Month: August 2018

208780.png

Who Really Started the Trump-McCain Feud?


With Senator John McCain’s recent passing, the Trump-McCain feud has heated up.  It’s really a manufactured kerfuffle, as one party is saying little, and the other party has departed from the living, no longer able to participate in the feud, except posthumously via the media.

Leave it to the media to resurrect the controversy between the late senator and the U.S. president as a means of bashing President Trump, whom the media detest.  It is also a distraction from the stock market breaking records left and right, a new and better trade deal with Mexico, a country that the media constantly tell us hates Trump and won’t do business with him, Bruce Ohr’s congressional testimony, and other news the media would prefer to ignore.


Image credit: Donkey Hotey.

Trump has been criticized over the past four days for his response to Senator McCain’s passing.  He wasn’t personal enough, they say, even though the president appropriately tweeted, “My deepest sympathies and respect go out to the family of Senator John McCain.  Our hearts and prayers are with you!”

Then the media fussed and pouted over how long the flag over the White House should be flown at half-mast.  The flag flew that way appropriately after McCain’s death, but the time period wasn’t enough.  CNN probably wants it at half-mast permanently until Trump is out of office, although another six and a half more years at half-mast might be a bit excessive.

The reality is that the flag was handled as it should have been, based on a 1954 proclamation by then President Eisenhower.

As McCain was a U.S. senator, the proclamation instructs that flags be lowered on the day of his death and the day after.  McCain passed away on Saturday, and the White House reportedly raised the flags back right around midnight overnight as Sunday ended, which would be the minimum amount of time as outlined by Eisenhower’s proclamation.

The media think they knows better, as this tweet exemplifies.

Next is the funeral. Trump is being criticized for not attending, despite McCain’s request that he not attend.  Somehow, to MSNBC, honoring the request of the recently departed is crass.  How would they react if Trump showed up anyway, making the funeral about himself, rather than the senator, as Barack Obama might have done?

Resurrected is the feud from a few years ago.  Watch cable news, and the feud is all Trump’s fault.  McCain remains blameless in life and even after death.  Let’s take a look at how the feud started.

Reported in The New Yorker on July 16, 2015, a few days after a Trump campaign rally held in Phoenix, in McCain’s home state, McCain offered his displeasure over the rally.  “It’s very bad,” he said.  Going farther, “[t]his performance with our friend out in Phoenix is very hurtful to me,” McCain said.  “Because what he did was he fired up the crazies.”

This rally was held on Saturday, July 11, 2015, as reported by Politico.  The dates are important.

Trump-supporters are “crazies,” according to Senator McCain, those people willing to stand in line for hours to see and hear their favored candidate for president.  I wonder if McCain ever had such crowds at his campaign rallies in 2000 or 2008, at least before he brought Sarah Palin onto his ticket.

Insulting Trump-supporters is the same as insulting Trump, at least in Trump’s view.  As he is hardwired to do, when insulted, he hits back.

In Iowa, a week later, on July 18, 2015, Trump was interviewed and delivered his response to McCain’s calling Trump-supporters, and, by default, Trump himself, “crazy.”  Trump said, “He’s not a war hero.  He’s a war hero because he was captured.  I like people who weren’t captured.”

The feud was off and running, but who started it?  From the dates, McCain drew first blood, and Trump responded as he always does: with a right cross.

Yet to the media, this feud is totally one-sided.  McCain is the innocent party, just minding his own business, when that bully Donald Trump comes up out of nowhere and punches him in the nose.  In reality, it was Trump minding his own business, trying to run a winning campaign, something McCain found challenging, when McCain called him and his supporters “crazy.”

This was much like Hillary Clinton’s descriptor “deplorables” to characterize those who chose the current president over her.

Even Rush Limbaugh, who describes himself as right 99-plus percent of the time, got this wrong.  On his show this week, he remarked about the feud:

We’re all human, right?  Some might disagree with that, but we’re all human, in the general sense.  So you’re Senator McCain and you’re out there minding your own business, you’re in advanced years and all of a sudden this orange headed guy walks down an escalator in New York and runs for president, says what he says, and you’re McCain, and you’ve got this reputation here for probity and seriousness and respect and all that kind of stuff.  And then shortly after the orange headed guy walks down the escalator, somebody asks him about McCain, and the orange headed guy says, “I don’t have any respect for people in the military that get captured. I don’t think they’re heroes,” what do you expect McCain’s reaction to that to be?

Even El Rushbo missed the fact that McCain hit first by calling Trump-supporters “crazies” and that Trump responded in Trumpian fashion with a quick punch.

Let the media huff and puff.  This is their bright, shiny object of the week to chase around the room.  They quickly lost interest in Omarosa, Cohen, and Manafort, all shiny objects for a few days earlier this month within the media echo chamber.  Now it’s McCain as the shiny object, the same guy they called a racist when he ran for president in 2008, now revered as Mother Teresa in death.

Wouldn’t it be refreshing if the media did an honest assessment of John McCain’s life, his dealings with some bad players in the Middle East, his charitable foundation and its Clinton Foundation-like donors, and his role in the Russian collusion hoax?  Although inconvenient, we might discover the many inconvenient similarities between McCain and the Clintons.

Instead, the media will bray about the half-mast flag and funeral guest list, since their minds run only in a single gear: destroy Trump.

Brian C Joondeph, M.D., MPS, a Denver-based physician and writer.  Follow him on Facebook,  LinkedIn, and Twitter.

With Senator John McCain’s recent passing, the Trump-McCain feud has heated up.  It’s really a manufactured kerfuffle, as one party is saying little, and the other party has departed from the living, no longer able to participate in the feud, except posthumously via the media.

Leave it to the media to resurrect the controversy between the late senator and the U.S. president as a means of bashing President Trump, whom the media detest.  It is also a distraction from the stock market breaking records left and right, a new and better trade deal with Mexico, a country that the media constantly tell us hates Trump and won’t do business with him, Bruce Ohr’s congressional testimony, and other news the media would prefer to ignore.


Image credit: Donkey Hotey.

Trump has been criticized over the past four days for his response to Senator McCain’s passing.  He wasn’t personal enough, they say, even though the president appropriately tweeted, “My deepest sympathies and respect go out to the family of Senator John McCain.  Our hearts and prayers are with you!”

Then the media fussed and pouted over how long the flag over the White House should be flown at half-mast.  The flag flew that way appropriately after McCain’s death, but the time period wasn’t enough.  CNN probably wants it at half-mast permanently until Trump is out of office, although another six and a half more years at half-mast might be a bit excessive.

The reality is that the flag was handled as it should have been, based on a 1954 proclamation by then President Eisenhower.

As McCain was a U.S. senator, the proclamation instructs that flags be lowered on the day of his death and the day after.  McCain passed away on Saturday, and the White House reportedly raised the flags back right around midnight overnight as Sunday ended, which would be the minimum amount of time as outlined by Eisenhower’s proclamation.

The media think they knows better, as this tweet exemplifies.

Next is the funeral. Trump is being criticized for not attending, despite McCain’s request that he not attend.  Somehow, to MSNBC, honoring the request of the recently departed is crass.  How would they react if Trump showed up anyway, making the funeral about himself, rather than the senator, as Barack Obama might have done?

Resurrected is the feud from a few years ago.  Watch cable news, and the feud is all Trump’s fault.  McCain remains blameless in life and even after death.  Let’s take a look at how the feud started.

Reported in The New Yorker on July 16, 2015, a few days after a Trump campaign rally held in Phoenix, in McCain’s home state, McCain offered his displeasure over the rally.  “It’s very bad,” he said.  Going farther, “[t]his performance with our friend out in Phoenix is very hurtful to me,” McCain said.  “Because what he did was he fired up the crazies.”

This rally was held on Saturday, July 11, 2015, as reported by Politico.  The dates are important.

Trump-supporters are “crazies,” according to Senator McCain, those people willing to stand in line for hours to see and hear their favored candidate for president.  I wonder if McCain ever had such crowds at his campaign rallies in 2000 or 2008, at least before he brought Sarah Palin onto his ticket.

Insulting Trump-supporters is the same as insulting Trump, at least in Trump’s view.  As he is hardwired to do, when insulted, he hits back.

In Iowa, a week later, on July 18, 2015, Trump was interviewed and delivered his response to McCain’s calling Trump-supporters, and, by default, Trump himself, “crazy.”  Trump said, “He’s not a war hero.  He’s a war hero because he was captured.  I like people who weren’t captured.”

The feud was off and running, but who started it?  From the dates, McCain drew first blood, and Trump responded as he always does: with a right cross.

Yet to the media, this feud is totally one-sided.  McCain is the innocent party, just minding his own business, when that bully Donald Trump comes up out of nowhere and punches him in the nose.  In reality, it was Trump minding his own business, trying to run a winning campaign, something McCain found challenging, when McCain called him and his supporters “crazy.”

This was much like Hillary Clinton’s descriptor “deplorables” to characterize those who chose the current president over her.

Even Rush Limbaugh, who describes himself as right 99-plus percent of the time, got this wrong.  On his show this week, he remarked about the feud:

We’re all human, right?  Some might disagree with that, but we’re all human, in the general sense.  So you’re Senator McCain and you’re out there minding your own business, you’re in advanced years and all of a sudden this orange headed guy walks down an escalator in New York and runs for president, says what he says, and you’re McCain, and you’ve got this reputation here for probity and seriousness and respect and all that kind of stuff.  And then shortly after the orange headed guy walks down the escalator, somebody asks him about McCain, and the orange headed guy says, “I don’t have any respect for people in the military that get captured. I don’t think they’re heroes,” what do you expect McCain’s reaction to that to be?

Even El Rushbo missed the fact that McCain hit first by calling Trump-supporters “crazies” and that Trump responded in Trumpian fashion with a quick punch.

Let the media huff and puff.  This is their bright, shiny object of the week to chase around the room.  They quickly lost interest in Omarosa, Cohen, and Manafort, all shiny objects for a few days earlier this month within the media echo chamber.  Now it’s McCain as the shiny object, the same guy they called a racist when he ran for president in 2008, now revered as Mother Teresa in death.

Wouldn’t it be refreshing if the media did an honest assessment of John McCain’s life, his dealings with some bad players in the Middle East, his charitable foundation and its Clinton Foundation-like donors, and his role in the Russian collusion hoax?  Although inconvenient, we might discover the many inconvenient similarities between McCain and the Clintons.

Instead, the media will bray about the half-mast flag and funeral guest list, since their minds run only in a single gear: destroy Trump.

Brian C Joondeph, M.D., MPS, a Denver-based physician and writer.  Follow him on Facebook,  LinkedIn, and Twitter.



Source link

GMAIL 'smart responses' creep out users…


NEW YORK (AP) — Google is toeing the line between helping you save time and creeping you out as it turns to machines to suggest email replies on your behalf.

The customized auto-responses come in the latest version of Gmail on the web and expand on a feature already available on Android devices and iPhones. They’re just one more example of how artificial intelligence is seeping into everyday online life, whether it’s to tailor product recommendations or correct spelling.

So far the new feature has been drawing mixed responses from users.

The new feature, called Smart Reply, offers three short responses, like “It was great seeing you too,” or “I’ll look into it.” Unlike standard auto-replies when on vacation, for instance, these are customized to an individual email based on its context. If you select one, you can either send it immediately or edit it before sending.

The responses are automatically created using Google’s artificial intelligence systems. Humans aren’t reading people’s emails, but machines are scanning them. Although Google stopped scanning email to target advertising in 2017, it still scans them to filter out junk mail, identify phishing scams and, now, to create suggested replies. (Yahoo and AOL, both owned by Verizon, still scan email for advertising.)

Google’s suggestions draw on the text of your email. Google says it doesn’t analyze anything else, like attachments or photos, even though it scans them for security risks. The analysis can include past conversations. For example, if someone says “Thanks!” more often than “Thanks,” with no exclamation point, the suggested response would likely reflect that.

Brian Lam, a San Diego attorney who focuses on privacy and data security, said auto-replies represent “a tradeoff between privacy and new features that consumers may want.”

Google has been scanning Gmail since its debut in 2004, so scanning for auto-replies shouldn’t come as a surprise. Lam said he has no concerns as long as companies disclose they are doing this.

“There’s a market incentive to behave responsibly,” he said. There’s been consumer backlash when people get wind of companies that don’t respect privacy. People decide not to use those services.”

Not every email will get suggestions — only those that Google thinks will lend themselves to a short reply.

Graham Gardner, a freelance photographer and leather-goods maker in Minneapolis, said he has used smart replies in Gmail several times over the past few months. He said the speed of response can be helpful, particularly if he is on his phone and can reply with one tap.

“It can help with quick replies that don’t need too much elaboration, so you can have peace of mind quickly and sort out more specific information in a full reply later,” he said.

But Maya Castro, an assignment editor for a TV station in San Francisco, said she sticks to her own voice when emailing, even though she’s OK with auto-responses for text messages and Facebook chats.

“It boils down to tone and mood,” she said. “Smart- or auto-responses show a lack of thought.”

To disable the “Smart Reply” feature on a mobile device, simply go to “Settings” and uncheck the box next to “Smart Reply.” But for now, there’s no way to disable the feature on the web. However, users can return to the “classic” version of Gmail on the web by selecting that option under “Settings.”

Suggesting responses isn’t the only way Google uses artificial intelligence to help people manage their emails, as it has been rolling out a new version of Gmail since April. The new Gmail has “Nudges,” a feature that reminds users to reply to emails it deems important. Gmail also prods users who forget to include an attachment to an email that uses the word “attached” or something similar.



Source link

208782.png

Internet Giants: Not as Smart as They Think They Are


Google, Facebook, Twitter, and other large internet companies have taken it upon themselves to censor and block content they find offensive.  Unfortunately for some of us, they seem to find that any thought that might be described as conservative falls within this offensive category, but their actions are dangerous regardless of political leanings.

They each have their own methods of doing so, but they are trying their best to control what the public hears and sees and thereby shape what is thought.  Obviously, newspapers and other media have been doing somewhat similar things for ages, but these present attempts are of a different magnitude.

Never before has any media company had this level and control of “share of mind” over billions of people.  Google and Facebook and their subsidiaries (WhatsApp, YouTube, Instagram, etc.) control around 75% of all internet traffic and almost all advertising. 

Over half of the entire world, four billion people, uses the Internet.  Over 250 million people came online in just the last year!  The average internet-user now spends around six hours each day using internet-powered devices and services.

The problem with their attempting to control and rig the game is that they simply aren’t as smart as they seem to think they are.  What forces are they going to unleash with their manipulation and censorship in an attempt at thought control?  There is no way of knowing, as the various social interactions among hundreds of millions of people are far too many and far too intricate to predict.

They are playing with fire, and the results down the road might be terrifying for all.  In effect, they are unknowingly creating ripples in the normal flow of human existence – ripples that might become waves, which might crash down upon millions, if not billions of individuals.  

There is a better way.  These companies can still make their billions selling advertising and reach, but if they and we are to survive, they need to treat the rest with a laissez-faire attitude.  Let the unguided actions of millions drive things.  Swarm intelligence will always work better than attempted manipulation.

Swarm intelligence is a relatively new concept that attempts to explain and understand the collective behavior of group animals – think of honeybees, schools of fish, herds of bison, flocks of birds, etc.

The intelligence of the swarm is a significant multiplier.  Rather than relying solely on individual intelligence, these groups create a collective intelligence that is orders of magnitudes beyond that of any individual member.

They do so without any leader, with no management of any sort, with no one “seeing the big picture.”  In fact, having no one in charge is a key ingredient to swarm intelligence!

This incredible increase in intelligence is driven by countless interactions among individual members, with each following simple rules of thumb and reacting to its local environment and those members around it. 

And although it may be difficult to grasp, this self-organizing behavior has no cause and effect.  It simply is.  This process is the basis for the success of the human race.

Swarm intelligence also smoothes out the wrinkles that may occur.  It allows for a natural flow of events, with constant feedback loops to minimize the chances of a ripple turning into a wave turning into a life-destroying crash. 

Obviously, events may still lead to catastrophe.  But allowing swarm intelligence to do its magic certainly decreases the odds and ensures that the negative consequence, whatever it may be, will be the minimum possible.  Putting a “boss” in charge and attempting to direct events is just as certain to increase the odds of catastrophic failure somewhere down the line.  This is a scientific fact just as certain as gravity. 

So, social media and internet giants, please stop your attempts at thought control.  You are truly putting the future of the entire planet at risk.  Remember, a good rule is first, do no harm, and the first step is accepting that you are not as smart as you think.  Step back and let swarm intelligence do its magic.  Trust the people.  The lives of billions of people are in your hands, and the science is clear.

John Conlin is an expert in organizational design and change.  He also holds a B.S. in Earth sciences and an MBA and is the founder and president of E.I.C. Enterprises (www.eicenterprises.org), a USA-based 501(c)(3) non-profit dedicated to spreading the truth here and around the world, primarily through K-12 education.  E.I.C. Enterprise’s GoFundMe page can be found at https://www.gofundme.com/so-you-believe-in-science-eh.

Google, Facebook, Twitter, and other large internet companies have taken it upon themselves to censor and block content they find offensive.  Unfortunately for some of us, they seem to find that any thought that might be described as conservative falls within this offensive category, but their actions are dangerous regardless of political leanings.

They each have their own methods of doing so, but they are trying their best to control what the public hears and sees and thereby shape what is thought.  Obviously, newspapers and other media have been doing somewhat similar things for ages, but these present attempts are of a different magnitude.

Never before has any media company had this level and control of “share of mind” over billions of people.  Google and Facebook and their subsidiaries (WhatsApp, YouTube, Instagram, etc.) control around 75% of all internet traffic and almost all advertising. 

Over half of the entire world, four billion people, uses the Internet.  Over 250 million people came online in just the last year!  The average internet-user now spends around six hours each day using internet-powered devices and services.

The problem with their attempting to control and rig the game is that they simply aren’t as smart as they seem to think they are.  What forces are they going to unleash with their manipulation and censorship in an attempt at thought control?  There is no way of knowing, as the various social interactions among hundreds of millions of people are far too many and far too intricate to predict.

They are playing with fire, and the results down the road might be terrifying for all.  In effect, they are unknowingly creating ripples in the normal flow of human existence – ripples that might become waves, which might crash down upon millions, if not billions of individuals.  

There is a better way.  These companies can still make their billions selling advertising and reach, but if they and we are to survive, they need to treat the rest with a laissez-faire attitude.  Let the unguided actions of millions drive things.  Swarm intelligence will always work better than attempted manipulation.

Swarm intelligence is a relatively new concept that attempts to explain and understand the collective behavior of group animals – think of honeybees, schools of fish, herds of bison, flocks of birds, etc.

The intelligence of the swarm is a significant multiplier.  Rather than relying solely on individual intelligence, these groups create a collective intelligence that is orders of magnitudes beyond that of any individual member.

They do so without any leader, with no management of any sort, with no one “seeing the big picture.”  In fact, having no one in charge is a key ingredient to swarm intelligence!

This incredible increase in intelligence is driven by countless interactions among individual members, with each following simple rules of thumb and reacting to its local environment and those members around it. 

And although it may be difficult to grasp, this self-organizing behavior has no cause and effect.  It simply is.  This process is the basis for the success of the human race.

Swarm intelligence also smoothes out the wrinkles that may occur.  It allows for a natural flow of events, with constant feedback loops to minimize the chances of a ripple turning into a wave turning into a life-destroying crash. 

Obviously, events may still lead to catastrophe.  But allowing swarm intelligence to do its magic certainly decreases the odds and ensures that the negative consequence, whatever it may be, will be the minimum possible.  Putting a “boss” in charge and attempting to direct events is just as certain to increase the odds of catastrophic failure somewhere down the line.  This is a scientific fact just as certain as gravity. 

So, social media and internet giants, please stop your attempts at thought control.  You are truly putting the future of the entire planet at risk.  Remember, a good rule is first, do no harm, and the first step is accepting that you are not as smart as you think.  Step back and let swarm intelligence do its magic.  Trust the people.  The lives of billions of people are in your hands, and the science is clear.

John Conlin is an expert in organizational design and change.  He also holds a B.S. in Earth sciences and an MBA and is the founder and president of E.I.C. Enterprises (www.eicenterprises.org), a USA-based 501(c)(3) non-profit dedicated to spreading the truth here and around the world, primarily through K-12 education.  E.I.C. Enterprise’s GoFundMe page can be found at https://www.gofundme.com/so-you-believe-in-science-eh.



Source link

208408.jpg

Radicalized Democrats: Destroying the Country and Their Own Party


From the wee hours of the morning on November 9, 2016, as they grappled with the sting of President-Elect Donald Trump triumphing over the anointed Queen of the Swamp, Democrats have been radicalizing by the minute.

Objective Americans have witnessed the transformation of JFK-style classical liberals into Marxist protégés even the namesake himself would be proud to call his pupils, not to mention the hostile takeover of the Democratic Party by the “three home-owning multi-millionaire,” Bernie Sanders, and “I’m not an expert on American-Israeli policy, but let me comment on it anyway” Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

The Democratic Party is soon to be more aptly referenced as the Democratic Socialist Party.

And it’s not as if the Democrats don’t have the resolve to combat such a monumental shift to the left.  They’ve certainly been known to fight when something has truly mattered to them – like the times when they fought tooth and nail to unanimously oppose the 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution, giving citizenship to freed slaves and an equal right to vote for all, respectively.  Or the time when they overwhelmingly opposed abolishing slavery by fighting to kill the 13th Amendment.

If Democrats really opposed the radicalization of their own party, they would fight it, but the quiet truth is that they welcome it.

Whether by choice or necessity, radicalized Democrats like Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Maxine Waters, and the rest of the bunch welcome the violence of groups like the Alt-Left Antifa thugs, the anti-Americanism being normalized for millions of impressionable young sports fans when athletes kneel during the National Anthem, and the anti-police mentality being homogenized within our inner-city and minority communities by political propagandists like Black Lives Matter. 

Radicalized Democrats welcome the intentional confusion and sexualization of our children through concepts like gender fluidity, pre-teen sexual experimentation, gender-neutral bathrooms and locker rooms, mandatory pornographic sex education, abortions on demand, and more.  These extremist concepts may fly in pockets of San Francisco – the city that hands out tens of thousands of needles each year to homeless drug addicts and has recently been described as dirtier than many third-world countries – but they are resoundingly unacceptable to the overwhelming majority of taxpaying, hardworking, freedom-loving Americans throughout the rest of the country.

Radicalized Democrats welcome the complete and utter degradation of law and order as documented abuses of power and rampant corruption go unpunished because the FBI agents are “with her.”  Just last week, Nancy Pelosi had the temerity to suggest that Democrats – the Party that failed to demand answers for even a single Hillary Clinton corruption scandal – are the party responsible for rooting out corruption.  Nancy has been known to say some idiotic things, but this truly exceeds all expectations of her lunacy.

Not only does the Democrats’ double standard damage their credibility as a party, but it threatens one of the foundational tenants of our society: rule of law.

Radicalized Democrats welcome the erosion of trust in the media and fan the flames of fake news-promulgators like CNN, the New York Times, and the Washington Post.  Consider that even at a time when the distrust of the establishment elite is at an all-time high, a CNN producer was caught on video calling the Trump-Russia story “b——-” while the network continued to run with it as the top story for months.  The radical left, both inside and out of the mainstream media machine, has resorted to lying in an effort to achieve its political goals without regard for the negative consequences it has had and will continue to have on our nation.

Instead of engaging in vigorous and civil debate, radicalized Democrats welcome the totalitarian censorship of ideas they disagree with – whether on college campuses, in the public square, or online through social media.  The left, which claims to stand for freedom of choice, has yet to be held accountable for this censorship blunder.  Instead, leftists have created justification for even more aggressive censorship under the false pretext of fostering “conversational health” and “tolerance,” which is really just leftist code for “agree with me or you will be silenced.”

While political shape-shifters like Obama, Schumer, Pelosi and Clinton opined about the need for strong border policy as recently as 2009, radicalized Democrats now welcome the voluntary abrogation of our national sovereignty and security through unabashed open borders and amnesty-centric immigration policy that, according to data from the Government Accountability Office, equates to 438 “homicide arrests of criminal [illegal] aliens” each and every year since 1955 – more than 25,000 in total.

As opposed to retooling their party platform and political agenda to better appeal to a black community no longer inclined to vote by rote for Democrat, radicalized Democrats have instead continued to encourage the genocide of the black community through the ritualistic annual disbursement of more than 500 million taxpayer dollars to the nation’s largest abortion mill, Planned Parenthood. 

Despite the left’s laughable narrative on Russia, the only obvious subversion of our republic stems from radicalized Democrats’ own network of shadowy multi-billionaire donors like George Soros and Tom Steyer, among others, who seek to undermine and exploit our nation’s electoral process for their own gain.

Radicalized Democrats mandate that pre-teens and teens need parental permission in order to receive a Tylenol from a school nurse or participate in a school-sanctioned field trip to the zoo, while simultaneously demanding that those same girls have the incontrovertible right to a surgical abortion without their parents even being notified.

Radicalized Democrats believe that the same government that is demonstrably incapable of delivering quality health care to America’s approximately 20 million veterans should be responsible for providing health care for nearly 330 million Americans through a “Medicare for All” program – a decision that would lead to care rationing and British-style death panels, to be sure.

As if there weren’t a bridge too far for the left, radicalized Democrats now demand the abolition of ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement), an agency that, according to President Trump and Senator Lankford, in collaboration with Border Patrol, is responsible for apprehending on average ten terrorists per day trying to enter the United States illegally.

It doesn’t take a sociopolitical expert to follow the signs to the ultimately destructive end that the Democrats’ extremist positions and policies will have on our nation in both the short and long terms.  The real question is why.

Why would Democrats radicalize to the point that they run the risk of destroying the very nation that gives them refuge and prosperity?  The answer is simple: desperation.  The American people have largely woken up to the long con of the left, forcing radicalized Democrats to the realization that on the battlefield of ideas, they lose, and they lose big.

Democrats recognize that if they lose on the battlefield of ideas, they can win only through the smoky cloud of chaos and division, wherein Americans are pitted against each other like  gladiators in the Colosseum.  To this end, the left has been strategically dismantling the bedrock institutions that have made America the freest, most prosperous nation the world has ever known.

While all the eyes should have been focused on the Republicans and how we would embrace Trump’s brand of conservatism, the Democrats fumbled – in truly epic fashion – whatever opportunity they thought they might have had to regain their death grip on the levers of power.

As is common with addicts, the Democrats’ uncontrollable and intensifying desire to regain control and oppose everything coming out of the White House has caused them to reveal the sinister intentions of their party. 

Like drugs and pornography, their addiction to radicalization has become a self-perpetuating devolution, a race to the bottom of sorts, where greater and greater extremes are needed to continue satisfying their appetite for rage and division.  Sadly, society knows the ultimate outcome of addiction: an unyielding downward spiral into total self-destruction – a fate that Democrats may face sooner rather than later, given their current trajectory.

The pending implosion of the Democratic Party is not something that should make conservatives rest easy, as such chaos within a major political Party may ultimately spread to the rest of the country like a cancer.

The radicalization of the Democrats should only serve as further evidence that we are winning and must continue to fight harder on the battlefield of ideas, for freedom’s sake.

Jake Hoffman is the founder, president, and CEO of Rally Forge, one of the nation’s top conservative digital communications and media strategy firms.

From the wee hours of the morning on November 9, 2016, as they grappled with the sting of President-Elect Donald Trump triumphing over the anointed Queen of the Swamp, Democrats have been radicalizing by the minute.

Objective Americans have witnessed the transformation of JFK-style classical liberals into Marxist protégés even the namesake himself would be proud to call his pupils, not to mention the hostile takeover of the Democratic Party by the “three home-owning multi-millionaire,” Bernie Sanders, and “I’m not an expert on American-Israeli policy, but let me comment on it anyway” Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

The Democratic Party is soon to be more aptly referenced as the Democratic Socialist Party.

And it’s not as if the Democrats don’t have the resolve to combat such a monumental shift to the left.  They’ve certainly been known to fight when something has truly mattered to them – like the times when they fought tooth and nail to unanimously oppose the 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution, giving citizenship to freed slaves and an equal right to vote for all, respectively.  Or the time when they overwhelmingly opposed abolishing slavery by fighting to kill the 13th Amendment.

If Democrats really opposed the radicalization of their own party, they would fight it, but the quiet truth is that they welcome it.

Whether by choice or necessity, radicalized Democrats like Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Maxine Waters, and the rest of the bunch welcome the violence of groups like the Alt-Left Antifa thugs, the anti-Americanism being normalized for millions of impressionable young sports fans when athletes kneel during the National Anthem, and the anti-police mentality being homogenized within our inner-city and minority communities by political propagandists like Black Lives Matter. 

Radicalized Democrats welcome the intentional confusion and sexualization of our children through concepts like gender fluidity, pre-teen sexual experimentation, gender-neutral bathrooms and locker rooms, mandatory pornographic sex education, abortions on demand, and more.  These extremist concepts may fly in pockets of San Francisco – the city that hands out tens of thousands of needles each year to homeless drug addicts and has recently been described as dirtier than many third-world countries – but they are resoundingly unacceptable to the overwhelming majority of taxpaying, hardworking, freedom-loving Americans throughout the rest of the country.

Radicalized Democrats welcome the complete and utter degradation of law and order as documented abuses of power and rampant corruption go unpunished because the FBI agents are “with her.”  Just last week, Nancy Pelosi had the temerity to suggest that Democrats – the Party that failed to demand answers for even a single Hillary Clinton corruption scandal – are the party responsible for rooting out corruption.  Nancy has been known to say some idiotic things, but this truly exceeds all expectations of her lunacy.

Not only does the Democrats’ double standard damage their credibility as a party, but it threatens one of the foundational tenants of our society: rule of law.

Radicalized Democrats welcome the erosion of trust in the media and fan the flames of fake news-promulgators like CNN, the New York Times, and the Washington Post.  Consider that even at a time when the distrust of the establishment elite is at an all-time high, a CNN producer was caught on video calling the Trump-Russia story “b——-” while the network continued to run with it as the top story for months.  The radical left, both inside and out of the mainstream media machine, has resorted to lying in an effort to achieve its political goals without regard for the negative consequences it has had and will continue to have on our nation.

Instead of engaging in vigorous and civil debate, radicalized Democrats welcome the totalitarian censorship of ideas they disagree with – whether on college campuses, in the public square, or online through social media.  The left, which claims to stand for freedom of choice, has yet to be held accountable for this censorship blunder.  Instead, leftists have created justification for even more aggressive censorship under the false pretext of fostering “conversational health” and “tolerance,” which is really just leftist code for “agree with me or you will be silenced.”

While political shape-shifters like Obama, Schumer, Pelosi and Clinton opined about the need for strong border policy as recently as 2009, radicalized Democrats now welcome the voluntary abrogation of our national sovereignty and security through unabashed open borders and amnesty-centric immigration policy that, according to data from the Government Accountability Office, equates to 438 “homicide arrests of criminal [illegal] aliens” each and every year since 1955 – more than 25,000 in total.

As opposed to retooling their party platform and political agenda to better appeal to a black community no longer inclined to vote by rote for Democrat, radicalized Democrats have instead continued to encourage the genocide of the black community through the ritualistic annual disbursement of more than 500 million taxpayer dollars to the nation’s largest abortion mill, Planned Parenthood. 

Despite the left’s laughable narrative on Russia, the only obvious subversion of our republic stems from radicalized Democrats’ own network of shadowy multi-billionaire donors like George Soros and Tom Steyer, among others, who seek to undermine and exploit our nation’s electoral process for their own gain.

Radicalized Democrats mandate that pre-teens and teens need parental permission in order to receive a Tylenol from a school nurse or participate in a school-sanctioned field trip to the zoo, while simultaneously demanding that those same girls have the incontrovertible right to a surgical abortion without their parents even being notified.

Radicalized Democrats believe that the same government that is demonstrably incapable of delivering quality health care to America’s approximately 20 million veterans should be responsible for providing health care for nearly 330 million Americans through a “Medicare for All” program – a decision that would lead to care rationing and British-style death panels, to be sure.

As if there weren’t a bridge too far for the left, radicalized Democrats now demand the abolition of ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement), an agency that, according to President Trump and Senator Lankford, in collaboration with Border Patrol, is responsible for apprehending on average ten terrorists per day trying to enter the United States illegally.

It doesn’t take a sociopolitical expert to follow the signs to the ultimately destructive end that the Democrats’ extremist positions and policies will have on our nation in both the short and long terms.  The real question is why.

Why would Democrats radicalize to the point that they run the risk of destroying the very nation that gives them refuge and prosperity?  The answer is simple: desperation.  The American people have largely woken up to the long con of the left, forcing radicalized Democrats to the realization that on the battlefield of ideas, they lose, and they lose big.

Democrats recognize that if they lose on the battlefield of ideas, they can win only through the smoky cloud of chaos and division, wherein Americans are pitted against each other like  gladiators in the Colosseum.  To this end, the left has been strategically dismantling the bedrock institutions that have made America the freest, most prosperous nation the world has ever known.

While all the eyes should have been focused on the Republicans and how we would embrace Trump’s brand of conservatism, the Democrats fumbled – in truly epic fashion – whatever opportunity they thought they might have had to regain their death grip on the levers of power.

As is common with addicts, the Democrats’ uncontrollable and intensifying desire to regain control and oppose everything coming out of the White House has caused them to reveal the sinister intentions of their party. 

Like drugs and pornography, their addiction to radicalization has become a self-perpetuating devolution, a race to the bottom of sorts, where greater and greater extremes are needed to continue satisfying their appetite for rage and division.  Sadly, society knows the ultimate outcome of addiction: an unyielding downward spiral into total self-destruction – a fate that Democrats may face sooner rather than later, given their current trajectory.

The pending implosion of the Democratic Party is not something that should make conservatives rest easy, as such chaos within a major political Party may ultimately spread to the rest of the country like a cancer.

The radicalization of the Democrats should only serve as further evidence that we are winning and must continue to fight harder on the battlefield of ideas, for freedom’s sake.

Jake Hoffman is the founder, president, and CEO of Rally Forge, one of the nation’s top conservative digital communications and media strategy firms.



Source link

208754.png

Legalizing the Constitution


I once had a bumper sticker that read, “Legalize the Constitution.”  Occasionally, I would find myself having to explain it and often to defend it.  Really?  Not only is the Bill of Rights no longer understood or venerated, but confusion reigns.

The most important, the First Amendment, seems most prone to misuse.  It reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Seems simple, yet we find ourselves at a point in our history where its import is ignored, repudiated, or twisted all out of proportion.

The First Amendment starts with the phrase “Congress shall make no law.”  So this limits the activities of Congress – not of states, or individuals, or schools, or any other group.  Just Congress.  A community can pass a law against obscene language in public if it wants to.  A teacher can limit the amount of speech and its contents in her class – she isn’t Congress.  A pastor should be able to say anything from the pulpit that his congregation will tolerate.

Secondly, it keeps Congress out of the business of setting up a national religion – common at the time of writing.  It keeps Congress – not anyone else – out of regulating religious practice.  Nothing in this statute prohibits states, or cities, from doing so.  I suspect that if Michigan continues its march toward Islam, at least some of its cities will take advantage of that freedom.

Thirdly, Congress is forbidden to make any law that abridges freedom of speech.  This is where we are up against a hard wall.  There can be, in this country, no national law enforcing political correctness.  This means that federal law enforcement cannot arrest, incarcerate, try, or convict anyone for an utterance just because it is offensive to someone.  If I fail to utilize the correct nongendered pronoun, I could be imprisoned in Canada, but the First Amendment prohibits that here.

So does that mean that a company can’t fire a person because he was overheard badmouthing the boss?  Or propositioning a female employee?  Or calling someone the N-word?  No.  The business belongs to those who own it, and since private ownership of property is another of our cherished rights, the business can hire and fire whom it will.  There are social and financial consequences, and the Bill of Rights doesn’t protect us from those.  If Facebook and Twitter keep offending conservatives, we’ll just leave – life without them is possible – but the government has to stay out of it.

Does it mean that the president can’t remove the top-secret security clearance from some ex-bureaucrat?  No.  A security clearance gives a person the right to know, not the right to speak about what he knows.  That’s why the word “secret” is involved.

Fourthly, “freedom of speech” just means that no federal legal action can be taken against you for something you say.  That is not an absolute – threatening to kill or harm someone is illegal.  Inciting to riot is as well.  Shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theater will land you in some trouble.  Lying under oath can cost you.  Common sense prevails.

“Freedom of speech” does not protect you from the negative social consequences of being linguistically obnoxious.  It does not abrogate laws against slander and libel.  It merely means that the federal government can’t grab you out of your bed in the middle of the night and throw you in a dungeon for complaining about the powers that be.

I like a Jordan Peterson quote I recently ran across: “Free speech isn’t merely the right to criticize those in power, and it’s also not only the right to say what you think.  It’s actually the right to think.”  I would add that it is also the responsibility to think – before you speak.  Every right has a concurrent duty, and the more important the right, the more onerous the obligation.  It is horrifying to hear elected officials and other limelight individuals saying in public that our president should be killed.  If they don’t like Trump’s policies, then argue against them, but don’t advocate his death.

It is embarrassing to hear our fellow Americans screaming obscenities, which are neither thought nor speech.  Taboo words and phrases are linguistically interesting in that they originate not the language center of the brain, but rather in the limbic system – they come boiling up out of the brain stem without a single cogent thought behind them.

What’s more, actions are not the same as speech, though courts have disagreed with me.  Burning flags, throwing rocks through windows, burning effigies are not discourse – they are temper tantrums.  If a person can’t articulate his grievances in actual language, then he hasn’t thought, hasn’t convinced anyone in power of the rightness of his cause, and it’s likely he doesn’t even know what his cause is.

The First Amendment keeps the government from denying us the right to gather in groups, carry placards, chant slogans, sing songs – yes, but the key word in the amendment is “peaceably.”  Demonstrations we are seeing in the streets these days are not peaceable.  Nor are those assembling speaking in any coherent sense.  In fact, lately, many such protests have been attempts to deny others their rights to freely assemble and to speak. 

The First Amendment does not protect us from hearing things we find objectionable.  We have no right to go through life without being offended.  We have no right to be shielded from those with whom we disagree.  We have no right to coerce others to agree with us.  I am a Christian, and as such, I have an obligation to share the Gospel of Jesus Christ with my fellow man.  That is the “practice” of my religion.  Yet many today think the expression of my gratitude for my free salvation is an effort to “force” my religion on them.  “Force” involves violence, not speech.

Speaking of which, does “freedom of religion” apply to jihadi activity?  Is Islam even a religion?  One of these days, SCOTUS will have to figure that out.  The First Amendment really doesn’t protect us from anything but the federal government; however, the federal government does have the responsibility to protect its citizens from “all enemies, foreign and domestic.”  We’ll have to wait and see.

How does the First Amendment affect education?  It should not have limited what I as a teacher could say in my public-school classroom – my atheist colleagues could say what they thought, but these days, Christian teachers must be careful.  Those who think there is any such thing as neutrality are mistaken.  If we limit our children’s view of the world by excluding God from the classroom, we have taught them, by default, that God isn’t.  Schools have hidden behind that sloppy thinking for generations.

We cannot protect the Constitution if we don’t take the time to think it through, if we don’t even know what it says.  It is not a bludgeon with which to accost or silence our opponents.  It is not an invitation to lie or manipulate.  It is meant to defend honorable citizens from a government’s tendency to become dishonorable.  Our Constitution – the most astounding covenant outside of the Bible – deserves not only “legalization,” but reverence, care, and protection.

Deana Chadwell blogs at www.ASingleWindow.com.  She is also an adjunct professor and department head at Pacific Bible College in southern Oregon.  She teaches writing and public speaking.

I once had a bumper sticker that read, “Legalize the Constitution.”  Occasionally, I would find myself having to explain it and often to defend it.  Really?  Not only is the Bill of Rights no longer understood or venerated, but confusion reigns.

The most important, the First Amendment, seems most prone to misuse.  It reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Seems simple, yet we find ourselves at a point in our history where its import is ignored, repudiated, or twisted all out of proportion.

The First Amendment starts with the phrase “Congress shall make no law.”  So this limits the activities of Congress – not of states, or individuals, or schools, or any other group.  Just Congress.  A community can pass a law against obscene language in public if it wants to.  A teacher can limit the amount of speech and its contents in her class – she isn’t Congress.  A pastor should be able to say anything from the pulpit that his congregation will tolerate.

Secondly, it keeps Congress out of the business of setting up a national religion – common at the time of writing.  It keeps Congress – not anyone else – out of regulating religious practice.  Nothing in this statute prohibits states, or cities, from doing so.  I suspect that if Michigan continues its march toward Islam, at least some of its cities will take advantage of that freedom.

Thirdly, Congress is forbidden to make any law that abridges freedom of speech.  This is where we are up against a hard wall.  There can be, in this country, no national law enforcing political correctness.  This means that federal law enforcement cannot arrest, incarcerate, try, or convict anyone for an utterance just because it is offensive to someone.  If I fail to utilize the correct nongendered pronoun, I could be imprisoned in Canada, but the First Amendment prohibits that here.

So does that mean that a company can’t fire a person because he was overheard badmouthing the boss?  Or propositioning a female employee?  Or calling someone the N-word?  No.  The business belongs to those who own it, and since private ownership of property is another of our cherished rights, the business can hire and fire whom it will.  There are social and financial consequences, and the Bill of Rights doesn’t protect us from those.  If Facebook and Twitter keep offending conservatives, we’ll just leave – life without them is possible – but the government has to stay out of it.

Does it mean that the president can’t remove the top-secret security clearance from some ex-bureaucrat?  No.  A security clearance gives a person the right to know, not the right to speak about what he knows.  That’s why the word “secret” is involved.

Fourthly, “freedom of speech” just means that no federal legal action can be taken against you for something you say.  That is not an absolute – threatening to kill or harm someone is illegal.  Inciting to riot is as well.  Shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theater will land you in some trouble.  Lying under oath can cost you.  Common sense prevails.

“Freedom of speech” does not protect you from the negative social consequences of being linguistically obnoxious.  It does not abrogate laws against slander and libel.  It merely means that the federal government can’t grab you out of your bed in the middle of the night and throw you in a dungeon for complaining about the powers that be.

I like a Jordan Peterson quote I recently ran across: “Free speech isn’t merely the right to criticize those in power, and it’s also not only the right to say what you think.  It’s actually the right to think.”  I would add that it is also the responsibility to think – before you speak.  Every right has a concurrent duty, and the more important the right, the more onerous the obligation.  It is horrifying to hear elected officials and other limelight individuals saying in public that our president should be killed.  If they don’t like Trump’s policies, then argue against them, but don’t advocate his death.

It is embarrassing to hear our fellow Americans screaming obscenities, which are neither thought nor speech.  Taboo words and phrases are linguistically interesting in that they originate not the language center of the brain, but rather in the limbic system – they come boiling up out of the brain stem without a single cogent thought behind them.

What’s more, actions are not the same as speech, though courts have disagreed with me.  Burning flags, throwing rocks through windows, burning effigies are not discourse – they are temper tantrums.  If a person can’t articulate his grievances in actual language, then he hasn’t thought, hasn’t convinced anyone in power of the rightness of his cause, and it’s likely he doesn’t even know what his cause is.

The First Amendment keeps the government from denying us the right to gather in groups, carry placards, chant slogans, sing songs – yes, but the key word in the amendment is “peaceably.”  Demonstrations we are seeing in the streets these days are not peaceable.  Nor are those assembling speaking in any coherent sense.  In fact, lately, many such protests have been attempts to deny others their rights to freely assemble and to speak. 

The First Amendment does not protect us from hearing things we find objectionable.  We have no right to go through life without being offended.  We have no right to be shielded from those with whom we disagree.  We have no right to coerce others to agree with us.  I am a Christian, and as such, I have an obligation to share the Gospel of Jesus Christ with my fellow man.  That is the “practice” of my religion.  Yet many today think the expression of my gratitude for my free salvation is an effort to “force” my religion on them.  “Force” involves violence, not speech.

Speaking of which, does “freedom of religion” apply to jihadi activity?  Is Islam even a religion?  One of these days, SCOTUS will have to figure that out.  The First Amendment really doesn’t protect us from anything but the federal government; however, the federal government does have the responsibility to protect its citizens from “all enemies, foreign and domestic.”  We’ll have to wait and see.

How does the First Amendment affect education?  It should not have limited what I as a teacher could say in my public-school classroom – my atheist colleagues could say what they thought, but these days, Christian teachers must be careful.  Those who think there is any such thing as neutrality are mistaken.  If we limit our children’s view of the world by excluding God from the classroom, we have taught them, by default, that God isn’t.  Schools have hidden behind that sloppy thinking for generations.

We cannot protect the Constitution if we don’t take the time to think it through, if we don’t even know what it says.  It is not a bludgeon with which to accost or silence our opponents.  It is not an invitation to lie or manipulate.  It is meant to defend honorable citizens from a government’s tendency to become dishonorable.  Our Constitution – the most astounding covenant outside of the Bible – deserves not only “legalization,” but reverence, care, and protection.

Deana Chadwell blogs at www.ASingleWindow.com.  She is also an adjunct professor and department head at Pacific Bible College in southern Oregon.  She teaches writing and public speaking.



Source link

208584.jpg

Progressivism Takes Its Place among the Major Religions


Many on the left will be repulsed by the notion that they are following the dictates of a religion.  They view themselves as the ultimate secularists.  It may be that they cannot see the forest for the trees.  Progressives have great passion for their cause, and we have seen throughout history the way religion can incite the greatest passion, often leading to murders and wars.  Perhaps if we look at Progressivism through the religious prism, we may better understand the actions of its minions.

Christianity, Judaism, and Islam all profess an all-knowing and all-powerful supernatural being: God.  Progressives may say they do not belong to a religion because they do not believe in God.  But Progressivism professes an all-powerful State.  The State is Progressives’ god and determines what is moral and immoral and has the power to destroy whom it wants.

Unlike with the pope in Christianity, there is no single authority figure in Progressivism.  This does not disprove Progressives’ religious nature.  Islam has no single authority figure, either.  Since Ataturk abolished the caliphate in the 1920s, no political figure claims to unite Islam.  I suspect that George Soros considers himself the de facto Progressive caliph.  Al Gore is an imam of the Green denomination.

What about sacred texts?  Christianity, Judaism, and Islam have the Gospels, the Torah, and the Quran, respectively.  The Progressives have The Communist Manifesto.

Christianity has a well organized clergy in the form of priests and ministers.  The clergy in Progressivism is implanted in other professions.  Progressive clergymen are found in abundance in the increasingly left-leaning universities.  Many professors use their classrooms as their pulpits.  They are aided and abetted by Hollywood, the media, and many politicians. 

Just like Judaism and Islam, Progressivism has dietary laws.  As of yet, they are not codified and are fluid, based on the current fads.  They all seem to agree on avoiding GMO foods.  To do otherwise would be a sin against Mother Earth.

There are fundamental differences between Christianity and Progressivism that make them incompatible with each other.  Christianity teaches that mankind is sinful and cannot save itself.  Progressivism believes that men can be perfected to create an ideal society.  Christianity believes that God cares for each individual.  Progressives believe in the collective at the expense of the individual.  Christians believe in the Ten Commandments as a moral code.  Moral codes are irrelevant to the collectivists.

Christianity had great influence on our Founders, and its idea of individual freedom has become part of our national DNA.  In order for Progressivism to conquer America and discard our Constitution, it would be necessary to destroy Christianity or render it impotent.  We see this in many initiatives.  The Bible tells us holy matrimony is between a man and a woman, without air-quotes.  The Progressive response was to get the courts to allow marriage to be redefined to include same-sex couples.  Maybe the next response will be marriage with your pet.  The Bible defines only two sexes: male and female.  Now we see the nonsense of multiple “genders.”  Christianity values the sanctity of life.  We now have legal abortion and euthanasia.  Unfortunately, many liberal churches are adopting many of these notions, and some are doubting the divinity of Christ.  Much of the Christian flock has gone astray, and this makes the Progressives happy.

There is a central tenet in Christianity that commands us to love our neighbors as ourselves and to love our enemies.  This is agape love and has more to do with compassion and respect.  Following this teaching is one of the things that makes being a Christian so difficult.  We, as Christians, often succumb to the temptation to hate unjustly.  But there is great wisdom in eschewing this kind of hatred.  That raw passion destroys the hater and often leads to dangerous mob actions.

Progressivism issues no edict to avoid hatred and prefers to use it as a tool.  In that sense, Progressives are following in the long tradition of Islam.  The Quran does not require you to love your neighbor.  On the contrary, it states 109 times in various suras (chapters) to fight the unbeliever.  These are not countered by an equal number of suras extolling peace and tolerance.  Some suras incite violence, such as K 47.4: “When you meet the unbeliever, smite their necks.”  (Has Kathy Griffin been reading the Quran?  Who knew?)  There is disagreement on this, but Muhammad is often quoted as saying the apostate from Islam should be killed.

Just as Muslims believe that the whole world should be converted to Islam, Progressives believe that the whole world should be converted to their leftist agenda.  They cannot both succeed, but right now they are often on the same team to fight the influence of Christianity, their shared opponent. 

Progressives in America have been whittling away at our heritage for more than a century.  And after eight years of Obama, who promised to fundamentally change America, the left became arrogant.  They were convinced that their Marxist trajectory of history was within their grasp.  They just needed to elect Hillary to seal the deal.  They were already destroying the nuclear family, holy matrimony, harmony between the sexes, and the sanctity of life.  They savored this anarchy.  But along came Donald Trump to sabotage the agenda.  Donald was considered one of them at one time, and now he has joined the other camp.  He is now an apostate and is spewing heresy.  He is an atheist to Progressivism.

Progressives may hate Christianity, but it is much more efficient to focus their anger on the man in their faces every day: Donald Trump.  They want to kill the apostate, either physically or politically.  So Trump Derangement Syndrome can be thought of as an extreme religious intolerance. 

As a Christian and a physician, I am concerned about the health of those harboring this much hatred.  It is not healthy.  Maybe we can convince them to adopt an attitude of agape love for their enemies.  It would be much more holistic, rather than hellistic.  Maybe they can sit around the campfire and sing Kumbaya.  When that happens, I want a front-row seat at the Air and Water Show to watch the pigs fly.

In the meantime, I will just cling to my guns and religion.  I sincerely hope we do not need the guns.

Roger Taylor is a physician in private practice.  He received his medical degree from the University of Chicago and has a plethora of interests.

Many on the left will be repulsed by the notion that they are following the dictates of a religion.  They view themselves as the ultimate secularists.  It may be that they cannot see the forest for the trees.  Progressives have great passion for their cause, and we have seen throughout history the way religion can incite the greatest passion, often leading to murders and wars.  Perhaps if we look at Progressivism through the religious prism, we may better understand the actions of its minions.

Christianity, Judaism, and Islam all profess an all-knowing and all-powerful supernatural being: God.  Progressives may say they do not belong to a religion because they do not believe in God.  But Progressivism professes an all-powerful State.  The State is Progressives’ god and determines what is moral and immoral and has the power to destroy whom it wants.

Unlike with the pope in Christianity, there is no single authority figure in Progressivism.  This does not disprove Progressives’ religious nature.  Islam has no single authority figure, either.  Since Ataturk abolished the caliphate in the 1920s, no political figure claims to unite Islam.  I suspect that George Soros considers himself the de facto Progressive caliph.  Al Gore is an imam of the Green denomination.

What about sacred texts?  Christianity, Judaism, and Islam have the Gospels, the Torah, and the Quran, respectively.  The Progressives have The Communist Manifesto.

Christianity has a well organized clergy in the form of priests and ministers.  The clergy in Progressivism is implanted in other professions.  Progressive clergymen are found in abundance in the increasingly left-leaning universities.  Many professors use their classrooms as their pulpits.  They are aided and abetted by Hollywood, the media, and many politicians. 

Just like Judaism and Islam, Progressivism has dietary laws.  As of yet, they are not codified and are fluid, based on the current fads.  They all seem to agree on avoiding GMO foods.  To do otherwise would be a sin against Mother Earth.

There are fundamental differences between Christianity and Progressivism that make them incompatible with each other.  Christianity teaches that mankind is sinful and cannot save itself.  Progressivism believes that men can be perfected to create an ideal society.  Christianity believes that God cares for each individual.  Progressives believe in the collective at the expense of the individual.  Christians believe in the Ten Commandments as a moral code.  Moral codes are irrelevant to the collectivists.

Christianity had great influence on our Founders, and its idea of individual freedom has become part of our national DNA.  In order for Progressivism to conquer America and discard our Constitution, it would be necessary to destroy Christianity or render it impotent.  We see this in many initiatives.  The Bible tells us holy matrimony is between a man and a woman, without air-quotes.  The Progressive response was to get the courts to allow marriage to be redefined to include same-sex couples.  Maybe the next response will be marriage with your pet.  The Bible defines only two sexes: male and female.  Now we see the nonsense of multiple “genders.”  Christianity values the sanctity of life.  We now have legal abortion and euthanasia.  Unfortunately, many liberal churches are adopting many of these notions, and some are doubting the divinity of Christ.  Much of the Christian flock has gone astray, and this makes the Progressives happy.

There is a central tenet in Christianity that commands us to love our neighbors as ourselves and to love our enemies.  This is agape love and has more to do with compassion and respect.  Following this teaching is one of the things that makes being a Christian so difficult.  We, as Christians, often succumb to the temptation to hate unjustly.  But there is great wisdom in eschewing this kind of hatred.  That raw passion destroys the hater and often leads to dangerous mob actions.

Progressivism issues no edict to avoid hatred and prefers to use it as a tool.  In that sense, Progressives are following in the long tradition of Islam.  The Quran does not require you to love your neighbor.  On the contrary, it states 109 times in various suras (chapters) to fight the unbeliever.  These are not countered by an equal number of suras extolling peace and tolerance.  Some suras incite violence, such as K 47.4: “When you meet the unbeliever, smite their necks.”  (Has Kathy Griffin been reading the Quran?  Who knew?)  There is disagreement on this, but Muhammad is often quoted as saying the apostate from Islam should be killed.

Just as Muslims believe that the whole world should be converted to Islam, Progressives believe that the whole world should be converted to their leftist agenda.  They cannot both succeed, but right now they are often on the same team to fight the influence of Christianity, their shared opponent. 

Progressives in America have been whittling away at our heritage for more than a century.  And after eight years of Obama, who promised to fundamentally change America, the left became arrogant.  They were convinced that their Marxist trajectory of history was within their grasp.  They just needed to elect Hillary to seal the deal.  They were already destroying the nuclear family, holy matrimony, harmony between the sexes, and the sanctity of life.  They savored this anarchy.  But along came Donald Trump to sabotage the agenda.  Donald was considered one of them at one time, and now he has joined the other camp.  He is now an apostate and is spewing heresy.  He is an atheist to Progressivism.

Progressives may hate Christianity, but it is much more efficient to focus their anger on the man in their faces every day: Donald Trump.  They want to kill the apostate, either physically or politically.  So Trump Derangement Syndrome can be thought of as an extreme religious intolerance. 

As a Christian and a physician, I am concerned about the health of those harboring this much hatred.  It is not healthy.  Maybe we can convince them to adopt an attitude of agape love for their enemies.  It would be much more holistic, rather than hellistic.  Maybe they can sit around the campfire and sing Kumbaya.  When that happens, I want a front-row seat at the Air and Water Show to watch the pigs fly.

In the meantime, I will just cling to my guns and religion.  I sincerely hope we do not need the guns.

Roger Taylor is a physician in private practice.  He received his medical degree from the University of Chicago and has a plethora of interests.



Source link

208383.jpg

The Permeation of Propaganda in the College Student Brain


In 1937, an editorial in The New York Times declared that “what is truly vicious is not propaganda but a monopoly of it.”  Thus begins an article titled “Propaganda Techniques of German Fascism,” written by Clyde R. Miller and reprinted in the fifth edition of Modern English Readings (1946).  This text was used by college students.  There is nothing dealing with gender, white privilege, social justice, the religion of peace, or alleged microaggressions.

When pundits discuss the culture wars, it is essential to see how so many present-day textbooks have contributed to generations of young people who have, for the most part, never been exposed to how America’s ideals have shaped the country.  Instead, students are indoctrinated by public school teachers with connections to Antifa.  More chilling is that these same teachers publicly acknowledge they would not protect the rights of students who disagree with them.

Thus, the article by Miller is quite apropos at a time when the education establishment, as well as the hi-tech companies’ “monoculture,” seeks to monopolize the information highway.  As Jeremy Carl writes:

The evidence of Silicon Valley’s hostility to the Right is everywhere.  Prominent conservatives from Michelle Malkin to William Jacobson to Dennis Prager … – and an even greater proportion of those whose politics lean farther to the right, many of whom do not have access to mainstream media and rely on social media to fund their work – have seen themselves banned from major Internet platforms or had their content censored or demonetized.  In most cases they are not even given grounds for their punishment or means of appealing it.  While some more ‘mainstream’ conservatives may not feel excessively troubled by the banning of more provocative voices farther to the right, in taking this attitude they make a tactical, strategic, and moral mistake.  They do not understand how the left operates.  When voices farther to the right are removed, mainstream conservatives become the new ‘far-right extremists’ – and they will be banned with equal alacrity.

Then there is Project War Path, a clothing company owned by Navy SEALs and Army Special Forces combat veterans, which “has been permanently suspended from Facebook’s Instagram platform for ‘hate speech’ after criticizing NFL players who kneel during the national anthem.”

In fact, as Miller asserts, “the extent to which the propaganda machinery of a country has been brought under the control of one organization or a group of related organizations is a useful measure of the degree to which absolutism dominates it, of the extent to which democracy has been eliminated.”

But “when … this monopoly aspect of propaganda is held in check by rivalries between competing organizations, then political, economic, educational, and religious spokesmen are able to and actually do disseminate rival propagandas.  This gives those at whom the rival propagandas are directed some freedom of choice among the alternatives offered them.”

That is why to any freedom-loving American, the spectacle of censoring speakers such as Candace Owens, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, David Horowitz, and others is so terrifying.  Yet, “on Feb. 1, 2017, the University of California, Berkeley erupted into violence.  Former Breitbart editor Milo Yiannopoulos was set to speak and an estimated 1,500 people showed up to protest, some with the goal of shutting down the speech ‘by any means necessary.’  Protesters set fires, hurled Molotov cocktails, and allegedly assaulted other members of the crowd.  Their efforts were successful.  The speech was canceled.  There was $100,000 worth of damage.  In an essay for the Berkeley student newspaper, one student wrote, ‘Behind those bandanas and black T-shirts were the faces of your fellow UC Berkeley and Berkeley City College students[.]'”

These students ignore the words of Zechariah Chafee, Jr., who wrote in 1941, “freedom of speech creates the happiest kind of country.  It is the best way to make men and women love their country.”

The “power of propaganda increases as its control becomes more centralized, as the trend to monopoly increases.”  Moreover, “this process is stimulated by the centralization of the control of the economic structure of a country.”  This is the real reason why the Democrat/Socialist Party decries the economic success of Trump and the American people – “the ability of individuals and organizations in democracies to enter their special viewpoints into the rivalry of propagandas is restricted chiefly by economic considerations.  Professional propagandists, public relations counselors and individuals and groups with large financial resources have an advantage over those with small resources.”  It is why George Soros’s fingerprints are all over any progressive message.

But when the little guy gets a chance at capturing the brass ring, this infuriates the progressive socialist leanings of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Andrew Gillum, both supported by Bernie Sanders.  They and others who espouse centralized control pose an economic existential threat to America.  As Miller asserts:

Fascism is the outcome of economic and political instability.  It is an undemocratic means for dealing with the mass unemployment of city workers, the economic distress of the middle classes, the impoverishment of farmers and the efforts of those groups for economic reforms.

Thus, we are privy to Pelosi trying to convince Americans that more jobs is a bad thing for the country and a booming economy is something to scoff at. 

Miller writes that fascist Germany “helped convince the people of the efficiency of the national Socialist solution for the country’s political and economic problems.”  It was also “reinforced by an army of storm troops that weakened opposition through terrorism.”

Antifa, Black Lives Matter, La Raza all seek to harm America through any means possible.  They are the latter-day storm troops.

The term “economics precedes politics” is often quoted, but in Nazi Germany and, I daresay, any dictatorial environment, it seems to work the other way around.  Miller contends (emphasis mine) that under Nazism, “political control dominated economic control and capitalism as free enterprise became a Glittering Generality [a device by which the propagandist identifies his program with virtue words such as love, generosity and brotherhood].”  When one considers the suicidal path of socialist/communist countries, e.g., Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, it is clear that people grievously suffer.  Constantly publicized as a means to assist the common man, socialism always fails to improve the general welfare as the government conceives it.”

During Hitler’s reign, American newspaper correspondents would point out (emphasis mine) that “Hitler’s addresses [were] often unintelligible [yet] large numbers of his listeners apparently listen[ed] with their emotions.  When their tension [became] high, they intercept[ed] the speech by emotional outbursts[.]  Here we see the force of language with or without meaning as a molder of public opinion.  Only intelligent citizens skilled in analysis of propaganda and immunized against the wiles of the orator were unaffected by Hitler.” 

A “master propagandist to be effective, must be keyed to the desires, hopes, hatreds, loves, fears, and prejudices of the people.”  He knows “that most human beings crave a scapegoat to take the blame of disaster and to bolster their own pride.”  In Nazi Germany, it was the Jews; in Communist China, it was the intellectuals.  In America, it is the one percent or the people who cling to their guns and Bibles.  Thus, it is imperative that impressionable people learn about the dire results of socialism.

It was Ronald Reagan in 1975 who warned that “if Fascism ever comes to America, it will be in the name of Liberalism.”  You can add the terms “socialism,” “progressivism,” and “democratic socialism” to the brew.  They all add up to the same ultimate misery.

Eileen can be reached at middlemarch18@gmail.com.

In 1937, an editorial in The New York Times declared that “what is truly vicious is not propaganda but a monopoly of it.”  Thus begins an article titled “Propaganda Techniques of German Fascism,” written by Clyde R. Miller and reprinted in the fifth edition of Modern English Readings (1946).  This text was used by college students.  There is nothing dealing with gender, white privilege, social justice, the religion of peace, or alleged microaggressions.

When pundits discuss the culture wars, it is essential to see how so many present-day textbooks have contributed to generations of young people who have, for the most part, never been exposed to how America’s ideals have shaped the country.  Instead, students are indoctrinated by public school teachers with connections to Antifa.  More chilling is that these same teachers publicly acknowledge they would not protect the rights of students who disagree with them.

Thus, the article by Miller is quite apropos at a time when the education establishment, as well as the hi-tech companies’ “monoculture,” seeks to monopolize the information highway.  As Jeremy Carl writes:

The evidence of Silicon Valley’s hostility to the Right is everywhere.  Prominent conservatives from Michelle Malkin to William Jacobson to Dennis Prager … – and an even greater proportion of those whose politics lean farther to the right, many of whom do not have access to mainstream media and rely on social media to fund their work – have seen themselves banned from major Internet platforms or had their content censored or demonetized.  In most cases they are not even given grounds for their punishment or means of appealing it.  While some more ‘mainstream’ conservatives may not feel excessively troubled by the banning of more provocative voices farther to the right, in taking this attitude they make a tactical, strategic, and moral mistake.  They do not understand how the left operates.  When voices farther to the right are removed, mainstream conservatives become the new ‘far-right extremists’ – and they will be banned with equal alacrity.

Then there is Project War Path, a clothing company owned by Navy SEALs and Army Special Forces combat veterans, which “has been permanently suspended from Facebook’s Instagram platform for ‘hate speech’ after criticizing NFL players who kneel during the national anthem.”

In fact, as Miller asserts, “the extent to which the propaganda machinery of a country has been brought under the control of one organization or a group of related organizations is a useful measure of the degree to which absolutism dominates it, of the extent to which democracy has been eliminated.”

But “when … this monopoly aspect of propaganda is held in check by rivalries between competing organizations, then political, economic, educational, and religious spokesmen are able to and actually do disseminate rival propagandas.  This gives those at whom the rival propagandas are directed some freedom of choice among the alternatives offered them.”

That is why to any freedom-loving American, the spectacle of censoring speakers such as Candace Owens, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, David Horowitz, and others is so terrifying.  Yet, “on Feb. 1, 2017, the University of California, Berkeley erupted into violence.  Former Breitbart editor Milo Yiannopoulos was set to speak and an estimated 1,500 people showed up to protest, some with the goal of shutting down the speech ‘by any means necessary.’  Protesters set fires, hurled Molotov cocktails, and allegedly assaulted other members of the crowd.  Their efforts were successful.  The speech was canceled.  There was $100,000 worth of damage.  In an essay for the Berkeley student newspaper, one student wrote, ‘Behind those bandanas and black T-shirts were the faces of your fellow UC Berkeley and Berkeley City College students[.]'”

These students ignore the words of Zechariah Chafee, Jr., who wrote in 1941, “freedom of speech creates the happiest kind of country.  It is the best way to make men and women love their country.”

The “power of propaganda increases as its control becomes more centralized, as the trend to monopoly increases.”  Moreover, “this process is stimulated by the centralization of the control of the economic structure of a country.”  This is the real reason why the Democrat/Socialist Party decries the economic success of Trump and the American people – “the ability of individuals and organizations in democracies to enter their special viewpoints into the rivalry of propagandas is restricted chiefly by economic considerations.  Professional propagandists, public relations counselors and individuals and groups with large financial resources have an advantage over those with small resources.”  It is why George Soros’s fingerprints are all over any progressive message.

But when the little guy gets a chance at capturing the brass ring, this infuriates the progressive socialist leanings of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Andrew Gillum, both supported by Bernie Sanders.  They and others who espouse centralized control pose an economic existential threat to America.  As Miller asserts:

Fascism is the outcome of economic and political instability.  It is an undemocratic means for dealing with the mass unemployment of city workers, the economic distress of the middle classes, the impoverishment of farmers and the efforts of those groups for economic reforms.

Thus, we are privy to Pelosi trying to convince Americans that more jobs is a bad thing for the country and a booming economy is something to scoff at. 

Miller writes that fascist Germany “helped convince the people of the efficiency of the national Socialist solution for the country’s political and economic problems.”  It was also “reinforced by an army of storm troops that weakened opposition through terrorism.”

Antifa, Black Lives Matter, La Raza all seek to harm America through any means possible.  They are the latter-day storm troops.

The term “economics precedes politics” is often quoted, but in Nazi Germany and, I daresay, any dictatorial environment, it seems to work the other way around.  Miller contends (emphasis mine) that under Nazism, “political control dominated economic control and capitalism as free enterprise became a Glittering Generality [a device by which the propagandist identifies his program with virtue words such as love, generosity and brotherhood].”  When one considers the suicidal path of socialist/communist countries, e.g., Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, it is clear that people grievously suffer.  Constantly publicized as a means to assist the common man, socialism always fails to improve the general welfare as the government conceives it.”

During Hitler’s reign, American newspaper correspondents would point out (emphasis mine) that “Hitler’s addresses [were] often unintelligible [yet] large numbers of his listeners apparently listen[ed] with their emotions.  When their tension [became] high, they intercept[ed] the speech by emotional outbursts[.]  Here we see the force of language with or without meaning as a molder of public opinion.  Only intelligent citizens skilled in analysis of propaganda and immunized against the wiles of the orator were unaffected by Hitler.” 

A “master propagandist to be effective, must be keyed to the desires, hopes, hatreds, loves, fears, and prejudices of the people.”  He knows “that most human beings crave a scapegoat to take the blame of disaster and to bolster their own pride.”  In Nazi Germany, it was the Jews; in Communist China, it was the intellectuals.  In America, it is the one percent or the people who cling to their guns and Bibles.  Thus, it is imperative that impressionable people learn about the dire results of socialism.

It was Ronald Reagan in 1975 who warned that “if Fascism ever comes to America, it will be in the name of Liberalism.”  You can add the terms “socialism,” “progressivism,” and “democratic socialism” to the brew.  They all add up to the same ultimate misery.

Eileen can be reached at middlemarch18@gmail.com.



Source link

Cats could be banned in New Zealand town…


“It’s like a police state.”

That is Nico Jarvis’ complaint after the New Zealand government announced a plan to eventually ban all cats in her village of Omaui, according to the Otago Daily Times. Ali Meade, biosecurity operations manager for Environment Southland, said the proposed plan would prevent people from purchasing any new cats — and require owners to neuter, register and microchip any current felines they have at home, the newspaper reported.

The ban is needed because Omaui has nature reserves, Meade reportedly told Newshub, and the cats are “preying on native birds” and “all sorts of things.” New Zealand has already announced an “ambitious” plan to rid the country of all non-native predators by 2050.

Environment Southland, a government agency, wrote in a press release that the possible ban on cats is part of a larger effort that targets “72 specific pests” in the area.

Terry Dean, who lives in Omaui, said he was surprised the ban was even being considered, according to Newshub.

“You’re just told one day that your cats, your treasured little possessions … either they get trapped in the traps, or those that survive can’t be replaced,” he reportedly told the outlet.

And Jarvis, who owns three cats, says she fears the ban will cripple her ability to fight back against the “intense” rodent problem near her house, according to the Otago Daily Times. The newspaper reported her saying “If I cannot have a cat, it almost becomes unhealthy for me to live in my house.”

“It doesn’t matter how many [rodents] I trap and poison, more just keep coming in from the bush,” she said, according to the Otago Daily Times. “They chew into your house, you can’t get rid of them.”

Peter Marra, head of the Smithsonian Migratory Bird Centre, said cats pose a worse problem than most people realize, according to the BBC. Marra said cats have been a factor in the extinction of 63 species across the globe, BBC reported.

He said “the situation has got out of control” — but pointed out that “this predicament is not the fault of cats,” according to the BBC. Instead, he pins the blame on humans who have allowed the population of cats in the world to flourish to unprecedented levels.

One of the prominent supporters of the ban, John Collins, said it’s important to reduce the number of cats in Omaui because it would protect the natural wildlife of the area. But Collins, chairman of the Omaui Landcare Charitable Trust, said proponents of the plan are “not cat haters,” according to the Otago Daily Times.

“Native wildlife is disappearing rapidly around the country,” he reportedly told the Otago Daily Times, “and places like this where people still live and enjoy and hear the birdsong are probably few and far between.”

Concerned residents have until Oct. 23 to submit their opinions on the plan, the government wrote in its press release.

As the debate ensues, Jarvis said she is just grappling with the surprise, according to Newshub.

“It was an absolute shock to me,” the outlet quoted her as saying. “I feel a bit hoodwinked to be honest.”



Source link

208752.jpg

Protect Political Speech from the Tech Oligarchs with The Civil Rights Act of 2019


In 1964, almost exactly 100 years after the abolition of slavery by the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, America faced a problem highly instructive for our present circumstances.  The Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery, and its close relatives, the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, supposedly prohibited government denial of equal protection of the laws or discrimination in voting rights against former slaves.

But nothing in the Civil War constitutional amendments protected minorities from private discrimination.  In consequence, there followed one hundred years during which private racial discrimination, and not merely in the South, constituted a major barrier to full and fair participation in American society for the former slaves and their descendants.

The solution the nation found for this problem in 1964 was that year’s great Civil Rights Act, which, among other things, prohibited discrimination on the basis of race by private employers and all places of public accommodation.


In 2014, the U.S. Mint commemorated the 50th anniversary of this landmark extension of civil rights to private behavior.  

The problem of free expression in America today is startlingly similar.

The First Amendment’s protection of free expression is a limitation only on governmental action.  The Founders never dreamed that the major private institutions of the Republic they were establishing would seriously limit freedom of speech for Americans.  But beyond any dispute, the day has come when exactly that evil is occurring.

We have a historical template for the solution, or at least a major part of the solution, to the once creeping, now galloping, repression of free speech in America.  It is high time for a new Civil Rights Act extending First Amendment freedoms to major private actors – to internet forums, large employers, and the entire K-12 and university systems.  

If conservative leaders and Republican office-holders had pushed back consistently against the 30-year process that has brought America to this sorry point, perhaps we could have avoided the necessity of a statutory cure.  But, as on so many other fronts, they failed their voters and the nation.

Now, nothing less than a great new reaffirmation of First Amendment freedoms by Congress and the president can restore the unfettered right to open public inquiry and political discourse on which the United States was founded.

Where We Are: Some Examples

Specific manifestations of America’s astonishing new repression are legion.  They give some idea of the scope of the crisis.

Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter – increasingly both the means of expressing political opinion and seeking electoral support, and the primary sources for information about political issues – ban or effectively bury the speech of political conservatives by direct human intervention and algorithms that either silence conservatives or make their opinions difficult to find.

Google, by now a near monopoly search engine for all subjects including political, historical, and social issues, massages its search algorithms to make it somewhere between difficult and impossible to find information favorable to conservative views or political leaders, while articles favorable to the left miraculously appear on the first page of search results.

Brendan Eich, founder of Mozilla, the creator of Firefox, resigned after intense backlash for contributing to a statewide ballot measure successfully urging the people of California to vote for retention of the traditional definition of marriage.

James Damore, a software engineer at Google, was fired for posting a ten-page memo on an internal company bulletin board entitled “Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber” that was offensive to America’s intolerant and authoritarian radical feminists.  Before his firing, he was subjected to a campaign of denunciation, harassment, and threats by leftist employees, all ignored by his employer.

Students and faculty at colleges and universities, including many owned by state and local governments, are required to tailor their speech to the sensibilities of the most easily (eagerly?) offended members of the usual designated victim groups by “hate speech” guidelines, the breach of which can lead to penalties ranging from censure to mandatory “re-education” to outright expulsion.

For humanities and social science graduate Ph.D. programs and teaching positions, open conservatives pretty much need not apply.  Those who might have slipped through undiscovered carefully frame their public utterances to avoid damage to their degree or tenure prospects.

Mobs of painfully ignorant undergraduate brats shut down college speakers who they fear will present facts, arguments, or truths uncongenial to their prejudices, while university authorities do little or nothing to stop them.

Members of the Trump administration are hounded from restaurants for having the temerity to serve a president who received the votes of 63,000,000 Americans along with 306 electoral votes.

A conservative think-tank, The David Horowitz Freedom Center (“DHFC”), a fact- and logic-based conservative voice, was barred from using Visa and MasterCard to process contributions, only for those companies to relent after a public outcry.  Among the DHFC’s many sins in the eyes of the left and one of the left’s principal thugs, the Southern Poverty Law Center, is its fact- and history-based discussion of Islam.  The institution and ultimate reversal of Visa and MasterCard’s attempted economic strangulation of a conservative nonprofit may be the most egregious example of how easily corporate America rolls over to threats from the radical left.

A Harvard professor seriously proposes an explicit ban on employment or even honoring anyone who dares to serve in any capacity in the Trump administration.

None of this could have happened in America as recently as a generation ago.  More, and worse, is coming if we sit by and hope the creeping tyranny will pass.

How We Got Here: The Schools

The erosion of free expression in American society has been going on for decades.  It dates back at least to the latter 1980s, when Americans first began to hear demands from the left that college course requirements be eliminated and speech guidelines be imposed.

This development was only one consequence of something that had been going on throughout much of the 1980s.  While Ronald Reagan still occupied the White House and conservative intellectuals were tediously bragging that freedom and liberty had permanently prevailed, the left was completing its takeover of the educational system, from kindergarten through university.  Before the end of President Reagan’s second term, elementary, high school, and college students had already begun to be taught that it was more important to avoid giving offense than to discuss important subjects rationally, openly, and honestly.

At the same time, the school and university curricula began to be purged of solid historical and cultural content that would have provided a factual basis for the young’s rejection of the left’s failed ideas.

The products of this debased educational system began emerging in the late ’90s, and, contrary to the  transparently false assurances of conservative leaders and intellectuals, those students retained the ideology they had been taught and the timidity of expression that had been urged upon them.

They became the natural prey of leftist politicians, who increasingly employed epithets rather than argument in discussing political issues.  As the ’90s wore on, the terms “racism,” “sexism,” “homophobia,” and “Islamophobia” increasingly served as the left’s one-word answers to conservative fact-, experience-, and logic-based arguments.  

How We Got Here: “Hate Speech”

The most effective part of the attack on free speech in America was the country’s infection by the “hate speech” concept.  This concept has never been anything more than a transparently fallacious attempt to justify outlawing ideas that can’t be defeated by fact or logic.

The “hate speech” idea traces its ugly origins to the Soviet Union, which employed it to justify pervasive thought control and tried unsuccessfully in 1948 to incorporate some version of it into the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.  Unsurprisingly, today, the most vocal state promoters of the “hate speech” idea are Muslim-majority countries, which employ it to prohibit rational history- and fact-based criticism of Islam.

In Western Europe, post-World War II elites, weighted down by guilt and fearful of repeating past sins, were especially susceptible to the “hate speech” virus.  As a result, the disease is now widespread and far advanced all over Western Europe.  Freedom of political speech in most western European countries is all but dead – in France, for example, publicly asserting the obvious incompatibility of Islamic values and behavior with civilized Western norms is a quick ticket to criminal prosecution.  Germany, with its “Netzwerkdurchsetzungsgesetz,” a pernicious attempt to limit free expression on the internet, is following hard on the heels of France.   

America, with its unbroken tradition of constitutionally guaranteed absolute freedom of inquiry and political expression, should have strangled the odious “hate speech” idea in its crib.  But while that idea marched through the universities and Silicon Valley, those who should have resisted it – Republicans and conservatives – were led by the Bush family’s non-thinkers and non-fighters, and by effete, conflict-averse conservative writers huddled in the salons of the east coast.

So no real opposition was proffered in America, and the idea took root.  It has grown since the late ’90s and gathered momentum over ensuing decades, until today, after eight years of Barack Obama’s leftist presidency, it stands poised to achieve the left’s goal of severely curtailing Americans’ right of free expression guaranteed by the 1st Amendment.

 First Amendment Freedom of Speech: Brandenburg v. Ohio

Throughout this entire 30-year period – as Europe increasingly restricted free political expression and American universities (including government-owned universities) slowly forced “hate speech” restrictions on students and faculty – the United States Supreme Court never even slightly attenuated its near absolute protection of political speech under the First Amendment.

Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), 395 U.S. 444, is still the salutary, if solitary, voice of freedom in the prison of thought control that the American left is trying to construct.  In Brandenburg, a per curiam decision (i.e., unanimous), the Supreme Court held that the only speech government may either suppress or punish is that which advocates immediate illegality or violence and (conjunctive!) is likely to produce such immediate illegality or violence.  The two-pronged Brandenburg test makes governmental interference with political expression all but impossible in America.

Despite the strength and clarity of Brandenburg, Justices William O. Douglas and Hugo Black filed concurring opinions that would have rendered the test still more absolute (though both of these civil libertarian luminaries joined in the Court’s decision).

Besides Douglas and Black, the Brandenburg Court included such liberal and civil libertarian lions as Earl Warren and William J. Brennan.

In 1969, political liberals were firmly on the side of freedom of expression.

How far we have come.

The Civil Rights Act of 2019

Brandenburg should become the law of the land – a limitation not merely on government, but on public schools, universities, large employers, and – crucially – all internet platforms and search engines.

Under the new affirmation of America’s core founding principle, there should be no policing of the internet, no restriction of student or faculty speech, and no political discrimination either in employment or public accommodation, beyond the extremely limited reach of the Brandenburg test: speech that both advocates illegal or violent acts and is likely immediately to produce such acts.

As with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the protections of the new civil rights act should have teeth: a right of action for damages, with attorney’s fees to the prevailing plaintiff where the act is violated, and generous venue provisions in federal court.  Let Harvard and Google and Apple, to name a few of the nation’s new authoritarians, defend their ideological bigotry.  And let them dig deep into their pockets to pay for it.

The usual howls – repeated for years by those who opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 – will be heard.  It will bog us down in litigation, it will be too difficult to distinguish discriminatory conduct from conduct based on legitimate factors, private choice should not be limited by government (that last will come thick and often from “conservative” commentators who failed to defend us from the destruction of free expression in the first place).  The objections will be as poorly taken as they were for the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The Civil Rights Act of 2019 will have the same effect that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 had: most private repression of free speech in America will stop, just as most private racial discrimination stopped after 1964, and for the same two reasons: first, as in 1964, the vast majority of Americans already believed that the goal of the statute was just; and second, as in 1964, most Americans still want to behave lawfully.

If you haven’t noticed that freedom of political speech in America is under increasingly effective assault by the left, you haven’t been watching.  Over the internet, over lunch with colleagues, in every university classroom, indeed, everywhere in America, the wrong word, the wrong thought, can spell banishment or professional and personal destruction, or both. 

Among the worst aspects of this crisis is that high-tech forums, access to which is now essential to disseminating political argument and appealing for electoral support – Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube – increasingly bar or obstruct the sharing of conservative views.  Without a dramatic statutory restatement of Americans’ First Amendment right to free expression, the nation is in the fast lane to an Orwellian world where “correct” thoughts and public statements are mandatory and “incorrect” ones lead to exclusion from polite society and personal destruction.

In 1964, almost exactly 100 years after the abolition of slavery by the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, America faced a problem highly instructive for our present circumstances.  The Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery, and its close relatives, the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, supposedly prohibited government denial of equal protection of the laws or discrimination in voting rights against former slaves.

But nothing in the Civil War constitutional amendments protected minorities from private discrimination.  In consequence, there followed one hundred years during which private racial discrimination, and not merely in the South, constituted a major barrier to full and fair participation in American society for the former slaves and their descendants.

The solution the nation found for this problem in 1964 was that year’s great Civil Rights Act, which, among other things, prohibited discrimination on the basis of race by private employers and all places of public accommodation.


In 2014, the U.S. Mint commemorated the 50th anniversary of this landmark extension of civil rights to private behavior.  

The problem of free expression in America today is startlingly similar.

The First Amendment’s protection of free expression is a limitation only on governmental action.  The Founders never dreamed that the major private institutions of the Republic they were establishing would seriously limit freedom of speech for Americans.  But beyond any dispute, the day has come when exactly that evil is occurring.

We have a historical template for the solution, or at least a major part of the solution, to the once creeping, now galloping, repression of free speech in America.  It is high time for a new Civil Rights Act extending First Amendment freedoms to major private actors – to internet forums, large employers, and the entire K-12 and university systems.  

If conservative leaders and Republican office-holders had pushed back consistently against the 30-year process that has brought America to this sorry point, perhaps we could have avoided the necessity of a statutory cure.  But, as on so many other fronts, they failed their voters and the nation.

Now, nothing less than a great new reaffirmation of First Amendment freedoms by Congress and the president can restore the unfettered right to open public inquiry and political discourse on which the United States was founded.

Where We Are: Some Examples

Specific manifestations of America’s astonishing new repression are legion.  They give some idea of the scope of the crisis.

Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter – increasingly both the means of expressing political opinion and seeking electoral support, and the primary sources for information about political issues – ban or effectively bury the speech of political conservatives by direct human intervention and algorithms that either silence conservatives or make their opinions difficult to find.

Google, by now a near monopoly search engine for all subjects including political, historical, and social issues, massages its search algorithms to make it somewhere between difficult and impossible to find information favorable to conservative views or political leaders, while articles favorable to the left miraculously appear on the first page of search results.

Brendan Eich, founder of Mozilla, the creator of Firefox, resigned after intense backlash for contributing to a statewide ballot measure successfully urging the people of California to vote for retention of the traditional definition of marriage.

James Damore, a software engineer at Google, was fired for posting a ten-page memo on an internal company bulletin board entitled “Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber” that was offensive to America’s intolerant and authoritarian radical feminists.  Before his firing, he was subjected to a campaign of denunciation, harassment, and threats by leftist employees, all ignored by his employer.

Students and faculty at colleges and universities, including many owned by state and local governments, are required to tailor their speech to the sensibilities of the most easily (eagerly?) offended members of the usual designated victim groups by “hate speech” guidelines, the breach of which can lead to penalties ranging from censure to mandatory “re-education” to outright expulsion.

For humanities and social science graduate Ph.D. programs and teaching positions, open conservatives pretty much need not apply.  Those who might have slipped through undiscovered carefully frame their public utterances to avoid damage to their degree or tenure prospects.

Mobs of painfully ignorant undergraduate brats shut down college speakers who they fear will present facts, arguments, or truths uncongenial to their prejudices, while university authorities do little or nothing to stop them.

Members of the Trump administration are hounded from restaurants for having the temerity to serve a president who received the votes of 63,000,000 Americans along with 306 electoral votes.

A conservative think-tank, The David Horowitz Freedom Center (“DHFC”), a fact- and logic-based conservative voice, was barred from using Visa and MasterCard to process contributions, only for those companies to relent after a public outcry.  Among the DHFC’s many sins in the eyes of the left and one of the left’s principal thugs, the Southern Poverty Law Center, is its fact- and history-based discussion of Islam.  The institution and ultimate reversal of Visa and MasterCard’s attempted economic strangulation of a conservative nonprofit may be the most egregious example of how easily corporate America rolls over to threats from the radical left.

A Harvard professor seriously proposes an explicit ban on employment or even honoring anyone who dares to serve in any capacity in the Trump administration.

None of this could have happened in America as recently as a generation ago.  More, and worse, is coming if we sit by and hope the creeping tyranny will pass.

How We Got Here: The Schools

The erosion of free expression in American society has been going on for decades.  It dates back at least to the latter 1980s, when Americans first began to hear demands from the left that college course requirements be eliminated and speech guidelines be imposed.

This development was only one consequence of something that had been going on throughout much of the 1980s.  While Ronald Reagan still occupied the White House and conservative intellectuals were tediously bragging that freedom and liberty had permanently prevailed, the left was completing its takeover of the educational system, from kindergarten through university.  Before the end of President Reagan’s second term, elementary, high school, and college students had already begun to be taught that it was more important to avoid giving offense than to discuss important subjects rationally, openly, and honestly.

At the same time, the school and university curricula began to be purged of solid historical and cultural content that would have provided a factual basis for the young’s rejection of the left’s failed ideas.

The products of this debased educational system began emerging in the late ’90s, and, contrary to the  transparently false assurances of conservative leaders and intellectuals, those students retained the ideology they had been taught and the timidity of expression that had been urged upon them.

They became the natural prey of leftist politicians, who increasingly employed epithets rather than argument in discussing political issues.  As the ’90s wore on, the terms “racism,” “sexism,” “homophobia,” and “Islamophobia” increasingly served as the left’s one-word answers to conservative fact-, experience-, and logic-based arguments.  

How We Got Here: “Hate Speech”

The most effective part of the attack on free speech in America was the country’s infection by the “hate speech” concept.  This concept has never been anything more than a transparently fallacious attempt to justify outlawing ideas that can’t be defeated by fact or logic.

The “hate speech” idea traces its ugly origins to the Soviet Union, which employed it to justify pervasive thought control and tried unsuccessfully in 1948 to incorporate some version of it into the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.  Unsurprisingly, today, the most vocal state promoters of the “hate speech” idea are Muslim-majority countries, which employ it to prohibit rational history- and fact-based criticism of Islam.

In Western Europe, post-World War II elites, weighted down by guilt and fearful of repeating past sins, were especially susceptible to the “hate speech” virus.  As a result, the disease is now widespread and far advanced all over Western Europe.  Freedom of political speech in most western European countries is all but dead – in France, for example, publicly asserting the obvious incompatibility of Islamic values and behavior with civilized Western norms is a quick ticket to criminal prosecution.  Germany, with its “Netzwerkdurchsetzungsgesetz,” a pernicious attempt to limit free expression on the internet, is following hard on the heels of France.   

America, with its unbroken tradition of constitutionally guaranteed absolute freedom of inquiry and political expression, should have strangled the odious “hate speech” idea in its crib.  But while that idea marched through the universities and Silicon Valley, those who should have resisted it – Republicans and conservatives – were led by the Bush family’s non-thinkers and non-fighters, and by effete, conflict-averse conservative writers huddled in the salons of the east coast.

So no real opposition was proffered in America, and the idea took root.  It has grown since the late ’90s and gathered momentum over ensuing decades, until today, after eight years of Barack Obama’s leftist presidency, it stands poised to achieve the left’s goal of severely curtailing Americans’ right of free expression guaranteed by the 1st Amendment.

 First Amendment Freedom of Speech: Brandenburg v. Ohio

Throughout this entire 30-year period – as Europe increasingly restricted free political expression and American universities (including government-owned universities) slowly forced “hate speech” restrictions on students and faculty – the United States Supreme Court never even slightly attenuated its near absolute protection of political speech under the First Amendment.

Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), 395 U.S. 444, is still the salutary, if solitary, voice of freedom in the prison of thought control that the American left is trying to construct.  In Brandenburg, a per curiam decision (i.e., unanimous), the Supreme Court held that the only speech government may either suppress or punish is that which advocates immediate illegality or violence and (conjunctive!) is likely to produce such immediate illegality or violence.  The two-pronged Brandenburg test makes governmental interference with political expression all but impossible in America.

Despite the strength and clarity of Brandenburg, Justices William O. Douglas and Hugo Black filed concurring opinions that would have rendered the test still more absolute (though both of these civil libertarian luminaries joined in the Court’s decision).

Besides Douglas and Black, the Brandenburg Court included such liberal and civil libertarian lions as Earl Warren and William J. Brennan.

In 1969, political liberals were firmly on the side of freedom of expression.

How far we have come.

The Civil Rights Act of 2019

Brandenburg should become the law of the land – a limitation not merely on government, but on public schools, universities, large employers, and – crucially – all internet platforms and search engines.

Under the new affirmation of America’s core founding principle, there should be no policing of the internet, no restriction of student or faculty speech, and no political discrimination either in employment or public accommodation, beyond the extremely limited reach of the Brandenburg test: speech that both advocates illegal or violent acts and is likely immediately to produce such acts.

As with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the protections of the new civil rights act should have teeth: a right of action for damages, with attorney’s fees to the prevailing plaintiff where the act is violated, and generous venue provisions in federal court.  Let Harvard and Google and Apple, to name a few of the nation’s new authoritarians, defend their ideological bigotry.  And let them dig deep into their pockets to pay for it.

The usual howls – repeated for years by those who opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 – will be heard.  It will bog us down in litigation, it will be too difficult to distinguish discriminatory conduct from conduct based on legitimate factors, private choice should not be limited by government (that last will come thick and often from “conservative” commentators who failed to defend us from the destruction of free expression in the first place).  The objections will be as poorly taken as they were for the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The Civil Rights Act of 2019 will have the same effect that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 had: most private repression of free speech in America will stop, just as most private racial discrimination stopped after 1964, and for the same two reasons: first, as in 1964, the vast majority of Americans already believed that the goal of the statute was just; and second, as in 1964, most Americans still want to behave lawfully.



Source link

208760.png

Manchin Can't Defend Voting to Fund Planned Parenthood


Democrat Sen. Joe Manchin of the very red state of West Virginia is one of those political chameleons, who, in order to survive politically, will defend into the political environment of the moment and, like another famous “moderate” Democrat before him, one William Jefferson Clinton, will say whatever the group he is speaking to wants to hear, even if they might be differing groups in adjoining rooms.

He will vote to confirm a Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court but, despite trying to placate the deplorable Trump-voters of West Virginia with moderate words, will vote to keep Obamacare; oppose tax cuts; and, yes, oppose defunding of Planned Parenthood after pledging to support defunding of the abortion mill:

In August 2015, Manchin said he would vote to defund Planned Parenthood following the release of undercover videos alleging the sale of aborted baby parts for profit by the abortion giant’s top medical personnel.


“Like many West Virginians, I am very troubled by the callous behavior of Planned Parenthood staff in recently released videos,” Manchin said in a statement, according to the Hill.  “Until these allegations have been answered and resolved, I do not believe that taxpayer money should be used to fund this organization.”


However, in April 2017, Manchin posed with Planned Parenthood supporters and their sign that states, “I stand with Planned Parenthood.”

He also has posed with Planned Parenthood opponents and signs that support its defunding:

But why would a senator who is supposedly pro-life stand with a sign supporting the nation’s biggest abortion Corporation?  National Right to Life is wondering the same thing, as it told LifeNews:


In pro-life areas of the country, Democratic candidates must have pro-life votes in order to win, however they also must appease the pro-abortion masters of the Democratic Party.  The most ridiculous evidence of this recently took place when West Virginia Democratic Senator Joe Manchin appeared in a picture holding a Planned Parenthood sign that read, “I stand with Planned Parenthood.”  Manchin later appeared in a picture with a pro-life group holding a sign that read, “We don’t need Planned Parenthood.”

Because Joe Manchin will say anything to anybody to get re-elected.

The allegations surrounding the harvesting and sale of fetal body parts after a Planned Parenthood abortion have not been answered or resolved and remain very much an issue.  Manchin seems to have embraced the fiction that Planned Parenthood is a women’s health organization and that its abortion business is a separate and compartmentalized operation.  Manchin, who professes to be pro-life, claims that funding for Planned Parenthood does not go to abortions, ignoring the fact that money is fungible and that federal tax dollars allegedly given to fund, say, cancer screenings inevitably frees up money to fund abortions.

At issue now is his vote opposing Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul’s amendment to defund Planned Parenthood:

West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin (D) struggled during a radio interview Monday to defend his vote last week to keep Planned Parenthood funded despite labeling himself a “pro-life Democrat.”


He was asked three times by Hoppy Kercheval on MetroNew’s Talkline to explain his vote against Sen. Rand Paul’s (R-KY) amendment to defund Planned Parenthood.  Manchin continually insisted that his vote was about funding healthcare for women in his state and that he didn’t believe the money went directly to abortions.


“How can you continue to argue that you are pro-life when you voted against that amendment that would’ve stopped funding for Planned Parenthood which performs abortions,” Kercheval initially asked.  “I know that the money does not go specifically for abortion but it does go to support Planned Parenthood which is the largest abortion provider in the country.”


“First of all there’s not a penny of public dollars that go to support abortions from Planned Parenthood,” Manchin insisted.  “I’ve checked it inside and out, with the Hyde Amendment it can’t happen it’s against the law.”

Yet it is happening, as Planned Parenthood skirts the law with smoke and mirrors, pretending to be a purveyor of women’s health programs while abortion remains its prime business:

[C]oming after a Friday vote in which he forced taxpayer to fund Planned Parenthood once again, Senator Manchin completely glosses over the fungibility issue.  That is the understanding that, even though the funds may not directly pay for abortions, the taxpayer funding helps the nation’s leading abortion company by helping it fund everything associated with performing and promoting abortion such as salary, expenses, advertising etc.


(Manchin) also claims that none of the funding from federal dollars going to Planned Parenthood supports abortion because the lone Planned Parenthood clinic in his state does not do abortions.  However the senator ignores how funding goes to Planned Parenthood abortion clinics across the country and not just centers that do not specifically do abortions.  Manchin also ignores how every single Planned Parenthood clinic at least refers for abortions and helps women make arrangements to terminate the lives of their unborn babies – done so with the help of federal funding.


Although Senator Manchin argues that Planned Parenthood is a women’s health clinic, Planned Parenthood does not offer mammograms nor does it offer prenatal care for women at many of its abortion centers. 

In a series of undercover videos, the true motives and practices of Planned Parenthood were revealed.  Dr. Deborah Nucatola, Planned Parenthood’s senior director of medical services, in one of the undercover videos, appears to be calmly brokering the sale of body parts as if she were negotiating over lawn furniture at a garage sale.

In one disturbing video and its appalling transcript, made by the non-profit group the Center for Medical Progress, which describes itself as “dedicated to monitoring and reporting on medical ethics and advances,” it is made clear that the alleged noble crusade against unwanted children is a fraud and that Planned Parenthood’s interest in abortion is a financial one and that human life is just a commodity to be bought and sold on the open market.

The video shows Nucatola negotiating with two actors posing as agents of a fetal tissue procurement company and discussing the body parts of aborted babies as if she were a butcher at the local meat market, as Breitbart.com reports:

“We’ve been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that, so I’m not gonna crush that part,” Nucatola coldly explains.  “I’m gonna basically crush [the unborn child] below, I’m gonna crush above, and I’m gonna see if I can get it all intact[.] … And for that reason, most providers will do this case under ultrasound guidance, so they’ll know where they’re putting their forceps.”


Nucatola also goes into great detail to explain how Planned Parenthood is able to use its loose affiliates as a way to protect the parent company from potential legal fallout.


The video goes a long way to explain Planned Parenthood’s eternal devotion to legalizing late-term and partial-birth abortion.


Nucatola explains to the undercover reporters that the butchered body parts (hearts, livers, “lower extremities – probably for the muscle”) sell for $30 to $100 apiece.


Moreover, the more fully-formed the baby body parts, the more valuable those parts are.

Indeed, immature or improperly dismembered baby parts could dramatically impact Planned Parenthood’s and the abortion industry’s bottom line.  The use of aborted fetuses and their tissues is justified by abortionists as the key to medical research, as using embryos for stem cell research was and is.  Planned Parenthood’s operation strays perilously close to the territory of Dr. Joseph Mengele, the Nazi “doctor” who justified his ghastly practices in the name of research.

Abortion-supporters claim they want to make it “safe, legal, and rare,” but when you are selling dismembered baby parts, like any other business, volume is important in improving the profit margin.  Presumably, young mothers entering a Planned Parenthood clinic aren’t told about this part of the operation.

You can’t, er, split the baby, Sen. Manchin.  Either you are truly pro-life or you are not.  Either you want to defund Planned Parenthood and its ghastly practices or you do not.  Certainly, you cannot defend your vote to defeat Rand Paul’s amendment to defund the group.

Daniel John Sobieski is a freelance writer whose pieces have appeared in Investor’s Business Daily, Human Events, Reason Magazine, and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications.

Democrat Sen. Joe Manchin of the very red state of West Virginia is one of those political chameleons, who, in order to survive politically, will defend into the political environment of the moment and, like another famous “moderate” Democrat before him, one William Jefferson Clinton, will say whatever the group he is speaking to wants to hear, even if they might be differing groups in adjoining rooms.

He will vote to confirm a Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court but, despite trying to placate the deplorable Trump-voters of West Virginia with moderate words, will vote to keep Obamacare; oppose tax cuts; and, yes, oppose defunding of Planned Parenthood after pledging to support defunding of the abortion mill:

In August 2015, Manchin said he would vote to defund Planned Parenthood following the release of undercover videos alleging the sale of aborted baby parts for profit by the abortion giant’s top medical personnel.


“Like many West Virginians, I am very troubled by the callous behavior of Planned Parenthood staff in recently released videos,” Manchin said in a statement, according to the Hill.  “Until these allegations have been answered and resolved, I do not believe that taxpayer money should be used to fund this organization.”


However, in April 2017, Manchin posed with Planned Parenthood supporters and their sign that states, “I stand with Planned Parenthood.”

He also has posed with Planned Parenthood opponents and signs that support its defunding:

But why would a senator who is supposedly pro-life stand with a sign supporting the nation’s biggest abortion Corporation?  National Right to Life is wondering the same thing, as it told LifeNews:


In pro-life areas of the country, Democratic candidates must have pro-life votes in order to win, however they also must appease the pro-abortion masters of the Democratic Party.  The most ridiculous evidence of this recently took place when West Virginia Democratic Senator Joe Manchin appeared in a picture holding a Planned Parenthood sign that read, “I stand with Planned Parenthood.”  Manchin later appeared in a picture with a pro-life group holding a sign that read, “We don’t need Planned Parenthood.”

Because Joe Manchin will say anything to anybody to get re-elected.

The allegations surrounding the harvesting and sale of fetal body parts after a Planned Parenthood abortion have not been answered or resolved and remain very much an issue.  Manchin seems to have embraced the fiction that Planned Parenthood is a women’s health organization and that its abortion business is a separate and compartmentalized operation.  Manchin, who professes to be pro-life, claims that funding for Planned Parenthood does not go to abortions, ignoring the fact that money is fungible and that federal tax dollars allegedly given to fund, say, cancer screenings inevitably frees up money to fund abortions.

At issue now is his vote opposing Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul’s amendment to defund Planned Parenthood:

West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin (D) struggled during a radio interview Monday to defend his vote last week to keep Planned Parenthood funded despite labeling himself a “pro-life Democrat.”


He was asked three times by Hoppy Kercheval on MetroNew’s Talkline to explain his vote against Sen. Rand Paul’s (R-KY) amendment to defund Planned Parenthood.  Manchin continually insisted that his vote was about funding healthcare for women in his state and that he didn’t believe the money went directly to abortions.


“How can you continue to argue that you are pro-life when you voted against that amendment that would’ve stopped funding for Planned Parenthood which performs abortions,” Kercheval initially asked.  “I know that the money does not go specifically for abortion but it does go to support Planned Parenthood which is the largest abortion provider in the country.”


“First of all there’s not a penny of public dollars that go to support abortions from Planned Parenthood,” Manchin insisted.  “I’ve checked it inside and out, with the Hyde Amendment it can’t happen it’s against the law.”

Yet it is happening, as Planned Parenthood skirts the law with smoke and mirrors, pretending to be a purveyor of women’s health programs while abortion remains its prime business:

[C]oming after a Friday vote in which he forced taxpayer to fund Planned Parenthood once again, Senator Manchin completely glosses over the fungibility issue.  That is the understanding that, even though the funds may not directly pay for abortions, the taxpayer funding helps the nation’s leading abortion company by helping it fund everything associated with performing and promoting abortion such as salary, expenses, advertising etc.


(Manchin) also claims that none of the funding from federal dollars going to Planned Parenthood supports abortion because the lone Planned Parenthood clinic in his state does not do abortions.  However the senator ignores how funding goes to Planned Parenthood abortion clinics across the country and not just centers that do not specifically do abortions.  Manchin also ignores how every single Planned Parenthood clinic at least refers for abortions and helps women make arrangements to terminate the lives of their unborn babies – done so with the help of federal funding.


Although Senator Manchin argues that Planned Parenthood is a women’s health clinic, Planned Parenthood does not offer mammograms nor does it offer prenatal care for women at many of its abortion centers. 

In a series of undercover videos, the true motives and practices of Planned Parenthood were revealed.  Dr. Deborah Nucatola, Planned Parenthood’s senior director of medical services, in one of the undercover videos, appears to be calmly brokering the sale of body parts as if she were negotiating over lawn furniture at a garage sale.

In one disturbing video and its appalling transcript, made by the non-profit group the Center for Medical Progress, which describes itself as “dedicated to monitoring and reporting on medical ethics and advances,” it is made clear that the alleged noble crusade against unwanted children is a fraud and that Planned Parenthood’s interest in abortion is a financial one and that human life is just a commodity to be bought and sold on the open market.

The video shows Nucatola negotiating with two actors posing as agents of a fetal tissue procurement company and discussing the body parts of aborted babies as if she were a butcher at the local meat market, as Breitbart.com reports:

“We’ve been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that, so I’m not gonna crush that part,” Nucatola coldly explains.  “I’m gonna basically crush [the unborn child] below, I’m gonna crush above, and I’m gonna see if I can get it all intact[.] … And for that reason, most providers will do this case under ultrasound guidance, so they’ll know where they’re putting their forceps.”


Nucatola also goes into great detail to explain how Planned Parenthood is able to use its loose affiliates as a way to protect the parent company from potential legal fallout.


The video goes a long way to explain Planned Parenthood’s eternal devotion to legalizing late-term and partial-birth abortion.


Nucatola explains to the undercover reporters that the butchered body parts (hearts, livers, “lower extremities – probably for the muscle”) sell for $30 to $100 apiece.


Moreover, the more fully-formed the baby body parts, the more valuable those parts are.

Indeed, immature or improperly dismembered baby parts could dramatically impact Planned Parenthood’s and the abortion industry’s bottom line.  The use of aborted fetuses and their tissues is justified by abortionists as the key to medical research, as using embryos for stem cell research was and is.  Planned Parenthood’s operation strays perilously close to the territory of Dr. Joseph Mengele, the Nazi “doctor” who justified his ghastly practices in the name of research.

Abortion-supporters claim they want to make it “safe, legal, and rare,” but when you are selling dismembered baby parts, like any other business, volume is important in improving the profit margin.  Presumably, young mothers entering a Planned Parenthood clinic aren’t told about this part of the operation.

You can’t, er, split the baby, Sen. Manchin.  Either you are truly pro-life or you are not.  Either you want to defund Planned Parenthood and its ghastly practices or you do not.  Certainly, you cannot defend your vote to defeat Rand Paul’s amendment to defund the group.

Daniel John Sobieski is a freelance writer whose pieces have appeared in Investor’s Business Daily, Human Events, Reason Magazine, and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications.



Source link