This is a common thing, and is one of the many arguments against hate-crime as its own category. The left is creating an aggrieved class who cannot get meaning from life unless they are victims. Here Dennis Prager goes over some recent cases. But a good and growing list of these can be found here at MOONBATTERY.
Here are some more articles on the recent incidents:
A new shelter is being built to protect Chernobyl in Ukraine. The construction costs over £1bn ($1.46bn/1.38bn euros) and is intended to stop radioactive material leaking, and to allow the old reactor to be dismantled safely. A catastrophic explosion in April 1986 caused 31 deaths, and the radioactive material released spread across Europe. The BBC’s Science Editor David Shukman went to see the shield being built.
Here are some more videos describing and showing the movement:
This is a great point by Matt Welch… what is the point of being able to read if it is against the law to read most books, like, 1984? Here is a comment from my posting the below audio on my LiveLeak account:
Hey… Cuba’s a free country… Cubans are free to read anything they want as long as it’s Castro’s autobiography or the Communist Manifesto.
…And that got me thinking, what is the relationship between literacy and life expectancy on the one hand, and democracy and dictatorship on the other hand? In 2012, the last year for which Human Progress has data on Cuban literacy, 40 out of 73 countries and territories surveyed by UNESCO had literacy rates among adults higher than 90 percent. With 99.75 percent, Cuba came in second place—after Azerbaijan. According to Freedom House, out of the 40 countries and territories in the top decile, 35 percent were politically free, 35 percent were partly free and 27.5 percent were unfree (the rest had no Freedom House score).
The contrast between free and unfree countries is much starker when it comes to life expectancy. In 2014, out of 198 countries and territories surveyed by the World Bank, 35 had a life expectancy over 80 years. With 79.39 years, Cuba was not one of them. It ranked in the 38th place globally. With 78.94 years, the United States came in 43rd place. Thus, while Cuba has edged out the United States, it is not in any way remarkable by global standards. In fact, out of the 35 countries and territories with life expectancy over 80 years, 83 percent were free and 6 percent were partly free (the rest had no Freedom House score). Not one unfree country had a life expectancy over 80 years!
What are we to make of this? It may well be that a literate population is relatively highly valued by both dictatorial and democratic government. When newspapers are tightly controlled by the government, having the populace read the government propaganda seem like a good thing. But when it comes to life expectancy—an excellent proxy for the standard of living in general and health of the populace in particular—dictatorships can’t hold a candle to democracies.
Have fun reading these materials meant to brainwash (click to enlarge):
Jill Stein and Hillary Clinton are challenging some election results. It is too late for Pennsylvania, but it may happen in Ohio and Michigan. George Will comments on this with some Nixon history. See some commentary on Hillary via Joe Scarborough HERE.
Williams argued “So you have people who I would say don’t fit into exactly a team of rivals, but to many people a team of radicals. A team of radicals in terms of, what are these people representing? Flynn, Mike Flynn, I don’t think he could be confirmed, but so he’s getting the — the national security advisor job.”
Bob Woodward sounded more pragmatic: “ They are hard liners. But I think, as Laura was suggesting, in presenting — in talking about these people, when you dig into who they are and they have controversial pasts, presenting them is one dimensional, is a giant mistake. These are complex people.”
Whoopie Goldberg and Joy Behar remind me of the two ladies near the end of this documentary opener:
This footage is a great example of how Democrats are joined at the hip with radicals. Again, this is one of my favorite documentaries, and while I doubt any of these have sold in years, get one, you won’t be disappointing. The full version of Celsius 41.11 here.
After noting the problems in Bart Ehrman’s book, TRUE FREE THINKER notes — using Bart Ehrman’s own methodology — just how many of these variants accumulated over time:
…I do not know how many copies Misquoting Jesus has sold but it is reported that “Within the first three months, more than 100,000 copies were sold.”
The way it works is as simple as it is deceptive: you multiply the 16 variants by how many times they have been reproduced. As the 16 have been reproduced 100,000 (in three months alone) you multiply these and so the total of variants in Misquoting Jesus equals: 1,600,000.
And that, boys and girls, is how Bart Ehrman manages to make sensational claims that gain him notoriety and quite a few shekels….
Which is why this Q&A with Ehrman is so powerful:
In the appendix to Misquoting Jesus, added to the paperback version, there is a Q&A section. I do not know who the questioner is, but it is obviously someone affiliated with the editors of the book. Consider this question asked of Ehrman:
Bruce Metzger, your mentor in textual criticism to whom this book dedicated, has said that there is nothing in these variants of Scripture that challenges any essential Christian beliefs (e.g., the bodily resurrection of Jesus or the Trinity). Why do you believe these core tenets Of Christian orthodoxy to be in jeopardy based on the scribal errors you discovered in the biblical manuscripts?
Note that the wording of the question is not “Do you believe…” but “Why do you believe these core tenets of Christian orthodoxy to be in jeopardy…?” This is a question that presumably came from someone who read the book very carefully. How does Ehrman respond?
The position I argue for in Misquoting Jesus does not actually stand at odds with Prof. Metzger’s position that the essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament.
Suffice it to say that viable textual variants that disturb cardinal doctrines found in the NT have not yet been produced.
Daniel B. Wallace, Revisiting the Corruption of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregal Publications, 2011), 54-55.
Or the Washington Post (WaPo) publishing an article on Thursday on how the Russians used American websites to push anti-Hillary Clinton propaganda in the 2016 election. The problem was, however, the the source for their story admitted to lying:
Within a day of the article coming out, PropOrNot’s story is already unraveling. The group admitted to lying about its partnering organizations and refuses to disclose why its media blacklist of “Russian agents” contains some of the best journalists in recent history: Robert Parry (who helped break the Iran-Contra scandal), Robert Scheer (who helped expose CIA funding of student groups in the 1960s as editor at Ramparts) and Yves Smith (the fearless founder of an invaluable and respected financial blog, nakedcapitalism.com). It’s shocking and disturbing that WaPo would smear respected journalists as traitors with no evidence.
Details about this group continue to emerge. It appears there’s a chance that PropOrNot is connected to groups funded the Broadcasting Board of Governors, a CIA spinoff that manages the U.S. government’s foreign propaganda division. If true, that would make PropOrNot’s activities illegal — in violation of a federal law that prohibits the BBG from intentionally influencing or swaying public opinion inside the United States. Creating blacklists of American journalists, labelling them as traitors and then circulating this information to American newspapers would certainly fall into that category.
Maybe Russia has the means to “hack” America’s elections, but it’s hard to talk about it without real evidence. Sure, Russia’s been getting into the psyops game much more lately — with fake and biased news, comment trolls and Twitter bots. It’s cheap and effective, and good at exploiting people’s increasing lack trust in their country’s institutions and political process. But in reality it seems to have very little penetration of America’s media landscape. Let’s face it: life is miserable and getting more miserable by the day for most Americans — and no one in power seems to care one way or another. Americans don’t need a Russian Twitter bot to undermine their trust in the Democratic Party.
Or how bout when the L.A. Times knew about John Edwards affair while running for President, but kept the story bottled up:
The mainstream media’s near-silence about a tabloid report that former presidential candidate John Edwards had an extramarital affair with a campaign worker ended abruptly Friday when he admitted the relationship to ABC News.
The cable news networks pounced on the story, broken by the supermarket tabloid National Enquirer last year but largely unaddressed by major news organizations until Edwards’ admission.
Fox News, CNN and MSNBC all had extensive coverage of the scandal throughout the afternoon, and the Los Angeles Times, the New York Times and the Washington Post quickly posted stories on their websites.
Several newspapers, including the Los Angeles Times, had been pursuing the story prior to Friday. But the burst of attention after he confirmed a romantic relationship with Rielle Hunter, who produced video documentaries for his campaign website, was in marked contrast to the way those news organizations had tiptoed around the original reports….
Or NPR’s bias of omission with 18,321 words in pro-Arab only segments, 4,934 words in pro-Israel segments. Bias in number of Arab-only vs Israeli-only segments: 63-percent Palestinian/pro-Arab only segments, 37-percent Israel/pro-Israel segments (CAMERA). Or, as the WASHINGTON TIMES notes, mainstream media outlets advocating certain outcomes:
“The study found a huge disparity in the airtime devoted to advancing more gun control versus arguments in favor of gun rights.,” he continued, noting that the time spent in favor of more gun control was 65 minutes, compared to eight minutes spent on Second Amendment rights and other pro-gun issues.
“CBS was the most stridently anti-gun rights network. By a whopping 10 to 1 ratio, CBS devoted more time to arguing in favor of gun control (30 minutes, 40 seconds) to time that supported gun rights (2 minutes, 56 seconds),” Mr. Dickens noted.
NBC followed with nine times as much airtime for anti-gun rights arguments, with ABC in third place with a 4 to 1 ratio.
“When it came to spokesmen, viewers were far more likely to hear from gun control advocates like liberal Democratic Senator Chris Murphy and presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton than Second Amendment defenders like GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump or Republican Senator James Inhofe,” Mr. Dickens stated. “Anti-gun spokesmen were aired three times as frequently as pro-gun ones (57 to 19), while 27 spokesmen were neutral.”
How bout the medias tendency to not be fair and balanced, thus, guiding public opinion in some way (stories linked in graphics):
Some older examples from ABC, NBC, CBS that include some stats on story imbalances…. as IF they are trying to advocate for something… hmmm:
So all the recent “HUB-BUB” in regards to “fake news” is really an attempt to control the news by corporate news interests. If you do not know WHY this is not a good thing, please read 1984 again. And this bias is not conspiratorial as much as a worldview issue that cause it’s adherents not to lie or conspire about slanting stories as much as a form of group-think. (ALTHOUGH THIS “CONSPIRING” DOES HAPPEN.) Often times this “group-think” is ripped from it’s context to say people are involved in a giant conspiracy.
The media as a whole is said to be in a giant conspiracy to overthrow America or conservatives by a designed plan.
No, it is group-think, their worldview dictates truth to them.
Many people think there is a nefarious cabal of bankers, CFR and Bilderberger types, controlling human affairs on such a level that World Wars were started and guided by these people.
No, it is group-think, their worldview dictates a border-less society with all being equal… “just ‘some’ more equal than others” (Animal Farm).
I often hear people mention that “how could scientist all agree then with evolution? Are you saying there is a giant conspiracy? If you are, I am through listening to you, being that you are crazy.” [BTW, one can substitute “climate change” issues with evolution.]
No… groupthink…
And this is the crux of the matter… No matter if there is a conspiracy or not, the goals are the same. BUT — and this is an important BUT — how one responds and interacts with society is impacted… greatly. In other words if you tell people of these “grand conspiracies” or “meta-narratives” you will not change anyone’s mind but harm your position. However, if you talk about worldviews and group-think, you will impact minds on the matter, thus, fortifying the case trying to made in regards to media bias.
Hugh Hewitt talks about a time he got to speak to a graduating class of journalists at [I think] Columbia University School of Journalism. He asked the crowd some questions and asked them to separate themselves to one side or the other of the auditorium ~ (questions like: are you pro-life or pro-choice?… are you pro 2nd amendment of for gun control? etc., etc.). By the end of the 5-questions, only a handful were left on one side… all the liberal/progressives were packed into one side of the auditorium. His point was to show this graduating class that what they believe now will impact their work, and that they should be aware [self-aware] of their own biases and try to be reporters, not “change” agents.
(Link to Wikileaks emails showing collusion with Hillary and the Media)
In all, people identified in federal campaign finance filings as journalists, reporters, news editors or television news anchors — as well as other donors known to be working in journalism — have combined to give more than $396,000 to the presidential campaigns of Clinton and Trump, according to a Center for Public Integrity analysis.
Nearly all of that money — more than 96 percent — has benefited Clinton: About 430 people who work in journalism have, through August, combined to give about $382,000 to the Democratic nominee, the Center for Public Integrity’s analysis indicates.
About 50 identifiable journalists have combined to give about $14,000 to Trump. (Talk radio ideologues, paid TV pundits and the like — think former Trump campaign manager-turned-CNN commentator Corey Lewandowski — are not included in the tally.)
You see, it is good if Democrats do it because they — in their elitist knowledge — know what is best for Democracy. When Republicans even suggest the same… they are evil DESTRUCTORS of the same Democracy:
(I love Mika’s headache!)
Maybe the Clinton’s [esp. HIllary] were just so shocked by the outcome that Democracy must be harmed? This surprising outcome on November 8th can be seen in this video purportedly showing the Clinton’s celebrating Hillary’s victory the morning of.
(Take note of Bill Clinton’s “inner school girl” coming out)
….Typical of the horror in Castro’s Gulag was the experience of 25-year-old political inmate Roberto López Chávez. When he went on a hunger strike to protest the abuses in the prison, the guards withheld water from him until he became delirious, twisting on the floor and begging for something to drink. A guard then urinated in his mouth. Roberto died the next day.
But there were not to be any tears shown for Roberto. In public anyway. For just as in Mao’s China and Pol Pot’s Cambodia, Castro’s Cuba has always warned family members of murdered dissidents to never cry at their funerals. Grief is just not right in a utopia, and especially the kind shown for the deaths of the enemies of state.
But grief is ultra-necessary, of course, if the head monster dies. And that is why Raúl has now announced nine days of mandatory mourning for Fidel.
The horrors of Castro’s Cuba have been solidly documented by Humberto Fontova in Fidel: Hollywood’s Favorite Tyrant and by Pascal Fontaine in The Black Book of Communism.
Armando Valladares’s memoir, Against All Hope, meanwhile, serves as Cuba’s version of Solzhenitsyn’s Gulag Archipelago. A Cuban poet, Valladares endured twenty-two years of torture and imprisonment for merely raising the issue of freedom. Valladares recounts how prisoners were beaten with bayonets, electric cables, and truncheons. He vividly details how he and other prisoners were forced to take “baths” in human feces and urine. Against all Hope is a must-read for all those seeking the truth about the demon that Castro was.
Together with the atrocious political repression, Cubans have also suffered from the miserable economic devastation caused by Castro’s communist economics. Cuba became one of the poorest nations in the world under Castro. Its sugar, tobacco, and cattle industries were all major sources of exports in the pre-Castro era. Castro destroyed them all and turned Cuba into a beggar nation. Even Haitian refugees avoid Cuba.
Orwell’s Animal Farm could not have more accurately captured the sorry reality of “equality” in this pathological communist environment, as it manifests itself in all communist environments. Indeed, it became clear very quickly after the revolution that while all Cubans were equal, some were more equal than others. And that is why, while ordinary Cubans scrape for crumbs, the privileged communists in Castro’s nomenklatura live like millionaires.
Thus, we begin to understand why Cubans relentlessly try to escape from their living nightmare. And since they are not allowed to leave freely, they have to try to escape. It is telling that pre-Castro Cuba had the highest per-capita immigration rate in the Western hemisphere. Under Castro, approximately two million Cuban citizens (out of eleven million) have escaped their country. Many have done so by floating on rafts or inner tubes in shark-infested waters. Tragically, an estimated fifty thousand to eighty-seven thousand have lost their lives in this effort…..
…Thirteen percent of Muslims voted for Trump, triple the amount that voted Romney, are they are Islamophobic, bigoted, xenophobic, and racist?
Eight percent of blacks voted for Trump, seven percent more than Romney — not to mention the black men and women who didn’t vote for the president at all in a higher percentage. These same men and women previously voted twice for Obama. These persons of color… if I understand my detractors correctly, are racist bigots?
A higher percentage (almost 30%) of Hispanics voted for Trump, more in fact than voted for Romney. These Hispanic and Latino men and women, like the others, are xenophobic, bigoted, and racist?
One hundred-and-ninety-four counties that voted for Obama once switched to GOP in the 2016 election. And, two-hundred-and-nine counties that voted for Obama twice switched to GOP. Many of these people are union members as well as life-long Democrats. Am I now being told that these Democrats who voted for Obama are: racist. sexist, intolerant, xenophobic, homophobic, Islamophobic, racist, bigoted?
Am I being told that voter I.D. laws are racist and a way on keeping minorities from voting? But when the Obama administration used tax-payer money to help fund voter I.D. in South Africa and other African nations, he himself is racist and trying to stop the poor and minorities from voting?
During Bush’s Presidency, there were bumper stickers all over the place that read, “Dissent is Patriotic,” when Republicans and conservatives dissented from Obama, they were called racists. Will dissent again be “patriotic”?
Bill Clinton noted that Trumps slogan of “Make America Great Again” is a racist statement. Except in 1991 when he himself used it [Bill Clinton that is] at a campaign event in Little Rock, Arkansas, Mr. Clinton declared, “Together, we can make America great again.” It wasn’t racist then apparently. Nor when he used the same phrase again during a speech in 1992 and during a television interview that same year. Nor when he used it in a campaign ad for his wife in 2008, Mr. Clinton said, “It’s time for another comeback, time to make America great again.”
More gays voted for Trump than voted for Romney, are they now homophobic bigots as well?
Self defined Marxist Van Jones of CNN said there was a “white-lash” that got Trump elected, but more whites voted for Romney than did for Trump. (In other words, Trump was elected by “other-than” the white vote.)
When a few people in Texas were head-bobbing breaking away from the Union, this was proof of bigotry and racism. Now a few people in California are head-faking leaving the Union, and all I hear is how this would work and nothing about bigotry or unseen racism.
The KKK have voted since their inception primarily for Democrats. Still they vote in the eighty-percentage areas for Democrats, but only now that a higher percentage voted for Trump (and most likely voting Democrat the rest of the ticket) do Democrats get vocal about the voting habits of the Ku Klux Klan? Why are they never vocal about the almost one-hundred percent of Nation of Islam members, the members of the Nation of Gods and Earths (Five-Percenters), or the Communist Party of America’s voting habits?
Are you seeing a pattern? A convenient narrative surely. Every President on the GOP side have been compared to N.A.Z.I.’s and Hitler since Nixon. DON’T accept the comparison. Take their arguments and return them packaged in a nice little bow.
Democrats want to fundamentally change America. I don’t love my wife if I want to fundamentally change her. Black Life Matters protesters teach their children to burn American flags or march down the street chanting “What do we want?!” “Dead Cops!” “When do we want them?!” “NOW!” They argue America was founded on nothing but slavery and greed. Hillary Clinton backed this group even going as far as far as saying (at the NAACP) that “systemic racism” needs to be eliminated. Months later calling Americans all racists: “I think implicit bias is a problem for everyone, not just police. I think unfortunately too many of us in our great country jump to conclusions about each other and therefore I think we need all of us to be asked the hard questions ‘why am I feeling this way?’”
Democrats think I am an imperialist white supremacist Christian cisgender capitalist heteropatriarchal male. Apparently however, these many demographic changes across the board [noted above] seem to agree that Trump’s slogan was acceptable, “Make America Great Again.”
