arabia. More concretely, the Corbynite Left decided to make a big deal about the government’s close relations to Saudi Arabia during Jeremy Corbyn’s election campaign. (These relations are no closer today than they were during any other previous British government.) Thus, to the Left, this isn’t at all about Islam or Saudi Arabia. It’s actually all about the Tories.

Saudi Arabia is indeed important in the terror stakes. Very important. Nonetheless, so too is Iran. Iran has been funding terror and carrying out terror attacks since 1979. Some of those attacks occurred as far away as Argentina (two large-scale attacks), Paris, Brussels, Bahrain, Kuwait, Panama, London (against Salman Rushdie), Saudi Arabia, Kenya, Tanzania, India, Israel, Bulgaria, etc. Iran was also responsible for the attacks in Beirut in the 1980s and other Lebanese bombings which — over all — claimed hundreds of lives.

Labour’s Jeremy Corbyn and the Stop the War Coalition (which he led until he became leader of the Labour Party) are big fans of Iran. Iran is at war with Saudi Arabia. (You work it out!) Indeed, some of the StWC’s leaders are also big fans of Bashar Assad’s Socialist Ba’ath Party! Then again, other StWC leaders have said positive things about the Soviet Union, Mao’s China, and, believe it or not, North Korea.

Paul Austin Murphy is a writer on politics and philosophy. He’s had articles published in The Conservative Online, Intellectual Conservative, Human Events, Faith Freedom, Think-Israel, Brenner Brief (Broadside News), New English Review, etc. His philosophy blog can be found here. His blog on politics can be found here. 

(Image: A Byzantine-era Saracen army.)

The British Home Office have just clarified something which many British people have known for well over a decade: that Islamists and terrorists are being funded by ordinary British Muslims to the tune of hundreds of thousands of pounds a year.

That means that this isn’t about the usual extremist British Islamic organisations which have already been well-documented. This is about people who may well pass for “ordinary” or even “moderate” Muslims. 

Many people have also known — for a long time — that Islamic charities are often fundraisers for Islamic terror. Indeed the report includes the information that Islamic organisations pose as charities because charity — though only for fellow Muslims and Islamic causes — is very big in Muslim communities. Thus, it’s all very late in the day for the British Government to decide to work with the Charity Commission on these issues. However, better late than never.

As the Home Office put it, pro-terror money is coming from small, anonymous public donations. According to the British Home Secretary, Amber Rudd:

“In some cases, these organisations receive hundreds of thousands of pounds a year. This is the main source of income.”

Rudd also said that the report (which was commissioned in 2015 by David Cameron)

“gives us the best picture we have ever had of how extremists operating in the UK sustain their activities”.

However, Rudd has decided not to publish the report for reasons of “national security” and also because it contains a lot of “personal information.”

Rather predictably, the Labour Shadow Home Secretary, Diane Abbott, chose to make a party-political point about all this; rather than a point about what can be called “the enemy within.” After all, the enemy within has brown skin; whereas the Tory Party is white. Thus, Abbott tells is that there’s a “strong suspicion” that facts are being

“suppressed to protect this Government’s trade and diplomatic priorities, including in relation to Saudi Arabia”.

(The Green Party — which, just like a melon, is green on the outside and red on the inside — has got in on the act. Caroline Lucas also attacked the Tories for withholding information.)

What Dianne Abbott fails to mention is that Rudd also stated that the report contains lots of personal information about British Muslims. That would mean that if that personal information were made public, then lots of British Muslims would be put under the spotlight. Now, I wonder how the anti-white anti-racist Diane Abbott would respond to that? Would she — and other Labourites — talk about “Islamophobia” and the “victimisation of the Muslim community?” After all, Rudd is white and most Muslims are brown.

Saudi Arabia has just been mentioned.

This is the latest British left-wing sport: tying literally all Islamic extremism and terror (including ISIS and the attacks in England) to Saudi Arabia. Now why is this the case and why is it such a recent phenomenon in left-wing circles? Again, for party-political reasons; not for a genuine antipathy towards Islamic terror or Saudi Arabia. More concretely, the Corbynite Left decided to make a big deal about the government’s close relations to Saudi Arabia during Jeremy Corbyn’s election campaign. (These relations are no closer today than they were during any other previous British government.) Thus, to the Left, this isn’t at all about Islam or Saudi Arabia. It’s actually all about the Tories.

Saudi Arabia is indeed important in the terror stakes. Very important. Nonetheless, so too is Iran. Iran has been funding terror and carrying out terror attacks since 1979. Some of those attacks occurred as far away as Argentina (two large-scale attacks), Paris, Brussels, Bahrain, Kuwait, Panama, London (against Salman Rushdie), Saudi Arabia, Kenya, Tanzania, India, Israel, Bulgaria, etc. Iran was also responsible for the attacks in Beirut in the 1980s and other Lebanese bombings which — over all — claimed hundreds of lives.

Labour’s Jeremy Corbyn and the Stop the War Coalition (which he led until he became leader of the Labour Party) are big fans of Iran. Iran is at war with Saudi Arabia. (You work it out!) Indeed, some of the StWC’s leaders are also big fans of Bashar Assad’s Socialist Ba’ath Party! Then again, other StWC leaders have said positive things about the Soviet Union, Mao’s China, and, believe it or not, North Korea.

Paul Austin Murphy is a writer on politics and philosophy. He’s had articles published in The Conservative Online, Intellectual Conservative, Human Events, Faith Freedom, Think-Israel, Brenner Brief (Broadside News), New English Review, etc. His philosophy blog can be found here. His blog on politics can be found here. 

(Image: A Byzantine-era Saracen army.)



Source link

694940094001_5510833015001_5510824152001-vs.jpg

House budget blueprint boosts military, cuts benefits


House Republicans on Tuesday unveiled a 10-year budget blueprint that would dramatically increase military spending while putting the GOP on record favoring Medicare cuts opposed by President Donald Trump.

The GOP plan, authored by Budget Chairman Diane Black, R-Tenn., would also pave the way for overhauling the U.S. tax code this fall, and would pair that effort with cuts to benefit programs such as food stamps. The plan also lays out a plan to balance the budget inside a decade through deep cuts to a wide swath of domestic programs — though GOP leaders have no intention of actually carrying out the cuts.

Black announced a committee vote for Wednesday, but action by the entire House could be delayed by an ongoing quarrel between the GOP’s tea party and moderate factions over spending cuts.

Medicare is the second largest mandatory program after Social Security, and the House GOP plan again proposes to turn Medicare into a voucher-like program in which future retirees would receive a fixed benefit to purchase health insurance on the open market. Republicans have proposed the idea each year since taking back the House in 2011, but they’ve never tried to implement it — and that’s not going to change now, even with a Republican as president.

The plan, in theory at least, promises to balance the budget through unprecedented and unworkable cuts across the budget. It calls for turning this year’s projected $700 billion or so deficit into a tiny $9 billion surplus by 2027. It would do so by slashing $5.4 trillion over the coming decade, including almost $500 billion from Medicare, $1.5 trillion from Medicaid and the Obama health law, along with enormous cuts to benefits such as federal employee pensions, food stamps, and tax credits for the working poor.

“The status quo is unsustainable. A mounting national debt and lackluster economic growth will limit opportunity for people all across the country,” Black said in a statement. “But we don’t have to accept this reality. We can move forward with an optimistic vision for the future and this budget is the first step in that process. This is the moment to get real results for the American people. The time for talking is over, now is the time for action.”

But in the immediate future the GOP measure is a budget buster. It would add almost $30 billion to Trump’s $668 billion request for national defense, which already exceeds an existing “cap” on spending by $54 billion. But while Trump proposed taking that $54 billion from domestic agencies and foreign aid, the GOP budget plan would restore most of the cuts, trimming non-defense agencies by just $5 billion.

All told, the GOP plan would spend about $67 billion more in the upcoming annual appropriations bills than would be allowed under harsh spending limits set by a failed 2011 budget and debt agreement. And, like Trump’s budget, the House GOP plan assumes rosy economic projections that would erase another $1.5 trillion from the deficit over 10 years.

The measure, called a budget resolution, is nonbinding. It would allow Republicans controlling Congress to pass follow-up legislation through the Senate without the threat of a filibuster by Democrats. GOP leaders and the White House plan to use that measure to rewrite the tax code.

As proposed by House leaders, tax reform would essentially be deficit neutral, which means cuts to tax rates would be mostly “paid for” by closing various tax breaks such as the deduction for state and local taxes. However, the GOP plan would devote $300 billion claimed from economic growth to the tax reform effort.

But conservatives are insisting on adding cuts to so-called mandatory programs, which make up more than two-thirds of the federal budget and basically run on autopilot. Conservatives want larger cuts, while moderates are blanching at voting to cut popular programs such as food stamps.



Source link

199164_5_.jpg

Why Is the Left So Anti-Baby?


My own personal experience is that the closer an American identifies with academia the less likely he or she is to have children.

The “educated” have been anti-baby and pushing population control for at least a century. What is going on here?

In part, of course, the push is to discourage other people from having children: eugenics and the “unfit.” In part, it is that upper-class women prefer to outsource child-minding.

So Birth Control was invented. And the educated classes decided to make abortion respectable. But it looks like the only people interested in birth control are the We, the educated, the evolved. Ordinary people just go on having babies like they always did, only now a lot more of the babies are surviving. How unfit of them.

I’d like to believe that this anti-baby culture is all part of the left’s foolish dream to create heaven on earth. You may have noticed that people don’t have babies in Heaven; they just live happily ever after.

But I think there is something else at work: monasticism. The scions of the rich and powerful very often don’t have the chops for the powerful life; they go, or are sent, into a monastery. I think that many of our liberal friends want to retreat from the rough and tumble of babies and parenting; they want to retire to a monastery.

Official Narrative tells is that monasticism is a Middle Ages thing, but the more I live the more monasticism I see around me. There’s the woman excited that her 11-year-old kid got into Juilliard. What is Juilliard but a novitiate for the monastic practice of the ancient texts of classical music? Conservatories are there to preserve a cultural tradition, to keep it going in all its purity, in perpetuity.

What is the purpose of a university but as a place where people can withdraw from the rough and tumble of ordinary life to think deep thoughts, instruct the young in the one true religion, hold endless committee meetings, and ease up on the baby production?

This not new, for monasteries are not just a Middle Ages thing. They flourished in the Dark Ages in the time of Charlemagne and the Franks, when a king might dump a troublesome relative in a monastery on one day, but then on another day nominate a relative to be abbot of a wealthy, powerful monastery in his domain. What was that all about?

What about the Buddha? Here was a handsome prince that dumped his wife and kids and took up the contemplative life. Pretty soon there were Buddhist temples that were as big as cities where rich young men from all over could go and meditate.

What about servants? Mr. Carson and Mrs. Hughes are simply the abbot and abbess of Downton Abbey. The one defining principle of servants is that they should not have “followers.” They are, in fact, supposed to be as chaste as monks and nuns in a monastery, or else. The love story of Bates and Anna is just Julian Fellowes’ little joke.

There seems to be a strong need in humans to reduce everything to a system, and freeze that system into a monastery. Don’t we all wish our lives were not so chaotic and uncertain?

But I suspect that the real meaning of life, the universe, and everything is the chaotic becoming of scrabbling for a living in this world and seeding it with children, what the Two Gentlemen of Verona called “wiving and thriving.”

Think of the greatest musical ever told. A girl leaves a monastery to take up a position as a governess of seven rich kids. Pretty soon she has bewitched the father, replaced the rich woman of a certain age that patronizes the best couturier in town, and led the whole crew off to America, land of the free and the brave, leaving the hills alive with The Sound of Music.

I just realized I missed out a big chunk of modern monasticism. What about the universe of gay trans feminist zir zis activism? At a risk of sounding racist, sexist, homophobic, I’d say that, just like in the Middle Ages there were nice respectable monks, there was also a rough trade, the flagellant friars.

Either way, anti-baby monastic liberals are voting themselves off the planet.

Christopher Chantrill @chrischantrill runs the go-to site on US government finances, usgovernmentspending.com. Also see his American Manifesto and get his Road to the Middle Class.

Last week we learned that the Danes are working hard to reduce baby production in Africa. No doubt, because sub-Saharan African women are powering a baby boom that will make Africa into the Ground Zero of the Population Problem later in the century. Steve Sailer writes that women in Niger want about nine babies but usually have to make do with seven.

Meanwhile Japanese youngsters are reported to be remarkably uninterested in sex, and, of course, U.S. feminists insist that “Rule No. 1 for female academics is: don’t have a baby.”

My own personal experience is that the closer an American identifies with academia the less likely he or she is to have children.

The “educated” have been anti-baby and pushing population control for at least a century. What is going on here?

In part, of course, the push is to discourage other people from having children: eugenics and the “unfit.” In part, it is that upper-class women prefer to outsource child-minding.

So Birth Control was invented. And the educated classes decided to make abortion respectable. But it looks like the only people interested in birth control are the We, the educated, the evolved. Ordinary people just go on having babies like they always did, only now a lot more of the babies are surviving. How unfit of them.

I’d like to believe that this anti-baby culture is all part of the left’s foolish dream to create heaven on earth. You may have noticed that people don’t have babies in Heaven; they just live happily ever after.

But I think there is something else at work: monasticism. The scions of the rich and powerful very often don’t have the chops for the powerful life; they go, or are sent, into a monastery. I think that many of our liberal friends want to retreat from the rough and tumble of babies and parenting; they want to retire to a monastery.

Official Narrative tells is that monasticism is a Middle Ages thing, but the more I live the more monasticism I see around me. There’s the woman excited that her 11-year-old kid got into Juilliard. What is Juilliard but a novitiate for the monastic practice of the ancient texts of classical music? Conservatories are there to preserve a cultural tradition, to keep it going in all its purity, in perpetuity.

What is the purpose of a university but as a place where people can withdraw from the rough and tumble of ordinary life to think deep thoughts, instruct the young in the one true religion, hold endless committee meetings, and ease up on the baby production?

This not new, for monasteries are not just a Middle Ages thing. They flourished in the Dark Ages in the time of Charlemagne and the Franks, when a king might dump a troublesome relative in a monastery on one day, but then on another day nominate a relative to be abbot of a wealthy, powerful monastery in his domain. What was that all about?

What about the Buddha? Here was a handsome prince that dumped his wife and kids and took up the contemplative life. Pretty soon there were Buddhist temples that were as big as cities where rich young men from all over could go and meditate.

What about servants? Mr. Carson and Mrs. Hughes are simply the abbot and abbess of Downton Abbey. The one defining principle of servants is that they should not have “followers.” They are, in fact, supposed to be as chaste as monks and nuns in a monastery, or else. The love story of Bates and Anna is just Julian Fellowes’ little joke.

There seems to be a strong need in humans to reduce everything to a system, and freeze that system into a monastery. Don’t we all wish our lives were not so chaotic and uncertain?

But I suspect that the real meaning of life, the universe, and everything is the chaotic becoming of scrabbling for a living in this world and seeding it with children, what the Two Gentlemen of Verona called “wiving and thriving.”

Think of the greatest musical ever told. A girl leaves a monastery to take up a position as a governess of seven rich kids. Pretty soon she has bewitched the father, replaced the rich woman of a certain age that patronizes the best couturier in town, and led the whole crew off to America, land of the free and the brave, leaving the hills alive with The Sound of Music.

I just realized I missed out a big chunk of modern monasticism. What about the universe of gay trans feminist zir zis activism? At a risk of sounding racist, sexist, homophobic, I’d say that, just like in the Middle Ages there were nice respectable monks, there was also a rough trade, the flagellant friars.

Either way, anti-baby monastic liberals are voting themselves off the planet.

Christopher Chantrill @chrischantrill runs the go-to site on US government finances, usgovernmentspending.com. Also see his American Manifesto and get his Road to the Middle Class.



Source link

1500329331014.jpg

Dad with face tattoo rejects 45 job offers since going viral with desperate work plea


A teen dad with “DEVAST8” tattooed across half his face has turned down 45 job offers as he is “waiting for the right one to come along” – after his desperate work plea went viral.

New Zealander Mark Cropp, 19, went on social media to beg someone to give him a break and let him prove he can be responsible and hold down a full-time job after leaving prison.

Within hours he revealed he had been deluged with job opportunities and admitted he “stopped counting” when the number of offers reached 45.

WOULD YOU HIRE THIS MAN? UNEMPLOYED DAD WITH ENORMOUS FACE TATTOO CAN’T GET WORK

But he told the Daily Mail Australia he still hasn’t “done a day’s work” claiming he is “just waiting for the right one to come about”.

Some of the job offers did require him to have his own transport which immediately ruled him out, he said.

“Until I get my first paycheck and get a car I won’t be able to get myself around,” he said.

Cropp also revealed he is finally getting rid of the ludicrous prison tattoo which has made his life hell.

“I am just working out a date to get it taken off – which sucks because it is going to hurt,” he said.

“And because, you know, this tattoo means something to me and my brother did it for me so it is hard to make the decision to get rid of it.

“But I know it is the best thing for my future – and I want to be a person my family can look to for support.”

Cropp got the tattoo a few months ago while drunk on home brewed alcohol with his brother in a New  Zealand prison last year.

He was locked up for pulling a knife on a tourist after trying to sell him fake cannabis.

Read more news on The Sun.



Source link

199163_5_.jpg

The Al-Aqsa Fraud


Putting aside all arguments about whether Israel should be in Judea and Samaria, whether Israel should be in Jerusalem, or even whether Israel should be in the land itself, one thing is clear: Mohammed never set foot in Jerusalem. That is incontestable.  Absolutely beyond debate, even from accepted Muslim history.

Mohammed died in 632 A.D. Arab forces did not besiege Jerusalem until 636 A.D. They did not enter the city until 637 A.D. No one doubts this. No one denies this.

It follows that if Arab forces did not enter Jerusalem until 637 A.D., then Jerusalem did not have a mosque before that date. The present structure for Al Aqsa — the Furthest (Mosque) — was built around 690 A.D., possibly using materials from an earlier destroyed church. There is a possibility that an earlier mosque had been built soon after the Arab conquest.

But all of this, whenever or if ever it occurred, took place after Mohammed died.

Therefore, whenever Mohammed made his supposed night journey – the miraj – it could not have been to a mosque in Jerusalem that did not exist. The whole Islamic claim to Al-Aqsa is a historic fraud.

One can argue whether Muslims originally faced Mecca in their prayers (as Muslim tradition demands), or whether Muslims originally faced Petra, as new scholarship shows; but even that does not affect the very real fact that Mohammed never set foot in a mosque in Jerusalem.

The present crisis over Al-Aqsa – two Israeli Druze policemen were killed last Friday by Muslim terrorists– is based on an absolute lie. The Muslims are fighting for a mosque that is a demonstrable fraud, and that can be shown so in five minutes.

Returning to Spain for some insight: even Catholic scholars now admit that the Saint James – of Santiago de Compostela fame – is probably not buried in Spain. James seems to have been buried in Jerusalem. Luther was right after all.

Numerous scholars suggest that the cult of St James in Spain has not been around longer than the 9th century A.D. this suggests that it is unlikely that the remains belong to the apostle from the times of Jesus. There is also no record connected with his grave from a period before early medieval times. — Ancient Origins

Yet, the Camino has taken on a life of its own as a metaphor for a spiritual journey. And let’s be honest, some people just want to see Northern Spain. This is why Protestants – as well as atheists and others — have rediscovered the Camino. It has been divorced from its Medieval Catholic claims.

Not so with Al-Aqsa: the furthest mosque, the mosque that Mohammedans claim that Mohammed visited.

To understand what is going on, one has to understand a fundamental difference between Christianity on the one hand, and Judaism and Islam on the other.

Christianity has been divorced from geography.

John 4:21 — Jesus said to her, “Woman, believe Me, the hour is coming when you will neither on this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, worship the Father. (NKJV)

Jesus had separated the worship of God from the place of worship. No longer was it necessary for the faithful to go somewhere to get closer to God. This is especially true of Protestant denominations, but even true of the more liturgical ones. The Papacy did not collapse when it was temporarily banished to Avignon. Mass could still be celebrated. While Catholicism prefers Rome, and Eastern Orthodoxy reveres Constantinople, neither city is central to Christian theology. And if Protestants revere Memphis, it is only because Elvis is buried there — though like the Catholics at Santiago de Compostela, there was a strong debate among some Protestants if Elvis was even in the tomb — proving that superstition is not confined to any one denomination.

This is not so with either Judaism or Islam. Those two are land-based religions. A Jew cannot fulfill the requirements of Torah and be out of the land. The temple sacrifices can only be performed in Jerusalem.

All found a place within the confines of the ancient walled city — for indeed, the Biblical commandment requires that all of Israel eat of the Passover offering within Jerusalem’s walls; it is forbidden to partake of the Passover outside. — Temple Institute


Deut 16:16 — Three times a year all your males shall appear before the Lord your God in the place which He chooses [ie: Jerusalem]: at the Feast of Unleavened Bre A.D., … (NKJV)


2 Chronicles 6:6 — Yet I have chosen Jerusalem, that My name may be there, and I have chosen David to be over My people Israel.’ (NKJV)

To surrender Jerusalem is to absolutely surrender Judaism. It is impossible to be an observant Jew apart from the land. There is nothing like this in Christianity. One can be a “good” Baptist or Presbyterian, or even Catholic or Eastern Orthodox Christian anywhere. A pilgrimage might be recommended, but never required.

Similarly, Islam is also land based. Presently it is deemed that Mecca is the holy place, and Muslims are commanded to make a Hajj to Mecca at least once in their lifetimes. Even if the holy place was once Petra, as some historians now claim, there was always a pilgrimage requirement in Islam. Likewise, the geography of Al-Aqsa in Jerusalem is deemed sacred. Hence the violence whenever it appears that Israel is encroaching on it.

Both religions have land requirements, and to surrender the territory is to surrender the faith.

[A] prayer in Al-Aqsa Sanctuary is worth 500 times more reward than anywhere else – Ummah.com

But, history says this Muslim claim is a total lie.

This has to be stated. Why isn’t our media saying something about this? They are ever quick to point out the historical insanity of certain Catholic pilgrim sites – and I would agree with the media. Though, were I a younger and healthier man, I would still consider walking the Camino to Santiago just for the scenery, detouring to spend an altogether sacrilegious amount of time in the pintxos bars of San Sebastian/Donostia. I probably would never make it to Santiago, and be a better man for it.

But Muslims do not have this option. Like Judaism, it is an all or nothing premise.

Still, it must be confronted. It has to be confronted. It can be confronted with a simple question: If the Arabs did not arrive inside Jerusalem until five years after Mohammed’s death, how could Mohammed have visited a mosque that did not exist in Jerusalem during his lifetime?

It can be phrased politely, even sincerely. Ask a Muslim scholar on TV.  Ask a Muslim diplomat. Of course, there will be some Muslims who will claim that such is the “miracle of Islam,” that it can effect such an otherwise impossible absurdity. But the message will get out. Slowly at first, but it will spread. The doubt will grow, just as Martin Luther started to doubt on his trip to Rome – and we know how that ended up.

As he dutifully kissed each of Pilate’s stairs, [Luther] began to doubt the Church’s teachings about relics and merits — Religion Facts

Eventually, there will be Muslims who will ask the very same question – Is this true? — hopefully leading to an abandonment of the atrocious Islamic creed. At the very least, it will make the contest for control of the Temple Mount as little less violent.

It won’t end the contest for the Holy Land. There is an element of nationalism to that, something that  will not change even if Islam is abandoned; but it may make the contest more rational, less terroristic.

I cannot believe that none of our newscasters know this. Why isn’t the question broached? Why is our media so cowardly? Why don’t they seek truth, instead of pandering to outright lies? The media is willfully dishonest in this.

Mike Konrad is the pen name of an American who wishes he had availed himself more fully of the opportunity to learn Spanish in high school, lo those many decades ago. He writes on the Arabs of South America at http://latinarabia.com. He also just started a website about small computers at http://minireplacement.com.

Martin Luther, in his criticism of Catholic pilgrimages, once said, “There are 12 apostles, and 18 of them are buried in Spain.” He probably would not be pleased that Protestants have resumed journeying on the Camino (Road) to Santiago (Saint James) de Compostela. But, the Camino to Santiago will not start a war. The Temple Mount will.

A new $5 million Anglican Centre is to be built in Spain in Santiago de Compostela, the end of the world-famous Catholic pilgrimage route the Way of St James. — Christianity Today

Putting aside all arguments about whether Israel should be in Judea and Samaria, whether Israel should be in Jerusalem, or even whether Israel should be in the land itself, one thing is clear: Mohammed never set foot in Jerusalem. That is incontestable.  Absolutely beyond debate, even from accepted Muslim history.

Mohammed died in 632 A.D. Arab forces did not besiege Jerusalem until 636 A.D. They did not enter the city until 637 A.D. No one doubts this. No one denies this.

It follows that if Arab forces did not enter Jerusalem until 637 A.D., then Jerusalem did not have a mosque before that date. The present structure for Al Aqsa — the Furthest (Mosque) — was built around 690 A.D., possibly using materials from an earlier destroyed church. There is a possibility that an earlier mosque had been built soon after the Arab conquest.

But all of this, whenever or if ever it occurred, took place after Mohammed died.

Therefore, whenever Mohammed made his supposed night journey – the miraj – it could not have been to a mosque in Jerusalem that did not exist. The whole Islamic claim to Al-Aqsa is a historic fraud.

One can argue whether Muslims originally faced Mecca in their prayers (as Muslim tradition demands), or whether Muslims originally faced Petra, as new scholarship shows; but even that does not affect the very real fact that Mohammed never set foot in a mosque in Jerusalem.

The present crisis over Al-Aqsa – two Israeli Druze policemen were killed last Friday by Muslim terrorists– is based on an absolute lie. The Muslims are fighting for a mosque that is a demonstrable fraud, and that can be shown so in five minutes.

Returning to Spain for some insight: even Catholic scholars now admit that the Saint James – of Santiago de Compostela fame – is probably not buried in Spain. James seems to have been buried in Jerusalem. Luther was right after all.

Numerous scholars suggest that the cult of St James in Spain has not been around longer than the 9th century A.D. this suggests that it is unlikely that the remains belong to the apostle from the times of Jesus. There is also no record connected with his grave from a period before early medieval times. — Ancient Origins

Yet, the Camino has taken on a life of its own as a metaphor for a spiritual journey. And let’s be honest, some people just want to see Northern Spain. This is why Protestants – as well as atheists and others — have rediscovered the Camino. It has been divorced from its Medieval Catholic claims.

Not so with Al-Aqsa: the furthest mosque, the mosque that Mohammedans claim that Mohammed visited.

To understand what is going on, one has to understand a fundamental difference between Christianity on the one hand, and Judaism and Islam on the other.

Christianity has been divorced from geography.

John 4:21 — Jesus said to her, “Woman, believe Me, the hour is coming when you will neither on this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, worship the Father. (NKJV)

Jesus had separated the worship of God from the place of worship. No longer was it necessary for the faithful to go somewhere to get closer to God. This is especially true of Protestant denominations, but even true of the more liturgical ones. The Papacy did not collapse when it was temporarily banished to Avignon. Mass could still be celebrated. While Catholicism prefers Rome, and Eastern Orthodoxy reveres Constantinople, neither city is central to Christian theology. And if Protestants revere Memphis, it is only because Elvis is buried there — though like the Catholics at Santiago de Compostela, there was a strong debate among some Protestants if Elvis was even in the tomb — proving that superstition is not confined to any one denomination.

This is not so with either Judaism or Islam. Those two are land-based religions. A Jew cannot fulfill the requirements of Torah and be out of the land. The temple sacrifices can only be performed in Jerusalem.

All found a place within the confines of the ancient walled city — for indeed, the Biblical commandment requires that all of Israel eat of the Passover offering within Jerusalem’s walls; it is forbidden to partake of the Passover outside. — Temple Institute


Deut 16:16 — Three times a year all your males shall appear before the Lord your God in the place which He chooses [ie: Jerusalem]: at the Feast of Unleavened Bre A.D., … (NKJV)


2 Chronicles 6:6 — Yet I have chosen Jerusalem, that My name may be there, and I have chosen David to be over My people Israel.’ (NKJV)

To surrender Jerusalem is to absolutely surrender Judaism. It is impossible to be an observant Jew apart from the land. There is nothing like this in Christianity. One can be a “good” Baptist or Presbyterian, or even Catholic or Eastern Orthodox Christian anywhere. A pilgrimage might be recommended, but never required.

Similarly, Islam is also land based. Presently it is deemed that Mecca is the holy place, and Muslims are commanded to make a Hajj to Mecca at least once in their lifetimes. Even if the holy place was once Petra, as some historians now claim, there was always a pilgrimage requirement in Islam. Likewise, the geography of Al-Aqsa in Jerusalem is deemed sacred. Hence the violence whenever it appears that Israel is encroaching on it.

Both religions have land requirements, and to surrender the territory is to surrender the faith.

[A] prayer in Al-Aqsa Sanctuary is worth 500 times more reward than anywhere else – Ummah.com

But, history says this Muslim claim is a total lie.

This has to be stated. Why isn’t our media saying something about this? They are ever quick to point out the historical insanity of certain Catholic pilgrim sites – and I would agree with the media. Though, were I a younger and healthier man, I would still consider walking the Camino to Santiago just for the scenery, detouring to spend an altogether sacrilegious amount of time in the pintxos bars of San Sebastian/Donostia. I probably would never make it to Santiago, and be a better man for it.

But Muslims do not have this option. Like Judaism, it is an all or nothing premise.

Still, it must be confronted. It has to be confronted. It can be confronted with a simple question: If the Arabs did not arrive inside Jerusalem until five years after Mohammed’s death, how could Mohammed have visited a mosque that did not exist in Jerusalem during his lifetime?

It can be phrased politely, even sincerely. Ask a Muslim scholar on TV.  Ask a Muslim diplomat. Of course, there will be some Muslims who will claim that such is the “miracle of Islam,” that it can effect such an otherwise impossible absurdity. But the message will get out. Slowly at first, but it will spread. The doubt will grow, just as Martin Luther started to doubt on his trip to Rome – and we know how that ended up.

As he dutifully kissed each of Pilate’s stairs, [Luther] began to doubt the Church’s teachings about relics and merits — Religion Facts

Eventually, there will be Muslims who will ask the very same question – Is this true? — hopefully leading to an abandonment of the atrocious Islamic creed. At the very least, it will make the contest for control of the Temple Mount as little less violent.

It won’t end the contest for the Holy Land. There is an element of nationalism to that, something that  will not change even if Islam is abandoned; but it may make the contest more rational, less terroristic.

I cannot believe that none of our newscasters know this. Why isn’t the question broached? Why is our media so cowardly? Why don’t they seek truth, instead of pandering to outright lies? The media is willfully dishonest in this.

Mike Konrad is the pen name of an American who wishes he had availed himself more fully of the opportunity to learn Spanish in high school, lo those many decades ago. He writes on the Arabs of South America at http://latinarabia.com. He also just started a website about small computers at http://minireplacement.com.



Source link

GREGG JARRETT OJ Simpson, up for parole, should never be set free


O. J. Simpson, one of the most heinous and depraved killers in modern American history, is up for parole consideration. 

If the Nevada Parole Board has a conscience, it will never set him free.  He is a threat to society and will always be so.

Simpson was found guilty in 2008 of armed robbery, kidnapping and 10 other charges after he and his friends, brandishing guns, stormed into a Las Vegas hotel room to steal sports memorabilia.  The former football star’s lawyers argued that their client was simply retrieving his own property.  The jury didn’t buy it for one minute.  He was sentenced to 33 years, but eligible for parole after nine years.

The crimes were a consistent pattern of conduct for Simpson.  When he gets angry, he resorts to violence and lawlessness.  He will do it again if he is allowed to walk out of the Lovelock Correctional Center.  He is a ticking time bomb.  Freedom will allow the fuse to be set again. 

Parole Considerations

The Nevada parole guidelines identify more than a dozen factors for board members to consider.  For example, the board wants to know whether Simpson has a clean record in prison or has been disciplined.  Has he completed recommended educational courses and treatment?  Has he refrained from gang activity, drugs and alcohol?  

His score will be calculated in a mathematical formula.  Most inmates with a good score are paroled.  While Simpson should score well, the severity of his Nevada crimes weighs against him.  Armed robbery and kidnapping under the threat of bullets are extremely serious crimes.  So, parole is not an easy touchdown for the Hall of Famer.  There are reports that he is worried.  He should be. 

The parole board can consider prior convictions in determining whether Simpson might be a recidivist criminal.  He was convicted of beating his wife in 1989, so that may be examined.  However, since he was acquitted in his famous double murder trial in Los Angeles in 1995, it does not technically count as a prior offense. 

Nevertheless, there is another way the parole board could apply the double murder against Simpson, even though he was found “not guilty.”  Under the provision entitled “aggravating factors,” board members can consider the following:

     “… other information… that concerns the Board that the inmate may be a risk to public safety if released on parole.”

In other words, the board is entitled to conclude that releasing Simpson would pose a threat to society because of his established propensity for violence.  The decision can be based on reliable information and evidence such as court proceedings and judgments. 

Indeed, the parole board could take judicial notice of the verdict in 1997 by a civil jury in the wrongful death case brought by the families of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman.  The jury unanimously found that Simpson committed the brutal killings, awarding the plaintiffs $8.5 million in compensatory damages and $25 million in punitive damages. 

On this basis alone the Nevada board members should deny Simpson parole.

Simpson has a long and frightening record of violence:  beating his wife, cutting his ex-wife’s throat and nearly decapitating her, stabbing Goldman more than 30 times, then later committing armed robbery and kidnapping. 

Simpson is an inherent danger to society and it is too risky to let him walk free. 

Evidence Simpson Is a Killer

As a lawyer, I have tried cases.  As a reporter, I have covered hundreds of trials.  From the courtroom, I saw all of the evidence presented in Simpson’s 1995 murder trial.  I can say without hesitation that I have never witnessed such compelling and overwhelming evidence of guilt. 

Simpson’s blood was dripping away from the crime scene.  Sophisticated DNA testing proved conclusively that the blood dropped at the murder scene belonged only to O. J. Simpson.  The chance that it was someone else’s DNA was one out of 170 million.  He had fresh cuts all over his hand. 

The blood of both victims and Simpson was spattered and smeared throughout the interior of his Ford Bronco.  Limo driver Allan Park testified he observed a man he believed to be Simpson entering his home shortly after the murders.  Fresh drops of Simpson’s blood were found on the driveway and foyer of his home.  Nicole’s blood was found on Simpson’s socks in his bedroom, and his own blood was found on the same socks. 

Simpson normally wore size 12 shoes, and bloody shoe prints matching that very size were found leading away from the bodies.  The bloody companion to the glove ripped off at the murder scene was found on Simpson’s property. A receipt showed Nicole bought the same gloves for her husband. 

Another receipt showed Simpson bought a 12-inch knife six weeks before the murders, and a replica of the knife proved to be a precise match to the wounds on the victims.  Hair with the same characteristics as Simpson’s was found on Goldman’s shirt and on the knit cap worn by the killer and left at the crime scene. 

All of this evidence and much more is a part of the official court record which may be considered by the parole board if it has any desire to examine the truth of whether Simpson is a killer who is fully capable of killing again.  And he knows he got away with it, thanks to arrogant and inept prosecutors, a seemingly incompetent judge, and gullible jurors who were dazzled, if not confused, by Simpson’s so-called “dream team” of clever lawyers.

The notion that all of the evidence was planted in an elaborate scheme to frame Simpson was ludicrous.  The criminal jury was fooled, but not the civil jury. And the parole board in Nevada should not be fooled either. The board members have a duty to protect society and an obligation to examine the evidence against a killer who wants his freedom.

If the parole board does not have the time or willingness to study all of the evidence presented in the civil trial, it should simply turn to Simpson’s sworn testimony.  Unable to invoke his 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination in a civil trial, he was forced to take the witness stand.  Simpson melted under cross-examination, erasing any doubt about his guilt. 

The acquittal of O. J. Simpson did immeasurable damage to America’s faith in our system of justice. But trial by jury is an imperfect system. Sometimes guilty people go free. 

For this very reason, the Nevada parole board should refuse to permit a proven killer to walk free again.

Gregg Jarrett is a Fox News Anchor and former defense attorney.



Source link

RNC condemns member who called for McCain to 'just die already' on social media


The Republican National Committee is condemning a member who shared a social media post encouraging Arizona Sen. John McCain to “just die already.”

The message came Monday from Republican national committeewoman Diana Orrock of Nevada. Orrock tweeted, “Amen,” in response to another Twitter user who had written, “Please Just (expletive) Die Already” above the hashtag “JohnMcCain”.

MCCAIN’S ABSENCE EXPOSES MCCONNELL’S SHAKY HEALTH VOTE MATH

McCain, 80, is recuperating from surgery to remove a blood clot.

Republican National Committee spokesman Ryan Mahoney called Orrock’s tweet “extremely inappropriate.” He called McCain a war hero who made countless sacrifices on behalf of all Americans.

Mahoney wished the GOP’s 2008 presidential nominee a “speedy recovery.”

Orrock deleted the tweet after it attracted media coverage. She did not respond to a voicemail or a text message seeking comment.



Source link