Month: November 2017

Scrupulous Conservatives and the Moore Conundrum


Roy Moore has given scrupulous conservatives (SC) a new reason to help liberals destroy America.

When the “Access Hollywood” tape came out, SCs bemoaned the fact that Trump accepted groupies’ consensual offers of free gropes while ignoring the fact that the behavior appeared to be something that happened years ago. While such behavior is hardly wonderful, the SCs seemed to forget that the alternative to Trump was a woman who supported dismembering viable pain-capable unborn women-to-be simply because their parents wanted a boy.

Putting feelings ahead of logic, SCs told us that not voting for Trump wouldn’t really help Hillary win and hence didn’t increase the risk of creating a pro-abortion anywhere any time for any reason majority on the Supreme Court.

To SCs, feeling “pure” and untainted is the driving factor in their voting decisions. While charges of past indiscretions seem to trigger SCs loathing, they oddly weren’t bothered by the fact that Bush was an alcoholic — as it shouldn’t have since he’d been on the wagon for a long time. Apparently only people who are sexually impure can never repent and reform in the minds of SCs.

In the case of Moore, there are three young women who said he hugged and kissed them consensually when they were above the age of consent, one woman who said he attacked her, and one girl who said he tried to get her to have sex with him in a grossly inappropriate and criminal way but accepted no for an answer.

The fact that the media has to include the three women with whom Moore did nothing wrong is one of the many problems with the charges against Moore.

The woman who claimed that Moore assaulted her has now disappeared after the authenticity of Moore’s inscription in her yearbook has been called into question. Her unwillingness to submit the yearbook to independent analysis has, for the moment, rendered her claims somewhat dubious.

Which leaves one still possible claim against Moore. While there are a number of problems with the claim, ranging from the girl not having a phone in her bedroom to how did the east coast elite Washington Post reporters find this woman when people who lived near her — democrat operatives who wanted to destroy Moore for years — couldn’t, we can’t positively say that she’s not telling the truth. Further Moore adamantly denies the charges and unlike almost all the other recent cases there aren’t multiple women, or girls in the case of Roman Polanski, pointing to a pattern of sexual misconduct.

Because there is a chance that the charge is true, all conservatives are a little uneasy about supporting Moore. Yet the SC’s position is that any defect on the part of a conservative candidate is instantly disqualifying, which is actually a very anticonservative position.

In America, conservatism is generally based on Christian principles, which include the ideas of redemption and forgiveness. If Moore did do this one thing decades ago and never ever did it again, does it mean that he’s still unfit or does it mean that he’s a sinner like the rest of us who strayed seriously once and then, through the grace of God, repented and reformed?

One of the greatest saints, Saint Augustine, lived such a horrible life that his mother, Saint Monica, prayed for 20 years for his conversion. He too was saved by turning to God, and no Christian rejects what he wrote after he reformed because he led a dissolute and immoral life in the past.

When Bill Clinton first ran for the presidency he admitted on “60 Minutes” that he’d cheated on his wife, but Hillary and Bill said that that was in the past. At the time, while still opposing Clinton for his odious policies, most conservatives were willing to give him a pass on the adultery if it was in the past and it had ended.

Interestingly, the same liberals who tell us that vicious criminals can repent and hence should be released early and have their voting rights returned are declaring that Moore’s decade-old possible crime is both unforgivable and something he can’t have repented of.

Ignoring for the moment both the possibility that Moore is completely innocent and the idea that if he sinned once but then lived a good life for decades after, perhaps he should be forgiven, the truly major problem with the SC position is that it essentially presumes that Moore’s opponent is morally unobjectionable.

Jones, Moore’s opponent, has said that he opposes any and all restrictions on abortion. He supports the physical dismemberment of viable, pain-capable unborn babies. He supports sex-selection abortions which target women to be. If one believes the science which says that a new human being is formed at the moment of conception, that makes Jones an ongoing supporter of mass murder on an unbelievable scale — nearly 60,000,000 babies killed since Roe v. Wade.

Jones also supports allowing any man who self-identifies as a woman to use women’s bathrooms, thereby ensuring equal opportunity for heterosexual pedophiles. Currently gay pedophiles can stalk their victims in the bathroom and Jones wants to extend that right to heterosexual predators.

The reality is that it’s cowardly, not noble, to refuse to support a flawed yet reformed man over a pro-abortionist who supports laws enabling pedophiles. SCs value their own feelings of superior smugness more than they do the safety of little girls or the lives of the unborn who will be violently snuffed out if Jones is elected.

It’s one thing to oppose Trump when there were other options, such as Ted Cruz, or to oppose Moore during the primaries, but it’s quite another to say that it’s better to have a pro-mass murder of the unborn uberliberal in the Senate rather than a pro-life man who may have done something horrible decades ago.

The SCs argue that rational conservatives are simply unconcerned and morally inferior. Yet the reality is that someone who, in an election between Peter and Satan, would vote for Satan because Peter sinned is not morally superior at all.

No one who thought that Moore has molested underage girls in the recent past, say as recently as 10 years ago, would vote for him. But it’s not a sign of moral inferiority to declare that in the face of one “he said she said” claim that supposedly occurred decades ago to choose to forgive and vote against an abortion supporter.

Everyone who is planning to vote for Moore would be ecstatic if the charge could be proven to be false, yet the reality is we need to put on our big boy/girl pants on and pick the solution that is best for keeping the children safe in America.

Now is not the time to be scrupulous and put one’s feelings of self-righteousness ahead of what’s best for the country and the children.

You can read more of tom’s rants at his blog, Conversations about the obvious and feel free to follow him on Twitter

Roy Moore has given scrupulous conservatives (SC) a new reason to help liberals destroy America.

When the “Access Hollywood” tape came out, SCs bemoaned the fact that Trump accepted groupies’ consensual offers of free gropes while ignoring the fact that the behavior appeared to be something that happened years ago. While such behavior is hardly wonderful, the SCs seemed to forget that the alternative to Trump was a woman who supported dismembering viable pain-capable unborn women-to-be simply because their parents wanted a boy.

Putting feelings ahead of logic, SCs told us that not voting for Trump wouldn’t really help Hillary win and hence didn’t increase the risk of creating a pro-abortion anywhere any time for any reason majority on the Supreme Court.

To SCs, feeling “pure” and untainted is the driving factor in their voting decisions. While charges of past indiscretions seem to trigger SCs loathing, they oddly weren’t bothered by the fact that Bush was an alcoholic — as it shouldn’t have since he’d been on the wagon for a long time. Apparently only people who are sexually impure can never repent and reform in the minds of SCs.

In the case of Moore, there are three young women who said he hugged and kissed them consensually when they were above the age of consent, one woman who said he attacked her, and one girl who said he tried to get her to have sex with him in a grossly inappropriate and criminal way but accepted no for an answer.

The fact that the media has to include the three women with whom Moore did nothing wrong is one of the many problems with the charges against Moore.

The woman who claimed that Moore assaulted her has now disappeared after the authenticity of Moore’s inscription in her yearbook has been called into question. Her unwillingness to submit the yearbook to independent analysis has, for the moment, rendered her claims somewhat dubious.

Which leaves one still possible claim against Moore. While there are a number of problems with the claim, ranging from the girl not having a phone in her bedroom to how did the east coast elite Washington Post reporters find this woman when people who lived near her — democrat operatives who wanted to destroy Moore for years — couldn’t, we can’t positively say that she’s not telling the truth. Further Moore adamantly denies the charges and unlike almost all the other recent cases there aren’t multiple women, or girls in the case of Roman Polanski, pointing to a pattern of sexual misconduct.

Because there is a chance that the charge is true, all conservatives are a little uneasy about supporting Moore. Yet the SC’s position is that any defect on the part of a conservative candidate is instantly disqualifying, which is actually a very anticonservative position.

In America, conservatism is generally based on Christian principles, which include the ideas of redemption and forgiveness. If Moore did do this one thing decades ago and never ever did it again, does it mean that he’s still unfit or does it mean that he’s a sinner like the rest of us who strayed seriously once and then, through the grace of God, repented and reformed?

One of the greatest saints, Saint Augustine, lived such a horrible life that his mother, Saint Monica, prayed for 20 years for his conversion. He too was saved by turning to God, and no Christian rejects what he wrote after he reformed because he led a dissolute and immoral life in the past.

When Bill Clinton first ran for the presidency he admitted on “60 Minutes” that he’d cheated on his wife, but Hillary and Bill said that that was in the past. At the time, while still opposing Clinton for his odious policies, most conservatives were willing to give him a pass on the adultery if it was in the past and it had ended.

Interestingly, the same liberals who tell us that vicious criminals can repent and hence should be released early and have their voting rights returned are declaring that Moore’s decade-old possible crime is both unforgivable and something he can’t have repented of.

Ignoring for the moment both the possibility that Moore is completely innocent and the idea that if he sinned once but then lived a good life for decades after, perhaps he should be forgiven, the truly major problem with the SC position is that it essentially presumes that Moore’s opponent is morally unobjectionable.

Jones, Moore’s opponent, has said that he opposes any and all restrictions on abortion. He supports the physical dismemberment of viable, pain-capable unborn babies. He supports sex-selection abortions which target women to be. If one believes the science which says that a new human being is formed at the moment of conception, that makes Jones an ongoing supporter of mass murder on an unbelievable scale — nearly 60,000,000 babies killed since Roe v. Wade.

Jones also supports allowing any man who self-identifies as a woman to use women’s bathrooms, thereby ensuring equal opportunity for heterosexual pedophiles. Currently gay pedophiles can stalk their victims in the bathroom and Jones wants to extend that right to heterosexual predators.

The reality is that it’s cowardly, not noble, to refuse to support a flawed yet reformed man over a pro-abortionist who supports laws enabling pedophiles. SCs value their own feelings of superior smugness more than they do the safety of little girls or the lives of the unborn who will be violently snuffed out if Jones is elected.

It’s one thing to oppose Trump when there were other options, such as Ted Cruz, or to oppose Moore during the primaries, but it’s quite another to say that it’s better to have a pro-mass murder of the unborn uberliberal in the Senate rather than a pro-life man who may have done something horrible decades ago.

The SCs argue that rational conservatives are simply unconcerned and morally inferior. Yet the reality is that someone who, in an election between Peter and Satan, would vote for Satan because Peter sinned is not morally superior at all.

No one who thought that Moore has molested underage girls in the recent past, say as recently as 10 years ago, would vote for him. But it’s not a sign of moral inferiority to declare that in the face of one “he said she said” claim that supposedly occurred decades ago to choose to forgive and vote against an abortion supporter.

Everyone who is planning to vote for Moore would be ecstatic if the charge could be proven to be false, yet the reality is we need to put on our big boy/girl pants on and pick the solution that is best for keeping the children safe in America.

Now is not the time to be scrupulous and put one’s feelings of self-righteousness ahead of what’s best for the country and the children.

You can read more of tom’s rants at his blog, Conversations about the obvious and feel free to follow him on Twitter



Source link

Not All Stings Work: On the War James O'Keefe Is Winning


In his compelling new book, Blue on Blue, Charles Campisi, chief of the NYPD’s Internal Affairs Bureau, tells how he was able to dramatically reform the bureau and improve the quality of NYPD policing. 

Campisi instituted what he called “integrity tests.”  These were more commonly known in the NYPD as “stings.”  In his newly proactive NYPD, Campisi ran as many as 500 to 600 integrity tests a year, in which cops had “the opportunity to do the right thing or the wrong thing.” 

The key, writes Campisi, was “to make the situation seem real, so real … the cop in question doesn’t know he’s being tested.”

For the past nine years, Project Veritas, the brainchild of 33-year-old James O’Keefe, has been running integrity tests on a variety of institutions the major media have chosen to leave untested.  Among the untested, at least until recently, are the major media operations themselves.

Earlier this week, the Washington Post did a spectacularly self-congratulatory end-zone dance for no greater accomplishment than having passed a test.  Its reporters sniffed out a Project Veritas undercover who was testing the Post’s eagerness to find still one more alleged victim to kill Roy Moore’s candidacy in Alabama.

Where Project Veritas failed in this instance was, to paraphrase Campisi, to make the situation seem so real that the subject did not know he was being tested.  Project Veritas has failed before.  It is inevitable in this line of work.  What is remarkable is how often these young guerrilla journalists have succeeded.

In 2009, for instance, O’Keefe and a young friend ran integrity tests on ACORN offices in six separate cities.  ACORN execs celebrated upon realizing that their Philadelphia office saw through the sting.  This was before they realized that their officials in Washington, Baltimore, Brooklyn, and San Bernardino had no problem advising a pimp on how to find housing for his underage Central American sex slaves.

The major media had turned a blind eye to the flagrant corruption of their ACORN allies for years.  As a direct result of Project Veritas’s exposure, this billion-dollar enterprise collapsed within months.  When it did, the media turned on O’Keefe.  He had not only brought down a useful leftist institution, but also embarrassed the reporters who should have done that job themselves.  The media have been in full vengeance mode ever since.

In August 2016, Russ Feingold’s operatives detected a young female undercover working her away inside the Senate campaign in Wisconsin.  The Feingold people rushed to the media, and the media traced the woman to Project Veritas.  “Democratic Senate Campaign Catches Conservative Infiltrator,” shouted Time magazine.

Undeterred, this same undercover started interning at Democracy Partners in Washington a month after the Wisconsin bust.  Her work there helped expose the illegal DNC dirty tricks operations, get two top Democratic operatives fired, and reversed the momentum of the presidential campaign.  Some stings work.  Some don’t.

In the run-up to the inauguration, this same young undercover got busted again.  The work of her colleagues on the same investigation, however, went undetected.  “A D.C. police spokesman has confirmed,” reported the Washington Post grudgingly in January 2017, “that a secret video recording made Dec. 18 by one of O’Keefe’s operatives led to the arrest of one man and foiled an alleged plot to spread acid at the DeploraBall for Trump supporters at the National Press Club.”  Two other men were also arrested as a result of the Project Veritas videos.

In this past year, O’Keefe turned his attention to the media.  He focused on the major media – CNN, Washington Post, New York Times – to test whether they lived up to their own stated objectives, as the Times puts it, ”to give the news impartially, without fear or favor, regardless of party, sect, or interests involved.” 

The media have welcomed this integrity test about as much as a corrupt cop does a visit from Internal Affairs.  At every level of these news organizations, employees recognize they are making a mockery of their mission.  O’Keefe and crew have been gradually and quietly accumulating these admissions.

Desiree Shoe, a senior staff editor based in London, described for a Project Veritas undercover the charade she and her colleagues are asked to pull off on a daily basis.  Like almost all of her colleagues, she is open in her disdain for President Trump.

“Trump is just an oblivious idiot,” Shoe insisted.  It was not just Trump that bothered her.  She considers even Vice President Mike Pence “f—— horrible.”  Shoe believes that her sentiments are the norm among journalists.  

A Times staffer in New York confirmed her suspicion.  “Yeah, they all hate [Trump],” he told an undercover.  When asked whether this pervasive hatred affects reporting at the Times, he conceded, “They unfairly report on him.”

Aware of the stated mission of the Times, Shoe acknowledged, “Our main stories are supposed to be objective,” but as she conceded, the Times is “widely understood to be liberal-leaning.”

Compounding the problem for the Times and the other media is that they have experienced a “Trump bump.”  As John Bonifield of CNN told a Project Veritas journalist, “I think there are a lot of liberal viewers who want to see Trump really get scrutinized, but I think if we had behaved that way with President Obama, I think our viewers would have been turned off. Trump is good for business right now.”

To retain their liberal viewers, the major media have to create stories that will hold the audience’s attention.  This explains why Adam Entous, the national security reporter for the Washington Post, has hammered out more than 50 stories on potential Trump collusion with Russia, a collusion that would not be criminal even if it were true.

What does Entous have to show for his work?  “Our reporting has not taken us to a place where I would be able to say with any confidence that the result of it is going to be the president being guilty of being in cahoots with the Russians,” he told a Project Veritas undercover.  “There’s no evidence of that that I’ve seen so far.”

A few months back, CNN’s Van Jones told a Project Veritas undercover, “The Russia thing is just a big nothingburger.”  CNN producer John Bonified elaborated, “I think the president is probably right to say, like, ‘Look, you are witch-hunting me.  You have no smoking gun; you have no real proof.'”

Patiently and quietly, Project Veritas journalists have been stripping the mainstream media of even the illusion of objectivity.  To be taken seriously, their newsrooms need that illusion as much as a dirty cop needs his badge.

There is only one organization willing and able to blow their cover.  Although the dominant media will do everything in their power to stop them, the scrappy guerrilla journalists of Project Veritas are not about to quit.

In his compelling new book, Blue on Blue, Charles Campisi, chief of the NYPD’s Internal Affairs Bureau, tells how he was able to dramatically reform the bureau and improve the quality of NYPD policing. 

Campisi instituted what he called “integrity tests.”  These were more commonly known in the NYPD as “stings.”  In his newly proactive NYPD, Campisi ran as many as 500 to 600 integrity tests a year, in which cops had “the opportunity to do the right thing or the wrong thing.” 

The key, writes Campisi, was “to make the situation seem real, so real … the cop in question doesn’t know he’s being tested.”

For the past nine years, Project Veritas, the brainchild of 33-year-old James O’Keefe, has been running integrity tests on a variety of institutions the major media have chosen to leave untested.  Among the untested, at least until recently, are the major media operations themselves.

Earlier this week, the Washington Post did a spectacularly self-congratulatory end-zone dance for no greater accomplishment than having passed a test.  Its reporters sniffed out a Project Veritas undercover who was testing the Post’s eagerness to find still one more alleged victim to kill Roy Moore’s candidacy in Alabama.

Where Project Veritas failed in this instance was, to paraphrase Campisi, to make the situation seem so real that the subject did not know he was being tested.  Project Veritas has failed before.  It is inevitable in this line of work.  What is remarkable is how often these young guerrilla journalists have succeeded.

In 2009, for instance, O’Keefe and a young friend ran integrity tests on ACORN offices in six separate cities.  ACORN execs celebrated upon realizing that their Philadelphia office saw through the sting.  This was before they realized that their officials in Washington, Baltimore, Brooklyn, and San Bernardino had no problem advising a pimp on how to find housing for his underage Central American sex slaves.

The major media had turned a blind eye to the flagrant corruption of their ACORN allies for years.  As a direct result of Project Veritas’s exposure, this billion-dollar enterprise collapsed within months.  When it did, the media turned on O’Keefe.  He had not only brought down a useful leftist institution, but also embarrassed the reporters who should have done that job themselves.  The media have been in full vengeance mode ever since.

In August 2016, Russ Feingold’s operatives detected a young female undercover working her away inside the Senate campaign in Wisconsin.  The Feingold people rushed to the media, and the media traced the woman to Project Veritas.  “Democratic Senate Campaign Catches Conservative Infiltrator,” shouted Time magazine.

Undeterred, this same undercover started interning at Democracy Partners in Washington a month after the Wisconsin bust.  Her work there helped expose the illegal DNC dirty tricks operations, get two top Democratic operatives fired, and reversed the momentum of the presidential campaign.  Some stings work.  Some don’t.

In the run-up to the inauguration, this same young undercover got busted again.  The work of her colleagues on the same investigation, however, went undetected.  “A D.C. police spokesman has confirmed,” reported the Washington Post grudgingly in January 2017, “that a secret video recording made Dec. 18 by one of O’Keefe’s operatives led to the arrest of one man and foiled an alleged plot to spread acid at the DeploraBall for Trump supporters at the National Press Club.”  Two other men were also arrested as a result of the Project Veritas videos.

In this past year, O’Keefe turned his attention to the media.  He focused on the major media – CNN, Washington Post, New York Times – to test whether they lived up to their own stated objectives, as the Times puts it, ”to give the news impartially, without fear or favor, regardless of party, sect, or interests involved.” 

The media have welcomed this integrity test about as much as a corrupt cop does a visit from Internal Affairs.  At every level of these news organizations, employees recognize they are making a mockery of their mission.  O’Keefe and crew have been gradually and quietly accumulating these admissions.

Desiree Shoe, a senior staff editor based in London, described for a Project Veritas undercover the charade she and her colleagues are asked to pull off on a daily basis.  Like almost all of her colleagues, she is open in her disdain for President Trump.

“Trump is just an oblivious idiot,” Shoe insisted.  It was not just Trump that bothered her.  She considers even Vice President Mike Pence “f—— horrible.”  Shoe believes that her sentiments are the norm among journalists.  

A Times staffer in New York confirmed her suspicion.  “Yeah, they all hate [Trump],” he told an undercover.  When asked whether this pervasive hatred affects reporting at the Times, he conceded, “They unfairly report on him.”

Aware of the stated mission of the Times, Shoe acknowledged, “Our main stories are supposed to be objective,” but as she conceded, the Times is “widely understood to be liberal-leaning.”

Compounding the problem for the Times and the other media is that they have experienced a “Trump bump.”  As John Bonifield of CNN told a Project Veritas journalist, “I think there are a lot of liberal viewers who want to see Trump really get scrutinized, but I think if we had behaved that way with President Obama, I think our viewers would have been turned off. Trump is good for business right now.”

To retain their liberal viewers, the major media have to create stories that will hold the audience’s attention.  This explains why Adam Entous, the national security reporter for the Washington Post, has hammered out more than 50 stories on potential Trump collusion with Russia, a collusion that would not be criminal even if it were true.

What does Entous have to show for his work?  “Our reporting has not taken us to a place where I would be able to say with any confidence that the result of it is going to be the president being guilty of being in cahoots with the Russians,” he told a Project Veritas undercover.  “There’s no evidence of that that I’ve seen so far.”

A few months back, CNN’s Van Jones told a Project Veritas undercover, “The Russia thing is just a big nothingburger.”  CNN producer John Bonified elaborated, “I think the president is probably right to say, like, ‘Look, you are witch-hunting me.  You have no smoking gun; you have no real proof.'”

Patiently and quietly, Project Veritas journalists have been stripping the mainstream media of even the illusion of objectivity.  To be taken seriously, their newsrooms need that illusion as much as a dirty cop needs his badge.

There is only one organization willing and able to blow their cover.  Although the dominant media will do everything in their power to stop them, the scrappy guerrilla journalists of Project Veritas are not about to quit.



Source link

HORROR: Son mutilates dad, posts selfies after murder…


CHICAGO (CBS) — Just days after he was served with a court order barring him from coming near his father, Cook County prosecutors said Carlton Edmondson murdered the 61-year-old and mutilated the body in the basement of the older man’s West Pullman home.

He then allegedly posted several selfies on Facebook, the Chicago Sun-Times is reporting.

Led into court in shackles and white, jail-issued coveralls, the 26-year-old Edmondson muttered and ranted during a bond hearing Tuesday at the Leighton Criminal Courthouse.

When Assistant State’s Attorney Julia Ramirez said that Edmondson was facing a single count of first-degree murder, in addition to pending charges for violating the order of protection taken out by his father on Nov. 20, Edmondson shouted.

“The order of protection is gone,” he said, smiling. “He is no longer living.”

Edmondson laughed softly to himself as Ramirez described how Carl Edmondson’s body was found Saturday at the bottom of the basement stairs of his home in the 11500 block of South Bishop – the skull crushed and blood and brain matter splattered on the floor and walls.

carlton edmondson 27 e1511916381952 Son Mutilated Dad, Posted Selfies After Murder: Prosecutors

Carlton Edmondson | Chicago Police

Carlton Edmondson shook his head and seemed to chuckle when Ramirez added that Carl Edmondson’s penis had been cut off.

The outbursts prompted Judge Stephanie Miller to order Carlton Edmondson out of the courtroom even before she ruled that he be held without bond.

Police went to the elder Edmondson’s house on the weekend after Carlton Edmondson’s uncle reported that he had stopped by and seen Carlton Edmondson inside the house, and knew that he not supposed to be there.

Carlton Edmondson answered the door when police arrived, and when asked the whereabouts of his father, said the older man was “at the hospital,” Ramirez said.

Police took Carlton Edmondson into custody, and found the body beside a Bowie knife, circular saw, and a “concrete capstone,” Ramirez said. The body smelled of gasoline, and a gas can lay nearby, Ramirez said. Inside the house, investigators found a black jacket that appeared to be the one Carlton Edmondson was wearing in pictures he posted to Facebook on Saturday.

In the photos, Carlton Edmondson holds a cigarette and grins at the camera, with what looks like blood spatter against the white logos on the jacket.

Using the odd punctuation and spelling Carlton Edmondson used for most of his posts, one photo is captioned “EyEm OAWn mA pEriOd #beebop #silenceofthelambs #gdshit #chevezwhatupfolkz.” A post from around 7 a.m. reads “EyE sIlEnCed thE LahmeDs.”

Edmondson’s Facebook profile lists his profession as “singer/songwriter.”

The Cook County Medical Examiner’s office ruled that the elder Edmondson died of multiple injuries from assault.

Five days earlier, Carlton Edmondson was arrested for throwing a brick through the window of his father’s house, and was released on a recognizance bond from the police station.

Court records indicate Carlton Edmondson had been arrested six times since September on a variety of misdemeanor charges, including refusing to give his name to police officers who saw him drinking on a street corner; stealing a pair of $16 sunglasses from a South Side Target and snatching a 70-year-old woman’s cell phone as she bought lottery tickets at a convenience store.

In 2015, he was arrested for flashing his penis at police officers in the Loop, and also for refusing to leave a downtown 7-Eleven store.

Carlton Edmondson’s father’s first sought an order of protection from his son in August. He subsequently made another request for the order in October.

The order of protection barred Carlton Edmondson from having contact with his father or coming to his house. The younger Edmondson was served with a copy of the order when he was arrested, Ramirez said.

“Not guilty!” Carlton Edmondson yelled. “It wasn’t me. It wasn’t his jacket.”

Assistant Public Defender Kevin Ochalla told Miller that Carlton Edmondson was a graduate of Morgan Park High School and had attended Southern Illinois University in Carbondale.

When Ochalla asked that Carlton Edmondson be evaluated at the jail hospital, he shouted again.

“He got my death-body, G!” he said, pointing a finger at Ochalla. “I’ma kill him.”

(Source: Sun-Times Media Wire © Chicago Sun-Times 2017. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.)



Source link

Both Men and Women Can Be Sexual Predators


But just as it seems every man is a predator and every woman has been wrongfully fondled, there is a small cloud on the horizon that augers a storm. The cloud may portend a new revolution.

Revolutions often begin with questions about truth and reality. What is the truth behind the accusations? Are men automatically guilty if accused? Should we consider whether women can be as predatory as men? Are all the accusing women innocent victims? Are none of them looking for power or money?

Maybe there is a little room for realistic cynicism.

As Angelo Codevilla recently pointed out, “Men, but mostly women, have been trading erotic services for access to power since time began.” As he observed sexual power plays during his eight years on the Senate staff, “Access to power, or status, or the appearance thereof was on one side, sex on the other. Innocence was the one quality entirely absent on all sides.”

Codevilla’s point is that all sexual transgression, including bargaining and power mongering, is held to be entirely the fault of men. But not all can be blamed on what radical feminists see as an inherently detestable and predatory patriarchy.

Women can be just as predatory as men, sexually and otherwise. Though assigned invisibility by most contemporary feminists who have a vested interest in the myth of women as always and forever victims of men, Phyllis Chesler and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, both cool-headed analysts, have shown that women can be as cruel and heartlessly manipulative toward men and other women as men can be toward women and other men.

Yes, we must recognize it has been and still sometimes is the lamentable truth that women unfairly have been considered the chief sexual polluters of men and society in general. Some medieval (and even contemporary) theologians’ discourses on the temptations the fair sex present to men more than suggest women are more sexually predatory than, as well as inferior to, men.

Such ideas about women began much earlier than the Middle Ages. Tertullian (160-220 AD) addressed women, saying, “Do you not know that you are (each) an Eve? You are the devil’s gateway… you are the first deserter of the divine law… on account of your desert — that is, death — even the Son of God had to die.”

St. Jerome believed “woman is the root of all evil; Eve in paradise was a virgin… virginity is natural and marriage (and sex) comes after the Fall.” (Parentheses mine.)

The theological reasoning goes something like the following: Eve was not able to resist temptation and so was responsible for Adam’s and mankind’s Fall. All women after Eve bore the consequences of her sin, and all had her predatory sexuality and accompanying weaknesses and sins, one of which was that of a seductress who tempted men into the sins of lust.

Alas, not all such reasoning about the inferior and inherently subordinate status of women is in the dim past. Some contemporary theologians such as Bruce Ware and Wayne Grudem, whose ideas are influential in evangelical and reformed circles, insist women will be eternally subordinate to men, as their status of subordination is characteristic of the eternally submissive relationship of Jesus to the Father within the Trinity. For Grudem and Ware, equality of redeemed men and women is not possible even when men and women are resurrected to eternal life. Both men appear to have succumbed to contemporary sexual/gender identity politics as a necessary characteristic of the Godhead. At least Aquinas averred women’s resurrected bodies were as redeemed as men’s. Their unorthodox view concerning the position of women in Heaven vaguely resembles the idea that in Paradise, there are seventy eternally submissive virgins available to men who attain blessedness.

To the credit of some feminists, secular and religious, many have strongly objected to the distorted image of women as inferior to men and as the chief locus of sin, sexual or otherwise.

Thank God.

However, as the current frenzy over the sexual abuse of women begins its descent into sexual McCarthyism, too many contemporary feminists are erring by now assigning the vice of lust almost entirely to the lustful hairy beasts of the male sex, and to the always suspect, but ill defined “patriarchy.” To put it another way, the sins of lust and aggression now have too often been attributed almost solely to men. The predations of women like the pedophile Mary Kay Letourneau, who was convicted of the rape of her twelve-year-old student, are somehow regarded as anomalies.

For some feminists, the idea is that all will be well if and when the patriarchy is destroyed and if and when the sexually rapacious white male is deprived of power.

In sum, as is the case with extremists who believe the evil of racism is part of the genetic makeup of whites, particularly white males; feminist extremists believe men, particularly white men, are automatically predisposed to sexual predation and seldom, if ever, contain their lust. It is assumed that women are never — well very rarely — predators and are to be automatically assumed victims because men have power, the original sin of the patriarchy. Therefore, mere accusation is legitimately enough to condemn any male. Emotional distress is enough to bypass evidence and the rule of law.

Blaming one sex as more intrinsically disordered than the other ignores the fact that each sex is as inclined to evil as the other. As Chesler and others have pointed out, there is more than some truth to the accusation that women are just better at hiding their transgressions than men and that they often direct their worst toward members of their own sex. Ask any woman whose marriage has been destroyed by the pretty young thing at the office just who was preying on whom.

Sin is remarkably evenhanded phenomenon.

The capacity for evil lies in the hearts of men and women. Men are not guilty just because they are men. Women are not guilty just because they are women. Some men are guilty of predation. Some women are guilty of predation. Both can be guilty of using sexual shortcuts in order to achieve power.

If there’s to be an overhaul of the dead end of the sexual revolution we are now witnessing after decades of descent into sexual degradation, it has to start with the idea that though men and women are equally corrupt — each in their own ways toward each other and the members of their own sex — both are redeemable.

The true sexual revolution has never been attained. What we are witnessing now is the dead end of the purely negative sexual revolution begun in the 60s, during which time equality of the sexes was increasingly measured by the calculus of equal degradation, with “Everyman” and “Everywoman” being urged to continue the inexorable slide into the lust-filled second circle of Hell.

Christianity has always held out the hope of redemption for both sexes — equally, both here and in eternity. It offers the hope of both sexes’ redemption and the restoration of equality between the sexes. It urges both to be imitators of Christ.

Sadly, even within the Christian Church, doctrine and cultural practices mitigate against the Edenic and Heavenly ideal. The Church has never taken the ideal of men and women as created equally in the image of God and as equally coheirs of the Kingdom of God with enough seriousness to model those ideals here on planet earth; instead the Church has most often taken its cues from the world.

But all is not lost.

We can hope the spiritual revolution necessary for approaching ideal relationships between men and women and with their God at least will look nearer to Eden than it presently does; and that it might even approach the Heavenly ideal of men and women standing together as redeemed equals who are united to God.

Fay Voshell holds a M.Div. from Princeton theological Seminary, which awarded her its prize for excellence in systematic theology. She is a frequent contributor to American Thinker. Her thoughts have appeared in many online magazines. She may be reached at fvoshell@yahoo.com

Men accused of sexual taint continue to be beheaded by the media, falling like aristocrats trundled to the guillotine. The latest in the tumbrel full of miscreants to go under the blade is Matt Lauer, who was fired from NBC’s Today show for sexual misconduct. Apparently, Lauer’s tribe numbers in the hundreds of thousands.

Or more.

But just as it seems every man is a predator and every woman has been wrongfully fondled, there is a small cloud on the horizon that augers a storm. The cloud may portend a new revolution.

Revolutions often begin with questions about truth and reality. What is the truth behind the accusations? Are men automatically guilty if accused? Should we consider whether women can be as predatory as men? Are all the accusing women innocent victims? Are none of them looking for power or money?

Maybe there is a little room for realistic cynicism.

As Angelo Codevilla recently pointed out, “Men, but mostly women, have been trading erotic services for access to power since time began.” As he observed sexual power plays during his eight years on the Senate staff, “Access to power, or status, or the appearance thereof was on one side, sex on the other. Innocence was the one quality entirely absent on all sides.”

Codevilla’s point is that all sexual transgression, including bargaining and power mongering, is held to be entirely the fault of men. But not all can be blamed on what radical feminists see as an inherently detestable and predatory patriarchy.

Women can be just as predatory as men, sexually and otherwise. Though assigned invisibility by most contemporary feminists who have a vested interest in the myth of women as always and forever victims of men, Phyllis Chesler and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, both cool-headed analysts, have shown that women can be as cruel and heartlessly manipulative toward men and other women as men can be toward women and other men.

Yes, we must recognize it has been and still sometimes is the lamentable truth that women unfairly have been considered the chief sexual polluters of men and society in general. Some medieval (and even contemporary) theologians’ discourses on the temptations the fair sex present to men more than suggest women are more sexually predatory than, as well as inferior to, men.

Such ideas about women began much earlier than the Middle Ages. Tertullian (160-220 AD) addressed women, saying, “Do you not know that you are (each) an Eve? You are the devil’s gateway… you are the first deserter of the divine law… on account of your desert — that is, death — even the Son of God had to die.”

St. Jerome believed “woman is the root of all evil; Eve in paradise was a virgin… virginity is natural and marriage (and sex) comes after the Fall.” (Parentheses mine.)

The theological reasoning goes something like the following: Eve was not able to resist temptation and so was responsible for Adam’s and mankind’s Fall. All women after Eve bore the consequences of her sin, and all had her predatory sexuality and accompanying weaknesses and sins, one of which was that of a seductress who tempted men into the sins of lust.

Alas, not all such reasoning about the inferior and inherently subordinate status of women is in the dim past. Some contemporary theologians such as Bruce Ware and Wayne Grudem, whose ideas are influential in evangelical and reformed circles, insist women will be eternally subordinate to men, as their status of subordination is characteristic of the eternally submissive relationship of Jesus to the Father within the Trinity. For Grudem and Ware, equality of redeemed men and women is not possible even when men and women are resurrected to eternal life. Both men appear to have succumbed to contemporary sexual/gender identity politics as a necessary characteristic of the Godhead. At least Aquinas averred women’s resurrected bodies were as redeemed as men’s. Their unorthodox view concerning the position of women in Heaven vaguely resembles the idea that in Paradise, there are seventy eternally submissive virgins available to men who attain blessedness.

To the credit of some feminists, secular and religious, many have strongly objected to the distorted image of women as inferior to men and as the chief locus of sin, sexual or otherwise.

Thank God.

However, as the current frenzy over the sexual abuse of women begins its descent into sexual McCarthyism, too many contemporary feminists are erring by now assigning the vice of lust almost entirely to the lustful hairy beasts of the male sex, and to the always suspect, but ill defined “patriarchy.” To put it another way, the sins of lust and aggression now have too often been attributed almost solely to men. The predations of women like the pedophile Mary Kay Letourneau, who was convicted of the rape of her twelve-year-old student, are somehow regarded as anomalies.

For some feminists, the idea is that all will be well if and when the patriarchy is destroyed and if and when the sexually rapacious white male is deprived of power.

In sum, as is the case with extremists who believe the evil of racism is part of the genetic makeup of whites, particularly white males; feminist extremists believe men, particularly white men, are automatically predisposed to sexual predation and seldom, if ever, contain their lust. It is assumed that women are never — well very rarely — predators and are to be automatically assumed victims because men have power, the original sin of the patriarchy. Therefore, mere accusation is legitimately enough to condemn any male. Emotional distress is enough to bypass evidence and the rule of law.

Blaming one sex as more intrinsically disordered than the other ignores the fact that each sex is as inclined to evil as the other. As Chesler and others have pointed out, there is more than some truth to the accusation that women are just better at hiding their transgressions than men and that they often direct their worst toward members of their own sex. Ask any woman whose marriage has been destroyed by the pretty young thing at the office just who was preying on whom.

Sin is remarkably evenhanded phenomenon.

The capacity for evil lies in the hearts of men and women. Men are not guilty just because they are men. Women are not guilty just because they are women. Some men are guilty of predation. Some women are guilty of predation. Both can be guilty of using sexual shortcuts in order to achieve power.

If there’s to be an overhaul of the dead end of the sexual revolution we are now witnessing after decades of descent into sexual degradation, it has to start with the idea that though men and women are equally corrupt — each in their own ways toward each other and the members of their own sex — both are redeemable.

The true sexual revolution has never been attained. What we are witnessing now is the dead end of the purely negative sexual revolution begun in the 60s, during which time equality of the sexes was increasingly measured by the calculus of equal degradation, with “Everyman” and “Everywoman” being urged to continue the inexorable slide into the lust-filled second circle of Hell.

Christianity has always held out the hope of redemption for both sexes — equally, both here and in eternity. It offers the hope of both sexes’ redemption and the restoration of equality between the sexes. It urges both to be imitators of Christ.

Sadly, even within the Christian Church, doctrine and cultural practices mitigate against the Edenic and Heavenly ideal. The Church has never taken the ideal of men and women as created equally in the image of God and as equally coheirs of the Kingdom of God with enough seriousness to model those ideals here on planet earth; instead the Church has most often taken its cues from the world.

But all is not lost.

We can hope the spiritual revolution necessary for approaching ideal relationships between men and women and with their God at least will look nearer to Eden than it presently does; and that it might even approach the Heavenly ideal of men and women standing together as redeemed equals who are united to God.

Fay Voshell holds a M.Div. from Princeton theological Seminary, which awarded her its prize for excellence in systematic theology. She is a frequent contributor to American Thinker. Her thoughts have appeared in many online magazines. She may be reached at fvoshell@yahoo.com



Source link

Charlie Rose: One More Reason to Turn Off the Television


For more than a month, the American public has heard many stories of sexual harassment among Hollywood, media and political elite. New accusations against different perpetrators seem to emerge every other day. We have reached the point where we are no longer surprised.

It would take years for us to place all these events into proper context. What they say about our culture and our recent history is momentous. Instead of trying to digest this whole story at once, I would like to focus on one of these perpetrators in order to understand our “elite” and who they really are.

Last week, the award-winning Charlie Rose was the subject of sordid allegations by eight different women. He did not specifically deny the allegations. He was fired by CBS and PBS. Most likely, his career is over. But for several decades, Rose has been a chief source of information for the American public. A protégé of Bill Moyers, Rose has provided softball interviews for establishment media and political figures since the 1970s. He has conducted extensive interviews with world leaders, authors, establishment journalists, artists, and entertainers. Rose has walked with kings while pontificating from on high to the rest of us. He is well-educated, cultured, and, until last week, highly acclaimed and awarded.  Rose is the recipient of doctorates, both real and honorary. He was, until now, a sought-after commencement speaker at our institutions of higher learning. He is as smooth and glib as any journalist/politician.

He is the opposite of the “deplorables” that the establishment castigates. Rose and his erstwhile allies exude every indicium of sophistication that they claim the deplorables lack. Charlie Rose, Hollywood, and the entire Eastern media have brought King Louis’ Palace of Versailles into the 21st century — with predictable results. The elite have created a culture of faux sophistication where courtiers imitate them and seek favor from them, while disdaining the mere peasants of flyover country.

I am sure that Rose has dined at the finest restaurants around the world. He can probably name the chef (and even his favorite waiter) in many of those places. I am sure he always knows what wine is appropriate to order with what meal. His choices of food, entertainment, and company reflect not mere personal taste, but the desire to name-drop and impress. It worked. For many years, Rose impressed his way into a position of power.

Would Rose or his allies ever have been caught dead at a Denny’s chomping down on an ordinary hamburger? Needless to say, Rose and many others have now been caught in far worse circumstances than merely eating non-pretentious food in a non-pretentious restaurant. Rose’ honorary degrees and political connections could not rescue him. He now stands figuratively naked (in addition to his literal activities) in front of the “deplorable” audience that he once “informed” and influenced.

Of all the lessons that these episodes hold for ordinary Americans, one lesson is worth noting. The pretentiousness, refinement, education, sophistication, wealth, and connections of the elite in no way mean that they will refrain from boorish, disgusting, and revolting behavior. They are as petty, unrefined, and vile as the rest of us (I suspect much more so). We can now officially stop being impressed by their former status.

Why does this matter? Because for more decades than Charlie Rose was on the air, we have relied on the elite for our information and our very understanding of the events of the day and the policies that shape our lives. Their very sophistication and professionalism gave credence to their views, their biases and their alliances.

Only with the availability of the internet and cable have we begun to break free of our long attachment to the elite. The deplorables’ ability to ignore them in 2016 created a backlash among the elite that is, itself, a story. The 2016 election may, itself, become the model for behavior among a portion of the electorate in the future. At the very least, a large portion of the voters are prepared to ignore the establishment media instead of engaging it by means of their former fealty or their recent pushback. The influence of the old media continues to wane. But the scandals of late 2017 should make this trend more pronounced.

We already know that the mainstream media (and their elitist allies) are out of touch. Until now, we have only complained about “media bias.” We have waited in vain for some degree of fairness with each successive broadcast. We continue to pay for movies and watch television in the foolish expectation that we will receive entertainment instead of propaganda. But these scandals should relieve us of these expectations. The image of Charlie Rose abusing his staff should forever make the rest of us forget all his honorary degrees and friendships with world leaders. We should once and for all understand how little value there is to being a member of the elite and why we should not care what they say or believe.

Instead of tuning in and arguing with them, it is time to tune out find some other leisure activity. Pretentiousness, sophistication, world-travel, and the trappings of power are expensive. This expense is borne by the rest of us every time we turn on the television — whether we agree with what we see or not. It is time to starve the beast. We do not need literally to storm the Bastille. We need only turn off our televisions. What better reason to tune them out than the revelation that so many of them are sexual predators behind the scenes who put their clothes back on only to appear on camera. Only when we learn to ignore them will they lose influence over our country and the policies that oppress the rest of us. 

For more than a month, the American public has heard many stories of sexual harassment among Hollywood, media and political elite. New accusations against different perpetrators seem to emerge every other day. We have reached the point where we are no longer surprised.

It would take years for us to place all these events into proper context. What they say about our culture and our recent history is momentous. Instead of trying to digest this whole story at once, I would like to focus on one of these perpetrators in order to understand our “elite” and who they really are.

Last week, the award-winning Charlie Rose was the subject of sordid allegations by eight different women. He did not specifically deny the allegations. He was fired by CBS and PBS. Most likely, his career is over. But for several decades, Rose has been a chief source of information for the American public. A protégé of Bill Moyers, Rose has provided softball interviews for establishment media and political figures since the 1970s. He has conducted extensive interviews with world leaders, authors, establishment journalists, artists, and entertainers. Rose has walked with kings while pontificating from on high to the rest of us. He is well-educated, cultured, and, until last week, highly acclaimed and awarded.  Rose is the recipient of doctorates, both real and honorary. He was, until now, a sought-after commencement speaker at our institutions of higher learning. He is as smooth and glib as any journalist/politician.

He is the opposite of the “deplorables” that the establishment castigates. Rose and his erstwhile allies exude every indicium of sophistication that they claim the deplorables lack. Charlie Rose, Hollywood, and the entire Eastern media have brought King Louis’ Palace of Versailles into the 21st century — with predictable results. The elite have created a culture of faux sophistication where courtiers imitate them and seek favor from them, while disdaining the mere peasants of flyover country.

I am sure that Rose has dined at the finest restaurants around the world. He can probably name the chef (and even his favorite waiter) in many of those places. I am sure he always knows what wine is appropriate to order with what meal. His choices of food, entertainment, and company reflect not mere personal taste, but the desire to name-drop and impress. It worked. For many years, Rose impressed his way into a position of power.

Would Rose or his allies ever have been caught dead at a Denny’s chomping down on an ordinary hamburger? Needless to say, Rose and many others have now been caught in far worse circumstances than merely eating non-pretentious food in a non-pretentious restaurant. Rose’ honorary degrees and political connections could not rescue him. He now stands figuratively naked (in addition to his literal activities) in front of the “deplorable” audience that he once “informed” and influenced.

Of all the lessons that these episodes hold for ordinary Americans, one lesson is worth noting. The pretentiousness, refinement, education, sophistication, wealth, and connections of the elite in no way mean that they will refrain from boorish, disgusting, and revolting behavior. They are as petty, unrefined, and vile as the rest of us (I suspect much more so). We can now officially stop being impressed by their former status.

Why does this matter? Because for more decades than Charlie Rose was on the air, we have relied on the elite for our information and our very understanding of the events of the day and the policies that shape our lives. Their very sophistication and professionalism gave credence to their views, their biases and their alliances.

Only with the availability of the internet and cable have we begun to break free of our long attachment to the elite. The deplorables’ ability to ignore them in 2016 created a backlash among the elite that is, itself, a story. The 2016 election may, itself, become the model for behavior among a portion of the electorate in the future. At the very least, a large portion of the voters are prepared to ignore the establishment media instead of engaging it by means of their former fealty or their recent pushback. The influence of the old media continues to wane. But the scandals of late 2017 should make this trend more pronounced.

We already know that the mainstream media (and their elitist allies) are out of touch. Until now, we have only complained about “media bias.” We have waited in vain for some degree of fairness with each successive broadcast. We continue to pay for movies and watch television in the foolish expectation that we will receive entertainment instead of propaganda. But these scandals should relieve us of these expectations. The image of Charlie Rose abusing his staff should forever make the rest of us forget all his honorary degrees and friendships with world leaders. We should once and for all understand how little value there is to being a member of the elite and why we should not care what they say or believe.

Instead of tuning in and arguing with them, it is time to tune out find some other leisure activity. Pretentiousness, sophistication, world-travel, and the trappings of power are expensive. This expense is borne by the rest of us every time we turn on the television — whether we agree with what we see or not. It is time to starve the beast. We do not need literally to storm the Bastille. We need only turn off our televisions. What better reason to tune them out than the revelation that so many of them are sexual predators behind the scenes who put their clothes back on only to appear on camera. Only when we learn to ignore them will they lose influence over our country and the policies that oppress the rest of us. 



Source link

Thanksgiving With a Dollop of Politics on the Side


Over the Thanksgiving weekend, I caught two police drama TV shows in which a young woman called her man her “partner” rather than her boyfriend. I thought, “That’s weird. Why didn’t she simply say her boyfriend?” Then, it dawned on me. Homosexuals use the term “partner.” So now Hollywood producers are telling us we must be what they call “gender inclusive”. We must abandon traditional gender distinctive terms like boyfriend and girlfriend. This is yet another under-the-radar baby-step by Leftists to implement the LGBT agenda.

Some of you are saying, Lloyd, you’re nuts, seeing conspiracy everywhere. Okay, explain to me why boyfriends are now called partners. Public schools are banning teachers from addressing students as boys and girls. Leftists claim that saying “boys and girls” is bigoted, ignorant, insensitive and mean. 

Ground zero for the gender obsession and anything goes sexually movement sweeping our country is the democratic party. Amazingly, 77% of college-educated Democrats say that gender is not determined at birth. 

Think about that, folks. 77% of college Democrats say that if you believe “penis” means boy and “vagina” means girl you are an idiot; an intolerant hater. They are also saying that God’s original plan for males and females is wrong and they will use government to force us into submission. An elementary teacher who cannot decide her gender was awarded $60k because co-workers refused to call her, “they.” It is crazy out there folks.

Other than noticing women calling boyfriends partners, watching TV Thanksgiving weekend was refreshingly void of Leftists’ indoctrination.

My wife Mary said, “Oh no, Matt Lauer, is hosting Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade.” Thankfully, Lauer did not interject digs at Trump or lecture us. Leftists use Thanksgiving to scold us. They say while we stuff ourselves with turkey and pumpkin pie the world that we stole everything from is suffering. NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick spent Thanksgiving at an “Un-Thanksgiving” rally to continue telling us Americans what scumbags we are. 

Leftist president Obama used Thanksgiving to beat up on us for not going along with him bringing in 10,000 Syrian refugees. This was on the heels of the terrorist bombing in Paris. The suicide bomber snuck into Paris in a group of refugees. 

The Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade was wholesome and fun to watch. Although, I expected to see the first LGBT float. Threats of large-scale violence forced the Boston St. Patrick’s Day Parade to include LGBTs. Note that the St. Patrick’s Day parade is a Catholic event. Leftists love forcing Christians to abandon their religious convictions. 

I deserve a Husband-of-the-Year award for allowing Mary to drag me to a ga-zillion stores on Black Friday. She really enjoyed and appreciated it.

As a black man, I am highly offended that they call it “black” Friday. Just kidding. But it is pretty crazy the way Leftists find ways to see victims and racism in everything and everywhere these days. I read an article in which a Leftist declared peanut butter and jelly sandwiches racist. I kid you not, folks.

Taking a break from my overflowing with testosterone movies like Die Hard and John Wick, I watched a Christmas movie with Mary on her beloved Hallmark Channel. For the most part, the movie featured traditional values and themes; boy meets girl and so on. Dare I admit that the happily ever-after ending felt good and made me smile. Then, I watched Stanford kick Notre Dame’s butt; 38 to 20.

Mary noticed that her Hallmark Christmas movie marathon featured few blacks. I think it is because Hallmark has mistakenly bought into Leftists’ image of black America, thinking their movies are too traditional and wholesome to attract a large black viewership.

As a black American, practically everything I see Hollywood marketing to black Americans has a rude, crude ghetto cultural edge. BET (Black Entertainment Television) programming celebrates raunchiness.

Leftists at Oxygen channel were excited about giving black America their new reality show titled, “All My Babies’ Mamas.” The show featured black rapper Shawty Lo who had 11 children by 10 black girls. Thank God the show was canceled due to black outrage. 

As a matter of fact, Leftists say blacks who do not reflect “the hood” in their speech, behavior and dress are traitors to their race; trying to act white. I remember Leftists trashed “The Cosby Show” for featuring a successful wholesome black family in America. Leftists deemed the TV show unrealistic.

Ponder that folks. Dr. MLK, Jr, my dad, and other black civil rights pioneers/heroes fought, suffered and some even died for blacks to have an opportunity to rise above poverty, ignorance and “the hood.” Praise God, blacks are thriving in every area of American life today. And yet, Leftists are persistent in grabbing blacks by the ankles to make sure they do not stray too far from their ghetto roots.

I had a delightful Thanksgiving weekend folks. I am thankful for my amazing wife of 40 years, thankful for our new home in West Virginia and thankful that Donald Trump is in the White House.

Go, Judge Moore, Go!!!

Lloyd Marcus, The Unhyphenated American

Author: Confessions of a Black Conservative: How the Left has shattered the dreams of Martin Luther King, Jr. and Black America.

Singer/Songwriter and Conservative Activist

http://LloydMarcus.com

Over the Thanksgiving weekend, I caught two police drama TV shows in which a young woman called her man her “partner” rather than her boyfriend. I thought, “That’s weird. Why didn’t she simply say her boyfriend?” Then, it dawned on me. Homosexuals use the term “partner.” So now Hollywood producers are telling us we must be what they call “gender inclusive”. We must abandon traditional gender distinctive terms like boyfriend and girlfriend. This is yet another under-the-radar baby-step by Leftists to implement the LGBT agenda.

Some of you are saying, Lloyd, you’re nuts, seeing conspiracy everywhere. Okay, explain to me why boyfriends are now called partners. Public schools are banning teachers from addressing students as boys and girls. Leftists claim that saying “boys and girls” is bigoted, ignorant, insensitive and mean. 

Ground zero for the gender obsession and anything goes sexually movement sweeping our country is the democratic party. Amazingly, 77% of college-educated Democrats say that gender is not determined at birth. 

Think about that, folks. 77% of college Democrats say that if you believe “penis” means boy and “vagina” means girl you are an idiot; an intolerant hater. They are also saying that God’s original plan for males and females is wrong and they will use government to force us into submission. An elementary teacher who cannot decide her gender was awarded $60k because co-workers refused to call her, “they.” It is crazy out there folks.

Other than noticing women calling boyfriends partners, watching TV Thanksgiving weekend was refreshingly void of Leftists’ indoctrination.

My wife Mary said, “Oh no, Matt Lauer, is hosting Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade.” Thankfully, Lauer did not interject digs at Trump or lecture us. Leftists use Thanksgiving to scold us. They say while we stuff ourselves with turkey and pumpkin pie the world that we stole everything from is suffering. NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick spent Thanksgiving at an “Un-Thanksgiving” rally to continue telling us Americans what scumbags we are. 

Leftist president Obama used Thanksgiving to beat up on us for not going along with him bringing in 10,000 Syrian refugees. This was on the heels of the terrorist bombing in Paris. The suicide bomber snuck into Paris in a group of refugees. 

The Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade was wholesome and fun to watch. Although, I expected to see the first LGBT float. Threats of large-scale violence forced the Boston St. Patrick’s Day Parade to include LGBTs. Note that the St. Patrick’s Day parade is a Catholic event. Leftists love forcing Christians to abandon their religious convictions. 

I deserve a Husband-of-the-Year award for allowing Mary to drag me to a ga-zillion stores on Black Friday. She really enjoyed and appreciated it.

As a black man, I am highly offended that they call it “black” Friday. Just kidding. But it is pretty crazy the way Leftists find ways to see victims and racism in everything and everywhere these days. I read an article in which a Leftist declared peanut butter and jelly sandwiches racist. I kid you not, folks.

Taking a break from my overflowing with testosterone movies like Die Hard and John Wick, I watched a Christmas movie with Mary on her beloved Hallmark Channel. For the most part, the movie featured traditional values and themes; boy meets girl and so on. Dare I admit that the happily ever-after ending felt good and made me smile. Then, I watched Stanford kick Notre Dame’s butt; 38 to 20.

Mary noticed that her Hallmark Christmas movie marathon featured few blacks. I think it is because Hallmark has mistakenly bought into Leftists’ image of black America, thinking their movies are too traditional and wholesome to attract a large black viewership.

As a black American, practically everything I see Hollywood marketing to black Americans has a rude, crude ghetto cultural edge. BET (Black Entertainment Television) programming celebrates raunchiness.

Leftists at Oxygen channel were excited about giving black America their new reality show titled, “All My Babies’ Mamas.” The show featured black rapper Shawty Lo who had 11 children by 10 black girls. Thank God the show was canceled due to black outrage. 

As a matter of fact, Leftists say blacks who do not reflect “the hood” in their speech, behavior and dress are traitors to their race; trying to act white. I remember Leftists trashed “The Cosby Show” for featuring a successful wholesome black family in America. Leftists deemed the TV show unrealistic.

Ponder that folks. Dr. MLK, Jr, my dad, and other black civil rights pioneers/heroes fought, suffered and some even died for blacks to have an opportunity to rise above poverty, ignorance and “the hood.” Praise God, blacks are thriving in every area of American life today. And yet, Leftists are persistent in grabbing blacks by the ankles to make sure they do not stray too far from their ghetto roots.

I had a delightful Thanksgiving weekend folks. I am thankful for my amazing wife of 40 years, thankful for our new home in West Virginia and thankful that Donald Trump is in the White House.

Go, Judge Moore, Go!!!

Lloyd Marcus, The Unhyphenated American

Author: Confessions of a Black Conservative: How the Left has shattered the dreams of Martin Luther King, Jr. and Black America.

Singer/Songwriter and Conservative Activist

http://LloydMarcus.com



Source link

Saudis Purging Jihad Backers?


While the U.S. media have been playing deaf, dumb, and blind, as usual, Saudi Arabia is seeing a huge, unprecedented purge from the top. King Salman is planning to step down and pass the power to his designated heir, Mohammed bin Salman (aka MbS). This looks like the culmination of a huge power struggle in SA, which is what happens when the top leaders get old in tribal federations — which is essentially what Saudi Arabia is. 

With the full backing of the King, MbS has been conducting an enormous purge of competing tribal and financial power holders. When MbS takes over, he apparently wants to transform the Saudi economy, and to educate Saudis to live in the modern world. 

This is vitally important to Americans, because the Saudi role in 9/11/01 has always been lied about and covered up in the U.S. media, with the open support of the Democrats and even the Bush family. The whole scare campaign of “Islamophobia” has mobilized the left both here and in Europe to attack and discredit any sources of truth about the jihad war.

President Trump has openly tweeted his support of King Salman and MbS, which includes some rough treatment of the folks being purged. 

Donald J. Trump


@realDonaldTrump


I have great confidence in King Salman and the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, they know exactly what they are doing….


Donald J. Trump


@realDonaldTrump


….Some of those they are harshly treating have been “milking” their country for years!


3:05 PM – Nov 6, 2017

For American citizens the big question is: Will we finally learn who in SA has been funding and order jihad attacks like the 3,000 innocents killed in the Twin Towers assault on 9/11/01? 

Trump is now closely allied with King Salman and MbS, and POTUS has been setting up a new strategic alliance including Israel, the United States, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf Arab regimes. No previous U.S. President — none — has been able to accomplish this much, ever since the start of the Jihad War. You might remember why you voted for this guy, instead of Hillary.

There are at least two strategic goals, it would seem.

First, to put a screeching halt to the jihad massacres funded and secretly ordered by the Sunni half of Islam, which is headquartered in Saudi Arabia. While ordinary Americans and Europeans have been kept in the dark, feeling confused and disoriented about these merciless attacks on ordinary people, children, women, civilian men, Jews, Christians, and Africans who are not Muslims, our media have joined the coverup, and we deserve to know why. We know that the Clinton Foundation was awash in jihad dollars, and Admiral James Lyons (USN, Ret) has made it clear that our government agencies have been deeply penetrated for many years. We’ve seen the evidence ourselves.

The second strategic goal is to support modernizing forces in the Muslim world, like Egypt’s President El Sisi, the Jordanians, and many others. This is not going to be easy or pretty, but there is support for change. Saudi Arabia cannot survive the fall in oil prices, which has made it possible for the Saudis to be fat, lazy, and self-indulgent, while buying up U.S. and European politicians by the barrel.

Walid bin Talal is the best-known Saudi powerbroker who has been arrested and is said to be under extreme pressure from MbS himself (and his enforcers), to give a big chunk of his money to the new rulers in SA, to help the country survive the coming years of low oil prices. Since shale drilling is now spreading around the world, and President Trump has opened up US domestic production, the world will soon be awash in clean sources of energy. Natural gas is the cleanest source available, not solar, because it takes a lot more energy to make solar panels and all that than pumping natural gas.  

It’s interesting, to say the least, that the New York Times‘ Thomas Friedman is now publicly asking the Saudis not to be too nasty to the purgees. 

Friedman is a jihad-symp, like BH Obama, Michelle Obama, Hillary, and all the rest. Friedman seems to be coming out now, because he’s part of the “jihad is no big deal” establishment, which has lots of friends on the other side. Friedman also knows that this is an enormous purge, and that because it’s not limited to SA; the outcome is still up for grabs.

Donald Trump has been in complete support of this progressive turn in the Muslim world. Behind the scenes the Old Guard in the media, the anti-American billionaire class, and jihad sympathizers in our universities and in the Middle East have been trying to undermine and sabotage any change for the better.

So the first question is: Who are the jihad perps on the Saudi (Sunni) side?

Another major question is: Who has been colluding with jihad forces in the West? It’s beyond obvious that the Western coalition that won the Cold War in 1990 has been routed by a new and even more primitive war cult. Marxism and jihad have a lot in common.

I think Americans deserve the answer to both those questions.

There are reports that 500 people have been arrested, with the most powerful being imprisoned in the Riyadh Ritz Carlton. the most famous one being Walid bin Tallal, who is all over the Western media as the smiling face of Saudi money and its (rapidly disappearing) oil weapon. Donald Trump has decisively opened up domestic oil and gas production, depriving OPEC states like SA of their clout. The Saudi press has been publishing articles predicting that the huge Saudi treasury will be diminished in a matter of years. The Saudis therefore feel extremely vulnerable to Iranian (Shi’ite) attack, and the Iranians are systematically encircling the Sunni regimes. The Saudis therefore need us badly.

We know the Iranians have been credibly accused of training and ordering jihad attacks on the infidels — meaning anybody but them. But the mullahs are due for retribution after the Saudi purge is consolidated.

Donald Trump has earned our support already, after only a year in office. The Dark Side is constantly trying to overthrow our duly elected President. If you want to support the good guys, let your voice be heard. 

While the U.S. media have been playing deaf, dumb, and blind, as usual, Saudi Arabia is seeing a huge, unprecedented purge from the top. King Salman is planning to step down and pass the power to his designated heir, Mohammed bin Salman (aka MbS). This looks like the culmination of a huge power struggle in SA, which is what happens when the top leaders get old in tribal federations — which is essentially what Saudi Arabia is. 

With the full backing of the King, MbS has been conducting an enormous purge of competing tribal and financial power holders. When MbS takes over, he apparently wants to transform the Saudi economy, and to educate Saudis to live in the modern world. 

This is vitally important to Americans, because the Saudi role in 9/11/01 has always been lied about and covered up in the U.S. media, with the open support of the Democrats and even the Bush family. The whole scare campaign of “Islamophobia” has mobilized the left both here and in Europe to attack and discredit any sources of truth about the jihad war.

President Trump has openly tweeted his support of King Salman and MbS, which includes some rough treatment of the folks being purged. 

Donald J. Trump


@realDonaldTrump


I have great confidence in King Salman and the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, they know exactly what they are doing….


Donald J. Trump


@realDonaldTrump


….Some of those they are harshly treating have been “milking” their country for years!


3:05 PM – Nov 6, 2017

For American citizens the big question is: Will we finally learn who in SA has been funding and order jihad attacks like the 3,000 innocents killed in the Twin Towers assault on 9/11/01? 

Trump is now closely allied with King Salman and MbS, and POTUS has been setting up a new strategic alliance including Israel, the United States, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf Arab regimes. No previous U.S. President — none — has been able to accomplish this much, ever since the start of the Jihad War. You might remember why you voted for this guy, instead of Hillary.

There are at least two strategic goals, it would seem.

First, to put a screeching halt to the jihad massacres funded and secretly ordered by the Sunni half of Islam, which is headquartered in Saudi Arabia. While ordinary Americans and Europeans have been kept in the dark, feeling confused and disoriented about these merciless attacks on ordinary people, children, women, civilian men, Jews, Christians, and Africans who are not Muslims, our media have joined the coverup, and we deserve to know why. We know that the Clinton Foundation was awash in jihad dollars, and Admiral James Lyons (USN, Ret) has made it clear that our government agencies have been deeply penetrated for many years. We’ve seen the evidence ourselves.

The second strategic goal is to support modernizing forces in the Muslim world, like Egypt’s President El Sisi, the Jordanians, and many others. This is not going to be easy or pretty, but there is support for change. Saudi Arabia cannot survive the fall in oil prices, which has made it possible for the Saudis to be fat, lazy, and self-indulgent, while buying up U.S. and European politicians by the barrel.

Walid bin Talal is the best-known Saudi powerbroker who has been arrested and is said to be under extreme pressure from MbS himself (and his enforcers), to give a big chunk of his money to the new rulers in SA, to help the country survive the coming years of low oil prices. Since shale drilling is now spreading around the world, and President Trump has opened up US domestic production, the world will soon be awash in clean sources of energy. Natural gas is the cleanest source available, not solar, because it takes a lot more energy to make solar panels and all that than pumping natural gas.  

It’s interesting, to say the least, that the New York Times‘ Thomas Friedman is now publicly asking the Saudis not to be too nasty to the purgees. 

Friedman is a jihad-symp, like BH Obama, Michelle Obama, Hillary, and all the rest. Friedman seems to be coming out now, because he’s part of the “jihad is no big deal” establishment, which has lots of friends on the other side. Friedman also knows that this is an enormous purge, and that because it’s not limited to SA; the outcome is still up for grabs.

Donald Trump has been in complete support of this progressive turn in the Muslim world. Behind the scenes the Old Guard in the media, the anti-American billionaire class, and jihad sympathizers in our universities and in the Middle East have been trying to undermine and sabotage any change for the better.

So the first question is: Who are the jihad perps on the Saudi (Sunni) side?

Another major question is: Who has been colluding with jihad forces in the West? It’s beyond obvious that the Western coalition that won the Cold War in 1990 has been routed by a new and even more primitive war cult. Marxism and jihad have a lot in common.

I think Americans deserve the answer to both those questions.

There are reports that 500 people have been arrested, with the most powerful being imprisoned in the Riyadh Ritz Carlton. the most famous one being Walid bin Tallal, who is all over the Western media as the smiling face of Saudi money and its (rapidly disappearing) oil weapon. Donald Trump has decisively opened up domestic oil and gas production, depriving OPEC states like SA of their clout. The Saudi press has been publishing articles predicting that the huge Saudi treasury will be diminished in a matter of years. The Saudis therefore feel extremely vulnerable to Iranian (Shi’ite) attack, and the Iranians are systematically encircling the Sunni regimes. The Saudis therefore need us badly.

We know the Iranians have been credibly accused of training and ordering jihad attacks on the infidels — meaning anybody but them. But the mullahs are due for retribution after the Saudi purge is consolidated.

Donald Trump has earned our support already, after only a year in office. The Dark Side is constantly trying to overthrow our duly elected President. If you want to support the good guys, let your voice be heard. 



Source link

A New Saudi Arabia — a New Middle East?


I’ve been convinced after thinking it through that the best thing for Saudi Arabia would be Israel. The figures on the chessboard of politics are forever changing with regard to each other. It is an agreeable surprise that for the first time a young Jewish woman is competing in the contest to become Miss Germany. More significantly, changes in the Middle East based on mutual interests was shown in a New York synagogue where Efraim Halevy, former head of the Israeli Mossad, met Egyptian Prince Turki bin Faisal al Saud, longtime head of Saudi Arabian intelligence agency. Another encounter was in a synagogue in Paris, visited in November 2017 by two former Saudi officials, a minister for justice, and a minister for education.

It is exactly 40 years since the historic visit of President Anwar Sadat to Jerusalem paved the way for the 1979 peace treaty between Egypt and Israel. The time is now ripe for a closer relationship, an open diplomatic one, between Saudi Arabia and Israel. Saudi Arabia cannot yet be considered an open society, but things are changing, with a certain amount of discussion allowed in social media, and concerts and performances, and a new, dynamic, and bold leader, the 32-year-old Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, appointed to the rank in June 2017.

The Crown Prince, a young man in a hurry if somewhat impulsive, has already acted to exert control over the country, and has been consolidating and centralizing power since his appointment. He has replaced the former crown prince, his older cousin Prince Mohammed bin Nayef, first as interior minister who was in control of security arrangements. He removed Prince Mitreb bin Abdullah as head of the national guard, the internal police force.

Particularly surprising were the events of November 4, 2017, when there was a purge of senior princes and business leaders accused of corruption. They included the billionaire Alwaleed bin Tatal, one of the world’s richest men, who has been nicknamed the Warren Buffet of Arabia. Moreover, Salman has shown his power by what appears to be the house arrest on charges of systematic corruption involving $100 billion of more than 200 prominent and rich people now housed in the palatial and prestigious Ritz-Carlton Hotel in Riyadh, which hosted President Donald Trump in May 2017.

The Crown Prince appears to have two major objectives: to confront Iran politically, diplomatically, militarily, strategically, and theologically; and to modernize Saudi Arabia, eliminate corruption, and foster a more competitive economy. Two of Salman’s projects to introduce economic and social change and end the reliance on oil are especially impressive, plans for a Mega-city, and the Neom project. The Mega-city proposal is a $500 billion plan for a unit that spans Egypt and Jordan as well as Saudi Arabia, powered by energy from different sources. The Neom project is planned as a large center for innovation and trade, linking industry and technology.

With the decline in oil prices the Saudi economy has faltered, and had a budget deficit of $79 billion last year. The main plan for change, Vision 2030, envisages increasing non-oil revenue to 600 billion riyals, ($169 billion) by 2020, and 1 trillion riyals by 2030. Part of the revenue would come from privatizing part of the state oil company, Saudi Aramco. The plan would create what Salman calls the world’s largest sovereign wealth fund. Economic liberalization will involve financial cuts in benefits for civil servants and military personnel, and in energy subsidies.

Social changes related to the plans are changes in the educational curriculum, increasing women’s participation in the workforce, allowing women to drive, and investing $3 billion in the entertainment sector.

Saudi Arabia has become more active politically and militarily, acting to preserve its territorial integrity and political stability. Salman led a boycott of Qatar in June 2017 for allegedly providing supplies to Yemen. He had already intervened in fighting in Yemen in order to restore the government of Yemeni president Abdrabbuh Mansour Hadi who was forced to resign in January 2015 under pressure from Shia militia.

Salman pressured Lebanese prime minister Saad al-Hariri to resign on November 4, 2017, defying the views of UK, EU, France, and Germany. He has used some of the nomadic tribes that originate in Saudi Arabia to influence activity in the Middle East beyond its border.

Undoubtedly the main issue for Saudi Arabia is its rival Iran, the font of all evils, seen as an existential threat. Saudi Arabia, with armed forces of 250,000, and 900 battle tanks confronts the more powerful Iran which has 560,000 armed forces and 1,500 battle tanks. Saudi’s only military advantage is its more up-to-date combat air fleet.

Already there are proxy wars between the two countries. In Yemen, in a war that has cost 10,000 lives, Iran has supplied ballistic missiles fired by Shia Houthi rebels who are opposed by the Saudis. In Syria, rebels funded by the Saudis have been defeated by the forces of President Assad helped by Iran. In Lebanon the Hizb’allah, supported and armed by Iran, is an increasing problem for the Saudis who see it as a force for instability in the Middle East.

Saudi Arabia, to gain support, has formed an alliance of Sunni countries against Shia Iran. Prince Salman on November 26, 2017 convened a meeting, attended by all members except Qatar, in Riyadh to energize the military coalition, the Islamic Military Counter Terrorism coalition of 41 members set up by the Saudis in 2015. It is essentially a military alliance among Sunni Muslim states against Islamic terrorism activity, financing, and ideology. Iraq, Syria, and Iran, are not members.

This meeting was a response to the November 24, 2017 the bomb and gun attack on a mosque in north Sinai, frequented by Islamic Sufis, considered a heretical sect. The attack that killed 305 and injured 128 was carried out by assailants who carried an ISIS flag.

Saudi political and religious authorities have made clear that the enemy is terrorism, not sects, religions, or races. One of the greatest dangers of this extremist Islamist terrorism is held to be distorting the reputation of “our tolerant religion.” An interesting and important departure is the view of the Grand Mufti, Abdul Alash-Sheikh, of the country, who remarked both that killing Jews and fighting against Israel was inappropriate for Muslims, and that Hamas is a terror organization.

An open question is the relationship with Israel now that the Saudis need friends in the bitter rivalry with Iran. Its general problem had been worsened by the result of the U.S.-led coalition in 2003 in Iraq that ended the regime of Saddam Hussein, a regime that, with all its brutalities, was for the Saudis a Sunni Arab counterweight to Shia Iran. Now the Shia dominated political leadership in Iraq is close to Iran, and an Iraqi Shia militia is helping Assad.

There is no likelihood at present of any kind of formal peace with Israel, or full diplomatic and economic relations with Israel but nor is there any real Saudi concern about Palestine. Any deal about Palestine, especially one based on the 2002 Saudi peace initiative, based on Israel withdrawal from occupied territory, would be acceptable. The Saudis could then normalize relations with Israel without fear of backlash from Arab countries.

It is time for the Saudis to follow the trend in other countries that are friendly to or cooperating with Israel. In 2015 Israel opened its first office in the UAE, and some Arab countries are thinking of suspending their ban on Israeli aircraft flying over Arab air space. It is too strong to envisage Israel and Saudi Arabia as de facto allies in the struggle with Iran, but there is common concern over the possibility of Iran as a nuclear state and increasing power.

Some covert meetings and intelligence cooperation have occurred between the two countries. This is insufficient. Normalization of relations will benefit both sides in trade, military and now cyberspace intelligence. It will also benefit the whole Middle East.

I’ve been convinced after thinking it through that the best thing for Saudi Arabia would be Israel. The figures on the chessboard of politics are forever changing with regard to each other. It is an agreeable surprise that for the first time a young Jewish woman is competing in the contest to become Miss Germany. More significantly, changes in the Middle East based on mutual interests was shown in a New York synagogue where Efraim Halevy, former head of the Israeli Mossad, met Egyptian Prince Turki bin Faisal al Saud, longtime head of Saudi Arabian intelligence agency. Another encounter was in a synagogue in Paris, visited in November 2017 by two former Saudi officials, a minister for justice, and a minister for education.

It is exactly 40 years since the historic visit of President Anwar Sadat to Jerusalem paved the way for the 1979 peace treaty between Egypt and Israel. The time is now ripe for a closer relationship, an open diplomatic one, between Saudi Arabia and Israel. Saudi Arabia cannot yet be considered an open society, but things are changing, with a certain amount of discussion allowed in social media, and concerts and performances, and a new, dynamic, and bold leader, the 32-year-old Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, appointed to the rank in June 2017.

The Crown Prince, a young man in a hurry if somewhat impulsive, has already acted to exert control over the country, and has been consolidating and centralizing power since his appointment. He has replaced the former crown prince, his older cousin Prince Mohammed bin Nayef, first as interior minister who was in control of security arrangements. He removed Prince Mitreb bin Abdullah as head of the national guard, the internal police force.

Particularly surprising were the events of November 4, 2017, when there was a purge of senior princes and business leaders accused of corruption. They included the billionaire Alwaleed bin Tatal, one of the world’s richest men, who has been nicknamed the Warren Buffet of Arabia. Moreover, Salman has shown his power by what appears to be the house arrest on charges of systematic corruption involving $100 billion of more than 200 prominent and rich people now housed in the palatial and prestigious Ritz-Carlton Hotel in Riyadh, which hosted President Donald Trump in May 2017.

The Crown Prince appears to have two major objectives: to confront Iran politically, diplomatically, militarily, strategically, and theologically; and to modernize Saudi Arabia, eliminate corruption, and foster a more competitive economy. Two of Salman’s projects to introduce economic and social change and end the reliance on oil are especially impressive, plans for a Mega-city, and the Neom project. The Mega-city proposal is a $500 billion plan for a unit that spans Egypt and Jordan as well as Saudi Arabia, powered by energy from different sources. The Neom project is planned as a large center for innovation and trade, linking industry and technology.

With the decline in oil prices the Saudi economy has faltered, and had a budget deficit of $79 billion last year. The main plan for change, Vision 2030, envisages increasing non-oil revenue to 600 billion riyals, ($169 billion) by 2020, and 1 trillion riyals by 2030. Part of the revenue would come from privatizing part of the state oil company, Saudi Aramco. The plan would create what Salman calls the world’s largest sovereign wealth fund. Economic liberalization will involve financial cuts in benefits for civil servants and military personnel, and in energy subsidies.

Social changes related to the plans are changes in the educational curriculum, increasing women’s participation in the workforce, allowing women to drive, and investing $3 billion in the entertainment sector.

Saudi Arabia has become more active politically and militarily, acting to preserve its territorial integrity and political stability. Salman led a boycott of Qatar in June 2017 for allegedly providing supplies to Yemen. He had already intervened in fighting in Yemen in order to restore the government of Yemeni president Abdrabbuh Mansour Hadi who was forced to resign in January 2015 under pressure from Shia militia.

Salman pressured Lebanese prime minister Saad al-Hariri to resign on November 4, 2017, defying the views of UK, EU, France, and Germany. He has used some of the nomadic tribes that originate in Saudi Arabia to influence activity in the Middle East beyond its border.

Undoubtedly the main issue for Saudi Arabia is its rival Iran, the font of all evils, seen as an existential threat. Saudi Arabia, with armed forces of 250,000, and 900 battle tanks confronts the more powerful Iran which has 560,000 armed forces and 1,500 battle tanks. Saudi’s only military advantage is its more up-to-date combat air fleet.

Already there are proxy wars between the two countries. In Yemen, in a war that has cost 10,000 lives, Iran has supplied ballistic missiles fired by Shia Houthi rebels who are opposed by the Saudis. In Syria, rebels funded by the Saudis have been defeated by the forces of President Assad helped by Iran. In Lebanon the Hizb’allah, supported and armed by Iran, is an increasing problem for the Saudis who see it as a force for instability in the Middle East.

Saudi Arabia, to gain support, has formed an alliance of Sunni countries against Shia Iran. Prince Salman on November 26, 2017 convened a meeting, attended by all members except Qatar, in Riyadh to energize the military coalition, the Islamic Military Counter Terrorism coalition of 41 members set up by the Saudis in 2015. It is essentially a military alliance among Sunni Muslim states against Islamic terrorism activity, financing, and ideology. Iraq, Syria, and Iran, are not members.

This meeting was a response to the November 24, 2017 the bomb and gun attack on a mosque in north Sinai, frequented by Islamic Sufis, considered a heretical sect. The attack that killed 305 and injured 128 was carried out by assailants who carried an ISIS flag.

Saudi political and religious authorities have made clear that the enemy is terrorism, not sects, religions, or races. One of the greatest dangers of this extremist Islamist terrorism is held to be distorting the reputation of “our tolerant religion.” An interesting and important departure is the view of the Grand Mufti, Abdul Alash-Sheikh, of the country, who remarked both that killing Jews and fighting against Israel was inappropriate for Muslims, and that Hamas is a terror organization.

An open question is the relationship with Israel now that the Saudis need friends in the bitter rivalry with Iran. Its general problem had been worsened by the result of the U.S.-led coalition in 2003 in Iraq that ended the regime of Saddam Hussein, a regime that, with all its brutalities, was for the Saudis a Sunni Arab counterweight to Shia Iran. Now the Shia dominated political leadership in Iraq is close to Iran, and an Iraqi Shia militia is helping Assad.

There is no likelihood at present of any kind of formal peace with Israel, or full diplomatic and economic relations with Israel but nor is there any real Saudi concern about Palestine. Any deal about Palestine, especially one based on the 2002 Saudi peace initiative, based on Israel withdrawal from occupied territory, would be acceptable. The Saudis could then normalize relations with Israel without fear of backlash from Arab countries.

It is time for the Saudis to follow the trend in other countries that are friendly to or cooperating with Israel. In 2015 Israel opened its first office in the UAE, and some Arab countries are thinking of suspending their ban on Israeli aircraft flying over Arab air space. It is too strong to envisage Israel and Saudi Arabia as de facto allies in the struggle with Iran, but there is common concern over the possibility of Iran as a nuclear state and increasing power.

Some covert meetings and intelligence cooperation have occurred between the two countries. This is insufficient. Normalization of relations will benefit both sides in trade, military and now cyberspace intelligence. It will also benefit the whole Middle East.



Source link

Colin, Will You Continue to Sit?


In August of 2016, Colin Kaepernick was asked by Nick Wagoner, ESPN Staff Writer, “Will you continue to sit?”

“Yes, I’ll continue to sit,” said Kaepernick, “I’m going to continue to stand with the people that are being oppressed. To me, this is something that must change. When there’s significant change and I feel like that flag represents what it’s supposed to represent, this country is representing people the way that it’s supposed to, I’ll stand.”

So it began, late summer 2016, the eighth year of the Obama presidency. The kneeling was intended to provoke, and it did. By declaring America to be trapped in a nightmare world of police brutality and racial injustice, Kaepernick insulted the fans. In the process, he proved to those of us who know more than he does just how little he understands about America.

Colin, did you know what you were doing when you started this? Did you know the nature of the people you were accusing? Did you stop to think about the world as it actually exists?

As a biracial child, raised by a white couple, educated at a predominantly white university, paid millions to play a game, supported by white fans, you turn around and call the nation “racist?” People like me are offended because we were there for the Jim Crow years. Want to talk about racial injustice? It’s offensive when you claim that those who oppose your protest are racists or sellouts. It’s much deeper than that.

Being black myself, I must be one of those sellouts. I grew up without knowing my father and on welfare in the early days of the Great Society, and I know what racial injustice is. In light of that, I made lifestyle choices. I didn’t sell out. I bought in, to a better way of life. Just like you did, but you forgot.

Being a generation older than you and having provided for a family, I have had the chance to see the world from many more angles than you have. I don’t think you are a bad person or stupid. I just think someone is feeding you bad information. Our nation is a much better place than 50 years ago.

You say that Americans are, at the core, racist and unconcerned about police brutality. Neither is true. So yes, there was push back to your protest. This is not because anyone is okay with police brutality or racial injustice. It was because we don’t like being stereotyped and falsely accused. That is how they justified killing blacks in the Jim Crow South.

The death of Michael Brown, tragic as it was, had nothing to do with police brutality. In fact, an investigation by President Barack Obama’s Justice Department found no grounds to charge the police officer with a crime. I am sure they looked hard to find one.

In the case of Trayvon Martin, the man who shot him, George Zimmerman, was not a police officer, nor was he white. He was an Hispanic Obama supporter and a civil rights activist who was tried and acquitted of second-degree murder charges by an all-female, mixed-race jury. If Zimmerman was black or his first name Jorgé, he never would have gone to trial. The case was that open and shut.

Colin, you shared your appreciation for Castro’s Cuba. Are you serious? Do you ever wonder why so many people of color flee that country on makeshift rafts and cross the high seas to come here? I am sure plenty of Cubans would gladly trade places with you, maybe all of them.

As you know, millions from all over the world desire to come to America, most of them, people of color. They know that ours is a fertile ground for those who are willing to take responsibility and build a life. There are millions of black Americans who have lived that experience.

We are a nation built by those who have overcome oppression or escaped it. Our Declaration of Independence was a statement of intent to cast off the oppression of the British. The Emancipation Proclamation was to cast off the oppression of slavery. And the Civil Rights laws were written to cast off the oppression of Jim Crow laws.

Your problem, Colin, is that you focus on the negatives of our past. When you draw on those emotions to live in the present, you cannot build on the current positives. Your bitterness impairs not only your own future, but also, unfortunately, the future of those who follow you.

As a side note, it is my personal belief that emancipated slaves should have received reparations. Whether it was forty acres and a mule or cash, this payback was earned by the sweat of our ancestors’ brows. It did not happen, and it cannot realistically happen now.

If reparations were my focus, my rage would be fortified, and I would fail to enjoy the life that has been afforded to me. I would not see that Providence stepped in to provide a remedy.

There was, I imagine, a conversation in heaven and the conclusion was, “Let the hearts of men be moved to value sports and entertainment beyond reason. For therein, the descendants of slaves will excel and resources will be made available to repair the damage of slavery’s legacy.”

Today, those who kneel in bitter defiance of America’s past ignore the blessing of America’s present. Right now, there are between 1200 and 1300 black athletes in the NFL. They earn approximately $3.5 billion per year, based on the NFL’s salary cap of $165 million per team.

Colin, there are a lot of ways those resources could be used to address the problems of black Americans. Those who embrace inclusion will find a way. With the right strategies, with the expectation of positive outcomes, private citizens, like you, can take action to help educate and equip the disadvantaged to rebuild their lives and their communities.

So, Colin, let me ask, “Will you continue to sit?”

Ron Freeman is a writer for Flatlands KC, a panelist on KCPT’s Ruckus, a consultant/speaker on leadership and personal empowerment, a Pittsburg State University Alum and a former professional football player. in the USFL, as well as, a former team chaplain for the Kansas City Chiefs and the Kansas City Royals.

In August of 2016, Colin Kaepernick was asked by Nick Wagoner, ESPN Staff Writer, “Will you continue to sit?”

“Yes, I’ll continue to sit,” said Kaepernick, “I’m going to continue to stand with the people that are being oppressed. To me, this is something that must change. When there’s significant change and I feel like that flag represents what it’s supposed to represent, this country is representing people the way that it’s supposed to, I’ll stand.”

So it began, late summer 2016, the eighth year of the Obama presidency. The kneeling was intended to provoke, and it did. By declaring America to be trapped in a nightmare world of police brutality and racial injustice, Kaepernick insulted the fans. In the process, he proved to those of us who know more than he does just how little he understands about America.

Colin, did you know what you were doing when you started this? Did you know the nature of the people you were accusing? Did you stop to think about the world as it actually exists?

As a biracial child, raised by a white couple, educated at a predominantly white university, paid millions to play a game, supported by white fans, you turn around and call the nation “racist?” People like me are offended because we were there for the Jim Crow years. Want to talk about racial injustice? It’s offensive when you claim that those who oppose your protest are racists or sellouts. It’s much deeper than that.

Being black myself, I must be one of those sellouts. I grew up without knowing my father and on welfare in the early days of the Great Society, and I know what racial injustice is. In light of that, I made lifestyle choices. I didn’t sell out. I bought in, to a better way of life. Just like you did, but you forgot.

Being a generation older than you and having provided for a family, I have had the chance to see the world from many more angles than you have. I don’t think you are a bad person or stupid. I just think someone is feeding you bad information. Our nation is a much better place than 50 years ago.

You say that Americans are, at the core, racist and unconcerned about police brutality. Neither is true. So yes, there was push back to your protest. This is not because anyone is okay with police brutality or racial injustice. It was because we don’t like being stereotyped and falsely accused. That is how they justified killing blacks in the Jim Crow South.

The death of Michael Brown, tragic as it was, had nothing to do with police brutality. In fact, an investigation by President Barack Obama’s Justice Department found no grounds to charge the police officer with a crime. I am sure they looked hard to find one.

In the case of Trayvon Martin, the man who shot him, George Zimmerman, was not a police officer, nor was he white. He was an Hispanic Obama supporter and a civil rights activist who was tried and acquitted of second-degree murder charges by an all-female, mixed-race jury. If Zimmerman was black or his first name Jorgé, he never would have gone to trial. The case was that open and shut.

Colin, you shared your appreciation for Castro’s Cuba. Are you serious? Do you ever wonder why so many people of color flee that country on makeshift rafts and cross the high seas to come here? I am sure plenty of Cubans would gladly trade places with you, maybe all of them.

As you know, millions from all over the world desire to come to America, most of them, people of color. They know that ours is a fertile ground for those who are willing to take responsibility and build a life. There are millions of black Americans who have lived that experience.

We are a nation built by those who have overcome oppression or escaped it. Our Declaration of Independence was a statement of intent to cast off the oppression of the British. The Emancipation Proclamation was to cast off the oppression of slavery. And the Civil Rights laws were written to cast off the oppression of Jim Crow laws.

Your problem, Colin, is that you focus on the negatives of our past. When you draw on those emotions to live in the present, you cannot build on the current positives. Your bitterness impairs not only your own future, but also, unfortunately, the future of those who follow you.

As a side note, it is my personal belief that emancipated slaves should have received reparations. Whether it was forty acres and a mule or cash, this payback was earned by the sweat of our ancestors’ brows. It did not happen, and it cannot realistically happen now.

If reparations were my focus, my rage would be fortified, and I would fail to enjoy the life that has been afforded to me. I would not see that Providence stepped in to provide a remedy.

There was, I imagine, a conversation in heaven and the conclusion was, “Let the hearts of men be moved to value sports and entertainment beyond reason. For therein, the descendants of slaves will excel and resources will be made available to repair the damage of slavery’s legacy.”

Today, those who kneel in bitter defiance of America’s past ignore the blessing of America’s present. Right now, there are between 1200 and 1300 black athletes in the NFL. They earn approximately $3.5 billion per year, based on the NFL’s salary cap of $165 million per team.

Colin, there are a lot of ways those resources could be used to address the problems of black Americans. Those who embrace inclusion will find a way. With the right strategies, with the expectation of positive outcomes, private citizens, like you, can take action to help educate and equip the disadvantaged to rebuild their lives and their communities.

So, Colin, let me ask, “Will you continue to sit?”

Ron Freeman is a writer for Flatlands KC, a panelist on KCPT’s Ruckus, a consultant/speaker on leadership and personal empowerment, a Pittsburg State University Alum and a former professional football player. in the USFL, as well as, a former team chaplain for the Kansas City Chiefs and the Kansas City Royals.



Source link

Correct Thinking on China


The United States has been trading with China since 1784, the year a U.S.-flagged ship set out from New York for Canton. American missionaries were preaching in China by the 1830s. For some 80 years now, the United States has gone out of its way to help China, starting with the embargo on oil exports to Japan on August 1, 1941. Then after that war was over, China was included as one of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council despite it being in a civil war at the time. The expectation was that China would eventually join the community of civilised nations and make a positive contribution to the world.

The big leg up for China was the granting of Permanent Normal Trade Relations by the U.S. Congress in October 2000. This became effective when China joined the World Trade Organisation at the end of 2001. The consequences for U.S. workers were immediate and dire. U.S. manufacturing employment had fluctuated around 18 million workers between 1965 and 2000 before plunging 34 percent to 2010. Some six million workers lost their jobs.

In a 2016 paper titled ‘The Surprising Swift Decline of U.S. Manufacturing Employment’, authors Justin Pierce and Peter Schott note that prior to 2000 U.S. imports from China had been subject to the relatively low normal trade relations tariffs reserved for members of the World Trade Organisation. These low rates for China required annual renewals that were uncertain and politically contentious. Without renewal U.S. import tariffs on Chinese goods would have jumped to higher tariff rates. This uncertainty decreased the incentive for U.S. firms to incur the sunk costs of shifting operations to China. It was the removal of this uncertainty that triggered U.S. firms to shift operations to China, and U.S. jobs went with them. It was the risk associated with annual review of tariffs that had kept manufacturing employment in the U.S.

At the same time that they were starting to lose their jobs, the formerly employed started losing their lives at an increasing rate as shown by this graph in a paper by Anne Case and Angus Deaton of Princeton University published in March this year:

This figure shows deaths per 100,000 of population for men and women aged 50 to 54 for a number of countries including France, Germany, Sweden, UK, Canada and Australia; U.S. whites are the red line. All the other countries are stable or falling but the death rate for this age cohort started rising steeply from the time they started losing their jobs to China. Case and Deaton found a marked difference in death rates by race and education. Death rates among non-Hispanics — both males and females — are rising for those without a college degree. It is falling for those with a college degree. In contrast, death rates among Blacks and Hispanics have continued to fall irrespective of educational attainment. Death rates in comparable rich countries have continued to fall at rates that used to occur in the United States until the beginning of this century.

But which whites are dying at an increasing rate? Figure 1.1 from Case and Deaton’s paper shows that it is white non-Hispanics with a high school education or less:

For Hispanics the U.S. has increasingly become the happy kingdom. They are happy because they don’t live in Mexico and PC nonsense doesn’t get translated into Spanish. The death rate for whites without a high school education though has risen above that for blacks. What is killing these people is mainly deaths of despair — drug and alcohol poisoning, suicide and alcoholic liver disease and cirrhosis as shown by the following graphs adapted from Figure 7 of the Case and Deaton paper:

We could get our jobs back from China, with a consequent decline in the death rate of working class whites, without too much legislative effort but that would still leave the problem of China’s thirst for military aggression. Closing America to Chinese goods would help choke off the cash flow that funds that aggression.

The mafia operation that runs China, the Communist Party of China, had its 19th party congress in October. President Xi’s speech at that congress didn’t impart new information. Because Mandarin is a tonal cacophony which makes the communication of anything more than a simple notion difficult, ideas tend to be imparted as word symbols. Thus these lines from Xi’s speech:

We have committed to “examining ourselves in the mirror, tidying our attire, taking a bath, and treating our ailments,” launched activities to see members command and act on the Party’s mass line, and initiated a campaign for the observance of the Three Stricts and Three Earnests.


We have taken firm action to “take out tigers,” “swat flies,” and “hunt down foxes.”

His most foreboding words were near the end:

The wheels of history roll on; the tides of the times are vast and mighty. History looks kindly on those with resolve, with drive and ambition, and with plenty of guts; it won’t wait for the hesitant, the apathetic, or those shy of a challenge.

President Xi is no caretaker. He intends to provide the ambition that will get some history written in other people’s blood. He is also aware that the window of opportunity to do that is closing as China’s credit-driven growth finally stalls and its energy production starts falling.

Now is the time to ask Lenin’s question ‘What is to be done?’ North Korea provides the perfect excuse for imposing tariffs on Chinese goods imported into the U.S., with the rates continuing to rise until North Korea gives up on nuclear weapons and ICBMs. If China backs down and disarms North Korea, that would be an enormous loss of face which would likely topple Xi. If he doesn’t back down, U.S. workers would get their jobs and lives back. China has been indulged long enough. They have no intention of joining the community of civilised nations.  

David Archibald is the author of American Gripen: The Solution to the F-35 Nightmare

The United States has been trading with China since 1784, the year a U.S.-flagged ship set out from New York for Canton. American missionaries were preaching in China by the 1830s. For some 80 years now, the United States has gone out of its way to help China, starting with the embargo on oil exports to Japan on August 1, 1941. Then after that war was over, China was included as one of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council despite it being in a civil war at the time. The expectation was that China would eventually join the community of civilised nations and make a positive contribution to the world.

The big leg up for China was the granting of Permanent Normal Trade Relations by the U.S. Congress in October 2000. This became effective when China joined the World Trade Organisation at the end of 2001. The consequences for U.S. workers were immediate and dire. U.S. manufacturing employment had fluctuated around 18 million workers between 1965 and 2000 before plunging 34 percent to 2010. Some six million workers lost their jobs.

In a 2016 paper titled ‘The Surprising Swift Decline of U.S. Manufacturing Employment’, authors Justin Pierce and Peter Schott note that prior to 2000 U.S. imports from China had been subject to the relatively low normal trade relations tariffs reserved for members of the World Trade Organisation. These low rates for China required annual renewals that were uncertain and politically contentious. Without renewal U.S. import tariffs on Chinese goods would have jumped to higher tariff rates. This uncertainty decreased the incentive for U.S. firms to incur the sunk costs of shifting operations to China. It was the removal of this uncertainty that triggered U.S. firms to shift operations to China, and U.S. jobs went with them. It was the risk associated with annual review of tariffs that had kept manufacturing employment in the U.S.

At the same time that they were starting to lose their jobs, the formerly employed started losing their lives at an increasing rate as shown by this graph in a paper by Anne Case and Angus Deaton of Princeton University published in March this year:

This figure shows deaths per 100,000 of population for men and women aged 50 to 54 for a number of countries including France, Germany, Sweden, UK, Canada and Australia; U.S. whites are the red line. All the other countries are stable or falling but the death rate for this age cohort started rising steeply from the time they started losing their jobs to China. Case and Deaton found a marked difference in death rates by race and education. Death rates among non-Hispanics — both males and females — are rising for those without a college degree. It is falling for those with a college degree. In contrast, death rates among Blacks and Hispanics have continued to fall irrespective of educational attainment. Death rates in comparable rich countries have continued to fall at rates that used to occur in the United States until the beginning of this century.

But which whites are dying at an increasing rate? Figure 1.1 from Case and Deaton’s paper shows that it is white non-Hispanics with a high school education or less:

For Hispanics the U.S. has increasingly become the happy kingdom. They are happy because they don’t live in Mexico and PC nonsense doesn’t get translated into Spanish. The death rate for whites without a high school education though has risen above that for blacks. What is killing these people is mainly deaths of despair — drug and alcohol poisoning, suicide and alcoholic liver disease and cirrhosis as shown by the following graphs adapted from Figure 7 of the Case and Deaton paper:

We could get our jobs back from China, with a consequent decline in the death rate of working class whites, without too much legislative effort but that would still leave the problem of China’s thirst for military aggression. Closing America to Chinese goods would help choke off the cash flow that funds that aggression.

The mafia operation that runs China, the Communist Party of China, had its 19th party congress in October. President Xi’s speech at that congress didn’t impart new information. Because Mandarin is a tonal cacophony which makes the communication of anything more than a simple notion difficult, ideas tend to be imparted as word symbols. Thus these lines from Xi’s speech:

We have committed to “examining ourselves in the mirror, tidying our attire, taking a bath, and treating our ailments,” launched activities to see members command and act on the Party’s mass line, and initiated a campaign for the observance of the Three Stricts and Three Earnests.


We have taken firm action to “take out tigers,” “swat flies,” and “hunt down foxes.”

His most foreboding words were near the end:

The wheels of history roll on; the tides of the times are vast and mighty. History looks kindly on those with resolve, with drive and ambition, and with plenty of guts; it won’t wait for the hesitant, the apathetic, or those shy of a challenge.

President Xi is no caretaker. He intends to provide the ambition that will get some history written in other people’s blood. He is also aware that the window of opportunity to do that is closing as China’s credit-driven growth finally stalls and its energy production starts falling.

Now is the time to ask Lenin’s question ‘What is to be done?’ North Korea provides the perfect excuse for imposing tariffs on Chinese goods imported into the U.S., with the rates continuing to rise until North Korea gives up on nuclear weapons and ICBMs. If China backs down and disarms North Korea, that would be an enormous loss of face which would likely topple Xi. If he doesn’t back down, U.S. workers would get their jobs and lives back. China has been indulged long enough. They have no intention of joining the community of civilised nations.  

David Archibald is the author of American Gripen: The Solution to the F-35 Nightmare



Source link