Title :
link :
WW.MOEISSUESOFTHEDAY
.BLOGSPOT. COM
For Wed, Dec. 13, 2017
~All Gave Some~Some Gave
All~God Bless America
‘
I’m a Red Sox Fan. As such, I understand how we can snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
DEAR READERS, We are Sorry!
From Trump Train News
Dear Reader,
Last night around 9 PM we projected that Judge Roy Moore (R) was the winner in the Alabama Senate Race over Doug Jones (D).
We underestimated the turnout figures in a few key counties for the Doug Jones campaign which are strong Democratic areas.
Unlike the mainstream media, we apologize for making mistakes. It was not our intention to mislead you.
We are truly sorry we missed the mark and hope you accept our sincerest apologies.
We underestimated the turnout figures in a few key counties for the Doug Jones campaign which are strong Democratic areas.
Unlike the mainstream media, we apologize for making mistakes. It was not our intention to mislead you.
We are truly sorry we missed the mark and hope you accept our sincerest apologies.
Sincerely,
Trump Train News Political Desk
Trump Train News Political Desk
PS: Below are the next steps in the Alabama race.
What happens next in Alabama?
While most of the media has declared Doug Jones the winner in Alabama as he leads 49.9% to 48.4%, the Roy Moore campaign has not yet conceded.
It's highly unlikely that Roy Moore can overcome the deficit, but the state of Alabama still has military ballots to count, according to our sources.
Democrats are calling on Mitch McConnell to hold up the tax reform vote until Doug Jones is seated.
Things are about to get mighty interesting in the swamp.
Stay tuned.
It's highly unlikely that Roy Moore can overcome the deficit, but the state of Alabama still has military ballots to count, according to our sources.
Democrats are calling on Mitch McConnell to hold up the tax reform vote until Doug Jones is seated.
Things are about to get mighty interesting in the swamp.
Stay tuned.
U.S. Department Of Justice Finally Starts Investigating Planned Parenthood
At least two years after the Center for Medical Progress released explosive undercover videos showing Planned Parenthood (PP) profited from aborted baby part harvesting, the Department of Justice has finally announced they will investigate PP.
The videos prompted an investigation by the House Oversight Committee, which found, among other things, that PP did not need federal funding. Following that, the Senate Judiciary investigated PP and issued a report, “Human Fetal Tissue Research: Context and Controversy” published last December. Its summary says, “The activities of those involved, in the fetal tissue transfer industry potentially implicate a number of federal laws.”
Following that, committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) told the FBI it should investigate PP: “The report documents the failure of the Department of Justice, across multiple administrations, to enforce the law that bans the buying and selling of human fetal tissue. It also documents substantial evidence suggesting that the specific entities involved in the recent controversy, and/or individuals employed by those entities, may have violated that law.”
Now, Fox News reports that Justice Department Assistant Attorney General Stephen Boyd has requested unredacted documents from the Senate Judiciary Committee, “in order to further the Department’s ability to conduct a thorough and comprehensive assessment of that report based on the full range of information available.”
Center for Medical Progress founder David Daleiden said in a statement, “Over two years ago, citizen journalists at The Center for Medical Progress first caught Planned Parenthood’s top abortion doctors in a series of undercover videos callously and flippantly negotiating the sale of tiny baby hearts, lungs, livers, and brains. Since then, two Congressional investigations found even deeper wrongdoing and confirmed that Planned Parenthood Federation of America, several of their biggest affiliates, and multiple business partners broke the law in a profit-driven scheme to commodify dismembered baby body parts. It is time for public officials to finally hold Planned Parenthood and their criminal abortion enterprise accountable under the law.”
Given the myriad investigations and their findings, the real question is, if the DOJ comes to the same conclusion previous investigations have, what should be done about it? At best, this should give Congress the gumption it needs to finally defund the immoral behemoth that is Planned Parenthood.
Nicole Russell is a senior contributor to The Federalist. She lives in northern Virginia with her four kids. Follow her on Twitter @russell_nm.
Report: George Soros’ operative trying to impeach Trump with illegal money
Adrin Shamsudin / Shutterstock.com; Gage Skidmore / CCLDavid Brock, founder of Media Matters for America, is drawing attention to himself for his involvement in a plot to unseat and discredit President Trump.
According to The Daily Caller, Brock appears to be funneling hundreds of thousands of dollars from charitable funds to political groups operating with the intent of impeaching the president.
Brock’s Involvement
Brock’s Media Matters is registered as a 501(c)3 non-profit, which grants them tax-exempt status. That status, which is not awarded lightly, comes with stipulations.
One such stipulation requires that non-profits are prohibited from participating in any political activities, particularly those related to funding them. That prohibition may be construed as direct or indirect support (or opposition) to a given political candidate, office, or ideology.
Media Matters seems to have violated this clause, having granted nearly a quarter of a million dollars to a Brock organization, though it’s still not clear whether the money went to American Bridge 21st Century Foundation, or another organization — a super PAC bearing a similar name, American Bridge 21st Century PAC.
According to the non-profit’s financial statements from 2016, as well as their filings with the IRS, money was obviously given, though the funds ultimately evaded capture, and found their way to one of Brock’s organizations.
Both of Brock’s organizations have a noted history of engaging in inappropriate political behavior in violation of their tax-exempt clause. The organizations both face an FEC complaint detailing a scheme wherein the organizations allegedly planned to hide donor identities so that funds could be allocated without alerting authorities.
Possible Soros Involvement
This is one way that George Soros, Democrat mega-donor, funnels his money toward causes meant to impair and impede the Republican agenda. It’s also explicitly illegal.
The IRS code states explicitly that nonprofits “are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office.”
If Media Matters is found guilty of using monies it received in charitable donations to empower political candidates, then it’s likely that the IRS would have the legal precedent to investigate the organization, which could further lead to their revoking the group’s tax-exempt status.
As of now, it already looks as though trouble is brewing for Brock and his groups. Media Matters reported that, in 2016, they funded a grant to a super PAC — however, their IRS filings contradicted the initial reports and labeled the expenditure as something unrelated to politics entirely.
Without an Obama-friendly IRS, groups like Media Matters could be in serious trouble if they’re not careful.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren Faces Criticism over ‘Slut-Shaming’ Tweet
by CHARLIE NASH
AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster / AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) faced criticism for saying that President Donald Trump “slut-shamed” Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) with a non-sexual insult, Tuesday.
After President Donald Trump made a post on Twitter claiming that Sen. Gillibrand “would do anything” for campaign contributions, Sen. Warren made her own post accusing Trump of “slut-shaming.”
“Are you really trying to bully, intimidate and slut-shame @SenGillibrand?” asked Sen. Warren in her post. “Do you know who you’re picking a fight with? Good luck with that, @realDonaldTrump. Nevertheless, #shepersisted.”
Are you really trying to bully, intimidate and slut-shame @SenGillibrand? Do you know who you're picking a fight with? Good luck with that, @realDonaldTrump. Nevertheless, #shepersisted. https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/940567812053053441 …
Sen. Warren was quickly criticized for her post, with numerous users pointing out how she had insinuated that Gillibrand is a “slut.”
It's not immediately clear if Liz Warren realizes she's calling Gillibrand a slut here. https://twitter.com/SenWarren/status/940615748988342273 …
Gilibrand was in bible group and called a slut by Warren today so that's a fun spectrum to be on.
Dec. 12, 2017: The day Donald Trump and Liz Warren both implied that Kirsten Gillibrand is a slut.
Are you really trying to bully, intimidate and slut-shame @SenGillibrand? Do you know who you're picking a fight with? Good luck with that, @realDonaldTrump. Nevertheless, #shepersisted. https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/940567812053053441 …
That's not what slut-shaming is, c'mon.
the current shrieking phone calls between the offices of @SenGillibrand and @SenWarren would be more fun to listen to than the missing Watergate tapes
As defined by OxfordDictionaries.com, slut-shaming is, “The action or fact of stigmatizing a woman for engaging in behaviour judged to be promiscuous or sexually provocative.”
Charlie Nash is a reporter for Breitbart Tech. You can follow him on Twitter @MrNashington and Gab @Nash, or like his page at Facebook.
“Outraged”: Fumblewear Bomber Family Blasts Law Enforcement After Terror Attack; Update: Special Message To Trump?
ED MORRISSEY
Just how much deference is due a family during the execution of a search warrant related to a botched terror attack? The family of Akayed Ullah and the lawyers at CAIR expressed their “outrage” over law enforcement actions yesterday, which might not gain much sympathy after Ullah got caught red-handed — or red-bellied — in the attempt to kill a great many New Yorkers. They did not appreciate having to stand outside in the cold air while investigators searched their houses, legal warrants or no, to ensure that the Fumblewear Bomber didn’t have accomplices or more attacks planned:
In a statement issued Monday evening through the Council on American-Islamic Relations of New York (CAIR-NY), the family said, “We are heartbroken by this attack on our city today and by the allegations being made against our family.”
In a statement issued Monday evening through the Council on American-Islamic Relations of New York (CAIR-NY), the family said, “We are heartbroken by this attack on our city today and by the allegations being made against our family.”
The statement expressed dissatisfaction about the treatment of the family in the hours after the bombing. “Today we have seen our children, as young as 4 years old, held out in the cold, detained as their parents were questioned.
“One teenage relative,” it said, “was pulled out of high school classes and interrogated without a lawyer, without his parents. These are not the actions that we expect from our justice system.”
If they were “heartbroken” about the attack on the city, then perhaps they wouldn’t be quite so quick to equate it in the same breath with the investigation that followed. They had to stand in the cold, did they, along with their young child? Then perhaps their relative should have conducted his attack in warmer weather. Even without the potential loss of human life, Ullah’s bomb forced a lot of people in New York to stand around in the cold longer than usual in order to find transportation alternatives after shutting down the city’s main bus terminal for a significant period of time. There are worse things than standing around in the cold, and Ullah tried to make the worst of those come true for a lot of New Yorkers.
The allegation about the school interrogation is interesting for a couple of reasons. The circumstances described in this statement make it appear that the initial interrogations may have been conducted for the purpose of intelligence gathering rather than law enforcement. Andrew McCarthy offered a critical assessment of the latter approach yesterday afternoon, assuming that authorities took that approach from the beginning:
If the New York Times is correct, it looks like Akayed Ullah, the Bangladeshi jihadist whose bomb detonated prematurely at the Port Authority Bus Terminal near Times Square during the morning rush hour, is going to be charged with terrorism crimes in civilian federal court. He’ll be prosecuted by my former office, the U.S. attorney’s office for the Southern District of New York in lower Manhattan. The SDNY will be working the Joint Terrorism Task Force (mainly the FBI and the NYPD), just as these law-enforcement agencies are working together in the case of Saifullo Saipov, the West Side Highway jihadist who killed eight people and wounded a dozen others by ramming his rental truck into them a few weeks back.
Ultimately, this may be the right way to handle the case. But I do not understand the rush to bring Ullah into federal court. …
We do not know if Ullah may lawfully be treated as an enemy combatant — i.e., whether he fits the definition of the enemy set forth by Congress in the post-9/11 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF). The agents are just starting their investigation. Preliminary indications are that they believe he was “inspired by ISIS” — which usually means he has no known operational ties to ISIS or al-Qaeda (the network from which ISIS broke away, and which is clearly covered by the AUMF). But we probably will not have a good read on that for a few days, at least.
So what’s the rush?
Let’s say the agents detain him for a few days so that he can be questioned without counsel and the agents can obtain any fresh intelligence he may have about other possible attacks. Legally, the worst thing that happens is prosecutors will not be able to use any statements he makes as evidence at his trial. But so what? The bombing attempt is on video and was apparently witnessed by scores of people. Prosecutors do not need a confession to convict this savage, but intelligence agents need to know any information he has that might help us prevent another attack.
Perhaps counterintelligence officials already had a crack at some of the family members first, and didn’t find anything? If so, it would have been only a cursory probe at best, but it might be that they did at least try.
More likely, though, both intelligence and law enforcement were concerned about exigent circumstances than developing prosecutorial evidence for Ullah’s trial, which as McCarthy points out will be a slam-dunk anyway. They needed to know whether Ullah had planted more bombs or was working with a terror cell that had more plans ready to execute. They didn’t have time to make arrangements for the “teenage relative” before getting the information they needed out of him. That might not be able to be used in Ullah’s trial, but they won’t need it to convict Ullah.
The Department of Justice filed terrorism charges against Ullah this morning:
The man who allegedly blew up his homemade explosive in a pedestrian subway tunnel in the heart of the Midtown Manhattan has been charged with criminal possession of a weapon, supporting an act of terrorism and making a terroristic threat, the New York Police Department announced Tuesday. …
Ullah had at least two devices, a law enforcement source with knowledge of the investigation tells CNN.
Only one detonated — a foot-long pipe that contained black powder, a battery, wiring, nails and screws. It was attached to Ullah with Velcro and zip ties. Investigators did not elaborate on the second device.
Presumably Ullah is being indicted under 18 USC 2332f, which specifically covers terrorism by explosive device in public-transportation venues. That would give Ullah a maximum of 20 years in prison under 2332(a). Had Ullah succeeded in killing someone he would have gotten a life sentence, but since that success would have almost certainly included his own, it would be a moot point.
Update: Ullah had his own domestic political agenda, too:
7h
ABC News
✔@ABC
JUST IN: Federal terrorism charges, including "Use of Weapons of Mass Destruction," have been filed against suspect in Port Authority attack - @AaronKatersky
“One teenage relative,” it said, “was pulled out of high school classes and interrogated without a lawyer, without his parents. These are not the actions that we expect from our justice system.”
If they were “heartbroken” about the attack on the city, then perhaps they wouldn’t be quite so quick to equate it in the same breath with the investigation that followed. They had to stand in the cold, did they, along with their young child? Then perhaps their relative should have conducted his attack in warmer weather. Even without the potential loss of human life, Ullah’s bomb forced a lot of people in New York to stand around in the cold longer than usual in order to find transportation alternatives after shutting down the city’s main bus terminal for a significant period of time. There are worse things than standing around in the cold, and Ullah tried to make the worst of those come true for a lot of New Yorkers.
The allegation about the school interrogation is interesting for a couple of reasons. The circumstances described in this statement make it appear that the initial interrogations may have been conducted for the purpose of intelligence gathering rather than law enforcement. Andrew McCarthy offered a critical assessment of the latter approach yesterday afternoon, assuming that authorities took that approach from the beginning:
If the New York Times is correct, it looks like Akayed Ullah, the Bangladeshi jihadist whose bomb detonated prematurely at the Port Authority Bus Terminal near Times Square during the morning rush hour, is going to be charged with terrorism crimes in civilian federal court. He’ll be prosecuted by my former office, the U.S. attorney’s office for the Southern District of New York in lower Manhattan. The SDNY will be working the Joint Terrorism Task Force (mainly the FBI and the NYPD), just as these law-enforcement agencies are working together in the case of Saifullo Saipov, the West Side Highway jihadist who killed eight people and wounded a dozen others by ramming his rental truck into them a few weeks back.
Ultimately, this may be the right way to handle the case. But I do not understand the rush to bring Ullah into federal court. …
We do not know if Ullah may lawfully be treated as an enemy combatant — i.e., whether he fits the definition of the enemy set forth by Congress in the post-9/11 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF). The agents are just starting their investigation. Preliminary indications are that they believe he was “inspired by ISIS” — which usually means he has no known operational ties to ISIS or al-Qaeda (the network from which ISIS broke away, and which is clearly covered by the AUMF). But we probably will not have a good read on that for a few days, at least.
So what’s the rush?
Let’s say the agents detain him for a few days so that he can be questioned without counsel and the agents can obtain any fresh intelligence he may have about other possible attacks. Legally, the worst thing that happens is prosecutors will not be able to use any statements he makes as evidence at his trial. But so what? The bombing attempt is on video and was apparently witnessed by scores of people. Prosecutors do not need a confession to convict this savage, but intelligence agents need to know any information he has that might help us prevent another attack.
Perhaps counterintelligence officials already had a crack at some of the family members first, and didn’t find anything? If so, it would have been only a cursory probe at best, but it might be that they did at least try.
More likely, though, both intelligence and law enforcement were concerned about exigent circumstances than developing prosecutorial evidence for Ullah’s trial, which as McCarthy points out will be a slam-dunk anyway. They needed to know whether Ullah had planted more bombs or was working with a terror cell that had more plans ready to execute. They didn’t have time to make arrangements for the “teenage relative” before getting the information they needed out of him. That might not be able to be used in Ullah’s trial, but they won’t need it to convict Ullah.
The Department of Justice filed terrorism charges against Ullah this morning:
The man who allegedly blew up his homemade explosive in a pedestrian subway tunnel in the heart of the Midtown Manhattan has been charged with criminal possession of a weapon, supporting an act of terrorism and making a terroristic threat, the New York Police Department announced Tuesday. …
Ullah had at least two devices, a law enforcement source with knowledge of the investigation tells CNN.
Only one detonated — a foot-long pipe that contained black powder, a battery, wiring, nails and screws. It was attached to Ullah with Velcro and zip ties. Investigators did not elaborate on the second device.
Presumably Ullah is being indicted under 18 USC 2332f, which specifically covers terrorism by explosive device in public-transportation venues. That would give Ullah a maximum of 20 years in prison under 2332(a). Had Ullah succeeded in killing someone he would have gotten a life sentence, but since that success would have almost certainly included his own, it would be a moot point.
Update: Ullah had his own domestic political agenda, too:
7h
ABC News✔@ABC
JUST IN: Federal terrorism charges, including "Use of Weapons of Mass Destruction," have been filed against suspect in Port Authority attack - @AaronKatersky
MORE: Federal complaint alleges the suspect posted this statement on his Facebook page the morning of the attack: “Trump you failed to protect your nation.” http://abcn.ws/2l3ii7Q http://pic.twitter.com/aeXqixjxQb
Bear in mind that this was supposed to be discovered posthumously. Instead, Ullah will have to face the consequences of these statements in court. The big question will be whether the remains of ISIS will want to associate themselves with this idiot. Probably; their threshold for intelligence in its recruits is not known to be especially high, after all.
CNN Caught Falsely Claiming Abortions Go Down Under Democrats
By MICAIAH BILGER
CNN has developed a poor reputation for accuracy, especially in the past few years.
Recently one of its contributors, political analyst Kirsten Powers, made a misleading claim about abortions declining under Democratic leadership.
The Daily Caller reports Powers made the comments while discussing the controversial Alabama Senate race with journalist Jake Tapper and Trump campaign strategist David Urban.
“Can we talk about this thing that Republicans do with abortion?” Powers said. “The abortion rate is the lowest rate it has been in 20 years. That’s because of Democrats being in power. This is what happens — every time Democrats are in power, the abortion rate drops.
“They actually provide women with what they need to either avoid the pregnancy or the support they need to actually have the baby, you know, whether it’s health insurance or these kinds of things,” she continued.
Tapper brought up “birth control access” to add to Powers’ claims.
But these claims are misleading, according to the Daily Caller:
While it is true that abortion rates fell sharply under the Obama administration, multiple studies discount that drops in overall rates are party affiliated. Abortion rates have been dropping consistently since Ronald Reagan, no matter the president in office. According to a thorough report by left-leaning Snopes, the claim that abortion rates only fall under Democrats is flatly “false.”
Snopes says “abortion rates have risen and fallen throughout presidencies of both parties, making drawing a direct correlation between the two untenable.” In fact, one of the sharpest increases in abortion rates in American history was during the Carter administration.
Snopes says “abortion rates have risen and fallen throughout presidencies of both parties, making drawing a direct correlation between the two untenable.” In fact, one of the sharpest increases in abortion rates in American history was during the Carter administration.
Another factor that contributed to the drop was a historic number of pro-life laws that passed state legislatures during the Obama administration. Even the Guttmacher Institute, the former research arm of Planned Parenthood, admitted that these pro-life laws have been contributing to the drop.
Democratic Party leaders do not seem to have any desire to reduce abortions, either.
Ilyse Hogue, president of the radical pro-abortion group NARAL, made it clear that the Democratic Party is not the party of “safe, legal and rare” abortions anymore.
She said the 2016 Democratic Party platform “didn’t just seek to protect abortion access — it sought to expand it.” Hogue was considered for the position of DNC chair in 2016.
The Democratic National Committee has adopted increasingly radical pro-abortion stances on abortion in the past few years. In 2016, the DNC called for taxpayer funded abortions, a move opposed by a strong majority of Americans and one that almost assuredly would increase abortions.
The #MeToo Movement Is Destroying Trust Between Men And Women
Like a disease, distrust is infecting our most foundational relationship as a people, the building block of a free, civil society—the relationship between men and women.
By D.C. McAllister
How do people from different walks of life, diverse experiences, and varied points of view live together peacefully within a civil society? What is the main ingredient necessary for democracy to thrive? It can be boiled down to one word: trust. Civil society is built on relationships, friendships, and associations that foster confidence in one’s fellow man or woman.
Freedom and community flourish in a culture of trust, and we’re losing it. This has been happening for some time. We see it across the American landscape in varying degrees. The poor don’t trust the rich. Blacks don’t trust whites. Populists don’t trust the elites. Voters don’t trust politicians. Teachers don’t trust parents. Citizens don’t trust the media. Democrats don’t trust Republicans—and vice versa.
We experience so much distrust that we’re numb to it; we even expect it, and often we thoughtlessly feed it. After all, we don’t think the distrust being bred “out there” in politics and social media affects us in our daily lives. But it does, and it’s increasing, expanding. Like a disease, it’s now infecting our most foundational relationship as a people, the building block of a free, civil society—the relationship between men and women.
Demonizing Men Undermines Both Sexes
The breakdown of trust between the sexes is the tragic legacy of the modern feminist movement, but it has taken on a new fervor with the #MeToo campaign and the growing accusation that masculinity is vile, toxic, and inherently predatory. Fear of men is legitimized, as accusation is treated as fact. Men are seen as “the enemy,” an embodied deviance that must be remolded into the image of a woman. Their sexuality is assumed to be naturally brutal, a threat to be controlled and reduced for the individual man to be considered “safe.”
While women’s willingness to hold men accountable for criminal sexual behavior is to be applauded, the scorched-earth approach we are seeing today is destructive because it undermines trust. When anything from a naive touch during a photoshoot to an innocent attempt at a kiss is compared to rape and sexual abuse, we are not healing society but infecting relationships with the poison of distrust.
Whether it’s in the workplace, church, or home, the interaction between a man and a woman is unique and primary to all other relationships. When a breakdown of trust happens there, when fear of the other sex becomes generalized, society simply can’t thrive.
Essential to the relationship between men and women is the sexual dynamic. For trust to flourish, this reality can’t denied, and it must be handled with respect, care, and honesty. It can’t be shut down. It can’t be abused, and one part of the polarity—whether it’s masculine or feminine—cannot be labeled toxic, brutal, or evil (as was done in the past by certain totalitarian religions regarding feminine sexuality). Once that label sticks, distrust is generated to the detriment of all.
If women believe that all men with their masculine sexuality intact are dangerous, there can be no trust between the sexes. Men are not going to become eunuchs, change and become like women, abandoning their natural masculinity just because women are afraid of it. It’s impossible, because this is their identity—it’s their nature and it can’t be expunged without destroying who they are as free individuals, as men.
The sexual tension between men and women will always exist, and if women assume a man’s sexuality is a threat instead of a powerful complement to their own sexuality, they will always be on guard. In this environment of suspicion, there can be no privacy between a man and a woman. If there is any kind of interaction or discourse, even if it’s not sexual, the man can’t trust that the woman won’t use it against him—so communication is silenced. Fear is generated on both sides, and fear is the death of trust. It is also the death of love.
Relational Distrust Feeds Social Distrust
When our most intimate and foundational relationships are ruled by fear and distrust, political freedom breaks down. When you no longer trust other people, you can’t rely on them for anything. They need to be monitored, controlled, and relentlessly investigated or watched. Distrust destroys democracy. You simply can’t be free when the components that make up a culture of trust are destroyed.
When men and women can’t agree on what is morally acceptable or even what is considered “legal” behavior, there can be no trust. When the lines are always moving, the rules always changing, there can be no trust. When dissent and a free exchange of ideas about these issues are silenced through threats and intimidation, there can be no trust. When accountability for certain behaviors is inconsistent because the standard is not moral absolutes but shifting power, there can be no trust.
A culture of trust doesn’t mean everyone in a democratic state trusts everyone to the same degree. People need a healthy “distrust” to survive, but this involves risk avoidance, not fear. For example, a woman doesn’t trust a man to meet her alone in his hotel room, not because of fear of masculinity, but because of wise risk avoidance in this particular case. Our society used to function in this capacity, with marked deviations in our history. But now, we are becoming ruled mostly by fear.
“The end of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st century is marked by a shift in the meaning of trust/distrust dichotomy in European and North American public discourses and in the media, and consequently, in human and social sciences,” writes Ivana Markova writes in “Trust and Distrust: Sociocultural Perspectives.” “Previously, the most common meanings of trust/distrust in democratic systems were dichotomies like trust versus ‘healthy distrust’ and trust versus risk. These are now amply complemented by the dichotomy trust versus fear.”
Totalitarian Regimes Incite Fear to Maintain Power
When we become socialized into fear, we communicate with suspicion, inauthenticity, and insincerity. These simply cannot exist in healthy relationships or a free society. This is why totalitarianism thrives on distrust. The only mechanism that can maintain order in a culture of distrust and fear is the all-powerful state. It is the state alone that can be trusted. Individuals cannot.
“The dichotomy trust versus fear has always been thriving in totalitarian regimes,” Markova writes. “As has been plentifully documented, the general strategy of totalitarianism is to induce distrust among ordinary citizens, neighbors, and even among family members. Moreover, totalitarian regimes institute an arbitrary persecution and punishment of citizens, and leave them in a permanent state of uncertainty. Under such regimes nobody knows whether, when, and why they might be called to present themselves at, what can be named, the court of injustice.”
As this applies to men and women in an environment of suspicion, men never know when they will be presented at the court of injustice as a “sexual abuser.” Men will be guarded about every word, every action, and live in fear of a woman’s accusation. Communication is shut down or curbed. No one is real with one another. Harmless flirting is stifled. The seeds of intimacy crushed. The organic becomes plastic. Relationships are broken, and there is no interest in becoming active in the lives of others. Love is eradicated and fear takes its place. Yet humans were not meant to live caged by fear.
“A permanent state of fear, anxiety, and uncertainty is associated with dehumanizing social and psychological states, like the loss of dignity, the crisis of identity resulting from adaptation to totalitarianism, passivity, non-involvement, and non communication,” Markova writes. “Inducement of uncertainty, of distrust in communication and propagation of fear, all help to maintain the stability of the totalitarian regime.”
The Opposite of Fear Is Faith
We must have faith in one another if we want to be free and happy. Faith means we don’t always know everything about the other person. Faith means we might be fooled, hurt, or abused. Faith is beyond reason, though not unreasonable. It is the essence of trust, as our knowledge of others is limited. We have to live by faith in our fellow man, or we will be isolated from one another.
We have to live by faith in our fellow man, or we will be isolated from one another.
“Without the general trust that people have in each other, society itself would disintegrate,” writes German sociologist Georg Simmel, “for very few relationships are based entirely upon what is known with certainty about another person, and very few relationships would endure if trust were not as strong as, or stronger than, rational proof or personal observation.”
We, as a society, need to pause and take a serious look at ourselves. Are we cultivating a society of fear or trust? Some might say restoring trust through accountability is one of the goals of the #MeToo movement. I would agree—criminality and abuse in any form, whether lying, stealing, murder, or rape, is an attack on civil society. These are an abuse of trust.
But we are moving beyond merely holding individuals accountable for criminal or abusive behavior to policing masculinity itself. Men as a stigmatized group have become the target. Many people are worried about sex being policed as a result of the sexual harassment witch-hunt, but the act of sex is not the issue here. The relationship between men and women is. What we’re losing isn’t sexual freedom, but relational freedom and the trust that undergirds it.
‘You Will Be Hollow’
We need to wake up and see that we are running down a path to self-destruction. Whether it’s our behavior on social media, our rejection of reasoned debate for violence and intimidation, our exploitation of racial and sexual tensions, or our willingness to stigmatize others simply to elevate ourselves and empower our own positions, we must see that these actions are fostering a culture of fear and distrust, which will lead to our demise.
In George Orwell’s seminal book on totalitarianism, “1984,” sex was severely regulated and loving relationships between men and women forbidden—a code protagonist Winston Smith violated when he fell in love with Julia. To “reprogram” Winston in compliance with the state, one of the members of Big Brother’s inner party breaks the trust between Winston and Julia through torture.
“Never again will you be capable of love, or friendship, or joy of living, or laughter, or curiosity, or courage, or integrity,” torturer O’Brien tells Winston. “You will be hollow. We shall squeeze you empty, and then we shall fill you with ourselves.”
This is what we’re doing to ourselves by breeding distrust to the point that men and women can’t live authentically with one another. We are emptying ourselves of our humanity, stripping away our trust in each other, and robbing ourselves of mutual affection. I’m afraid that one day we will wake up and feel the hollowness within, find that we’re alone, and rattle the cage we’ve built around us because we chose fear instead of love.
Denise C. McAllister is a journalist based in Charlotte, North Carolina, and a senior contributor to The Federalist. Follow her on Twitter @McAllisterDen.
The Real Story of Chanukah And What It Should Mean for American Jewry Today
By ELLIOTT HAMILTON
On Saturday night, the Jewish people will start commemorating Hanukkah, commonly known the Festival of Lights. For the next eight nights, we will light the Menorah (what we refer to as the chanukiah), where each branch represents a singular night where the oil miraculously burned after the Maccabees rededicated the Holy Temple in Jerusalem. While Chanukah is a minor Jewish holiday compared to the holy festivals of Sukkos, Pesach, and Shavuos, it represents an important moment in our history and it embodies the Jewish people's soul.
The story begins in Judea, the Jewish people's indigenous homeland where Israel and the disputed territories currently exist. Prior to the Maccabean Revolt, there were two Hellenistic empires in the Levant: The Ptolemaic Kingdom and the Seleucid Empire. At one point, they were united under Alexander the Great of Macedon. Following his death over 100 years prior, a leadership dispute resulted in competing political and military alliances that resulted in the two Greek kingdoms splitting control over land. In 198 BCE, Antiochus III of the Selecuid Empire defeated the Ptolemies, gaining control of Judea. Initially, Antiochus III promised the Jewish people that they would be allowed to live under the laws of the Torah instead of the Hellenized laws he imposed in his other territories.
Despite the freedom the Jewish people possessed to maintain their traditions, many Jews opted out of their culture to adopt Hellenized customs and beliefs. The Hellenized Jews, in turn, managed to acquire more power and influence amongst their Greek conquerors than the High Priest of Jerusalem. It was not the first time that the Jewish people found themselves divided in its history, but the significance of the rise of Hellenized Jewry changes how we understand the story of Chanukah.
When Antiochus IV came into power in 175 BCE, he dramatically altered the empire's goodwill to the Jews that his father promised by ousting Onias, the High Priest at the time, in favor of Jason, a Seleucid loyalist. Jason had promised to pay the Seleucid king a very high tribute if he used his power to remove Onias and if the king helped build a gymnasium in Jerusalem. Seeing it as an opportunity to increase the revenues of the empire and to acquire more control over his subjects, Antiochus IV complied. In his capacity as High Priest, Jason wrote a decree stating that Jewish law no longer dictated the holy city. This created deep divisions within the Jewish people, who believed that Jason's actions were an abomination to the title he held.
Tensions rose dramatically between the Rabbinic Jews and the Hellenized Jews when AntiochusIV removed Jason in favor of Menalaus. Menalaus oversaw the murder of Onias and allowed his brother Lysimachus to steal various sacred items within Jerusalem. While the Rabbinic Jews revolted and arrested Lysimachus for his criminal acts, Antiochus IV acquitted him of all the charges when Menalaus promised a larger tribute to the empire. To add insult to injury, Menalaus also oversaw new projects that increased the rate of Hellenization within the Jewish people. When the Antiochus IV went to Egypt for a military campaign in 168 BCE, Jason started a revolt to reclaim the priesthood following false reports of the king dying in battle. It failed.
Once Antiochus IV discovered that Jason's revolt took place, he decided to punish the entirety of the Jewish people for their supposed disloyalty. As such, the king prohibited the Jews from praying in the Holy Temple, keeping Shabbos, performing circumcisions, and any study of Torah. Those anti-Jewish decrees had the sole intention of destroying Rabbinic Judaism. These events led to the rise of both Mattathias and Judah, who believed not only that Jason and Menalaus were illegitimate priests of Jerusalem, but also that the Jewish people should no longer live under Antiochus IV's rule. Two years after the king began to oppress the Jewish people, the Maccabeean Revolt commenced. The revolt resulted in the land of Judea being liberated by the Maccabees and the establishment of the Hasmonean Dynasty, the second independent Jewish kingdom in the land.
What most American Jews do not realize about the story of Chanukah is that it was more than just a story of the Jewish people fighting against the oppressive Seleucid Empire. It was also a story of a civil war between two camps of Jews: One who believed that the Jewish people should maintain their Halachic traditions and the other who wished to assimilate with their oppressors. It serves as a lesson to the importance of Jewish unity in troubling times where the Jewish people's very existence is threatened by evil. Despite the challenges that the Jewish people fared, the Jewish people managed to prevail not only against anti-Jewish oppressors but also the divisions within their own community.
Today, most American Jews identify on the left of the political spectrum and many remain dismayed over Donald Trump's election as President. Furthermore, some far-left Jews went berserk over Trump's choice for US Ambassador to Israel and have falsely painted themselves as representatives of American Jewry. As a result, our community remains deeply divided and it will most certainly not change any time soon. However, starting Saturday night, most of us will light the chanukiah, recite the three blessings for the first night of Chanukah, and recall the story of the Jewish people fighting back against oppression and overcoming one of the most deeply divided moments in our people's history. It should also serve as a reminder that it never helps the Jewish people to side with those who openly seek to destroy us. Instead, we should do everything to fight back against our oppressors and all who wish to submit us under tyrannical rule.
In the spirit of Chanukah, I wish everyone Chag Sameach and I pray that we continue to embody the spirit of the Maccabees for generations to come.
G’ day…Ciao…
Helen and Moe Lauzier
Thus Article
That's an article
This time, hopefully can give benefits to all of you. well, see you in posting other articles.
You are now reading the article with the link address https://capitalstories.blogspot.com/2017/12/ww_13.html
Related Posts :
Power Rangers: Morphinominal Expo Coming To San Antonio, Texas- Sprinting For Toys In 60 Seconds | Nickelodeon Africa Toy Sprint 2017
- Five Things You Probably Didn’t Know About JoJo Siwa
Power Rangers Trade In Zords For Cars In Slick New "Cosmic Drift" Teaser- Bandai Announces New Mighty Morphin Power Rangers Toy Line
0 Response to " "
Post a Comment