Uncommon Sense

politics and society are, unfortunately, much the same thing

Lack of outrage at Letterman shows us the real war on women

April 23, 2015 by Joseph Farah

There was David Letterman last week warming up his studio audience before airtime, preparing them for live laugh tracks for the show.

Apparently, not being prepared with any jokes he wanted to waste off air, he decided to react to questions from the group.

According to an account in the New York Post and other sources, the first one came from a college staffer who asked what advice the scandal-scarred funnyman would give to this year’s graduates.

Without missing a beat, what came to mind for the late-night host was these politically incorrect sage words of wisdom: “Treat a lady like a whore, and a whore like a lady.”


This from a guy who panders to so-called “progressives” with uncanny consistency – referring to Rachel Maddow as “the smartest person in the world,” characterizing Michele Bachmann as a “whacko” and throwing softballs to Barack and Michelle Obama?

Scratch a so-called “progressive” and they reveal their true character.

Now, I’m 60 years old, and I have never heard that expression. I did not grow up as a sheltered Christian. I was a bomb-throwing lefty as a young man. But this is one of the most insulting proverbs I have ever heard in my life – particularly about women.

But Letterman will survive this little controversy unscathed – mark my words. Because he has paid his dues by paying homage to “progressive” causes and personalities over the years. He’s earned immunity. He can say whatever he wants. He’s got a get-out-of-jail-free card from the PC police. That he is retiring as host of his show is beside the point.

By the way, if it was a joke, it bombed. That’s how the world even knows about it.

This is the real Letterman, by the way. Don’t forget in 2009 the married comic was forced to admit having a series of affairs with female staffers. That didn’t matter to the radical feminist crowd either – any more than Bill Clinton’s sexual predatory behavior, including at least one credible allegation of rape, did.

He, too, had earned “progressive immunity.” So did his wife who helped him cover it all up. She still does, as she carries on about the “war on women.”

We’ve learned the saying uttered by Letterman is a throwback to another age, first attributed to 1930s screenwriter Wilson Mizner. But it’s those quick retorts that often reveal more about a person’s character than the scripted material he’s used to following.

When the zinger fell flat, Letterman tried to recover by urging future alums to “eat a lot of salad” and always be nice, said one person present in the studio.

Nice try, Letterman. Quick comeback.

Think about what that saying really means: It suggests nice women want to be treated like tramps. It turns women into sex objects. It’s disgusting. I can say that as the father of five daughters. One doesn’t need to be a feminist.

Interestingly, I haven’t seen the NOW gang jump on Letterman. That makes my case. If you say Rachel Maddow’s the smartest person in the world, you can get away with being a misogynist.

Personally, I think it’s time to judge people on the basis of what they do and what they say in unguarded moments behind closed doors rather than by the carefully rehearsed patronizing political pabulum they spew.

But keep in mind, it’s not just Letterman. You will see this behavior throughout Hollywood. They love everything that smacks of progressivism, but watch what they do behind closed doors. I’ve seen it firsthand. I’ve been there. The hypocrisy is palpable. And nobody seems to care.

bias, bigotry, corruption, cover up, culture, Democrats, elitism, ethics, feminism, hate speech, humor, hypocrisy, ideology, left wing, liberalism, pandering, political correctness, progressive, relativism, scandal, sexism

Filed under: bias, bigotry, corruption, cover up, culture, Democrats, elitism, ethics, feminism, hate speech, humor, hypocrisy, ideology, left wing, liberalism, pandering, political correctness, progressive, relativism, scandal, sexism

Just call it ‘potential marriage’

Two contemporary issues are converging more potently than ever before: homosexuality and abortion. How so?

First, unless you’ve been missing in action for a while you’re well aware of the recent push to legally compel religious people to violate their conscience on matters of what marriage means.

So you think you know what objections to gay marriage are all about?

Gay Marriage Isn’t About Justice, It’s About Selma Envy

When did ‘tolerance’ start to mean punishing people for their beliefs?

Law firms willing to work with companies dealing in tobacco, pollution, and murder – but not traditional marriage

Religious conservatives are the targets of discrimination, lawyer says

Age of intolerance: What the Indiana pizza attacks tell us about free speech

There are those who would construe the issue as though declining a customer asking for a wedding cake for a gay wedding is the same as preventing the ceremony from happening (despite the fact there is another baker just down the street who would do the job). Absurd, yes, and false, and dishonest, sure, but emotionally satisfying for those willing to lie to push for the gay agenda. What’s really going on here is not anti-gay hate but anti-religious hate. And not merely hate, we are now faced with a situation where not only are religious people being legally forced to violate their religious beliefs but this situation is also one where a constitutional right (blatantly spelled out in the US Constitution) is being entirely disregarded for a different agenda. As it stands, the law can compel people to violate their conscience if their conscience is of a religious nature.

But there is another area of life where moral objections to involving oneself in certain controversial acts are challenged.

ACLU sues feds in bid to make Catholic groups provide abortion to illegal immigrants

Twelve Nurses Forced to Take Part in Abortions

Kill or Get Out of Medicine: What Canada And Australia Tell Pro-Life Doctors

So now the situation includes forcing people to either fund or participate in abortions, despite moral objections.

What connects these issues? Conscientious objection. It’s worth mentioning conscientious objection to war and the draft was a very popular thing in the 1970s. Moral conscience was treated as a valid reason to change the law. But on the issue of being forced to participate in or contribute a gay wedding or being forced to participate in or contribute to an abortion, these objections tend to be motivated by religious beliefs. And somehow being of a religious nature makes these objections invalid.

So what can be done about this obvious double standard? An idea is already provided.

You’ve probably heard the term “potential person” being used in defense of abortion rights. But did you know that same term is being used to expand abortion rights to kill infants as well?

Modern Babykilling

Infanticide on Demand

Murder of Newborn Babies in Infanticide as Bad as Abortion

The three stories linked above are all about the same instance of a paper published by medical experts claiming infants are not “persons” yet, they are merely “potential persons”. Now it’s bad enough to claim we don’t know when life begins and then deny personhood to a child in the womb and all civil rights including the right to life (pretending we actually knew the child is NOT a person). But, and I can’t believe I’m about to say this, there is actually something worse: denying a recently born child personhood and all civil rights – including the right to life.

You thought eugenics died with the Nazis? You were wrong. And, of course, we are subjected to further distortion of language and logic trying to justify medicalized killing:

Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva are associated respectively with Monash University, in Melbourne, Australia, and with the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics, at the University of Melbourne.

They argue that both the fetus and the new-born infant are only potential persons without any interests. Therefore the interests of the persons involved with them are paramount until some indefinite time after birth. To emphasise the continuity between the two acts, they term it “after-birth abortion” rather than infanticide.

Their conclusions may shock but Guibilini and Minerva assert them very confidently. “We claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be. Such circumstances include cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk.” This assertion highlights another aspect of their argument. Killing an infant after birth is not euthanasia either. In euthanasia, a doctor would be seeking the best interests of the person who dies. But in “after-birth abortion” it is the interests of people involved, not the baby.

The astoundingly evil thing of killing children is often justified by pretending we know things we really don’t know and inventing new distinctions without real differences (medicalized killing is medicalized killing, I don’t care if the killing is done with the interests of the people involved instead of the presumptuous interests of the baby). Science cannot answer the question of when life beings, and it certainly can’t tell us when personhood begins. Science is not equipped to answer questions like these. That’s where philosophy comes in. But abortion rights advocates cop out on these questions, too, by arguing we don’t have to know the answers to these questions – we can simply ignore them by calling the child a “potential person” or the even more ridiculous term “pre-person people“. And you know what, these semantic games have worked for them pretty well so far. Why don’t we give it a try.

I propose we start calling gay marriage “potential marriage”. I don’t suggest this as a genuine position; I mean it as a means of bringing more attention to the asinine semantic game being played already in the intellectually and morally fraudulent defense of abortion. We, the defenders of children inside and outside the womb, should make the case that western society’s standard for what qualifies as injustice has been convoluted and insubstantiated and entirely undercut by pretending the killing of children merely for someone else’s convenience is a civil right. If killing babies is not evil I’m not sure how we can call anything evil. If killing children (the most innocent of us) for other people’s convenience is not injustice how can we call anything injustice?

By what standard can we say declining to bake a cake for a gay wedding is injustice when we praise the killing of children and trash those to speak out against it?

Let’s put the gay mafia and abortion mafia on defense. Call gay marriage “potential marriage” and see how they try to defend a double standard when we use their own propaganda against them. They want to play semantic games. Fine, let’s play.

abortion, anti-religion, babies, bigotry, bullies, children, eugenics, extremism, fraud, health care, hypocrisy, ideology, indoctrination, left wing, liberalism, pandering, political correctness, progressive, propaganda, public policy, relativism, scientists

Filed under: abortion, anti-religion, babies, bigotry, bullies, children, eugenics, extremism, fraud, health care, hypocrisy, ideology, indoctrination, left wing, liberalism, pandering, political correctness, progressive, propaganda, public policy, relativism, scientists

More Anti-Factual Analysis from Paul Krugman

Originally posted on International Liberty:

I don’t know whether to be impressed or horrified by Paul Krugman.

I’m impressed that he’s always “on message.” No matter what’s happening in America or around the world, he always has some sort of story about why events show the need for bigger government.

But I’m horrified that he’s so sloppy with numbers.

My all-time favorite example of his fact-challenged approach deals with Estonia. In an attempt to condemn market-based fiscal policy, he blamed that nation’s 2008 recession on spending cuts that took place in 2009.

Wow. That’s like saying that a rooster’s crowing causes yesterday’s sunrise. Amazing.

Let’s look at a new example. This is some of what he recently wrote while trying to explain why the U.S. has out-performed Europe.

America has yet to achieve a full recovery from the effects of the 2008 financial crisis. Still, it seems fair to say that we’ve made up…

View original 595 more words

Filed under: Uncategorized

If you want to help the poor take an honest look at the data instead of cherry picking it

So you think you know how the world works? The very popular push to raise the minimum wage to $15/hour is in full swing and gaining ground. But there are many false assumptions at work in this movement. I realize some of you already are aware employees get their paychecks from their employers, the businesses who’ve hired them. But not everyone knows this. And many people don’t realize where businesses get their money; many think all businesses have millions in cash resting safely in the bank, and the only reason workers are paid low wages is because of corporate greed. That’s the sort of enlightened ignorance that governs not only the popular movement for a $15/hr minimum wage, but also the political one.

So instead of reading (or rather listening to someone else talk about) only the things $15/hr advocates want to hear, someone needs to explain how the world really works. These two articles address the flawed studies used to support the high minimum wage.

A $15 minimum wage is a terrible idea
June 22, 2013 by Dylan Matthews

Raising minimum wage won’t lower poverty
September 16, 2011 by Michael Saltsman

The Congressional Budget Office has looked at a higher minimum wage as well, and that office says something very different from what President Obama is saying.

Minimum Wage Hike Could Cost 500K Jobs, CBO Reports
February 18, 2014 by JOHN PARKINSON

Of course, if you’re really a nut job who wants to actually look at a real study instead of just reading news articles journalists have written about the data, you can find one here:
Revisiting the Minimum Wage-Employment Debate: Throwing Out the Baby with the Bathwater?
January 2013 by David Neumark, J.M. Ian Salas, William Wascher

I also recommend considering some dangerously explicit common sense on the matter.

Fast Food Workers: You Don’t Deserve $15 an Hour to Flip Burgers, and That’s OK

culture, economics, economy, government, ideology, left wing, liberalism, nanny state, philosophy, political correctness, poverty, progressive, propaganda, public policy, recession, reform, regulation, socialism, spending, study, unintended consequences

Filed under: culture, economics, economy, government, ideology, left wing, liberalism, nanny state, philosophy, political correctness, poverty, progressive, propaganda, public policy, recession, reform, regulation, socialism, spending, study, unintended consequences

The Mirage of a Classless Society – shifting power is not the same as equalizing it

original article: The Mirage of a Classless Society
April 15, 2015 by SAMUEL GOLDMAN

Modern liberalism isn’t about challenging hierarchy; it’s about establishing rule by liberal meritocrats.

In a recent post, Paul Krugman reiterated his view that conservative critics of the welfare state are petty authoritarians. Citing Corey Robin’s The Reactionary Mind, Krugman explains:

It’s fundamentally about challenging or sustaining traditional hierarchy. The actual lineup of positions on social and economic issues doesn’t make sense if you assume that conservatives are, as they claim, defenders of personal liberty on all fronts. But it makes perfect sense if you suppose that conservatism is instead about preserving traditional forms of authority: employers over workers, patriarchs over families. A strong social safety net undermines the first, because it empowers workers to demand more or quit; permissive social policy undermines the second in obvious ways.

In contrast to conservatism, Krugman argues:

…modern liberalism is in some sense the obverse — it is about creating a society that is more fluid as well as fairer. We all like to laugh at the war-on-Christmas types, right-wing blowhards who fulminate about the liberal plot to destroy family values. We like to point out that a country like France, with maternity leave, aid to new mothers, and more, is a lot more family-friendly than rat-race America. But if “family values” actually means traditional structures of authority, then there’s a grain of truth in the accusation. Both social insurance and civil rights are solvents that dissolve some of the restraints that hold people in place, be they unhappy workers or unhappy spouses. And that’s part of why people like me support them.

I’ve written about Robin’s widely-misunderstood argument in the past. But Krugman’s post is a good opportunity to revisit and summarize my critique. In short, Robin is right that classic conservative theorists were defenders of  economic, social, and political hierarchy against modern liberation movements. But he misunderstands the basis of the position.

The conservative position has never been simply that a hierarchical society is better than an egalitarian one. It’s that an egalitarian society is impossible. Every society includes rulers and ruled. The central question of politics, therefore, is not whether some will command while others obey. It’s who gives the orders.

Radical leftists understand this. That’s why Lenin’s “who, whom?” question became an unofficial motto of Bolshevism. The Bolsheviks promised that a classless society would one day emerge. In the meantime, however, they were open and enthusiastic practitioners of power politics.

Modern liberals find this vision upsetting. So they pretend that their policies are about reducing inequality and promoting freedom rather than empowering some people at the expense of others. They associate inequality with wealth and freedom with liberation from religion and family. So they assume that a society in which rich people, churches, and fathers have less power is ipso facto freer and more equal.

Notice how Krugman’s hostility to these traditional hierarchies blinds him to other kinds of inequality. He praises France because social insurance and stronger protections for employees make it easier for mothers and workers to stand up to patriarchs and bosses. Do they really make France “fairer and more fluid”? In cultural terms, perhaps. But not politically or even economically.

The defining feature of French life is that the welfare and regulatory state Krugman admires is administered by graduates of elite educational institutions. These aristocrats of the universities and civil service are geographically concentrated in Paris and anecdotally quite “inbred.” France is not a class society in the Marxist sense. But it could be described with only minimal exaggeration as an ENAligarchy.

Krugman doesn’t see the énarques as a ruling class that need to be knocked down a peg because their authority isn’t traditional. They wield power over other people’s lives because they got good grades, not because they have a lot of money or are heads of households or leaders of religious communities. But academic meritocracyis not the same thing as a fluid and fairer society. It’s certainly no fairer that some people are lucky enough to be smart than that others are good at making a fortune.

And France is no star when it comes to economic mobility. According to a review of the literature by the economist Miles Corak, France joins the U.S. and the UK as the Western countries with the least intergenerational mobility. Krugman also doesn’t mention that France is a very good place to have a job, but not so hospitable to people looking for work. That’s especially a problem for young people who didn’t go to the best schools.

There are serious arguments in favor of rule by a highly-trained administrative class within a moderately redistributive capitalist economy. Those arguments were a crucial source of the modern liberalism that Krugman endorses, and have recently been reiterated by Frank Fukuyama. What modern liberals really want, however, isn’t freedom or equality—terms that have no meaning before it’s determined for what and by whom they will be enjoyed. As conservatives have long understood, it’s a society in which people like themselves and their favored constituencies have more power while the old elites of property, church, and family have less.

culture, ideology, left wing, liberalism, philosophy, power, progressive

Filed under: culture, ideology, left wing, liberalism, philosophy, power, progressive

School Choice As a Matter of Social Justice

original article: School Choice As a Matter of Social Justice
April 14, 2015 by Joe Carter

Social justice is a term and concept frequently associated with the political Left, and too often used to champion views that are destructive for society and antithetical to justice. Yet for Christians the term is too valuable to be abandoned. Conservatives need to rescue it from the Left and restore it’s true meaning. True social justice is obtained, as my colleagueDylan Pahman has helpfully explained, “when each member, group, and sphere of society gives to every other what is due.”

A key sphere of society in which social justice is in desperate need of restoration is education. The poor deserve the same freedom to obtain a quality education that is too often reserved for those wealthy enough to rescue their children from failing schools. For this reason school choice should be considered a matter of social justice.

As Archbishop Charles J. Chaput says, lack of a quality education is a common thread among persons in severe poverty. And once stuck in deep poverty it’s very hard for anyone to escape due to the lack of skills needed to secure and hold employment:

Poor parents, like parents everywhere, desire to give their children a quality, safe education; a chance at a fruitful life. They want their children to grow strong and pursue their dreams, to let their talents and interests take them as far as they can go. But without a quality education the dreams will remain unfulfilled and another generation of deep poverty will persist. This is painfully ironic, because at the moment, thousands of seats sit empty in safe, high quality Catholic and private schools throughout the region. Life lines to a good education do exist to help poor families, but, as so often happens, political conflicts stand in the way.

Catholic social teaching is built on a commitment to the poor. Few things are more important to people in poverty than ensuring their children’s education as a path to a better life. If the future of Philadelphia and Pennsylvania depends on an educated, productive public – and it obviously does – then providing every means to ensure a good education system becomes a matter of social justice. Prudent lawmakers from both major parties have understood this for years. They need to feel our support in the voting booth and throughout their public service.

The point is this: Proper funding for public schools is clearly important. But experience has already shown that this can’t be the only strategy because it doesn’t work for many of the students who most urgently need a good education. It’s therefore vital that our elected officials serve the real education needs of the poor by supporting school choice.

Another reason to separate school and state.

bureaucracy, children, conservative, education, freedom, justice, poverty, reform, right wing

Filed under: bureaucracy, children, conservative, education, freedom, justice, poverty, reform, right wing

Are you transgender? Vermont Agency of Education wants to know

original article: Are you transgender? Vermont Agency of Education wants to know
April 15, 2015 by Bruce Parker

As the governor and Legislature weigh cuts to close a $113 million budget gap, the Vermont Agency of Education is spending more than $23,000 to find out if Vermont school kids as young as 10 are transgender, among other things.

The Vermont School Climate Survey, which was developed over the past few months at the request of Education Secretary Rebecca Holcombe, seeks to help school administrators know more about the student learning environment.

The online survey is nearing completion in 12 pilot schools and uses funds from the High School Completion Program.

Based on nearly 50 questions put to students, researchers hope to gather data on bullying, cyberbullying, sexual identities, race and even guns from children as young as 10 years of age.

In the survey’s section on demographics, researchers ask students to identify if they are male, female or transgender. Another question asks students if their school provides enough learning opportunities about sexual identity and race.

Students have opportunity to indicate how many times in the past 30 days they have harassed others, or been harassed, based on skin color, sexual identity and other variables.

Extra boxes allow researchers to identify responses to bullying. For example, students indicate if they bullied back, got into fights, told an adult or parent, or simply ignored the issue.

The School Climate Survey offers definitions of harassment and bulling, both of which are defined as “experiencing negative actions from one or more persons.” Bullying is distinguished by repeated events. Harassment is distinct in that it’s related to skin color, sexual identity, sex, religion or disability.

Stephen Tavella, the education coordinator administering the survey for the Agency of Education, told Vermont Watchdog the survey is a test run for next year.

“We must be very careful about any conclusions we draw from the pilot. This survey is a preparation for the larger survey we plan to undertake in the 2015-2016 school year,” Tavella said.

“Our expectation for this pilot is not to necessarily have definitive, reliable results.”

Some questions ask students to report on the prevalence of guns and knives at schools. Others ask about use of marijuana, LSD, cocaine, mushrooms, heroin, prescription drugs and glue sniffing.

Tavella said the student portion of the survey is complete. Parent and faculty versions, which also gather data on transgender, are due by the end of the month.

He added that researchers may revise the survey to ensure they are “asking the right questions,” or if they discover flaws in the data.

Jill Remick, director of policy regulations and legal affairs at the Agency of Education, said the goal of the survey is to help administrators make schools better places to learn. She said she hopes the pilot will foster “buy-in” for school climate assessments among school leaders and communities.

The Agency of Education survey is similar to the Maryland Schools Climate Survey, which gathers data related to 13 “climate dimensions” ranging from diversity and safety to social-emotional security.

According to a December memo from Holcombe, school climate assessment is necessary in the wake of the deaths of Eric Garner and Michael Brown.

“While the Brown and Garner incidents have national coverage, locally we are also working to address injustice in the form of bullying,” Holcombe wrote.

The twelve pilot schools under the watchful eye of researchers include Rutland Intermediate School, Bellows Falls Middle and High Schools, Washington Village School, F.H. Tuttle Middle School, Orange Center School, Rutland Middle and High Schools, Hartford High School, Westminster Center School, and Williamstown Middle and High Schools.

children, diversity, education, government, ideology, nanny state, political correctness, progressive, public policy

Filed under: children, diversity, education, government, ideology, nanny state, political correctness, progressive, public policy

Democrats and their money

Schumer may shatter fundraising records for Democrats
April 16, 2015 by Alexander Bolton

Sen. Charles Schumer, who will become the Senate’s top Democrat in 2017, could become one of the greatest fundraisers of all time.

The New York Democrat has developed a reputation as a tenacious money magnet who doesn’t take no for an answer. When handed a $25,000 check, he’s been known to respond, “You can do a little better than that.”

He’s asked donors to send him contributions by courier to quash any possible excuses about a “check in the mail.”

“I would use the word ‘relentless.’ He knows every year what money is out there and how to reach it,” said Tom Quinn, a Democratic lobbyist who has known Schumer since he was elected to the House in 1980.
Schumer is constantly looking for new donors, and will even badger Republicans for cash. Sources say he has multiple cellphones, and he’s seen regularly in the Capitol with one attached to his ear.

The 64-year-old has strong ties to New York’s powerful financial services industry, as well as to titans of the tech industry and Hollywood. His fundraising network is vast, helped tremendously by twice running the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC).

full article

Clinton Foundation to keep accepting donations from foreign governments
April 16, 2015 by Fox News

The Clinton Foundation said late Wednesday that it will continue to accept donations from foreign governments during Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, despite concerns that such gifts will create a conflict of interest for the Democratic front-runner.

The foundation’s board said that donations directly to the foundation would only be allowed from six governments — Australia, Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway and the United Kingdom. However, other governments could continue to participate in the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI), a subsidiary program that encourages donors to match contributions from others to tackle international problems without direct donations to the charity.

The foundation also said it would stop holding CGI meetings abroad after a final session planned for Morocco in May. According to the Wall Street Journal, ministers from any government would be allowed to attend and appear on panels at CGI meetings and those governments would be permitted to pay attendance fees of $20,000.

Ethics experts had called on the foundation to stop accepting all foreign donations for the duration of Clinton’s presidential campaign.

full article

Other Stories:

Are Democrats the party of the rich?

Democrats still party of the rich

Do we no longer care about windfall profits?

First lady’s $375,000 vacation, but at least it wasn’t on clothes

Democrat Rep. Rangel faces multiple ethics charges

Hillary wants to tax the rich more, while sheltering her own millions

That’s a lot of public money for one date

bias, campaign, Democrats, elections, elitism, ethics, funding, government, greed, hypocrisy, left wing, liberalism, politics, progressive, scandal, wealthy

Filed under: bias, campaign, Democrats, elections, elitism, ethics, funding, government, greed, hypocrisy, left wing, liberalism, politics, progressive, scandal, wealthy

Religion of peace beats, burns boy alive

original article: Christian Boy Dies After Muslim Men Beat, Burn Him Alive for His Faith
April 15, 2015 by LEAH MARIEANN KLETT

A 14 year old Pakistani Christian boy has died five days after being set on fire by two Muslim men, doctors and family have revealed.

Last week, Christian group The Voice Society reported that Nauman Masih was coming from a tailor’s shop in Lahore, the provincial capital of Punjab, when he was attacked by the two young Muslim men. The men, who were going for Friday prayers to their mosque, reportedly stopped Nauman and asked what his religion was.

“I told them that I am Christian. They started beating me, when I tried running, both boys started following me through the street and then they threw Kerosene on me and burnt me,” Nuaman was quoted as saying. “I kept on running when a heap of sand came my way, I lied down on the sand … [A] few people from the community … [extinguished] fire by putting sand on me. I became unconscious, and they called 1122 Emergency medical helpline and called [for] an ambulance.”

Nuaman was hospitalized with more than fifty percent of his body covered in severe burns. Sadly, on Wednesday, the boy died from his injuries, UCANews has confirmed.

As previously reported by the Gospel Herald, the teen had been living with his paternal uncle, Nadeem Masih, as his father died when he was just four years old.

On Wednesday, Nadeem tearfully explained that he has called on authorities to track down his nephew’s killers.

“I appeal to the Punjab government and Chief Minister Shahbaz Sharif to ensure the killers are brought to justice,” Nadeem said, explaining that he had raised Nauman like his own son. “We have registered a police complaint.”

This kind of horrific situation is becoming far more common in Pakistan, where hatred against Christians has reached unprecedented levels despite Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s repeated promises to protect believers, who make up just 2% of the country’s population.

In November, a Christian couple, Shama and Shahzad, were tortured by a Muslim mob and burnt alive in a brick kiln furnace after being falsely accused of desecrating the Quran.

Then, in March, 15 people were killed in two simultaneous attacks on churches in a Christian area of the city of Lahore. A Pakistani Taliban splinter group has since claimed responsibility for the attack, which left another 80 people injured.

“All these incidents are honestly just the tip of the iceberg of discrimination and persecution that religious minorities endure – from indentured servitude, forced conversions to kidnapping for ransom,” ICC President Jeff King told the Christian Post in a recent interview. “The list of grievances is endless and it is inflicted on Pakistan’s religious minorities.”

Joseph Francis, national director of the Center for Legal Aid Assistance and Settlement (CLAAS), has also condemned the attacks.

“The killing of Nauman has further increased a prevalent sense of insecurity among Christians who are yet to recover from the twin suicide attacks on churches in Lahore,” he said.

abuse, bias, bigotry, bullies, children, christian, criminal, extremism, foreign affairs, hate crime, ideology, intolerance, islam, religion, terrorism, tragedy

Filed under: abuse, bias, bigotry, bullies, children, christian, criminal, extremism, foreign affairs, hate crime, ideology, intolerance, islam, religion, terrorism, tragedy

DHS seems confused on terror threat at home

Back in August of 2014 Judicial Watch published a story stating ISIS was planning to attack the US via its porous southern border.

Imminent Terrorist Attack Warning By Feds on US Border—Ft. Bliss Increases Security
August 29, 2014 by Judicial Watch

Islamic terrorist groups are operating in the Mexican border city of Ciudad Juarez and planning to attack the United States with car bombs or other vehicle borne improvised explosive devices (VBIED). High-level federal law enforcement, intelligence and other sources have confirmed to Judicial Watch that a warning bulletin for an imminent terrorist attack on the border has been issued. Agents across a number of Homeland Security, Justice and Defense agencies have all been placed on alert and instructed to aggressively work all possible leads and sources concerning this imminent terrorist threat.

Specifically, the government sources reveal that the militant group Islamic State of Iraq and Greater Syria (ISIS) is confirmed to now be operating in Juarez, a famously crime-infested narcotics hotbed situated across from El Paso, Texas. Violent crimes are so rampant in Juarez that the U.S. State Department has issued a number of travel warnings for anyone planning to go there. The last one was issued just a few days ago.

Intelligence officials have picked up radio talk and chatter indicating that the terrorist groups are going to “carry out an attack on the border,” according to one JW source. “It’s coming very soon,” according to another high-level source, who clearly identified the groups planning the plots as “ISIS and Al Qaeda.” An attack is so imminent that the commanding general at Ft. Bliss, the U.S. Army post in El Paso, is being briefed, JW’s sources say. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) did not respond to multiple inquiries from Judicial Watch, both telephonic and in writing, about this information.

But in September of 2014 DHS took the dubious position of denying a terrorist invasion over the US/Mexico border was a concern. In fact, DHS claimed they were more worried members of ISIS would enter the country legally via aircraft.

ISIS terrorists won’t sneak into U.S. across loose Mexico border: Homeland Security officials
September 10, 2014 by DAN FRIEDMAN

Despite social media chatter on Twitter, Obama administration officials are more concerned about passport-holding bloodthirsty ISIS jihadists entering the U.S. via airplane.

WASHINGTON – Despite some Twitter chatter, there is no evidence ISIS terrorists are trying to slip into the United States from Mexico, Department of Homeland Security officials told Congress Wednesday.

Administration officials said they are more concerned about jihadists entering the U.S. legally on commercial airline flights.

Administration higher-ups testifying at a House hearing Wednesday threw cold water on scary border scenarios cited by conservatives such as Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas.

“We don’t have any credible information, that we are aware of, of known or suspected terrorists coming across the border,” Jennifer Lasley, a senior official in the Department of Homeland Security’s intelligence and analysis office, told the House Homeland Security border security subcommittee.

Across the Capitol another top DHS official acknowledged that the agency has tracked online talk by ISIS backers about infiltrating the U.S. via the border.

But it turns out the ISIS camp just outside of El Paso, TX not only trains ISIS militants but even has plans to attack US targets.

ISIS Camp a Few Miles from Texas, Mexican Authorities Confirm
April 14, 2014 by Judicial Watch

ISIS is operating a camp just a few miles from El Paso, Texas, according to Judicial Watch sources that include a Mexican Army field grade officer and a Mexican Federal Police Inspector.

The exact location where the terrorist group has established its base is around eight miles from the U.S. border in an area known as “Anapra” situated just west of Ciudad Juárez in the Mexican state of Chihuahua. Another ISIS cell to the west of Ciudad Juárez, in Puerto Palomas, targets the New Mexico towns of Columbus and Deming for easy access to the United States, the same knowledgeable sources confirm.

During the course of a joint operation last week, Mexican Army and federal law enforcement officials discovered documents in Arabic and Urdu, as well as “plans” of Fort Bliss – the sprawling military installation that houses the US Army’s 1st Armored Division. Muslim prayer rugs were recovered with the documents during the operation.

Law enforcement and intelligence sources report the area around Anapra is dominated by the Vicente Carrillo Fuentes Cartel (“Juárez Cartel”), La Línea (the enforcement arm of the cartel) and the Barrio Azteca (a gang originally formed in the jails of El Paso). Cartel control of the Anapra area make it an extremely dangerous and hostile operating environment for Mexican Army and Federal Police operations.

According to these same sources, “coyotes” engaged in human smuggling – and working for Juárez Cartel – help move ISIS terrorists through the desert and across the border between Santa Teresa and Sunland Park, New Mexico. To the east of El Paso and Ciudad Juárez, cartel-backed “coyotes” are also smuggling ISIS terrorists through the porous border between Acala and Fort Hancock, Texas. These specific areas were targeted for exploitation by ISIS because of their understaffed municipal and county police forces, and the relative safe-havens the areas provide for the unchecked large-scale drug smuggling that was already ongoing.

Mexican intelligence sources report that ISIS intends to exploit the railways and airport facilities in the vicinity of Santa Teresa, NM (a US port-of-entry). The sources also say that ISIS has “spotters” located in the East Potrillo Mountains of New Mexico (largely managed by the Bureau of Land Management) to assist with terrorist border crossing operations. ISIS is conducting reconnaissance of regional universities; the White Sands Missile Range; government facilities in Alamogordo, NM; Ft. Bliss; and the electrical power facilities near Anapra and Chaparral, NM.

So is DHS going to do anything about or even acknowledge the ISIS threat so close to home? Or do they have other things on their mind?

Obama Declares War On ‘Extremism’ – Are You An ‘Extremist’ According To His Definition?
January 11, 2015 by Michael Snyder

When you use the word “extremist”, you may have in your mind a picture of ISIS fighters or the terrorists from the Charlie Hebdo massacre.

But for elitists such as Barack Obama, the word “extremist” has a much broader meaning. In recent years, it has become a code word for those that do not have an “enlightened” view of the world. If your views on politics, religion or social issues are extremely different from the liberal, progressive views of “the mainstream” (as defined by the mainstream media and by “mainstream” politicians such as Barack Obama), then they consider you to be an extremist.

Early in the presidency of George W. Bush, we were told that Islamic terrorists were the enemy. And so most of the country got behind the idea of the War on Terrorism. But over the years that has morphed into a War on Extremism. In fact, the Obama administration has gone so far as to remove almost all references to Islam from government terror training materials…

Deputy U.S. Attorney General James Cole confirmed on Wednesday that the Obama administration was pulling back all training materials used for the law enforcement and national security communities, in order to eliminate all references to Islam that some Muslim groups have claimed are offensive.

“I recently directed all components of the Department of Justice to re-evaluate their training efforts in a range of areas, from community outreach to national security,” Cole told a panel at the George Washington University law school.

Now, much of the focus in law enforcement training materials is on “domestic extremists”. We are being told that “domestic extremism” is just as great a threat to our national security as terror groups overseas are.

But exactly who are these “domestic extremists”?

Well, the truth is that you may be one of them.

I want to share with you a list that I have shared in a couple of previous articles. It is a list of 72 types of Americans that are considered to be “extremists” or “potential terrorists” in official U.S. government documents. This list will really give you a good idea of what Barack Obama means when he uses the word “extremist”. Each of these 72 items is linked, so if you would like to go see the original source document for yourself, just click on the link. As you can see, this list potentially includes most of the country…

1. Those that talk about “individual liberties”

2. Those that advocate for states’ rights

3. Those that want “to make the world a better place”

4. “The colonists who sought to free themselves from British rule”

5. Those that are interested in “defeating the Communists”

6. Those that believe “that the interests of one’s own nation are separate from the interests of other nations or the common interest of all nations”

7. Anyone that holds a “political ideology that considers the state to be unnecessary, harmful,or undesirable”

8. Anyone that possesses an “intolerance toward other religions”

9. Those that “take action to fight against the exploitation of the environment and/or animals”

10. “Anti-Gay”

11. “Anti-Immigrant”

12. “Anti-Muslim”

13. “The Patriot Movement”

14. “Opposition to equal rights for gays and lesbians”

15. Members of the Family Research Council

16. Members of the American Family Association

17. Those that believe that Mexico, Canada and the United States “are secretly planning to merge into a European Union-like entity that will be known as the ‘North American Union’”

18. Members of the American Border Patrol/American Patrol

19. Members of the Federation for American Immigration Reform

20. Members of the Tennessee Freedom Coalition

21. Members of the Christian Action Network

22. Anyone that is “opposed to the New World Order”

23. Anyone that is engaged in “conspiracy theorizing”

24. Anyone that is opposed to Agenda 21

25. Anyone that is concerned about FEMA camps

26. Anyone that “fears impending gun control or weapons confiscations”

27. The militia movement

28. The sovereign citizen movement

29. Those that “don’t think they should have to pay taxes”

30. Anyone that “complains about bias”

31. Anyone that “believes in government conspiracies to the point of paranoia”

32. Anyone that “is frustrated with mainstream ideologies”

33. Anyone that “visits extremist websites/blogs”

34. Anyone that “establishes website/blog to display extremist views”

35. Anyone that “attends rallies for extremist causes”

36. Anyone that “exhibits extreme religious intolerance”

37. Anyone that “is personally connected with a grievance”

38. Anyone that “suddenly acquires weapons”

39. Anyone that “organizes protests inspired by extremist ideology”

40. “Militia or unorganized militia”

41. “General right-wing extremist”

42. Citizens that have “bumper stickers” that are patriotic or anti-U.N.

43. Those that refer to an “Army of God”

44. Those that are “fiercely nationalistic (as opposed to universal and international in orientation)”

45. Those that are “anti-global”

46. Those that are “suspicious of centralized federal authority”

47. Those that are “reverent of individual liberty”

48. Those that “believe in conspiracy theories”

49. Those that have “a belief that one’s personal and/or national ‘way of life’ is under attack”

50. Those that possess “a belief in the need to be prepared for an attack either by participating in paramilitary preparations and training or survivalism”

51. Those that would “impose strict religious tenets or laws on society (fundamentalists)”

52. Those that would “insert religion into the political sphere”

53. Anyone that would “seek to politicize religion”

54. Those that have “supported political movements for autonomy”

55. Anyone that is “anti-abortion”

56. Anyone that is “anti-Catholic”

57. Anyone that is “anti-nuclear”

58. “Rightwing extremists”

59. “Returning veterans”

60. Those concerned about “illegal immigration”

61. Those that “believe in the right to bear arms”

62. Anyone that is engaged in “ammunition stockpiling”

63. Anyone that exhibits “fear of Communist regimes”

64. “Anti-abortion activists”

65. Those that are against illegal immigration

66. Those that talk about “the New World Order” in a “derogatory” manner

67. Those that have a negative view of the United Nations

68. Those that are opposed “to the collection of federal income taxes”

69. Those that supported former presidential candidates Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin and Bob Barr

70. Those that display the Gadsden Flag (“Don’t Tread On Me”)

71. Those that believe in “end times” prophecies

72. Evangelical Christians

Do you fit into any of those categories?

Personally, I fit into a couple dozen of them.

That is why alarm bells should go off whenever Barack Obama speaks of the need to crack down on “extremism”.

bias, border security, bureaucracy, Democrats, elitism, extremism, foreign affairs, government, ideology, islam, left wing, liberalism, national security, pandering, political correctness, president, progressive, propaganda, public policy, relativism, scandal, terrorism, war

Filed under: bias, border security, bureaucracy, Democrats, elitism, extremism, foreign affairs, government, ideology, islam, left wing, liberalism, national security, pandering, political correctness, president, progressive, propaganda, public policy, relativism, scandal, terrorism, war



April 2015
« Mar    

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 167 other followers