Larry Elder goes through the lies of the media and Democrats saying Trump called the Coronavirus a hoax. Democrat politicians and the Media (and some #NeverTrumpers) continue to spread this untruth, like they did the Charlottesville Lie and the lie that Trump made fun of a man’s handicap. The other DOUBLE-STANDARD by the media is that they themselves called the Coronavirus the Chinese Virus or Wuhan Virus themselves. When the “Bad Orange Man” used it they switched gears and said it was racist.
Here are some posts I think are worthy to compliment the audio:
Fact Check: Did Trump Call Coronavirus a ‘Hoax’? (DAILY SIGNAL)
Media Claim Trump Called Coronavirus A ‘Hoax.’ But Video Shows That’s Not What Trump Said at All (THE BLAZE)
Woke Media Calls Term ‘Wuhan Virus’ Racist After Using Term ‘Wuhan Virus’ (THE FEDERALIST)
[WATCH] 35 Times the Media Said ‘Wuhan Coronavirus’ or ‘Chinese Coronavirus’ (PJ-MEDIA)
99% of Those Who Died From Virus Had Other Illness, Italy Says (BLOOMBERG) More than 99% of Italy’s coronavirus fatalities were people who suffered from previous medical conditions, according to a study by the country’s national health authority.
We Are in This Crisis Because of the Decisions of the Chinese Government (NATIONAL REVIEW)
Democrats and the media (and #NeverTrumpers) try to say that the Trump administration refused and slowed test kits for the Wuhan Virus (COVID-19). This just is not the case, as the interview Larry Elder excerpts from between Dr. Anthony Fauci and Hugh Hewitt (YOUTUBE) shows clearly.
…On Friday, one of Trump’s media sycophants and enablers, Rush Limbaugh, made a statement on air that was both alarming, and in a sense, prophetic.
To paraphrase, Limbaugh stated that Donald Trump “owns” American evangelicals.
Yes, he did use the word “owns.”
For those of us who are evangelical and recognize our freedoms come from God, paid for by the shed blood of Christ, the idea of being “owned” by any worldly politician is rather repugnant….
The full context is this (the fuller is in the audio):
“Because the Republicans Party cannot win anything without their votes. There are at bare minimum 24,000-million Evangelical votes in America, and maybe more… and guess who owns them? And long before today, Donald Trump.”
Rush Limbaugh was merely saying the Pro-Life movement (Evangelicals) took over the Party platform and transformed the GOP. The Republicans since Reagan have essentially owned the GOP, and the Republicans can trust/depend [own] their votes. And this wasn’t repugnant under Dubya, Reagan, etc… only “the bad orange man.”
This attack on Rush reminds me of Chuck Todd asking “why you do not trust the CIA” to a Republican who merely said he did not trust John Brennan. As if Brennan encapsulates the totality of the CIA. Or Democrats repeating ad nauseum that Republicans and Trump do not believe Russia attacked the 2016 election [when it was Republicans who first warned Obama of this upcoming event in 2014] because they say Ukraine attacked our 2016 election. As if both cannot be true (FOOTNOTE 565).
People with bias do not take a break and think things through. The above political positions are reminiscent of Many have built a straw-man argument out of the teaching of literal interpretation, alleging that we have to take everything in the Bible literally, e.g., “the trees of the field shall clap their hands” (Isaiah 55:12). The Bible as well as politicians and talking heads, contains, and use definite types of figurative language, including metaphor, simile, hyperbole, and anthropomorphism. But all of these are easily detectable and separable from the literal text itself. Unless you have a bias.
I also made the point of a very recent tragic event to drive home the point:
…you miss the point of my OG article. I have a very committed Christian friend (5-pointer to the max). He said, “RIP Koby. You were the greatest.” Susan Wright’s linked article could apply “just as forcefully” to him and the many other people praising Koby. // “We true Christians know who the greatest is…. The Alpha and Omega…. The Greatest bought us on Calvary with His she’d blood…” — etc., etc.
Everything you have posted from her (that I have seen at least), runs along similar veins. She just emotes here dislike of Trump.
The New York Times has issued an absurdly written correction to a story about President Trump and Russian meddling.
White House reporter Maggie Haberman falsely claimed in her report that 17 intelligence agencies all agreed Russia tried to interfere in the presidential election, reiterating a thoroughly debunked liberal talking point.
Haberman’s story repeated a claim liberals began circulating following a declassified report from the Director of National Intelligence in October on the Russian influence campaign. Since the DNI heads up 17 agencies, it was easy to frame the declassified report as a consensus built on 17 separate assessments. In fact only the three agencies who reviewed the matter signed off on that consensus.
The former director of national intelligence, James Clapper, said as much in a May Senate hearing. The assessment was a “coordinated” product from the FBI, the NSA and the CIA, he said, working under the “aegis” of the DNI. It was not signed off on by 17 agencies. That makes sense, as some of the agencies — Coast Guard intel perhaps most obviously — would have little to do with election hacking.
The Daily Caller News Foundation also addressed the claim in a fact check of a Hillary Clinton interview in May where she again repeated the phrase. Certainly, none of the other agencies disagreed on the record, but that’s to be expected if they didn’t conduct a separate analysis…..
Remember, the Steele dossier came about because the Hillary Clinton campaign and the DNC paid a law firm, which then hired Fusion GPS to dig up dirt on Trump. Fusion GPS then paid a former British intelligence officer, Christopher Steele, who leaned on contacts close to the Kremlin to get information that was used in the preparation of the dossier.
Is it any wonder that those Russians, who wanted to sow discord in the United States, would jump at the opportunity to provide misinformation, knowing that the media would eat it up?…
As it turns out, back in January 2018, New York Times reporter Scott Shane, the lead reporter on this story, was a member of a panel that somewhat resembled the Star Wars cantina scene at the International Spy Museum titled “Unpacking the Russia Story with the Experts Who Have Covered It.” The video is cued up to the appropriate cut for your convenience:
And regarding the New York Times correction to a story about Trump’s tax plan:
The New York Times issued an embarrassing correction after a report that attacked President Donald Trump’s recently passed tax plan got the numbers about as wrong as could be.
The lengthy Feb. 23 feature, headlined, “Get to Know the New Tax Code While Filling Out This Year’s 1040,” sought to detail how Trump’s tax plan would hurt middle-class families. A hypothetical couple — christened Sam and Felicity Taxpayer — would see their tax bill rise by nearly $4,000, according to the story.
Then came the correction saying the family would actually see taxes go down.
The Wall Street Journal’s James Freeman mocked the Times piece before the Old Gray Lady issued the correction.
“Even perennial tax-increase advocate Warren Buffett is now acknowledging the economic benefit of the Trump tax cuts, but The New York Times newsroom still won’t concede the point,” Freeman wrote on Feb. 27. “Will criticism from a liberal law professor persuade The Times to reconsider?”
Well, The Times did reconsider — but it may still not be 100 percent accurate…..
The New York Times had to issue an embarrassing correction to its story about another decades-old accusation of sexual misconduct against US Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh — because it failed to tell readers that the alleged victim doesn’t even remember the incident.
The Times article had been adapted from a book on Kavanaugh by two of its reporters, Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly. The newspaper claimed that Max Stier, a former classmate of the justice years ago at Yale University, had allegedly seen Kavanaugh pull his pants down at a party, and his friends then pushed his penis into the hands of a female student….
The New York Times was forced to issue four corrections to a failed hit piece against Foundation for Defense of Democracies founder Mark Dubowitz.
Last week, the Times published a piece aimed at portraying Dubowitz as corrupt, unethical, and incompetent because he opposed former President Barack Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran and applauded President Donald Trump for withdrawing the U.S. from the horrendous pact.
The embarrassing article falsely claimed that a GOP donor with financial ties to the United Arab Emirates gave FDD $2.7 million to fund an anti-Qatar conference; that Dubowitz “paid himself” twice as much as others who head think tanks; that Dubowitz created his own salary to far exceed his peers in the industry; and that the FDD is connected to Israel’s Likud Party.
Every single one of those claims is completely false, and the Times was forced to issue a lengthy correction admitting that its error-ridden piece had to be updated.
As noted by the correction, here’s the truth: Dubowitz’s compensation is determined by a board of directors, meaning he doesn’t arbitrarily create his own salary; his annual salary is almost identical with other think tank leaders; the FDD is not directly tied to the Likud Party in any way; and GOP donor Elliott Broidy gave $360,000 for the FDD conference, not $2.7 million….
These weren’t minor errors where someone’s name was misspelled or the date of an event was wrong. This was intended to be a disgusting, salacious, hit piece against Dubowitz because he gave credit to Trump for pulling out of the Iran deal.
LIBERTARIAN HUB notes this recent rumination from Baker and then the FLASHBACK video:
…In an interview on CNN, Baker went further in his critique of the bureau than did FBI Director James Comey, who said Sunday that he believed the FBI was “sloppy” in its efforts to obtain Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrants against Page.
“Sloppiness is completely unacceptable. That is not the way you operate in front of a federal court. I don’t know what word you want to use, it’s terrible, it’s unacceptable, it shouldn’t happen. That is not the way we should be filing matters in front of a federal court,” Baker told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer.
“I was distressed about it. I was completely distressed about it,” Baker said of his response to the inspector general’s (IG) findings.
Baker has testified that he personally reviewed the FISA applications against Page, given their political sensitivity….
Watch James Baker lie. Now that the truth is out, these older interviews are hilarious!
A lie is only a lie if you get caught. Otherwise, it’s treated in the same regard as the truth, especially regarding sensitive issues such as the impeachment inquiry. We’ve already seen a flurry of lies coming from Adam Schiff and his office, including the strangely-suppressed whopper that he repeated multiple times, saying he didn’t know who the Ukraine whistleblower was. We later learned through leaks that he not only knew the whistleblower but actually consulted with him before the complaint was filed.
But the latest lie appears to be even more significant, not based on the lie itself but the situation surrounding it. Tucker Carlson’s team learned President Obama’s Ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch, appears to have perjured herself under oath when asked about an email from a Democratic congressional staffer. The email was seeking a meeting to discuss information that would eventually become the basis for the impeachment inquiry. When asked if she responded to the email by Representative Lee Zeldin (R-NY), she said she didn’t.
This turned out to be a lie.
Here’s the content of the email:
According to Carlson, Yovanovitch replied, “looked forward to chatting with you.”
The apparent perjury is big, but what’s more important is this reveals Democrats were well aware of the contents of the whistleblower complaint over a month before the public was made aware.
He also discusses *Michael Brown and some of the candidates for the 2020 race saying he was murdered. Then I add-in Larry’s montage of media and Democrats saying Trump said “there were good Nazis.” (See more here: “Trump Is Right – Good People On Both Sides“) That begins at the 5:03 mark of the audio. More here. Enjoy:
* Here are other audios I have uploaded to my site on the topic:
I just wanted to go through this and note all the untruths in this paragraph-screed by a friend. Now, granted, she is merely reacting emotionally — as we all are disgusted by the actions from this past weekend. I will tease out the logical consequences with new information gleaned from the killer[s] manifesto/life. Here is the “offending” (raw emotion) post:
Why dont any of my fellow Republicans ever post a post condemning these mass murders committed by our own home grown, radicalized, racially motivated white males who use AKs to kill as many people regardless if they are elderly, adults, or children? Rather attacking posts like mine that point out the ever repetitive act of mass murder with the same MO. And refuse to acknowledge that our president’s words and actions have fueled these murders. The FBI and police chiefs around the country have stated that hate crimes have been on the rise since he took office. Its not a secret. (OP)
Keep in mind in other areas of her posts she called these semi-automatic long-rifles machine guns (assault weapons, which the military uses — select fire). “Machine guns” have been outlawed since the 1930’s with thanks to Al Capone and others like him.
Okay, I noted that in fact, many of the “mass killers” and politically motivated persons wishing to cause harm are not in fact “right-leaning.” One lady mentioned after a response to the OP regarding reading that “Reading does most assuredly NOT make one a Republican.” I agreed but said:
Reading would stop people from saying assault weapons are used (machine-guns), and, allow one to know that a “Fascist” is really a socialist. A radically left leaning takeover of energy production, universal healthcare. and the Like. Not “right wing” in the least.
Now, since the shooting, we have come to find out that the killers manifesto was named after Al Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth,” with passages in the manifesto that really could have been lifted from almost any 2020 Democrat candidate’s campaign site regarding Corporations and Climate. He said his racist views pre-dated Trump (so if he acquired them — say — during Obama’s Presidency, should we blame him?). The killer also mentions Dr. Seuss’s book the Lorax.
Okay, some fixing and commentary of the above paragraph.
Why don’t any of my fellow Democrats ever post a post condemning these mass murders and political violence since they are overwhelmingly committed by Left-leaning radicals? Since the KKK and other white supremacist organizations overwhelmingly voted for Obama and other Democrat before and after him since they are essentially socialist in their political and economic views. Racially and environmentally motivated and violent males of all colors and backgrounds who primarily use handguns to kill as many people regardless if they are elderly, adults, or children? Rather attacking posts like mine that point out the ever repetitive act of mass murder with differing MO’s… And refuse to acknowledge that our president’s words and actions have fueled these murders as wrongly encapsulated by the likes of CNN, Democrats, and MSNBC (and NPR, ABC, CBS, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and other mainstream media outlets) as well as recognizing that there has not been an increase of hate-crimes at all but an increase in reporting them as more-and-more police precincts are added and definitions of what a hate-crime is considered is changed. Its not a secret. (EDITED-OP)
Just a day after this shooting another shooter who considered himself a socialist, voted in Democrat primaries, wanted Elizebeth Warren as president, killed people as well.
Almost all violent acts, racism, hated, and political assignations all the way to fist-to-cuffs — have been perpetrated by Democrats or radical Lefties:
The Killer railed against corporations, was rabidly pro-environment in a UNIBOMBER WAY, wanted large government programs like a universal income/livable-wage, and universal healthcare. Mentioned a book that influenced (obviously) his radical thing, The Lorax by Dr. Seuss:
People are amazed (really, due to the fact that they think history and facts are what CNN and other media sources tell them it is) that 3-of-the-4 leaders of the largest white supremacist groups told their followers to vote for Obama. That most leaders of the Klan (KKK) voted for Hillary. The idea that these groups are “right-wing” is due to a lack of knowledge regarding what fascism is:
“Everything I have said and done in these last years is relativism by intuition…. If relativism signifies contempt for fixed categories and men who claim to be bearers of an objective, immortal truth… then there is nothing more relativistic than fascistic attitudes and activity…. From the fact that all ideologies are of equal value, that all ideologies are mere fictions, the modern relativist infers that everybody has the right to create for himself his own ideology and to attempt to enforce it with all the energy of which he is capable.”
Mussolini, Diuturna (1924) pp. 374-77, quoted in A Refutation of Moral Relativism: Interviews with an Absolutist (Ignatius Press; 1999), by Peter Kreeft, p. 18.
Why do they vote Left… I give a breakdown of why in the “Trump Sized Myths” linked above:
Again, let’s recap for clarity some of my reasons white racist/nationalists cults vote Democrat:
They are typically socialist in their political views, and thus support the welfare state for personal financial reasons (poor) and ideological reasoning (socialist); or for the reason that it is a way of controlling minorities (racist reasoning). A modern plantation so-to-speak; There is a shared hatred for Israel and supporting of groups wanting to exterminate the Jews (Palestinians for instance).
Also, hate-crimes are not on the rise under Trump:
A recent study from the University of Pennsylvania finds that racism in America has significantly decreased since President Donald Trump’s election in 2016, directly contradicting the narrative pushed among many academics and mainstream media personalities.
The Rise of Trump, the Fall of Prejudice? Tracking White Americans’ Racial Attitudes 2008-2018 via a Panel Survey was authored by UPenn political science professor Daniel J. Hopkins and research assistant Samantha Washington.
Hopkins, in an article for FiveThirtyEight, detailed on Tuesday the study, which used 13 waves of panel surveys to gather data and determined that white racial prejudice against African Americans and Hispanic Americans has declined since 2016, when Trump was elected president.
“Latino approval of President Trump has skyrocketed to 50 percent. We’ve had the lowest Latino unemployment in history under President Trump,” Joel Valdez, a Mexican-American and recent student at the University of Illinois, Urbana Champaign. “Latinos and African-American[s] are prospering under the Trump Administration.”
In fact, most hate-crimes one sees plastered in newspapers or in a chyron on CNN/MSNBC are later to be found out to be hoaxes… but the front-page coverage on TV or papers leaves a lasting impression (which is what the news orgs want, a narrative to be swallowed):
As you can see. Almost everything in the ORIGINAL OP was false. But people, because of their biases, want them to be true. This is nothing new however… ever since Goldwater we have heard the same tired “race-card” used on the GOPs peeps. Take Reagan for instance:
Steven F. Hayward, author of “The Age Of Reagan” wrote: “Liberals hated Reagan in the 1980s. Pure and simple. They used language that would make the most fervid anti-Obama rhetoric of the Tea Party seem like, well, a tea party. Democratic Rep. William Clay of Missouri charged that Reagan was ‘trying to replace the Bill of Rights with fascist precepts lifted verbatim from Mein Kampf.'” (LARRY ELDER)
People are SICK OF IT!
In another post the same person wrote:
Another radicalized young white man with a gun that kills many quickly…. AK? Probably. So sick of these killings. Sick of hearing how our president and government officials are offering their prayers. Its not enough!!! We need stronger laws with these type of automatic and simi automatic weapons. Hey i love shooting them like many others but im more sick of hearing of our own home grown terrorists killing so many innocent men weomen children and elderly and NOTHING BEING DONE ABOUT IT!!!! Totall bullshit.
To which I respond:
The void of faith and prayer in this nation turning to paganism and secular fixes for the void in them and the “expectation” of government to make their ills disappear IS the problems with this country right now. NOT ENOUGH prayers to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are being made.
What else does this craving, and this helplessness, proclaim but that there was once in man a true happiness, of which all that now remains is the empty print and trace? This he tries in vain to fill with everything around him, seeking in things that are not there the help he cannot find in those that are, though none can help, since this infinite abyss can be filled only with an infinite and immutable object; in other words, by God himself.
Blaise Pascal (Pensees 10.148)
Since 51% of the mass shootings (if all are considered — i.e., gang violence) are by black people, and only 29% by white… I wonder if people will write:
✦ Another radicalized young black man with a gun that kills many quickly…. AK?
Somehow I doubt it. Bemoaning white men and people of faith (read here: Christians) is the only acceptable whipping boy today [and ignoring the pain and suffering in the black community seems habitual]. Maybe these young men being told they have the burden of slavery, are privileged, and attacked daily in the news and taught crazy stuff throughout high school and college — IS THE ISSUE.
For instance, that kid that shot up Walmart — this was in his screed:
✦ a basic universal income ✦ wanted universal healthcare ✦ complained about cost of college ✦ talked about how oil companies polluted water ✦ how we wasted resources — trees for overuse of paper-towels ✦ railed against BOTH Democrats and Republicans ✦ said corporations are heading the destruction of our environment by shamelessly over-harvesting resources ✦ corporations wanted illegal immigration for cheap labor
That sounds like my kids being shown “An Inconvenient Truth” in the classroom in middle-school. (The movie the manifesto was named after by the Walmart shooter.) THANKFULLY I countered all the crazy ideologies spoon fed to my boys… here is my cut-n-paste (saved) challenge to others — I own and have watched (some of the below are shown in high-school classes):
I often bump into people that have watched some or most of the following “documentaries”
Bowling for Columbine
Roger and Me
Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price
An Inconvenient Truth
The God Who Wasn’t There
Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price
But rarely do I meet someone of the opposite persuasion from me that have watched any of the following (I own and have watched):
Celsius 41.11: The Temperature at Which the Brain Dies
Michael & Me
Michael Moore Hates America
Bullshit! Fifth Season… (where they tear apart the Wal-Mart documentary mentioned above)
Mine Your Own Business
Screw Loose Change
3-part response to Zeitgeist
Fat-Head (a response to “Super Size Me”)
Maybe balance, reading countering viewpoints, faith, something greater than just you, the Imago Dei (the Image of God we all should honor), etc. Instead it’s blame corporations, white people, pushing environmental scare tactics, wanting socialized programs, livable wages, etc. etc. — as if THAT fixes the human condition
Since this Patrick Crusius is in custody and cooperating with authorities. I will update his info below. People hate posting his name… but usually the people not wanting to post his name are also the one’s trying to place people like this at Republicans feet — as if we created and encouraged him and others. (His whole manifesto is here).
EL PASO WALMART
Patrick Crusius, the shooter that killed 20 people at a Walmart in Texas (may be more depending on the medical condition of these persons — all this is really sad to type. The devastated families and grief of loved ones. Man.) This is with thanks to GATEWAY PUNDIT and the DAILY SIGNAL, who notes the following: “This is not to say he’s a Democrat or a Republican, but he is without question a progressive.” Continuing… this scumbag wanted to lessen the weight of the welfare state to “achieve ambitious social projects” in:
a basic universal income
like universal healthcare
complained about cost of college
talked about how oil companies polluted water
how we wasted resources — trees for overuse of paper-towels
railed against BOTH Democrats and Republicans
Corporations are heading the destruction of our environment by shamelessly overharvesting resources
Corporations wanted illegal imigration for cheap labor
Here are some of the portions of the above:
“In the near future, AMERICA WILL HAVE TO INITIATE A BASIC UNIVERSAL INCOME to prevent widespread poverty and civil unrest as people lose their jobs (to automation). Joblessness is in itself a source of civil unrest. The less dependents on a government welfare system, the lower the unemployment rate, the better. ACHIEVING AMBITIOUS SOCIAL PROJECTS LIKE UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE AND UBI would become far more likely to succeed if tens of millions of defendants are removed.”
“The decimation of our environment is creating a massive burden for future generations. CORPORATIONS ARE HEADING THE DESTRUCTION OF OUR ENVIRONMENT BY SHAMELESSLY OVERHARVESTING RESOURCES.”
This is why corporations lobby for even more illegal immigration even after decades of it of happening. They need to keep replenishing the low-skilled labor pool. Even as migrant children flood skilled jobs, Corporations make this worse by lobbying for even more work visas to be issued for skilled foreign workers to come here. Recently, the senate under a REPUBLICAN administration has greatly increased the number of foreign workers that will take American jobs. Remember that both Democrats and Republicans support immigration and work visas. Corporations need to keep replenishing the labor pool for both skilled and unskilled jobs to keep wages down. So Automation is a good thing as it will eliminate the need for new migrants to fill unskilled jobs. Jobs that Americans can’t survive on anyway. Automation can and would replace millions of low-skilled jobs if immigrants were deported. This source of competition for skilled labor from immigrants and visa holders around the world has made a very difficult situation even worse for natives as they compete in the skilled job market. To compete, people have to get better credentials by spending more time in college. It used to be that a high school degree was worth something. Now a bachelor’s degree is what’s recommended to be competitive in the job market. The cost of college degrees has exploded as their value has plummeted. This has led to a generation of indebted, overqualified students filling menial, low paying and unfulfilling jobs. Of course these migrants and their children have contributed to the problem, but are not the sole cause of it.
For example, this phenomenon is brilliantly portrayed in the decades old classic “The Lorax”. Water sheds around the country, especially in agricultural areas, are being depleted. Fresh water is being polluted from farming and oil drilling operations. Consumer culture is creating thousands of tons of unnecessary plastic waste and electronic waste, and recycling to help slow this down is almost non-existent. Urban sprawl creates inefficient cities which unnecessarily destroys millions of acres of land. We even use god knows how many trees worth of paper towels just wipe water off our hands. Everything I have seen and heard in my short life has led me to believe that the average American isn’t willing to change their lifestyle, even if the changes only cause a slight inconvenience. The government is unwilling to tackle these issues beyond empty promises since they are owned by corporations. Corporations that also like immigration because more people means a bigger market for their products. I just want to say that I love the people of this country, but god damn most of y’all are just too stubborn to change your lifestyle. So the next logical step is to decrease the number of people in America using resources. If we can get rid of enough people, then our way of life can become more sustainable.
He also wrote in the very first sentence of his manifesto this: “In general, I support the Christchurch shooter and his manifesto.” I posted on the influences on this shooter. A Pagan nationalist named, Alain Benoist. A secular (pagan/New Age) philosopher. (More on my site.)
Lastly, he mentioned in his manifesto that he had started to hate Hispanics after reading a book back in 2011-2012 (LONG BEFORE TRUMP) The DAILY SIGNAL notes this:
…The author expresses explicit support to the shooter in Christchurch, New Zealand, who killed 51 people at a mosque in March. The author also gained inspiration by reading “The Great Replacement,” a book by a white nationalist French author who claims European elites are conspiring to replace their native populations with non-European immigrants.
The manifesto ticks off a number of far-right grievances. However, the author also devotes a significant portion to overpopulation and its contribution to environmental degradation.
“The decimation of the environment is creating a massive burden for future generations. Corporations are heaing [sic] the destruction of our environment by shamelessly over harvesting resources,” it reads, saying Americans are unwilling to change their lifestyle to save the environment.
“Fresh water is being polluted from farming and oil drilling operations. Consumer culture is creating thousands of tons of unnecessary plastic waste and electronic waste, and recycling to help slow this down is almost non-existent.”
The author concludes that the “next logical step” is to decrease the population. “If we can get rid of enough people, then our way of life can become more sustainable,” the manifesto says….
That book discusses the Muslim immigration issue of France… and here Patrick swapped out Hispanic. Since he is in custody, and cooperating… he also noted the following (GATEWAY PUNDIT). He said he expected the media to blame the attack on President Donald Trump, noting: “This is not the case” — “My ideology has not changed for several years. My opinions… predate Trump and his campaign,” he wrote (DAILY MAIL).
…Steve Hooper is a 30 year veteran of the FBI. Hooper said the El Paso shooter, during interviews, says he was triggered after watching the DNC debate where all the candidates raised their hands to provide “health insurance” to illegal immigrants.
It was the insanity at the Democrat Presidential debates that triggered the shooter, not Trump’s language.
So Democrats, and NOT TRUMP according to Patrick… and not CNN / MSNBC.
THE MAIN POINT?
You cannot pigeon hole these guys as “Republicans,” and the use of RIGHT-WING is more akin to the progressive socialism of pre-war Germany. Just add these guys to the LONG LIST OF LEFTIST POLITICAL KILLERS and terrorists I note HERE.
By now most everyone knows that the Covington Catholic High School boys didn’t mob and harass a revered “tribal elder” at the Lincoln Memorial following the March for Life on January 18. The boys were actually targeted and harassed by two groups of protesters: the Black Hebrew Israelites (who hurled hateful, racial, homophobic slurs at them) and Native American activists from the American Indian Movement, led by “tribal elder” Nathan Phillips.
Not everyone who helped perpetuate the initial fake story has retracted their claims or apologized, and lawyers for the Covington families are working hard to make sure people are held accountable.
A new fourteen-minute video of the incident in Washington, D.C., last month emphasizes the starring role Phillips took in spreading the fraudulent narrative and the supporting roles the uncritical media took in smearing the innocent kids.
The video was released Saturday by L. Lin Wood, the high-profile attorney who was retained by the family of Nicholas Sandmann, the 16-year-old who smiled at Phillips while the activist banged on a drum and chanted in his face. The initial viral video clip of that confrontation spurred widespread condemnation and death threats against the 16-year-old. Wood’s specialty is bringing “aggressive libel and slander suits against media organizations,” reportedly….
2 weeks ago, the mainstream media, politicians, church officials, commentators, & celebrities rushed to judgment to wrongfully condemn, threaten, disparage & vilify Nick Sandmann based solely on a few seconds of an out-of-context video clip. It only takes 15 minutes to learn the truth. Here it is.
‘Empire’ Star Jussie Smollett Brutally Attacked By Anti-Gay Trump Supporters Who Put Noose Around His Neck:
mpire star Jussie Smollett is the victim of an apparent hate crime in Chicago. The star of television show “Empire” was reportedly beaten overnight by two men who yelled “This is MAGA country,” reports TMZ.
They then put a noose around his neck, according to police, who described the attack as a “racially-charged assault and battery.”
According to the TMZ report, “Sources directly connected to Jussie tell TMZ, the actor arrived in Chicago from New York late Monday, and at around 2 AM he was hungry and went to a Subway. We’re told when he walked out, someone yelled, ‘Aren’t you that f***ot ‘Empire’ n*****?’”
The reports states that both the men were white and wearing ski masks and attacked the actor. “Jussie as he fought back, but they beat him badly and fractured a rib. They put a rope around his neck, poured bleach on him and as they left they yelled, ‘This is MAGA country,’” TMZ reported…..
This story sounds fantastical. Here is some funny, over-the-top, commentary by the HODGE-TWINS showing this obviously concocted story:
….BuzzFeed is standing by its story accusing President Trump of urging Michael Cohen to lie to Congress, but it has been substantially discredited by that once-in-a-blue-moon denial from Robert Mueller’s office, saying the information was “not accurate.” Making a charge of that magnitude based on two unnamed sources, without being able to cite a single e-mail, text or document, is very risky business. The story was thin at best, especially when you consider the two reporters didn’t talk to Cohen, who pleaded guilty to lying to Congress over the Russian Trump Tower project and is facing a three-year prison term on that and other charges.
But the many news outlets that breathlessly promoted the BuzzFeed scoop, until it imploded, with an avalanche of segments and stories also have a black eye. The same goes for the Democrats who raced on the air, and onto Twitter, to talk about impeachment, based on uncorroborated allegations that were not matched by any other journalists.
Throwing in a couple of “if true” disclaimers doesn’t let you off the hook. And some journalists adopted the BuzzFeed allegations as true with even thinner caveats than that. The story, said MSBNC host Lawrence O’Donnell, “essentially” says that “here is the president of the United States in the Oval Office, presumably, on the phone, telling Michael Cohen to commit federal crimes and do it right there in the House of Representatives.”
Keep in mind that BuzzFeed reported that Mueller’s office had evidence and testimony about Trump allegedly suborning perjury, and that is what the special counsel knocked down. We now know, thanks to the reporting of Fox’s John Roberts, that Rudy Giuliani played a role in the denial, since he was on the phone with Mueller’s office Friday and both sides agreed parts of the story were false.
When CNN’s Anderson Cooper said that at least some other news organizations didn’t jump on the bandwagon, New York Times correspondent Maggie Haberman, to her credit, said: “No, but we all ran with it saying ‘if true.’ That was not that huge an asterisk, frankly.”
All this plays into Trump’s barrage of “fake news” criticism, and he didn’t hesitate to call the Buzzfeed story a “disgrace to journalism.”
Now to the other rush to judgment, involving students from Covington Catholic High School in Kentucky. They were caught up in a confrontation with Native Americans at the Lincoln Memorial. It just so happens some of the students were Trump fans wearing red MAGA hats, feeding a certain narrative. And there was a video, that went viral, of student Nick Sandmann smiling as he’s standing right next to Indian activist Nathan Phillips, which some interpreted as mocking.
An online mob took over, calling the students bigots and convicting them without a trial. Unfortunately, this was amplified by the media echo chamber.
But interviews and hours of earlier video made clear the story was more complicated. The students were shouting “school spirit” chants (with the approval of their chaperones) to drown out racially charged chants by a third group of black protestors, the Hebrew Israelites.
Sandmann, rather than inciting the confrontation, was actually approached by Phillips, who says he was being peaceful but whose story has been shifting. Sandmann said he smiled to show he meant no harm.
In a statement, Sandmann said that Philipps “began playing his drum as he waded into the crowd, which parted for him. I did not see anyone try to block his path. He locked eyes with me and approached me, coming within inches of my face. He played his drum the entire time he was in my face. I never interacted with this protester. I did not speak to him. To be honest, I was startled and confused as to why he had approached me. We had already been yelled at by another group of protestors.”
Once the broader context was clear, some journalists began deleting tweets and expressing regrets.
Kara Swisher, the tech writer and New York Times contributor, wrote: “I was a complete dolt to put up this and several other obnoxious tweets yesterday without waiting to see the whole video of the incident and I apologize to the kids from Kentucky unilaterally.”
Swisher had earlier posted her desire to be “finding every one of these s***ty kids and giving them a very large piece of my mind.”
According to a Mediaite roundup, the New Republic’s Jeet Heer deleted a tweet arguing the Trump-supporting students were “racist.” CNN’s Bakari Sellers deleted a tweet suggesting the kids should be “punched in the face.”
CNN’s Ana Navarro deleted one denouncing the “asswipe” parents of the students for teaching them “bigotry” and “racism.”
And CNN host S.E. Cupp posted this yesterday: “Hey guys. Seeing all the additional videos now, and I 100% regret reacting too quickly to the Covington story. I wish I’d had the fuller picture before weighing in, and I’m truly sorry.”……
…THE AMERICAN LEFT repeated the hoary “Blood for Oil” charge as the rationale for the Iraq War, and, in the run-up to George W. Bush’s reelection campaign, asked, “Will America Be Democratic Again?”
CNN, I submit, was able to get away with his con for so long because THEY (MSNBC, ABC, CBS, ETC.) confirmed the preconceived notions of people who fashion themselves worldly yet are as parochial as the red-state hicks of their imagination.
The… MSM SOUND exactly like what you would expect a snotty, effete, self-righteous, morally superior, latte-sipping DEMOCRAT to say about America. Pardon the stereotype.
…Der Spiegel has cracked, and revealed ugliness within the publication as well as German society more broadly.
On December 19, the magazine announced that the star reporter Claas Relotius had fabricated information “on a grand scale” in more than a dozen articles. Relotius has been portrayed as a sort of Teutonic Stephen Glass, the 1990s New Republic fabulist. “I’m sick and I need to get help,” Relotius told his editor. While that may very well be the case, his downfall is about more than just one writer with a mental-health problem.
A motif of Relotius’s work is America’s supposed brutality. In one story, he told the macabre tale of a woman who travels across the country volunteering to witness executions. In another, he related the tragic experience of a Yemeni man wrongly imprisoned by the United States military at Guantánamo Bay, where he was held in solitary confinement and tortured for 14 years. (The song that American soldiers turned on full blast and pumped into the poor soul’s cell? Bruce Springsteen’s “Born in the U.S.A.”) Both stories were complete fabrications.
And they should have been easily invalidated. According to the Columbia Journalism Review, Der Spiegel’s fact-checking department is the largest in the world, besting that of the vaunted New Yorker. (In 2013, I spent several months on a fellowship working for a now-defunct English-language unit at Der Spiegel). A diligent checker would have at least contacted the purported death-row roadie to confirm her existence. And the U.S. government keeps scrupulous records about the inmates imprisoned at Guantánamo. Yet Relotius’s inventions escaped the scrutiny of his colleagues.
Der Spiegel is conducting an internal review to explain what went wrong. But it seems to me that the blame lies not only with Relotius or a few careless checkers or even the publication’s research methods, but with the mentality of its editors and readers. Relotius told them what they wanted—what they expected—to hear about America; this is a case of motivated reasoning if I’ve ever seen one.
Consider the story Relotius published in March 2017, “Where They Pray for Trump on Sundays.” In 7,300 words, the German correspondent described the town of Fergus Falls, Minnesota, in the manner of an explorer recounting his visit to a remote island tribe untouched by civilization. Some of the “facts” Relotius reported, like his claim that the city voted 70.4 percent for President Donald Trump when the actual figure was 62.6 percent, could have been exposed as false with a few minutes’ research. The same goes for other, too-good-to-be-true details, like the sign warning “Mexicans Keep Out” and a throwaway line about a resident who had “never seen the ocean.” Most of the story was, according to a devastating analysis written by the Fergus Falls residents Michele Anderson and Jake Krohn, “uninhibited fiction.”
An open-minded editor would have doubted this astonishing tale about a town so jingoistic that its only cinema continues to sell out screenings of American Sniper years after the film’s release (another easily disproven lie). The fact that these blatant deceptions were not exposed until nearly two years after publication speaks to the ignorance about America that characterizes a wide swath of elite German society. Relotius, I submit, was able to get away with his con for so long because he confirmed the preconceived notions of people who fashion themselves worldly yet are as parochial as the red-state hicks of their imagination.
Though it is respected abroad as an authoritative news source, Der Spiegel has long peddled crude and sensational anti-Americanism, usually grounded in its brand of knee-jerk German pacifism. Covers over the years have impugned the United States as “The Conceited World Power” (with an image of the White House bestriding the globe), repeated the hoary “Blood for Oil” charge as the rationale for the Iraq War, and, in the run-up to George W. Bush’s reelection campaign, asked, “Will America Be Democratic Again?” When Edward Snowden leaked information detailing U.S. surveillance practices several years ago, Der Spiegel went on a crusade unlike anything in its recent history, railing about U.S. intelligence cooperation with Germany and demanding that Berlin grant Snowden asylum. (The magazine demonstrated none of the same outrage when, two years later, Russia hacked the German parliamentary computer network). Last year, Der Spiegel notoriously featured a cartoon of Trump beheading the Statue of Liberty on its cover. And this May, one of its columnists misappropriated the memory of those who struggled against Nazism by calling for “resistance against America,” quite a demand for a magazine from the country that started World War II.
When Trump was elected president, it seemed to confirm every negative impression Europeans hold about Americans. Here, in the shape of our reality-TV leader, was the ur-American: vulgar, crass, ignorant, bellicose. Trump may be all those things, but to depict his supporters with such a broad brush is akin to writing off half of Germany as a bunch of goose-stepping, would-be fascists. The wildly popular work of Relotius reads exactly like what you would expect a snotty, effete, self-righteous, morally superior, latte-sipping European to say about America. Pardon the stereotype.
(There are really two “apologetics” [streams of arguments] below. The first is a refutation of Chimp/Human similarities; the second is a dealing with the underlying presuppositions and the self-defeating aspects of them [Jump To This]. And this post spawned a “SISTER POST” of sorts. Enjoy.)
Here I want to offer a somewhat short refutation [NOT] of the perpetual myth about human and chimpanzee DNA being 99% similar. One friend included it in a comment to me:
A cat shares 85 percent of our dna Along with dogs. Plants 15-20 percent . We share 90% of the genome with a banana. Chimpanzees 99% nearly…
Here is my short response:
Not only that, but your idea of 99% is not a real stat as well. Many things have changed since that 1975 claim.* One example is that junk DNA is roundly refuted, and 2001 and 2005 Nature and Science Journal articles make clear that we share from 81% to 87% of DNA with chimps. That shouldn’t be a surprise since we both have eyes to see, stomachs to digest food, etc. So again, when I see you make claims above, rarely are they rooted in anything either current or true.
*(CREATION.COM) The original 1% claim goes back to 1975.2This was a long time before a direct comparison of the individual ‘letters’ (base pairs) of human and chimp DNA was possible—the first draft of the human DNA was not published until 2001 and for the chimp it was 2005. The 1975 figure came from crude comparisons of very limited stretches of human and chimp DNA that had been pre-selected for similarity. The chimp and human DNA strands were then checked for how much they stuck to each other—a method called DNA hybridization. (2.Cohen, J., Relative differences: the myth of 1%, Science 316(5833):1836, 2007; doi: 10.1126/science.316.5833.1836)
Even a recent 2006 TIME article continues the mantra when they say, “Scientists figured out decades ago that chimps are our nearest evolutionary cousins, roughly 98% to 99% identical to humans at the genetic level.” So while science moves on and corrects itself, our culture is stuck in what was said to be a proof, and reject what ACTUALLY an evidence against the evolutionary proposition. Similar refutations of evolutionary positions that Richard Dawkins and “Junk DNA.”
What do I mean by that? I mean that if something is said to be evidence and is used to promote [FOR] the evolutionary paradigm… and then it is shown not to be the case… wouldn’t it then logically be an evidence AGAINST this said paradigm? I think so.
MOVING ON. . . SORTA
Before zeroing in on the Chimp issue, one other quick note regarding a recent discovery that undermines this “similarity” idea. That is this study:
So startling, in fact, that according to David Thaler, one of the lead authors of the study, “This conclusion is very surprising, and I fought against it as hard as I could.”
The study’s very own author was so disturbed by how the conclusions challenged current scientific dogma that he “fought against it as hard as [he] could.” His “fight” gives credence to the study’s conclusions. His eventual acceptance, not to mention publication, of the conclusions speaks well of Thaler’s commitment to being a scientist first and an ideologue second.
According to traditional evolutionary thinking, all living things on Earth share common ancestry, with species evolving through a slow process of random mutation, natural selection, and adaptation over roughly 3.8 billion years. The idea that humans and most animals suddenly appeared at the same time a mere 200,000 years ago or less does not fit with that model.
“While thoughtful investigators may disagree about the precise age of the universe, we can be confident about its finite nature”
>>J Warner Wallace, God’s Crime Scene: A Cold-case Detective Examines the Evidence for a Divinely Created Universe (Colorado Springs, CO: David C. Cook, 2015), 37.
Okay, back to the refutation of the 99% similarity. Here, Dr. Thomas Seiler, Ph.D., Physics, Technical University of Munich refutes compelingly this outdated TIME magazine article… and my friend:
…Most of you may have heard the statement that chimpanzees and humans are having 99% of their genes in common. However, what you are usually not told is that this result was not based on comparing the entire DNA of man and ape but only on comparing a very small fraction of it (ca. 3 %). The function of the other 97% of the genetic code was not understood. Therefore, it was concluded that this DNA had no function at all and it was considered “leftover junk from evolution” and not taken into consideration for the comparison between man and ape. Meanwhile, modern genetics has demonstrated for almost the entire DNA that there is functionality in every genetic letter. And this has led to the collapse of the claim that man and chimpanzee have 99% of their DNA in common.
In 2007, the leading scientific journal Science therefore called the suggested 1% difference “a myth.” And from a publication in Nature in 2010 comparing the genes of our so-called Y-chromosome with those of the chimpanzee Y-chromosome we know now that 60% of human Y-chromosome is not contained in that of the chimpanzee. This represents a difference of one billion genetic letters, known as nucleotides.
And modern genetics has recently made another important discovery which was very unexpected. Researchers found that all of the different groups of humans on earth, wherever they live and whatever they look like, have 99.9% of their genes in common. This leads to a problem for the hypothesis of evolution because if humans really were descended from the apes, then how could it be that we only have 40% of our Y-chromosome in common with the apes but at the same time there is almost a complete genetic identity among all humans? If there had been an evolution from ape to man then it should still go on among men and reveal significant genetic differences. These recent discoveries therefore drastically widen the gap between man and the animals. And they confirm that there are in reality no such things as human “races”. Asians, Europeans, Africans and Indigenous people from America and Australia only have superficial differences like color of skin or shape of the nose but they are all extremely similar on the genetic level.
And these recent breakthrough discoveries even go further. Today, because of the extreme similarity of the human genome, it is considered a well-established fact among geneticists, that all humans living on earth now are descended from one single man and from one single woman. In order to convince yourself of this you only have to search in the internet for the terms “mitochondrial Eve” or “Y-chromosome Adam”. These names were given by evolutionists in an ironic sense but now many regret that choice of name because this discovery perfectly confirms the Catholic Doctrine of Creation which has taught for 2000 years that all humans are brothers and sisters descended from one single human couple, the real historical persons Adam and Eve, not from a multitude of subhuman primates….
Wow. Enough said? Or will this myth still infect the brains of people wishing something to be true that continue to lose evidences for? One other noteworthy exchange from that conversation I wish to note here.
My friend said many things, which is convenient… many skeptics of young earth creationism or Christianity for that matter have paragraphs of bumper sticker [what they think are] facts strung together… like a lullaby to prove to themselves they are right. (What they ironically they call the GISH GALLOP [“it’s far easier to raise numerous unsubstantiated points than it is to refute them properly”] in referring to us.) Which is why I like to stop, and discuss one issue at a time. Which the above is.
When you do that, rarely does the position of the skeptic hold water.
Here is what my friend said:
I also see damage being done to children when you teach them things that are scientifically inaccurate. The earth is not 10000 years old…
ATHEOPATHS: in an evolutionary universe, concepts like “good” and “evil” are just illusions of our brains conditioned by millions of years of Darwinian evolution.
Also ATHEOPATHS: Christianity is evil child abuse.
While the main driver of the topic is a PSYCHOLOGY TODAY article that posits Christianity is harmful to children — just Christianity mind you…
It is a form a Christophobia – a fear of anything related to Christianity/Christ, A bias against one “particular” religious expression. A word I used in one of my first “conversation series” posts on my old blog (November of 2006): “theophobia” – a fear of “the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe”.
… is telling. The point that Doc Sarfati makes is Yuuuge. That is,
skeptics of the Faith like to use moral positions to refute the absolute morality of Christianity, or a position they attribute truth to and expect others to grasp said truth as, well, true — is not in fact the case if their worldview is reality. They pay no attention to the underlying aspect of where these laws or stated facts are reasoned from — mind or matter.
While the whole conversation is a bit drawn out, a refuting principle I used in it which is the same principle Dr. Sarfati taps into (i.e., the Laws of Logic), is this quote by J.B.S. Haldane
“If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true…and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms.”
It is the same as this reflection by Stephen Hawkings noted by Ravi Zacharias:
One of the most intriguing aspects mentioned by Ravi Zacharias of a lecture he attended entitled “Determinism – Is Man a Slave or the Master of His Fate,” given by Stephen Hawking, who is the Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge, Isaac Newton’s chair, was this admission by Dr. Hawking’s, was Hawking’s admission that if “we are the random products of chance, and hence, not free, or whether God had designed these laws within which we are free.” In other words, do we have the ability to make choices, or do we simply follow a chemical reaction induced by millions of mutational collisions of free atoms? Michael Polyni mentions that this “reduction of the world to its atomic elements acting blindly in terms of equilibrations of forces,” a belief that has prevailed “since the birth of modern science, has made any sort of teleological [a reason or explanation for something in function of its end, purpose, or goal] view of the cosmos seem unscientific…. [to] the contemporary mind.”
 Ravi Zacharias, The Real Face of Atheism (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2004), 118, 119.  Michael Polanyi and Harry Prosch, Meaning (Chicago, IL: Chicago university Press, 1977), 162.
John Cleese explains the above in a Monty Python view for the layman:
Here is Ravi again, but this time at a Q&A at Yale being challenged by a graduate student:
To be clear, my friend has no idea that what he has said is internally self-refuting. To show this working out with yet another skeptic of the Faith, here is apologist Frank Turek dispensing in similar fashion to Jonathan Sarfati (see below), Daniel Dennet:
Atheist Daniel Dennett, for example, asserts that consciousness is an illusion. (One wonders if Dennett was conscious when he said that!) His claim is not only superstitious, it’s logically indefensible. In order to detect an illusion, you’d have to be able to see what’s real. Just like you need to wake up to know that a dream is only a dream, Daniel Dennett would need to wake up with some kind of superconsciousness to know that the ordinary consciousness the rest of us mortals have is just an illusion. In other words, he’d have to be someone like God in order to know that.
Dennett’s assertion that consciousness is an illusion is not the result of an unbiased evaluation of the evidence. Indeed, there is no such thing as “unbiased evaluation” in a materialist world because the laws of physics determine everything anyone thinks, including everything Dennett thinks. Dennett is just assuming the ideology of materialism is true and applying its implications to consciousness. In doing so, he makes the same mistake we’ve seen so many other atheists make. He is exempting himself from his own theory. Dennett says consciousness is an illusion, but he treats his own consciousness as not an illusion. He certainly doesn’t think the ideas in his book are an illusion. He acts like he’s really telling the truth about reality.
When atheists have to call common sense “an illusion” and make self-defeating assertions to defend atheism, then no one should call the atheistic worldview “reasonable.” Superstitious is much more accurate.
Frank Turek, Stealing from God (Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 2014), 46-47.
Or when the same naturalistic position is used to make moral statements… it should be taken as illusory. Philosopher Roger Scruton drives this point home when he says, “A writer who says that there are no truths, or that all truth is ‘merely negative,’ is asking you not to believe him. So don’t.” I agree.
Here is the promised longer quote[s] by Jonathan Sarfati:
…if evolution were true, then there would be selection only for survival advantage; and there would be no reason to suppose that this would necessarily include rationality. After a talk on the Christian roots of science in Canada, 2010, one atheopathic* philosophy professor argued that natural selection really would select for logic and rationality. I responded by pointing out that under his worldview, theistic religion is another thing that ‘evolved’, and this is something he regards as irrational. So under his own worldview he believes that natural selection can select powerfully for irrationality, after all. English doctor and insightful social commentator Theodore Dalrymple (who is a non-theist himself) shows up the problem in a refutation of New Atheist Daniel Dennett:
Dennett argues that religion is explicable in evolutionary terms—for example, by our inborn human propensity, at one time valuable for our survival on the African savannahs, to attribute animate agency to threatening events.
For Dennett, to prove the biological origin of belief in God is to show its irrationality, to break its spell. But of course it is a necessary part of the argument that all possible human beliefs, including belief in evolution, must be explicable in precisely the same way; or else why single out religion for this treatment? Either we test ideas according to arguments in their favour, independent of their origins, thus making the argument from evolution irrelevant, or all possible beliefs come under the same suspicion of being only evolutionary adaptations—and thus biologically contingent rather than true or false. We find ourselves facing a version of the paradox of the Cretan liar: all beliefs, including this one, are the products of evolution, and all beliefs that are products of evolution cannot be known to be true.
*Atheopath or Atheopathy: “Leading misotheist [“hatred of God” or “hatred of the gods”] Richard Dawkins [one can insert many names here] often calls theistic religion a ‘virus of the mind’, which would make it a kind of disease or pathology, and parents who teach it to their kids are, in Dawkins’ view, supposedly practising mental child abuse. But the sorts of criteria Dawkins applies makes one wonder whether his own fanatical antitheism itself could be a mental pathology—hence, ‘atheopath’.” (Taken from the Creation.com article, “The biblical roots of modern science,” by Jonathan Sarfati [published: 19 May 2012] ~ comments in the “[ ]” are mine.)