Day: September 13, 2018

airport-arrest-Lowell-Beckner.00_00_18_28.Still001_1536792848017.jpg_6057887_ver1.0_640_360.jpg

SNAP: Angry JET BLUE passenger takes off pants…


– A passenger scheduled to board a JetBlue plane to San Juan, Puerto Rico caused a scene Wednesday and was arrested in the terminal, according to officials with Tampa International Airport.

A witness took video of the outburst, including the moment the man took down his pants, and later had to be restrained by officers. 

Airport officials said the man, identified by TIA officials as Ralph Rodriguez Hernandez, became upset around 2 p.m. because his flight was delayed. TIA said during the tantrum, Hernandez threatened to kill a gate agent from JetBlue.

Lowell Beckner took video of the roughly 15-minute ordeal. Lowell said Hernandez was accompanied by a rottweiler mix service dog, which can be seen in the video. TIA officials said they took the dog to its canine facility, where it will stay until Animal Control can take over. 

“He kept screaming that he wanted his plane, for them to get the plane there, and they were trying to calm him down,” Beckner said. “The airport staff did great.”

His possessions, including a backpack and dog food and water bowls, were scattered around the terminal. 

“When he started fighting with the cops and got thrown to the ground and was still kicking police, I said, this is not going to end good,” Beckner said.

Hernandez was arrested and charged with battery of a law enforcement official.

Beckner said after officers handcuffed Hernandez, they tried to take him away in a wheelchair, but eventually carried him out of the terminal.



Source link

Dm_FBCzV4AE1dyl.jpg

Zoo welcomes rare, ugly 'Omen of Evil' baby…


Look, not all babies are cute.

Unfortunately for the latest baby critter born at the Denver Zoo, Tonks the aye-aye is simply one of those less fortunate in the beauty department.

Her beady little eyes are yellow. Her face is mostly bald. And, my gosh, those skeletal fingers. In some cultures in the animal’s native Madagascar, the appearance of an aye-aye is an omen of evil.

It seems only right for a baby whose parents are named Bellatrix and Smeagol.

But the little girl’s birth last month in Denver is a boon for biologists attempting to save one of the rarest species in the world.

Only 24 of the lemurs live in seven zoos across the U.S., according to the Denver Zoo. It’s unclear how many live in the wild because the nocturnal primates that spend almost all of their lives in trees are notoriously hard to glimpse.

Despite a startling appearance, aye-ayes have a number of unique characteristics. They search for grubs in trees by tapping on the wood and listening to the echo to find a cavity — the mammalian version of a woodpecker. Like a rodent, their incisors never stop growing. The lemurs spend most of their lives alone, according to the Duke Lemur Center.

A cursory glance through Google images of adult aye-ayes seems to show that little Tonks will grow more beautiful in time. The hair will grow in on her face and her eyes will become more proportional.

Tonks is currently in the Denver Zoo’s aye-aye exhibit, but likely won’t be visible for the next few months as she grows inside the nest box.



Source link

5184.jpg

73,000 years-old!


It lacks the grace of Leonardo and has none of the warmth of Rubens, but the criss-crossed pattern on the chunk of rock is remarkable all the same. According to researchers who unearthed the piece, it is the earliest known drawing in the world.

Archaeologists found the marked stone fragment as they sifted through spear points and other material excavated at Blombos cave in South Africa. It has taken seven years of tests to conclude that a human made the lines with an ochre crayon 73,000 years ago.

The simple red marks adorn a flake the size of two thumbnails which appears to have broken off a grindstone cobble used to turn lumps of ochre into paint powder. The lines end so abruptly at the fragment’s edges that researchers believe the cross-hatches were originally part of a larger design drawn on the cobble.

“This is first known drawing in human history,” said Francesco d’Errico, a researcher on the team at the University of Bordeaux. “What does it mean? I don’t know. What I do know is that what can look very abstract to us could mean something to the people in the traditional society who produced it.”

Until now, the oldest known drawings have been the more impressive and extensive works that cover cave walls in El Castillo in Spain and Maros in Sulawesi, Indonesia. But those abstract and figurative images were made more recently, 40,000 years ago at most.

Located on the southern tip of South Africa, about 300km east of Cape Town, Blombos cave has proved a treasure trove of ancient human artefacts from 70,000 to 100,000 years old. Excavations have uncovered painted shell beads, double-sided spear points, and pieces of ochre engraved with the same cross-hatched design as found on the chunk of grindstone. The pattern also features at the nearby younger sites of Diepkloof and Klipdrift, where archaeologists found it engraved on ostrich egg shells.

The patterned stone from Blombos was found by chance in 2011 as researchers washed ash and dirt from spear points and other artefacts uncovered at the site. The discovery prompted an intensive effort to analyse the marks – six thin lines crossed by three others – and discern how they got there.

“It’s very striking,” said Christopher Henshilwood, leader of the research team and director of the Centre for Early Sapiens Behaviour at the University of Bergen in Norway. “You can see immediately that it’s a cross-hatch design in red on a smooth surface. It’s very tiny but it’s pretty impressive.”

Through a combination of microscopic examination of the stone and experiments that set out to recreate the pattern, the researchers conclude that the drawing was made with an ochre crayon. While most of the lines were made in single strokes, others were created by rubbing the ochre back and forth. To achieve such narrow lines, the ochre must have been hard and pointed, its tip between one and three millimetres wide, according to a report in the journal, Nature.

Ochre is a broad term for rocks and clays that are coloured red or orange by the iron-rich minerals they contain. Tests on the red lines that make up the Blombos drawing show that the pigment contains haematite, a common reddish-black iron ore.

“The lines are very deliberate,” said Henshilwood. “When we reproduced the lines, you have to have a very firm hand and have to apply the ochre quite determinedly to make them look like that.”

He believes that Homo sapiens used the grindstone, a silcrete cobble, to turn hard ochre rocks into a powder suitable for paint. The grindstone was then washed and the cross-hatched design added to the smooth, dipped surface produced by the grinding process. At some point later, the cobble was broken and the marked fragment left behind.

“There’s no doubt that it’s a symbol that meant something to the people who made it,” Henshilwood said. “It’s a symbol that’s been repeated over and over again, and it keeps on being repeated across the world in Australia, France and Spain, and everywhere else. This is part of the repertoire of signs the human brain reproduces. I can’t tell you what it means, and I can’t say it’s art.”

Warm in the winter and cool in the summer, Blombos cave would have been a welcome shelter for early humans moving along what is now the southern Cape coast. Today, the cave is a stone’s throw from the sea, but when the drawing was made the cave would have sat 100km inland.

“You feel a very strong connection when you work in the cave. It’s a time machine,” said Henshilwood. “You can see something and know it was put there by a human 75,000 or 90,000 years ago, and it hasn’t moved at all. And next to it is the bone they chewed and the fire they made and slept around at night. It’s almost weird. You can’t believe that it has survived for that long.”

Wil Roebroeks, professor of paleolithic archaeology at Leiden University in the Netherlands, described the work as “very thorough”.

“This detailed study of red lines on a small piece of silcrete underlines that these patterns were intentional, and made on various media with different techniques,” he said. “However, we can only guess at what these patterns represented, if anything.”

This article was updated on 13 September 2018 to correct the artist’s name to Leonardo; “da Vinci”, as it originally read, was his birthplace.



Source link

Screen_Shot_2018_09_12_at_1.38.06_PM.png

The biggest — the best…


Apple has announced its next generation of iPhones, and one of them is by far the biggest iPhone yet. The two new models are called the iPhone XS and iPhone XS Max. They look almost identical to their predecessor, but there are two immediate differences: for one, they’re both available in gold, unlike last year; and more importantly, the XS Max is huge. It’s not just the biggest iPhone ever, it’s one of the biggest phones out there, period.

In addition to the iPhone XS and XS Max, Apple also announced a lower-cost model that splits the difference in size, called the iPhone XR. You can read more about that in our other article. We’re going to focus on Apple’s two new flagships, the XS and XS Max, below.

As with other S years, this year’s iPhones are mostly defined by spec upgrades. That includes a display with better dynamic range, wider stereo sound from the speakers, and speed increases to Face ID. Water resistance has been improved on both models. And the processor is getting a big boost as well, using Apple’s newly unveiled A12 Bionic processor, a six-core chip that’s among the first in the industry to use a 7nm process. Tim Cook called the devices “by far the most advanced iPhone we have ever created.”

But the real news this year is the introduction of the “Max” model, which has a huge 6.5-inch screen. That’s far bigger than the iPhone 8 Plus (5.5 inches) and bigger even than the Galaxy Note 9 (6.4 inches). It’s not as though Apple is jumping into unprecedented territory here, but it is leaping into a size class that, even in a world of large phones, is still considered fairly large. It’s an admission that large phones will continue to rule. And while it may have taken Apple a bit too long to catch on in years past, it’s happily jumping into the six-plus-inch fray as phones get ever larger.

Because the iPhone XS and XS Max have a wider screen ratio than the traditional iPhone, neither phone will be quite as big as it sounds. The iPhone XS, for instance, which has the same 5.8-inch screen size as the iPhone X, is actually smaller than the 5.5-inch iPhone 8 Plus. The XS Max is definitively larger than the other iPhones that came before it, but keep in mind that its extra screen size will come more from height than from additional width. That means it shouldn’t be much harder to hold than any Plus-sized iPhone.

Apple also says that the XS and XS Max feature an all-new camera system, though the specs seem largely the same on a high level. The wide angle and telephoto rear cameras both still have 12-megapixel sensors with optical image stabilization; but the wide angle camera now uses a new sensor with larger pixels, and the telephoto includes a wider aperture, so both cameras should do better in low light. The selfie camera on the front is supposed to be faster as well, but aperture and megapixel count haven’t changed.

The bigger upgrade may be to the way these cameras take photos. Apple is introducing a new method called “Smart HDR” that sounds very similar to what Google does with the Pixel — it takes many photos and stitches them together into one properly captured image. That’s not altogether different than the HDR methods that Apple has used in the past, but this year’s sounds like it’s just doing more of all that. Which, if it works, is great. And for Google, it’s definitely works.

Apple is also adding more options to its cameras’ portrait mode, which automatically isolates a subject and blurs out the background. You can now fine-tune those photos even more, adjusting exactly how blurred the background is, which could let you make the effect a bit subtler.

There’s another new feature that many people won’t notice, but could be make-or-break for buyers in some countries: dual SIM support. Both phones will support the use of two phone numbers and data plans, using a single physical SIM card and Apple’s integrated eSIM. That means carriers will need to add support for the eSIM in order for this to work (and many have been reluctant to); but it’s still a big addition, since Apple has never offered this before.

This feature won’t be available at launch, however. Apple says it’ll be enabled in a software update “later this fall.” And in China, where the eSIM isn’t allowed for some reason, Apple will instead ship a special version of the XS Max that includes two physical SIM trays.

Both phones are going to see improved battery life, with the XS getting an estimated 30 additional minutes and the XS Max getting an additional hour and a half. They’ll also each support gigabit LTE speeds.

The phones will both come in three capacities: 64GB, 256GB, and 512GB. Those first two tiers are the same as last year, but 512GB is a new one for Apple. It’s not the first company to hit that incredible storage point in a smartphone, but it’s still relatively quick to get there. The 64GB configuration of the XS will sell for $999, the same as the iPhone X, and the 64GB XS Max will sell for $1,099. Preorders start Friday, with the phones shipping out September 21st.

The last time Apple introduced a new size of the iPhone was in 2014, when the iPhone 6 and 6 Plus launched. Both models represented new sizes for Apple, which had spent the prior two years making phones with four-inch screens. As Apple stuck by its small phones, the door opened for Android competitors, which grew in size and popularity. That’s continued to happen, and Apple has generally kept up with the trend. With today’s announcement, it may even surpass it, planting a definitely large stake in a large phone world.



Source link

209023.png

Trump Voters and the Bitter Elites


Since the 9th of November 2016, I and 63 million other Americans have been collectively characterized as racists, misogynists, Nazi sympathizers and ignorant simpletons because we voted for Donald Trump.  Whether it is the media, the denizens of Democratic Party, the NeverTrumpers, the elitists or the elitist wannabes, this Greek chorus has been mindlessly spouting these blanket accusations in their revulsion over the unexpected Trump victory.  In their addled thought process this is the only plausible explanation for Hillary Clinton losing.   

I, along with the overwhelming majority of those of us who wear the scarlet letter of having voted for Trump, opted to ignore these ravings and simply get on with our lives while quietly seething over the rhetoric and accusations.   

However, I recently received an infuriating email which required a reply on behalf of my fellow Americans and Trump voters.

Over the years I bought spices on line from Penzeys, a firm located in Wisconsin with 69 stores throughout the country.  Almost immediately after the election, its president William T. Penzey, Jr., sent out a promotional email to their customer base which included an excoriation of Trump and his supporters.  I immediately stopped buying from them and requested my email address be deleted.   However, I continued to receive emails touting various products and promotions along with anti-Trump political commentary.   On the 8th of September I received another promotional email with the following lead-in as a letter to those of us who voted for Trump or any Republican:

I grew up in a Volkswagen bus.  My best friend grew up in his father’s navy coat.  He died a Marine from cancer maybe from a war he fought and was left to clean up after.  I respect you when you are right, and have no patience when you give up your values to unearned race-based praise.  Still, the cliff you are now dropping off of with this week’s events is too steep for anyone to face alone.  They fooled you, and shame on them for that.  But then you let them fool you again, and again, and again.  You and I know what that means.  But always remember, you are not alone.


The good news is that you were raised with the strength to take responsibility for your actions.  Now is the time to use that strength to put things right.  It won’t be easy.  It will be possible.  Now’s maybe the time to use your choice of search engine to type in “Ryan” “Trump” and “textbook” to see, maybe for the first time, that the racism that took over your party long ago was there well before you voted for this administration.  Now maybe this week for the first time you can see it.  I trust you to find your way to make amends and put your actions right.  It’s who you are.

Penzeys is a private entity and its president can say whatever he chooses.  But the condescension and the not so veiled intimation that Trump voters are mindless buffoons drips off the page and is typical of the mindset of the elitist cabal.   I and 63 million of my fellow Americans must make amends for our thoughtless action in voting for someone other than Hillary Clinton?  This is not just the rantings of a narcissistic buffoon but emblematic of far too many in the Ruling Establishment.

As he reveals in his missive, Mr. Penzey and his fellow travelers are obsessed with racism as that is the most common accusation hurled by this clique.  In their addled thought process racism is the sole province of Republicans and those repugnant Trump voters.  In reality, it is far more prevalent among the Left and the Democratic Party.

While Mr. Penzey was a toddler playing in his parents’ coffee and spice shop during the mid-1960’s, I was actively involved in the Civil Rights Movement.  Beyond the overt and venomous racist policies of the Democratic Party in the South, there was another notable phenomenon I noticed — the racism endemic among the self-righteous liberals.

The motivation of the overwhelming majority of white participants in the Civil Rights Movement fell into three categories.  The first, and the most active group, were the hard-core leftists who viewed the Black proletariat as potential foot soldiers as well as a gullible constituency to be recruited in overturning the government and establishing a socialist nirvana.  The second, and the largest faction, were the liberals who viewed African-Americans as a population to be pitied, patted on the head and made dependent mascots so these pompous narcissists could wallow in their self-righteousness.  The third, and by far the smallest group, motivated by Judeo-Christian teachings and respect for the humanity of their fellow citizens, became involved in order to permanently eradicate institutional racism throughout the country.

In order to sow animosity and discontentment in the Black community, the Left today fabricates and shouts incessantly about racism when there is none.  They promote social and economic policies that obliterate the Black family.  They tacitly endorse Eugenics through unfettered abortion access and active promotion of abortions in the inner cities so that Black women account for 36% of all abortions (when Blacks make up 12% of the population).  They manipulate what is taught in the schools, so ignorance prevails, and the Black citizenry can thus be easily stage-managed into a monolithic voting bloc for the Democratic Party. 

These actions are a manifestation of virulent and pernicious racism, for they can ultimately undermine and destroy a race.  This bigotry is solely the province of the Left.  Meanwhile, the cancer that is antisemitism is also rapidly metastasizing throughout the Left and the Democratic Party.  

The overt racism of a few thousand (at most) members of the Ku Klux Klan or a couple of hundred thousand White Supremacists out of a population of 320 million people in a nation the size of the continent of Europe is no more than a nuisance and politically impotent.  Yet the Left, the media and the elites portray these outcasts as mainstream conservatives and Republicans in order to paint 63 million Tump voters as racists.  The reality is that this left-wing cabal is not only guilty of racism, but through their tacit support of the violent Antifa movement and aggressive suppression of free speech, they are no more than authoritarian sympathizers.

To paraphrase Lloyd Bentsen in the 1988 Vice Presidential debate: I know and have experienced first-hand the evils of racism and the malevolence of Nazism.  Neither Donald Trump nor virtually all who voted for him are racists or Nazi sympathizers. 

They are Americans who were uneasy and frightened of the cultural and economic transformation of the United States promulgated by the current iteration of the Ruling Class. They wanted a change and Hillary Clinton was the personification of the overwhelming majority of this self-styled oligarchy: self-dealing, mendacious, narcissistic, and disposed toward socialism and cultural Marxism.

Mr. Penzey, I and my fellow 63 million Americans do not have make amends for a damn thing.   Perhaps you and your fellow elitists should make amends for foisting Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and an unabashedly neo-socialist, racist and authoritarian Democratic Party on the nation.

Since the 9th of November 2016, I and 63 million other Americans have been collectively characterized as racists, misogynists, Nazi sympathizers and ignorant simpletons because we voted for Donald Trump.  Whether it is the media, the denizens of Democratic Party, the NeverTrumpers, the elitists or the elitist wannabes, this Greek chorus has been mindlessly spouting these blanket accusations in their revulsion over the unexpected Trump victory.  In their addled thought process this is the only plausible explanation for Hillary Clinton losing.   

I, along with the overwhelming majority of those of us who wear the scarlet letter of having voted for Trump, opted to ignore these ravings and simply get on with our lives while quietly seething over the rhetoric and accusations.   

Hillary’s 2016 Election Night “Victory Party” (screen grab VOA)

However, I recently received an infuriating email which required a reply on behalf of my fellow Americans and Trump voters.

Over the years I bought spices on line from Penzeys, a firm located in Wisconsin with 69 stores throughout the country.  Almost immediately after the election, its president William T. Penzey, Jr., sent out a promotional email to their customer base which included an excoriation of Trump and his supporters.  I immediately stopped buying from them and requested my email address be deleted.   However, I continued to receive emails touting various products and promotions along with anti-Trump political commentary.   On the 8th of September I received another promotional email with the following lead-in as a letter to those of us who voted for Trump or any Republican:

I grew up in a Volkswagen bus.  My best friend grew up in his father’s navy coat.  He died a Marine from cancer maybe from a war he fought and was left to clean up after.  I respect you when you are right, and have no patience when you give up your values to unearned race-based praise.  Still, the cliff you are now dropping off of with this week’s events is too steep for anyone to face alone.  They fooled you, and shame on them for that.  But then you let them fool you again, and again, and again.  You and I know what that means.  But always remember, you are not alone.


The good news is that you were raised with the strength to take responsibility for your actions.  Now is the time to use that strength to put things right.  It won’t be easy.  It will be possible.  Now’s maybe the time to use your choice of search engine to type in “Ryan” “Trump” and “textbook” to see, maybe for the first time, that the racism that took over your party long ago was there well before you voted for this administration.  Now maybe this week for the first time you can see it.  I trust you to find your way to make amends and put your actions right.  It’s who you are.

Penzeys is a private entity and its president can say whatever he chooses.  But the condescension and the not so veiled intimation that Trump voters are mindless buffoons drips off the page and is typical of the mindset of the elitist cabal.   I and 63 million of my fellow Americans must make amends for our thoughtless action in voting for someone other than Hillary Clinton?  This is not just the rantings of a narcissistic buffoon but emblematic of far too many in the Ruling Establishment.

As he reveals in his missive, Mr. Penzey and his fellow travelers are obsessed with racism as that is the most common accusation hurled by this clique.  In their addled thought process racism is the sole province of Republicans and those repugnant Trump voters.  In reality, it is far more prevalent among the Left and the Democratic Party.

While Mr. Penzey was a toddler playing in his parents’ coffee and spice shop during the mid-1960’s, I was actively involved in the Civil Rights Movement.  Beyond the overt and venomous racist policies of the Democratic Party in the South, there was another notable phenomenon I noticed — the racism endemic among the self-righteous liberals.

The motivation of the overwhelming majority of white participants in the Civil Rights Movement fell into three categories.  The first, and the most active group, were the hard-core leftists who viewed the Black proletariat as potential foot soldiers as well as a gullible constituency to be recruited in overturning the government and establishing a socialist nirvana.  The second, and the largest faction, were the liberals who viewed African-Americans as a population to be pitied, patted on the head and made dependent mascots so these pompous narcissists could wallow in their self-righteousness.  The third, and by far the smallest group, motivated by Judeo-Christian teachings and respect for the humanity of their fellow citizens, became involved in order to permanently eradicate institutional racism throughout the country.

In order to sow animosity and discontentment in the Black community, the Left today fabricates and shouts incessantly about racism when there is none.  They promote social and economic policies that obliterate the Black family.  They tacitly endorse Eugenics through unfettered abortion access and active promotion of abortions in the inner cities so that Black women account for 36% of all abortions (when Blacks make up 12% of the population).  They manipulate what is taught in the schools, so ignorance prevails, and the Black citizenry can thus be easily stage-managed into a monolithic voting bloc for the Democratic Party. 

These actions are a manifestation of virulent and pernicious racism, for they can ultimately undermine and destroy a race.  This bigotry is solely the province of the Left.  Meanwhile, the cancer that is antisemitism is also rapidly metastasizing throughout the Left and the Democratic Party.  

The overt racism of a few thousand (at most) members of the Ku Klux Klan or a couple of hundred thousand White Supremacists out of a population of 320 million people in a nation the size of the continent of Europe is no more than a nuisance and politically impotent.  Yet the Left, the media and the elites portray these outcasts as mainstream conservatives and Republicans in order to paint 63 million Tump voters as racists.  The reality is that this left-wing cabal is not only guilty of racism, but through their tacit support of the violent Antifa movement and aggressive suppression of free speech, they are no more than authoritarian sympathizers.

To paraphrase Lloyd Bentsen in the 1988 Vice Presidential debate: I know and have experienced first-hand the evils of racism and the malevolence of Nazism.  Neither Donald Trump nor virtually all who voted for him are racists or Nazi sympathizers. 

They are Americans who were uneasy and frightened of the cultural and economic transformation of the United States promulgated by the current iteration of the Ruling Class. They wanted a change and Hillary Clinton was the personification of the overwhelming majority of this self-styled oligarchy: self-dealing, mendacious, narcissistic, and disposed toward socialism and cultural Marxism.

Mr. Penzey, I and my fellow 63 million Americans do not have make amends for a damn thing.   Perhaps you and your fellow elitists should make amends for foisting Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and an unabashedly neo-socialist, racist and authoritarian Democratic Party on the nation.



Source link

208782.png

Tech Giants Are Obviously Biased


It’s truly incredible at this point that anyone could deny the tech giants are discriminating against conservatives to an almost comical extent. Yet, may on the left still do. Of course, they do this while simultaneously demanding that tech companies actually do ban speech, which is always defined (by them) as “hate speech.” A very interesting approach, to say nothing else.

In some cases, this is too obvious to deny. Alex Jones was basically kicked off the entirety of social media in one day in what seemed to be a fairly obvious case of collusion. YouTube, Facebook, Spotify, Vimeo, Linkedin, and Pinterest all gave him the boot. Only Twitter held out, for a very short while, before doing the same.

Alex Jones is, of course, a ludicrous conspiracy theorist who has said all sorts of wild and inflammatory things, such as the Sandy Hook massacre was a hoax and something about gay frogs. But it’s not hard to find plenty on the left who have committed all sorts of similar “crimes.” But should tech companies really be deciding who can speak in the modern equivalent of the public square?

Progressives will respond, of course, that the First Amendment does not apply to multibillion-dollar, multinational quasi-monopolistic corporate conglomerates. Private companies can do and say what they want (as long as they are multibillion-dollar corporate conglomerates and not Ma and Pa bakeries that gross a few hundred thousand dollars a year, of course).

Obviously, this seems rather suspect. Can the gas company turn off your gas because they don’t like what you say? Furthermore, such arbitrary bannings should move Facebook, Twitter, and the like into the sphere of publishers instead of platforms. And publishers are held liable for everything posted on their sites.

And yes, arbitrary. Look at all the fake news floating around these days. You could start with the New York Times, which printed Judith Miller’s completely discredited claims of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, pushed the Duke Lacrosse rape hoax harder than anyone, repeated the “hands up, don’t shoot” lie and had a correspondent who ran cover for Stalin while he was committing genocide against the Ukrainians.

Or how about Rolling Stone, which without a hint of self-awareness lobbied against the spectre of fake news despite pushing the most blatant hoax in recent memory. Then, of course, there’s CNN, which the Daily Caller has just put together a “sight to behold” of 20 recent fake news stories and retractions by that outlet. Examples include falsely claiming Anthony Scaramucci was under investigation for ties to Russia and that Comey would contradict Trump about whether the President was being investigated.

Or we could move outside the “respectable” outlets on the left and ask why Louise Mensch still has a Twitter account if fake news is a problem. This is the woman who claimed Putin had Andrew Breitbart killed to install Steve Bannon at Breitbart.com and that Trump was being replaced by Senator Orrin Hatch, all of which turned out to be just regurgitated nonsense from a hoaxer feeding her fake news.

Or you could peruse the quality of content from the likes of EveryDayFeminism.com, TheRoot.com or Marxist.com and ask why they are allowed to stay.

Furthermore, if it’s about “violating the terms of service,” one must ask why virtually every Antifa account remains unmolested. Just peruse through Far Left Watch’s Twitter feed to see the wonderful things those on the far Left have been saying. Some blue checkmark examples include Vegan Wizard saying pithily “Kill Donald Trump” and Greater Seattle GDC pushing to dox ICE agents.

If you look through the Wikipedia list of people Twitter has suspended or banned, many are extremists and Nazis. Although it should be noted that both Richard Spencer and David Duke still have their Twitter accounts. And of course the anti-white, anti-male nutjob Sarah Jeong, who was recently hired as an editor for the New York Times, has hers (along with that coveted blue checkmark). It would seem like Spencer’s and Duke’s extreme rhetoric is a turn off to most people and they therefore don’t need to be silenced. Instead, relatively mainstream conservatives such as Gavin McInnes has his Twitter removed and Candace Owens has hers temporarily suspended for a blatantly satirical tweet. On the other hand, the number of communists Wikipedia notes as having been banned: zero.

Twitter has also been routinely accused of “shadow banning,” which means not showing controversial users’ tweets in their followers feeds or on hashtags. This was deemed a “conspiracy theory” until Twitter admitted it while simultaneously denying it by changing the meaning of the term, saying,

“We do not shadow ban. You are always able to see the tweets from accounts you follow (although you may have to do more work to find them, like go directly to their profile).”

“I didn’t rob you, I just took your stuff without permission.”

Twitter eventually admitted to “unfairly filtering” 600,000 accounts, including several Republican candidates! They say they’ve fixed that now. Or perhaps they’re afraid of government regulation and are pulling back now that the pressure is on.

And let’s not forget that James O’Keefe caught Twitter employees on camera admitted they censor conservative accounts.

Facebook has also banned a lot of prominent conservatives, including the popular Diamond and Silk (although they reinstated them after the pushback when it was determined to be an “enforcement error”). In mid-February, Facebook implemented a new “trusted sources” algorithm. A study by Western Journal found that afterward, liberal websites increased their traffic by two percent while conservative sites saw theirs plummet by 14 percent.

And then there’s Google. It would be hard to imagine that the company that fired James Damore for releasing an internal memo stating the scientific consensus’ on gender differences could be unbiased. And, of course, they aren’t.

Damore’s lawsuit itself (which was thrown out) had some pretty wild claims. For example, that Google maintains a blacklist of conservative personalities not allowed on company grounds and that white males are booed at company meetings. And while not all of this provable, we do know that Google will celebrate some obscure, Osama Bin Laden-apologizing Marxist with its doodles while all but ignoring Memorial Day.

Just type some political event or figure into Google and see what happens. I just typed in “Brett Kavanaugh” into Google and the first three results at the top bar were CNN, the NYT and The Hill; two leftwing, one center right. The three videos were MSNBC, the Guardian and Fox News; two left, one right. The articles on the first page other than Wikipedia were CNN, The Nation, Esquire, the Washington Post, Business Insider, CNN again, the NYT again and Slate. That’s seven leftwing sources, one center and one entertainment site. Very balanced.

Not surprisingly, a research report by Leo Goldstein found that “Google’s search functionality ‘is found to be biased in favor of left/liberal domains,’ and ‘against conservative domains’ with what he calls a confidence of 95 percent” and an analysis by CanIRank.com found that “50 recent searches for political terms on Google surfaced more liberal leaning webpages than conservative ones, as rated by a panel of four people.” Google’s fact-checking feature also appears to only target conservative sites. And it should also be remembered that it appears Google was manipulating the auto complete feature during the 2016 election to benefit Hillary Clinton, although Google denied this.

Many of these tech companies are becoming something of a government of the Internet akin to the way The East India company governed India until the Sepoy Rebellion. I’m generally not a fan of government regulation, but the risk of turning the Internet over to unaccountable tech companies all but ensures a one-party state. Something needs to be done.

It’s truly incredible at this point that anyone could deny the tech giants are discriminating against conservatives to an almost comical extent. Yet, may on the left still do. Of course, they do this while simultaneously demanding that tech companies actually do ban speech, which is always defined (by them) as “hate speech.” A very interesting approach, to say nothing else.

In some cases, this is too obvious to deny. Alex Jones was basically kicked off the entirety of social media in one day in what seemed to be a fairly obvious case of collusion. YouTube, Facebook, Spotify, Vimeo, Linkedin, and Pinterest all gave him the boot. Only Twitter held out, for a very short while, before doing the same.

Alex Jones is, of course, a ludicrous conspiracy theorist who has said all sorts of wild and inflammatory things, such as the Sandy Hook massacre was a hoax and something about gay frogs. But it’s not hard to find plenty on the left who have committed all sorts of similar “crimes.” But should tech companies really be deciding who can speak in the modern equivalent of the public square?

Progressives will respond, of course, that the First Amendment does not apply to multibillion-dollar, multinational quasi-monopolistic corporate conglomerates. Private companies can do and say what they want (as long as they are multibillion-dollar corporate conglomerates and not Ma and Pa bakeries that gross a few hundred thousand dollars a year, of course).

Obviously, this seems rather suspect. Can the gas company turn off your gas because they don’t like what you say? Furthermore, such arbitrary bannings should move Facebook, Twitter, and the like into the sphere of publishers instead of platforms. And publishers are held liable for everything posted on their sites.

And yes, arbitrary. Look at all the fake news floating around these days. You could start with the New York Times, which printed Judith Miller’s completely discredited claims of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, pushed the Duke Lacrosse rape hoax harder than anyone, repeated the “hands up, don’t shoot” lie and had a correspondent who ran cover for Stalin while he was committing genocide against the Ukrainians.

Or how about Rolling Stone, which without a hint of self-awareness lobbied against the spectre of fake news despite pushing the most blatant hoax in recent memory. Then, of course, there’s CNN, which the Daily Caller has just put together a “sight to behold” of 20 recent fake news stories and retractions by that outlet. Examples include falsely claiming Anthony Scaramucci was under investigation for ties to Russia and that Comey would contradict Trump about whether the President was being investigated.

Or we could move outside the “respectable” outlets on the left and ask why Louise Mensch still has a Twitter account if fake news is a problem. This is the woman who claimed Putin had Andrew Breitbart killed to install Steve Bannon at Breitbart.com and that Trump was being replaced by Senator Orrin Hatch, all of which turned out to be just regurgitated nonsense from a hoaxer feeding her fake news.

Or you could peruse the quality of content from the likes of EveryDayFeminism.com, TheRoot.com or Marxist.com and ask why they are allowed to stay.

Furthermore, if it’s about “violating the terms of service,” one must ask why virtually every Antifa account remains unmolested. Just peruse through Far Left Watch’s Twitter feed to see the wonderful things those on the far Left have been saying. Some blue checkmark examples include Vegan Wizard saying pithily “Kill Donald Trump” and Greater Seattle GDC pushing to dox ICE agents.

If you look through the Wikipedia list of people Twitter has suspended or banned, many are extremists and Nazis. Although it should be noted that both Richard Spencer and David Duke still have their Twitter accounts. And of course the anti-white, anti-male nutjob Sarah Jeong, who was recently hired as an editor for the New York Times, has hers (along with that coveted blue checkmark). It would seem like Spencer’s and Duke’s extreme rhetoric is a turn off to most people and they therefore don’t need to be silenced. Instead, relatively mainstream conservatives such as Gavin McInnes has his Twitter removed and Candace Owens has hers temporarily suspended for a blatantly satirical tweet. On the other hand, the number of communists Wikipedia notes as having been banned: zero.

Twitter has also been routinely accused of “shadow banning,” which means not showing controversial users’ tweets in their followers feeds or on hashtags. This was deemed a “conspiracy theory” until Twitter admitted it while simultaneously denying it by changing the meaning of the term, saying,

“We do not shadow ban. You are always able to see the tweets from accounts you follow (although you may have to do more work to find them, like go directly to their profile).”

“I didn’t rob you, I just took your stuff without permission.”

Twitter eventually admitted to “unfairly filtering” 600,000 accounts, including several Republican candidates! They say they’ve fixed that now. Or perhaps they’re afraid of government regulation and are pulling back now that the pressure is on.

And let’s not forget that James O’Keefe caught Twitter employees on camera admitted they censor conservative accounts.

Facebook has also banned a lot of prominent conservatives, including the popular Diamond and Silk (although they reinstated them after the pushback when it was determined to be an “enforcement error”). In mid-February, Facebook implemented a new “trusted sources” algorithm. A study by Western Journal found that afterward, liberal websites increased their traffic by two percent while conservative sites saw theirs plummet by 14 percent.

And then there’s Google. It would be hard to imagine that the company that fired James Damore for releasing an internal memo stating the scientific consensus’ on gender differences could be unbiased. And, of course, they aren’t.

Damore’s lawsuit itself (which was thrown out) had some pretty wild claims. For example, that Google maintains a blacklist of conservative personalities not allowed on company grounds and that white males are booed at company meetings. And while not all of this provable, we do know that Google will celebrate some obscure, Osama Bin Laden-apologizing Marxist with its doodles while all but ignoring Memorial Day.

Just type some political event or figure into Google and see what happens. I just typed in “Brett Kavanaugh” into Google and the first three results at the top bar were CNN, the NYT and The Hill; two leftwing, one center right. The three videos were MSNBC, the Guardian and Fox News; two left, one right. The articles on the first page other than Wikipedia were CNN, The Nation, Esquire, the Washington Post, Business Insider, CNN again, the NYT again and Slate. That’s seven leftwing sources, one center and one entertainment site. Very balanced.

Not surprisingly, a research report by Leo Goldstein found that “Google’s search functionality ‘is found to be biased in favor of left/liberal domains,’ and ‘against conservative domains’ with what he calls a confidence of 95 percent” and an analysis by CanIRank.com found that “50 recent searches for political terms on Google surfaced more liberal leaning webpages than conservative ones, as rated by a panel of four people.” Google’s fact-checking feature also appears to only target conservative sites. And it should also be remembered that it appears Google was manipulating the auto complete feature during the 2016 election to benefit Hillary Clinton, although Google denied this.

Many of these tech companies are becoming something of a government of the Internet akin to the way The East India company governed India until the Sepoy Rebellion. I’m generally not a fan of government regulation, but the risk of turning the Internet over to unaccountable tech companies all but ensures a one-party state. Something needs to be done.



Source link

209056.png

David French Contradicts Himself


National Review’s David French penned an article in which he calls on the New York Times op-ed author, Anonymous, to reveal himself and present evidence that the nation’s security is at stake, the president is unhinged, and the minions in his administration are concerned.  “[I]f you truly believe the president is unfit, basic patriotism demands nothing less” than Anonymous show the courage to come forward and present his case, under oath with evidence before the American people, who have a right to know. 

I used to admire David French — ex-military, an accomplished attorney, a prolific contributor to National Review, a pundit extraordinaire.  But his article starts out with the admonition “For the good of the nation, you must identify yourself and back up your claims about the president with hard evidence.”  Throughout the article, French repeatedly demands that Anonymous present the evidence for his or her claims.  Evidence, evidence, evidence!  I couldn’t agree more.

For such a diehard #NeverTrumper as Mr. French, I cannot help but wonder if deep down he actually hopes Anonymous complies.  It certainly would vindicate the #NeverTrumpers and their compatriots on the left.  And, I say this, fully acknowledging that he does include in his article room for doubt, questioning whether there is “real fire behind all this smoke” and covering his behind with the acknowledgement that Anonymous’s claims just might not be truthful. 

But here is where David French contradicts himself and loses the reader as well as credibility as the brilliant legal mind he is supposed to be.

There is a lot of talk about the kind of behavior that’s “priced in” with Trump. Aside from the cultists, millions of voters cast their ballots knowing that he was a flawed man. They knew, and still know, that he’s cheated on his wife. They wished, and still wish, that he wouldn’t rage on Twitter, that he showed more self-discipline, and that he had more integrity. But they preferred him to Hillary Clinton, another corrupt candidate.  [Emphasis added.]

For someone repeatedly calling for the outing of those subverting the Trump Agenda as well as evidence of Trump’s insanity and the chaos in the White House — all in the name of patriotism — he puts in this gem that we all know Trump cheated on his wife. Curious. 

Maybe he believes if he says it enough, his readers will accept its veracity.  It’s a classic litigator’s technique — you state things you intend to prove in a case as facts in your opening and closing statements, in your briefs to the court — counsel will refer to his client as John, the kind-hearted family man who is devoted to his wife and attends church religiously, whereas opposing counsel will refer to him as the accused, a cold-blooded sociopath who murdered his family. Attorneys will consistently refer to the evidence they introduce as actual, indisputable facts that corroborate their version of the case, knowing that the evidence will, in the end, be judged by the triers-of-fact whether jury or judge. I cannot help but wonder if that’s what French is doing here.

Or… did I miss something in the news?  I know the left and other Trump haters are convinced of Trump’s infidelities based on accusations by the porn star and the playboy bunny (you see?  I intentionally did not humanize them with names).  His payoffs to them further corroborate in their minds, his guilt.  But like all the other male victims of #metoo who have been forced out of positions of power, have lost their livelihoods and reputations simply based on the unsubstantiated accusations of myriad women (who, by the way, do a disservice to women who have actually and provably been sexually harassed, recipients of unwanted sexual advancements, lewd behavior in the office, sexual assault or rape), where’s the evidence that Trump actually cheated on his wife? 

You know, David, all I have to do is place myself in a room with you at some time, engage you in conversation, maybe even have a drink with you outside of whatever event it is we attend together, maybe even cultivate a business friendship with you, and then hurl an accusation that you made advances on me or slept with me in my apartment, late one night without any more specificity, without any witnesses or cameras.  And then someone supposedly objective and legally consistent could pen an article about you and conclude — in the absence of concrete evidence whether beyond all reasonable doubt in a criminal matter or by a preponderance of evidence in a civil matter — that we all know you “cheated on your wife.”  If you are unpleasant enough in personality or disliked enough in your profession, it could make for an easy fall from grace, regardless of your guilt or innocence.  Thus, “you too” could lose your job, reputation, and maybe even your marriage if you have one. 

Right now, women hold incredible power without having to meet the legal standards for proof.  The He Said/She Said stalemate of yesterday, has become the She Said checkmate today.   The requirements for proof have to be applied consistently whether the accused is Charlie Rose, Leslie Moonves, Ryan Seacrest, or, I’m sorry to say, David, yes, Donald Trump, too. 

You ask Anonymous to “Name yourself.  Let America test your claims.”

Well, let us test your claims:  please enlighten us with the proof we all apparently have that President Trump cheated on his wife, because I, for one, am clueless.

If the proof is there, that will be priced in when he next runs for office — by cultists and supporters alike.  Or, maybe they’ll be swayed by the lessons from the Clinton years that what a President does in the bedroom has no bearing on his performance in the Oval Office.  

Regardless, French should take a hard look in the mirror because, when it comes to evidentiary proof regarding President Trump’s behavior, he appears to have more in common with Anonymous than he might like to admit.

National Review’s David French penned an article in which he calls on the New York Times op-ed author, Anonymous, to reveal himself and present evidence that the nation’s security is at stake, the president is unhinged, and the minions in his administration are concerned.  “[I]f you truly believe the president is unfit, basic patriotism demands nothing less” than Anonymous show the courage to come forward and present his case, under oath with evidence before the American people, who have a right to know. 

I used to admire David French — ex-military, an accomplished attorney, a prolific contributor to National Review, a pundit extraordinaire.  But his article starts out with the admonition “For the good of the nation, you must identify yourself and back up your claims about the president with hard evidence.”  Throughout the article, French repeatedly demands that Anonymous present the evidence for his or her claims.  Evidence, evidence, evidence!  I couldn’t agree more.

For such a diehard #NeverTrumper as Mr. French, I cannot help but wonder if deep down he actually hopes Anonymous complies.  It certainly would vindicate the #NeverTrumpers and their compatriots on the left.  And, I say this, fully acknowledging that he does include in his article room for doubt, questioning whether there is “real fire behind all this smoke” and covering his behind with the acknowledgement that Anonymous’s claims just might not be truthful. 

But here is where David French contradicts himself and loses the reader as well as credibility as the brilliant legal mind he is supposed to be.

There is a lot of talk about the kind of behavior that’s “priced in” with Trump. Aside from the cultists, millions of voters cast their ballots knowing that he was a flawed man. They knew, and still know, that he’s cheated on his wife. They wished, and still wish, that he wouldn’t rage on Twitter, that he showed more self-discipline, and that he had more integrity. But they preferred him to Hillary Clinton, another corrupt candidate.  [Emphasis added.]

For someone repeatedly calling for the outing of those subverting the Trump Agenda as well as evidence of Trump’s insanity and the chaos in the White House — all in the name of patriotism — he puts in this gem that we all know Trump cheated on his wife. Curious. 

Maybe he believes if he says it enough, his readers will accept its veracity.  It’s a classic litigator’s technique — you state things you intend to prove in a case as facts in your opening and closing statements, in your briefs to the court — counsel will refer to his client as John, the kind-hearted family man who is devoted to his wife and attends church religiously, whereas opposing counsel will refer to him as the accused, a cold-blooded sociopath who murdered his family. Attorneys will consistently refer to the evidence they introduce as actual, indisputable facts that corroborate their version of the case, knowing that the evidence will, in the end, be judged by the triers-of-fact whether jury or judge. I cannot help but wonder if that’s what French is doing here.

Or… did I miss something in the news?  I know the left and other Trump haters are convinced of Trump’s infidelities based on accusations by the porn star and the playboy bunny (you see?  I intentionally did not humanize them with names).  His payoffs to them further corroborate in their minds, his guilt.  But like all the other male victims of #metoo who have been forced out of positions of power, have lost their livelihoods and reputations simply based on the unsubstantiated accusations of myriad women (who, by the way, do a disservice to women who have actually and provably been sexually harassed, recipients of unwanted sexual advancements, lewd behavior in the office, sexual assault or rape), where’s the evidence that Trump actually cheated on his wife? 

You know, David, all I have to do is place myself in a room with you at some time, engage you in conversation, maybe even have a drink with you outside of whatever event it is we attend together, maybe even cultivate a business friendship with you, and then hurl an accusation that you made advances on me or slept with me in my apartment, late one night without any more specificity, without any witnesses or cameras.  And then someone supposedly objective and legally consistent could pen an article about you and conclude — in the absence of concrete evidence whether beyond all reasonable doubt in a criminal matter or by a preponderance of evidence in a civil matter — that we all know you “cheated on your wife.”  If you are unpleasant enough in personality or disliked enough in your profession, it could make for an easy fall from grace, regardless of your guilt or innocence.  Thus, “you too” could lose your job, reputation, and maybe even your marriage if you have one. 

Right now, women hold incredible power without having to meet the legal standards for proof.  The He Said/She Said stalemate of yesterday, has become the She Said checkmate today.   The requirements for proof have to be applied consistently whether the accused is Charlie Rose, Leslie Moonves, Ryan Seacrest, or, I’m sorry to say, David, yes, Donald Trump, too. 

You ask Anonymous to “Name yourself.  Let America test your claims.”

Well, let us test your claims:  please enlighten us with the proof we all apparently have that President Trump cheated on his wife, because I, for one, am clueless.

If the proof is there, that will be priced in when he next runs for office — by cultists and supporters alike.  Or, maybe they’ll be swayed by the lessons from the Clinton years that what a President does in the bedroom has no bearing on his performance in the Oval Office.  

Regardless, French should take a hard look in the mirror because, when it comes to evidentiary proof regarding President Trump’s behavior, he appears to have more in common with Anonymous than he might like to admit.



Source link

208118.png

Iran's Shaky Foundations


Current U.S. 5th Fleet exercises designed to ensure freedom of navigation in the Persian Gulf and Red Sea are a welcome sight.

The Islamic Republic of Iran has spent years extending its claims across the Middle East, the Persian Gulf, and the Red Sea. It has sponsored wars and militias in Iraq, Syria, Yemen plus terror organizations in Lebanon and the Gaza Strip, along with farther-flung activities in Africa and South America. That, plus its huffing and puffing, have made the mullahs look ten feet tall.

  • Iran claims to have designed and built a new jet fighter plane.
  • It  claims security control of the Persian Gulf and Strait of Hormuz and threatens to block oil exports from other countries if Iran is constrained by sanctions. Iran has ordered the U.S. Navy out of the Gulf.
  • It announced a military pact with Syria that it claims will give it access to all of Syrian territory.

But the regime is on shaky ground.

  • The “jet fighter plane” in the Iranian video is a 1950s-era American F-5F.
  • The United States Navy is in, and will remain in, the Gulf, and, in fact, the last Iranian harassment of U.S. Navy ships was in mid-2017, after the Navy received orders to respond to unsafe Iranian activity around American ships.
  • The military pact appears mainly a way for Iran to try to recoup its multibillion-dollar losses in Syria by claiming contracts for reconstruction when the war ends. It isn’t clear who the Iranians think will actually pay for reconstruction.
  • And, pact or no pact, Israel is maintaining red lines preventing an Iranian military buildup. Israel has acknowledged some 200 raids into Syria.

Internally, the country faces social and religious rebellion, drought and water mismanagement, and economic instability. This is partially related to the government’s exorbitant expenditures on revolution and terror abroad; it is also related to the increased ability of the Iranian people to know what is outside their borders.

All of this makes the Islamic Republic more, not less, dangerous.

The Iranian government understood it would receive a windfall from the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA — the “Iran deal”). It received billions in cash, plus Western investment as sanctions were lifted. But more money simply meant more for weapons and a Shiite mercenary army in Syria; more for Hezb’allah and Hamas; more for the Shiite militias in Iraq; more agents plotting terror in Europe and the U.S. 

Now the cash is gone, and the promise of Western investment is going. Facing the re-imposition of sanctions by the U.S. administration, Total, Maersk, Peugeot, GE, Honeywell, Boeing, Lukoil, Reliance, Dover, and Siemens — among others —  have left or announced they will leave. The expenses, however, remain. Syria costs $15-20 billion annually, more than Iran’s budget deficit of $9.3 billion last year. Prof. Steve Hanke of Johns Hopkins University measured Iran’s annual inflation rate in late August at 191 percent and rising.

Iran is, in fact, a poor and angry country. And a dry one.

Iran faces a terrible combination of drought and water mismanagement. An Atlantic Council report noted that over 90% of Iran’s water is used in agriculture but “the sector’s efficiency rate was 35%” while the global efficiency rate is 75%. The problem is exacerbated by irrigating during the day and the failure of the government to repair water infrastructure. There are reports of cities without water or taps that run brown. Iranian authorities admitted that at least 13 people were injured in water protests in Khorramshahr.

Technology could help, but Iran can’t/won’t use the best water technology out there — Israel’s. On the contrary — the Iranian government blamed Israel for stealing Iran’s rain. But the people know what’s up. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s YouTube video announcing a Farsi language website to help Iranians learn from Israeli water technology is a whopping success. More than 100,000 Iranians joined the Israeli government’s Telegram account in the first 24 hours.

The willingness of the Iranian people to go to an Israeli site is evidence of the widening divide between the government and the people. “Not for Gaza, not for Syria; my life only for Iran,” is a chant at anti-government demonstrations. “Death to Hamas; death to Hezb’allah,” is another. On September 11, 2018, hundreds — or more — Iranians marched with candles to commemorate the American losses.

Next door, Iraqi Shiites in the southern provinces have been demonstrating against their government for a lack of jobs and services, and against the Iranian presence in their country. They may all be Shiites, but Iraqis are Arab and Iranians are Persian, and a level of historic animosity may be coming to the surface.

Iran’s response has been ever more repression. Minorities, particularly Christians, have suffered, but three Kurdish activists were executed this week, despite pleas from Amnesty International and the UN. Prominent human-rights activist Nasrin Sotoudeh sits in the infamous Evin Prison. Twenty-nine women arrested for removing their headscarves have received sentences between two and 20 years, but more are doing it every week. Women have been arrested for dancing as well. Threats don’t appear to have stopped the individual acts of rebellion that accompany larger-scale taxi, truck driver, port worker, farmer, and other protests.

Wild animals become more dangerous as their situation deteriorates. Countries do as well.

Current U.S. 5th Fleet exercises designed to ensure freedom of navigation in the Persian Gulf and Red Sea are a welcome sight.

The Islamic Republic of Iran has spent years extending its claims across the Middle East, the Persian Gulf, and the Red Sea. It has sponsored wars and militias in Iraq, Syria, Yemen plus terror organizations in Lebanon and the Gaza Strip, along with farther-flung activities in Africa and South America. That, plus its huffing and puffing, have made the mullahs look ten feet tall.

  • Iran claims to have designed and built a new jet fighter plane.
  • It  claims security control of the Persian Gulf and Strait of Hormuz and threatens to block oil exports from other countries if Iran is constrained by sanctions. Iran has ordered the U.S. Navy out of the Gulf.
  • It announced a military pact with Syria that it claims will give it access to all of Syrian territory.

But the regime is on shaky ground.

  • The “jet fighter plane” in the Iranian video is a 1950s-era American F-5F.
  • The United States Navy is in, and will remain in, the Gulf, and, in fact, the last Iranian harassment of U.S. Navy ships was in mid-2017, after the Navy received orders to respond to unsafe Iranian activity around American ships.
  • The military pact appears mainly a way for Iran to try to recoup its multibillion-dollar losses in Syria by claiming contracts for reconstruction when the war ends. It isn’t clear who the Iranians think will actually pay for reconstruction.
  • And, pact or no pact, Israel is maintaining red lines preventing an Iranian military buildup. Israel has acknowledged some 200 raids into Syria.

Internally, the country faces social and religious rebellion, drought and water mismanagement, and economic instability. This is partially related to the government’s exorbitant expenditures on revolution and terror abroad; it is also related to the increased ability of the Iranian people to know what is outside their borders.

All of this makes the Islamic Republic more, not less, dangerous.

The Iranian government understood it would receive a windfall from the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA — the “Iran deal”). It received billions in cash, plus Western investment as sanctions were lifted. But more money simply meant more for weapons and a Shiite mercenary army in Syria; more for Hezb’allah and Hamas; more for the Shiite militias in Iraq; more agents plotting terror in Europe and the U.S. 

Now the cash is gone, and the promise of Western investment is going. Facing the re-imposition of sanctions by the U.S. administration, Total, Maersk, Peugeot, GE, Honeywell, Boeing, Lukoil, Reliance, Dover, and Siemens — among others —  have left or announced they will leave. The expenses, however, remain. Syria costs $15-20 billion annually, more than Iran’s budget deficit of $9.3 billion last year. Prof. Steve Hanke of Johns Hopkins University measured Iran’s annual inflation rate in late August at 191 percent and rising.

Iran is, in fact, a poor and angry country. And a dry one.

Iran faces a terrible combination of drought and water mismanagement. An Atlantic Council report noted that over 90% of Iran’s water is used in agriculture but “the sector’s efficiency rate was 35%” while the global efficiency rate is 75%. The problem is exacerbated by irrigating during the day and the failure of the government to repair water infrastructure. There are reports of cities without water or taps that run brown. Iranian authorities admitted that at least 13 people were injured in water protests in Khorramshahr.

Technology could help, but Iran can’t/won’t use the best water technology out there — Israel’s. On the contrary — the Iranian government blamed Israel for stealing Iran’s rain. But the people know what’s up. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s YouTube video announcing a Farsi language website to help Iranians learn from Israeli water technology is a whopping success. More than 100,000 Iranians joined the Israeli government’s Telegram account in the first 24 hours.

The willingness of the Iranian people to go to an Israeli site is evidence of the widening divide between the government and the people. “Not for Gaza, not for Syria; my life only for Iran,” is a chant at anti-government demonstrations. “Death to Hamas; death to Hezb’allah,” is another. On September 11, 2018, hundreds — or more — Iranians marched with candles to commemorate the American losses.

Next door, Iraqi Shiites in the southern provinces have been demonstrating against their government for a lack of jobs and services, and against the Iranian presence in their country. They may all be Shiites, but Iraqis are Arab and Iranians are Persian, and a level of historic animosity may be coming to the surface.

Iran’s response has been ever more repression. Minorities, particularly Christians, have suffered, but three Kurdish activists were executed this week, despite pleas from Amnesty International and the UN. Prominent human-rights activist Nasrin Sotoudeh sits in the infamous Evin Prison. Twenty-nine women arrested for removing their headscarves have received sentences between two and 20 years, but more are doing it every week. Women have been arrested for dancing as well. Threats don’t appear to have stopped the individual acts of rebellion that accompany larger-scale taxi, truck driver, port worker, farmer, and other protests.

Wild animals become more dangerous as their situation deteriorates. Countries do as well.



Source link

209012.jpg

Christians Who Oppose Conversion Therapy Need a Reality Check


Do you agree with the Anglican church’s ban on conversion therapy?

Yes or no.

Here’s why this question is urgent.  Butterfield, Allberry, and Perry are currently superstars in the world of Protestant Christianity, constantly summoned to discuss issues of sexuality in the church.  They all had experience with same-sex attraction.  They all say they believe in Christ.

And they all attack conversion therapy.  According to her profile on Alchetron, Rosaria Butterfield believes the following:

She does not identify herself as “ex-gay” and does not think any Christians should identify themselves as “gay Christians.”  She notes that “[t]he job of the adjective is to change the noun.”  Butterfield has criticized conversion therapy for contending that the “primary goal of Christianity is to resolve homosexuality through heterosexuality, thus failing to see that repentance and victory over sin are God’s gifts and failing to remember that sons and daughters of the King can be full members of Christ’s body and still struggle with sexual temptation.”  Butterfield suggests this is a version of the prosperity gospel.

The Alchetron page classes Butterfield with Matthew Vines and Alan Chambers.  What a club.

Sam Allberry’s group in London, Living Out, makes similar swipes at conversion therapy, though the prose below is actually attributed to Sean Doherty:

Why we do not support the idea of ‘gay cure’


1) Homosexuality is not an illness.  But using the language of ‘cure’ makes it sound like it is, which could be very damaging to vulnerable people (such as a young person coming to terms with their sexuality), making them feel ashamed of who they are at a very deep and fundamental level, and perhaps in some cases even contributing to suicidal feelings.  Thankfully, we are not aware of any organisations in the UK which do support the idea of a ‘gay cure’.  Our belief is that all of us have fallen sexual desires (whether heterosexual or homosexual), and that what we need isn’t more heterosexuality or less homosexuality, but the holiness found in Jesus Christ.

Lastly, Jackie Hill Perry has come forward with a statement entitled “Don’t Preach a Heterosexual Gospel,” which also blasts the notion of conversion therapy:

Perry, who used to be a lesbian but is now married to a man and has two daughters, warns that the “heterosexual gospel” is problematic because it “tends to put more emphasis on marriage as the goal of the Christian life than on knowing Jesus.”


“What the gay community needs to hear is not that God will make them straight, but that Christ can make them his,” she continues.


“Someone trying to pursue heterosexuality and not Christ is just as far from a right standing with God as someone actively pursuing homosexuality.  They have put their faith in a new ‘orientation’ rather than in knowing the living God.”

Unfortunately, all three of them arrogate to themselves the right to speak for “same-sex-attracted” Christians.  They do not speak for me.  In fact, I doubt that they speak for almost anybody.

People who see themselves as gay, and who do not want to become straight, exist in a social world different from mine.  They have both Vines and Chambers as go-to people to emulate.  Neither Vines nor Chambers will tell them that sodomy itself poses any problem at all.

But let us think through who these gay affirmers are and what they want to hear.  They do not want Allberry’s tortured celibacy.  Nor do they want Butterfield and Perry to exhaust them with long filibusters about how their identity is sinful but they have no hope of ever becoming straight, either.  People who see themselves as gay and who do not want to become straight generally want to be “gay Christians.” They want to hear about how they can walk with Jesus Christ while still having gay relationships, period.  They will not generally be fans of Allberry, Butterfield, or Perry.

So Allberry, Butterfield, and Perry’s popularity comes largely because straight Christians like to hear them talk about how they dealt with their homosexuality.  It makes straight Christians feel tolerant for giving them platforms.  Straight Christians imagine that gay people will respond positively to their message and will not reject the Christian position on sexuality as hateful.

People in the gay community who like being gay do not need their message since many churches are already okay with active, practicing homosexuals.  If gay people have a problem with their sexual orientation and want to change, they will likely want to cease homosexual behavior and be freed of homosexual thoughts and identity.  Allberry, Butterfield, and Perry denounce homosexual acts while claiming that it is equally wrong for them to engage in heterosexuality.

(It is not equally wrong, or wrong at all, for someone struggling with homosexuality to seek self-modification in hopes of getting married – again, to a member of the opposite sex, with whom alone marriage is possible.)

Butterfield and Perry, both of whom are married and raising children, come across as particularly annoying in that regard.  They tell gay people that it’s somehow ungodly for them to want the same godly life – marriage, parenthood – that both Butterfield and Perry have.

Another group of people has struggled with homosexuality and knows that it is a sin incompatible with Christianity.  Similarly in this position are people like Stephen Black, Daren Mehl, myself, and the people who follow David Pickup or Restored Hope Network.  

I won’t try to speak for others, but I can speak for where I am.  I find the rhetoric of Allberry, Butterfield, and Perry tiresome and callous.  Their reasons for rejecting conversion to heterosexuality feel muddled yet judgmental.  And terribly wrong.  Jesus Christ said faith can move mountains.  Jesus Christ also tells a parable about a persistent widow winning over a judge, as an exhortation to continue seeking the good things in life rather than surrender to discouragement.  Jesus consistently advises His believers to ask, so that they shall receive, noting that no father, if his son asked for an egg, would give him a snake.

Yes, many people claim to have failed at going from gay to straight, just as many obese people decide that after so much dieting and exercise, they will never lose weight.  Jesus Christ shares the powerful message that with faith, hope, and love, such great things do happen.  They have happened in my life.  Rosaria Butterfield has no place to tell me faith can’t make me straight.

The Apostle Paul said faith, hope, and love are the most enduring of all human feelings.  Allberry, Butterfield, and Perry suffocate all three.  They deny the power of people’s faith to heal themselves and live in obedience to God, largely because they assume too much when they predict that people’s attempts to change toward heterosexuality will necessarily fail.  They stifle people’s hope by telling them, falsely, that God will not answer their prayers if they pray for something godly and fair.  And they place stumbling blocks before people so they cannot feel love in the way God intended it, including the beauty of love for the opposite sex in all its splendor.

Also, they use straw man fallacies.  They say they oppose conversion therapy because other Christians who support it supposedly engage in bad doctrine. In truth they err in doctrine and the Christians they criticize speak righteously.  Hence, the Living Out statement accuses conversion therapy of harming young people, as if such young people do not already know, in many cases, that something is wrong with homosexuality anyway.

Rosaria Butterfield compares Christians who want to lead heterosexual lives to the widely reviled “prosperity gospel.”  She assumes that for others to have a goal – becoming heterosexual – their goal must necessarily be “the primary goal.” Nobody I know has ever said that Christianity’s primary goal is turning people into heterosexuals.  The parallel to the prosperity gospel is wildly unfair, since poverty is not a sin, but homosexuality is.  Also, heterosexuality is simply a word describing male-female intimacy, which is God’s design as set down in Genesis and upheld by Jesus in Matthew 19 and Mark 10.

Jackie Hill Perry conflates people who want to become heterosexual with people who “want to pursue heterosexuality and not Christ.” If someone is suffering in homosexuality, I bring glory to God by helping him out of it even if the person is not yet ready to confess belief in Christ. My charity may endear them to my God, and their better life may leave them more capable of drawing near to Jesus Christ later.

And what about people who want to pursue heterosexuality and Christ?  By ignoring the existence of such people, she creates an exaggerated extreme to distract people from the real crisis at hand, the crisis that all three of these speakers fail to acknowledge and end up worsening:

The gay movement is trying to ban homosexuals from getting help so they can turn toward heterosexuality.

While a dozen American states, many foreign governments, and the Church of England have banned conversion therapy, no widespread movement exists anywhere to force churches to exalt heterosexuality more than they honor Christ.

So why, when ex-gays are being besieged from all sides, do we have to deal with Allberry, Butterfield, and Perry attacking us, too? By setting themselves up as Christians with same-sex attraction, they can discredit conversion therapy.  The LGBT movement loves that.  The LGBT movement can afford to have three Christian speakers denounce sodomy in Biblical terms if they get three resounding denunciations of conversion therapy.

The LGBT movement wants there to be no conversion therapy, so the maximum number of people stays identified as “gay.”  Such an outcome would give the LGBT movement a huge population base, which translates into massive financial and political power.

But I could rest my doubts about their motives if they could answer one yes-or-no question.  In 2017, the Church of England banned conversion therapy.  Do they support this move?

If yes, then we know where Allberry, Butterfield, and Perry are taking us.  They serve the LGBT community, regardless of what they may claim.  They want gay people to remain identified with that community, even if they may take on some other name like “same sex-attracted.”  They want to block strugglers from identifying as straight so that the gay community can continue to have a large constituency deprived of any exit strategy.

If the answer is no, then I wonder where they have been for all these years.  Ex-gays like Stephen Black have been fighting a lonely battle for conversion therapy.  I have worked hard to help gay men who want to go straight.  It would mean the world to a lot of people if they could get off their high horses and encourage people instead of shooting down hopes and dreams that match God’s promises.  It would also hearten us to see them stand up to gay activists instead of just helping gay activists beat up on God-fearing Christians.

Follow Robert Oscar Lopez at English Manif.  Also, check out his new series at Mass Resistance, called “Save Our Churches.”

To be loving does not mean to be gullible.  Jesus Christ mentions that we will come across dishonest people, especially among those who have prestige (or are seeking it).  We should love people, but that does not mean we should let them take advantage of us.  Or fool us.  Or trick us.

In that spirit, I want Rosaria Butterfield, Sam Allberry, and Jackie Hill Perry to answer a simple yes-or-no question.  No long filibustering paragraphs.  No detours into extensive complaints about what other Christians are supposedly doing.  No lifeline block-quotes from Augustine.  Just yes or no.  Here:

Do you agree with the Anglican church’s ban on conversion therapy?

Yes or no.

Here’s why this question is urgent.  Butterfield, Allberry, and Perry are currently superstars in the world of Protestant Christianity, constantly summoned to discuss issues of sexuality in the church.  They all had experience with same-sex attraction.  They all say they believe in Christ.

And they all attack conversion therapy.  According to her profile on Alchetron, Rosaria Butterfield believes the following:

She does not identify herself as “ex-gay” and does not think any Christians should identify themselves as “gay Christians.”  She notes that “[t]he job of the adjective is to change the noun.”  Butterfield has criticized conversion therapy for contending that the “primary goal of Christianity is to resolve homosexuality through heterosexuality, thus failing to see that repentance and victory over sin are God’s gifts and failing to remember that sons and daughters of the King can be full members of Christ’s body and still struggle with sexual temptation.”  Butterfield suggests this is a version of the prosperity gospel.

The Alchetron page classes Butterfield with Matthew Vines and Alan Chambers.  What a club.

Sam Allberry’s group in London, Living Out, makes similar swipes at conversion therapy, though the prose below is actually attributed to Sean Doherty:

Why we do not support the idea of ‘gay cure’


1) Homosexuality is not an illness.  But using the language of ‘cure’ makes it sound like it is, which could be very damaging to vulnerable people (such as a young person coming to terms with their sexuality), making them feel ashamed of who they are at a very deep and fundamental level, and perhaps in some cases even contributing to suicidal feelings.  Thankfully, we are not aware of any organisations in the UK which do support the idea of a ‘gay cure’.  Our belief is that all of us have fallen sexual desires (whether heterosexual or homosexual), and that what we need isn’t more heterosexuality or less homosexuality, but the holiness found in Jesus Christ.

Lastly, Jackie Hill Perry has come forward with a statement entitled “Don’t Preach a Heterosexual Gospel,” which also blasts the notion of conversion therapy:

Perry, who used to be a lesbian but is now married to a man and has two daughters, warns that the “heterosexual gospel” is problematic because it “tends to put more emphasis on marriage as the goal of the Christian life than on knowing Jesus.”


“What the gay community needs to hear is not that God will make them straight, but that Christ can make them his,” she continues.


“Someone trying to pursue heterosexuality and not Christ is just as far from a right standing with God as someone actively pursuing homosexuality.  They have put their faith in a new ‘orientation’ rather than in knowing the living God.”

Unfortunately, all three of them arrogate to themselves the right to speak for “same-sex-attracted” Christians.  They do not speak for me.  In fact, I doubt that they speak for almost anybody.

People who see themselves as gay, and who do not want to become straight, exist in a social world different from mine.  They have both Vines and Chambers as go-to people to emulate.  Neither Vines nor Chambers will tell them that sodomy itself poses any problem at all.

But let us think through who these gay affirmers are and what they want to hear.  They do not want Allberry’s tortured celibacy.  Nor do they want Butterfield and Perry to exhaust them with long filibusters about how their identity is sinful but they have no hope of ever becoming straight, either.  People who see themselves as gay and who do not want to become straight generally want to be “gay Christians.” They want to hear about how they can walk with Jesus Christ while still having gay relationships, period.  They will not generally be fans of Allberry, Butterfield, or Perry.

So Allberry, Butterfield, and Perry’s popularity comes largely because straight Christians like to hear them talk about how they dealt with their homosexuality.  It makes straight Christians feel tolerant for giving them platforms.  Straight Christians imagine that gay people will respond positively to their message and will not reject the Christian position on sexuality as hateful.

People in the gay community who like being gay do not need their message since many churches are already okay with active, practicing homosexuals.  If gay people have a problem with their sexual orientation and want to change, they will likely want to cease homosexual behavior and be freed of homosexual thoughts and identity.  Allberry, Butterfield, and Perry denounce homosexual acts while claiming that it is equally wrong for them to engage in heterosexuality.

(It is not equally wrong, or wrong at all, for someone struggling with homosexuality to seek self-modification in hopes of getting married – again, to a member of the opposite sex, with whom alone marriage is possible.)

Butterfield and Perry, both of whom are married and raising children, come across as particularly annoying in that regard.  They tell gay people that it’s somehow ungodly for them to want the same godly life – marriage, parenthood – that both Butterfield and Perry have.

Another group of people has struggled with homosexuality and knows that it is a sin incompatible with Christianity.  Similarly in this position are people like Stephen Black, Daren Mehl, myself, and the people who follow David Pickup or Restored Hope Network.  

I won’t try to speak for others, but I can speak for where I am.  I find the rhetoric of Allberry, Butterfield, and Perry tiresome and callous.  Their reasons for rejecting conversion to heterosexuality feel muddled yet judgmental.  And terribly wrong.  Jesus Christ said faith can move mountains.  Jesus Christ also tells a parable about a persistent widow winning over a judge, as an exhortation to continue seeking the good things in life rather than surrender to discouragement.  Jesus consistently advises His believers to ask, so that they shall receive, noting that no father, if his son asked for an egg, would give him a snake.

Yes, many people claim to have failed at going from gay to straight, just as many obese people decide that after so much dieting and exercise, they will never lose weight.  Jesus Christ shares the powerful message that with faith, hope, and love, such great things do happen.  They have happened in my life.  Rosaria Butterfield has no place to tell me faith can’t make me straight.

The Apostle Paul said faith, hope, and love are the most enduring of all human feelings.  Allberry, Butterfield, and Perry suffocate all three.  They deny the power of people’s faith to heal themselves and live in obedience to God, largely because they assume too much when they predict that people’s attempts to change toward heterosexuality will necessarily fail.  They stifle people’s hope by telling them, falsely, that God will not answer their prayers if they pray for something godly and fair.  And they place stumbling blocks before people so they cannot feel love in the way God intended it, including the beauty of love for the opposite sex in all its splendor.

Also, they use straw man fallacies.  They say they oppose conversion therapy because other Christians who support it supposedly engage in bad doctrine. In truth they err in doctrine and the Christians they criticize speak righteously.  Hence, the Living Out statement accuses conversion therapy of harming young people, as if such young people do not already know, in many cases, that something is wrong with homosexuality anyway.

Rosaria Butterfield compares Christians who want to lead heterosexual lives to the widely reviled “prosperity gospel.”  She assumes that for others to have a goal – becoming heterosexual – their goal must necessarily be “the primary goal.” Nobody I know has ever said that Christianity’s primary goal is turning people into heterosexuals.  The parallel to the prosperity gospel is wildly unfair, since poverty is not a sin, but homosexuality is.  Also, heterosexuality is simply a word describing male-female intimacy, which is God’s design as set down in Genesis and upheld by Jesus in Matthew 19 and Mark 10.

Jackie Hill Perry conflates people who want to become heterosexual with people who “want to pursue heterosexuality and not Christ.” If someone is suffering in homosexuality, I bring glory to God by helping him out of it even if the person is not yet ready to confess belief in Christ. My charity may endear them to my God, and their better life may leave them more capable of drawing near to Jesus Christ later.

And what about people who want to pursue heterosexuality and Christ?  By ignoring the existence of such people, she creates an exaggerated extreme to distract people from the real crisis at hand, the crisis that all three of these speakers fail to acknowledge and end up worsening:

The gay movement is trying to ban homosexuals from getting help so they can turn toward heterosexuality.

While a dozen American states, many foreign governments, and the Church of England have banned conversion therapy, no widespread movement exists anywhere to force churches to exalt heterosexuality more than they honor Christ.

So why, when ex-gays are being besieged from all sides, do we have to deal with Allberry, Butterfield, and Perry attacking us, too? By setting themselves up as Christians with same-sex attraction, they can discredit conversion therapy.  The LGBT movement loves that.  The LGBT movement can afford to have three Christian speakers denounce sodomy in Biblical terms if they get three resounding denunciations of conversion therapy.

The LGBT movement wants there to be no conversion therapy, so the maximum number of people stays identified as “gay.”  Such an outcome would give the LGBT movement a huge population base, which translates into massive financial and political power.

But I could rest my doubts about their motives if they could answer one yes-or-no question.  In 2017, the Church of England banned conversion therapy.  Do they support this move?

If yes, then we know where Allberry, Butterfield, and Perry are taking us.  They serve the LGBT community, regardless of what they may claim.  They want gay people to remain identified with that community, even if they may take on some other name like “same sex-attracted.”  They want to block strugglers from identifying as straight so that the gay community can continue to have a large constituency deprived of any exit strategy.

If the answer is no, then I wonder where they have been for all these years.  Ex-gays like Stephen Black have been fighting a lonely battle for conversion therapy.  I have worked hard to help gay men who want to go straight.  It would mean the world to a lot of people if they could get off their high horses and encourage people instead of shooting down hopes and dreams that match God’s promises.  It would also hearten us to see them stand up to gay activists instead of just helping gay activists beat up on God-fearing Christians.

Follow Robert Oscar Lopez at English Manif.  Also, check out his new series at Mass Resistance, called “Save Our Churches.”



Source link

209057.png

Obama Attacks Trump


During a speech on September 7th to students at the University of Illinois, former president Barack Obama said, “the politics of division and resentment and paranoia has unfortunately found a home in the Republican Party.” Once more, the Democrats are attempting to get away with their signature political gambit — blaming their opponents for what they themselves have done.

The most successful accomplishment of the Democrats is what author Mark Levin calls the “balkanization” of society, or what Obama himself referred to as “division and resentment and paranoia.” Using their perverted version of “diversity,” the Democratic Party — under the leadership of Obama — fomented division and hatred after promising just the opposite. Instead of making everyone feel they are part of a unified American social structure, the Obama presidency played into the leftist strategy of “divide and conquer.”

The Democrats use diversity to exploit discontented elements in American society and to invalidate the individual. Mark Levin explains:

“It assigns [the individual] a group identity based on race, ethnicity, age, gender, income, etc., to highlight differences within the masses. It then exacerbates old rivalries and disputes or it incites new ones.”

The Left’s objective, Levin says, is to “collapse the existing society” by dividing the people against themselves. Rep. Mo Brooks of Alabama explains diversity in terms of vote getting:

“It’s a part of the Democratic Party’s campaign strategy to divide Americans based on skin pigmentation and to try to collect the votes of everybody who is a non-white.”

When you look behind the curtain, diversity is discriminatory. “Diversity in today’s America,” says Scott Greer in No Campus for White Men, “simply means having fewer whites around.” The left, says author Ben Shapiro, wants to portray America as “an incurable mass of bigoted whites.” The basis for diversity policy is that certain groups are encouraged to identify themselves as victims of white people. According to African-American author Thomas Sowell, people on the Left like to say, “I am a victim. Therefore, if you do not give in to my demands… you are a hate-filled, evil person.”

To progressives, diversity has nothing to do with equality as defined by Dr. Martin Luther King. Instead, they prefer George Orwell’s suggestion that (in a totalitarian society) “some animals are more equal than others.” The left’s version of diversity means that we must give special privileges to certain protected classes of people so they can acquire control over the system at the expense of the majority. I call this the “tyranny of the minority.”

Ironically, where you have obedience to diversity, there is no diversity of thought. People who demand attention to diversity really are against viewpoint diversity, also known as free speech. Diversity means “it is great to look different as long as you think the way I do.” Diversity is completely at odds with American values.

So how dare Obama lecture us about the politics of division? After eight years of the Obama presidency, race relations are worse than ever. Obama’s comments in case after case — lies and distortions — stoked the fires of racial discord and added to the racial divide. This is ironic because so many Americans — black and white — fully expected that the election of a black president would usher in a period of racial accord. No such luck.

In urging his University of Illinois audience to vote Democratic, Obama had the gall to argue that, “Our democracy depends on it.” More hypocrisy from our 44th president. Showing his contempt for the Constitution, Obama did everything he could to expand the power of government at the expense of individual liberty. He strove to “destroy America’s essence,” says American Thinker, “that commitment to liberty that makes her unique in this world.”

Donald Trump, in sharp contrast, cherishes the values that Obama holds in contempt. Trump’s commitment is to the foundational principles of the Constitution. He rejects minority identity politics. He wants to unify the country in its own self-interest. Trump’s objective is to drain the Washington swamp that benefited from Obama’s legion of illegal executive orders.

The final straw in Obama’s speech was his insistence that we need to restore “honesty and decency” in government. Here are his words:

“We do not… use the criminal justice system as a cudgel to punish our political opponents, or to explicitly call on the attorney general to protect members of our own party from prosecution because an election happens to be coming up.”

How can Obama make a statement like that after his administration weaponized the IRS against conservative opponents, and after his attorney general and FBI conspired to protect Hillary Clinton from the justice she so richly deserved? Well, I guess this is what we should expect from the man who promised, “If you like your plan, you can keep your plan.”

Ed Brodow is a political commentator, negotiation expert, and author of seven books including his latest, Tyranny of the Minority: How the Left is Destroying America.

During a speech on September 7th to students at the University of Illinois, former president Barack Obama said, “the politics of division and resentment and paranoia has unfortunately found a home in the Republican Party.” Once more, the Democrats are attempting to get away with their signature political gambit — blaming their opponents for what they themselves have done.

The most successful accomplishment of the Democrats is what author Mark Levin calls the “balkanization” of society, or what Obama himself referred to as “division and resentment and paranoia.” Using their perverted version of “diversity,” the Democratic Party — under the leadership of Obama — fomented division and hatred after promising just the opposite. Instead of making everyone feel they are part of a unified American social structure, the Obama presidency played into the leftist strategy of “divide and conquer.”

The Democrats use diversity to exploit discontented elements in American society and to invalidate the individual. Mark Levin explains:

“It assigns [the individual] a group identity based on race, ethnicity, age, gender, income, etc., to highlight differences within the masses. It then exacerbates old rivalries and disputes or it incites new ones.”

The Left’s objective, Levin says, is to “collapse the existing society” by dividing the people against themselves. Rep. Mo Brooks of Alabama explains diversity in terms of vote getting:

“It’s a part of the Democratic Party’s campaign strategy to divide Americans based on skin pigmentation and to try to collect the votes of everybody who is a non-white.”

When you look behind the curtain, diversity is discriminatory. “Diversity in today’s America,” says Scott Greer in No Campus for White Men, “simply means having fewer whites around.” The left, says author Ben Shapiro, wants to portray America as “an incurable mass of bigoted whites.” The basis for diversity policy is that certain groups are encouraged to identify themselves as victims of white people. According to African-American author Thomas Sowell, people on the Left like to say, “I am a victim. Therefore, if you do not give in to my demands… you are a hate-filled, evil person.”

To progressives, diversity has nothing to do with equality as defined by Dr. Martin Luther King. Instead, they prefer George Orwell’s suggestion that (in a totalitarian society) “some animals are more equal than others.” The left’s version of diversity means that we must give special privileges to certain protected classes of people so they can acquire control over the system at the expense of the majority. I call this the “tyranny of the minority.”

Ironically, where you have obedience to diversity, there is no diversity of thought. People who demand attention to diversity really are against viewpoint diversity, also known as free speech. Diversity means “it is great to look different as long as you think the way I do.” Diversity is completely at odds with American values.

So how dare Obama lecture us about the politics of division? After eight years of the Obama presidency, race relations are worse than ever. Obama’s comments in case after case — lies and distortions — stoked the fires of racial discord and added to the racial divide. This is ironic because so many Americans — black and white — fully expected that the election of a black president would usher in a period of racial accord. No such luck.

In urging his University of Illinois audience to vote Democratic, Obama had the gall to argue that, “Our democracy depends on it.” More hypocrisy from our 44th president. Showing his contempt for the Constitution, Obama did everything he could to expand the power of government at the expense of individual liberty. He strove to “destroy America’s essence,” says American Thinker, “that commitment to liberty that makes her unique in this world.”

Donald Trump, in sharp contrast, cherishes the values that Obama holds in contempt. Trump’s commitment is to the foundational principles of the Constitution. He rejects minority identity politics. He wants to unify the country in its own self-interest. Trump’s objective is to drain the Washington swamp that benefited from Obama’s legion of illegal executive orders.

The final straw in Obama’s speech was his insistence that we need to restore “honesty and decency” in government. Here are his words:

“We do not… use the criminal justice system as a cudgel to punish our political opponents, or to explicitly call on the attorney general to protect members of our own party from prosecution because an election happens to be coming up.”

How can Obama make a statement like that after his administration weaponized the IRS against conservative opponents, and after his attorney general and FBI conspired to protect Hillary Clinton from the justice she so richly deserved? Well, I guess this is what we should expect from the man who promised, “If you like your plan, you can keep your plan.”

Ed Brodow is a political commentator, negotiation expert, and author of seven books including his latest, Tyranny of the Minority: How the Left is Destroying America.



Source link