Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘Progressives’

Report: Happiest Wives Are Religious Conservatives


Reported by DR. SUSAN BERRY |

Groom Davit Simonyan, 24, and bride Shogher Hovsepyan, 25, light candles in prayer after their wedding at Ghazanchetsots church on April 18, 2015 in Shushi, Nagorno-Karabakh. Since signing a ceasefire in a war with Azerbaijan in 1994, Nagorno-Karabakh, officially part of Azerbaijan, has functioned as a self-declared independent republic and …
Brendan Hoffman/Getty
 

The authors of a new report about marriage, faith, and families found the happiest wives in America are those who are religious conservatives.

“Fully 73 percent of wives who hold conservative gender values and attend religious services regularly with their husbands have high-quality marriages,” wrote researchers W. Bradford Wilcox, Jason S. Carroll and Laurie DeRose at the New York Times.

Their report, titled, “The Ties That Bind: Is Faith a Global Force for Good or Ill in the Family?” was published by the Institute for Family Studies and the Wheatley Institution.

“When it comes to relationship quality, there is a J-curve in women’s marital happiness, with women on the left and the right enjoying higher quality marriages than those in the middle — but especially wives on the right,” the authors explained.

They continued that American wives who are in the middle, both religiously and ideologically, as well as secular conservative wives, are less likely to experience high-quality marriages:

We suspect that part of their relative unhappiness, compared with religiously conservative women, is that they don’t enjoy the social, emotional and practical support for family life provided by a church, mosque or synagogue. We also suspect that these groups are less likely to have husbands who have made the transition to the “new father” ideal that’s gained currency in modern America — and they’re not happy with their partner’s disengagement.

Following behind religious conservative wives, 60 percent of highly religious progressive wives said they were “very happy.”

Among secular liberal couples, 55 percent of married women reported above-average relationship quality, while 33 percent of women in traditional secular marriages reported the same.

According to the researchers, devoted husbands and fathers are at the center of American wives’ view of happiness:

[I]n listening to the happiest secular progressive wives and their religiously conservative counterparts, we noticed something they share in common: devoted family men. Both feminism and faith give family men a clear code: They are supposed to play a big role in their kids’ lives. Devoted dads are de rigueur in these two communities. And it shows: Both culturally progressive and religiously conservative fathers report high levels of paternal engagement.

The researchers’ presentation of their report in the NYT editorial created a stir on social media with a fair amount of bitterness:

Others responded more happily:

Why is Facebook Targeting Conservative History-based Sites?


Posted by    Saturday, April 6, 2019 at 6:00pm

URL of the original posting site: https://legalinsurrection.com/2019/04/why-is-facebook-targeting-conservative-history-based-sites/

Donald Trump, Jr. took Facebook to task in a recent article, and the censorship may be worse than even he thought

Legal Insurrection readers are acutely aware of the deplatforming and silencing of conservative voices across social media and via outlets like Amazon.

The latest victim to get slammed by the iron-hand of Big Tech is President Trump’s chief social media guru, Dan Scavino. Facebook blocked his account for simply responding to a question from a reader.

The excuse was that his remark seemed like spam.

Scavino is responsible for several of the president’s and White House’s social media accounts. He has been with the president for years.

His accounts have a tremendous following, so a block on Facebook has a big reach. Already there are over 750 comments on his page, including:

“Cory Critser Dan Scavino Daniel Scavino Jr. … I think it’s time for some Senate hearings with Facebook on there attempts to influence the election.”

On a smaller scale, my personal website (Temple of Mut) was temporarily blocked from being linked in Facebook. The reason I was given: The website did not meet community standards.

Message to Leslie Eastman in my account

True . . . if your community consists merely of climate-change cultists and gender justice warriors. However, Facebook is supposed to be playing by the rules of a platform and not a publisher, so my science-based and news-focused content should be acceptable under any reasonable standard.

Additionally, the Canto Talk Show program that I help host on occasion was also hit with a Facebook ban. Silvio Canto, the mild-mannered, thoughtful host and author of historic, sports, and political analysis was deeply troubled when his show promotion posts were deemed “inappropriate.”

I am very angry. It took me several hours to calm down. They banned posts on World War II and baseball.What is offensive about that. Was it because I actually called Hitler “Hitler” instead of Trump? And my baseball piece was about Hank Aaron. How is that not appropriate? [transcript provided by author]

Barry Jacobson, a former Green Beret who fought to defend the Constitution (including his First Amendment rights), was also impacted by Facebook censorship. The social media giant recently stopped the promotion of his military history podcasts.

That Facebook deems discussion of WW-2 “in violation of community standards” is not only astonishing; it begs the question, what standard are they upholding? Ignorance? Put another way, is the banning of all discussion of the horrors caused by the Nazis somehow going to further the cause (which I assume Facebook supports) of hindering the spread of Nazi ideology?

I suspect that Facebook has tweaked its algorithms in such a way that anything even mildly conservative is now flagged. Donald Trump, Jr. recently published a detailed piece decrying Big Tech’s censorship of conservatives, which has steadily become more flagrant and overt.

Facebook appears to have deliberately tailored its algorithm to recognize the syntax and style popular among conservatives in order to “deboost” that content. “Mainstream media,” “SJW” (Social Justice Warrior) and “red pill” — all terms that conservatives often use to express themselves — were listed as red flags, according to the former Facebook insider.

Facebook engineers even cited BlazeTV host Lauren Chen’s video criticizing the social justice movement as an example of the kind of “red pills” that users just aren’t allowed to drop anymore. Mainstream conservative content was strangled in real time, yet fringe leftists such as the Young Turks enjoy free rein on the social media platform.

I would argue that the situation is even worse than the president’s son has stated if history-based blogs are now being silenced.

For those of you interested, listen to this Canto Talk podcast reviewing the current status of the Battle against Big Tech.

https://percolate.blogtalkradio.com/offsiteplayer?hostId=4735&episodeId=11250737

San Francisco Has More Drug Addicts Than Public High School Students, Health Dept Survey finds


Posted by    Sunday, February 3, 2019 at 6:00pm

“There are about 24,500 injection drug users in San Francisco — that’s about 8,500 more people than the nearly 16,000 students enrolled in San Francisco Unified School District’s 15 high schools”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=31&v=YQctLUab5Ks

The Left Coast of this great nation is often held up as a blueprint for progressive policy successes by its politicians, such as Democratic Party presidential hopeful Kamala Harris. However, just how close to utopia are these progressive paradises? A look at the public health conditions show that the only “wealth” that seems to be readily spread through these regions is viral load.

Late last year, I reported that the Los Angeles area was battling a typhus epidemic.

https://legalinsurrection.com/2018/11/typhus-spreads-through-los-angeles-over-100-cases-reported/

Now, a Los Angeles City Hall official is one of the latest victims of typhus, and the disease continues to spread across Los Angeles County.

For months, LA County public health officials have said typhus is mainly hitting the homeless population. But Deputy City Attorney Liz Greenwood, a veteran prosecutor, tells NBC4 she was diagnosed with typhus in November, after experiencing high fevers and excruciating headaches.

“It felt like somebody was driving railroad stakes through my eyes and out the back of my neck,” Greenwood told the I-Team. “Who gets typhus? It’s a medieval disease that’s caused by trash.”

Greenwood believes she contracted typhus from fleas in her office at City Hall East. Fleas often live on rats, which congregate in the many heaps of trash that are visible across the city of LA, and are a breeding ground for typhus.

The California Department of Public Health reports a 55% increase in reported cases of typhus for 2018, with over 160 cases reported across the state. A bit farther North, the blue bastion of San Francisco has a fun, new statistic about which it can boast.

San Francisco has more drug addicts than it has students enrolled in its public high schools, the city Health Department’s latest estimates conclude.

There are about 24,500 injection drug users in San Francisco — that’s about 8,500 more people than the nearly 16,000 students enrolled in San Francisco Unified School District’s 15 high schools and illustrates the scope of the problem on the city’s streets. It’s also an increase of about 2,000 serious drug users since 2012, the last time a study was done….

The problem is particularly visible in the Tenderloin, where police reported more than 600 arrests for drug dealing last year. And where 27 suspects were booked into County Jail for dealing drugs in the first 20 days of the new year.

The out-in-the-open use of drugs on city sidewalks and at the Civic Center BART Station was a huge embarrassment for the city and triggered more police patrols and crackdowns in the past year. The BART station has been cleaned up, but the problem continues in the Tenderloin.

To be fair, who would really want to live in the Bay Area completely sober?

As the final item in our review of social justice citadels, let’s look at Washington state. A few weeks ago, I reported that the section of the state close to Portland, Oregon (an officially designated anti-vaccine hot spot) was experiencing a measles emergency.

Early last week, Washington Governor Jay Inslee Friday a state of emergency related to the measles outbreak.

State agencies will work with local health departments and emergency management teams to help respond to any needs, including epidemiology to verify suspected cases, technical assistance to educate the public on measles outbreaks and guidance on how to protect vulnerable populations, according to Tara Lee, spokeswoman for the governor.

As public health officials review the escalating number of measles outbreaks, some indicate that social media may be a contributing factor to the anti-vaccination movement that is leading to the spread of contagion.

Dawn Nolt, an assistant professor of pediatric diseases at Doernbecher children’s hospital in Portland, said that while measles is only rarely deadly, “it has high consequences” for the short-term health of its victims. She said measles is also highly contagious, and will spread to 90% of unvaccinated people who are exposed to a carrier of the disease.

She has seen an increase in what practitioners call “vaccine hesitancy”, and she added: “I do wonder whether the advent of social media has empowered that anti-vaccine movement.”

Clearly, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Washington State show that social justice demands conflict with public health needs and common sense.

This ‘MEGA-CHURCH’ Embraced Gay Marriage 2yrs Ago – It Ain’t ‘Mega’ Anymore


Published by ClashDaily.com | on November 13, 2017

Progressives think they have a ‘better’ way of doing everything. But — just like the NFL — the agenda they were pushing backfired. Badly. Time magazine had profiled this ‘mega-church’ as one of the first large evangelical churches to ‘openly stand for full equality and inclusion of the LGBTQ community’.

Before he gave this speech, they were a church of about seven or eight hundred visitors a week.

Three Sundays ago in Franklin, Tenn., twenty minutes south of Nashville and in the heart of the country’s contemporary Christian music industry, pastor Stan Mitchell of Grace Pointe Church preached what was perhaps the most important sermon of his life. You can watch it above–start around 44:40 if you are short on time.

That was a time when, as Mitchell, 46, explains, the position of the church on marriage was classically evangelical. People who were not heterosexual could be members, but they could not serve on the board, lead worship or other church groups. They could be baptized and receive communion, but they could not be married or have their children dedicated.
Source: Juicy Ecumenism 

And so, the issue came to a head in January of 2015, and he took a stand, choosing to side with culture and against 2000 years of Christian Orthodoxy.

They’re self-consciously a ‘progressive’ community. The shirts they sell to raise money say ‘love is a human right’. Only it says it in ALL CAPS.

“Our position that these siblings of ours, other than heterosexual, our position that these our siblings cannot have the full privileges of membership, but only partial membership, has changed,” he said, as many in the congregation stood to their feet in applause, and other sat in silence. “Full privileges are extended now to you with the same expectations of faithfulness, sobriety, holiness, wholeness, fidelity, godliness, skill, and willingness. That is expected of all. Full membership means being able to serve in leadership and give all of your gifts and to receive all the sacraments; not only communion and baptism, but child dedication and marriage.”

With those words, Grace Pointe became one of the first evangelical megachurches in the country to openly stand for full equality and inclusion of the LGBTQ community, along with East Lake Community Church near Seattle. The results of the conversation, he told his congregation, were not unanimous or exhaustive, but they were sufficient.
Source: Time Magazine

Net result? They have scaled back their staff, and shut down many of their ministries. They still have Stan, and one administrator, but that’s it. Those peak numbers of 700 or 800 attendees a week are now down to maybe 250. And the financial future of the large building and property is also uncertain.

People don’t want a Church that changes the message to suit a culture. The Churches that are thriving are exactly the reverse. An eternal message that changes the people.

Jesus welcomed people — even those the religious types would never have seen fit to talk to — but he did something else, too. He told them ‘go and sin no more.’

If anyone is offering a Christianity that does not challenge the wide variety of ways our lives fail to align with a holy God, and challenge us to:

Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us also lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, looking to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God. Consider him who endured from sinners such hostility against himself, so that you may not grow weary or fainthearted. In your struggle against sin you have not yet resisted to the point of shedding your blood. Hebrews 12:1-4

Sin — any sin that a Christian might struggle with — was never intended to be embraced, but strived against. 

His stance ignores the warning in James 4:4 about aligning yourself with Society’s values and morals rather than God’s.

Why would anyone attend such a place, anyway? Those who want to be challenged to grow in faith, won’t be. And those who don’t want to be challenged have better things they can do with a Sunday morning.

Honestly, it’s surprising those 250 people still keep coming.

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon


waving flagDisarming America

Hillary’s plan against terror is Disarming America so the only the criminals and terrorists among us will have access to assault weapons.

Hillary Disarming America / Political cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2016.

More A.F. Branco Cartoons at Net Right Daily.

A.F. Branco Coffee Table Book <—- Order Here!

Criminals and Dictators Armed Hey Leftist Picture1 true battle Picture1 In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Political INCORRECTNESS


waving flag

  Drawn by Chip Bok – Friday, June 17, 2016

URL of the original posting site: http://townhall.com/political-cartoons/chipbok

Political Cartoons by Chip Bok

Drawn by Gary Varvel – Monday, June 20, 2016

URL of the original posting site: http://townhall.com/political-cartoons/garyvarvel

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Drawn by Lisa Benson – Friday, June 17, 2016

URL of the original posting site: http://townhall.com/political-cartoons/lisabenson

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

When tolerance becomes a one way street

Prayer for revival

Picture1

Edward Whelan: Scalia’s Passing Could Cost Americans Their Constitution


by Dan Riehl, 14 Feb 2016, Washington, DC

President Barack Obama and his progressives can grab control of the nation’s constitution if he gets to appoint a Supreme Court replacement for Antonin Scalia, says Ed Whelan, a former law clerk for Scalia.

“If President Obama has another appointee to this Court, we’re going to have an entrenchment of the Left on constitutional issues for the next generations, or so and a great deal will be lost on a whole range of issues in a way that might not ever be recoverable,” he told Breitbart News Sunday host Alex Marlow, on Sirius XM Patriot channel 125.

Whelan, who is now President of the Ethics and Public Policy Center and writes at National Review Online’s Bench Memos, joined Breitbart News Sunday to discuss Scalia’s recent passing from a heart attack at age 79, leaving the court with three conservatives, four liberals and one swing-vote.

Whelan wrote yesterday in Bench Memos that:

Senate Republicans would be grossly irresponsible to allow President Obama, in the last months of his presidency, to cement a liberal majority that will wreak havoc on the Constitution. Let the people decide in November who will select the next justice.AMEN

Whelan called Scalia a “gregarious, joyful person” who “loved vigorous argument and struggled to get cases right,” while noting his “wonderful laugh” and calling him “challenging and intimidating, a great mentor and great judge.”

Politically, Whelan said conservatives not only lost a great Justice, and are at risk of losing the Supreme Court and the Constitution given the timing of his passing.

Whelan praised Scalia, saying he “blazed a trail that many others have followed in, his textualist approach (which) is dominant now.” even though some Justices often veer from it to get the result they want.

He credited Scalia and also Judge Robert Bork for reviving “the Constitutionalist or originalist approach to the Constitution in the 1980s — that the words meant what they were understood to mean when they were adopted.”

Whelan said Scalia “transformed” the Court in terms of “how it generally approaches statutory and Constitutional issues” as a rival to living Constitutionalists.

Picture1 In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon


waving flagProgress vs Progressive

URL of the original posting site: http://comicallyincorrect.com/2015/12/03/progress-vs-progressive

Progress vs Progressive

Partyof Deceit Spin and Lies unfit lying so long hillary-prison-or-potus Indenification of Obama Community Organizer Two destruction definetly All about the vote The Leftist Propagandist Buying votes Alinsky affect Tytler cycle cdr modified 071712 In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Transwhatever


waving flagWritten by avatar ; on 21 June, 2015

URL of the Original Posting Site: http://barbwire.com/2015/06/21/transwhatever

Hold on.trans

Courage, Matt, courage. 

Breathe.

OK, I’m ready.

This is it. I’m coming out. I want the world to know. I’m a black, lesbian platypus trapped in a white, straight guy’s body. This is my truth. It’s my experience. It’s how I identify. It’s my reality (actual reality notwithstanding). Transracial, transgender and transpecies lives matter (#TransLivesMatter), and I’m declaring myself an out and proud member of the LGBTTT community.

Crazy, you say? Don’t judge me, hater. This is my race-species-gender identity and expression, whether real or perceived, and if you refuse to play along, then you’re violating my civil rights. This is my struggle. I demand admission to the wrong bathrooms and showers, the right to play for the other sports teams and unfettered access to your children so I can indoctrinate them till they can’t see straight, or I’ll ruin you. Identify me by whichever stupid pronoun I invent, you cisgender, cisracial, cisspecies bigot, or I’ll glitter bomb you so bad that you’ll be slightly inconvenienced.

Move over, Caitlyn Jenner.

You’re yesterday’s news, Rachel Dolezal.

I’m here! I’m, er, whatever! Get used to it!

It’s my turn. I want my reality show. I want my heavily-Photoshopped, little duckbilled mug on the cover of National Geographic posthaste.

Call me Mrs. Wiggles.

Oh, and transwealthy. I’m that, too. I really need to get my mortgage transpaidoff, so, yeah, I’m transwealthy.

Well? Don’t just sit there. Get busy. Suspend disbelief. Bend the space-time continuum and otherwise adjust your life to accommodate my moonbat pathologies, you microagressive transphobe, or I’ll have your job.

Black, lesbian platypi of the world, unite!

Merriam Webster defines “reductio ad absurdum” as “disproof of a proposition by showing an absurdity to which it leads when carried to its logical conclusion.” You’ve just experienced reductio ad absurdum. “Species identity,” “racial identity” and, to no lesser extent, “gender identity” each represent comically absurd contrivances.Liberalism a mental disorder 2

Yet here we are.

Seriously, thank you Bruce and Rachel for making this rant possible. Thank you, secular “progressives” and mainstream media for overplaying your hand on the whole “transwhatever” twaddle to the extent that Americans at large are beginning to sit up and, with a bold, unified voice, declare, “Um, say what?”just-stop-300x200

These past three weeks have served to set your extremist agenda back years, and that’s fantastic. People get it. Putting the “trans” prefix ahead of some objective truth that you oh-so-very-much-wish weren’t so, does not reverse that truth and make your personal fantasy become everyone’s reality. Ever heard of a “transabled” person? “Transgender” activists have long distanced themselves from the “transabled” community because the two clinical psychoses are effectively different manifestations of the same disorder. The “transabled” person has a sincere, deep-seated belief that he or she is a disabled person trapped in a perfectly healthy and able body. In an effort to align their false identity with objective reality, “transabled” people have amputated healthy limbs, intentionally blinded themselves, had their legs crushed and worse. Ironically, the transabled person who saws off a perfectly healthy arm, pokes out an eye or deliberately cripples healthy legs can actually achieve success. If he does one or more of these things, he will, in fact, become disabled.DO NOT JACKASS

The “transgender” person, on the other hand, can never enjoy this same success. If one who tragically believes that he or she is trapped in the wrong-sexed body goes through with cosmetic “gender reassignment” surgery and maims his or her body by mutilating perfectly healthy reproductive organs (or by having healthy breasts cut off if female), then that person remains as that person began – male or female. “But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female (Mark 10:6).”

The pitiful paradox here is that, rather than being transformed to the opposite sex (or “gender” as “progressives” prefer) the “transgendered” will, like his or her similarly situated “transabled” counterpart, simply become physically disabled (and sterilized).

Or consider the anorexic. This is the emaciated person who, misperceiving herself to be grossly overweight, will starve herself to death. You don’t help the anorexic by affirming her delusion, calling her “transfat” and giving her liposuction. You feed her. And then you get her therapy.

Leftists love to say that race and “gender” are social constructs. Clever little buggers, aren’t they? This is a classic example of George Orwell’s doublethink. It’s a deliberate tactic by which relativists are able, with a straight face, to call up down, white black and male female. They muddy fixed, objective truths by labeling them “social constructs,” while, at the same time, socially constructing the rhetorical tools needed for fascism. Pretendoids like “gender identity,” “transphobia,” “sexual orientation” and “homophobia” are just a few examples of such social constructs (yes, I made up “pretendoids.” If they can do it, then so can I).Liberalism a mental disorder 2

Evil is Good

For relativism to work – and that’s what we’re talking about here; relativism;

  • reality must be undone,
  • adherents to objective truth pilloried
  • and all dissent stifled.

This is classic cultural Marxism. It’s a bizarre and despotic world in which the left’s upside-down version of “inclusivity” trumps authenticity – a society wherein any recognition of objective truths that “progressives” cannot (more properly, will not) abide, are labeled offensive “microagressions” that, when uttered even offhandedly, demand swift punitive measures.

While penning the infamous majority decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, a decision that upheld the phantom “constitutional right” for a mother to have her own child dismembered alive, Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote, “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.” This, of course, is abject nonsense. Still, it is illuminating. It’s the rationale that undergirds, to the extent that anything devoid of substance can undergird anything else, the moral relativist worldview responsible for the postmodern “trans” phenomenon.

But it’s much more than all that.

Justice Kennedy is widely expected to be the swing vote in the Supreme Court’s imminent “gay marriage” decision, Obergefell v. Hodges, which will come down within the next couple of weeks. He will presume to dictate whether black is white, up is down, and whether we must all pretend, under penalty of law, that a man can somehow “marry” another man. Kennedy thinks people have the “right” to redefine the universe.

This is “transsane.”

Which does not bode well for marriage.

Or reality.

freedom combo 2

Rev. Graham: Secularists Are ‘Anti-Christ’ and ‘They’ve Taken Control of Washington’


By Michael W. Chapman January 30, 2015

URL of the Original Posting Site: http://www.cnsnews.com/blog/michael-w-chapman/rev-graham-secularists-are-anti-christ-and-they-ve-taken-control-washington

Secularism followed on the heels of communism after the Berlin Wall came down, and the two ideologies are essentially the “same thing” because they are “godless” and “anti-Christ,” said Reverend Franklin Graham, adding that the secularists have “taken control of our country” and “taken control of Washington.”

vidgrAHAM

“We live in a secular society led by people that call themselves progressives,” said Rev. Graham, son of renowned evangelist Billy Graham, at the Oklahoma State Evangelism Conference on Jan. 26. “When communism, the Berlin Wall came down, everybody said, ‘we won,’ and [then] secularism came.”

“Secularism and communism are the same thing,” he said. They’re godless. They’re anti-Christ. So now we have the secularists who’ve taken control of our country. They’ve taken control of Washington. They’ve taken control our city governments, our local governments, our school boards all across the country, and we have just sat back. It’s happened and we haven’t even realized it’s happened.”

He continued, “Now, you say, Franklin, your father [Billy Graham] wouldn’t get on to these subjects. Wait a second. My father, when he was going to school, they had a Bible in school. When he was going to school, they had the Ten Commandments on the wall. When he was going to school, you could pray in school, and the teachers would lead in those prayers.”AMEN

capitol

The U.S. Capitol building in Washington, D.C. (AP)

“Our country has changed.,” said Franklin Graham. “ We’ve got to take a stand. We cannot back up, we cannot retreat.”

The reverend, who oversees the organization his father founded, the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association (BGEA) and the international relief group Samaritan’s Purse, went on to say that Christian men and women must enter the political arena to turn America in the right direction.

“Let me tell you something, the church needs to get involved in politics,” he said.  “Now I’m not talking about Baptist or Republicans and Tea Party – I don’t even know who they are – but I have no confidence that any of these politicians or any party is going to turn this country around. The only hope for this country is for men and women of God to stand up and take a stand.”AMEN

“We need men and women of God who take these local elections serious, so we can take back these various offices and have men and women of God who believe in the Bible, who stand on the word of God,” said Rev. Graham.  “And let’s send to Washington men and women who believe in God and stand on the word of God and His Son the Lord Jesus Christ, who are not afraid.”

bible

(AP Photo)

“America has changed and it’s not coming back unless the church takes a stand,” he said. There are storms that are coming, and we find ourselves in these storms and many times, we as a church, we run. And we run to the wrong place. You see, Jesus is in the boat [with us]. All we have to do is call Him.”AMEN

“Call on His name,” said Rev. Graham.  “But the secularist and the humanist, no.  You mention the name of Christ and they jump all over you. I get jumped on all the time. I don’t care. I really don’t. I gave my life to Christ.”AMEN

Rev. Franklin Graham, 62, is married, has five children and lives in Boone, N.C. He is the oldest son of Pastor Billy Graham, the most influential evangelical preachers of the last 60 years, whose Christian message has reached an estimated worldwide audience of more than 2 billion people.

Freedom with Prayer

Swedish Police Release Extensive Report Detailing Control Of 55 ‘No-Go Zones’ By Muslim Criminal Gangs


MId Term drawing

Posted By Matt Danielsson

Article printed from The Daily Caller: http://dailycaller.com

URL to article: http://dailycaller.com/2014/11/02/swedish-police-release-extensive-report-detailing-control-of-55-no-go-zones-by-muslim-criminal-gangs/

America are you paying attention

Swedish police have ceded control over 55 “no-go zones” to predominately Muslim criminal gangs.

An extensive report mapping out 55 no-go zones was released Oct. 24, showing where law enforcement has all but handed control to criminal gangs.

Officers frequently face outright attacks when trying to enter the areas, which is a step up from the previous problem with attacks on mailmen, fire trucks, ambulances and similar services. Fire trucks and ambulances had to wait for police escort to enter the areas, but now the police themselves need protection.

The no-go areas heavily coincide with the map of the 186 “exclusion areas” aka. crowded, predominantly Muslim immigrant ghettos, where education is low, employment is lower and the only local business thriving is drug dealing.

America are you paying attention

As the real law backs away, organized crime emerges to take its place. The police report notes “a wider clientel [in the areas] are increasingly turning to the criminal authorities for justice” in a Godfather-like fashion. Unofficial courts and punishments are often meted out according to the codes of the home cultures of the dominant gangs. The report also points out that there are vehicle checkpoints at the borders of some of these areas. The bad news is it’s not the police doing them; it’s the gangs securing home turf against law enforcement and rival gangs.

The gangs try to keep a semi-low profile in many areas so as not to interfere with the “business” of dealing drugs, protection rackets and similar illicit activity.

Others seek active confrontation with police to establish absolute dominance.

America are you paying attention

A pair of policemen in May were in pursuit of a suspect and unwisely entered the no-go zone of the southern city of Landskrona. Their car was rammed and the officers were forced out of the car. They were cornered by a crowd of some 50 hostile thugs and drew their weapons to hold them back and called for immediate backup.

Several nearby patrol cars responded to the call and sped towards the scene, only to be ordered to stop half a mile away — just outside the no-go border. The police commander didn’t send the backup units in, fearing escalation and all-out war. The cornered police officers were left to fend for themselves. As luck would have it, one of the officers knew a few residents who interfered and convinced the thugs to let them leave.

In response to these no-go zones, the Swedish police is expanding its soft approach of dialogue and understanding. After the extensive 2013 Stockholm ghetto riots with hundreds of burned cars and buildings, police responded by mostly staying away and sending forth special “dialogue officers” to grill halal hot dogs with the miscreants and make them see the errors of their ways.

Starting next year, the Stockholm Policy Academy will be moved to Södertörns Högskola, where the new curriculum will be “progressive” with more focus on cultural sensitivity, ethical awareness, gender issues and more. The aspiring police officers will achieve “greater understanding of the intercultural perspective.”comment 01

swedArticle collective closing

 

Why America Fought. The lessons of World War I


Complete Message

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/why-america-fought_800436.html

Aug 11, 2014, Vol. 19, No. 45

By DAVID ADESNIK

The United States entered the Great War with its eyes wide open. The mechanical slaughter in Europe had already left millions dead. In the trenches, men had to contend with lice, rats, sickness, mud, extreme temperatures, human waste, rotting corpses, and boredom as well as the threats of poison gas, explosive shells, and being buried alive. In 1914, Europe went to war with only the dimmest awareness of the horrors to come. Yet Congress voted overwhelmingly for a declaration of war in the absence of any direct threat to U.S. territory and despite the country’s long tradition of distancing itself from European wars. What could explain both the American government’s decision and the broad and deep popular support for the war?

Join!

Today, even a well-rounded college graduate is unlikely to know more about American intervention than the fact that it had something to do with German submarines. Yet why did the United States send two million men to fight in France and Belgium after the Germans sank a handful of merchant vessels? The answer is that Americans across the political spectrum believed they were fighting to defend their inalienable rights, which included the freedom of the seas. If the United States let the German empire trample on its rights, this weakness would invite other challenges. There seemed to be no option but war.

By the 1930s, however, a new consensus portrayed American intervention as a tragic and wasteful misadventure. The Allies’ hollow victory did not bring peace, but only pervasive fears of a more destructive war to come. In today’s terminology, Americans retroactively redefined intervention in the Great War as a choice, not a necessity. The simplistic distinction between wars of choice and wars of necessity, however, only clouds our understanding of the past and its lessons for today. If one revisits 1917 without these conceptual blinders on, what begins to emerge is a deeper understanding of what Americans, in any time and place, believe is worth fighting for.

Wars of Necessity, Wars of Choice

In theory, wars of necessity have a justification so compelling that there is effectively no choice but to fight. World War II provides the paradigmatic example. For the United States, however, wars of necessity are the exception, not the rule. The label does not account for the War of 1812, the Mexican-American War, the Spanish-American War, the Korean War, Vietnam, the invasions of Panama and Grenada, or George W. Bush’s war in Iraq. It certainly does not account for humanitarian interventions. Even George H. W. Bush’s war in Iraq does not measure up. General Colin Powell, then serving as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, opposed the decision to fight. So did 47 senators, whereas only 23 voted against the war to oust Saddam Hussein.

In early 2003, the distinction between wars of choice and necessity earned its place in our political lexicon because it seemed to capture the difference between the invasion of Afghanistan and the impending war with Iraq. In 2009, President Obama justified the dispatch of additional troops to Afghanistan by insisting it remained a war of necessity, yet within months he had shifted to emphasizing his interest in ending the war. Hindsight transformed a necessity into a choice, as it had after World War I.

To dispel this confusion, the place to begin is with the old saw that war should always be the option of last resort. The question is, The last resort before what? The answer depends greatly on both Americans’ understanding of their role in the world and their assessment of other countries’ capabilities and intentions. This is the real terrain on which a debate about war and peace should take place.

The Meaning of American Neutrality, 1914-1916

In response to the outbreak of war in Europe, President Woodrow Wilson implored Americans to be “impartial in thought as well as in action.” This high-minded sentiment was impractical not just in terms of psychology, but, more important, in terms of geography and technology. According to diplomatic convention, neutral powers had a right to commerce with all belligerents, including the right to sell munitions and war materiel. In practice, Britain’s naval supremacy ensured that only the Allies would have access to the American arsenal. Germany soon discovered that submarines were the only means of disrupting the commerce that sustained the Allies’ war effort.

Diplomatic conventions conceived in the age of sail and steam were not readily adjustable to the advent of submarine warfare. In theory, the German Navy had the right to sink any vessel carrying war materiel to Allied ports after conducting an inspection of its cargo and after ensuring the safety of the crew. Observing such conventions entailed tremendous risks for German submarines, since they moved slowly and had thin hulls. Their main advantage was surprise, yet they had to surface in order to inspect Allied cargo vessels. At that point, a cargo ship could ram the U-boat or, if it were armed, direct its fire at a stationary target.

The tension inherent in this mismatch between technology and tradition ensured that submarine warfare would become a flashpoint in German-American relations during the first years of the war. While many U-boats scrupulously followed the rules, some did not. On May 7, 1915, only three months after the onset of submarine warfare, U-20 sank the Lusitania, a British passenger liner, without warning. The Lusitania sank in only 18 minutes, resulting in the deaths of almost 1,200 passengers, among them 128 Americans. Whole families perished. Paul and Gladys Crompton died along with all six of their children, one still an infant.

There was widespread outrage in the United States, yet few calls for war. Publicly, the Germans refused to concede either the immorality or the illegality of the sinking, yet they maintained a commitment to respect the rights of neutrals. Privately, the kaiser expressed deep regret, later telling the American ambassador in Berlin he would have forbidden the sinking if he could have, since “no gentleman would kill so many women and children.” Accordingly, the kaiser issued secret orders to the navy forbidding future attacks on large passenger ships.

For more than a year, heated diplomatic exchanges followed every significant infringement of the rules by a German U-boat. Yet during the entire period of neutrality, only three Americans sailing on American ships lost their lives as a result of a U-boat attack. Another 62 perished while aboard British or other belligerent vessels. According to John Milton Cooper, the most prominent historian of Wilson’s presidency, “the threat of war was in remission” during the latter half of 1916.

The Rupture of U.S.-German Relations

American voters reelected Woodrow Wilson by a three-point margin in November 1916, although a shift of only 4,000 votes in California would have given a majority in the Electoral College to Republican candidate Charles Evans Hughes. Wilson’s advocates relentlessly reminded voters, “He kept us out of war.” Yet less than a month into his second term, Wilson asked Congress for a declaration of war on Germany.

On January 31, 1917, the German ambassador in Washington, Count Johann von Bernstorff, informed Secretary of State Robert Lansing that on the following day the German Navy would initiate a campaign of unrestricted submarine warfare. In other words, Germany would embark on the wholesale violation of laws of war it had repeatedly acknowledged as binding over the past two years. American ships would be sunk without warning. The announcement came as a shock to Washington.

Although wartime propaganda would later portray Germany as the land of bestial Huns, Americans mostly considered the Reich to be a civilized nation, despite its frequently unbecoming conduct. There was little sense that Wilhelmine Germany was a criminal state run by brutal extremists, like the future Third Reich.

In response to the German announcement, President Wilson embraced a policy of incredulity. He told a joint session of Congress on February 3 that while he had no choice but to sever diplomatic ties,

I refuse to believe that it is the intention of the German authorities to do in fact what they have warned us they will [do]. I cannot bring myself to believe that they will .  .  . destroy American ships and take the lives of American citizens in the willful prosecution of the ruthless naval program they have announced their intention to adopt.

While enraged by the German announcement, both congressmen and newspaper editors overwhelmingly supported Wilson’s policy.

Armed Neutrality 

At first, German behavior seemed to vindicate Wilson’s optimism. The same day as Wilson’s address to Congress, the submarine U-53 torpedoed the American freighter Housatonic. Before sinking the Housatonic, the U-53 came to the surface, where its captain emerged to explain in fluent English, “You are carrying foodstuffs to an enemy of my country, and though I am sorry, it is my duty to sink you.” The Germans deposited the crew of the Housatonic safely on the English coast. Nine days later, the U-35 sank another American vessel in a similarly courteous manner. Wilson did not protest either incident, though fear of attack had paralyzed the American merchant fleet.

Wilson held fast to his policy of inaction until the revelation of the Zimmermann Telegram. British intelligence had intercepted a communiqué, which it shared with Washington, in which the Germans offered to reward Mexico with Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico if it would join the German side in the event of war. Wilson knew the proposal was utterly implausible. Nonetheless, it damaged his hope that the Germans shared his determination to preserve the peace.

On February 26, the day after learning of the telegram—but before informing the press of its existence—Wilson returned to Congress to assert that “the situation we find ourselves in with regard to the actual conduct of the German submarine warfare .  .  . is substantially the same that it was when I addressed you on the third of February.” However, change was necessary because American ships were afraid to leave port. Wilson requested support for a policy of “armed neutrality” that would entail the provision of defensive armaments to American ships. The House quickly passed an armed neutrality bill, 403 to 13. There was overwhelming support in the Senate, yet a filibuster by four antiwar progressives killed the proposal. While requesting congressional support, Wilson made clear his belief that his authority as commander in chief enabled him to act without legislative approval, which he soon did.

Wilson exercised an agonizing degree of patience. Germany did not retreat an inch from its official policy of unrestricted submarine warfare, yet neither did its behavior dash Wilson’s hope of a German desire for peace, which in fact existed only in his imagination. Two months earlier, at an Imperial Conference at the castle of Pless, the kaiser made an irrevocable decision to suffocate the British Isles. He and his advisers believed this would knock Britain out of the war and force the remaining Allies to sue for peace. The German leadership fully expected the United States to wage war rather than surrender the commercial rights it had asserted for so long. The Germans knew that Americans would consider submarine warfare to be an intolerable insult. But they calculated that the United States could not mobilize quickly enough to prevent a German victory.

There was nothing disingenuous about the Reich’s announcement of its decision in February. Its leaders did not intend to play games with Wilson, or to take advantage of his desperate desire for peace. Forty-five days passed between the German announcement and the first incontrovertible act of war because the United States was an afterthought. In the words of German naval minister Eduard von Capelle, “From a military point of view America is as nothing.”

No Choice But War

On March 18, Americans learned of the sinking of the Vigilancia by a German submarine. The torpedo struck without warning. “The steamer sank in seven minutes; its captain never saw the attacking U-boat. [The Vigilancia] flew an American flag. Its name and home city were painted on port and starboard bows in letters five feet high and could be read at a distance of three miles,” writes diplomatic historian Justus Doenecke. Fifteen crewmen drowned.

This was the incontrovertible act of war that Wilson had feared. This was the indication that all of his yearning for peace was worthless. Yet Wilson maintained a remarkable silence. Sensing that war was imminent, socialist, pacifist, and German-American organizations launched a final campaign of antiwar protests. With the tension almost unbearable, the American public had to wait 15 days before hearing from the commander in chief.

On March 20, Wilson called his cabinet into session for two-and-a-half hours. To a man, they called for war. At the conclusion of the meeting, Wilson said only, “I think there is no doubt as to what your advice is.” Three days later, Wilson announced he would address Congress on April 2.

The implementation of armed neutrality had only just begun, yet Wilson and his advisers judged it to be unworkable. Neutrality ruled out any offensive actions. A merchant vessel’s only option was to spot a submerged U-boat and pull the trigger first. On April 1, the U-46 sank the Aztec, an armed American transport; 28 men died, including a naval gunner.

The next day, Wilson delivered his war message to Congress. Today, one phrase in particular from that address remains embedded in public memory: “The world must be made safe for democracy.” It has become shorthand for the mistaken belief that Wilson’s war was a global crusade for freedom. It was nothing of the kind. In the passages dedicated to justifying a declaration of war, Wilson focused overwhelmingly on the perfidy of unrestricted submarine warfare and the insufficiency of armed neutrality. The Senate voted for war 82-6, the House 373-50.

American forces would deliver terrific blows to the Reich in their offensives on the Marne, at St. Mihiel, and on the Meuse-Argonne front. Tens of thousands would remain behind, lying to this day under rows of small white crosses.

The Illusions of Hindsight

In the 1920s and ’30s, progressives recast the Great War not simply as a war of choice, but as a war of greed and malice. While the settlement at Versailles disintegrated and Americans rejected responsibility for defending it, progressives revived old conspiracy theories about the role of arms merchants in provoking the 1917 intervention. Before voting against the war, Sen. George Norris (R-Neb.) declared, “We are going into war upon the command of gold. We are going to run the risk of sacrificing millions of our countrymen’s lives in order that other countrymen may coin their lifeblood into money. .  .  . I feel that we are about to put the dollar sign on the American flag.”

Progressives imposed this interpretation so effectively that even Franklin Roosevelt had to pay it lip service while swimming against the isolationist tide. In the “I Hate War” address of 1936—commemorated today as part of the FDR Memorial in Washington D.C.—Roosevelt warned, “If war should break out again in another continent, let us not blink the fact that we would find in this country thousands of Americans who, seeking immediate riches—fools’ gold—would attempt to break down or evade our neutrality.”

The second great war against Germany reversed the widespread assumption that the first had been unnecessary. Americans regretted their complacent dismissal of Wilson’s prophetic warnings about the need for collective security.

Since World War II overshadowed its predecessor so decisively, further debate about Wilson’s foreign policy has not resonated beyond the walls of the academy. For most Americans, World War I has become little more than the first good war against very bad Germans.

Nonetheless, persistent debates among scholars demonstrate the instability of any judgment about whether a given conflict is a war of choice or a war of necessity. Since 1945, “realist” scholars of international relations have advocated the unusual hypothesis that World War I was a sort of accidental war of necessity. Emblematic of the realist perspective is Henry Kissinger’s withering criticism of Wilson as a naïve crusader to whom “national interests were irrelevant” and for whom “the war had a moral foundation, whose primary objective was a new and more just international order.” In contrast, a shrewd president would have recognized the imperative to enter the war in order to prevent Germany from dominating Europe and someday threatening the United States.

Strangely, Kissinger asserts, “Wilson did not justify America’s entry into the war on the grounds of specific grievances” against Germany. Of course, that is exactly what Wilson did. Few scholars, however, have found Wilson’s logic to be compelling on strategic grounds. According to Doenecke, “The president realized American security was not in jeopardy.” But its honor and prestige were threatened.

Wilson’s biographers are sympathetic to his decision, yet portray it as a moral tragedy rather than a strategic masterstroke. John Milton Cooper emphasizes how the final words of Wilson’s war message are borrowed from Martin Luther’s response to accusations of heresy: “God helping me, I can do no other.” In the end, Germany’s criminal behavior overcame Wilson’s revulsion at the savagery of war.

Imperial President ObamaBeyond Choice and Necessity

The esoteric history of neutrality laws and submarine warfare should not obscure the basic truth at the heart of Wilson’s justification for war. World order depends on the existence of rules, even if their application is difficult and there is no impartial transnational authority to enforce them. When a nation of Germany’s stature flagrantly violated those rules, it posed a potential threat to every state that relied on the existing order for its security.

Some, like Holland and Norway, remained neutral because of their relative weakness. If the United States, circa 1917, had considered itself to be more like the Dutch and Norwegians than the British, French, and Germans, it could have accepted German impositions and resigned itself to whatever outcome the war generated. Instead, Americans took it for granted that the United States ought to employ its power to defend and shape the order on which its security depended.Americans

london-muslim-extremist-1-2-09-300x208At an earlier point in time, Americans would not have understood their role this way. In the interwar years, Americans would return to a more restricted sense of their responsibilities and interests.

Today, Americans are struggling to understand their role in the world. After seven decades as a superpower, there is still broad acceptance of the idea that the United States ought to be a world leader or even the “indispensable nation” that protects the prevailing liberal order. At the same time, there is growing fear of the costs of leadership, especially the possibility of war with dangerous adversaries such as Russia, China, or Iran.

As in Wilson’s time, Americans want the benefits of order while remaining uneasy about the costs. This does not mean that the United States must respond with force every time that order is threatened. It may reconcile itself to Russia’s flagrant violation of Ukrainian sovereignty. It may reconcile itself to Beijing’s I don't hate America Just those thatintimidation in the South China Sea, Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons, and the rise of a terrorist protostate within Syria and Iraq. What cannot be known is whether and when a crumbling order will bring the threat of violence directly to American shores.

The choice confronting Americans is whether to remain the kind of country that will act before its back is against the wall, or whether it will accept whatever kind of security environment emerges in the absence of American leadership. The advantage of being proactive is that the United States can respond to threats before they achieve obama-hates-america-period-obama-politics-1344999210maximum lethality. The disadvantage is that Americans will never know, even in hindsight, whether a war was truly necessary. What would have been the impact of a German victory in the Great War, a Communist occupation of South Korea, or Saddam’s annexation of Kuwait? No one will ever know for sure.

Describing wars in terms of choice or necessity blinds America to the uncertainty inherent in the pursuit of national security. If the United States remains committed to defending the liberal order it created, the most pressing question will always be how to choose wisely when considering the use of force.

David Adesnik is a visiting fellow at AEI’s Marilyn Ware Center for Security Studies.

Article collective closing

This is the problem with progressivism. It is barren.


America’s Empty Progressive Culture

By / http://girlsjustwannahaveguns.com/2013/04/americas-empty-progressive-culture/

empyt headWe enjoy looking back to a time when generations of men were willing to fight and die for the things of value in this world, especially today.  Many of those men were mere teens when they took up their causes.  When Alexander Hamilton was around 19 years old, he wrote “The Farmer Refuted,” a lively response to the loyalist writings of Samuel Seabury in 1775.  Hamilton was not only a rowdy and confident teen, he knew well the ideas that this nation would soon be founded upon and that he would help to define:

Hence, also, the origin of all civil government, justly established, must be a voluntary compact between the rulers and the ruled, and must be liable to such limitations as are necessary for the security of the absolute rights of the latter; for what original title can any man, or set of men, have to govern others, except their own consent? To usurp dominion over a people in their own despite, or to grasp at a more extensive power than they are willing to intrust, is to violate that law of nature which gives every man a right to his personal liberty, and can therefore confer no obligation to obedience.

Hamilton also suggests that Seabury become more acquainted with the likes of Grotius, Puffendorf, Locke, Montesquieu, and Burlemaqui.  While I imagine some American youth are exposed to Locke and Montesquieu in the most empty fashion possible, they would be hard pressed to truly understand how important their ideas are.

Public school systems have dumbed down philosophy, history and all of the humanities which the founders of this nation studied extensively.  The very fabric of this nation was based on classical philosophical ideas.  Is there any way a student can be expected to understand their Second Amendment rights when they have no clue what liberty is or why it is worth fighting for?  They have studied culture relatively and are never asked to compare our republic to other nations (because of course, that might offend someone).

In George Washington’s Farewell Address of 1796, he warned that “reason and experience forbid us to expect that popular morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principles.”  To apply this to today’s world, it might be better to say a “global morality.”  This is what many children are being taught.  There is a “global” way of thinking that washes American culture in particular of its values and morality.  Even some modern conservatives shrink away from attempting to argue the value of religion for our nation and its people.

And what has been the happy result of this progressive mission to destroy our culture?  Suicide rates amongst teens and young adults have been higher than at any other recorded point in history.  Young men have the highest rates and this is not surprising.  Liberal culture has failed them.  It has confused the roles they should aim for, leaving them empty, void of tradition, values, or morality.

For the youth fortunate enough to get a “great” education, they are likely to become educated dumb people with no convictions on anything.  Obama’s 2007 campaign was powerful amongst youth for one reason, they had absolutely no faith in anything else.  American youth culture has grown to reflect the empty things on television and in public school curricula.  Bars are filled with young adults whose best attempt at life is to model something they hear in a Lady Gaga song.   Somehow, getting embarrassingly drunk or yelling obscenities to the world is a defining moment in their lives.  They resent anyone who tries to tell them about deeper things in life, philosophy, religion, anything that seeks to answer the questions that plagued them.  Somehow they know it all without understanding a thing.

This is the problem with progressivism.  It is barren.  Barack Obama caught youth attention because his media image sold him as hope, the Messiah come to earth; and needing something to link them to their sorry existence, to have a reason to experience joy or to feel tears on their cheek, they praised him.  Now that many of them have returned to their empty feelings, they still praise him out of the memory of having something to believe in.

Though it seems like a devastating picture, the culture war is still going.  In the book, “The Conservative Mind,” Russell Kirk described a few ways Conservatives or any loyal American can work to hold back the damaging emptiness of progressive culture:

  1. Reaffirm the truth that lies in tradition, i.e. stop saying morality and tradition do not matter.  That is the progressive game.  He who cares the most wins.  If you feel religion is pointless to the conversation, then you leave space for progressive “values” to fill in the gaps.
  2. Defend the classes and regions where tradition is still a living force, Middle America and rural communities.
  3. Humanize urban life, instead of destroying old buildings and landmarks for new ones, keep native architecture.  People have a deeper connection to their cities when their monuments remain for generations.  This was one reason why the World Trade Centers were targeted by terrorists, they were symbols of the Western world.
  4. And probably most importantly, return to family-centered and church-centered life, the glue that has held American culture together from the beginning.

 

*If you are curious to see Kirk’s arguments in more detail, they are contained in the chapter titled “The Problem of Tradition.”

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: