This might be the most disturbing exchange yet by the sitting president in taking a question from a child in Dublin. Don't expect to see this anywhere in terms of most media outlets, and the "late-night comedians" will also totally avoid it. https://t.co/rYWYldBYCd
Sure, DiFi is unfit, but the senile old man and the stroke victim who can’t speak are totally cool.
It’s time for @SenFeinstein to resign. We need to put the country ahead of personal loyalty. While she has had a lifetime of public service, it is obvious she can no longer fulfill her duties. Not speaking out undermines our credibility as elected representatives of the people.
Biden and his admin once again prove who they serve….
Satan and his minions.
WOW: Biden's DOJ offered a sweetheart deal to a transgender vandal who admitted to defacing a Catholic church with profane graffiti, destroying a statue of the Virgin Mary, assaulting a church worker, and resisting arrest.https://t.co/xK77wqOdYY
The double standard and preference for enabling the whole mob against his own self-professed brothers and sisters demonstrates so clearly what a Judas he is.
No, not really. Just more leftist dark money and those enabling it hiding from public view.
The Global Disinformation Index, which encourages advertisers to boycott disfavored news outlets, claims it offers "transparent data & intelligence." But now it's been caught redacting its IRS forms to hide the names of board members. https://t.co/OEjp6lLol8
"I don't think I've ever seen a 990 that excludes the names of officers and directors," said Alan P. Dye, a partner at Webster, Chamberlain & Bean who has specialized in nonprofit law since 1975. “And I’ve looked at hundreds.”
I'm an accountant. Abnormal to leave off board members. There is a specific line on the 990 Form for that. They have to be included along with the amount of their compensation. IRS likes to track and look at chains of related entities and public has a right to know.
“Over the past three years, we reporters learned there were certain things that we weren’t allowed to say. Not long ago, in fact, my new video may have been censored.
One dangerous idea, we were told, was that COVID-19 might have been created in a lab at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. That seems very possible, since the institute studied coronaviruses in bats, and America’s National Institutes of Health gave the lab money to perform “gain-of-function” research, experiments where scientists try to make a virus more virulent or transmissible.
A Washington Post writer worried the lab leak theory “could increase racist attacks against Chinese people and further fuel anti-Asian hate.”
The establishment media fell in line, insisting that COVID most likely came from a local market that sold animals.
Left-wing TV mocked the lab theory as a “fringe idea” that came from “a certain corner of the right.”
“This coronavirus was not manmade,” said MSNBC’s Chris Hayes, confidently, “That is not a possibility.”
Not even a possibility?
Debate about it, we were told, posed a new threat: misinformation.
Facebook banned the lab leak theory, calling it a “false claim.”
But now the U.S. Department of Energy says the pandemic most likely came from a lab leak. FBI director Christopher Wray now says the origin of the pandemic is “most likely a potential lab incident in Wuhan.”
For two years, the most likely explanation was censored.
Do the media gatekeepers apologize for their censorship? No.
The closest to an admission of guilt I found was from Chris Hayes, who eventually said, “There’s a kernel of truth to the idea that some folks were too quick to shut down the lab leak theory.”
There was more than “a kernel of truth.” Again and again, politically correct media silenced people who spoke the truth.
Facebook throttled the reach of science journalist John Tierney’s articles simply because he reported, accurately, that requiring masks can hurt kids.
YouTube suspended Sen. Rand Paul (R–Ky.) for saying, “Most of the masks you get over the counter don’t work.”
But what they said is true. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention updated its guidance to say cloth masks are not very effective. And now a big study failed to find evidence that wearing even good masks stops the spread of viruses.
Probably the most blatant censorship was Twitter’s shutting down the New York Post’s reporting about Hunter Biden’s laptop.
Twitter wouldn’t let users decide for themselves. The company just called the Post’s report “potentially harmful” and blocked users from sharing it.
Facebook, as usual, was sneakier, suppressing the story instead of banning it outright. That’s what they do to my climate change reporting.
Today, the media admit the Post story is true. But they don’t admit they were wrong. Now they just say things like, “Nobody cares about Hunter Biden’s laptop.””
“Republican lawmakers penned a scathing letter Pentagon officials after Walter Reed National Military Medical Center sent a “cease and desist” letter to Catholic priests to stop providing care during Holy Week when their contract expired.
In a letter obtained by Fox News, 24 Republicans are demanding answers from Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and slamming the White House administration’s alleged “attack on Christian faith.”
Last week, Walter Reed terminated a contract for pastoral care for its patients and issued a “cease and desist” order to a community of Catholic priests just days before Holy Week, The Catholic Archdiocese for the Military Services said.
The hospital had ended a contract with Holy Name College Friary — a Franciscan community of priests and brothers that has served at the center for nearly two decades.
“Forcing priests to stop providing care during Holy Week is not only morally wrong, but also a violation of the First Amendment,” Republicans wrote in their letter on Wednesday, according to Fox News.
The Republicans praised the Catholic priests who have “stood alongside our service members through the darkest days of our history.”
“They joined American service members on the battlefield and provided care to all in need,” they wrote.
The lawmakers also asked why Austin chose to “terminate the contract” with the Franciscans. According to the letter,the archdiocese informed them that a contract for pastoral care has instead been “awarded to a for-profit, secular company that does not provide pastoral care.”
“This attack on the Christian faith by the Biden administration during Holy Week is unconscionable,” they wrote. They demanded a response from Austin by next Friday.”
“For much of the post-World War II era, America has been expected by many of its citizens to be a benevolent King Midas to the rest of the world. We have attained unprecedented levels of prosperity, and we are expected to share that with anyone seeking to improve their conditions.
While such philanthropy may cause hearts to swell with good feelings, it often comes at a steep price. At a time when America is showing all the characteristics of an empire in decline, that price has now become a crippling burden.
One of the most irksome talking points anti-borders activists repeat endlessly is that “America is the wealthiest country on Earth.” This is based on data showing the United States has the highest concentration of millionaires and the largest gross domestic product.
There is trouble, however, below that hyper-affluent upper level. The share of American adults who live in middle-class households has shrunk by 11 percent in the last 50 years. The gross federal debt sits at an all-time high of over $31 trillion. China is working aggressively to supplant the United States as the global superpower and is attacking our currency, military supremacy, and access to vital natural resources, among other areas. Our current leadership seems interested not in reversing America’s deterioration, but rather in managing it better than the opposition party.
Now add excessive immigration to these problems. Instead of “making America stronger,” as clueless sanctuary mayors dutifully insist immigration does, today it is only making America poorer and more balkanized.
A recent New York Times report found that the children of immigrants, those here both legally and illegally, now make up four-in-nine of all poor children living in the United States. This comes at a time when homelessness is reaching crisis levels in many of our larger cities. How many homeless Americans, many of whom are often military veterans suffering from mental illness, now have to compete with illegal aliens for limited shelter space and city resources to stay alive?
It should not be surprising that mayors who virtue signal their cities’ sanctuary status are also dealing with the highest levels of homelessness, crime, crowding, and drug addiction. Taking on seemingly infinite numbers of migrants costs a lot of money. When that happens, money is diverted from other programs.
New York City, currently the most dangerous sanctuary community in America, has been complaining about the costs of illegal immigration since Governors Greg Abbott (R-Texas) and Ron DeSantis (R-Fla.) began busing illegal aliens there. Unable to pay the costs of his sanctuary rhetoric, Mayor Eric Adams has been forced to slash a combined $1.1 billion from the city budget each year for the next four years.
The honorable thing for Adams to do in this situation would be to admit his mistake regarding sanctuary policies and change course. Instead, he has reaffirmed his support for the policies and sent a $654 million bill to the federal government.
Did the residents of states like Nebraska and Mississippi vote for Gotham to become a sanctuary city? They did not, but now they are being told to pay for the fashionable noblesse oblige of New York’s political class. Why are such passionate advocates for anti-borders policies so quick to make anyone but themselves pay for them?
While the same activists claim illegal aliens pay taxes, the net effect of illegal immigration is a huge loss for the country. That is evidenced by the $150.7 billion total fiscal cost of illegal immigration on U.S. taxpayers.”
And speaking of journalism…were we not? Well anywho….they are the propagandized “news” sources funded by you and me!
PBS stopped tweeting from our account when we learned of the change and we have no plans to resume at this time,” PBS spokesman Jason Phelps said in an email. “We are continuing to monitor the ever-changing situation closely.”
“Guess they won’t mind losing federal funding in that case,” Twitter’s owner Musk said in a tweet. “Defund NPR,” the billionaire entrepreneur wrote in another.
I could get behind that. The most interesting thing about this story is that, by rage-quitting, NPR and PBS are implicitly admitting that taking government money creates an impression of bias. Imagine that. They just don’t like being called out for it.
We have a homestead exemption in MN, but we still pay school taxes. Not that I have a problem with that, as an educated citizenry is beneficial to everyone. How they are educated is another matter.
At this point as a nation, we are so deep in the elitists’ quest for globalization that I’m doubtful that we will be able to keep our sovereignty. The global elitists create the crises and then swoop in with their pre-prepared remedy. Each time this happens, we lose more and more of our sovereignty, wealth, freedom, and ability to fight back. The Coronavirus, now with the monetary system, the climate change hoax – it’s all been very well planned out.
Pres. Trump winning in 2016 was something that they never counted on, which is why they needed to rig the 2020 election in order to put their puppet in charge. They have been doubling down ever since.
Our great country as we knew it, will soon be no more. People had better wake up and start resisting… or our children will be slaves. Every one of us will be the slaves to the elite globalists.
The 7:43 post has the right stats but its conclusion is off. America isn’t in decline because there’s migrants. Its in decline because of inequality. Over 40 years ago, the US went from a nation that realized there was a balance between individual rights and community needs to one that celebrates individual greed. Taxes plummeted and the government became reliant on the bond market to function. Without checks and balances, moral expectations and any redistribution; wealth coalesced among the few and the real wealth and income of the rest stagnated or grew worse. Feeding the poor and the migrants did not create American decline nor will starving them stop the decline. A return to 1970s tax rates and an understanding that those who benefit from the structures put in place by the gov’t have a moral responsibility to the community.
The US has the same Gini coefficient as Haiti. In the OECD only Chile, Turkey, Mexico and Costa Rica have a higher rate of inequality. The US rate is 41 (O is perfect equality and 100 is maximum inequality). Low income inequality is not necessarily a sign of a good middle class society – Belarus and Slovakia are low, but the Nordic range of 25 to 30 is healthy . The role taxes play in countries like France and Ireland in bringing down inequality is significant. None of these countries are in decline. And a look at US economic history also confirms that the US did better in an era of high taxation than after tax cuts. Don’t blame migrant children on food stamps blame those who hoard the country’s wealth.
A week ago I predicted Trump’s behaviour and Republican support of Trump would probably have a greater effect than the actual criminal charges. Sure enough Bragg has sued Jordan for interfering in a state level case (state’s rights – irony) and for intimidation and attacks on him and those involved in the case. He even put screen shots of tweets by Jordan and Trump in the lawsuit. If Republican behaviour continues to be the same, expect more legal problems.
Jordan’s criticisms of NYC and Bragg look rather silly when the violent crime rate in NYC is 95th among the top 100 US cities. Four cities in Jordan’s home state of Ohio have a violent crime rate about 4x higher. These stats make me wonder about the 7:43 post; NYC is probably not the most dangerous sanctuary city. In fact it’s probably one of the safest.
“As New York City has seen a rise in crime over the past year, an analysis of crime data shows that the city has seen far less violent crimes compared to 1990, when the city had its most reported murders on record.
In a recent press release, the New York Police Department (NYPD) said that while the number of overall shooting incidents decreased in September compared to the same month last year, the “overall index crime in New York City increased in September 2022, by 15.2% compared with September 2021 (11,057 v. 9,596).”
“Five of the seven major index-crime categories saw increases, driven by a 22.7% increase in burglary (1,409 v. 1,148), a 21.5% increase in grand larceny auto (1,215 v. 1,000), and a 21.3% increase in grand larceny (4,552 v. 3,753),” the press release said.”
—-
“Over the past year, there have been 95,273 crimes reported to the NYPD, including 327 murders, 1,249 rapes, 13,182 robberies, 19,819 felony assaults, 11,825 burglaries, 38,732 grand larceny incidents and 10,139 grand larceny auto incidents.”
And I’ll even stick to “news” sources you lefties like.
“Major Crimes Rose 22 Percent in New York City, Even as Shootings Fell
Homicides fell last year to their lowest level since 2019, before the pandemic, but other categories of crime, including robbery and burglary, drove the overall increase compared with 2021.”
Just War principles do not endorse the funding of perpetual armed conflict
~ … Nearly two millenia ago, St. Augustine in his City of God wrote that “it is obvious that peace is the end sought for by war.” While from any rational standpoint that should be obvious, it is less clear that all humans are so rational; plenty of men throughout the ages, following the maxim “the struggle is the glory,” have been tempted to think of the strife of war as something worthy in itself, especially in a noble cause. Indeed, we are all tempted by the romantic allure of the vain but glorious struggle to defend one’s homeland or defy a tyrant, even if it means carrying on a bitter war with no end in sight, no realistic prospect of peace.
Accordingly, Christian just war theory has stressed that it is not enough to have a just cause to go to war; you must have a plausible endgame in mind—one less evil than the current state of affairs. There must be some concept of the just and sustainable peace that the war aims to establish, and “a reasonable probability of success” of establishing that peace. To initiate, support, and carry on war indefinitely merely on the grounds that the bad guys deserve to be killed may feel morally satisfying, but it is neither just nor rational. …
… The time is soon coming when America and the other Western nations will have to make up their minds just what sort of peace is sought by the present war, and what means they are willing to deploy to realistically achieve this end. Anything else is simply unjust. ~
____________________
Your evidence for violent crimes in NYC is an article which says “shootings fell” and “homicides fell”. Violent crime may have risen in the US but NYC is still one of the safest cities in the US. Forbes rated NYC as the 5th safest city in the US. After Greene went to NYC and said she feared for her life; some compared violent crime statistics from NYC to her district and found them to be roughly the same. Its not the 1970s; NYC is safe. As a tourist, I’d feel safer in NYC than most US cities.
DJ, Thanks for including part of the article as it is behind a paywall for me.
” What is the realistic plan in Ukraine?
Just War principles do not endorse the funding of perpetual armed conflict ”
The conversation about just war should occur before the funding of the war, not after.
Our interference in Ukraine is not any part of a just war. There is ample evidence all over the internet with lectures and video going back almost a decade for anyone to see who cares to educate themselves. So people who say our part in it is equivalent to a just war have an uphill battle with the evidence. And that’s probably why they are putting on the brakes with talk of a just war scenario.
I think it is already predictable what the “realistic plan in Ukraine” is likely to be: we’ve given Ukraine all the ‘help’ we can afford to give . And the information about our complicity in setting this conflict on fire is becoming well known—maybe too well known for Congress to continue its funding without it becoming a political liability.
Fortunately for those who make their living in war, there is more opportunity for funding: our leaders are already eyeing the next ‘just war’ in Taiwan. It will be interesting to see how much of a sucker the American consumer (and I use that word deliberately) is willing to be. If we prove to be docile and dumb enough, the uni-party would probably cheerfully rebuild Ukraine on our backs and fund Taiwan at the same time. Unless we collapse first. That’s probably the only way we are going to stop funding these wars. Just or not.
And yes, God does rule. Sometimes he just gives us what our choices deserve.
PS. Lest I sound too harsh (or become so) I would say I am very glad that at least someone has raised the topic in Christian circles. It’s a small beginning, but most beginnings are. Maybe learning more about just war as a critical moral component of deciding to go to war (or fund it) will help us moderate our zeal for war—and our vainglory. Wouldn’t that be something. :–)
The just war theory is a largely Christian philosophy that attempts to reconcile three things:
taking human life is seriously wrong
states have a duty to defend their citizens, and defend justice
protecting innocent human life and defending important moral values
sometimes requires willingness to use force and violence
The theory specifies conditions for judging if it is just to go to war, and conditions for how the war should be fought.
Although it was extensively developed by Christian theologians, it can be used by people of every faith and none.
Purpose
The aim of Just War Theory is to provide a guide to the right way for states to act in potential conflict situations. It only applies to states, and not to individuals (although an individual can use the theory to help them decide whether it is morally right to take part in a particular war).
Just War Theory provides a useful framework for individuals and political groups to use for their discussions of possible wars.
The theory is not intended to justify wars but to prevent them, by showing that going to war except in certain limited circumstances is wrong, and thus motivate states to find other ways of resolving conflicts.
‘Just’, or merely ‘permissible’?
The doctrine of the Just War can deceive a person into thinking that because a war is just, it’s actually a good thing.
But behind contemporary war theory lies the idea that war is always bad. A just war is permissible because it’s a lesser evil, but it’s still an evil.
Origins
The principles of a Just War originated with classical Greek and Roman philosophers like Plato and Cicero and were added to by Christian theologians like Augustine and Thomas Aquinas.
Elements
There are two parts to Just War theory, both with Latin names:
Jus ad bellum: the conditions under which the use of military force is justified.
Jus in bello: how to conduct a war in an ethical manner.
A war is only a Just War if it is both justified, and carried out in the right way.
Some wars fought for noble causes have been rendered unjust because of the way in which they were fought.
DJ Thanks for trying with the worldmag link. It blurs out after the picture, saying I’m a glutton for punishment and I’ve already read more than my fair share of free articles for the month…roughly speaking. I should just break down and get a subscription at some point. It’s probably worth it.
I don’t know much about the just war theory, but it would be good to learn more. War is terribly destabilizing for entire civilizations, and it should not be a profitable enterprise. But in a free market economy, it’s a real danger that money making is part of the pro-war rationalization behind the scenes if not openly.
Here’s another link about just war theory. I first learned the term in philosophy class many moons ago when we briefly studied Thomas Aquinas and the theory of just war. But we didn’t go in depth.
War is justified (nation A wars justly against nation B) on the following conditions:
A. It is called by a sovereign authority.
B. It has a just cause.
C. The combatants have morally right intentions (not vengeance or profit – see below).
D. Qualifying Conditions (from the theory of double-effect on his justification of killing in self-defense: ST II-II, 64, 7).
Cannot intend intrinsically evil actions.
A good action, or at least a morally neutral action, will have two effects: a good intended, and an evil, not intended, but tolerated.
Proportionality: the good to be achieved outweighs the evil of war.
Clarifications:
A. A Just War must be called by a sovereign authority. It is a nation (not individuals) who declares war.
wars are just when they are in defense of the common goods.
the sovereign has care for the common good (of a particular nation)
when private citizens, either individually or in groups, take up arms to oppose the common good, they are not engaged in war, but in the sin of sedition and oppose the unity and peace of a people. (ST II-II, q. 42)
a. the sin of sedition applies “not only in him who sows discord, but also in those who dissent from one another inordinately” by following the fomenters of sedition (a. 1, ad 1)
b. the violence and discord of a people is always wrong when “it is contrary to the unity of the multitude, which is a manifest good.” (a. 2, ad 2)
c. opposition to a tyrant can be permissible (a. 2 ad 3)
i. “a tyrannical government is not just, because it is directed, not to the common good, but to the private good of the ruler.”
ii. resistance to a tyrant is not permissible if “the tyrant’s rule be disturbed so inordinately, that his subjects suffer greater harm from the consequent disturbance than from the tyrant’s government” (i.e., if the violence is disproportionate to the common good lost to tyranny.)
B. Just Cause
Thomas Aquinas addresses causes which concern the nation (nation A) itself.
a. An enemy (nation B) is attacked because they deserve it.
b. The enemy is guilty of some fault.
c. A nation may war justly
i. To avenge a wrong.
ii. Punish enemy for refusing to make amends for some past fault.
iii. To restore what was seized unjustly.
Later thinkers have expanded the notion of just cause. (See ‘The Just War’ by Jonathan Barnes in The Cambridge History of Later Medieval Philosophy (1982), pp. 771-785.)
a. Is war justified when someone other than the warring nation suffered from an enemy’s unjust aggression?
i. Friends and allies: Nation A may justly war on nation B to defend nation C. (See Thomas Aquinas, ST II-II, 188, 3 ad 1)
ii. The inhabitants of the enemy country (nation B) [a war of liberation].
a) St. Thomas More (1535) – Yes, war may be justified for humanitarian reasons.
b) Francisco Suarez (1617) – No, such a war violates the sovereignty of the other nation and will lead to international chaos.
b. There has not been any actual aggression from the enemy, but nation A has reason to fear that there is a threat of an attack from nation B [a pre-emptive war].
i. Francisco de Vitoria (1546) – No, wars are just only when redressing actual injustice.
ii. Francis Bacon (1626) – Yes, just fear is a lawful cause for war.
iii. Hugo Grotius (1645) – To threaten one’s neighbors is an actual injustice; it is aggression against peaceful order between nations.
C. The combatants in a just war must have right intentions.
advancement of good and the avoidance of evil.
unjust reasons include
a. Greed.
b. Cruelty.
c. Vengeance.
just reasons include
a. Secure peace.
b. Punish evil-doers.
c. Uplifting of good.
D. Qualifying Conditions – from the justification of self-defense and the theory of double-effect.
Cannot intend intrinsically evil actions: Combatants must respect non-combatants.
a. Combatants who cease to be such.
i. Surrendering.
ii. Wounded.
b. A nation can never justly target civilians.
i. Civilian casualties, while foreseeable, cannot be intended.
ii. Measures must be taken to minimize civilian casualties.
The violence inherent in war is the tolerated evil secondary effect, never directly intended; the primary good effect of peace must be directly intended.
Proportionality: the good to be achieved outweighs the evil of war.
a. One cannot war justly over a slight cause.
(i. War is a last resort.)
(ii. There must be a reasonable hope of success; one cannot engage in justified, but hopeless actions.)
b. One may only use the minimal force necessary to achieve just ends.
It can get complicated, clearly, and war by its nature is an unpredictable thing. Once underway, wars go in the direction they go, not always the direction we may have envisioned at the start.
War is not controllable.
Getting “stuck” is highly likely.
But the exercise is important and provides some needed guidance in all eras.
Sure, people could come to different conclusions using this theory. Intellect and personality and biases all differ. But it can be a useful framework. I wonder if our leaders ever use it.
I have a book around here somewhere (a lot of my sentences begin that way in my head) — titled something like “Four Christian Views of War.” They used to publish those kinds of books where different theologians or heavy thinkers in the church would provide different views on a difficult topic.
Wandering Views 
Yeah, this is so much better than Trump and all his shortcomings, right?
Enjoy the president’s perverted, degenerate, criminal son helping with official business.
“Hunter Biden Steps In To Help His Dad Take Questions While In Ireland…”
I guess the old fool needs all the help he can get.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Sure, DiFi is unfit, but the senile old man and the stroke victim who can’t speak are totally cool.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Enjoy!
Just Joe earnin’ his cash from the Chinese.
Let the peasants eat cake, right Geraldo?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Biden and his admin once again prove who they serve….
Satan and his minions.
Joe’s master is obvious.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Transparency!
No, not really. Just more leftist dark money and those enabling it hiding from public view.
(Soros?)
LikeLiked by 2 people
Weird, right?
John Stossel gets it.
“The Media and Politicians Keep Trying To Censor Things That Turn Out To Be True”
https://reason.com/2023/04/12/the-media-and-politicians-keep-trying-to-censor-things-that-turn-out-to-be-true/
“Over the past three years, we reporters learned there were certain things that we weren’t allowed to say. Not long ago, in fact, my new video may have been censored.
One dangerous idea, we were told, was that COVID-19 might have been created in a lab at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. That seems very possible, since the institute studied coronaviruses in bats, and America’s National Institutes of Health gave the lab money to perform “gain-of-function” research, experiments where scientists try to make a virus more virulent or transmissible.
A Washington Post writer worried the lab leak theory “could increase racist attacks against Chinese people and further fuel anti-Asian hate.”
The establishment media fell in line, insisting that COVID most likely came from a local market that sold animals.
Left-wing TV mocked the lab theory as a “fringe idea” that came from “a certain corner of the right.”
“This coronavirus was not manmade,” said MSNBC’s Chris Hayes, confidently, “That is not a possibility.”
Not even a possibility?
Debate about it, we were told, posed a new threat: misinformation.
Facebook banned the lab leak theory, calling it a “false claim.”
But now the U.S. Department of Energy says the pandemic most likely came from a lab leak. FBI director Christopher Wray now says the origin of the pandemic is “most likely a potential lab incident in Wuhan.”
For two years, the most likely explanation was censored.
Do the media gatekeepers apologize for their censorship? No.
The closest to an admission of guilt I found was from Chris Hayes, who eventually said, “There’s a kernel of truth to the idea that some folks were too quick to shut down the lab leak theory.”
There was more than “a kernel of truth.” Again and again, politically correct media silenced people who spoke the truth.
Facebook throttled the reach of science journalist John Tierney’s articles simply because he reported, accurately, that requiring masks can hurt kids.
YouTube suspended Sen. Rand Paul (R–Ky.) for saying, “Most of the masks you get over the counter don’t work.”
But what they said is true. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention updated its guidance to say cloth masks are not very effective. And now a big study failed to find evidence that wearing even good masks stops the spread of viruses.
Probably the most blatant censorship was Twitter’s shutting down the New York Post’s reporting about Hunter Biden’s laptop.
Twitter wouldn’t let users decide for themselves. The company just called the Post’s report “potentially harmful” and blocked users from sharing it.
Facebook, as usual, was sneakier, suppressing the story instead of banning it outright. That’s what they do to my climate change reporting.
Today, the media admit the Post story is true. But they don’t admit they were wrong. Now they just say things like, “Nobody cares about Hunter Biden’s laptop.””
LikeLiked by 2 people
Joe’s master is pleased. Catholics, not so much.
“GOP lawmakers demand answers over Walter Reed’s ‘cease and desist’ order to Catholic priests at hospital during Holy Week”
https://nypost.com/2023/04/12/gop-wants-answers-over-walter-reeds-catholic-priests-order/
“Republican lawmakers penned a scathing letter Pentagon officials after Walter Reed National Military Medical Center sent a “cease and desist” letter to Catholic priests to stop providing care during Holy Week when their contract expired.
In a letter obtained by Fox News, 24 Republicans are demanding answers from Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and slamming the White House administration’s alleged “attack on Christian faith.”
Last week, Walter Reed terminated a contract for pastoral care for its patients and issued a “cease and desist” order to a community of Catholic priests just days before Holy Week, The Catholic Archdiocese for the Military Services said.
The hospital had ended a contract with Holy Name College Friary — a Franciscan community of priests and brothers that has served at the center for nearly two decades.
“Forcing priests to stop providing care during Holy Week is not only morally wrong, but also a violation of the First Amendment,” Republicans wrote in their letter on Wednesday, according to Fox News.
The Republicans praised the Catholic priests who have “stood alongside our service members through the darkest days of our history.”
“They joined American service members on the battlefield and provided care to all in need,” they wrote.
The lawmakers also asked why Austin chose to “terminate the contract” with the Franciscans. According to the letter,the archdiocese informed them that a contract for pastoral care has instead been “awarded to a for-profit, secular company that does not provide pastoral care.”
“This attack on the Christian faith by the Biden administration during Holy Week is unconscionable,” they wrote. They demanded a response from Austin by next Friday.”
LikeLiked by 3 people
“Importing Poverty Is Making America Poor
The United States is not King Midas, and the gold is running out. ”
“For much of the post-World War II era, America has been expected by many of its citizens to be a benevolent King Midas to the rest of the world. We have attained unprecedented levels of prosperity, and we are expected to share that with anyone seeking to improve their conditions.
While such philanthropy may cause hearts to swell with good feelings, it often comes at a steep price. At a time when America is showing all the characteristics of an empire in decline, that price has now become a crippling burden.
One of the most irksome talking points anti-borders activists repeat endlessly is that “America is the wealthiest country on Earth.” This is based on data showing the United States has the highest concentration of millionaires and the largest gross domestic product.
There is trouble, however, below that hyper-affluent upper level. The share of American adults who live in middle-class households has shrunk by 11 percent in the last 50 years. The gross federal debt sits at an all-time high of over $31 trillion. China is working aggressively to supplant the United States as the global superpower and is attacking our currency, military supremacy, and access to vital natural resources, among other areas. Our current leadership seems interested not in reversing America’s deterioration, but rather in managing it better than the opposition party.
Now add excessive immigration to these problems. Instead of “making America stronger,” as clueless sanctuary mayors dutifully insist immigration does, today it is only making America poorer and more balkanized.
A recent New York Times report found that the children of immigrants, those here both legally and illegally, now make up four-in-nine of all poor children living in the United States. This comes at a time when homelessness is reaching crisis levels in many of our larger cities. How many homeless Americans, many of whom are often military veterans suffering from mental illness, now have to compete with illegal aliens for limited shelter space and city resources to stay alive?
It should not be surprising that mayors who virtue signal their cities’ sanctuary status are also dealing with the highest levels of homelessness, crime, crowding, and drug addiction. Taking on seemingly infinite numbers of migrants costs a lot of money. When that happens, money is diverted from other programs.
New York City, currently the most dangerous sanctuary community in America, has been complaining about the costs of illegal immigration since Governors Greg Abbott (R-Texas) and Ron DeSantis (R-Fla.) began busing illegal aliens there. Unable to pay the costs of his sanctuary rhetoric, Mayor Eric Adams has been forced to slash a combined $1.1 billion from the city budget each year for the next four years.
The honorable thing for Adams to do in this situation would be to admit his mistake regarding sanctuary policies and change course. Instead, he has reaffirmed his support for the policies and sent a $654 million bill to the federal government.
Did the residents of states like Nebraska and Mississippi vote for Gotham to become a sanctuary city? They did not, but now they are being told to pay for the fashionable noblesse oblige of New York’s political class. Why are such passionate advocates for anti-borders policies so quick to make anyone but themselves pay for them?
While the same activists claim illegal aliens pay taxes, the net effect of illegal immigration is a huge loss for the country. That is evidenced by the $150.7 billion total fiscal cost of illegal immigration on U.S. taxpayers.”
LikeLiked by 2 people
And speaking of journalism…were we not? Well anywho….they are the propagandized “news” sources funded by you and me!
PBS stopped tweeting from our account when we learned of the change and we have no plans to resume at this time,” PBS spokesman Jason Phelps said in an email. “We are continuing to monitor the ever-changing situation closely.”
“Guess they won’t mind losing federal funding in that case,” Twitter’s owner Musk said in a tweet. “Defund NPR,” the billionaire entrepreneur wrote in another.
I could get behind that. The most interesting thing about this story is that, by rage-quitting, NPR and PBS are implicitly admitting that taking government money creates an impression of bias. Imagine that. They just don’t like being called out for it.
LikeLiked by 3 people
For those interested in education and politics, this craziness is going on here. So glad we filed for homestead exemption this year and will no longer pay the schools tax for this county.
https://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/dekalb-county-schools-superintendent-finalist-faces-questions-criticism-parents
LikeLiked by 2 people
We have a homestead exemption in MN, but we still pay school taxes. Not that I have a problem with that, as an educated citizenry is beneficial to everyone. How they are educated is another matter.
LikeLiked by 3 people
At this point as a nation, we are so deep in the elitists’ quest for globalization that I’m doubtful that we will be able to keep our sovereignty. The global elitists create the crises and then swoop in with their pre-prepared remedy. Each time this happens, we lose more and more of our sovereignty, wealth, freedom, and ability to fight back. The Coronavirus, now with the monetary system, the climate change hoax – it’s all been very well planned out.
Pres. Trump winning in 2016 was something that they never counted on, which is why they needed to rig the 2020 election in order to put their puppet in charge. They have been doubling down ever since.
Our great country as we knew it, will soon be no more. People had better wake up and start resisting… or our children will be slaves. Every one of us will be the slaves to the elite globalists.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The 7:43 post has the right stats but its conclusion is off. America isn’t in decline because there’s migrants. Its in decline because of inequality. Over 40 years ago, the US went from a nation that realized there was a balance between individual rights and community needs to one that celebrates individual greed. Taxes plummeted and the government became reliant on the bond market to function. Without checks and balances, moral expectations and any redistribution; wealth coalesced among the few and the real wealth and income of the rest stagnated or grew worse. Feeding the poor and the migrants did not create American decline nor will starving them stop the decline. A return to 1970s tax rates and an understanding that those who benefit from the structures put in place by the gov’t have a moral responsibility to the community.
The US has the same Gini coefficient as Haiti. In the OECD only Chile, Turkey, Mexico and Costa Rica have a higher rate of inequality. The US rate is 41 (O is perfect equality and 100 is maximum inequality). Low income inequality is not necessarily a sign of a good middle class society – Belarus and Slovakia are low, but the Nordic range of 25 to 30 is healthy . The role taxes play in countries like France and Ireland in bringing down inequality is significant. None of these countries are in decline. And a look at US economic history also confirms that the US did better in an era of high taxation than after tax cuts. Don’t blame migrant children on food stamps blame those who hoard the country’s wealth.
LikeLike
A week ago I predicted Trump’s behaviour and Republican support of Trump would probably have a greater effect than the actual criminal charges. Sure enough Bragg has sued Jordan for interfering in a state level case (state’s rights – irony) and for intimidation and attacks on him and those involved in the case. He even put screen shots of tweets by Jordan and Trump in the lawsuit. If Republican behaviour continues to be the same, expect more legal problems.
Jordan’s criticisms of NYC and Bragg look rather silly when the violent crime rate in NYC is 95th among the top 100 US cities. Four cities in Jordan’s home state of Ohio have a violent crime rate about 4x higher. These stats make me wonder about the 7:43 post; NYC is probably not the most dangerous sanctuary city. In fact it’s probably one of the safest.
LikeLike
Sure HRW….
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/nyc-sees-a-string-of-violent-crime-in-24-hour-period/ar-AA19Ntz4
—-
https://www.newsweek.com/new-york-city-most-dangerous-year-crime-1990-compared-2022-1750454
“As New York City has seen a rise in crime over the past year, an analysis of crime data shows that the city has seen far less violent crimes compared to 1990, when the city had its most reported murders on record.
In a recent press release, the New York Police Department (NYPD) said that while the number of overall shooting incidents decreased in September compared to the same month last year, the “overall index crime in New York City increased in September 2022, by 15.2% compared with September 2021 (11,057 v. 9,596).”
“Five of the seven major index-crime categories saw increases, driven by a 22.7% increase in burglary (1,409 v. 1,148), a 21.5% increase in grand larceny auto (1,215 v. 1,000), and a 21.3% increase in grand larceny (4,552 v. 3,753),” the press release said.”
—-
“Over the past year, there have been 95,273 crimes reported to the NYPD, including 327 murders, 1,249 rapes, 13,182 robberies, 19,819 felony assaults, 11,825 burglaries, 38,732 grand larceny incidents and 10,139 grand larceny auto incidents.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
More….
And I’ll even stick to “news” sources you lefties like.
“Major Crimes Rose 22 Percent in New York City, Even as Shootings Fell
Homicides fell last year to their lowest level since 2019, before the pandemic, but other categories of crime, including robbery and burglary, drove the overall increase compared with 2021.”
—-
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/whats-behind-rising-violent-crimes-in-the-u-s-and-how-they-can-be-reducedspike-in-violence
“What’s behind rising violent crimes in the U.S., and how they can be reduced”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Debra, thought you might be interested in this World Magazine piece if you haven’t already seen it:
https://wng.org/opinions/what-is-the-realistic-plan-in-ukraine-1681386149
_______________________
What is the realistic plan in Ukraine?
Just War principles do not endorse the funding of perpetual armed conflict
~ … Nearly two millenia ago, St. Augustine in his City of God wrote that “it is obvious that peace is the end sought for by war.” While from any rational standpoint that should be obvious, it is less clear that all humans are so rational; plenty of men throughout the ages, following the maxim “the struggle is the glory,” have been tempted to think of the strife of war as something worthy in itself, especially in a noble cause. Indeed, we are all tempted by the romantic allure of the vain but glorious struggle to defend one’s homeland or defy a tyrant, even if it means carrying on a bitter war with no end in sight, no realistic prospect of peace.
Accordingly, Christian just war theory has stressed that it is not enough to have a just cause to go to war; you must have a plausible endgame in mind—one less evil than the current state of affairs. There must be some concept of the just and sustainable peace that the war aims to establish, and “a reasonable probability of success” of establishing that peace. To initiate, support, and carry on war indefinitely merely on the grounds that the bad guys deserve to be killed may feel morally satisfying, but it is neither just nor rational. …
… The time is soon coming when America and the other Western nations will have to make up their minds just what sort of peace is sought by the present war, and what means they are willing to deploy to realistically achieve this end. Anything else is simply unjust. ~
____________________
LikeLiked by 2 people
And just a general reminder about everything:
God rules — even over a fallen world.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Your evidence for violent crimes in NYC is an article which says “shootings fell” and “homicides fell”. Violent crime may have risen in the US but NYC is still one of the safest cities in the US. Forbes rated NYC as the 5th safest city in the US. After Greene went to NYC and said she feared for her life; some compared violent crime statistics from NYC to her district and found them to be roughly the same. Its not the 1970s; NYC is safe. As a tourist, I’d feel safer in NYC than most US cities.
LikeLike
DJ, Thanks for including part of the article as it is behind a paywall for me.
” What is the realistic plan in Ukraine?
Just War principles do not endorse the funding of perpetual armed conflict ”
The conversation about just war should occur before the funding of the war, not after.
Our interference in Ukraine is not any part of a just war. There is ample evidence all over the internet with lectures and video going back almost a decade for anyone to see who cares to educate themselves. So people who say our part in it is equivalent to a just war have an uphill battle with the evidence. And that’s probably why they are putting on the brakes with talk of a just war scenario.
I think it is already predictable what the “realistic plan in Ukraine” is likely to be: we’ve given Ukraine all the ‘help’ we can afford to give . And the information about our complicity in setting this conflict on fire is becoming well known—maybe too well known for Congress to continue its funding without it becoming a political liability.
Fortunately for those who make their living in war, there is more opportunity for funding: our leaders are already eyeing the next ‘just war’ in Taiwan. It will be interesting to see how much of a sucker the American consumer (and I use that word deliberately) is willing to be. If we prove to be docile and dumb enough, the uni-party would probably cheerfully rebuild Ukraine on our backs and fund Taiwan at the same time. Unless we collapse first. That’s probably the only way we are going to stop funding these wars. Just or not.
And yes, God does rule. Sometimes he just gives us what our choices deserve.
LikeLiked by 2 people
PS. Lest I sound too harsh (or become so) I would say I am very glad that at least someone has raised the topic in Christian circles. It’s a small beginning, but most beginnings are. Maybe learning more about just war as a critical moral component of deciding to go to war (or fund it) will help us moderate our zeal for war—and our vainglory. Wouldn’t that be something. :–)
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yeah, they fell, and they’re still way too high, and all other crime is up.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Debra, see if this link gets you in:
https://wng.org/opinions/what-is-the-realistic-plan-in-ukraine-1681386149?mkt_tok=NzEwLVFSUi0yMDkAAAGLGy8GYtdwEqayNR8SaBXZCbnGZDGlFTnkMQkmVy8h_O1hOIxUtWefSQ3dUJgiTugw5ZzlZRcQmFauFb3UpoyQqWw6Ja54BllocWDdI1bVIw
God can let us “go our way” as a form a judgement.
But that is still all under his sovereign will.
LikeLiked by 1 person
https://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/war/just/introduction.shtml
Just War – introduction
Introduction
The just war theory is a largely Christian philosophy that attempts to reconcile three things:
taking human life is seriously wrong
states have a duty to defend their citizens, and defend justice
protecting innocent human life and defending important moral values
sometimes requires willingness to use force and violence
The theory specifies conditions for judging if it is just to go to war, and conditions for how the war should be fought.
Although it was extensively developed by Christian theologians, it can be used by people of every faith and none.
Purpose
The aim of Just War Theory is to provide a guide to the right way for states to act in potential conflict situations. It only applies to states, and not to individuals (although an individual can use the theory to help them decide whether it is morally right to take part in a particular war).
Just War Theory provides a useful framework for individuals and political groups to use for their discussions of possible wars.
The theory is not intended to justify wars but to prevent them, by showing that going to war except in certain limited circumstances is wrong, and thus motivate states to find other ways of resolving conflicts.
‘Just’, or merely ‘permissible’?
The doctrine of the Just War can deceive a person into thinking that because a war is just, it’s actually a good thing.
But behind contemporary war theory lies the idea that war is always bad. A just war is permissible because it’s a lesser evil, but it’s still an evil.
Origins
The principles of a Just War originated with classical Greek and Roman philosophers like Plato and Cicero and were added to by Christian theologians like Augustine and Thomas Aquinas.
Elements
There are two parts to Just War theory, both with Latin names:
Jus ad bellum: the conditions under which the use of military force is justified.
Jus in bello: how to conduct a war in an ethical manner.
A war is only a Just War if it is both justified, and carried out in the right way.
Some wars fought for noble causes have been rendered unjust because of the way in which they were fought.
LikeLiked by 1 person
DJ Thanks for trying with the worldmag link. It blurs out after the picture, saying I’m a glutton for punishment and I’ve already read more than my fair share of free articles for the month…roughly speaking. I should just break down and get a subscription at some point. It’s probably worth it.
I don’t know much about the just war theory, but it would be good to learn more. War is terribly destabilizing for entire civilizations, and it should not be a profitable enterprise. But in a free market economy, it’s a real danger that money making is part of the pro-war rationalization behind the scenes if not openly.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Here’s another link about just war theory. I first learned the term in philosophy class many moons ago when we briefly studied Thomas Aquinas and the theory of just war. But we didn’t go in depth.
General Principles:
War is justified (nation A wars justly against nation B) on the following conditions:
A. It is called by a sovereign authority.
B. It has a just cause.
C. The combatants have morally right intentions (not vengeance or profit – see below).
D. Qualifying Conditions (from the theory of double-effect on his justification of killing in self-defense: ST II-II, 64, 7).
Cannot intend intrinsically evil actions.
A good action, or at least a morally neutral action, will have two effects: a good intended, and an evil, not intended, but tolerated.
Proportionality: the good to be achieved outweighs the evil of war.
Clarifications:
A. A Just War must be called by a sovereign authority. It is a nation (not individuals) who declares war.
wars are just when they are in defense of the common goods.
the sovereign has care for the common good (of a particular nation)
when private citizens, either individually or in groups, take up arms to oppose the common good, they are not engaged in war, but in the sin of sedition and oppose the unity and peace of a people. (ST II-II, q. 42)
a. the sin of sedition applies “not only in him who sows discord, but also in those who dissent from one another inordinately” by following the fomenters of sedition (a. 1, ad 1)
b. the violence and discord of a people is always wrong when “it is contrary to the unity of the multitude, which is a manifest good.” (a. 2, ad 2)
c. opposition to a tyrant can be permissible (a. 2 ad 3)
i. “a tyrannical government is not just, because it is directed, not to the common good, but to the private good of the ruler.”
ii. resistance to a tyrant is not permissible if “the tyrant’s rule be disturbed so inordinately, that his subjects suffer greater harm from the consequent disturbance than from the tyrant’s government” (i.e., if the violence is disproportionate to the common good lost to tyranny.)
B. Just Cause
Thomas Aquinas addresses causes which concern the nation (nation A) itself.
a. An enemy (nation B) is attacked because they deserve it.
b. The enemy is guilty of some fault.
c. A nation may war justly
i. To avenge a wrong.
ii. Punish enemy for refusing to make amends for some past fault.
iii. To restore what was seized unjustly.
Later thinkers have expanded the notion of just cause. (See ‘The Just War’ by Jonathan Barnes in The Cambridge History of Later Medieval Philosophy (1982), pp. 771-785.)
a. Is war justified when someone other than the warring nation suffered from an enemy’s unjust aggression?
i. Friends and allies: Nation A may justly war on nation B to defend nation C. (See Thomas Aquinas, ST II-II, 188, 3 ad 1)
ii. The inhabitants of the enemy country (nation B) [a war of liberation].
a) St. Thomas More (1535) – Yes, war may be justified for humanitarian reasons.
b) Francisco Suarez (1617) – No, such a war violates the sovereignty of the other nation and will lead to international chaos.
b. There has not been any actual aggression from the enemy, but nation A has reason to fear that there is a threat of an attack from nation B [a pre-emptive war].
i. Francisco de Vitoria (1546) – No, wars are just only when redressing actual injustice.
ii. Francis Bacon (1626) – Yes, just fear is a lawful cause for war.
iii. Hugo Grotius (1645) – To threaten one’s neighbors is an actual injustice; it is aggression against peaceful order between nations.
C. The combatants in a just war must have right intentions.
advancement of good and the avoidance of evil.
unjust reasons include
a. Greed.
b. Cruelty.
c. Vengeance.
just reasons include
a. Secure peace.
b. Punish evil-doers.
c. Uplifting of good.
D. Qualifying Conditions – from the justification of self-defense and the theory of double-effect.
Cannot intend intrinsically evil actions: Combatants must respect non-combatants.
a. Combatants who cease to be such.
i. Surrendering.
ii. Wounded.
b. A nation can never justly target civilians.
i. Civilian casualties, while foreseeable, cannot be intended.
ii. Measures must be taken to minimize civilian casualties.
The violence inherent in war is the tolerated evil secondary effect, never directly intended; the primary good effect of peace must be directly intended.
Proportionality: the good to be achieved outweighs the evil of war.
a. One cannot war justly over a slight cause.
(i. War is a last resort.)
(ii. There must be a reasonable hope of success; one cannot engage in justified, but hopeless actions.)
b. One may only use the minimal force necessary to achieve just ends.
LikeLike
Thanks for the added context.
It can get complicated, clearly, and war by its nature is an unpredictable thing. Once underway, wars go in the direction they go, not always the direction we may have envisioned at the start.
War is not controllable.
Getting “stuck” is highly likely.
But the exercise is important and provides some needed guidance in all eras.
LikeLiked by 2 people
(* “the exercise” of applying a just war analysis, that is)
LikeLiked by 1 person
And fair-minded people could also come to different conclusions when applying this to a particular case?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sure, people could come to different conclusions using this theory. Intellect and personality and biases all differ. But it can be a useful framework. I wonder if our leaders ever use it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
If not, might be time for governments to revisit it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I have a book around here somewhere (a lot of my sentences begin that way in my head) — titled something like “Four Christian Views of War.” They used to publish those kinds of books where different theologians or heavy thinkers in the church would provide different views on a difficult topic.
LikeLiked by 1 person
LikeLiked by 1 person
Another one:
LikeLiked by 1 person