The human body is made up of many parts. Perhaps it is not the knee that is the problem. Perhaps the problem relates to children born out of wedlock who are more likely to have a run in with the police. Perhaps far too many NFL players contribute to the problem about which they complain.
Once again, I return to what I have said so many times before. The brilliant Senator from New York, Moynihan, warned about liberal social policies being devastating to the black family and he was derided by his own party. Yet, his prediction proved prescient.(See 1 below.)
++++++++++++++++
Will/can France wake up? (See 2 below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++
While I was working in Atlanta I had a relationship with Sam Nunn, Georgia's outstanding Senior Senator. He had graciously spoken for me on several occasions.
My last formal meeting with him was on Feb., 1, 1980 in his Atlanta Office in The Russell Building.
I overstayed my visit and, as I was leaving, I mentioned that I thought there was an angry undercurrent in our nation which would only get worse if we did not address some of our structural problems and spending etc. Sam remarked I was always too pessimistic. Lamentably, I believe I proved to be right but that is for others to decide
I also got the impression Sam was not going to run again for several reasons:
First, he had voted against The Gulf War, was probably going to have opposition,could lose, would have to raise a lot of money, which he could, but which he found unpleasant.
Second, he referred to the 'Amy Factor." He had two children soon to enter college and did not want them hounded by The Secret Service.
Third, he needed to raise money for his own needs.
Several years earlier I had begged him to run for president and told him I would devote 6 months to his campaign and did not want anything except for him to win. He did not have the fire in his belly bu thanked me.
I did not always agree with Sam but I respected him, knew he loved The Senate and was an expert on military and nuclear matters.
I would love to hear Sam's thoughts today because I have little faith in the message we hear from the anti-Trump uninformed cacophony.
I believe we are partly in our current mess because we have been too cautious and feckless. We face leaders who are clever, maybe partly insane but understand history. They know the West suffers from a 'commerce over survival syndrome' and realize going nuclear gives them leverage. They have benefited from the mistakes of Obama, in my opinion, when it comes to N. Korea, the Iran Deal, Ukraine, Syria etc.
Though Sam is more cautious and hesitant than my own hawkishness his insights are based on his brilliant understanding of the issues and I would love for him to appear here at one of our SIRC sessions and I am going to approach him for that purpose.
Stay tuned. (See 3 below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Back to why Hillary lost.
And now we can add uranium to the yellow cake mix.(See 4 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Whatever Trump does the alt-Left, Democrats, fascist radicals, liberals and progressives will be against. The latest attack from the mass media is his effort to console the family of an American soldier killed in action using an approach advised by Gen. Kelly who is also being attacked.
Then we have Trump being attacked by Democrats and the mass media for proposing a tax cut and simplification plan that favors the rich and we have more attacks on Trump for his disagreement with the NFL.
I find the fact that Gen. Kelly decried the decline in American values and said it seemed little remained scared anymore, a legitimate rebuke. I also find Trump, who is accused of playing politics and using the NFL to turn attention to other matters, equally interesting. Perhaps Trump is trying to get America back on track with its values by starting with respect for our flag and anthem and what they historically stood for.
After all, if "America becomes great again" what is it becoming great for? There has to be a return to what we once were, ie. a, more or less, united nation, one that strove to improve the lot of all its citizens, a people that respected our nation's laws and sought betterment for the world, at large, and the list is also endless.
Eventually hatred of Trump will burn itself out as it continues to go further afield and unabated. Americans are a generally fair people and tire of seeing "piling on" whether on the field, where penalties are called, or in real life.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dick
++++++++++++++++++
1)Things that make you go Hmmmmmm?
Children raised in fatherless homes, especially black children, are far more likely than children raised in two parent homes to engage in criminal behavior and thus, have contact with police.
Ergo when they father a child with a woman to whom they are not married - or at least living with - they are contributing to the problem against which these football players are taking a knee.
If you look at many of these players' records on out-of-wedlock children, you find that they are contributing significantly to the problem against which they are protesting.
For example, Antonio Cromartie has 12 children by 9 different women. Apparently the NFL had to shell out $500,000 before he could even play football for them.
Travis Henry has 11 children by 10 women, Willis McGahee has 9 children by 8 women,
Derrick Thomas has 7 children by 5 different women, Bennie Blades has 6 children by 6 women,
Ray Lewis has 6 children by 4 women and Marshall Faulk has 6 children by 3 women.
Before these guys take a knee they should take a good look in the mirror.
It appears that their problem is not the knee.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2) France: The New Collaborators
And How to Protect France, Europe, the West
- "They are those who believe that Islam is a religion of peace, tolerance and love and do not want to hear about an Islam of war, intolerance and hatred". — Michel Onfray, Le Figaro.
- Le Figaro just devoted an entire issue to Muslim women in France who are trying to fight radical Islam. They are journalists, activists and writers who want equality between men and women, freedom of expression and sexual freedom. These Muslims clearly care more about the French Enlightenment than many non-Muslims who advocate appeasing Islamists.
- In short, France needs to start fostering its side of this cultural war. Even if it is too late to recover all of the lost ground, if France does not start immediately but just limits itself to "manage" this "state of emergency", the lights turned off will not be only those of the Eiffel Tower, as happens after every terror attack, but also the lights of one of the greatest civilizations that history ever gave us.
A few days ago Abdelkader Merah, the brother of the Islamic terrorist who gunned down four Jews in Toulouse in 2012, went on trial, charged with complicity in terrorism. "Beginning in 2012, we entered an age of terrorism, where before we believed ourselves protected; it was a turning point in French history", said Mathieu Guidere, a professor of Islamic studies in Paris.
Since then, France has faced severe challenges by Islamic fundamentalists in Europe. French President Emmanuel Macron is now trying to manage a terrible situation: some 350 Islamic terrorists currently sit in prisons; 5,800 are under police surveillance; an additional 17,000 have been classified as a "potential threat", while since 2015, more than 240 lives have been lost to jihadi terrorists.
It seems that France has decided to accept what it might see as unavoidable: the Islamic takeover of parts of the country. This view is reflected in the very idea of a "state of emergency". France's lower house of parliament just passed a new anti-terrorism law, taking measures which have been in place for two years under a previous "state of emergency" and enshrining them into law.
After the murderous January of 2015 attack on the offices of the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, Macron's predecessor, President François Hollande, officially declared that "France is at war". Until now, however, the war has been fought only on one side, by the Islamic fundamentalists.
Although some scholars, such as Gilles Kepel, estimate that a "civil war" could break out in the future, there is a more realistic scenario: a country split along demographic and religious lines -- the secular French republic vs. the Islamic enclaves, the "French 100 Molenbeeks", from the name of Brussels' jihadist nest.
France used to be regarded as a jewel of civilization. One of France's great intellectuals, Alain Finkielkraut, recently said: "France has become for me a physical country, since its disappearance has entered into the order of the possibilities". Finkielkraut, a member of French civilization's holiest shrine, the Académie Française, was not thinking about the physical disappearance of French bakeries, boutiques or boulevards; he seemed rather to mean the disappearance of France as the capital of Western culture.
Under the assault of radical Islam, French civilization is eroding from within. And there are now large parts of French culture which are openly adding water to the mill of Islam. These have been just called by Le Figaro, "agents of influence of Islam". Intellectuals, journalists, politicians, those who consider the Muslims "the new oppressed".
The French essayist Michel Onfray recently called them "the new collaborators", like the French who stood with the Nazis:
How can France prevent an Islamic takeover of parts of the country with fatal metastases for the entire European continent? "In order to disarm terrorists, we must disarm consciences", Damien Le Guay just wrote in a new book, entitled La guerre civile qui vient est déjà là ("The Coming Civil War Is Here Already").
France needs to stop talking with "non-violent Islamists", such as the Muslim Brotherhood, and instead to speak with the true liberal reformers, the internal dissidents of Islam. The daily newspaper Le Figaro recently devoted an entire issue to Muslim women in France who are trying to fight radical Islam. They are journalists, activists and writers who want equality between men and women, freedom of expression and sexual freedom. These Muslims clearly care more about the French Enlightenment than many non-Muslims who advocate appeasing Islamists.
France also needs to close its borders to mass immigration and select new arrivals on the basis of their willingness to retain the present culture of France, and to abandon multiculturalism in favor of respect for a plurality of faiths in the public space. That means rethinking the phony French secularism, which is aggressive against Catholicism but weak and passive with Islam.
France needs to close the Salafist mosques and ban the preaching of radical imams who incite Muslim communities against the "infidels" and urge Muslims to separate from the rest of the population.
France needs to prevent the arrival of propaganda from the dictatorial regimes of the Middle East: their mosques, satellite channels, pamphlets, libraries and books.
France needs ban polygamy; Islamic law, sharia; female genital mutilation (FGM); Islamic supremacism and forced marriages.
France needs to tighten its alliance with Israel, the one outpost of Western culture in a region that has rejected it. Israel is the West's only true ally in an area that is collapsing under the weight of radical Islam.
France needs to protect and renovate its Christian treasures. A few weeks ago, the Cathedral of Notre Dame in Paris promoted a fundraising project to save the building from decaying. The French authorities need to play their part and not forsake France's Christian heritage. France needs to send Islamists the message that France is a secular country, but not a de-Christianized one.
France needs to protect its Jewish community, which in ten years has lost 40,000 people who fled the country as a result of anti-Semitism met with indifference.
France needs to strengthen Western culture at schools, museums, universities and publishing houses: Enlightenment, as the foundation of freedom of conscience, expression and religion, separation of religion and state; and the Judeo-Christian tradition as the root of all the great achievements of European culture.
France needs to demand reciprocity. The right to build a mosque in France should be linked to the right of Christians in the Middle East to practice their faith: a mosque for a church. France has the political and diplomatic connections in North Africa and Middle East to impose this reciprocity. What is lacking is any political will.
In short, France needs to start fostering its side of this cultural war. Even if it is too late to recover all of the lost ground, if France does not start immediately but just limits itself to "manage" this "state of emergency", the lights turned off will not be only those of the Eiffel Tower, as happens after every terror attack, but also the lights of one of the greatest civilizations that history ever gave us
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3)
Since then, France has faced severe challenges by Islamic fundamentalists in Europe. French President Emmanuel Macron is now trying to manage a terrible situation: some 350 Islamic terrorists currently sit in prisons; 5,800 are under police surveillance; an additional 17,000 have been classified as a "potential threat", while since 2015, more than 240 lives have been lost to jihadi terrorists.
It seems that France has decided to accept what it might see as unavoidable: the Islamic takeover of parts of the country. This view is reflected in the very idea of a "state of emergency". France's lower house of parliament just passed a new anti-terrorism law, taking measures which have been in place for two years under a previous "state of emergency" and enshrining them into law.
After the murderous January of 2015 attack on the offices of the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, Macron's predecessor, President François Hollande, officially declared that "France is at war". Until now, however, the war has been fought only on one side, by the Islamic fundamentalists.
Although some scholars, such as Gilles Kepel, estimate that a "civil war" could break out in the future, there is a more realistic scenario: a country split along demographic and religious lines -- the secular French republic vs. the Islamic enclaves, the "French 100 Molenbeeks", from the name of Brussels' jihadist nest.
France used to be regarded as a jewel of civilization. One of France's great intellectuals, Alain Finkielkraut, recently said: "France has become for me a physical country, since its disappearance has entered into the order of the possibilities". Finkielkraut, a member of French civilization's holiest shrine, the Académie Française, was not thinking about the physical disappearance of French bakeries, boutiques or boulevards; he seemed rather to mean the disappearance of France as the capital of Western culture.
Under the assault of radical Islam, French civilization is eroding from within. And there are now large parts of French culture which are openly adding water to the mill of Islam. These have been just called by Le Figaro, "agents of influence of Islam". Intellectuals, journalists, politicians, those who consider the Muslims "the new oppressed".
The French essayist Michel Onfray recently called them "the new collaborators", like the French who stood with the Nazis:
"They are those who believe that Islam is a religion of peace, tolerance and love and do not want to hear about an Islam of war, intolerance and hatred... The collaborator wants to see only the first [type of] Islam by believing that the second has nothing to do with Islam. These collaborators are the Islamo-leftists".And they are winning the cultural war.
How can France prevent an Islamic takeover of parts of the country with fatal metastases for the entire European continent? "In order to disarm terrorists, we must disarm consciences", Damien Le Guay just wrote in a new book, entitled La guerre civile qui vient est déjà là ("The Coming Civil War Is Here Already").
France needs to stop talking with "non-violent Islamists", such as the Muslim Brotherhood, and instead to speak with the true liberal reformers, the internal dissidents of Islam. The daily newspaper Le Figaro recently devoted an entire issue to Muslim women in France who are trying to fight radical Islam. They are journalists, activists and writers who want equality between men and women, freedom of expression and sexual freedom. These Muslims clearly care more about the French Enlightenment than many non-Muslims who advocate appeasing Islamists.
France also needs to close its borders to mass immigration and select new arrivals on the basis of their willingness to retain the present culture of France, and to abandon multiculturalism in favor of respect for a plurality of faiths in the public space. That means rethinking the phony French secularism, which is aggressive against Catholicism but weak and passive with Islam.
France needs to close the Salafist mosques and ban the preaching of radical imams who incite Muslim communities against the "infidels" and urge Muslims to separate from the rest of the population.
France needs to prevent the arrival of propaganda from the dictatorial regimes of the Middle East: their mosques, satellite channels, pamphlets, libraries and books.
France needs ban polygamy; Islamic law, sharia; female genital mutilation (FGM); Islamic supremacism and forced marriages.
France needs to tighten its alliance with Israel, the one outpost of Western culture in a region that has rejected it. Israel is the West's only true ally in an area that is collapsing under the weight of radical Islam.
France needs to protect and renovate its Christian treasures. A few weeks ago, the Cathedral of Notre Dame in Paris promoted a fundraising project to save the building from decaying. The French authorities need to play their part and not forsake France's Christian heritage. France needs to send Islamists the message that France is a secular country, but not a de-Christianized one.
France needs to protect its Jewish community, which in ten years has lost 40,000 people who fled the country as a result of anti-Semitism met with indifference.
France needs to strengthen Western culture at schools, museums, universities and publishing houses: Enlightenment, as the foundation of freedom of conscience, expression and religion, separation of religion and state; and the Judeo-Christian tradition as the root of all the great achievements of European culture.
France needs to demand reciprocity. The right to build a mosque in France should be linked to the right of Christians in the Middle East to practice their faith: a mosque for a church. France has the political and diplomatic connections in North Africa and Middle East to impose this reciprocity. What is lacking is any political will.
In short, France needs to start fostering its side of this cultural war. Even if it is too late to recover all of the lost ground, if France does not start immediately but just limits itself to "manage" this "state of emergency", the lights turned off will not be only those of the Eiffel Tower, as happens after every terror attack, but also the lights of one of the greatest civilizations that history ever gave us
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3)
New York Times Launches ‘Strident’ Attack on Ambassador Haley for Iran Truthtelling
by Ira Stoll
The New York Times cheerleading for Iran is spilling over from its editorial and op-ed pages into its news columns.
The Times recently published seven editorial or op-ed pieces in 12 days supporting the Iran nuclear deal that the Israeli government and its American friends oppose. But now you don’t even have to read the Times editorial or op-ed page to find pro-Iranian commentary: it’s available in the news columns, starting with a dispatch by Rick Gladstone that is just terribly tilted.
The Gladstone article appears under the online headline “U.S. Ambassador to U.N. Escalates Confrontation With Iran.” At least three times, it applies different standards to covering the Iran-Israel-US dispute than the Times applies in other situations.
The first double standard is a sexist one. Describing comments made at the UN by the American ambassador, Nikki Haley, the Times said “her remarks were among the most strident denunciations Ms. Haley has made of Iran since she became President Trump’s ambassador in January.”
My authoritative Webster’s Second unabridged dictionary defines “strident” as “creaking; harsh; grating.” When it is applied to liberal women, like, say, Hillary Clinton, the Times says it is a term that can signal sexism. Here, for example, is a 2008 column by Times public editor Clark Hoyt, discussing coverage of Clinton: “I asked my assistant, Michael McElroy, to run a database search for some key words that might indicate sexism in The Times — ‘shrill,’ ‘strident,’ ‘pantsuit’ and ‘giggle,’ among them.” A 2016 opinion piece in the Times by the president of Smith College, Kathleen McCartney, published after Clinton’s election loss, said, “If women stay boxed in by the norms of our gender — passive, gentle and congenial — we may not be viewed as leadership material. If women adopt the norms of a leader — commanding, decisive and assertive — we may be punished for being too bossy, too pushy, too strident, too ambitious, too scary.”
What the Times describes as “strident” coming from Haley strikes me as “principled” and “brave.” It’s another example, among too many, of the Times hurling negative adjectives at Israelis or at pro-Israel politicians or public figures.
I asked Gladstone on Twitter if he thought the term “strident” as he used it was sexist and he did not immediately respond.
The second double standard in the Times article has to do with foreign meddling in American politics. When it comes to alleged Russian interference in the American electoral process, the Times is up in arms about it, devoting editorials and front-page news articles to breathless, outraged accounts. Yet on the Iran nuclear deal, there is a different standard. The Timesmatter-of-factly reports that Britain, France, and Germany “have exhorted Congress to preserve the deal, which they say is doing exactly what had been intended — thwarting Iran’s ability to attain a nuclear weapon. They have warned that the United States is risking isolation, loss of credibility, and increased global insecurity if the deal unravels…China and Russia, veto-wielding members who are parties to the Iran nuclear agreement, are strong supporters of it.”
The British, French and German arguments about how “the United States is risking isolation” are taken at face value, without any kind of skepticism. Maybe the British and French and Germans don’t really care much about American security or credibility but do have their own strong commercial interests in commerce with Iran, such as the $4.8 billion deal recently made with Iran by the French oil company Total. Maybe the French, British and Germans don’t actually have that good a track record at protecting Jews from genocide of the sort that Iran is promising. Witness the horrors of the World War II era, including Vichy France and the British refusal to admit Jewish refugees into what was then the British Mandate of Palestine.
What, precisely, the British, Germans and French are doing in respect of the Iran deal and the American Congress would be a worthy topic for Times investigation. How are these foreigners wooing American lawmakers? With fancy diplomatic receptions? Expensive entertainment? Phone calls? Meetings? Meetings between Russians and Trump campaign officials generate extensive Times coverage and headlines. But an ongoing European pro-Iranian campaign aimed at the American legislature merits just a sentence or two, as if theTimes thinks it’s no big deal. The paper does mention a letter from “a group of 25 former foreign ministers.”
A similar double standard is on display with the Times reporting of the claim by Iran’s ambassador to the UN, Gholamali Khoshroo, that “’no country has done more than Iran’ in fighting Middle East terrorism.” When President Trump makes demonstrably false claims, the Times pats itself on the back for bluntly pointing them out, using terms like “falsely” or “lie.” “Times Editor Dean Baquet on Calling Out Donald Trump’s Lies,” was one Times headline. Yet when an Iranian ambassador — and Times op-ed contributor — makes the nonsensical and false claim that Iran is the world leader at “fighting Middle East terrorism,” the Times doesn’t call it out. The newspaper might have told readers that that Iran actually is, according to the US and Israeli governments and even American courts, a leading funder and mastermind of terrorism.
The Times writes that Haley injected Iran into “a Security Council meeting that had been meant to focus on developments in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.” The newspaper makes it sound like the two matters are unrelated, but how can one discuss the Israeli-Palestinian conflict without mentioning Iran, which funds and encourages anti-Israel military and terrorist attacks? It’s the elephant in the room.
If anyone is being “strident” here, it’s not Ambassador Haley, but the New York Times. That newspaper aims to reap more than $1 million in revenues for its ailing business by offering readers a series of luxury tours of the Islamic Republic, guided by Times journalists and by former Obama administration officials who were involved in crafting the Iran nuclear deal. TheTimes has also started translating some of its editorial content into Farsi as a way to reach Iranian readers. This particular news article is one that would probably find a more appreciative audience over there than over here. It would fit right in not only with Iran’s foreign policy agenda, but also with the Islamic Republic’s retrograde attitudes toward women.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
4) One woman’s response to Michelle Obama who told all women that they should have voted for Hillary because she is a woman and would represent women properly.
I still haven’t figured out why Hillary lost. Was it the Russians? or was it wikileaks ? or was it Podesta ? Or Comey ? or was it a sexual predator husband ? or was it her chief of staff's husband Wiener’s pictures of his penis ? was it a subpoena violation ? or was it the corrupt Clinton foundation ? or was it the congressional lies ? or was it the Bengazi bungle that cost several lives ? or was it pay for play ? or was it the travel gate scandal ? or was it the Whitewater scandal ? or the cattlegate scandal ? Or the Trooper Gate scandal ? Or was it the $15 million for Chelsea’s apt bought with foundation money ? Or Comey's investigation ? Or her husband’s interference with Loretta Lynch and the investigation ? Or was it stealing debate questions ? Was it forensically deleting 30,000 emails ? Was it the Seth Rich murder ? Was it calling half the USA deplorable ? Was it the underhanded immoral treatment of Bernie Sanders ? Was it the Vince Foster murder ? The Jennifer Flowers assault ? The Jennifer Flowers settlement ? The Paula Jones law suit ? The $800,000 Paula Jones settlement ? The lie about taking on sniper fire in Eastern Europe ? The impeachment ? The $6 billion she "lost" when in charge of the State dept. ? The $10 million she took for the pardon of Marc Rich ? Gee, I just can't quite put my finger on it, but it seems to be right in front of me.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No comments:
Post a Comment