Our Radicalized Media: A Clear And Present Danger

Most associate the term “radicalized” with ISIS.  But radical movements aren’t limited to a religion.  A jihad is a crusade for a principle or belief involving struggle” and “resistance.”

The Washington establishment, the Deep State, and special interests have launched their own jihad, built on a battle cry to “resist.”  Today, calls to “resist!” echo through Congress as half of the House and Senate stage a mutiny against a duly elected president.

“Resist!” is the call to arms from Democrat leaders (Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama) and radical activist groups (Black Lives Matter, Antifa).

More than 50 organizations have formed to “resist!” the Trump administration.

Just as ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi calls on his followers to resist infidels, so this Washington cabal calls on its warriors to resist our government, to obstruct the president.

These machinations are not conducted in the shadows, not a secret plot carried out in the dead of night.  It’s all in our faces.  Rush Limbaugh warns of a silent coup, Sean Hannity a “soft coup,” Ambassador Bolton the “first coup d’état in [U.S.] history.”

Wow – a domestic plot to take down our government, and the best we can do is chronicle the uprising?  How did we get to the place where we witness a coup and tacitly accept it?

In a word, the media, the left’s super-soldiers, brought us to this point.

This powerful propaganda tool is utilized to take the state message into every living room, bedroom, workplace, and gym, anywhere there’s a TV or internet, omnipresent, Big Brother.

Like Hitler’s “Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda,” the media control information, reporting only news that attacks our president and those working to exonerate him.  They bury news of lawlessness that implicates Democrats – Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, any member of the leftist cabal.

But why are the media protecting the bad actors?  Is it their liberal bent, their far-left ideology?  Well, yes and no.  Yes, the media are radicalized, wholly devoted to the progressive dogma of the left, but it’s more than that.  These faux journalists couldn’t spew their poison, advocate the overthrow of a president, without their boss’s permission, without government approval.

Oh, I know: Time Warner, Comcast, and other private corporations, not government, own the media.  Except corporate America and government are one and the same, partners in a corrupt merger.

The roots of this merger are in the iron triangle, a mutually beneficial three-way relationship among Congress, government bureaucrats (the Deep State), and special interests (corporate).

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/02/our_radicalized_media_a_clear_and_present_danger.html#ixzz56lKVwMHq
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

‘Absolute lies’: Patrick Brown refutes sex misconduct allegations

In his first interview since resigning as Ontario’s PC Party leader, Patrick Brown insists sexual misconduct accusations against him are “absolute lies” and that he is contemplating legal action to defend his shattered reputation.

“It was like getting hit by a truck and you’re in a state of shock,” Brown said in an exclusive and emotional interview with Postmedia Friday about allegations that derailed his race for the Premier’s office.

“It wasn’t until last week that I got a bit of my strength back and wanted to investigate these allegations,” he said.

“When we looked at the allegations in detail, we were able to show that they’re absolute lies and we can prove it.”

Brown said allegations made in a CTV News story, that he plied a high school student with drink and asked her to perform oral sex on him “didn’t happen.”

And he vehemently denied claims by a second accuser, a former constituency staff worker, that he fed her drinks during a Barrie hospital fundraiser, kissed her and tried to have sex with her without her consent.

The CTV story contained damning allegations from both women against Brown and amounted to political nitro glycerin that vapourized his leadership, career and reputation.

“It’s an execution before the trial. It’s frontier justice,” Brown said. “That’s why I’m strongly considering a legal recourse.”

Within hours of the CTV story being aired, Brown had resigned and was being vilified by Ontario’s Premier, NDP leader and his own caucus and party members.

“I went back to Barrie. I didn’t want to see anyone. My family and friends were all in tears. I could barely speak,” Brown said. “Why would anyone do this to me? And I literally didn’t have the strength to fight.”

He had been scheduled to have a cyst removed from his back, and wore a hat and glasses into the Barrie hospital to hide his identity.

The obviously emotional Brown said he was moved when a man came up, patted him on the back and said he believed him.

“And I got back into the car after the surgery and I started crying and I said, you know everyone here in Barrie believes in you, I’ve got to push back.”

 

more at

http://torontosun.com/news/provincial/absolute-lies-patrick-brown-refutes-sex-misconduct-allegations

 

Seven Reasons to Beware the Southern Poverty Law Center

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) says its primary mission is to fight hatred, teach tolerance, and seek justice. These are noble goals for most Americans, but this is not a noble organization. It is the exact opposite. Given the SPLC’s power and influence over the media and members of Congress, this once highly-regarded civil rights organization deserves fresh scrutiny. Here are seven reasons why the SPLC fails to serve the public interest:

The SPLC ignores basic standards of scientific research in selecting and classifying hate groups and extremists.

The SPLC’s definition of “hate” is vague. It defines a hate group as one with “beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics.” SPLC President Richard Cohen testified in December 2017 that its assessment of hate is based on opinion, not objective criteria. (See minutes 43-48 of his testimony.)

George Yancy, a University of North Texas sociologist, documented the SPLC’s subjective nature in a 2014 study, “Watching the Watchers.” Yancy said the group’s methodology seemed more geared to mobilizing liberals than cataloguing hate groups.

The SPLC uses guilt by association to engage in ad hominem attacks against individuals.

Hannah Scherlacher, a Campus Reform worker, found her name listed in the SPLC’s “Anti-LGBT Roundup of Events and Activities” after the conservative Family Research Council interviewed her. Surprisingly, Scherlacher’s interview had nothing to do with LGBT issues. In 2009, soon after I criticized the SPLC for having mission creep, it labeled me “an apologist for white supremacy.”

I committed the crime of endorsing a film produced by a man the SPLC considers a racist.

The SPLC ignores threats posed by leftist, anti-American groups such as ANTIFA, ISIS, and the Muslim Brotherhood.

Despite the growing threat of jihadist violence, the SPLC has been reluctant to add Islamic groups with terrorist ties to its list of extremists. It also ignored how, in 2004, the FBI found plans for a “grand jihad” in America within the archives of the Muslim Brotherhood in North America. Yet, the SPLC has applied the hate label to Muslim critics of Islam, such as Maajid Nawaz and Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Both are listed in its Field Guide to Muslim Extremists.

The SPLC attacks and smears mainstream public service organizations, including churches, ministries, and various pro-family entities.

Targeted organizations include the American Family Association, Alliance Defending Freedom, Act for America, the Center for Immigration Studies, Center for Security Policy, D. James Kennedy Ministries, Family Research Council, Liberty Counsel, and the Traditional Values Coalition. These groups are lumped together by the SPLC with the Aryan Nations, KKK, and neo-Nazis. Preposterous.

Note: labelling an organization as a hate group hurts its fundraising and hinders access to credit card-processing vendors, search engine rankings, and ministry partners.

The SPLC bashes conservatives while pushing a liberal agenda that empowers and supports leftists, communists, and anarchists.

The SPLC regularly bashes President Trump, blaming him for the growth of white nationalism. Their analysis fails to acknowledge that the rise of white nationalism predates the election of Trump by more than two decades. Much of what the president says or does is framed as an attack on civil rights.

Curiously, after violence in Charlottesville, Va., in August 2017, the SPLC republished a map detailing the location of more than 1,500 Confederate monuments and symbols. Consider the map a field guide for anarchists.

The SPLC’s labeling of groups and individuals has inspired acts of violence against its targets.

The SPLC is the common thread in two violent hate crimes against conservatives. After the SPLC listed the Family Research Council (FRC) on its hate map, Floyd Lee Corkins II entered FRC headquarters in August 2012 intending to commit mass murder. He was subdued by a security guard who was shot in the process. Likewise, James T. Hodgkinson, who in 2017 shot House Majority Whip Representative Steve Scalise (R-La.), was an SPLC social media fan.

The SPLC is an irresponsible public charity.

The SPLC has violated the public trust. Nonprofit, tax-exempt organizations are expected to operate in a nonpartisan manner with the public interest at heart. The SPLC, however, is a radical activist group dedicated to suppressing political dissent.

As of 2016, the SPLC had $319 million in net assets with $69 million parked in offshore accounts. Despite its name, the SPLC does not fight poverty. Its salaries are bloated, and only a fraction of its annual contributions are used to support its programs. Writing for Philanthropy Roundtable, a nonprofit group informing the public on philanthropic activity and groups, executive director Karl Zinsmeister wrote:

The SPLC is a cash-collecting machine. In 2015 it vacuumed up $50 million in contributions and foundation grants, a tidy addition to its $334 million holdings of cash and securities and its headquarters worth $34 million. They’ve never spent more than 31 percent of the money they were bringing in on programs, and sometimes they spent as little as 18 percent. Most nonprofits spend about 75 percent on programs.

A strong case can be made to strip the SPLC of its nonprofit, tax-exempt status.

Congress and the media need to take a fresh look at the SPLC. It no longer serves the public interest.

Carol Swain is a former associate professor of politics at Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs and former professor of both political science and law at Vanderbilt University. She holds a master of studies in law from Yale University and a Ph.D from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/02/seven_reasons_to_beware_the_southern_poverty_law_center.html#ixzz56TizC1kD
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

THE MEMO REVEALS THE COUP AGAINST AMERICA

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/269211/memo-reveals-coup-against-america-daniel-greenfield

 

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical left and Islamic terrorism.

The Democrats and the media spent a week lying to the American people about the “memo.”

The memo was full of “classified information” and releasing” it would expose “our spying methods.” By “our,” they didn’t mean American spying methods. They meant Obama’s spying methods.

A former White House Ethics Lawyer claimed that the Nunes memo would undermine “national security.” On MSNBC, Senator Chris Van Hollen threatened that if the memo is released, the FBI and DOJ “will refuse to share information with the House and Senate Intelligence Committees.”

Senator Cory Booker howled that releasing the memo was “treasonous” and might be “revealing sources and methods” and even “endangering fellow Americans in the intelligence community.”

The memo isn’t treasonous. It reveals a treasonous effort by the Democrats to use our intelligence agencies to rig an election and overturn the will of the voters.

The only two “sources” 29 are Christopher Steele, who was funded by the Clinton campaign, and a Yahoo Newsarticle, that were used to obtain a FISA warrant against a Trump associate. That Yahoo story came from Michael Isikoff, the reporter who knew about Bill Clinton’s affair with Monica Lewinsky but suppressed it. It was based on more leaks from Steele which the FBI and DOJ chose to ignore. Steele’s identity was already well known. The only new source revealed is Yahoo News.

No vital intelligence sources were compromised at Yahoo News. And no Yahoo News agents were killed.

The media spent a week lying to Americans about the dangers of the memo because it didn’t want them to find out what was inside. Today, the media and Dems switched from claiming that the memo was full of “classified information” that might get CIA agents killed to insisting that it was a dud and didn’t matter. Oh what tangled webs we weave when first we practice to deceive.

On Thursday, the narrative was that the memo would devastate our national security and no one should ever be allowed to read it. By Friday, the new narrative was that the memo tells us nothing important and we shouldn’t even bother reading it. The lies change, but suppressing the memo remains the goal.

Rep. Nadler, infamous for securing pardons for Weather Underground bombers, got caught between narratives when he insisted that the memo was “overhyped,” but suggested that it “endangers national security.” ”I don’t think anybody will be terribly shocked by what’s in the memo,” he told CNN.

And requested an emergency meeting of the House Judiciary Committee – a body he will head if Democrats win the mid-term elections.

Calling emergency meetings is not the response to an “overhyped” and non-shocking memo.

There is no legitimately classified information in the Nunes memo. But it does endanger a number of “Americans” in the “intelligence community” who colluded with the Clinton campaign against America.

It endangers former FBI Director Comey, former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, former Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, current Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and the current FBI General Counsel Dana Boente who had previously served as the Acting Attorney General. These men and women had allegedly signed FISA applications that were at best misleading and at worst badly tainted.

The Clinton campaign had enlisted figures in the FBI and the DOJ to manipulate an election. The coup against America operated as a “state within a state” inside the United States government.

“The political origins of the Steele dossier were then known to senior DOJ and FBI officials,” the memo informs us. But they did not reveal on the FISA application that their core evidence came from the Clinton campaign. Sources were certainly being protected. But they were Clinton sources.

The memo reveals that without the Steele dossier there would have been no eavesdropping on Carter Page, the Trump associate targeted in this particular case. “Deputy Director McCabe testified before the Committee in December 2017 that no surveillance warrant would have been sought from the FISC without the Steele dossier information.” But the FISA application neglected to mention that its primary source had been paid by the Clinton campaign, was unverified and would continue to be unverified.

FBI Director Comey testified that he had told President Trump that the dossier was “unverified.” Yet the “unverified” piece of opposition research was used as the basis for a FISA application.

As Rep. Jim Jordan noted, “FBI takes ‘salacious and unverified’ dossier to secret court to get secret warrant to spy on a fellow American, and FBI doesn’t tell the court that the DNC/Clinton campaign paid for that dossier. And they did that FOUR times.”

 

“There’s been no evidence of a corrupt evidence to obtain warrants against people in the Trump campaign,” Rep. Adam Schiff insisted. That’s why he tried to block the release of the evidence.

The evidence was unverified opposition research. Its source had been paid by the Clinton campaign. Not only had Steele been indirectly working for the Clinton campaign (when he wasn’t being paid by the FBI), but he made no secret of his own political agenda to stop Trump.

“In September 2016, Steele admitted to Ohr his feelings against then-candidate Trump when Steele said he “was desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and was passionate about him not being president,” the memo informs us.

That’s former Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr whose wife was being paid by an organization hired by the Clinton campaign to investigate Trump. Ohr then passed along his wife’s opposition research to the FBI. The evidence couldn’t be any more corrupt than that.

Steele was passionate about Trump “not being president.” So were his handlers who ignored his leaks to the media until he “was suspended and then terminated as an FBI source for what the FBI defines as the most serious of violations—an unauthorized disclosure to the media of his relationship with the FBI.” His previous meetings, including the one that allegedly generated the Yahoo News article, were ignored.

Tainted investigations are nothing new. Law enforcement is as fallible as any other profession. But the memo reveals a snapshot of just how many top figures colluded in this corrupted and tainted effort.

What drove them to violate professional ethical norms and legal requirements in the FISA applications?

Top DOJ and FBI officials shared Steele’s “passion,” and that of his ultimate employer, Hillary Clinton, to stop Donald Trump at all costs. And they’re still trying to use the Mueller investigation to overturn the election results in a government coup that makes Watergate look like a children’s tea party,

Former Deputy Director Andrew McCabe is already under investigation. He’s suspected of trying to sit on the Wiener emails until the election was over. This alleged failed cover-up triggered the Comey letter which hurt Hillary worse than a timely revelation would have. McCabe’s wife had financial links to the Clintons.

Former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates was an Obama holdover who had foolishly tried to use the DOJ to go to war with President Trump. Both Yates and Dana Boente were Obama and Holder choices. During the groundless prosecution of the former Republican governor of Virginia, Boente had declared, “No one is above the law.” We’ll see if that’s true with everyone who signed the FISA applications.

If Boente signed false or misleading FISA applications, he should be removed as FBI General Counsel.

The memo is only the first crack in the wall. But it’s grounds for an investigation that will expose the abuses that led to eavesdropping on Trump officials. And the motives of those who perpetuated them.

Washington Post piece suggested that just releasing the memo alone would allow Mueller to charge President Trump with “obstruction of justice.” That’s how badly they want to get Trump.

A clear and simple fact emerges from the memo.

Top figures in the DOJ and the FBI, some loyal to Obama and Hillary, abused the FISA process in the hopes of influencing or reversing the results of an election by targeting their political opponents. The tool that they used for the job came from the Clinton campaign. Using America’s intelligence services to destroy and defeat a political opponent running for president is the worst possible abuse of power and an unprecedented threat to a democratic system of free open elections.

We have been treated to frequent lectures about the independence of the DOJ and the FBI. But our country isn’t based around government institutions that are independent of oversight by elected officials. When unelected officials have more power than elected officials, that’s tyranny.

A Justice Department that acts as the Praetorian Guard for a political campaign is committing a coup and engaging in treason. The complex ways that the Steele dossier was laundered from the Clinton campaign to a FISA application is evidence of a conspiracy by both the DOJ and the Clinton campaign.

It’s time for us to learn about all the FISA abuses, the list of NSA unmasking requests of Trump officials by Obama officials and the eavesdropping on members of Congress. We deserve to know the truth.

The memo has been released. Now it’s time to release everything.

Doctors Euthanized Healthy 29-Year-Old Woman Because She Had Mental Health Problems

http://www.lifenews.com/2018/01/30/doctors-euthanized-healthy-29-year-old-woman-because-she-had-mental-health-problems/

It is very upsetting to writing about the assisted death for psychiatric reasons of Aurelia Brouwers, the 29-year-old physically healthy Dutch woman. Aurelia died, as scheduled, on January 26.

I did not know Aurelia, personally, but I communicated with her and I urged her to live. I told her that I cared about her.

Aurelia made her assisted death a campaign to promote euthanasia for psychiatric reasons.

Arjen ten Cate and Ingrid Willems published an interesting article in Destentor.nlexamining the attitudes of psychiatrists towards psychiatric euthanasia. ten Cate and Willems interviewed four psychiatrists.

rank Koerselman, an emeritas professor of psychiatry, opposes euthanasia for psychiatric reasons. Koerselman states: (google translated)

The… Netherlands is completely wrong when it comes to euthanasia. He calls it a slippery slope. “Only when euthanasia became possible in physical medicine did we start developing good palliative care. That is the reverse order? Now the same thing happens in psychiatry. There is no policy for chronic patients, but we do allow euthanasia. ”

Koerselman is convinced that psychiatric patients can not make a sober, intellectual decision whether or not to live. “There are always emotions like fear, shame or anger. It is an illusion with the syndrome to think that such a decision is well-considered.”

Koerselman, who stated that he is definitely not religious, stated:

psychiatrists can not judge this. For even psychiatrists are not able to look into the patient’s head in such a way that he or she can judge whether a death wish is justified. “We overestimate ourselves as a professional group.”

Menno Oosterhoff, who knew Aurelia personally and who lives with compulsive disorder, is a psychiatrist who supports euthanasia for psychiatric reasons. The article states (google translated):

it is not up to the masses, or a professional group to give an opinion on one specific patient. ,, Only the patient himself, his doctor and psychiatrist can make a good estimate.

According to Oosterhoff there are too many prejudices about people with psychological problems who have a death wish. “That they have a lack of willpower is such a preconception. People’s prejudices tend to be more difficult when it comes to an individual person. If you know Aurelia’s story yourself. She is terminal because her soul is failing. There are too many theoretical objections to euthanasia.”

Click here to sign up for pro-life news alerts from LifeNews.com

Jim van Os is a professor of psychiatry who does not oppose euthanasia but is concerned that it may become too common:

There are examples of patients with a very strong death wish, who asked for euthanasia and did not get it and now a happy one life, because they have found the love of their lives, for example.

Van Os is worried about the growing demand for euthanasia in psychiatry. He does not want to go into the specific case ‘Aurelia’. “But in a general sense you may wonder if we have done enough to help these people.” … How is it that someone wants to die? Should we have been unable to do something at an earlier stage? “This professor also notes that the GGZ in the Netherlands is under pressure due to cutbacks. Dangerous, he says. GGZ Nederland does not want to accept this criticism.

Psychiatrist Bram Baker, who had a friend who died by euthanasia for psychiatric reasons, set up a signature campaign opposing euthanasia for psychiatric suffering. According to the article:

He is critical: “Legally, it is allowed. But a judgment about psychic, unbearable suffering is always subjective. You can not take a position as a psychiatrist, that is very scary. And I think euthanasia is going too far. Is there no other option?

Several excellent articles have been published opposing euthanasia for psychiatric reasons.

LifeNews.com Note: Alex Schadenberg is the executive director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition and you can read his blog here.

Banned from campus, groups fight back

In the padded cells that are our current universities, there’s no room for clubs who are anti-abortion or who refuse to acknowledge “the patriarchy.”

There’s no room for debate. No place for divergent views contrary to their own orthodoxies.

The student unions at Ryerson, UofT Mississauga, the University of Ontario Institute of Technology and Durham College refused to authorize three clubs who run afoul of current delicate political correctness: two are pro-life and a third is a men’s rights group. Now these banned heretics have gone to court, backed by the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, to fight the “bad faith and bias” that has denied them official status on campus.

Justice Centre lawyer Marty Moore was in Superior Court Wednesday to argue the student associations keep changing the rules of entry to block these groups over their currently unpopular views. He urged Justice Paul Perell to order the associations to accredit the three clubs as a matter of “natural justice.”

“Student unions’ actions against students with differing ideological perspectives is stifling democratic discussion and debate on campus, where diversity of opinion is supposed to flourish,” he argued in a factum filed earlier with the court.

Without official sanction, clubs can’t get student union funding and can’t advertise, book rooms and information tables, or host speakers and debates on campus, he said. They’re essentially pariahs without a voice.

Ryerson’s Men’s Issues Awareness Society (MIAS) was created in 2015 to deal with issues that disproportionately affect men and boys, “such as higher rates of suicide, homelessness, workplace injuries and failure in school.” Nearly half of MIAS’ members are women.

But the club has repeatedly been denied recognition by the Ryerson Students’ Union. The RSU claimed the group could cause an “unsafe” environment for women on campus and has purported links to anti-feminist groups, which it denies. The biggest strike against them, it seems, is that they haven’t drunk the Kool-Aid: they were told it was an RSU requirement to acknowledge the “systemic privilege that men have.”

“They have to acknowledge there’s a systemic suppression of women?” the judge asked incredulously.

He was told that they must.

“Isn’t there something wrong in making someone take an oath on what they believe or don’t believe?” Perrel asked. “Isn’t there something offensive requiring someone to acknowledge someone else’s belief systems?”

There certainly is.

On Oct. 27, 2015, MIAS was informed its application for club status had been rejected.

“The reasons they gave us were ridiculous,” the group’s former president Kevin Arriola recalled in an interview. “They claimed that we would bring violence and misogyny against women on campus, which is not true. Half our members were women. If you look at our mandate, our constitution, as well as the events that we held, none of them were in any way directed negatively towards women. ”

UTM Students for Life used to have club status at UofT Mississauga but the students’ union refused to renew them because of their “stance on abortion.” Then they changed tack and said it was because of technical problems in their constitution. Yet when SFL tried to make the required changes, Moore claimed the student association stacked the meeting with people opposed to the group and the motion failed.

These “shenanigans,” he said, are examples of the bad faith these clubs have endured. Perell conceded it seemed rather “kafkaesque.”

The third group, Speak for the Weak, was told it was denied club status because it’s pro-life and allowing the club on campus would run counter to “building an environment free of systemic societal oppression and decolonization.”

For heaven’s sake.

Meanwhile, the lawyers for the student unions insisted they are private corporations making private decisions and the court has no right to interfere. The Charter, they argued, doesn’t apply to them.

But they operate in public institutions funded by tax dollars – why do they get to silence voices that have a right to be heard?

The judge has reserved his decision.

http://torontosun.com/news/local-news/mandel-banned-from-campus-groups-fight-back

 

Why LGBT Activists Can’t See What’s Wrong With A 9-Year-Old Drag Queen

http://thefederalist.com/2018/01/16/lgbt-activists-cant-see-whats-wrong-9-year-old-drag-queen/

Brandon Hilton, owner of an online clothing store specializing in erotic clothing, recently announced that nine-year-old drag queen Lactatia was his company’s newest “cover girl.” He tweeted, “I think this new generation of drag kids is brilliant and inspiring! @Desmond_Amazing and Lactatia are the future! @TheHouseofMann is just making sure they look SICKENING! People will talk no matter what, might as well give them something FIERCE to look at!”

Hilton received an immediate and overwhelming backlash as people reacted angrily to the appearance of him sexualizing a child. He responded, “woke up to countless tweets telling me to ‘kill yourself’ and calling me a ‘pedo’ after we announced 9 year old drag superstar Lactatia as our new HOUSE OF MANN covergirl… if you can’t handle a kid in a sequin onesie, maybe the future isn’t for you.”

Hilton messaged me on Twitter after I challenged him to explain why he would encourage the sexualization of a child as an LGBT activist. Although his tweets seem to celebrate children engaging in these adult activities, he seemed profoundly disturbed by the accusations. He believed the outrage came from ignorance and hatred by “right-wing propaganda.” While I think he did not intend to sexualize the child or promote pedophilia, I also think he cannot understand how his actions did just that.

Why Kids Are So Important to the LGBT Left

The images of the young boy are undeniably adult in nature, from the make-up to the posing, to the facial expressions. The boy is emulating an adult woman being sexually provocative. He has seen this behavior and body language in his drag queen mentors.

Drag is an inherently adult form of entertainment, meant to exaggerate female sexuality using humor and vulgarity. The sexuality within the artform cannot be separated out and therefore many oppose minors, and certainly children, participating in it.

Since LGBT people first celebrated the boy, he has been a symbol of a movement crossing a line. While those on the Right are quick to assert pedophilia as a motivation behind this movement, it is more rooted in sexual and gender theory that relies on children for validation.

Children expressing sexuality or gender identity that deviates from the norm are viewed as proof that this deviancy is inborn. And society is more likely to accommodate inborn traits than freely made adult choices. While LGBT Americans have full rights and are arguably widely celebrated in every sector, the LGBT Left has fixated on encouraging sexual expression in ever younger children. They genuinely believe they are helping these children by allowing them to “be themselves” in an environment free from judgment or repression.

The LGBT Left also believes denying one’s “true self,” which is often revealed in childhood, leads to homelessness, drug abuse, and suicide. They believe they are saving these children from a life of bullying, fear, and crippling anxiety. So any child who emulates LGBT culture is widely celebrated and promoted. A nine-year-old boy dressing and behaving as an adult drag queen is seen as beautiful and progressive.

An Identity Defined by Sexuality Struggles to Express Itself Differently

In June 2017, The Advocate, a major LGBT advocacy website and magazine, celebrated Lactacia. The boy has become a celebrity in the LGBT world. Hilton believed he was promoting and celebrating a young boy he considers inspiring to his identity group.

The LGBT world often struggles to separate its sexually explicit culture from its advocacy for equality and rights. In many ways they are incapable of understanding why the outside world would be appalled by explicitly sexual public displays. For them it must be out of malice, hatred, or ignorance rather than reasonable aversion.

Gay pride parades have long been extreme public displays of every form of sexual deviancy imaginable. Gay liberals see no distinction between their sexual selves and their everyday selves. They celebrate the merger of the two as identity and culture.

The consequence here is that Hilton and the LGBT world will never be able to fully appreciate the damage being done to a generation of children pushed to grow up faster. The LGBT Left’s intense focus on labeling then exploiting LGBT children holds incredible risk and threatens their futures. Early sexual activity and expression can be devastating to young people, especially LGBT youth. High rates of drug abuse, sexual abuse, and risky sexual behavior are commonHIV rates are extremely high for gay and bisexual young men aged 13 to 24. Nearly 40 percent of homeless youth identify asLGBT, with higher risks of drug use and sex work.

While the LGBT world may not be intentionally trying to harm children or put them at risk, it is time leaders of the movement fully recognize the dangers of using young children to validate their sexual politics. To help further this discussion, we must be careful not to abuse the term “pedophile.” Overuse will diminish the impact of our message and make it more difficult to fight the legitimate scourge of child sexual abuse rampant around the world.

What we must do is call out the dangers of sexualizing children too early, making them vulnerable to people who do wish to exploit and abuse them. LGBT advocacy groups have a responsibility to recognize that every form of sexuality and gender identity can be freely enjoyed by adults in private, but should never involve children regardless of the context or motivation. While they intend to celebrate the uniqueness of the child, they in effect steal the child’s innocence and impose an adult identity onto him, all to validate their own insecurities. We cannot stay quiet and allow more children to lose their childhood to the dreams of progressives who only imagine the future while failing to grasp the trauma they impose in the present.

Chad Felix Greene is a political and social writer focusing on truth in media, conservative ideas and goals, and true equality under the law. He has written and illustrated Jewish children’s books and writes for online publications.

HOW HOLLYWOOD KILLED #METOO

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/268994/how-hollywood-killed-metoo-daniel-greenfield

 

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical left and Islamic terrorism.

When Time picks an abstract concept as its ‘Thing of the Year’, it’s the kiss of death.

The magazine’s 2011 edition celebrated the Arab Spring’s ‘Protester’ just as the worst of the civil wars were getting started. In 2006, it picked ‘You’ just as the big web companies began crushing individuality on the internet. In 2002, it cheered the ‘Whistleblowers’ you haven’t heard from since. And in 1993, it put Arafat and Mandela on the cover as the ‘Peacemakers’. Good luck finding that peace.

So #MeToo was headed for trouble as soon as it became Time’s ‘Thing of the Year’. The cover, with the accusers dressed in somber black, foreshadowed the black dress code at the Golden Globes.

The cover wasn’t a win. It was a sigh of relief. Hollywood, the media and other cultural industries had been running scared of the scandal for months. Now they were finally getting a handle on it. In public relations, you get ahead of the scandal. You understand what makes it tick and take it apart.

Awards season was looming. And the culture industries were figuring out how to take #MeToo apart.

Harvey Weinstein had tried to shift the conversation from the women he was accused of raping to the NRA. Hollywood followed the same basic strategy without being quite as tacky as Harvey. It moved the conversation from #MeToo’s rape accusations to virtue signaling about diversity in the industry.

The best way to fight one hashtag was with another hashtag. #TimesUp replaced #MeToo. But where #MeToo was a raw personal accusation, #TimesUp was an impersonal leftist slogan of political urgency. #TimesUp for all the bad things we don’t like. Especially #MeToo. #TimesUp was safe where #MeToo was risky. US Weekly could advertise 9 #TimesUp products that showed you were down with the cause.

They included a $380 sweater.

#TimesUp had plenty of female stars out front. But they didn’t claim to be victims. Instead they were taking the safe Hollywood position of supporting victims. Victims as far from Hollywood as possible. #TimesUp’s official site features a huge letter from the “sisters” of Hollywood vowing to stand with female farm workers, janitors, health aides and illegal aliens suffering from sexual harassment.

You can’t redirect the problem any further away than farm country.

In true Hollywood style, the solution is sending a lot of money to an established lefty group to tackle the problem: the National Women’s Law Center. It’s the same old Harvey Weinstein solution. Throw money at a trendy lefty cause and keep on inviting actresses up to your hotel room. Play the noble celebrity hero saving poor people in flyover country by writing big checks to big lefty insiders in major cities.

#TimesUp’s noblesse oblige was celebrity rehab for awards season. Spielberg was rolling out The Post. Its theme was Oscar bait, championing the anti-Trump Washington Post, and its stars were living Oscar bait. But Meryl Streep had been accused of knowing all about Harvey’s rapes. Posters for The Post had been vandalized with the “She Knew” tag that followed her name all around La La Land.

Streep led the #TimesUp list. She called for a charge against the safest targets in Hollywood. “I don’t want to hear about the silence of me,” she whined to the New York Times. “I want to hear about the silence of Melania Trump.” It was up there with Harvey vowing to focus on fighting the NRA.

But the industry went into overdrive to reinvent one of the wealthiest women in Hollywood as a victim.

After ranting incoherently about President Trump, Robert De Niro revealed that his real mission was fighting for Meryl Streep’s equality. “Astonishingly, today, women are still struggling to get their rightful place and their fair share. I am still fighting for Meryl (Streep) to be able to get 79 cents of what a man would get to play Graham. It’s shameful. I know.”

Meryl Streep is being paid $825K an episode while De Niro is only making $750K an episode. If anyone’s making 79 cents on the dollar here, it’s Bobby.

But talking about how actresses aren’t being paid enough is a safe subject. The industry can always cut a bigger check to the small club of #TimesUp actresses with negotiating leverage as long as its titans don’t have to stop assaulting the much larger club of actresses with no leverage at all.

Salaries are negotiable. Prison sentences aren’t.

The other solution was, also in true Hollywood style, style. The industry was going black. The women would wear black dresses. The men would go on wearing black jackets. And everyone would put on a #TimesUp pin to signal their commitment to whatever the hell the hashtag actually stood for.

Most of the actual victims of #MeToo weren’t invited to the Golden Globes.

James Franco wore his #TimesUp pin to the Globes. He won Best Actor. And then the ghost of #MeToo emerged with women accusing him of inappropriate behavior. The #TimesUp pins weren’t working.

Or maybe they were.

Multiple sexual assault accusations against Oscar winner Paul Haggis went mostly unnoticed. Haggis, like Streep, is a reliable delivery system for award season leftist tripe. #TimesUp’s curated female celebs had far more to say about female farm workers and diversity than about Haggis and Franco.

#TimesUp didn’t mean standing up to Haggis or Franco. It was Natalie Portman grousing about the lack of female nominees for Best Director. Like so many of the #TimesUp representation complaints, it was self-serving. Portman’s directorial feature debut, A Tale of Love and Darkness, an adaptation of anti-Israel hack Amos Oz, sank under the weight of poor reviews. But maybe next time, she’ll be nominated anyway. Nominations for the small circle that Portman belongs to are almost as cheap as checks.

Put more female celebs up front and no one will have to talk about the rapist in the industry closet. Especially if they’re black women.

Hollywood’s manic response to #MeToo was to build a wall out of black women. Oprah’s narcissistic speech and the phony presidential hype heaped on her afterward was only the most obvious example.

#TimesUp’s legal defense fund is co-headed by Nina Shaw. Its parent beneficiary, the National Women’s Law Center, is headed by Fatima Goss Graves. #TimesUp was careful to keep Shonda Rimes up front. And there was Anita Hill heading a commission with a name too long to bother writing or reading.

Race isn’t an actual Hollywood defense against rape.

Birth of a Nation was the ‘It” movie of the new Black Nationalist trend in 2016. Then, Nate Parker, its director, was confronted with a past rape accusation. Coming to his defense was Harvey Weinstein.

“I know Nate Parker and I’ve always found him to be a wonderful man,” Harvey insisted.

“You try to smear the messenger,” Al Sharpton ranted at his hate group, the National Action Network, whose events had been attended by Barack Obama and Eric Holder. Sharpton suggested the accusations were some sort of conspiracy against black people even though the victim had committed suicide.

Diversity doesn’t stop sexual assault. There are plenty of photos of Oprah and Harvey Weinstein palling around. One of Harvey’s accusers even connected seeing Harvey with Oprah to trusting him. But it is a great way to change the subject over to affirmative action. And that’s what #TimesUp is really about.

#MeToo isn’t quite dead, but #TimesUp changes the subject. There’s only so much room for the latest allegation when the media is busy chatting about what the rise of new black female directors means.

Cut in some actresses and lawyers, and the party can go on all night. Just ask Lisa Bloom and Meryl.

The girls will cover for the boys. They’ll write, produce and direct Oscar bait about the plight of female farmworkers. And it’ll win. Everyone in the industry will talk about how bad life is out there while the assaults go on in hotel rooms, closets and cars.

It’s a real Hollywood ending.

Why Leftists Hate Masculinity

Why Leftists Hate Masculinity

An ongoing mantra of the left is that everyone is a victim, with a singular carve-out for white men.  A large group of the female population has embraced this chant.

While there may be a number of grievances put forth by this movement, there also comes a theme that is particularly dangerous: the feminist attack on masculinity.  This is derived not only from feminists; it comes from the left in general.

There has emerged a war on masculinity.  Why?  Because masculine men are harder to control under tyrannical socialism.  The modern beta male, on the other hand, craves socialism.  This is why the left has branded masculinity as toxic: it stands as a roadblock to their endgame.

Leftists blame, of all things, masculinity for the recent spate of sexual harassment scandals.  For eons, masculinity has been considered a natural and even required trait of being male, but it is now apparently the reason for deviancy.  Who knew?

The glaring problem with this argument is that the men who are typically being accused of such transgressions are anything but masculine.  Sexual harassment is bipartisan; both liberal and conservative men in positions of power seem to harass women with aplomb.  But where is this referenced masculinity?  Harvey Weinstein?  Al Franken?  Louis CK?  I posit that a consistent theme among most accused harassers is a complete lack of masculinity.  I would go so far as to suggest that the lack of masculinity is a contributing factor to this problem.

Most of these accused public figures are modern men – perhaps not quite beta males, but certainly closer to Obama’s now infamous Pajama Boy than they are to John Wayne.   Are men who display a lack of masculinity less likely to victimize women?  Obviously not.  But the left does not let reason or rationality interfere with an opportunity to degrade social decency or further its collectivist agenda.

The feminist hatred for masculinity is only another tool in the toolbox of communism.  Masculinity tends to make a man individualistic.  Individualistic men are capitalists, not communists.  They are men who cherish individual liberty, and they rely on themselves rather than on government.  Self-reliance is a four-letter word for leftists, and masculine men are generally self-reliant.  Beta males like Pajama Boy rely on government, and such modern men, devoid of any semblance of masculinity, are ideal for leftist indoctrination.

Were the frontiersmen communists or capitalists?  How about the cowboys?  How about the Navy SEALs or Army Rangers?  Sure, the press may find in the military a few Che Guevara t-shirt-wearing idiots and parade them all over the place, but I am willing to bet that the majority of SEAL Team 6 comprises masculine capitalists.

What games do young boys play?  They pretend to be cowboys.  They pretend to be soldiers.   They don’t pretend to be soviet textile workers slaving under Stalin’s system.  They don’t pretend to be entitled Millennial brats who congregate at Starbucks and talk about the wonders of socialism, either.  Most boys hit the ground embracing masculinity.  Some maintain it, but many have it berated out of them by the weak society they walk in or by their leftist parents.

Masculinity leads a man to seek to better himself in many regards, while collectivism thrives on mediocrity.  Collectivism in this country is sought by the lazy who don’t want to work but feel entitled to free handouts of all kinds.  Unfortunately, collectivism is also touted by many who are successful, such as middle-class suburbanites who feel guilty for what they have achieved through hard work while others have not been so fortunate.  Yet, when suggesting that the redistribution effort begins with their own 401(k)s, seldom will you find volunteers.  Collectivism is also cheered on by certain billionaire hypocrites who made their wealth through capitalism yet now tout the wonders of socialist systems.  The irony.

While these social groups appear quite different, there is a common trait among the men in all of them: no masculinity to be found.  Be it the lanky hipster in skinny jeans or the billionaire hypocrite, imposing is not one of their descriptions.  The billionaire may travel everywhere with a fleet of personal security, but he has no strength of body and apparently little strength of character.  Are there plenty of physically weak men who are capitalists?  Absolutely.  Capitalism is not dependent on machismo or charisma.  However, few alphas are socialist, and self-reliance is a collectivism-killer.  That is why the left finds masculinity toxic.

The denigration of masculinity is high on the leftist agenda.  The pushing of acceptance of the “transgender” movement is the latest machination in this crusade.  This fosters further blurring of male masculinity and female femininity, and the plight of a small group of people who wrestle with this issue has become a politically polarizing topic – a tool maximized by the left.  Masculinity is maligned as a trait of the bigot, not as a desirable trait among men, as it once was.  The goal is to foster an entirely androgynous society that makes no distinction between male and female.  This breeds a culture more easily shaped by the almighty state.

The left’s war on masculinity should come as no surprise.  The cultures in history that have resisted oppressive regimes in the past have celebrated masculinity rather than demeaned it.

There is an often quoted poem that sums up a society’s life cycle: “hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, weak men create hard times.”  The abundance of weak men in our society is ushering in those hard times, and it is celebrated by the left every step of the way.

The eradication of masculinity from our society will ultimately result in the elimination of all resistance to tyranny.  Freedom-loving males know this, and women who believe in individual capability rather than dependence on the government also know it.  Remember: subjugation of all to a collectivist regime is the ultimate goal, and branding masculinity as toxic is one of many pieces in the game.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/01/why_leftists_hate_masculinity.html