Day: March 13, 2018

Real Inclusion Means Everyone Feels Included


Up in Canada, some lefties are holding an “It’s Okay to Be (against) White(ness)” event, and they seemed shocked that anyone should find this problematic.  Lindsay Yates, an event organizer, had this to say:

This event is about recognizing privilege that is granted based on racial identity and helping students who do have access to white privilege think more about how to be allies to racialized communities[.] … The event is focused on diversity, inclusion and conversations about how we can all work together to help achieve racial justice.

Yes, but just you try going to the event and suggesting that lefties like Lindsay Yates are going about helping to “achieve racial justice” all wrong.  Speaking for myself, I’d say I don’t get to have access to “white privilege” because that’s available only to white liberals: conservatives need not apply.  Conversations?  In a year when all across the world, lefties are de-platforming anyone who disagrees with them?

Hey, lefties!  Sometimes you should listen to people who disagree with you.  You might learn something!

Still, I get the point about white privilege and the dirge of multiculturalism.  It really is too bad that northwestern European white guys got to invent science and capitalism and democracy and central banking and global commerce and got to take all the credit while most of the rest of us were serfs on some lord’s estate.  But I suggest that a better approach involves not conferences about whiteness and fantasies of “racial justice,” but whimsical cultural appropriations like Robert Colescott’s “George Washington Carver Crossing the Delaware.”  Yes, even I can enjoy a painting of black guys in revolutionary uniforms rollicking about in a boat on the storm-tossed waters of the mighty Delaware River in 1776, just as it is good fun to interpret Hamilton as rap.  It’s a lot more fun than the dull recitations of postmodernist pedantry.

But really, has anything changed?  Many of Shakespeare’s comedies were set in Italy.  What was that about, Will?  Weren’t there enough rich, careless Brit youngsters for you to satirize back in the day?  I can’t believe that the only shrews that needed taming lived in far off Padua.

I was dining with an older Jewish couple recently.  She had been reading Parallel Lives, about five British Victorian marriages.  I thought about the limited cultural residue of Jewish life in eastern Europe, which in the popular narrative does not extend too much beyond Fiddler on the Roof, Barbara Streisand’s Yentl, and the harrowing narratives of the Holocaust.  Meanwhile, I, as a transplanted Brit, can happily own the entire Anglo-Saxon cultural narrative, everything from Shakespeare to Dickens to Disraeli, and happily weave it in with my man Alexander Hamilton, Abraham Lincoln, John D. Rockefeller, and the Wright Brothers while humming “What a Wonderful World” to myself.

Life is hard.  If you came to America directly from a tribal or agricultural world, you don’t have a big civilized cultural narrative to help make you feel important.  And no amount of liberal shenanigans about all cultures being equal is going to change that.  You are going to have to appropriate the Western cultural canon, so why not get on with it?

But there is a problem.  The American national narrative, all the stuff about the Free and the Brave, Manifest Destiny, Go West Young Man, Morning in America, Make America Great Again, has no place for liberals.  You can’t create a post-national politics all about the creative compassion of progressives and their glorious vision of diversity, inclusion, and racial justice until you have divided the nation-state into a dozen petty identities ruled by the conceit of a wise global elite.

Then there is another problem.  The world that liberals want to build has starring roles only for liberals: a wise Latina here, a community organizer there, the world of well educated creatives and organizers of progressive “conversations.”  What has that to do with ordinary people, from the immigrants working hard to find a foothold in the modern economy to the ordinary deplorables navigating the permanent revolution of the workplace, people just looking for a way to get a decent job, buy a home, raise a family, and save something for retirement?

The point of a great cultural narrative is to give everyone a role, to make it broad enough that everyone can find meaning in it.  That is the genius of Make America Great Again.  It is a vision of America open for everyone who calls himself American.

The liberals from Hollywood to Washington, D.C. know nothing but their own miserable arc of history.  There is even this guy profiled in the New York Times who has cut himself off from all media since the dreadful day of November 9, 2016.  He puts on noise-canceling headphones to make sure he doesn’t hear the news.

And these are the people who believe in inclusion and diversity?

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

Up in Canada, some lefties are holding an “It’s Okay to Be (against) White(ness)” event, and they seemed shocked that anyone should find this problematic.  Lindsay Yates, an event organizer, had this to say:

This event is about recognizing privilege that is granted based on racial identity and helping students who do have access to white privilege think more about how to be allies to racialized communities[.] … The event is focused on diversity, inclusion and conversations about how we can all work together to help achieve racial justice.

Yes, but just you try going to the event and suggesting that lefties like Lindsay Yates are going about helping to “achieve racial justice” all wrong.  Speaking for myself, I’d say I don’t get to have access to “white privilege” because that’s available only to white liberals: conservatives need not apply.  Conversations?  In a year when all across the world, lefties are de-platforming anyone who disagrees with them?

Hey, lefties!  Sometimes you should listen to people who disagree with you.  You might learn something!

Still, I get the point about white privilege and the dirge of multiculturalism.  It really is too bad that northwestern European white guys got to invent science and capitalism and democracy and central banking and global commerce and got to take all the credit while most of the rest of us were serfs on some lord’s estate.  But I suggest that a better approach involves not conferences about whiteness and fantasies of “racial justice,” but whimsical cultural appropriations like Robert Colescott’s “George Washington Carver Crossing the Delaware.”  Yes, even I can enjoy a painting of black guys in revolutionary uniforms rollicking about in a boat on the storm-tossed waters of the mighty Delaware River in 1776, just as it is good fun to interpret Hamilton as rap.  It’s a lot more fun than the dull recitations of postmodernist pedantry.

But really, has anything changed?  Many of Shakespeare’s comedies were set in Italy.  What was that about, Will?  Weren’t there enough rich, careless Brit youngsters for you to satirize back in the day?  I can’t believe that the only shrews that needed taming lived in far off Padua.

I was dining with an older Jewish couple recently.  She had been reading Parallel Lives, about five British Victorian marriages.  I thought about the limited cultural residue of Jewish life in eastern Europe, which in the popular narrative does not extend too much beyond Fiddler on the Roof, Barbara Streisand’s Yentl, and the harrowing narratives of the Holocaust.  Meanwhile, I, as a transplanted Brit, can happily own the entire Anglo-Saxon cultural narrative, everything from Shakespeare to Dickens to Disraeli, and happily weave it in with my man Alexander Hamilton, Abraham Lincoln, John D. Rockefeller, and the Wright Brothers while humming “What a Wonderful World” to myself.

Life is hard.  If you came to America directly from a tribal or agricultural world, you don’t have a big civilized cultural narrative to help make you feel important.  And no amount of liberal shenanigans about all cultures being equal is going to change that.  You are going to have to appropriate the Western cultural canon, so why not get on with it?

But there is a problem.  The American national narrative, all the stuff about the Free and the Brave, Manifest Destiny, Go West Young Man, Morning in America, Make America Great Again, has no place for liberals.  You can’t create a post-national politics all about the creative compassion of progressives and their glorious vision of diversity, inclusion, and racial justice until you have divided the nation-state into a dozen petty identities ruled by the conceit of a wise global elite.

Then there is another problem.  The world that liberals want to build has starring roles only for liberals: a wise Latina here, a community organizer there, the world of well educated creatives and organizers of progressive “conversations.”  What has that to do with ordinary people, from the immigrants working hard to find a foothold in the modern economy to the ordinary deplorables navigating the permanent revolution of the workplace, people just looking for a way to get a decent job, buy a home, raise a family, and save something for retirement?

The point of a great cultural narrative is to give everyone a role, to make it broad enough that everyone can find meaning in it.  That is the genius of Make America Great Again.  It is a vision of America open for everyone who calls himself American.

The liberals from Hollywood to Washington, D.C. know nothing but their own miserable arc of history.  There is even this guy profiled in the New York Times who has cut himself off from all media since the dreadful day of November 9, 2016.  He puts on noise-canceling headphones to make sure he doesn’t hear the news.

And these are the people who believe in inclusion and diversity?

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



Source link

The Courts against Proposition 65


A federal judge has frozen plans to require all products containing the widely popular herbicide glyphosate to display a Proposition 65 warning in a landmark ruling that could signal the turning of the tide for California’s nanny-state regulations.  The decision by Federal District Judge William Shubb represents a significant blow to both to the much maligned Proposition 65 and the organization that accounts for so many of its listings, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC).

Shubb’s ruling is a major victory for states’ rights – due to the size of California’s economy, its overregulation spills over into other jurisdictions – and for farmers’ groups around the country who had pushed back against California’s imposition of these costly and misleading warnings.  Shubb has struck another nail in the coffin of Proposition 65, a law so universally detested that even the leftist L.A. Times came out against it.

A lengthy legal wrangle

Around 1.8 million tons of glyphosate has been used across the U.S. since 1974.  Such a commonly used chemical has obviously demanded a rigorous health and safety assessment.  It has repeatedly been certified as non-threatening to humans from regulatory bodies all over the world, including in the U.S., Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Japan.

The controversy over the substance arose when IARC – a semi-autonomous branch of the World Health Organization (WHO) based in Lyon, France, which was recently slammed by House Science Committee members for its “manipulation of scientific data” and “shoddy work” – found it “probably carcinogenic” to humans.  Despite the fact that this remains the only major study to reach such a conclusion, IARC’s ruling meant that glyphosate was automatically added to California’s Proposition 65 list, a lengthy catalogue of supposed carcinogens.  Under California state law, any product containing these substances must display a warning stating that the product in question “is known to the State of California to cause cancer,” resulting in a proliferation of inaccurate and scare-mongering signs all over the Golden State.

The new classification had several immediate implications for glyphosate.  Firstly, products containing the herbicide would have been required to carry a Proposition 65 label beginning July 7, 2018.  In addition to this onerous burden, no fewer than 184 plaintiffs sprang up across America, accusing herbicide-manufacturers of giving them cancer.  Federal judge Vince Chhabria is currently determining whether these plaintiffs’ cases can proceed, a decision hinging on whether a link between glyphosate and cancer has been “tested, reviewed and published and is widely accepted in the scientific community.”

Judge Shubb’s ruling means that, while glyphosate will remain listed for now under Proposition 65, glyphosate products will no longer have to carry warning labels starting this July.  It also makes it difficult for Judge Chhabria to find that the connection between glyphosate and cancer is “widely accepted in the scientific community.”

IARC: Notoriously unreliable

The rationale behind Judge Shubb’s ruling?  According to Shubb, a label that decries glyphosate as “known to cause cancer” would be “misleading at best” and both “factually inaccurate and controversial.”  This is because in over 40 years of research, the IARC study is the only one to have found it dangerous to human health.  It’s also because the study itself is mired in controversy.

Influential scientist Aaron Blair withheld key information from the IARC panel studying glyphosate.  Consequently, the IARC did not take into consideration the most comprehensive investigation into the long-term effects of glyphosate on farmers, which found zero evidence linking glyphosate with cancer.

Further muddying the water, there were considerable discrepancies between two drafts of IARC’s glyphosate report.  Someone at IARC redacted portions of the report disagreeing with the organization’s eventual conclusions.  The toxicologist in charge of reviewing the data has since claimed he does not know who made the edits, or why and when.  His story is difficult to verify, since IARC unusually discourages the experts working on its reports from retaining drafts or discussing their work.

The perils of Proposition 65

Given these critical issues with IARC’s review process, as well as its conclusions that are diametrically opposed to those of the rest of the scientific community, Judge Shubb deemed it prudent to freeze the institution of warning labels.  His decision has made the plaintiffs in the case quietly and cautiously optimistic that the listing itself will also be overturned in due course.  Regardless of the final outcome, this controversy is yet another thorn in the side of Proposition 65 itself, which has been the subject of intense debate in recent years.

Recent attempts to impose Prop 65 signage on commodities as commonplace as coffee and fast food have prompted disbelief and derision from critics, who claim that the overabundance of warning notices is having numerous detrimental effects on society.  In addition to the carbon footprint caused by producing millions of plastic, paper, and metal signs, a toxic litigation racket has sprung up in the state.  Private enforcers of Proposition 65 requirements, colloquially known as “bounty hunters,” have crafted a lucrative career around extorting businesses that have failed to comply with the warning rules.  In 2013 alone, these litigious mercenaries collected a cool $15 million.  Business is booming in California, but for all the wrong reasons.

Finally, and perhaps most concerning of all, the proliferation of warning signs all over California has had the exact opposite effect of what was originally intended.  Instead of reacting with caution and concern to a Proposition 65 notice, desensitized citizens have become jaded by their omnipresence in gas stations and garages, restaurants, and liquor stores.  The cotton wool intended to protect the everyman is in danger of blinding his vision and smothering him with its ubiquity.  Judge Shubb’s ruling, therefore, might represent a victory not just for the farmers, the states, and scientific integrity, but for common sense itself.

A federal judge has frozen plans to require all products containing the widely popular herbicide glyphosate to display a Proposition 65 warning in a landmark ruling that could signal the turning of the tide for California’s nanny-state regulations.  The decision by Federal District Judge William Shubb represents a significant blow to both to the much maligned Proposition 65 and the organization that accounts for so many of its listings, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC).

Shubb’s ruling is a major victory for states’ rights – due to the size of California’s economy, its overregulation spills over into other jurisdictions – and for farmers’ groups around the country who had pushed back against California’s imposition of these costly and misleading warnings.  Shubb has struck another nail in the coffin of Proposition 65, a law so universally detested that even the leftist L.A. Times came out against it.

A lengthy legal wrangle

Around 1.8 million tons of glyphosate has been used across the U.S. since 1974.  Such a commonly used chemical has obviously demanded a rigorous health and safety assessment.  It has repeatedly been certified as non-threatening to humans from regulatory bodies all over the world, including in the U.S., Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Japan.

The controversy over the substance arose when IARC – a semi-autonomous branch of the World Health Organization (WHO) based in Lyon, France, which was recently slammed by House Science Committee members for its “manipulation of scientific data” and “shoddy work” – found it “probably carcinogenic” to humans.  Despite the fact that this remains the only major study to reach such a conclusion, IARC’s ruling meant that glyphosate was automatically added to California’s Proposition 65 list, a lengthy catalogue of supposed carcinogens.  Under California state law, any product containing these substances must display a warning stating that the product in question “is known to the State of California to cause cancer,” resulting in a proliferation of inaccurate and scare-mongering signs all over the Golden State.

The new classification had several immediate implications for glyphosate.  Firstly, products containing the herbicide would have been required to carry a Proposition 65 label beginning July 7, 2018.  In addition to this onerous burden, no fewer than 184 plaintiffs sprang up across America, accusing herbicide-manufacturers of giving them cancer.  Federal judge Vince Chhabria is currently determining whether these plaintiffs’ cases can proceed, a decision hinging on whether a link between glyphosate and cancer has been “tested, reviewed and published and is widely accepted in the scientific community.”

Judge Shubb’s ruling means that, while glyphosate will remain listed for now under Proposition 65, glyphosate products will no longer have to carry warning labels starting this July.  It also makes it difficult for Judge Chhabria to find that the connection between glyphosate and cancer is “widely accepted in the scientific community.”

IARC: Notoriously unreliable

The rationale behind Judge Shubb’s ruling?  According to Shubb, a label that decries glyphosate as “known to cause cancer” would be “misleading at best” and both “factually inaccurate and controversial.”  This is because in over 40 years of research, the IARC study is the only one to have found it dangerous to human health.  It’s also because the study itself is mired in controversy.

Influential scientist Aaron Blair withheld key information from the IARC panel studying glyphosate.  Consequently, the IARC did not take into consideration the most comprehensive investigation into the long-term effects of glyphosate on farmers, which found zero evidence linking glyphosate with cancer.

Further muddying the water, there were considerable discrepancies between two drafts of IARC’s glyphosate report.  Someone at IARC redacted portions of the report disagreeing with the organization’s eventual conclusions.  The toxicologist in charge of reviewing the data has since claimed he does not know who made the edits, or why and when.  His story is difficult to verify, since IARC unusually discourages the experts working on its reports from retaining drafts or discussing their work.

The perils of Proposition 65

Given these critical issues with IARC’s review process, as well as its conclusions that are diametrically opposed to those of the rest of the scientific community, Judge Shubb deemed it prudent to freeze the institution of warning labels.  His decision has made the plaintiffs in the case quietly and cautiously optimistic that the listing itself will also be overturned in due course.  Regardless of the final outcome, this controversy is yet another thorn in the side of Proposition 65 itself, which has been the subject of intense debate in recent years.

Recent attempts to impose Prop 65 signage on commodities as commonplace as coffee and fast food have prompted disbelief and derision from critics, who claim that the overabundance of warning notices is having numerous detrimental effects on society.  In addition to the carbon footprint caused by producing millions of plastic, paper, and metal signs, a toxic litigation racket has sprung up in the state.  Private enforcers of Proposition 65 requirements, colloquially known as “bounty hunters,” have crafted a lucrative career around extorting businesses that have failed to comply with the warning rules.  In 2013 alone, these litigious mercenaries collected a cool $15 million.  Business is booming in California, but for all the wrong reasons.

Finally, and perhaps most concerning of all, the proliferation of warning signs all over California has had the exact opposite effect of what was originally intended.  Instead of reacting with caution and concern to a Proposition 65 notice, desensitized citizens have become jaded by their omnipresence in gas stations and garages, restaurants, and liquor stores.  The cotton wool intended to protect the everyman is in danger of blinding his vision and smothering him with its ubiquity.  Judge Shubb’s ruling, therefore, might represent a victory not just for the farmers, the states, and scientific integrity, but for common sense itself.



Source link

We Don't Need No Stinking Ratings!



It's a curious fact that a business that reportedly wants to sell a product, such as movies and television shows, will insult its customers as much as it can. 



Source link

Obama's 'Experts' and Trump's Instincts


Why are people with foreign policy experience on North Korea and elsewhere referred to as “experts” when they so often fail to achieve their goals?  The media, Democrats, and supposed experts on North Korea are wringing their hands about President Trump’s planned meeting with the North Korean dictator.

They say that Trump doesn’t know what he is doing and that people at the State Department that have expertise are gone.

I always have trouble with all the people who are called experts because they have had so little success at what they supposedly are expert about.

For the last 25 years, Presidents Clinton, Bush, and Obama have been toyed with by North Korea while the North Koreans continually built up their nuclear weapons, and the media go to the very people who let this happen for analysis on Trump.

In October 1994, via the New York Times:

President Clinton approved a plan today to arrange more than $4 billion in energy aid to North Korea during the next decade in return for a commitment from the country’s hard-line Communist leadership to freeze and gradually dismantle its nuclear weapons development program.


“This agreement will help achieve a longstanding and vital American objective – an end to the threat of nuclear proliferation on the Korean Peninsula,” Mr. Clinton said this afternoon, after his top foreign policy advisers described the details of an enormously complex agreement struck with North Korea late Monday.


“This agreement is good for the United States, good for our allies, and good for the safety of the entire world,” Mr. Clinton said in a brief appearance in the White House press room this afternoon. “It’s a crucial step toward drawing North Korea into the global community.” 

Somehow, this piece of paper didn’t make the world safer.  Instead, it allowed North Korea the money and time to develop the weapons.

When has appeasement ever worked?

Obama, Hillary, and Kerry, surrounded by experts (lifers), came up with the “smart” foreign policy of leading from behind, and we got policies that:

  • Had us pulling all of our troops out of Iraq, which allowed ISIS and Iran to build up their power in the region.
  • Had us pull out of our commitment to put missile defense in Poland and the Czech Republic which certainly pleased Putin.
  • Had a gun-running operation to Mexico where we lost track of the guns. 
  • Had us watching North Korea as it expanded its weaponry – but we kept telling them to stop.  (It is a good thing we didn’t use rough language on Rocket Man, because then he would have really gotten dangerous.)
  • Had us watch as Putin invaded Crimea and Ukraine, and our smart policy-makers told him to stop, but we wouldn’t even give Ukraine defensive weapons, even though we are obligated to defend that nation.
  • Had our president promise Putin we would be more flexible if he was re-elected.
  • Had us leave our diplomats vulnerable to attack in Libya, and then pretended a video was responsible in order to protect the political power of Obama.
  • Had us allowing NATO countries to pay less than their treaty obligations.
  • Had us kowtowing to the U.N.
  • Had us negotiate secretly with Iran, the biggest sponsor of terrorism in the world; give them hundreds of billions of dollars; and even pay them ransom.  They lied throughout the process and then signed a deal with the devil to pretend the world was now safer.  Now we have Iran, which continues to sponsor terrorism and continues to threaten death to America with more money, which continues to build more weapons.  The Iranians are also helping Assad in Syria.  Thank goodness for the “experts” Obama surrounded himself with to get this “smart” policy!
  • Had the U.S allowing  the terrorist group Hezb’allah to have a drug-running operation to appease the tyrants in Iran.
  • Had Obama’s wife respond with a “Bring Back Our Girls” hashtag when 276 girls were kidnapped in Nigeria by terrorists.
  • Had us saying climate change is more dangerous than terrorism.  Some even told us the crisis caused by Syrian and other refugees escaping was because of a potential couple-of-degrees rise in temperature rather than because tyrants were killing and raping them.
  • Had the president draw a red line in Syria over chemical weapons use and, when Syria used chemical weapons, essentially did nothing.  He and Kerry did pretend Assad got rid of all his chemical weapons.
  • Had us sign the Paris Climate Accord, which would have cost trillions and slowed down the U.S. and world economies to pretend that government officials could adjust temperatures downward by one degree forever.  Does that sound smart or true?
  • Had the State Department spending taxpayer money to interfere in Israel’s election.  Why didn’t the media do an investigation of that if collusion in elections is so dangerous?  Where was Adam Schiff?
  • Had the president and agencies under his control refusing to enforce immigration laws Congress passed in violation of their oath of office and the Constitution.
  • Had a purported 17 out of 17 intelligence agencies blame Russians for the DNC computer hack, without ever examining the computer.  Is it smart to claim that you can analyze a computer based on a piece of paper from someone else?

Not once do I remember the media caring about any of the above disastrous and dangerous policies.  But now I am supposed to believe that things are more dangerous because Trump doesn’t know what he is doing?

There were 15,708 terrorism deaths in 2008, the year before Obama, and 25,621 in 2016, the last year of his presidency.

When Bush was in office, George Clooney and the media complained a lot about inaction in the Congo and Darfur, so why did the concern all of a sudden disappear when Obama took office?

Why is it dangerous to meet Kim Jong-un but it was fine to make deals from the tyrants from Iran, Syria, and Cuba?  Didn’t it elevate their status?

The way the media are treating Trump is the way they treated Reagan.

The media and other Democrats said Reagan was going to cause World War III because of his talk and actions.  Instead, he ended the Cold War and brought down the Berlin Wall.  Obama had Iran collapsing with sanctions, and instead of holding the mullahs down, he lifted them up.  Trump has North Korea at least temporarily stopping its testing of nuclear weapons since November.

When Trump talks to world leaders, he tells them he always considers the American people first and tells them they should always consider their people first.  That sounds extremely smart and balanced to me.

Obama, on the other hand, wanted America to lead from behind, one of the stupidest statements ever.  Leading from behind is following, not leading at all, and that is what he did his entire eight years.

Which of the above policies is smart, and which ones are stupid?  Why do the media and other Democrats continue to get it backward, and why are people called experts when they continue to screw up so much?

Why are people with foreign policy experience on North Korea and elsewhere referred to as “experts” when they so often fail to achieve their goals?  The media, Democrats, and supposed experts on North Korea are wringing their hands about President Trump’s planned meeting with the North Korean dictator.

They say that Trump doesn’t know what he is doing and that people at the State Department that have expertise are gone.

I always have trouble with all the people who are called experts because they have had so little success at what they supposedly are expert about.

For the last 25 years, Presidents Clinton, Bush, and Obama have been toyed with by North Korea while the North Koreans continually built up their nuclear weapons, and the media go to the very people who let this happen for analysis on Trump.

In October 1994, via the New York Times:

President Clinton approved a plan today to arrange more than $4 billion in energy aid to North Korea during the next decade in return for a commitment from the country’s hard-line Communist leadership to freeze and gradually dismantle its nuclear weapons development program.


“This agreement will help achieve a longstanding and vital American objective – an end to the threat of nuclear proliferation on the Korean Peninsula,” Mr. Clinton said this afternoon, after his top foreign policy advisers described the details of an enormously complex agreement struck with North Korea late Monday.


“This agreement is good for the United States, good for our allies, and good for the safety of the entire world,” Mr. Clinton said in a brief appearance in the White House press room this afternoon. “It’s a crucial step toward drawing North Korea into the global community.” 

Somehow, this piece of paper didn’t make the world safer.  Instead, it allowed North Korea the money and time to develop the weapons.

When has appeasement ever worked?

Obama, Hillary, and Kerry, surrounded by experts (lifers), came up with the “smart” foreign policy of leading from behind, and we got policies that:

  • Had us pulling all of our troops out of Iraq, which allowed ISIS and Iran to build up their power in the region.
  • Had us pull out of our commitment to put missile defense in Poland and the Czech Republic which certainly pleased Putin.
  • Had a gun-running operation to Mexico where we lost track of the guns. 
  • Had us watching North Korea as it expanded its weaponry – but we kept telling them to stop.  (It is a good thing we didn’t use rough language on Rocket Man, because then he would have really gotten dangerous.)
  • Had us watch as Putin invaded Crimea and Ukraine, and our smart policy-makers told him to stop, but we wouldn’t even give Ukraine defensive weapons, even though we are obligated to defend that nation.
  • Had our president promise Putin we would be more flexible if he was re-elected.
  • Had us leave our diplomats vulnerable to attack in Libya, and then pretended a video was responsible in order to protect the political power of Obama.
  • Had us allowing NATO countries to pay less than their treaty obligations.
  • Had us kowtowing to the U.N.
  • Had us negotiate secretly with Iran, the biggest sponsor of terrorism in the world; give them hundreds of billions of dollars; and even pay them ransom.  They lied throughout the process and then signed a deal with the devil to pretend the world was now safer.  Now we have Iran, which continues to sponsor terrorism and continues to threaten death to America with more money, which continues to build more weapons.  The Iranians are also helping Assad in Syria.  Thank goodness for the “experts” Obama surrounded himself with to get this “smart” policy!
  • Had the U.S allowing  the terrorist group Hezb’allah to have a drug-running operation to appease the tyrants in Iran.
  • Had Obama’s wife respond with a “Bring Back Our Girls” hashtag when 276 girls were kidnapped in Nigeria by terrorists.
  • Had us saying climate change is more dangerous than terrorism.  Some even told us the crisis caused by Syrian and other refugees escaping was because of a potential couple-of-degrees rise in temperature rather than because tyrants were killing and raping them.
  • Had the president draw a red line in Syria over chemical weapons use and, when Syria used chemical weapons, essentially did nothing.  He and Kerry did pretend Assad got rid of all his chemical weapons.
  • Had us sign the Paris Climate Accord, which would have cost trillions and slowed down the U.S. and world economies to pretend that government officials could adjust temperatures downward by one degree forever.  Does that sound smart or true?
  • Had the State Department spending taxpayer money to interfere in Israel’s election.  Why didn’t the media do an investigation of that if collusion in elections is so dangerous?  Where was Adam Schiff?
  • Had the president and agencies under his control refusing to enforce immigration laws Congress passed in violation of their oath of office and the Constitution.
  • Had a purported 17 out of 17 intelligence agencies blame Russians for the DNC computer hack, without ever examining the computer.  Is it smart to claim that you can analyze a computer based on a piece of paper from someone else?

Not once do I remember the media caring about any of the above disastrous and dangerous policies.  But now I am supposed to believe that things are more dangerous because Trump doesn’t know what he is doing?

There were 15,708 terrorism deaths in 2008, the year before Obama, and 25,621 in 2016, the last year of his presidency.

When Bush was in office, George Clooney and the media complained a lot about inaction in the Congo and Darfur, so why did the concern all of a sudden disappear when Obama took office?

Why is it dangerous to meet Kim Jong-un but it was fine to make deals from the tyrants from Iran, Syria, and Cuba?  Didn’t it elevate their status?

The way the media are treating Trump is the way they treated Reagan.

The media and other Democrats said Reagan was going to cause World War III because of his talk and actions.  Instead, he ended the Cold War and brought down the Berlin Wall.  Obama had Iran collapsing with sanctions, and instead of holding the mullahs down, he lifted them up.  Trump has North Korea at least temporarily stopping its testing of nuclear weapons since November.

When Trump talks to world leaders, he tells them he always considers the American people first and tells them they should always consider their people first.  That sounds extremely smart and balanced to me.

Obama, on the other hand, wanted America to lead from behind, one of the stupidest statements ever.  Leading from behind is following, not leading at all, and that is what he did his entire eight years.

Which of the above policies is smart, and which ones are stupid?  Why do the media and other Democrats continue to get it backward, and why are people called experts when they continue to screw up so much?



Source link

The Ongoing Plight of Christians


In the CQ Researcher issue titled “Religious Persecution,” dated November 21, 1997, Kenneth Jost highlighted the “well-documented cases of churches being bulldozed or burned down, clergy and lay leaders [being] arrested and imprisoned and clergymen being murdered by [Sudanese] government troops.”  In the 21 years since this article was printed, global Christian persecution has increased exponentially.  The following is a small sampling of what Christians are facing, and the sad truth is that no one seems to be stopping the oppressors and punishing them.

  • In Sweden, Muslim migrants often persecute Christian migrants, or immigrants who convert to Christianity.  Thus, “Open Doors Deutschland documented 743 attacks on Christians in Germany in 2016, and German police documented another 100 in 2017.  Similar violence plagues Christian refugees in Sweden, but the Scandinavian country has yet to issue an investigation.  A survey published by Open Doors Sweden last year found that … one hundred and twenty-three Christian asylum-seekers reported religiously motivated persecution, and 512 separate incidents.  Christian refugees suffered 65 violent assaults, 55 death threats, 7 cases of sexual assault, along with instances of social exclusion, insults, contempt, and threats.  More than half, 53 percent, said they had been violently attacked at least once.  Almost half, 45 percent, reported receiving at least one death threat.  More than three-quarters of those who faced such persecution were converts to Christianity, and almost all of the perpetrators were Muslim.”

Open Door’s top countries where Christians face the most persecution are:

  • North Korea (94 points) – Christians and Christian missionaries are routinely imprisoned in labor camps.
  • Afghanistan (93 points) – The government of this Muslim country does not recognize any of its citizens as Christian.
  • Somalia (91 points) – The Catholic bishop of Mogadishu has described it as “not possible” to be a Christian in Somalia.
  • Sudan (87 points) – The Muslim government has slated Christian churches for demolition.
  • Pakistan (86 points) – Christians and other non-Muslims sit on death row, facing charges of blasphemy.
  • Eritrea (86 points) – Only four religions are officially recognized (Sunni Islam and the Eritrean Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Evangelical Lutheran churches).  Those belonging to other faiths are persecuted, and those of recognized faiths are routinely harassed by the government.
  • Libya (86 points) – The government is reportedly training militants to attack Coptic Christians.
  • Iraq (86 points) – Iraqi Christians have yet to return to their homelands after expulsion by ISIS.
  • Yemen (85 points) – The ongoing political and humanitarian crisis has further squeezed Christians and other religious minorities, who already faced severe restrictions on practicing their faiths.

Jeff Simino at the National Review writes about minority religious groups who suffer in Iran.  Thus, “the Iranian government continues to persecute religious minorities, including groups supposedly given special recognition by the country’s constitution: Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians.”

Raymond Ibrahim, chronicler of the status of Christians, assiduously documents what is happening to them.  In fact, “[t]he Islamic world has the lion’s share of Christian persecution; 38 of the 50 worst nations are Muslim-majority.  In short, the overwhelming majority of persecution that these 215 million Christians experience around the world – especially the worst forms, such as rape and murder – occurs at the hands of Muslims.”

Moreover, “[u]nlike the persecution of Christians in Communist nations, rooted to a particular regime, Muslim persecution of Christians is perennial, existential, and far transcends any ruler or regime.  It unfortunately seems part and parcel of the history, doctrines, and socio-political makeup of Islam – hence its tenacity and ubiquity.  It is a ‘tradition.'”  Ibrahim asserts that “those persecuting Christians come from a wide variety of racial, linguistic, cultural, and socio-economic backgrounds – from African, Arab, Asian, and Caucasian nations – and share little in common with one another, except for Islam,” thus underscoring the source of the hatred.

On January 31, 2018, Jack Kerwick wrote, “[T]here was more violence against Christians recorded in Pakistan than anywhere else.”  As Islamists expand in the Philippines, Bangladesh, and Indonesia as well as Egypt, Nigeria, and Somalia, Christian oppression increases.  In Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kazakhstan, and Azerbaijan, “with a grassroots revival of Islam” has come an increase in anti-Christian persecution.

Notwithstanding the entrenched Islamic hatred of Christians, “India and Nepal are two prominent illustrations of intense, anti-Christian Hindu nationalism.  But, notably, in Myanmar and Sri Lanka, Buddhist nationalism is being used as an instrument of anti-Christian oppression as well.” 

Nathan Johnson documents that in February 2018 in Nigeria, Muslims continue attacks on Christians.  In fact, “International Christian Concern (ICC) documented at least 32 attacks by Fulani militants on Christians, which killed over 95 people and destroyed dozens of villages.  These attacks spanned 11 different states and killed nearly 100 Christians.”  With more than twice as many Christians killed this year than last year, there “is a clear uptick in attacks.  Between January and February 2018, there have already been more than 270 Christians slaughtered by invading Fulani” (who share many beliefs with other West African Muslims).

Furthermore, “[t]his continued violence demonstrates either incompetence or complicity by the Nigerian military in these attacks.  Villages that have been attacked are often within sight of military outposts or checkpoints.  Despite this, the military has almost never successfully intervened and stopped an attack from causing overwhelming devastation.”

Less obvious than the outright violence is the fact that “Islamists around the world are furthering their agenda through diplomatic and political action, as well as grassroots social efforts.”  Consequently, “sharia law has been ‘peaceably’ enacted into law” and with it the desire to expunge any faith of the infidel.

Thus, Ibrahim explains the draconian hardships imposed for centuries upon Copts and other religious groups by Muslim rulers prompted many to convert to Islam.  Therefore, “nations such as Egypt which were about 95 percent Christian in the 7th century are today only about 10 percent.”  Acquiescing to dhimmi status and accepting life with few rights, they eventually converted to Islam “to find relief.”  Fifteenth-century anecdotes describe Muslims burning churches, slaughtering Christians, and enslaving their women and children.  Besides being “physically purged, they were spiritually murdered – a slow-motion genocide,” if you will.  Negative conditions of life of coercion coupled with “social bondage and financial bondage” pressured many to convert to Islam.

And it continues to the present day.

In 2016, at the Hoover Institution, Ralph Peters wrote:

The genocide against Middle-Eastern Christians approaches its endgame, while Western leaders look away as resolutely as they ignored the Holocaust when it was happening.  In time, there will be crocodile tears and, perhaps, a museum designed by an in-demand architect.  For now, though, the presidents and prime ministers who romanticize Islam and explain away its excesses all but condone the extermination of a 2,000-year-old religious civilization.

H.R. 565 – Save Christians from Genocide Act was sponsored by Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.-48) and introduced on January 13, 2017.  As of this date, it has been referred to the Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security.  It is intended to “recognize that Christians and Yazidis in Iraq, Syria, Pakistan, Iran, and Libya are targets of genocide, and to provide for the expedited processing of immigrant and refugee visas for such individuals, and for other purposes.”

With Easter soon upon the world, it behooves people, no matter their religious persuasion, to acknowledge that while John the Baptist announced to the crowd in John 1:29  “Look! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world,” it is up to individuals with a conscience to demand protection for those who accept Christianity.  There have been far too many Christian martyrs.

Eileen can be reached at middlemarch18@gmail.com.

In the CQ Researcher issue titled “Religious Persecution,” dated November 21, 1997, Kenneth Jost highlighted the “well-documented cases of churches being bulldozed or burned down, clergy and lay leaders [being] arrested and imprisoned and clergymen being murdered by [Sudanese] government troops.”  In the 21 years since this article was printed, global Christian persecution has increased exponentially.  The following is a small sampling of what Christians are facing, and the sad truth is that no one seems to be stopping the oppressors and punishing them.

  • In Sweden, Muslim migrants often persecute Christian migrants, or immigrants who convert to Christianity.  Thus, “Open Doors Deutschland documented 743 attacks on Christians in Germany in 2016, and German police documented another 100 in 2017.  Similar violence plagues Christian refugees in Sweden, but the Scandinavian country has yet to issue an investigation.  A survey published by Open Doors Sweden last year found that … one hundred and twenty-three Christian asylum-seekers reported religiously motivated persecution, and 512 separate incidents.  Christian refugees suffered 65 violent assaults, 55 death threats, 7 cases of sexual assault, along with instances of social exclusion, insults, contempt, and threats.  More than half, 53 percent, said they had been violently attacked at least once.  Almost half, 45 percent, reported receiving at least one death threat.  More than three-quarters of those who faced such persecution were converts to Christianity, and almost all of the perpetrators were Muslim.”

Open Door’s top countries where Christians face the most persecution are:

  • North Korea (94 points) – Christians and Christian missionaries are routinely imprisoned in labor camps.
  • Afghanistan (93 points) – The government of this Muslim country does not recognize any of its citizens as Christian.
  • Somalia (91 points) – The Catholic bishop of Mogadishu has described it as “not possible” to be a Christian in Somalia.
  • Sudan (87 points) – The Muslim government has slated Christian churches for demolition.
  • Pakistan (86 points) – Christians and other non-Muslims sit on death row, facing charges of blasphemy.
  • Eritrea (86 points) – Only four religions are officially recognized (Sunni Islam and the Eritrean Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Evangelical Lutheran churches).  Those belonging to other faiths are persecuted, and those of recognized faiths are routinely harassed by the government.
  • Libya (86 points) – The government is reportedly training militants to attack Coptic Christians.
  • Iraq (86 points) – Iraqi Christians have yet to return to their homelands after expulsion by ISIS.
  • Yemen (85 points) – The ongoing political and humanitarian crisis has further squeezed Christians and other religious minorities, who already faced severe restrictions on practicing their faiths.

Jeff Simino at the National Review writes about minority religious groups who suffer in Iran.  Thus, “the Iranian government continues to persecute religious minorities, including groups supposedly given special recognition by the country’s constitution: Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians.”

Raymond Ibrahim, chronicler of the status of Christians, assiduously documents what is happening to them.  In fact, “[t]he Islamic world has the lion’s share of Christian persecution; 38 of the 50 worst nations are Muslim-majority.  In short, the overwhelming majority of persecution that these 215 million Christians experience around the world – especially the worst forms, such as rape and murder – occurs at the hands of Muslims.”

Moreover, “[u]nlike the persecution of Christians in Communist nations, rooted to a particular regime, Muslim persecution of Christians is perennial, existential, and far transcends any ruler or regime.  It unfortunately seems part and parcel of the history, doctrines, and socio-political makeup of Islam – hence its tenacity and ubiquity.  It is a ‘tradition.'”  Ibrahim asserts that “those persecuting Christians come from a wide variety of racial, linguistic, cultural, and socio-economic backgrounds – from African, Arab, Asian, and Caucasian nations – and share little in common with one another, except for Islam,” thus underscoring the source of the hatred.

On January 31, 2018, Jack Kerwick wrote, “[T]here was more violence against Christians recorded in Pakistan than anywhere else.”  As Islamists expand in the Philippines, Bangladesh, and Indonesia as well as Egypt, Nigeria, and Somalia, Christian oppression increases.  In Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kazakhstan, and Azerbaijan, “with a grassroots revival of Islam” has come an increase in anti-Christian persecution.

Notwithstanding the entrenched Islamic hatred of Christians, “India and Nepal are two prominent illustrations of intense, anti-Christian Hindu nationalism.  But, notably, in Myanmar and Sri Lanka, Buddhist nationalism is being used as an instrument of anti-Christian oppression as well.” 

Nathan Johnson documents that in February 2018 in Nigeria, Muslims continue attacks on Christians.  In fact, “International Christian Concern (ICC) documented at least 32 attacks by Fulani militants on Christians, which killed over 95 people and destroyed dozens of villages.  These attacks spanned 11 different states and killed nearly 100 Christians.”  With more than twice as many Christians killed this year than last year, there “is a clear uptick in attacks.  Between January and February 2018, there have already been more than 270 Christians slaughtered by invading Fulani” (who share many beliefs with other West African Muslims).

Furthermore, “[t]his continued violence demonstrates either incompetence or complicity by the Nigerian military in these attacks.  Villages that have been attacked are often within sight of military outposts or checkpoints.  Despite this, the military has almost never successfully intervened and stopped an attack from causing overwhelming devastation.”

Less obvious than the outright violence is the fact that “Islamists around the world are furthering their agenda through diplomatic and political action, as well as grassroots social efforts.”  Consequently, “sharia law has been ‘peaceably’ enacted into law” and with it the desire to expunge any faith of the infidel.

Thus, Ibrahim explains the draconian hardships imposed for centuries upon Copts and other religious groups by Muslim rulers prompted many to convert to Islam.  Therefore, “nations such as Egypt which were about 95 percent Christian in the 7th century are today only about 10 percent.”  Acquiescing to dhimmi status and accepting life with few rights, they eventually converted to Islam “to find relief.”  Fifteenth-century anecdotes describe Muslims burning churches, slaughtering Christians, and enslaving their women and children.  Besides being “physically purged, they were spiritually murdered – a slow-motion genocide,” if you will.  Negative conditions of life of coercion coupled with “social bondage and financial bondage” pressured many to convert to Islam.

And it continues to the present day.

In 2016, at the Hoover Institution, Ralph Peters wrote:

The genocide against Middle-Eastern Christians approaches its endgame, while Western leaders look away as resolutely as they ignored the Holocaust when it was happening.  In time, there will be crocodile tears and, perhaps, a museum designed by an in-demand architect.  For now, though, the presidents and prime ministers who romanticize Islam and explain away its excesses all but condone the extermination of a 2,000-year-old religious civilization.

H.R. 565 – Save Christians from Genocide Act was sponsored by Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.-48) and introduced on January 13, 2017.  As of this date, it has been referred to the Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security.  It is intended to “recognize that Christians and Yazidis in Iraq, Syria, Pakistan, Iran, and Libya are targets of genocide, and to provide for the expedited processing of immigrant and refugee visas for such individuals, and for other purposes.”

With Easter soon upon the world, it behooves people, no matter their religious persuasion, to acknowledge that while John the Baptist announced to the crowd in John 1:29  “Look! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world,” it is up to individuals with a conscience to demand protection for those who accept Christianity.  There have been far too many Christian martyrs.

Eileen can be reached at middlemarch18@gmail.com.



Source link