How Many Times Did You Beat Your Wife?

/in , , , , /by

The essential element in the question, “How many times did you beat your wife?” is its presupposition that the husband beat his wife.

Perhaps the best way to understand the ongoing debate surrounding Net Neutrality is to consider Noam Chomsky’s incisive observations on presuppositions in his book The Common Good (1998).

“The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum – even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there’s free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate.” p43

Millennials have been indoctrinated with the presuppositions of the Leftist narrative for two decades. Climate change is a classic example. The climate change argument presupposes the validity of its foundational premise of global warming. When it became abundantly clear that the earth’s temperature always fluctuates and was in fact cooling the global warming enthusiasts disingenuously changed the name of their campaign from “global warming” to “climate change” without ever accepting the scientific facts of the earth’s cooling. Why? Because global warming/climate change was never about the weather – it was always about the redistribution of wealth from rich industrialized countries to poorer non-industrialized countries in the form of taxes, fees, fines, and non-compliance penalties.

Even testimony by Patrick Moore former co-founder of Greenpeace before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, was not enough to convince millennials that global warming was a hoax because they had accepted the presupposition of the argument and were ideologically convinced they were saving the planet.

Oppositional views on climate change have actually been litigated. The court case against Mark Steyn attempted to silence Steyn’s oppositional views on climate change.

Steyn argued that if courts can silence free and open debate on scientific inquiry then freedom of speech is functionally dead. The pressure to conform in climate science is very real and the viciousness and hostility toward people who disagree is overwhelming. Anyone in the science community who challenges the “settled” science of climate change is considered unhinged or a dissident to be silenced – not a respected scientist or a climatologist to be heard. Climate science is functionally political science because redistribution of wealth is a political matter unrelated to weather.

So it is with Net Neutrality, FCC regulation 15-24 rescinded by FCC panel vote on 12.14.17. Millennials are now arguing passionately and persuasively to restore FCC 15-24 because they accept the suppositions of the argument that Net Neutrality is actually neutral. In fact, Net Neutrality, like climate change, is a partisan political weapon in the Leftist Culture War on America. Instead of redistribution of wealth, Net Neutrality seeks legalized censorship of the Internet by left-wing liberal Internet Content Providers. The social pressure to conform to the political narrative of Net Neutrality is as powerful and vicious as the social pressure to conform to climate change. This is how it works.

Net Neutrality was disingenuously introduced by Obama as a preventative measure to legally “protect” consumers from the “possibility” of Internet Service Providers (ISP) like Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T charging for Internet usage based on website content. Obama’s diversionary tactic deceitfully focused public attention and debate on the possibility of fees related to content and away from the real Title II provisions that bind Internet Service Providers (ISP) to Net Neutrality but exempt Internet Content Providers like Google, Facebook, Twitter. It was a classic indirect approach – the eighth of eight classical maneuvers in warfare – a diversionary tactic that focuses attention away from the essential play.

The Tech-Left was instrumental in the formulation of “Net Neutrality” and helped write the new rules. Not surprisingly, the consequence was that the Leftist content providers who currently dominate the Internet were “free to restrain content by censoring out all conservative and libertarian views at will, without so much as an explanation to anyone why the objectionable views were banned.” Net Neutrality awards the Leftist content providers precisely what Obama claimed Net Neutrality was “protecting” the country from. FCC 15-24 gifted the power of complete legal censorship to the political Left!

Net Neutrality was rightfully rescinded because it was written to silence free and open debate on the Internet. Whoever controls the information controls the public because without free speech there is no freedom. The millennials who naively continue to argue that Net Neutrality must be restored should examine the presuppositions that continue to inform their opinions and examine the legalized censorship that was always the essential play in FCC 15-24.

Just as the redistribution of wealth is the underbelly of Climate Change and its essential play, legalized censorship of the Internet is the underbelly of Net Neutrality and its essential play. Both policies disingenuously presented as lively debates but actually just reinforcing the presuppositions of the system. “How many times did you beat your wife?”

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the Goudsmit Pundicity.

A Frosty Reception to Trump’s Prayer

/in , , /by

If you thought tax reform terrified liberals, try praying about it! During yesterday’s historic votes, Donald Trump sent the Left into a full-on panic by pausing a moment in his cabinet meeting to thank God for their pending success. Before he turned the floor over to Secretary Ben Carson, the president looked at the media in the room and told them they could stay if they wanted to. After all, he joked, “[Y]ou need the prayer more than I do. I think you may be the only ones. Maybe a good solid prayer, and they’ll be honest then. Is that possible?”

Well, the media was honest all right — but only about their distress. Most liberal reporters were — if not alarmed, then completely baffled — by Carson’s appeal. MSNBC led the parade of the perplexed, calling the display “unusual” and “striking.” Think Progress’s overreaction was almost comical. The group’s Aaron Rupar described what has always been a normal expression of faith in the White House (until recently) as “creepy” and “cult-like.” In some pockets of the press, the prayer overshadowed the real news itself: that Congress had passed the most meaningful tax overhaul in 30 years.

Meanwhile, Dr. Carson’s appeal was hardly the stuff of controversy. He thanked God for our freedom and the opportunities we, as Americans, have been given, and continued:

“We thank you for the president and for cabinet members who are courageous, who are willing to face the winds of controversy in order to provide a better future for those who come after.”

“We’re thankful for the unity in Congress that has presented an opportunity for our economy to expand so that we can fight the corrosive debt that has been destroying our future. And we hope that that unity will spread even beyond party lines so that people will recognize that we have a nation worth saving. And recognize that nations divided against themselves cannot stand.”

“In this time of discord, distrust and dishonesty, we ask that you will give us a spirit of gratitude, compassion and common sense. And give us the wisdom to be able to guide this great nation in the future we ask in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.”

Since the birth of our nation, we’ve have had presidents who prayed and called the nation to prayer — including Democrats! Franklin Roosevelt’s 1944 prayer was so significant that he put it on the White House’s official Christmas card. “Not only did we have prayer in meetings like this,” David Barton told me on Wednesday’s “Washington Watch,” “but by the time you get to 1815, there had been 1,400 government-issued calls to prayer for the nation, so that’s not just prayer in Cabinet meetings. That’s calling the whole nation to prayer…”

And this isn’t just a colonial times phenomenon. In case MSNBC has forgotten, David pointed out, “Just on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, we don’t do anything in the House and Senate without having someone who is paid to pray open things up with prayer. So why they would think that’s unusual in a Cabinet meeting is pretty much indicative of their lack of polish on everything else.” Although, he went on, “I guess if your framework is based on the last eight years [under Barack Obama], then yes, it would be unusual and striking.”

For almost a decade, Obama treated faith like a toxin that needed neutralizing. Christianity was his favorite target, and he spent eight years training Americans to treat religious expression like public enemy number one. Now, David points out, Donald Trump is “making it mainstream again. And this is really bothering [the media], because they’re no longer the sole outlet for where people get their information. And so because of what happened today, it allows us to [hear] things that they’d just assume people not know…”

In all honesty, the Left’s reaction only shows their own hostility to faith. Liberals preach inclusion, but when it comes right down to it, they don’t believe in any of it. Instead, they mock the White House, knowing deep down that the real battle isn’t over Christmas or Cabinet prayers. The real war is over Christianity — and for the first time in a long time, they’re losing.

Tony Perkins’ Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC senior writers.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Libs Try to Extinguish Fire Chief’s Freedom

A 100 Percent Instant Return on Your Investment!

Is The Sexual Harassment Debacle A Good Thing Or A Bad Thing?

/in , , , /by

At first glance the answer might seem simple. But as we look deeper into the issue, we can see that it is both: good and bad…and neither.

One problem that becomes apparent as issues such as these arise, is that most people jump on the bandwagon of one opinion or the other. Most people just want it to go away. Most people, perhaps, don’t want to believe that a society, as progressive and compassionate as ours, holds such dirty little secrets. And it’s bothersome to have those ugly revelations keep popping up from unexpected corners and then bleeding through an entire business entity, or organization that we may have grown to trust, at least to some extent, such as the movie industry, or the political system or your place of business. We discover that people that we considered friends, colleagues, icons, heroes turn out to be human, emphasizing the dark side of our humanity.

We begin to doubt our own judgment. People that we admired get unceremoniously knocked off their pedestals. Then, when they are down, they get kicked and accusers pile on. It raises questions in our own minds like, “What’s wrong with me that I didn’t see it coming?” “How can I hate what he or she has been accused of and still admire him/her?” We find ourselves in a dilemma. We try to hold conflicting thoughts in our minds and discover that it is a difficult thing to do, causing us to feel chaotic and unstable. Is that a good thing or a bad thing? Again, maybe it’s both…or neither.

F. Scott Fitzgerald is known to have said, “The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function.” This kind of strenuous thinking is something that is sorely lacking in our society. We try hard to make things go away by taking sides and shouting down the opposition, shaming anyone who disagrees; and if it doesn’t work, we shout louder until the opposition backs down. While this may chase such unsavory issues such as sexual harassment and abuse under the rug, it does nothing to solve the problem.

The way to begin to find a solution is to learn to accept that as humans, we all (yes, all) have a tendency to explore the dark side of our humanity from time to time. Every human being is a mixed bag of lovely and not so lovely imperfections. We need to embrace this and stop being afraid of it. Fear leads to mob-type thinking and behaviors, which only increases the chaos. We need to fearlessly see that some of what we didn’t see before, or didn’t want to see, is becoming apparent. Is that good or bad? Again: both and neither.

Hurtful issues are being exposed. Good that they are no longer hidden; bad because they are painful and ugly. Good because those that have been taken advantage of are finally feeling empowered; bad because families and organizations are being broken apart. Good because perpetrators are being brought to justice; bad because the issue is being used as a weapon to promote personal vendettas or exploit people for political gain. People are being tried in the court of public opinion without proof. Some of the accused are denying the accusations, while others admit to failings before they even get accused. Long existing dysfunction that has been lying dormant is being stirred up, causing chaotic and muddy waters. Good thing? Bad thing? Again: both and neither. It is simply the nature of change to cause disruption; some good people get caught in the stampede; some bad people get punished; there is collateral damage; awareness is heightened.

Human nature abhors chaos and uncertainty. We try hard to shut it down. We fear the dark side of others and ourselves. We try hard to disown it. But shutting it down and disowning what causes us pain, won’t solve the problem. We need to embrace our current crisis for what it is, not getting stuck in a label of good and bad, but rather determining together the direction in which we want to go and develop a plan.

In order to develop the intelligent response that F. Scott Fitzgerald referred to, we need to be fearless, yet loving and compassionate. We need to be just, as well as merciful. We can learn to hold conflicting thoughts in our minds and at the same time, find a feasible, workable solution. But we can only do that by looking within ourselves, taking responsibility for our own thoughts and actions before we throw around too much blame and hatred. Taking responsibility for who we are and what we believe, seeing humanity as connected, while accepting everything that we are, warts and all, with compassion and reason, will enable us to come together to make us even better in the future. We need to learn to consider conflicting thoughts without pitting ourselves against each other, recognizing that there is some of what we hate in each of us and take responsibility for our own thoughts and blind spots before we can see clearly enough to heal the brokenness in our society.

The Disease of Modern Feminism

/in , , /by

Early American feminism that aimed at women’s right to vote and equality under the law was an honorable and reasonable feminism that many American women supported.

That is not remotely today’s feminism.

In fact, today’s is almost the opposite and seems driven largely by angry, man-hating social justice warriors and purely political partisans demanding unlimited abortions until the moment of birth, plus the rest of the liberal agenda. The evidence for this is following. Like intersectionality identity politics, it is another poison in the American culture that propels ever more division, animosity and strife with no apparent end goal.

In fact, it is so divisive and anti-men, that the more radical leaders — which are tomorrow’s mainstream leaders — do not believe that I should even be having an opinion on the subject, because I am a man.

Many women on the political left actually don’t seem to see this sea change in feminism. They still think it is about equal pay (another myth issue), equal opportunities, equality with men and, yes, also abortion. Sure, those are used in sound bites, but only for the political ends of gaining partisan votes. There is no objective truth underpinning them. Abortion is the animating issue for those leading the feminist charge. The movement apparently will accept any kind of anti-feminist behavior or immoral person as long as they are a Democrat and will vote for abortion at any time. Universal opposition to politically conservative, Republican women demonstrates the party partisanship.

But let’s show the overt partisan politics of modern feminism — which is totally devoid of the origins of the movement and the stated goals of standing up for women — and seemingly only about power for Democrats.

Historic revelations of feminism’s hypocrisy

The first signs of the disease began sometime around Anita Hill, and her less-than-credible sexual harassment testimony that almost sunk the nomination of Clarence Thomas to the U.S. Supreme Court. Almost none of her testimony was corroborated, and much was disputed by other women in the same office. None of it fit with Clarence Thomas’ known character at the time — or since.

Nonetheless, feminists jumped to support Anita Hill ostensibly because any woman alleging sexual harassment or worse must be believed. But in hindsight, it seems it was only a partisan attack against a conservative justice. Worse for Democrats, a conservative black justice. Thomas was brilliant in his defense, labeling it a “high-tech lynching.”

But the unveiling of partisanship really picked up steam a few years later when Bill Clinton’s penchant for being a serial sexual abuser, probable rapist and disgusting older, powerful married man who took advantage of young women working for him.

The Juanita Broaddrick rape charges are quite compelling and liberals are conveniently seeing the credibility in her claims…now. There were three other women who came forward with credible sexual assault allegations. And of course there was Monica Lewinsky, the very young intern who the most powerful man in the world persuaded to repeatedly perform oral sex in the Oval Office. Powerful men taking advantage of young, vulnerable women is something feminists supposedly decry and a huge defilement of the American trust.

And yet the feminists who intoned so righteously that Anita Hill must be believed for far less on threadbare testimony, worked night and day to shoot down woman after woman after woman who made far more credible claims against Clinton.

Clinton was just shrugged off as being a bit of a good ol’ boy, bit of a libertine, his personal actions were nobody’s business but his family’s and that we all must separate the private man from the public man. I screamed from the rooftops that you cannot possibly separate the two — they are the same man. A man who incessantly cheats on his wife cannot be expected to be honest in his public dealings. And indeed he wasn’t. He lied to his wife. And he lied to the American people.

This was all just more connivance by his defenders to keep a serial sexual assaulter in office because — not to put too fine a point on it — he defended the right of pregnant women to kill their babies up until birth.

The long list of feminist defenders of Bill Clinton

This is just amazing in light of Anita Hill, then Bill Clinton and now the rolling wave of high-profile sex assault predators. Here are what leading feminists were saying in 1998 to keep Clinton in office.

  • “We’re trying to think of the bigger picture, think about what’s best for women,” said Eleanor Smeal, president of the Feminist Majority Foundation. When conservatives called hypocrisy on the feminists, Smeal said: “It’s a twofer for them. If they can get the president, great. And if they can get feminism, even greater.”
  • “It will be a great pity if the Democratic Party is damaged by this,” feminist writer Anne Roiphe told Vanity Fair’s Marjorie Williams in 1998. “That’s been my response from the very beginning — I just wanted to close my eyes, and wished it would go away.”
  • One feminist infamously said she would perform oral sex on Bill Clinton as long as he kept abortion legal up to nine months. Some campus extremist? Hardly. Nina Burleigh, Time magazine’s White House correspondent when Clinton was President. She wrote: “I’d be happy to give him [oral sex] just to thank him for keeping abortion legal.”
  • Bill Clinton’s “enemies are attempting to bring him down through allegations about some dalliance with an intern…. Whether it’s a fantasy, a set-up or true, I simply don’t care,” said high-profile feminist Betty Friedan. Or true.

For a more complete list of fairly stunning hypocritical statements by feminists, read this.

Contemporary revelations of feminist hypocrisy

It can sound like modern liberal feminists are coming around to understand what conservatives were saying in the 1990s. Character matters. Private life morals cannot be separated from public life actions. The former will inevitably influence the latter.

Left-wing New York Times writer Michelle Goldberg, who takes shots at conservatives all through this, nowwrites a column I Believe Juanita: “…her explanation, that she didn’t want to go public but couldn’t lie to the F.B.I., makes sense. Put simply, I believe her.”

It would be tempting to take a victory lap that they have finally seen the light. But in truth, it looks like they just saw the opportunity to knock off Roy Moore and put a Democrat in the strongly conservative Alabama Senate seat, and ultimately go after President Trump.

Why? Three examples explain it.

1) First, when Harvey Weinstein first erupted, followed by other Hollywood people, and media people, and comedians — all leftist Democrats and many major fundraisers — there was no soul-searching on the Clinton years. Even when conservatives kept bringing it up. Nothing.

But when the allegations came out on Roy Moore, liberals sniffed an opportunity. Then and only then did they start to publicly reassess the Clinton years. That’s when Goldberg and several others started saying Clinton should have been forced to resign. That’s just a tad too convenient and far too late.

2) New Jersey Sen. Bob Menendez, a Democrat, who has a strong but technically unproven reputation for corruption, was in the midst of a long jury trial. He was charged with influence peddling, gaming federal welfare programs, illegal favors for friends who gave him money, and so on. When Democrat leaders were asked if he would be forced to resign if found guilty — they refused to say yes! The jury in that trial ended with a split decision, meaning the judge had to declare a mistrial. But Democrats made their intentions clear.

During Menendez’s trial, very credible accusations were also made that he used underage prostitutes while in the Dominican Republic with his friend and co-defendant (who was found guilty on corruption charges.) These were unproven allegations, like Moore’s, although his name shows up on flight lists for the time of the accusations. And still, Democrats and feminists said nothing about him stepping down. Could it be because the New Jersey Gov. Chris Christy is a Republican and would have appointed a Republican to replace him?

3) Minnesota Sen. Al Franken, another Democrat, and Congressman John Conyers, yet another Democrat, are stepping down at some point or not running for re-election amid a plethora of sexual assault and misconduct allegations. This, however, fits the mode of power. Both will be replaced by Democrats guaranteed, so in that sense, they were expendable to the greater cause of gaining power. Menendez would have been replaced by a Republican, so he has to stay. And that’s how it works.

The feminist mind that openly supports hypocrisy

There is one honest, if somewhat disturbing, feminist on this issue — a true defender of the ends justifies the means.

Kate Harding, co-editor of “Nasty Women: Feminism, Resistance, and Revolution in Trump’s America” and co-host of the podcast Feminasty, wrote a Washington Post article entitled: “I’m a feminist. I study rape culture. And I don’t want Al Franken to resign.”

Here’s the money section:

“It would feel good, momentarily, to see Franken resign and the Democratic governor of Minnesota, Mark Dayton, appoint a senator who has not (as far as we know) harmed women. If I believed for one second that Franken is the only Democrat in the Senate who has done something like this, with or without photographic evidence, I would see that as the best and most appropriate option. But in the world we actually live in, I’m betting that there will be more. And more after that. And they won’t all come from states with Democratic governors and a deep bench of progressive replacements. Some will, if ousted, have their successors chosen by Republicans.”

She expounds further.

“In other words, if we set this precedent in the interest of demonstrating our party’s solidarity with harassed and abused women, we’re only going to drain the swamp of people who, however flawed, still regularly vote to protect women’s rights and freedoms. The legislative branch will remain chockablock with old, white Republican men who regard women chiefly as sex objects and unpaid housekeepers, and we’ll show them how staunchly Democrats oppose their misogynistic attitudes by handing them more power.”

And there you have it. Feminist Harding (who is the featured picture with this post), writing in the Washington Post, is giving Democrat men a green light to abuse however much they want, as long as they protect “women’s rights” — by which she means unlimited abortion and contraceptives. That is precisely the argument made in 1998 by Eleanor Smeal, Nina Burleigh and others.

Nothing has changed.

Feminists are revealed in all these cases to be complete partisans, having no underlying philosophy beyond the desire for power to keep abortion legal up to the moment of birth.

That’s a disease.

RELATED ARTICLE: Women’s March organizer accused of covering up sex abuse – New York Post

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on The Revolutionary Act.

Friends of Zion Launches Massive ‘God Bless Trump’ Campaign

/in , , , /by

JERUSALEM, Israel/PRNewswire/ — Mike Evans founder of the Friends of Zion who presented the Friends of Zion award launches ‘God Bless Trump’ campaign honoring the President during the week of the Vice President’s trip in Jerusalem.

Dr. Evans declared that:

“No president in history has ever built such an alliance for the State of Israel and the Jewish people, and no president has courageously stood up for the State of Israel on the global stage as you had Mr. President. President Trump’s historic recognition of Jerusalem will secure his place in history as the first American president to take that step since the founding of the State of Israel in 1948.”

President Trump’s historic declaration regarding Jerusalem takes its place as one of Israel’s historic millstones from the Balfour Declaration to President Truman’s acceptance of Israel into the family of nations.  These heroes presented in the Friends of Zion Museum in Jerusalem tell the stories characters throughout history that have stood by the Jewish people and helped establish the State of Israel. These non-Jewish Zionists are engraved in history and millions of people worldwide have learned of their heroism thanks to the groundbreaking work of Dr. Evans and the Friends of Zion Museum.

ABOUT THE FRIENDS OF ZION HERITAGE CENTER

The Friends of Zion Heritage Center has become one of the central institutions in the State of Israel influencing the world and strengthening Israel’s relations globally while fortifying the pillars of the State of Israel. In addition to more than 31 million members globally the museum has hosted over 100 diplomats such as US Amb. David Freedman, President Rivlin  tens of thousands of Christian and Jewish leaders, NBA and NFL superstars, leading Hollywood actors and singers and is has become a must-see site in Jerusalem.

Friends of Zion Museum, 20 Yosef Rivlin Street, Jerusalem.  A reservation is recommended for museum visits.  Website: www.fozmuseum.com, email: reservations@fozhc.com , or phone: +972-2-532-9400.

The Humanitarian Hoax of Net Neutrality: Killing America With Kindness

/in , , , , /by

The Humanitarian Hoax is a deliberate and deceitful tactic of presenting a destructive policy as altruistic. The humanitarian huckster presents himself as a compassionate advocate when in fact he is the disguised enemy.

Barack Obama, the humanitarian huckster-in-chief, weakened the United States for eight years presenting his crippling policies as altruistic when in fact they were designed for destruction. His late term passage of FCC 15-24 the Report and Order on Remand, Declaratory Ruling, and Order in the Matter of Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet, named Net Neutrality, was no exception.

Humanitarian hoaxes are deceitfully given positive sounding names that disguise their negative intent and mislead the trusting public. The Affordable Care Act was not affordable, the Southern Poverty Law Center is the enemy of free speech, George Soros’ Open Society Foundation funds anarchy all over the world. The deceptive names are the opposite of what the organizations and policies actually do. So, “Net Neutrality” sounds constructive and fair but it is actually a Leftist attack on Internet freedom designed to restrict freedom of speech – particularly the opposition speech of conservatives and libertarians. This is how it works.

The World Wide Web (WWW) for non-governmental commercial use has been an open unrestricted American business since its launch over twenty years ago. The WWW is the 21st century public square for information sharing in the world. Internet business is divided into two separate sections. There are Internet Service Providers (ISP) like Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T and there are Internet Content Providers like Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Amazon, and Twitter. In 2015 Obama disingenuously decided to “protect” the open Internet and passed regulation FCC 15-24 deceptively tagged “Net Neutrality.” Roger Stone has written an exceptional article on the subject explaining what it all means.

To summarize, the FCC has the authority and discretion to decide to apply rules or not to apply rules – it can choose who to regulate vigorously and who to disregard. The new rules were specifically written under Title II provisions that stipulate Internet Service Providers (ISP) are to be bound by Net Neutrality. So, “Net Neutrality” binds Internet Service Providers to the rules but exempts Internet Content Providers.

The Tech-Left was instrumental in the formulation of “Net Neutrality” and helped write the new rules. Not surprisingly, the consequence is that the Leftist content providers who currently dominate the WWW are “free to restrain content by censoring out all conservative and libertarian views at will, without so much as an explanation to anyone why the objectionable views were banned.” It is complete censorship and very dangerous – it is the Humanitarian Hoax of Net Neutrality.

The leftist elites in Silicon Valley funded generously by George Soros embraced Marshall McCluhan’s famous saying “the medium is the message.” They understood that political control is only possible with communication control – control the medium and you control the message. The purpose of Net Neutrality was control of the Internet to control its ideological content.

Net Neutrality is a serious stealth attack on free speech in the public square that legalizes censorship by Internet Content Providers on the WWW. The left-wing liberal narrative already dominates American universities, the entertainment sector, and the mainstream media. Net Neutrality is a power grab for the WWW. There is no freedom without freedom of speech. If the Leftist behemoths are free to regulate and censor content on the Internet then we no longer are living in a free society or a free world – we are living in the dystopian society described by George Orwell in his famous book 1984.

Chairman Ajit Pai, Trump’s designated Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), generously described the 2015 FCC 15-24 ruling “a mistake.” He pointed out that the Internet grew and thrived for nearly 20 years before the implementation of Net Neutrality under pressure from the Obama White House. “For one thing, there was no problem to solve. The internet wasn’t broken in 2015,” said Mr. Pai. “We were not living in some digital dystopia. To the contrary, the Internet has been one thing, perhaps the only thing in American society, that we can all agree has been a stunning success. Not only was there no problem, the solution hasn’t worked.”

The good news is that Ajit Pai ended the FCC 15-24 deception on December 14, 2017 with a 3-2 FCC panel vote victory. Of course the Left is already challenging the outcome with their predictably hysterical “end of the world” cries that are exactly the OPPOSITE of what the repeal of Net Neutrality will accomplish. Consider the following Leftist predictions courtesy of Breitbart:

  1. The End of the Internet As We Know It!
  2. The end of Net Neutrality means the “silencing” of gays and “marginalized communities.”   
  3. The end of Net Neutrality is an attack on “reproductive freedom.”
  4. SUICIDE! ABUSE! MENTAL HEALTH! ANOREXIA! BUZZWORD!
  5. The end of Net Neutrality will lead to a new civil war.
  6. The end of Net Neutrality is the end of free speech on the internet.
  7. The end of Net Neutrality means the end of democracy.
  8. $14.99 for Twitter!
  9. The end of Net Neutrality means the FCC chairman will try to meme – the ONLY true prediction.

Net Neutrality is a signature Obama humanitarian hoax promising Internet fairness but delivering Internet unfairness and legalized censorship. Only in the Leftist/Orwellian world of subjective reality is censorship considered “fair” and truth labeled “hate” speech. In the real world of objective reality censorship remains against the law in America and freedom of speech protects the truth. Obama’s Net Neutrality is a deceitful attempt to bypass the Constitution and award exclusive control of Internet content to the Leftist behemoths that currently dominate the WWW.

Barack Obama continues to lead the Leftist Democrat Party with its “resistance” movement. It is the party of the Humanitarian Hoax attempting to destroy American democracy and replace it with socialism. The single greatest threat to America is the absence of freedom of speech which is precisely the goal of the foiled Humanitarian Hoax of Net Neutrality. Be glad that FCC 15-24 has been rescinded. It is not the end of the world, it is the beginning of a new era of deregulation and renewed protection of our precious freedoms.

EDITORS NOTE: The column originally appeared in Goudsmit Pundicity.

EEOC defines women’s perfume as non-verbal sexual assault

/in , /by

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), a federal agency that administers and enforces civil rights laws against workplace discrimination, has recently amended its guidelines on sexual harassment by adding women’s perfume as an especially hazardous subcategory of invisible sexual assault.

Please amend your guidelines with the following insert.

With definitive and clearly restrictive City, County, State or Federal regulations, women’s perfumed scents fall under the definition of unwelcome sexual advances, non-verbal requests for sexual favors, and other non-verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature, all of which constitutes sexual harassment.

Unwelcome does not mean “involuntary.” A victim may consent or agree to certain conduct and actively participate in it even though it is offensive and objectionable. Therefore, sexual conduct is unwelcome whenever the person subjected to it considers it unwelcome or sexually offensive.

These scents have been documented to flow freely in the air, polluting the victim’s perfume-free safe zone with impunity and without any consequences to the offender. Given the perfume’s blatantly heterosexual origins in the sexist and racist periods of human history, it is also highly discriminatory and non-inclusive of many other gender identifications.

The assault by perfume is always intentional, as these scents are knowingly designed to seek attention and marketed as a cis-heterosexual woman’s predatory implements to provoke, lure, tempt, entice, attract, induce, seduce, coax, persuade, inveigle, allure, ensnare, cajole, beguile, and bewitch.

Being the equivalent of Odysseus’s Sirens (the sea nymphs who lured sailors to their death with a bewitching song), women’s perfume has now been officially categorized by the EEOC as non-verbal sexual assault, which is always uncalled for, unsolicited, unwanted, undeserved, sexist, overbearing, territorial, terrorizing, emasculating, perverse, and oppressive.

RELATED POLITICAL SATIRE:

Muhammad resigns as prophet amid sexual assault allegations

The Women’s Movement: #Hookers4Hillary

EDITORS NOTE: This political satire by bobvanhoven originally appeared on The Peoples Cube.  

Survey: NFL Is America’s Most Unpopular Sports Brand

/in , , , /by

A recent study shows the controversial National Anthem protests may have resulted in long-term damage to the National Football League’s brand.

The Winston Group Sports Survey found the NFL was rated “unfavorable” by 38% of respondents, the highest among major sports organizations for the third straight month. By comparison, Major League Baseball received an “unfavorable” response from only 15%.

According to the survey:

The NFL had been competitive, but since the kneeling controversy it fell significantly behind, and this survey continues to demonstrate that trend.

Furthermore, the NFL scored particularly poorly with older males (45% “unfavorable”) and the Winston Group noted the newest numbers might indicate “a settling-in process for the new brand standing of the NFL with the public.”

However, the survey was conducted November 29-30 as the NFL was announcing what appeared to be a pay-off of 89 million to the so-called Players Coalition and “social justice” organizations. Given the NFL Players Association’s historic financial support for George Soros related groups, it is likely these monies could be funneled to more leftist activists and  public opinion metrics will continue plunge, especially among conservatives..

Several advertisers like Anheuser-Busch, DirecTV, and Papa John’s have indicated they are concerned with their companies’ association with the NFL brand.

It is becoming more and more clear that the NFL may be unable to reverse the damage caused by the National Anthem protests and could be facing huge public opinion problems, and losses of advertising dollars for that matter.

Reach out to the NFL and let them know why conservatives give the league an “unfavorable” rating because of the disrespectful anthem protests.

Contact the NFL! Reach Out to the NFL on Facebook!

RELATED ARTICLES:

Planned Parenthood Closed 32 Facilities in 2017

ICYMI: Patagonia Alienates Half the Country

37 Corporations Stand Against Religious Liberty in Masterpiece Cakeshop Case

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on 2ndVote.com.

VIDEO: Is Great Britain the Reincarnation of 1930 Nazi Germany?

/in , , , /by

There was a core group of anti-Semites in Great Britain, France, Germany and among the EU nations following World War II. However Jews were not threatened with injury and death for a period of time. That is no longer the case. Europe decided to import hundreds of millions of Muslim Jew haters returning their countries to the sick Jew hatred time of Nazi Germany of the 1930’s.

A substantial number of Jews in France, and other European countries have been emigrating to Israel and other countries because they see the handwriting on the wall. Many Jewish families lived through one holocaust and do not wish to live through another.  What the leaders of these Christian countries fail to understand is that the Jews are the ‘canaries in the mine‘. It is just a matter of time when they will not be welcome in their country because they are infidels too.

The highest level of government of Great Britain makes no secret that it will not protect its Jewish population. It is open season on Jews there.

Open Antisemitism in Britain. Who Cares? Not the Anti-Racist Left.

By Melanie Phillips

A demonstration was held in London last week in protest at President Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. It featured the usual suspects: the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, Stop the War Coalition, Friends of Al Aqsa, War on Want, Socialist Worker.

Nothing surprising about any of that. The far left — along with significant NGOs — is motivated by a vicious loathing of Israel and support for those committed to its extermination. It’s hardly news, therefore, that they would react so virulently against the idea that the Jewish people are fully entitled, legally, historically and morally, to declare that Jerusalem, which was only ever the capital city of the Jewish people’s own national kingdom, remains its capital city today.

Oh –– and Jewish Voice for Labour, which claims not to be anti-Zionist but merely to “uphold the right of supporters of justice for Palestinians to engage in solidarity activities”, was also at the demo.

Well, this is the “right” that JVL upheld last at last week’s “solidarity” activity. Watch here as the demonstrators chanted “Khaybar Khaybar, ya yahud, jaish Mohammed, as yahud”.

This translates as “Khaybar, Khaybar, oh Jews, the army of Mohammed will return” — a reference to the Muslims’ slaughter of the Jews of Khaybar in 628 CE.

For Islamist extremists and terrorists, this is a touchstone historical event which they seek to re-enact today. Chanting this is to declare their intention to do so. It is effectively incitement to murder Jews. And it was chanted on the streets of London, at a demonstration supported by Jewish Voice for Labour and under the noses of the “hate-crime” obsessed British police.

Read more.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Study: Anti-Semitism Rampant among Muslim Refugees in Germany

What Life Was Like for Christians and Jews When Arabs Ruled Jerusalem

Abbas: Palestinians No Longer See Role for U.S. in Peace Process

Video: Iron Dome Missile Defense System Intercepts Two Palestinian Rockets Fired from Gaza

January 12th, 2018: Next batch of Australian of Muslim detainees headed to Any Town, USA

RELATED VIDEO: Is Fascism Right or Left?

What The Heck Happened in Alabama?

/in , , , , /by

Years ago, my brother David gave me a nugget of wisdom. He advised, “When faced with a crisis, stabilize your emotions before responding/acting.” Thus, I thought it best to wait a day or so before sharing my thoughts about Roy Moore losing in Alabama.

Moore’s loss simply does not make sense. Alabama is a red state. It is hard to believe Alabama voters chose Jones, a guy who supports killing babies even at the point of birth over 38 year old unproven sexual misconduct allegations against Moore. Yes, I smell the foul stench of democrat voter fraud in the Alabama senate race. 

We’ve heard the term partial-birth abortion, but most folks don’t know what it is. The abortionist takes the entire baby out of its mother except for the head. He then shoves scissors into the baby’s brain to kill it. Planned Parenthood is elated when abortionists can murder the baby without too much damage to the baby’s head. Intact heads sell for premium prices. Jones supports this horrific evil.

Rather that believing Alabama voters knowingly chose a man who supports murdering babies and trafficking their body parts, I tend to believe fake news media successfully hid Jones’ hostility towards unborn innocent human life. Leftists celebrate Jones’ mindset because Leftists deem killing babies environmentally responsible; necessary to save the planet from too many humans. Step on a spotted frog and Leftists are outraged at you!

Like nothing we’ve seen before, Leftists saturated the airwaves, social media and fake news media with 24/7 attacks on Moore, his wife and anyone supportive of him.

I want to thank Judge Moore for hanging in there when everyone and their brother on both sides of the political aisle demanded that he get out of the race. Moore said the allegations were untrue and he was not running away. I loved it; a real man with a steel backbone.

I realize we lost an important senate seat. But I am so sick of Republicans behaving like spineless wimps; allowing Leftists to dictate the rules of engagement; who we’re allowed to run, what is acceptable speech, what is racist, what is presidential and so on. When Leftists say, “Jump” the typical Republican response is, “How high?”

Folks, we throw our warriors under the bus far too quickly; reacting to Leftists’ and fake news media’s lies, distortions and smears. We have fallen for this Democrat and fake news media tag-team tactic far too many times.

We pray for courageous conservative Republican warriors who will fight on our behalf in Washington DC. When God sends us a hero, establishment elites, democrats, Hollywood and fake news media join together in a 24/7 campaign to brand our hero a kook, racist, sexist, mean-spirited, stupid and insane. Suddenly, folks on our side begin backing away, embarrassed to be associated with our brave conservative warrior. Folks, I have seen this happen with Sarah Palin, Ted Cruz, Donald Trump, Judge Moore and others.

Meanwhile, democrats run candidates who are the scum of the earth; liars, con-artists, sexual predators and thieves. Leftists media promote democrat scoundrel candidates as our superiors with compassion for the little guy. We Conservative/Republicans abandon our candidates every time Leftists point out our candidate’s inability to walk on water.

It is amazing how effective Leftists media’s 24/7 relentless negative branding can be. Sarah Palin did an awesome job as governor of Alaska. When she became the Republican VP nominee, suddenly the woman is a complete idiot according to Leftists and fake news media. The American Left viciously and relentlessly politically spun, twisted and distorted every word out of Palin’s mouth to brand her stupid and crazy.

Wimpish Conservatives/Republicans began saying we must get rid of Palin because the media made her toxic. I was outraged. Is this how we treat our friends, our heroes, our warriors? I thought, “News flash, anyone we send to DC who is committed to fighting for our principles, values and best interest will be branded a wacko airhead by fake news media.” This is the tactic the American Left is using to get rid of Trump; branding him mean, dumb and unstable.

I have no problem with Trump being Trump; tweeting and so on. Leftist media will negatively spin whatever Trumps says. Therefore, I love Trump sticking it to them, not allowing Leftists to control him. I hate Republican’s typical fearful kowtowing to Leftists’ narratives and dictates.

Trump has made incredible headway in an extraordinary short time; unshackling us from the chains of political correctness and rolling back Obama’s punish-America agenda. God knew as an outsider Trump would be undeterred by fake news media’s dictates regarding acceptable Republican behavior. Trump’s fearlessness terrifies and enrages fake news media and their fellow Leftists. They are obsessed with getting Trump out of the White House.

After a week of intensely campaigning for Judge Moore, his loss was unexpected. But this was just one battle. All I know to do is trust God and continue faithfully fighting the good fight for my country; backing real-deal courageous conservative candidates; our warrior heroes.

My wife Mary and I will fly home and enjoy Christmas with our family.

Come next year, we’ll be back on the road fighting to keep Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer out of power. Please stand firm in your support for our president.

RELATED ARTICLE: Judge Roy Moore raising $75,000 to pay for recount in Alabama

The Humanitarian Hoax of Relativism: Killing America With Kindness

/in , , , , /by

The humanitarian hoax is a deliberate and deceitful tactic of presenting a destructive policy as altruistic. The humanitarian huckster presents himself as a compassionate advocate when in fact he is the disguised enemy.

Relativism is defined as the belief that there is no absolute truth, only truths that a particular individual or culture happen to believe. People who believe in relativism accept that different people can have different views about what is moral and immoral. So far so good – society can tolerate multiple opinions on the relative merits of a thing or an idea. Here is the problem – civilized society requires consensus on the existence of that thing or idea – it requires agreement on what is real.

Objective reality is the foundation for the laws and rules that regulate public behavior in society.

In a previous article I introduced the problem of multiple realities inherent in Kurt Lewin’s Change Theory with the example of a man walking down the street.

Let’s review. A man is walking down the street. There are four people nearby. The first person says there is a man walking down the street. The second person says there is a person walking down the street. The third person says I’m not sure who is walking down the street. The fourth person says there is a woman walking down the street.

The objective reality is that there is a man walking down the street regardless of what the observers perceptions are. Objective reality is rooted in facts and exists independent of the perceptions of those facts. Subjective reality tolerates conflicting multiple realities because it is rooted in perceptions and informed by opinions. So, in subjective reality the fourth person’s observation that it is a woman walking down the street is accepted. The consequence, of course, is that societal acceptance of multiple realities ultimately creates chaos because there is no agreement on what is real.

Joseph Backholm is director of Family Policy Institute of Washington and is factually a 5’9” white male. In April, 2016 he interviewed students on campus at University of Washington to see if they would accept or reject his self-identification as a 6’5” Chinese woman or a seven-year-old child. The answers were shocking.

Backholm asked, “What if I said I was 7 years old?” A young woman answered if he felt like he was seven years old at heart then so be it – good for you. She actually accepted an adult male’s self-identification as a seven-year-old child. When asked if it would be okay for him to enroll in a first grade class another student answered that as long as he wasn’t hindering society and causing harm to other people it should be okay. Not hindering society? Not causing harm to other people? Backholm continued, “What if I told you I was 6’5” what would you say?” One student answered that it is not her place as another human to say he is wrong and to draw lines or boundaries. Another said that if he believes he is taller than he is it is not harmful so it is not a problem for her – but she would not tell him he was wrong. Only one student rejected Backholm’s self-description as 6’5″ saying he is not 6’5” even though she accepted him saying that he is a Chinese woman. These students demonstrated that their reality testing is firmly rooted in subjective feelings and opinions not in objective facts. Why is this a problem?

The students interviewed demonstrate the Leftist narrative that says all opinions are equal has moved beyond differences of opinion and debates about the merits of ideas into the realm of different realities. Leftist relativism is presented as humanitarian and respectful. These students do not consider accepting a 5’9” white adult male as a 7 year old child or as a 6’5” Chinese woman to be hurtful to another person or a hindrance to society. They live in the dreamworld of subjective reality where time, space, and factual reality are entirely absent. In dreams anything goes. In the conscious world the destruction of our societal standard of objective reality is beyond hurtful it is catastrophic because without consensus on what is real there is no infrastructure for laws and rules that regulate public behavior. Eventually there is only chaos.

Consider the shift in the definition of mental health. Historically mental health was a metric of being in touch with objective reality. Any student accepting a 5’9” white adult male as a 7 year old child or a 6’5” Chinese woman would be diagnosed as delusional because he/she is clearly out of touch with reality. Today the World Health Organization, an agency of the United Nations, defines mental health as a state of well-being in which every individual realizes his/her potential, can cope with the normal stresses of life, can work productively and fruitfully, and is able to make a contribution to his/her community. No mention of being in touch with objective reality. So, students who accept a 5’9” adult white male as a 7 year old child or a 6’5” Chinese woman are considered mentally healthy as long as they reach their potential, cope with stress, work productively, and contribute to society.

What is the purpose of this change? Who benefits from the shift?

The Culture War on America is a war between subjective reality and objective reality. The Leftist narrative based in feelings and opinions seeks to collapse the established authority of objective reality based in facts. The Left has already unfrozen established American cultural norms that required consensus and objective reality through its educational and media indoctrination. Society is being indoctrinated to willingly accept multiple realities as normative and embrace feelings over facts. America is currently in a state of transition – the puddle of water – when college students, our future leaders are comfortable accepting unreality as reality.

The Left is using Lewin’s model to fundamentally transform the infrastructure of America from objective reality into subjective reality. The Leftist pressure to accept subjective reality is their primary weapon of destabilization. The Left is driving society crazy by demanding people accept unreality as reality.

Let’s review. Lewin’s three-step change theory can be visualized as:

1. UNFREEZE –  a block of ice that melts
2. CHANGE – into a puddle of water.
3. REFREEZE – and is then reshaped into a cone.

The Left seeks to refreeze America into a cone of subjective reality based on feelings not facts where the entire population, not just college students, will accept a white 5’9” male as a 6’5” Chinese woman. Why? Because the Culture War on America is a political a war between objective reality and subjective reality that will determine the course of our country. Why?

The end game of the cone of subjective reality is social control. This is how it works. Social chaos is always followed by government suppression that restores order. Civil liberties are suspended and the government acquires total control. This endgame of the Leftist Culture War on America is total government control.

RELATED ARTICLE: How the Left Became So Intolerant

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the Goudsmit Pundicity.

Misandry Rises: In Defense of Men

/in , , , , /by

“Don’t vote for men!” is the message of a recent campaign ad.  Issued by Dana Nessel, Democratic attorney general contender in Michigan, what she literally says is, “Who can you trust most not to show you their [sic] penis in a professional setting?”

She answers that it’s the candidate who doesn’t have one.

Now, a person could easily go tit for tat (not that I’d ever consider such a thing!). Noting how some voters, addressing politicians’ pusillanimity, lament how we need leaders with “a pair,” one could ask “Who can you trust most to have a pair?” and answer “The candidate who by definition has one.”

But the anti-male bias animating Nessel has long been brewing. In 2004, Sweden’s Left Party (yeah, that’s its actual name) proposed a “Man Tax,” a special levy on men designed to compensate society for the cost of male violence. I always answer that I’ll be happy to pay my man tax — as long as I also get royalties for all of history’s man-birthed inventions and innovations. I’ll then use what’s left over to self-fund a presidential run.

Of course, responding to Nessel’s claim that sexual misconduct is a male domain, we could highlight the continual stories about female teachers having relations with young male students or the NYC juvenile-detention center where female guards were allegedly using the teen boy inmates as “sex slaves.” And man-tax misandrists should note that women are actually more likely than men to initiate domestic violence.

Yet, in reality, sound bites and simple facts don’t truly illuminate this issue. For there is some truth in Nessel’s nitwittedness, man-tax twittering and in my responses to both.

USA Today recently ran the headline, “’Guns don’t kill people; men and boys kill people,’ experts say,” which is about as insightful as stating “Men are taller than women.” Of course, even though blacks and Hispanics commit 98 percent of all gun crime in NYC, we’d never see the headline “Big Apple Crime: Guns don’t kill people; blacks and Hispanics kill people, experts say.” That said, it has always been known that men commit the bulk of major violence; it’s also not news that men are the more lustful sex and are more likely to commit sexual misconduct.

Yet crime doesn’t completely tell the tale — because the sexes sin differently. Consider: When a little boy gets upset, he may have a temper tantrum and explode like a volcano, creating quite a scene. Yet 10 minutes later he may act as if the event never happened. A little girl is more likely to not boil over but simmer for a long time, even perhaps holding a grudge. Thus, the amount of negative energy expended may be the same; only the intensity and duration vary. But which trespass is far more likely to bring punishment?

This is evident throughout life: Men’s sins are more overt, women’s more covert. Boys are more prone to get into fistfights, but girls may be more apt to bully peers to the point of suicide. In this case, the trespass more likely to bring punishment is the less severe.

And so it goes. Male violence is matched by female emotional manipulation and vindictiveness; male lust by female vanity; male gluttony, sloth and anger by female pride, envy and avarice. (Yes, there is overlap; I’m speaking of characteristic faults.)

Which set is worse? It may all balance out, but I certainly would rather endure a firm slap in the face than a 10-minute, emotionally abusive harangue. The point is that just as something’s value doesn’t always correspond to its price, something’s wickedness doesn’t always correspond to the worldly price you have to pay for it.

However visible men’s sins, though, they are today, as they’ve always been, recognized. What’s new is that while men are, again, virtually all history’s inventors and innovators, this is minimized. Men’s faults are now treated as innate — or, at best, as a function of deeply ingrained “toxic masculinity” — while their triumphs are written off as nurture, the result of mere opportunity.

Feminist Camille Paglia once noted, “If civilization had been left in female hands, we would still be living in grass huts” (a naturally imposed grass ceiling?). Paglia was getting at an age-old truth: Men are the actuating sex, the wilder one, which accounts for both their dynamism and their dangerousness. They’re two sides of the same coin, giving men the capacity to be a Churchill or a Hitler, to write the Communist Manifesto or the Constitution. Yes, most murdered women are killed by men, but women only now outlive men (they once died younger) because of male-born medical science. Men have been killers — but many more lives have been saved because they’ve also been curers.

There are two reasons, one more politically incorrect than the other, why men are the groundbreakers: inclination and ability. Ivanka Trump has been on a crusade to get women into scientific and high-tech fields. She ought to watch the excellent documentary “The Gender Equality Paradox,” which points out that women are more likely to enter non-traditional fields (e.g., computer tech) in relatively patriarchal India than in über-egalitarian Norway. Why? Because India’s poverty forces women to go where the money is; in rich nations, however, they can afford to follow their hearts. As for where this takes them, there’s a reason boys would play with erector sets and girls with dolls — and, no, it’s not conditioning.

Dr. Larry Summers lost his job as Harvard University’s president in 2006 for saying that there may be few women in top science positions because of “issues of intrinsic aptitude.” When analyzing this, one could point out (not that I’d ever consider such a thing) that, contrary to popular myth, men have somewhat higher IQs than women do (and brains approximately 11 percent larger). Moreover, the gap in intrinsic scientific aptitude is likely even greater than that I.Q. gap of five points would indicate.

Yet none of this matters. You see, it isn’t the average person, or even the average intelligent person, who makes the great breakthroughs. It is the genius, the fantastically gifted.

And such people are virtually always male.

For example, “[A]t the near-genius level (an IQ of 145), brilliant men outnumber brilliant women by 8 to one,” wrote Professor Richard Lynn in 2010. Of course, the ratio varies depending on what data you use, but the pattern is unmistakable, consistent and finds no disagreement among experts: As you move up the I.Q. scale, the ratio becomes more skewed in men’s favor until (according to the study here) the category “I.Q. over 176,” where there is no ratio — because no woman scored that high.

Why this disparity? I’d theorize that it’s for the same reason why males are more likely to develop X-linked chromosomal abnormalities (such as color-blindness or hemophilia): because, put simply, the Y (male) chromosome increases the chances of anomalies’ emergence. And, well, genius is an anomaly.

Of course, this phenomenon would apply to other abilities as well, whether in music, art, athletics, cooking, chess, writing or, well, most anything else under the sun.

This is why virtually all history’s inventors and innovators have been men. It’s why, barring some bizarre, nature-rending genetic engineering (which would also be birthed by men), they always will be.

What implications does this hold for society and policy? First, it’s a fool’s errand and highly destructive to try to equalize the number of men and women in the STEM fields. After all, if we ever instituted what the Bill Clinton administration desired — applying Title IX “proportionality” mandates to STEM — it would not magically breed female geniuses or even spark women’s interest in STEM.

But it might result in denying some brilliant men the opportunity to exploit their potential.

Now, China already produces 10 times as many scientists as we do (with just four times the population). Do we want to make that ratio 20 to 1? Thirty to one? Then just keep it up with the political correctness.

Second, as wise parents have always understood, boys must be given outlets for their boundless energy. As someone I knew once put it, “Boys always have to be doing something — even if it’s the wrong thing.” It will more likely be the wrong thing (e.g., gangs) if we rob them of right things, which is what happens when in the name Equality™ we remove their necessary outlets (e.g., applying Title IX and eliminating boys’ athletic opportunities).

Remember, again, the choice is dynamism or dangerousness, whether that dangerousness is violence or the self-destructiveness of drinking or drugs. The same thing causing little boys to explore, sometimes where they shouldn’t, motivates them to later explore all manner of arenas, pushing back frontiers in science and medicine, creating and innovating, building and breaking through. Active little boys become actuating grown men, for genius without impetus goes as far as an engine without fuel.

Returning to anti-male insanity, years ago feminists in Sweden, Germany and Australia adopted a new cause — compelling men to sit down while urinating — and did succeed in getting the urinals removed from a Swedish elementary school. They claimed that the typical way men tend to a nature call is symbolic of, as Dr. Walter E. Williams related it, “triumphing in their masculinity.” Of course, it’s triumphant masculinity that created the whole modern world and that made arguments over urination technique possible. Because, yeah, men invented the flush toilet, too.

Speaking of which, that’s precisely where feminism and equality dogma ought to be put.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com

How Hollywood Whitewashes Islam and Muslims

/in , , , /by

Have you noticed that movies, TV shows and documentaries whitewash Islam and Muslims? It may not be obvious at first. I first noticed it when the 2002 movie “Sum Of all Fears” based upon the Tom Clancy novel. I read “The Sum Of All Fears” written in 1991 before seeing the movie. I was shocked how far off it was from the book.

In the book a small group of Islamic terrorists from the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (a Marxist-Leninist organization founded on December 11, 1967, six months after the end of the Six Day War with Israel), enraged at the looming failure of their crusade against Israel, come across a lost Israeli bomb and use it to construct their own weapon, using the bomb’s plutonium as fissile material. The terrorists enhance the weapon and turn it into a thermonuclear device, smuggle it into the United States and put at a Super Bowl game attended by the President of the United States.

The movie was scrubbed of any reference to Israel, Muslims, Islam or the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP). The Islamic terrorists in the book were replaced with white neo-Nazis. Get the picture?

I recently watch Ridley Scott’s the movie “Kingdom of Heaven.” In the film the evil doers are the Christian Crusaders with the oppressed being the Muslim ummah (community). If you wonder why this happens it is not by chance or trying to be politically correct. It is because of a Hollywood industry panel.

An article titled “Industry Panel Suggests Ways to Better Whitewash Islam and Muslims in Film and TV” reports:

Muslim Public Affairs Council president Salam Al-Marayati

An industry panel convened by a jihad-approving Muslim group that has infiltrated Hollywood to ensure that anything but the reality of Islam makes it to your viewing screen. via Industry Panel Suggests Ways to Better Represent Muslims in Film and TV | Hollywood Reporter

An industry panel discussed ways to avoid Muslim stereotypes in film and TV while also offering suggestions to ensure more authentic representations of Islam and Muslims in Hollywood at a recent event presented by the Writers Guild Foundation and the Hollywood Bureau of the Muslim Public Affairs Council.

The MPAC’s Hollywood Bureau consults with production companies on authentic portrayals of Muslims and connects companies with Muslim creatives in writers rooms to tell their own stories to ensure that the stories told on the screen are accurate.

Here is Muslim Public Affairs Council president Salam Al-Marayati talking about President Trump on CNN before his first trip to the Middle East:

So who are Muslim stereotypes?

Just as Christians pattern themselves after the life and example of Jesus, Muslims pattern themselves after the life and example of Mohammed. The followers of Mohammed have committed greater atrocities in the past 1400 years than any other political/religious group.

So why does Hollywood portray Christian Crusaders as evil doers?

Because of the Muslim Public Affairs Council not only wants Muslims presented in a positive light, it wants the enemies of Islam, i.e. Jews and Christians, presented as evil, oppressors and Islamophobes.

As Creeping Shariah notes:

“It’s no secret that the industry has a knack for vilifying marginalized communities,” said Sue Obeidi, director of the MPAC’s Hollywood Bureau told The Hollywood Reporter. “However, we did notice that before Trump got into the White House, before he was even elected, representatives of the entertainment industry, television executives and creatives, reached out to us about creating Muslim characters, not your traditional ‘bad-guy Arab villain Muslim,’ but more authentic narratives.”

The Hollywood Bureau is currently consulting for Disney’s Aladdin (the upcoming live-action version), ABC’s Grey’s Anatomy,  Hulu’s The Looming Tower, NatGeo’s The State, Paramount/Amazon’s Tom Clancy’s Jack Ryan and Nickelodeon’s Glitch Techs.

The MPAC’s ultimate goal is to get more Muslim creatives involved in the corporate structure.

You see it doesn’t matter what the truth is about “marginalized communities” whether black, Muslim, Hispanic or gay. The truth about these communities must be presented as positive and those playing roles as black men, Muslims, Hispanics or gays be whitewashed. After watching the 2016 film “Jack Reacher: Never Go Back” on Netflix I noticed that all drug dealing the bad guys were white collar businessmen, not Mexican drug cartel members. The protagonist assassin is a former special forces soldier and the company bringing in heroin from Afghanistan are neither Hispanic nor Muslim but a  white retired general officer.

What message is Hollywood sending to us? Not a pro-American good guy defeating a foreign bad guy. We Americans are the enemy.

If you really want to see a good film about the drug trade watch the 2015 film “Sicario.” In this film the FBI and CIA are the good guys and the Mexican drug cartels are the really bad guys. Here’s the trailer:

EDITORS NOTE: PFLP was designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organization by the State Department in 1997, and it has retained that designation ever since.

The Upside to Moore Loss for Trump and Republicans

/in , , , , /by

There is plenty of Republican hand-wringing and media gloating this morning over the dramatic loss of a Republican-held U.S. Senate seat in the deepest red Alabama yesterday — the first time since a conservative Democrat won in 24 years.

It is mostly much ado about nothing.

It had nothing to do with the very liberal Democrat running, Doug Jones, who was originally just a “D” set up as a lamb to the slaughter in a state Republicans typically win by 25 to 30 points. Trump won Alabama by 28 points.

It had everything to do with Republican Roy Moore being plagued by late accusations of sexual abuse 40 years ago and his own poor handling of the accusations. Republicans stayed home and Democrats were energized at the sudden and unexpected opportunity. Most importantly, the minority turnout was very large — undoubtedly the key to Jones’ victory and the only real concern for Republicans.

So as far as indicating any sort of wave election for Democrats in 2018, it is not remotely an indicator because of the universe of unique circumstances surrounding the race. Remember Moore lost statewide election twice before and was polling as the weakest of the Republican primary field when facing the Democrat in the general election — before the wave of debilitating accusations.

Moore loss insulates Trump on sexual misconduct accusations

One line of worries among Republicans is that last night’s election is going to give Democrats and the media more ammunition to go after President Trump, and that they will redouble their efforts on that front as the Russian “collusion” investigation seems to be faltering. Yes, Democrats will harp on it and the media will report it some, but it has no real legs without new “news.” Even the media requires news pegs — although they make them up sometimes nowadays.

No, the comparison between Trump and Moore is this: Both candidates had late and unconfirmed accusations of sexual misconduct against them before their elections. The Moore accusations seemed credible enough to enough Alabama voters that it flipped the election for the Democrat.

But voters had the same chance to weigh the accusations against Trump and found them less credible than Moore’s. Quite a bit less credible, and this was reflected in media coverage. Even the anti-Trump mainstream media could not find enough leverage in the accusations to keep them newsworthy in the 2016 general election.

With such accusations that are not only unconfirmed, but unconfirmable, the only jury available if a candidate or sitting official does not voluntarily step down, is the electorate. The electorate chose last night in Alabama against Moore. And it chose in November 2016 in favor of Trump. Democrats will try, but they will not get any real legs from rehashing what the voters already decided.

Knocking down talking head shibboleths

A second line of worries is that this could portend an anti-Trump, anti-Republican electoral wave. Naturally, the media is going off the deep end in trying to extrapolate yesterday’s election to the national stage because that is what they do and because it is an opportunity to attack Trump — and that is an opportunity they never miss.

Here are a few being spewn about last night and today in that regard which are almost too easily knocked down.

• The Alabama results are a direct rejection of Trump. Nonsense. Trump supported Moore’s Republican opponent in the primary, Luther Strange, and worked for him. He supported Moore at the last second and it was not the normal resounding Trump. His base knew he was not fond of Moore, only that he was a Republican in the tight Senate, and that was not adequate when weighed against the accusations.

So let’s be clear, there were zero issues involved in this campaign, just the sexual misconduct allegations against Moore. None of the Make America Great Again agenda was on ballot — not border control, not tax reform, not deregulation, not Obamacare repeal. None of it. So this really had very little to do with Trump or Doug Jones, and everything to do with what voters thought about the accusations against Moore.

• Alabama and Virginia show voters oppose what Trump is doing. More nonsense. Media commentators have been trying to create a “trend” starting with Virginia rejecting Republican Ed Gillespie in the governor’s race a few months ago because — again, late in the game — Trump supported Gillespie, an establishment Republican.

But Virginia is clearly a blue state now as the ever burgeoning D.C. area blossoms further into Northern Virginia and brings with it more Democrat voters, which is shown in statewide offices. Further, Hillary Clinton won Virginia by five points. She lost Alabama by 28 points. The two states are in no way comparable except on one point: Both Moore and Gillespie had previously lost statewide elections in their respective states and both had only tepid support from Trump. So there is no actual trend on this point.

• This could point to a wave election for Democrats in 2018. The most nonsense. Particularly in the Senate, the 2018 electoral map is overpoweringly in favor of Republicans, who may actually pick up a seat or two as they are defending only 10 seats while Democrats are defending 25 seats, including vulnerable seats in Indiana and Missouri.

Remember, this Senate seat in Alabama is only for two years, as that is what is left in the term of Jeff Sessions, who stepped down to become Trump’s Attorney General, creating this special election. The Virginia-Alabama trend talking point is a non-starter as Trump’s policies were not on the table.

However, Democrats will use the Alabama election to fundraise and to spur their base and build momentum. That is real. It will certainly be a weapon in the 2018 midterms to get out voters. The House could be at some risk of Republican loss, but that was already the case before Alabama because of the number of Republicans in vulnerable districts in a midterm election.

And minority voters were huge in Alabama, where they are a large percentage of the population. They turned out in almost record numbers as virtually every major black Democrat in the nation campaigned in the state, from Barack Obama and Joe Biden to Alabama sports stars such as NBA Hall of Famer Charles Barkley. This all undoubtedly goosed turnout.

That sort of intense focus is possible in the right circumstances in one race, but it not duplicatable nationally. Still Republicans need to do more of what Trump did in 2016 — go to black neighborhoods and tell them directly that the conservative agenda is better for them and their children and why. It is. Talk to them directly, and bypass the media filter.

The conservative message is still a winner with the American people.

RELATED ARTICLE: Liberal Doug Jones (D-AL) narrowly won the special election in Alabama yesterday and Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has now helped elect yet another Democrat to the U.S. Senate.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Revolutionary Act.

Karl Marx to Resign, Ditch Legacy Due to Sexual Misconduct

/in , /by

Doctrine of class conflict and communist internationalism now in dire jeopardy.

The father of scientific socialism and an inspirational figure to many leading Democrats, Karl Marx has announced that he is resigning as a seminal thinker and is asking all his followers, especially women, to forgive him and forget his doctrine of class conflict and communist internationalism due to allegations of sexual abuse of his female aide and a criminal conspiracy to cover it up.

In his remarks, the author of the Communist Manifesto stated,

“This decision is not about me. It’s about the workers of the world. It’s become clear that I can’t both continue to deal with my history of sexual misconduct (some of which I remember differently) and at the same time remain an effective messianic leader of the oppressed in their struggle against capitalist exploitation.”

Marx continued,

“As a white cisgendered heterosexual male, I have cheated on my wife, sexually assaulted my subordinate, and otherwise abused my power and privilege to hurt and victimize women. I therefore feel that I no longer have the right, nor the moral authority to defend my philosophy of class victimization, to incite class hatred, provoke violent anti-bourgeois revolutions, and establish proletarian dictatorships.”

The pressure on the leader of the exploited masses to step down has been mounting for days, ever since the New York Times broke the story about how Mr. Marx, a husband and a father of three, sexually exploited his longtime family maid, Helen Demuth. Fearing to lose her job in a volatile capitalist economy, Ms. Demuth yielded to her employer’s sexual harassment. What started as inappropriate touching and groping, soon escalated into what legally amounts to sexual assault in the workplace, which continued daily for years in Mr. Marx’s home, where Mrs. Marx and their daughters also resided.

According to The New York Times, the repeated sexual abuse of Ms. Demuth by her employer, compounded by the unavailability of women’s health services, resulted in the birth of a male child. Fearing that this would destroy his reputation of a rebel against bourgeois morals, Karl Marx organized a conspiracy to cover up both the affair and the baby. His co-conspirators were his close friend and collaborator Friedrich Engels and Ms. Demuth – a powerless victim who was intimidated into silence by the men in positions of power.

The conspiracy involved abandoning the child, Freddy Demuth, who ended up being one of the many fatherless inner-city clients of foster care. Upon discovering the truth, Karl Marx’s wife, Jenny Marx, committed suicide. Their daughter, Laura, killed herself several years later.

Some House Democrats called on Karl Marx to leave office last Thursday, increasing pressure on the veteran revolutionary thinker to abandon his theories of social justice and economic equality amid serious allegations about his sexual transgressions, child abandonment, the cover-up, and infidelity that caused his wife and daughter to kill themselves.

Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) tried to defend Mr. Marx by blaming the attacks on Prussia’s meddling, adding that “Karl Marx is an icon in our academia.” Even if some of it is true, she said, “this episode only shows us how essentially human Marx is. He has the same fears, despairs, and guilts that afflict everyday Americans. That doesn’t mean, of course, that we can equate Karl Marx with Donald Trump or Roy Moore.”

On Monday, however, more than half of the Democrats in the Senate, including party leadership, called for Marx to step down, fearing that “creepy” evidence of his duplicity and hypocrisy might tarnish their political futures and weaken efforts to unseat President Trump.

“I consider Karl Marx a beacon of progress and greatly respect his accomplishments, but he has a higher obligation to his followers, and he should step down immediately,” Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said in a statement.

In a change of heart, Pelosi later clarified her position. “Zero tolerance means consequences for everyone,” she said at Tuesday’s news conference. “No matter how great the legacy, it is no license to harass or discriminate. In fact, it’s even more disappointing.”

Some observers have pointed out the historical inevitability of Marx’s downfall as the leading political theorist, whose teachings about a worldwide conspiracy of oppressors against their victims have given birth to modern feminism, without which renouncing Karl Marx’s legacy due to his sexual misconduct and his overall creepiness would have been impossible.

EDITORS NOTE: This political satire column originally appeared in FrontPage Magazine.