Even lefty newspapers notice Ukraine's govt NAZIS

Even lefty newspapers notice Ukraine's govt NAZIS - but only because Stephen Harper wants to use Canadian troops to train them LOL!

(And what could Canadian troops - who haven't been in battle since Korea - have to teach them?!)

Both Ukraine and Canada have been involved in Afghanistan - but Ukraine's nazis are far more familiar with Russian tactics anyway, since until recently they trained WITH the Russian Army!

From here:

Jason Kenney says Canadian soldiers will not be training Nazi sympathizers in Ukraine

David Pugliese, Postmedia News | April 18, 2015 12:56 PM ET
More from Postmedia News

AP Photo/Sergei ChuzavkovFighters from the Azov volunteer battalion ignite flares during the march marking the 72nd anniversary of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army in Kiev, Ukraine, Tuesday, Oct. 14, 2014.

The Canadian government is confident that troops from Petawawa won’t end up instructing Neo Nazis and far right extremists when they begin their training mission in Ukraine this summer, but a former diplomat is warning it will be difficult to weed out such extremists as their militia units are now being integrated into Ukraine’s regular forces.

Some members of Ukraine’s most effective fighting units have openly acknowledged they are Nazi sympathizers or have expressed anti-Semitic or extreme right wing views.

The Canadian government has committed as many as 200 Canadian soldiers to train Ukraine’s military, which has fought Ukrainian rebels who want to separate. The bulk of the first wave of Canadian troops, to arrive in Ukraine sometime in the summer, will come from the Petawawa Garrison in the Ottawa Valley.

There is now a ceasefire in place between the Ukraine military and the rebels but there are concerns it will not hold.

Defence Minister Jason Kenney acknowledged in a briefing Tuesday with journalists that the issue of how Canadians can avoid training extremist troops had been discussed among military staff.

“We’re not going to be in the business of training ad hoc militias,” he explained. “We will only be training units of the Ukrainian National Guard and army recognized by the government of Ukraine.

We’re not going to be in the business of training ad hoc militias

But former Canadian diplomat James Bissett says the Canadians could end up training members of the country’s fascist groups as those troops are now being enrolled in Ukraine’s regular forces.

“These militias are being merged with Ukraine’s military so we won’t be able to determine who we are training,” said Bissett, Canada’s former ambassador to Yugoslavia, Bulgaria and Albania. “These are unsavoury groups that Canadian soldiers should not be associated with.”

Ukraine’s defence ministry recently announced that Dmitri Yarosh, the head of the Right Sector party, will become an advisor to the country’s military chief. Members of the Ukrainian Volunteer Corps, a militia created by the far right group, will be integrated into the regular military.

GENYA SAVILOV/AFP/Getty ImagesAzov battalion chief Andriy Biletskiy attends an oath ceremony of the new battalion members in Kiev on October 19, 2014. Azov is a volunteer far-right paramilitary force whose banner bears a striking resemblance to some Nazi symbols.

The Azov Battalion, associated with Ukraine’s national guard, has also faced accusations of Neo-Nazi links.

The battalion has a symbol similar to the insignia used by some Nazi SS units. Although the unit has repeatedly denied such links, some of its members have voiced support for Nazi ideology or have made anti-Semitic statements.

Andrey Dyachenko, a spokesman for the Azov Battalion, told USA Today in March that only 10 to 20 percent of the unit are Nazis. Last year, members of the Azov Battalion were shown on German television wearing helmets with Nazi insignia.

The U.S. and Britain are also sending troops to train Ukrainian forces.

Canada has been a key supporter for Ukraine’s government and has denounced Russian involvement in the ongoing crisis in the region.

Russia has annexed Crimea from Ukraine and has provided support to the separatist forces. Canada and NATO has accused Russia of sending troops and equipment to take part in the war but Russia denies that.

The Conservative government has provided more than $570 million worth of aid to Ukraine.

ANADIAN PRESS/Fred ChartrandPrime Minister Stephen Harper and Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko walk down the Hall of Honour on Parliament Hill, in Ottawa, September 17, 2014.

Some former Canadian diplomats, however, have suggested the government’s position on Ukraine is aimed at winning votes from Ukrainian-Canadians in the upcoming federal election.

Some Ukrainians have dismissed concerns about fascist elements in the country’s political system and military, labelling such claims as Russian propaganda.

European Jews, however, have voiced their concern about the presence of such groups and the rise of the Svoboda party led by Oleh Tyahnybok. Tyahnybok was among Ukrainian officials who last year greeted then Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird in Kyiv. Tyahnybok’s party members were also on the front lines of protests that led to the overthrow of Ukraine’s pro-Russian president last year.
Tyahnybok, who denies being anti-Semitic, co-signed an open letter to Ukraine’s president in 2005 calling for a government investigation into “criminal activities of organized Jewry in Ukraine.”

dpugliese@ottawacitizen.com


Twitter.com/davidpugliese

Why the Left Wants Iran to Get the Bomb

From here:

Before Global Warming posters hung on the dingy walls of American classrooms, the atomic bomb was the original Great Bogeyman of the left. Nothing quite so demonstrated the madness of our war machine as our willingness to deploy weapons of mass destruction to stop Communism in its tracks.

The self-righteous antics over nuclear weapons in literature, art, film, at protests and in papers are far too numerous to document. But you can still spot the occasional clunker with “One nuclear bomb can ruin your whole day” or “You can’t hug a child with nuclear arms” peeling off one lopsided bumper.

Just don’t expect its owner to oppose Iran’s nuclear program over its day-ruining hug-denying nature.

What made nuclear weapons and nuclear power plants bad was not that they killed children, mutated fish or doomed mankind. There was nothing wrong with Plutonium or Uranium. In Iranian or Soviet hands they are perfectly good substances. It’s when Uncle Sam gets his hands on them that they go bad.

Soviet nuclear weapons were never the problem. Now anti-nuclear activists are defending Iran’s nuclear program because they were never really opposed to nuclear weapons; they were opposed to America.

The anti-nuclear crowd isn’t against nuclear power plants or even nuclear missiles; otherwise it would be on the front lines campaigning against Obama’s nuclear sellout to Iran, instead of supporting it.

The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, which claims to be against everything from nuclear power to depleted uranium, cheered the Iran deal. Ploughshares campaigns against WMDs while linking up with Iran’s lobby. The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists is on the same page. The organization’s motto, “70 Years Speaking Knowledge to Power”, communicates that it isn’t against nukes. It is against “Power”.

The United States is defined as possessing that intangible quality of “Power”. Not Iran, which is a victim of American “Power”.  In his New York Timesinterview with Thomas Friedman, Obama said that he had told his team to be sensitive to the “defensive Iran that feels vulnerable”. That’s the Iranian inner child that, according to Obama, was scarred by the United States in the past. Nukes are just its radioactive security blanket against American imperialism. Our power is the problem. Not their nukes.

There is a long history of such reasoning dating back to spy-scientists like Ted Hall and Alan Nunn May passing along nuclear secrets to the USSR to prevent a US nuclear monopoly. And the May case was very nearly covered up because it would have interfered with a plan to demilitarize the bomb and bring the USSR into the club. As would so often be the case, the distinction between traitors and Democrats was that the former acted unilaterally while the latter put the stamp of considered policy on their treason.

Having created an atomic crisis by helping the USSR get the bomb, the left would then spend the bulk of the Cold War denouncing the “madmen” in the Pentagon for a mass destructive stalemate that the left had sought. It was not the Pentagon which wanted to see the world balanced on the brink of destruction. It was the left which had broken the “American monopoly” that had wanted it to happen.

And once it did, the left turned a crisis that it caused into its own pet cause by promoting unilateral disarmament. Having destroyed the American monopoly, it sought to leave America utterly helpless.

There has never been a credible plan for a world without nuclear weapons. The only plan that has ever existed is a plan for a world without American nuclear weapons. Nuclear proliferation was one of the means of realizing that goal. A nuclear crisis brings disarmament talk to the forefront.

The best possible way to promote the agenda of American disarmament is by helping Iran get the bomb.

After his original inauguration, Obama talked of a “world without nuclear weapons”. But what he really meant was a world without American weapons.

“As the only nuclear power to have used a nuclear weapon, the United States has a moral responsibility to act,” Obama said in that same speech. “We cannot succeed in this endeavor alone, but we can lead it, we can start it.”

The only American Exceptionalism that Obama has ever believed in is an exceptional American guilt. As the first country to have used a nuclear weapon, against an empire that was engaged in genocide and cannibalism, America has to give up its weapons first. American nuclear weapons are tainted in ways that no other weapons are. Our nukes are bad nukes. Everyone else’s nukes are good nukes.

The credibility of the other side doesn’t matter. As a dog returns to its vomit, Obama and the left eagerly tried to wrap up disarmament in a deal with Moscow despite a long history of nuclear treaty fraud. When Putin decided to take advantage of Obama’s flexibility by invading Ukraine, there was always Iran. And there has even been talk of renewing negotiations with North Korea. And why shouldn’t there be?

The Iran deal is just a replay of the terrible ideas that the Clintons used to let Kim Jong-Il go nuclear.

Disarmament is never the objective. Instead the negotiations invariably allow the other side to increase its arsenal and capabilities. That is what they are designed to do.

The left does not believe that nuclear weapons are evil. It did not believe that Soviet nuclear weapons were evil. It does not believe that Iran’s nuclear program is evil. It believes that American power is evil.

Iranian nuclear weapons are good because they weaken America. Like Soviet nuclear weapons, they undermine American power. They force the United States to “negotiate” and submit to international law. The more nuclear weapons spread, the more the “hawks” will have to realize that they have no option but to disarm the United States and put their faith in some international order to achieve peace.

That has always been the endgame.

The Council on Foreign Relations’ Foreign Affairs magazine had already run a piece promising that an Iranian nuclear bomb would bring stability to the region. As usual the word does not mean what you think it might. Stability is yet another euphemism for weakening the American coalition to create a new balance of power through Iranian power.

The same arguments now being deployed in favor of the Iran deal will later be redeployed to argue that Iran’s nuclear weapons will actually create stability. And as a bonus, Iran will be able to drive up the price of oil which means more Green Energy subsidies. For the left, that’s a win-win scenario.

The spy-scientists claimed to be concerned with the “safety of mankind” rather than such petty trifles as the security and freedom of the United States and its allies. Today men and women who think like them run the United States. And they are not concerned with the United States, but with “mankind”.

Obama intends to cut a nuclear deal with Iran on any terms and even on no terms at all. He intends to do it for the same old reasons. It’s not just about Israel, though as with regime change in Egypt, undermining the Jewish State is a nice bonus because it further weakens America.

A stronger Iran means a weaker America. And the left believes that a weaker America means a better world.

================

"SO, VLADDI - WHAT'S YOUR TAKE ON THIS?" YOU ASK?

“Multicultural martyrdom” = “Muslicultural MASOCHISM.”

Masochists pretend to “control” their fears (in stead of trying to learn to recognize and fix mistakes and solve problems by paying attention to their fears) BY causing the pains they fear.

(Hence libertine liberalism, where they pretend that it’s noble to pretend that fear doesn’t exist, and so always want to “progress” to “freedom” from the feaful pain of self-restraint).

It’s why they admire the “noble savage” ideal (muslims) propensity for mindless innocent-attacking and victim-blaming violence… libs wish they could just cut loose, attacking everyone around them every time reality frustrates them.

This masochism syndrome is also used to pretend they have the so-called “moral high ground:”

“If and when (I PRETEND TO AGREE WITH YOU THAT) you say you’re better than me, then it’s all YOUR fault. And, since it’s all your fault, then NONE of it’s MY fault (so I’m still better than you)! Whee!”

This also sums up their inherent criminal negligence: "Screw you - I MEANT to do that!"

In this way, they can pretend that they're never wrong.

The difference between normal, healthy fear and cowardice, is that cowards fear (and so, focus on) their Fear (which is, after all, only the generalized memories of specific pains, projected to the future) AS being just as painful as the initial pains they feared.

It also explains their Sadism:

They always invite their most feared and painful counter-attacks BY attacking innocent others first.

This allows them to perpetually 'risk' embracing their worst-case scenarios and triumph ('who dares wins') because in doing so, they are always putitng their victims on the defensive, always playing catch-up to the criminal's masochistic irrational and destructive fantasy schemes... always looking for the non-existent causes of the criminals' alleged grievances, never quite realizing the atacks are doctrine-driven, not grievance driven (except in the most generalized slanderous terms) at all!

It almost gives them the same guilty thrill and reliefs from specific pains as normal people get from their own generalized memories of specific reliefs from pains (aka 'Hope') but where hope is a static ideal, the reliefs the criminals feel don't last, because their fear-focus prioritizing triage is self-inflicted and dynamic; they create their own worst-case paranoia scenarios all the time, and so can never relax. Hence that "the evil are filled with a dark intensity" etc. observational quote. It explains their 'depression' and 'bi-polar' manic depression, and accounts for why liberals (criminals) have a higher rate of suicide than the innocent: eventually, they come to believe their own fatalistic lies as they try to perfect them to fool others. It's a form of ongoing evolution, which unfortunately (or not LOL)! also affects their own children's lives.

This self-inflicted slavery also allows them their perpetual defeatist and covertly sadistic “passive aggression” habit, and fake ennui, which also allows them to “fail upwards” (particularly in politics, which has been described as “the art of avoiding making decisions until the original reasons for having to make them have become irrelevant”)!

After all, if, with great power comes great responsibility, then the concommitant corrollary which comes with is can be summed up as “With no power comes NO responsibility!”

And liberals (like their muslim brethren) being criminals, ALWAYS want rights (like, to our stuff) without having any responsibilities (like, having to earn or otherwise pay for it)!

Inhofe, Issa, and Rohrabacher sponsored NBC legislation to vet OBAMA

From here:

Obama Was Hand-Picked & NOT a Natural Born Citizen - Congress Knew It & Protected Him

The further I travel down this rabbit hole, the more I feel divorced from the good conservative people that I choose to call my own. I hold some stories back from our readers. My thought is that people have a hard enough time embracing the basic fact that our government is corrupt on both sides of the aisle. If you knew how corrupt I thought these people really were, I feel like you'd rush to the phone and soon bad men would show up to haul me off in a straitjacket.

Do they still do that?

Regardless, today I want to show you something that might leave you questioning everything around you.

Welcome to my world.

In 1975 a representative named Joe Bingham introduced an amendment to remove the "natural born citizen" constitutional requirement to become President.

Why is that important?

Because it was not until almost 30 years later that the issue would be addressed again. And it was not addressed only once, but multiple times. This is all part of congressional record.
Remarkably, it just so happened to coincide with the meteoric rise of a man named Barack Obama who currently sits in the People's House.

I am about to share with you a brilliant piece of research from the Article II Political Action Committee. After reading it the foremost question on my mind is, "If the natural born citizen definition only requires one citizen parent then why did they seemingly try so hard to change the law for Barack Obama?"

There are multiple links to official congressional documents throughout, contained in the research below, so I would urge you to draw your own conclusions.

But from my point of view this research either strongly, or at least partly, validates the following conclusions:

1. Barack Obama was hand-picked to be President.
2. Some members of Congress, on both sides, understood that Obama was not "natural born" and tried to pass laws to pave the way for his arrival.
3. In the end they used a deflection tactic to shine light on John McCain's eligibility status, hoping that Obama's own status would not be brought into question.

It appears to have worked.

Below is a lengthy excerpt from "Article II Facts" hosted on the site of the Article II Political Action Committee. If you like what you read, I would encourage you to consider a donation to their cause.
Let's take a trip back through recent history:

Attempts to redefine or amend Article II "natural born Citizen" Clause of the U.S. Constitution:

The effort to remove the natural-born citizen requirement from the U.S. Constitution actually began in 1975 – when Democrat House Rep. Jonathon B. Bingham, [NY-22] introduced a constitutional amendment under H.J.R. 33: which called for the outright removal of the natural-born requirement for president found in Article II of the U.S. Constitution – "Provides that a citizen of the United States otherwise eligible to hold the Office of President shall not be ineligible because such citizen is not a natural born citizen."


Bingham's first attempt failed and he resurrected H.J.R. 33: in 1977 under H.J.R. 38:, again failing to gain support from members of congress. Bingham was a Yale Law grad and member of the secret society Skull and Bones, later a lecturer at Columbia Law and thick as thieves with the United Nations via his membership in the Council on Foreign Relations.


Bingham's work lay dormant for twenty-six years when it was resurrected again in 2003 as Democrat members of Congress made no less than eight (8) attempts in twenty-two (22) months, to either eliminate the natural-born requirement, or redefine natural-born to accommodate Barack Hussein Obama II in advance of his rise to power. The evidence is right in the congressional record…


1. On June 11, 2003 Democrat House member Vic Snyder [AR-2] introduced H.J.R 59: in the 108th Congress – "Constitutional Amendment – Makes a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 35 years and who has been a resident within the United States for at least 14 years eligible to hold the office of President or Vice President." – Co-Sponsors: Rep Conyers, John, Jr. [MI-14]; Rep Delahunt, William D. [MA-10]; Rep Frank, Barney [MA-4]; Rep Issa, Darrell E. [CA-49]; Rep LaHood, Ray [IL-18]; Rep Shays, Christopher [CT-4].


2. On September 3, 2003, Rep. John Conyers [MI] introduced H.J.R. 67: – "Constitutional Amendment – Makes a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 20 years eligible to hold the office of President." – Co-Sponsor Rep Sherman, Brad [CA-27]


3. On February 25, 2004, Republican Senator Don Nickles [OK] attempted to counter the growing Democrat onslaught aimed at removing the natural-born citizen requirement for president in S.2128: – "Natural Born Citizen Act – Defines the constitutional term "natural born citizen," to establish eligibility for the Office of President" – also getting the definition of natural born citizen wrong. – Co-sponsors Sen Inhofe, James M. [OK]; Sen Landrieu, Mary L. [LA]


4. On September 15, 2004 – as Barack Obama was about to be introduced as the new messiah of the Democrat Party at the DNC convention, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher [CA-46] introduced H.J.R. 104: – "Constitutional Amendment – "Makes eligible for the Office of the President non-native born persons who have held U.S. citizenship for at least 20 years and who are otherwise eligible to hold such Office."  – No co-sponsors.


5. Again on January 4, 2005, Rep John Conyers [MI] introduced H.J.R. 2: to the 109th Congress – "Constitutional Amendment – Makes a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 20 years eligible to hold the Office of President." – Co-Sponsor Rep Sherman, Brad [CA-27]

 6. Rep Dana Rohrabacher [CA-46] tries gain n February 1, 2005 inH.J.R. 15: – Constitutional Amendment – Makes eligible for the Office of the President non-native born persons who have held U.S. citizenship for at least 20 years and who are otherwise eligible to hold such Office." – No Co-Sponsor

7. On April 14, 2005, Rep Vic Snyder [AR-2] tries yet again with H.J.R. 42: – "Constitutional Amendment – Makes a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 35 years and whos has been a resident within the United States for at least 14 years eligible to hold the office of President or Vice President." – Co-Sponsor Rep Shays, Christopher [CT-4]

8. All of these efforts failing in committee and the 2008 presidential election looming with an unconstitutional candidate leading the DNC ticket, Democrat Senator Claire McCaskill, [MO] tries to attach the alteration to a military bill in S.2678: on February 28, 2008 – "Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act – Declares that the term "natural born Citizen" in article II, section 1, clause 5 of the Constitution, dealing with the criteria for election to President of the United States, includes any person born to any U.S. citizen while serving in the active or reserve components of the U.S. armed forces." – Co-Sponsors DNC Presidential candidate Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham [NY]; DNC Presidential candidate Sen Obama, Barack [IL]; Sen Menendez, Robert [NJ]; Sen Coburn, Tom [OK] – (This was the first effort to also assure that GOP Presidential candidate Sen. John McCain [AZ] would be cleared to run against the DNC primary victor.)


From June 11, 2003 to February 28, 2008, there had been eight (8) different congressional attempts to alter Article II – Section I – Clause V – natural born citizen requirements for president in the U.S. Constitution, all of them failing in committee — All of it taking placing during Barack Obama's rise to political power and preceding the November 2008 presidential election.


In politics, there are no coincidences… not of this magnitude.


Finally on April 10, 2008, unable to alter or remove the natural born citizen requirement to clear the way for Barack Obama, the U.S. Senate acts to shift focus before the election, introducing and passing S.R.511: – declaring Sen. John McCain a "natural born citizen" eligible to run for and hold the office of president. There was never any honest doubt about McCain, the son of a U.S. Navy Commander. The Sponsor of the resolution is Democrat Senator Claire McCaskill, [MO]

S.R.511 States that John Sidney McCain, III, is a "natural born Citizen" under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States. S.R511passed by a 99-0 unanimous consent of the Senate, with only John McCain not voting. The basis was – "Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens;" – a condition not met by Barack Hussein Obama II. – Co-Sponsors DNC Presidential candidate Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham [NY]; DNC Presidential candidate Sen Obama, Barack [IL]; Sen Leahy, Patrick J. [VT]; Sen Webb, Jim [VA]; Sen Coburn, Tom [OK] (They had made certain that John McCain would run against Barack Obama)


However, in the McCain resolution is also this language – "Whereas the Constitution of the United States requires that, to be eligible for the Office of the President, a person must be a `natural born Citizen' of the United States; – Whereas the term `natural born Citizen', as that term appears in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States;"


The U.S. Constitution is not a dictionary. The definition of "is" is not in the constitution either. Yet this is the text that would later be issued in Congressional Research Service talking points memos distributed to members of congress, to protect an individual that all members of congress know and understand to be an "unconstitutional" resident of the people's White House – Barack Hussein Obama II.


Once again, as the political left was unable to alter the U.S. Constitution by way of legitimate constitutional process, they resorted to altering the constitution via precedent setting, in short, knowingly electing and getting away with seating an unconstitutional president in order to alter Article II requirements for the office via breaking those constitutional requirements.

The press would not ask any questions and the American people were already too ill-informed of their constitution to know or too distracted by daily life to care. The press would provide the cover, swearing to the lies of an unconstitutional administration put in power by criminal actors focused only on their lofty political agenda of forever altering the American form of government.

The people would be caught up in a steady diet of daily assaults on their individual freedom and liberty and overlook the most obvious constitutional crisis in American history, the seating of an unconstitutional and anti-American president. [SOURCE CREDIT]


There you have it. Make of this what you will.

It brings about many questions for me.

Would people like Claire McCaskill and Hillary Clinton really come to John McCain's aid if they did not have an ulterior motive?

Why were people like Inhofe, Issa, and Rohrabacher either sponsoring or co-sponsoring these pieces of legislation? After all, these men have been three of Obama's biggest critics. We have heard lots of threats and promises from them but have seen no results. Could it be that these men are just more shining examples of "all bark and no bite"? (See Definition of "Smoke and Mirrors")

If it is true that the definition of "natural born citizen" only involves having one citizen parent then why all the fuss?

Obama, questionable Hawaii birth certificate and all, met the requirement of one American citizen parent. Maybe the truth is that it takes more than that and Congress knows it.

So why was nothing ever done?

Keep searching and settle for nothing less than the truth.

Today, Obama gave Iran nukes

From Thursday

According to http://www.secureamericanow.org/ 

It's all over. As of today, Iran's nuclear program is not just a possibility--it is reality.

President Obama caved, and we will all pay the price. The details of this likely deal with Iran are still emerging, but all information from the talks points to a dangerous deal that is rampant with concessions.

Every portion of this deal reveals more and more about the dangers of this arrangement. As recently as 2012, Obama was saying: "We know they don’t need to have an underground, fortified facility like Fordow in order to have a peaceful program." But now, Iran's Zarif speech confirms the US caved on letting Iran enrich at Fordow underground bunker.

Even worse, the Obama Administration has rolled over on every single restriction on Iran's nuclear capabilities. NONE of Iran's nuclear facilities will be stopped, shut down or suspended. Iran will be rewarded with lifted sanctions even as they are allowed to grow their nuclear program. Obama has even agreed to let Iran opt out of snap inspections of nuclear facilities.

HATERS

From here:

Lately there has been much discussion about discrimination in the news. To hear some people tell it, there exists some mass hate movement against homosexuals, which conspires in the highest levels of business and government to oppress them. To make matters worse, the nation is still reeling from race riots in Ferguson over the Michael Brown shooting, and demonstrators have been trespassing on private property to disrupt the dining experiences of ordinary people to shout “Black Lives Matter”. Worse still, evidence of discrimination in society is made no clearer, according to our elite media, than by the Ellen Pao sex discrimination case in Silicon Valley.

How To Hate Minorities

Indeed, to see this narrative unfold, it would seem that white heterosexual males, are discriminating against all non-white, non-hetero, non-males in the society. This however does not make a sound strategy for hating minorities. In fact, it seems to have backfired quite tragically, turning white heterosexual males into the most hated minority in the world. Should those WHM’s find themselves in possession of much money, or hold some particular religious belief, they might want to stay indoors as to avoid tar, feathers, pitchforks, and torches.

If you really want to hate minorities, you have to start off by being the majority. You can’t take principled stances that might be unpopular. You actually need to build broad coalitions of people to join you in your hate. Without a coalition, you can’t even find a minority to direct your hate against.

Indeed, if we want to hate minorities, we should take our direction not from the right, but from the left. They have mastered the art not only of hating minorities, but of creating minorities to hate.

They have created a masterful narrative by which the entire female gender, which makes up about half of the population and cannot be counted as a minority at all, is being discriminated against.

Then they gave us the additional narrative that blacks, gays, transgendered people, and all sorts of other groups are being persecuted in the exact same narrative. The most fantastic part of this strategy is that they’ve done so without any meaningful evidence whatsoever, a truly outstanding accomplishment that no hate movement has been able to accomplish on this scale since World War II.

Building these broad coalitions to isolate those minorities additionally helps with the ultimate goal of any hate movement, to take over a government and oppress the target of their hate. Those “anti-gay” Christians might refuse to serve pizza at a gay wedding, but that’s small potatoes for a real hate movement. The way you really hate minorities is by taking over the government and conscripting them into service of their oppressors. To make it extra diabolical, instead of calling this slavery, you call it “anti-discrimination”.

You certainly wouldn’t want to call yourselves “libertarians” or “Republicans”. Both of these concepts are supposed to protect the rights of individuals over the majority. To maximize the impact of your hate movement, you should really be “Democrats”. Democracy violently oppresses minorities by its very definition. What could be more hateful of minorities than “majority rule”?

You want to make sure the government has absolute power. If people are free to make other choices, like how, where, and when to buy health insurance for example, then the market might find niches to serve this hated minority. Again, one business owner might be able to tell a gay couple they won’t provide services to them, but that leaves that couple free to buy services elsewhere. If you really want to build a truly effective hate movement, you need the government to first monopolize entire sections of the economy, so that your discrimination leaves them with no alternatives in the market. You should ultimately seek to control everything, but you would probably start off with essential markets like water, land, labor, energy, transportation, health care, and communications. Once the government completely dominates those industries, depriving them of food, weapons, technology, and other essentials really becomes quite simple.


Finally, you really want to make certain to get some of that hated minority to join your cause. Take the huge success in Indiana recently, where governor Mike Pence has gone from promoting a “religious freedom” act, to demanding the exact opposite and embracing the aforementioned “anti-discrimination” conscription edicts. Pence, a white, heterosexual, Christian male with political power, is really the crown jewel of any hate movement. Expressing your hate and getting others to hate the same people as you is rewarding no doubt, but getting that hated minority to hate themselves, and to act against their own best interests, getting them to oppress one another, that’s the real goal of any successful hate movement.

"Palestine" officially joins International Criminal Court

After Lawfare Maneuvering, Palestinian Authority Officially Joins International Criminal Court Yesterday, the Palestinian Authority officially became the 123rd member of the International Criminal Court (ICC), three months after signing the ICC's founding Rome Statute and accepting the court's jurisdiction over alleged crimes committed since June 13, 2014, which would include last summer's Operation Protective Edge. Shortly thereafter, the ICC Chief Prosecutor opened a preliminary examination into the "situation in Palestine" to evaluate "issues of jurisdiction, admissibility and the interests of justice" in determining whether to launch an investigation into alleged crimes committed in the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza. As The Lawfare Project previously wrote, the decision to open such an examination was of great concern, undermining the ICC's legitimacy as a competent legal entity as well as the Prosecutor's proclamations of the court's supposed independence from the United Nations General Assembly. Because only states can accede to the Rome Statute, the Prosecutor's decision rested on her finding that a Palestinian "state" actually exists. Despite the fact that the Palestinians do not meet the requirements for statehood under well-established international law--and that the UN Security Council has expressly rejected the Palestinians' bid for statehood--the Prosecutor instead relied on the UN General Assembly's 2012 vote to upgrade the Palestinians' status from "non-member observer entity" to "non-member observer state." Not only does the General Assembly lack authority to create states (nor are its resolutions legally binding), but nothing in international law suggests that the General Assembly's vote to upgrade the Palestinians' status should have any bearing on the jurisdiction of the ICC, an entity independent of the United Nations. Moreover, as has been noted by Lawfare Project Fellow Eugene Kontorovich, Palestinian ICC membership violates specific Palestinian commitments of the Oslo Accords, an internationally-guaranteed agreement: to not seek a final status determination outside of negotiations, and giving Israel exclusive criminal jurisdiction over Israeli nationals in the West Bank. The United States, Canada, Israel, and other nations maintain the position that the Palestinians are not eligible to join the ICC due to their lack of statehood status. Further Reading: ICC undermines its own independence with Palestine inquiry US will strip Palestinian funding over International Criminal Court, warns senator Palestinian move at International Criminal Court signals a volatile new stage Is the International Criminal Court biased against Israel?

Facebook Nixes Christian Advertising

From here:

A week after Facebook bent to pressure over a “I’m feeling fat” emoticon that was apparently too offensive to the weight-challenged, the social media giant has proven that some groups are not as protected as others. Christians, for instance.

The site, which accepts ads for just about anything under the sun, has refused a fundraising advertisement for a film called I Am a Christian. The film, set to star Stacey Dash and Kevin Sorbo, is currently running a campaign on indiegogo.com and producers had hoped to use Facebook as a platform for promotion.

To that end, they devised an ad campaign challenging Christian Facebook users to change their profile pictures to their I Am A Christian photo for a week. “Stand up and declare, Yes, I am a Christian!” said the ad.

That was unacceptable to the powers-that-be at Facebook. “Your ad wasn’t approved because it doesn’t follow our language policies,” said a member of the ads team. “We’ve found that people dislike ads that directly address them or their personal characteristics such as religion.”

Shouldn’t it be a company’s right to produce an ad that people dislike? Are there any ads that people actually do like? I would think the list of acceptable ads would be rather small if that was the criteria. Certainly smaller than what is currently allowed on Facebook.

Let’s get serious here. The reason Facebook refused the ad has nothing to do with the specific phrasing the film’s producers used. It has everything to do with the fact that it’s for a Christian movie. And as we all know, there’s nothing less liberal than to be a Christian in 2015. That just doesn’t play with the progressives.

Obviously, Facebook has the right to determine which ads will and won’t appear on their website, even if their reasoning is suspect. Still, it’s important to point out that this site has an agenda. And it’s an agenda that is becoming increasingly obvious.

It wasn’t long ago when the thought of being a “persecuted Christian” in the United States was met with uproarious laughter. But that time has passed. The America of today is not the one of even five years ago. Things have changed. There has been a dramatic shift to the secular left. Christianity is incompatible with the views liberals hold so dear. It holds up a standard of living and it says, “Here, be more like this.” And in the era of disappearing personal responsibility, that’s not acceptable.
One of the most important verses in the Bible is “I can do all things through Christ, who strengthens me.” All things. Overcome the most oppressive circumstances. Clear the highest hurdles. When you believe in a philosophy like that, what use do you have in a handout? Why would you ever need to vote for a politician who promises to keep the welfare flowing? Why, you can just go out and earn your own money! We can’t have that. We have to keep people dependent.

And moreover, to the concerns of Facebook, we have to keep people distracted.

=======

The liberal criminal's favorite trope is the Argumentum tu Quoque critical thinking alibi excuse for their own crimes:

"It's not an evil crime because we (i.e: you) all do it, too! Whee!"

As if by merely comparing two or more unrelated wrongs, they could somehow magically make one or more of them into a right.

So to criminals, it's always imperative to slander and victim-blame everyone else as being just as bad as they are, and also to assert that everyone is a helpless victim, too.

So to have a perfect example of a sinless man as an example to strive for, totally destroys their #1 alibi excuse for their false right to remain irresponsibly wrong.