Lights Out

The dimwitted left has lost whatever small piece of its mind that may have remained. Now they attack General Kelly and the ‘Empty Barrel’ called that name racist.

It ain’t working! Ha, Planned Parenthood issued a statement that they stand with black women and the black community. There’s an endorsement of culture for you.

So former presidents(Stripes) are having a fundraiser at Texas A&M, excuding Trump. Well, bite my asparagus! That’s bad? Exactly why we elected him.

“Deep from the Heart: The One America Appeal” is part of an effort launched last month by former Presidents Jimmy Carter, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama, all of whom are scheduled to attend the concert Saturday.

Their thousand points of light have gone dark. All more of a political appeal.

But their incessant, incestuous lectures continue against voters and we the people?

Planned Parenthood lets us know they are still in business: (from Planet Absurd)

Colonization and sterilization of brown and black bodies is not a thing of the past. It is still happening #SistersongTaughtMe #reprojustice

— Planned Parenthood (@PPHeartland) October 20, 2017

#SistersongTaughtMe that Reproductive Justice includes believing #blacklivesmatter #blackmamasmatter and needing to #trustblackwomen

— Planned Parenthood (@PPHeartland) October 20, 2017

We absolutely cannot talk about Reproductive Justice without mentioning white supremacy. #ReproJustice #SisterSongTaughtMe @SisterSong_WOC

— Planned Parenthood (@PPHeartland) October 20, 2017

Intersectionality is the process; human rights is the goal. @LorettaJRoss #SisterSongTaughtMe @SisterSong_WOC #ReproJustice

— Planned Parenthood (@PPHeartland) October 20, 2017

‘Human Rights! Human Rights is the goal! Yeah, that’s the ticket.

Just in case there was any flicker of light left, PP makes sure to snuff it out.

Sharpton sees climate change opening in Ozone

What Sharpton is up to: Breitbart has the story on Sharpton’s incarnation as climate change/civil rights guru. That’s right, his job is to unify them.

Sharpton said, “it [climate change] is an issue of justice, and it is an issue of human rights. African-Americans are at a higher risk of being close, or predisposed to areas of carbon, as well as other poisonous pollution in the air. And we have a disproportionate interest because we suffer disproportionately.”

For instance, when blacks riot they are disproportionately exposed to such hazards many times more higher the average person. A burning car for instance, or an arson fire of a CVS can be almost toxic. So yes, they are a hundred times more at risk.

He added, “You cannot, not deal with climate change as a health issue, as a moral issue, and as a civil rights issue.” — see video

Oh yes you can “not deal with climate change,” if you are mayor of Baltimore issuing stand down orders giving rioters “space to destroy,” loot and burn – scorched earth. But it is desirable to “not to deal with it”. As a moral issue, their strategy is lying. Only for the right reasons, I suppose.

Civil rights? Well, if the Climate Caliphate does not get their way they make it a living hell. But it’s the government pushing it. Civil rights activism is usually standing up for people against oppression and discrimination, not endorsing them. What happened to speaking truth to power? They shout down, threaten, bully, stifle and destroy opponents.

Here we go again. I wonder how much Al’s making for the Climate Change gig while he’s been destroying our political climate for decades — what is really warming. I know, Al heard it was the “green agenda” so he said “that’s my agenda!” Al goes Ozone for that. “Preach it, Rev Al.”

Incensed by the use of “Evil”-pt 3 of 3

Say a doctor treats a man with Aids but ignores the disease he is stricken with and its nature. No doctor would do that. It is akin to treating the symptoms and not the disease to ignore the evil nature and its factor. Granted it may not win you points with Muslims(or fellow academics), but one withholds or censors the term evil at his/her peril.

Column continued: Is Isis Evil? 3rd part — [see 2 ; 1]

We can analyze the ways its violent tactics are effective for its purposes given the local power dynamics, so that we can also better understand its weak spots. And we can ask how it is that normal men — men who were not born evil — get turned into monsters, so that we can work to change the structures that produce terrorists over the long-term instead of locking ourselves into an endlessly repeated, short-term policy of “killing fanatics” until they are gone.

Trying to understand something isn’t the same as trying to justify or excuse it. That’s a basic mistake, and a costly one.

As Jane Harman, president of the Woodrow International Center for Scholars, recently wrote: “We can’t counter radical narratives if we don’t understand the motives of the radicalized.”

Nonetheless, trying to understand evil is an offense. It is an offense to everything we hold dear, because understanding — that is, true and effective understanding — must bring us close to the other, must help us see the world through their eyes.

That is a painful, offensive process, and that is exactly what we must do.

See: http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/22/opinion/dawes-isis-evil/

We can analyze the ways its violent tactics are effective for its purposes given the local power dynamics, so that we can also better understand its weak spots. And we can ask how it is that normal men — men who were not born evil — get turned into monsters, so that we can work to change the structures that produce terrorists over the long term instead of locking ourselves into an endlessly repeated, short-term policy of “killing fanatics” until they are gone.

What all is wrong with that? The government, military and CIA do analytics on their effectiveness and there are documentations. But if we do not have the leaders who act on those facts, we have our heads in the sand dunes. “Local power dynamics” is a problem.

You treat it as a social services matter, but this community(and ME region) has had these problems for many decades. Then you expect to “unmake” the results over their desires and will. If those in the neighborhood do not care, how can you undo a situation hundreds of years in the making? Generations of terrorists were weened on it.

We have also given them the incentives to improve and reform these “dynamics” but it falls on deaf ears. Apparently they don’t want to and have reasons to do otherwise. Put it this way, some of them like it this way, some of them don’t, but yet another part that is interested in reform wants to amplify those same dynamics many times over.

It doesn’t take a majority, only a fractional faction hell bent on any means necessary to do it. Change the structures? The structures are just the way they like them — and not even big or bad enough for some. Blaming the structures brings us right back to blaming, or understanding something other than the central causes of terrorism. It is evil.

Trying to understand something isn’t the same as trying to justify or excuse it. That’s a basic mistake, and a costly one.

Oh yes it can be the same thing. Attempts at understanding can lead to rationalizations for why they do it, and lead you to error. Human beings are easily capable of such rationalizations. Thereby making excuses for the evil conduct.

As Jane Harman, president of the Woodrow International Center for Scholars, recently wrote: “We can’t counter radical narratives if we don’t understand the motives of the radicalized.”

Sounds nice. So we must argue against another academic. We do have to understand and know the nature of evil that drives them, too, and its source. But that includes recognizing the evil. Their motives are part of the evil we face.

Nonetheless, trying to understand evil is an offense. It is an offense to everything we hold dear, because understanding — that is, true and effective understanding — must bring us close to the other, must help us see the world through their eyes.

That is a painful, offensive process, and that is exactly what we must do.

I realized some limitations to understanding “evil”. But there is real danger in trying to understand the people who perpetrate and spread this evil and their sordid history, across borders — against those structural boundaries — absent the evil involved. Pain or not.

Summary:

He said that evil is inhuman so best not even try to understand it. But then he also wants to treat these people from a humane perspective to counter it. As if applied humane nature will overcome the inherent evil in them. Now there’s a fool’s errand. You don’t get it do you? How do you do that with people who’s military strategy is summed up in deception or lying? What are you really going to understand about them and their social fabric of evil woven throughout the region? People who put severed heads on spits do not generally offer much in the way of working therapy. When an animal is rabid we don’t just say let me find out why he got it? The first defense is to destroy it and find out where its been etc. And yes we do understand the disease of rabies and know what it can do, and take precautions.

Handling this as if it were some humanitarian social ill would be a mistake. We know what goes into it. Finally, ignoring the central factor of their radicalization, their religion, would be another huge mistake. Playing social worker with terrorists is not a treatment, it’s a recipe for disaster. And how many months or years would that take? We don’t have that kind of time, when the very humanity you savor hangs in the balance. When there seems to be more urgency for Ebola epidemic than there is for terrorism, something is askew. We do understand enough about that culture to know how it works. And then it uses the most powerful addiction on the planet, blood. What is there to understand about that? Let’s not over complicate it, and its evil.

What he is asking us to do is to play social worker and therapist, namely to people who hate us. I notice he didn’t offer any solutions other than ‘apply the ointment, liberally’.

We don’t have enough beds or an asylum large enough to house all these patients. That’s what he has done, converted them into patients —albeit unthinking sick ones.

Terrorism: “The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.” But we do not have a simple matter of terrorism. We have a religion sponsored, state-sponsored, caliphate-centric, political, ideologically rooted, Islam-driven terrorism.

From ABC:

That includes the U.S. government. “No one definition of terrorism has gained universal acceptance,” the State Department said in a report on world terrorism in 2000.

The key elements to terrorism are obvious to many — violence, non-combatant targets, intention of spreading fear, and political aims. But crafting a watertight, commonly accepted definition has proven difficult.

The State Department’s definition holds that only sub-national groups, not states themselves, can commit acts of terrorism. It states the violence must be politically motivated, but does not mention instilling or spreading fear.

The FBI looks to the Code of Federal Regulations definition: “The unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.”

“In a nutshell, [terrorism] is the threat and use of both psychological and physical force in violation of international law, by state and sub-state agencies for strategic and political goals,” says Yonah Alexander, a terrorism expert and director of the Institute for Studies in International Terrorism at the State University of New York.

“No ifs, ands, or buts,” he adds.

RightRing | Bullright

Incensed by the use of “Evil”- pt 2 of 3

In the second part he makes it clear he wants to separate undesirable “understanding” of evil from the preferable understanding of the terrorist culture, and their environment, etc. (Part 3 follows.)

Column continued: Is Isis Evil? 2nd of 3

The fact is, there are few things more dangerous now than allowing ourselves to think that way. [like Goldberg: “They’re evil. They do obviously evil things for evil ends.”]

To resist ISIS and, perhaps more importantly, the larger social forces it represents, the U.S. will need more than a collective psychological readiness to injure, and more than bombs.

The Wall Street Journal editorialized that this evil ideology will only be stopped when “enough of its fanatics have been killed.” But if we’ve learned anything as a nation since our “shock and awe” campaign in Iraq, it is this: While invasions and bombing can be effective in the short-term, they are not durable solutions to terror-based violence.

Even if U.S. military force could effectively destroy ISIS, there will be similar groups waiting in the wings. If we are to have any hope of preventing the spread of extremist ideologies, we must do more than bomb the believers. We must understand them. We must be willing to continue thinking.

How is ISIS able to achieve the support it needs? What drives people into its ranks? What social pressures and needs, what political and regional vacuums, make it possible for a group like this to thrive? We can choose to answer these questions in two ways.

We can say they are evil people doing evil things for evil ends. Or we can do the hard work of understanding the context that made them, so that we can create a context that makes them.

See: http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/22/opinion/dawes-isis-evil/

“The fact is, there are few things more dangerous now than allowing ourselves to think that way.”

Than like Goldberg: “They’re evil. They do obviously evil things for evil ends.” – I think denial and distractions are pretty dangerous. We haven’t heard why that is so dangerous.

To resist ISIS and, perhaps more importantly, the larger social forces it represents, the U.S. will need more than a collective psychological readiness to injure, and more than bombs.

So he’s leading to his big point. We do need all our assets, but to leave out an important one of calling something what it is and identifying it psychologically and strategically is key. That is before those bombs are dropped. Dismissing the sinister evil nature of it gets us nowhere.

Even if U.S. military force could effectively destroy ISIS, there will be similar groups waiting in the wings. If we are to have any hope of preventing the spread of extremist ideologies, we must do more than bomb the believers. We must understand them. We must be willing to continue thinking.

Yes, we keep thinking and they keep plotting, undeterred. Sound like a plan? We don’t have to prove the better thinkers, we have to prove to be ready and denial is not a strategy. We already are planning and thinking, so are they. Our ability and readiness are a deterrent. Has history not taught you want it can take to end that? Force is about the only thing they understand. A new one rises, so what is the alternative?

How is ISIS able to achieve the support it needs? What drives people into its ranks? What social pressures and needs, what political and regional vacuums, make it possible for a group like this to thrive? We can choose to answer these questions in two ways.

It’s the questions, stupid. They are loaded, try unpacking them. We see and know how its possible, more importantly so do they. Their hatred and religion are the driving dynamics. Those are two obstacles in your path. Now you show me your protocol for that, since you believe in it so much, and I may start listening. Either deal with that or live in denial.

We can say they are evil people doing evil things for evil ends.[Goldberg] Or we can do the hard work of understanding the context that made them, so that we can create a context that unmakes them.

I wanted to laugh and couldn’t. “Hard work of understanding the context”? Well, do you know the context of the last 1400 years, which might have something to do with this repetition thing? We understand if we paid attention. Do you understand their context of warfare and deception being sacred things? Do you understand their tenants to lie as necessary to pursue and achieve their age-old goals, that context? Or is some other fabricated one in your own mind or someone else’s, which claims to have caused this?

What context or circumstances? Well, maybe we could undo the entire civilized world to satisfy them. Or maybe we could just accept their rules for the world to appease them – give it over to them? That might work. But outside that, you don’t have a plan, or even a theory either, on how to unmake this evil incarnate. Get it yet? We are back to examining symptoms not dealing with the disease.

First off any real solution for it would have to come from within. Except last I checked, Islam does not self-correct. Its the dirty little secret no one wants to mention. And trying to sterilize this barbaric terrorism from Islam is like trying to separate Naziism from The Third Reich. Btw, an awful lot of people have already devoted countless time and energy to this problem. You are not the first one to come along, but might be the most recent to whistle past the graveyard.

Our great tool is right here in the idea sphere. But as long as we are saying things like understanding and what is their reasons for radicalization we are wasting our time. Been there done that. If we don’t understand the central radical factor, you miss the point and end up in denial.

Part 3 follows…

RightRing | Bullright

Incensed by the use of “Evil”

Should we use the term or shouldn’t we, and why?
Have we gone that far? Yep.

This is obviously an important subject but also provocative. There may not be simple answers but there might be limitations on conversation, at least with liberals. Here is my attempt at the topic, which is also a rebuttal to a column on CNN.

I soon realized others have taken issue with it, and one a conservative he singled out in it. I didn’t read the others until after. I included them below in case you want to check them out too. The subject deserves consideration. (It is three parts) You can read his entire column at link. But it could irk you, as liberal academics do.

Should we call ISIS ‘evil’?

By James Dawes | August 22, 2014

Editor’s note: James Dawes, director of the Program in Human Rights at Macalester College in St. Paul, Minnesota, is the author of “Evil Men” (Harvard University Press). The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author.

(CNN) — When most people look at ISIS, they see the incarnation of evil. Among its many horrific acts, the Islamic militant group beheaded American journalist James Foley and posted the video this week in retaliation for U.S. airstrikes in Iraq. The Pope typically protests violence, but he implied that he supports the use of military force to combat ISIS. Even al Qaeda says ISIS is too violent. Across the political spectrum, public officials and pundits have characterized them as “savages,” a “cancer” and the “face of evil.”

Is ISIS evil?

The problem with that question is that the answer is as easy as it is useless. Yes, ISIS is evil and must be stopped. Saying so over and over again could very well make it harder to stop them.

There is only one good reason to denounce a group as evil — because you plan to injure them, and calling them evil makes it psychologically easier to do so. “Evil” is the most powerful word we have to prepare ourselves to kill other people comfortably.

The flip side is that “evil” is also a word that stops us from thinking.

There is no point in trying to understand evil because it is, in the most typical phrasing, “inhuman,” “senseless” or “beyond comprehension.” It is a fool’s quest to analyze the local realities and strategic imperatives of unthinking savages. There is something almost offensive about trying to understand such evil.

National Review’s Jonah Goldberg tried to shame those who are trying to think seriously about ISIS. In a recent tweet, he mocked the attempt to understand ISIS in its social and political context, suggesting that we should focus instead on one fact: “They’re evil. They do obviously evil things for evil ends.”

See: http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/22/opinion/dawes-isis-evil/

The first paragraph generally gets a pass as fairly matter-of-fact.

The word evil may get tossed around, but I think most people know it when they see it.

“Easy” to call it evil, but “useless?” I don’t agree. Their acts speak for themselves, and useless? The repeated use of the term evil makes it “harder to stop them”? So the answer is to stop using the term, so we can stop them. Say what? Thus, evil is a useless descriptor. I think he expects one to make a case just for using the term.

Now be careful about making all-inclusive statements:

There is only one good reason to denounce a group as evil — because you plan to injure them, and calling them evil makes it psychologically easier to do so. “Evil” is the most powerful word we have to prepare ourselves to kill other people comfortably.

Only one reason? I disagree. There are more than one reason. He is saying our use of the term is based on our intent. He ascribes our motives and intent to the use of the word. What about the evil ISIS? (he’s more concerned with us) A “powerful word”? It’s a powerful concept or force.

I have called some things evil without feeling the reflex to kill them. Likewise, a hunter shoots an animal not because he sees it as evil. I used the term about someone’s actions for years, but never, ever had a desire to kill or harm them. It surely was not my motive for using the word. Wrong. At times I did not wish them the best, that’s quite different. Even if there were reasons not to use the term, one needs to call something what it is – not based on what you want to do to it. So that doesn’t work, nor is it 100% correct. A motive might be to call attention to it or a person, or an effort to demonize them; but that is not an effort to go string them up on a tree. There is room and need for calling some things or people evil though, it is not meaningless.

There are legitimate reasons to oppose and fight it based on what it is. It is a moral repugnance. The ISIS evil is not just a criminal offense either. Anger is justifiable.

“The flip side is that “evil” is also a word that stops us from thinking.”

Use of the word stops me from thinking? Ludicrous and wrong. Now maybe evil nature could prevent its host from thinking? Just suppose it gets easier for these people to do what they’re doing without thinking — searing off any conscience. Isn’t that more the case? And people have given a lot of thought to opposing evil, even predicting its moves. Maybe some are obsessed about understanding it? That is reason to be careful trying to fully understand it. I would agree there is a danger inherent in trying to understand it that: to understand evil is to excuse it[LM]. The point is in trying to understand it you can rationalize reasons for it.

Apparently there is no point trying to understand evil:

There is no point in trying to understand evil because it is, in the most typical phrasing, “inhuman,” “senseless” or “beyond comprehension.” It is a fool’s quest to analyze the local realities and strategic imperatives of unthinking savages. There is something almost offensive about trying to understand such evil.

I don’t believe understanding is the cure. However, no point trying because it is inhuman? That’s pretty absurd. I’m not looking for explanations though. We have enough of that and call it what it is. I agree that what these people are doing is inhuman — what I call anti-human. But that doesn’t change the evil nature. Islamic terrorists are biologically humans. Savages, yes – unthinking, no. But they are taught and aspire to this evil. Sure they have turned themselves into barbaric animals. True some evil is beyond our comprehension and understanding — which is why the objective is not to understand it. Many people do not want to get into the mindset of that evil, and probably never will, but that does not make inquiry irrelevant. From one extreme to the other.

So are Islamic terrorists just zombies incapable of cognitive thought? No. We see what they do think about. They are actively establishing and running a caliphate – of evil but a caliphate. It takes some scheming evil thought.

Then don’t even consider their strategic imperatives? Is that asinine? Are we supposed to be numb to it or zombies ourselves? Of course you have to consider its strategy. And it wants to kill us as part of its grand strategy. But don’t bother with that.

“It is a fool’s quest to analyze the local realities and strategic imperatives of unthinking savages. There is something almost offensive about trying to understand such evil”

The reasoning here seems to be not to label it evil. Maybe this type of sinister illusion prevents its defining, and the application? Maybe a waste of time is what human nature would like us to think? At least know enough to guard against and predict it as possible.

I remember many people taking the criminal approach to terrorism pre-9/11. But possibly that itself is a passive participation in evil, to dismiss it as just another criminal deed.(that requires ignoring a lot) People do grow tired of an overuse of a term. As they say: “all that is needed for evil to flourish is that good men do nothing”. How would you fight something without understanding what it is?

I have a huge problem with other words there, like calling them unthinking. Now we have gone from one extreme to another — from scheming evil to unthinking. In fact, it would appear that a lot of thought goes into their actions. And there is a deliberate nature to it. It is actually work to do what these savages do. But unthinking? Unaware of what they are doing? I don’t think either works. It seems as systematic as what Nazis were doing. Then there is the political motives, which are at the very definition of terrorism. And not for one minute would I ascribe that they didn’t know what they are doing. Just the opposite, they incorporate a psychological propaganda campaign designed to affect their opponents.

Something offensive about trying to understand such evil. We should be offended by it, it is evil after all. But calling understanding a fool’s errand? We had to understand some of what created Hitler and the Third Reich did, and its nature, to see it doesn’t take hold again. After WWII, the Germans were led through the camps to see what their society had done. It is called denial. I”m certain it left many with questions how all this came to be? And who exactly permitted it? Crushing and tough questions.

I find that people who refuse or don’t want to use the term evil have an agenda , and often a reason for it. To recap, he has attacked both sides: he attacked using the word, and also attacked even trying to understand it. Though he did admit the evil involved. That would be hard for a person with a new book on Evil Men to deny. Well, he would not want to deny evil, having written on it. But don’t bother trying to understand it, something that is inhuman. When evil inhabits men then humanity is involved. That’s a different story from understanding perps and terrorists’ social culture.

In no particular order, here are the bullet points:

• Do not use the word – evil.
• Do not even try to understand it.
• Will make you stop thinking.
• Using it will cause us to lose the battle
• The only reason to use the word is to kill the person or thing.
• Don’t consider its strategy or goals
• It is offensive to try to understand it
• He criticizes the ‘evil is as evil does’ notion

As background, I include a statement about his book Evil Men. His description gives a flavor for his treatment of the subject. But he is talking about evil men, not ideology or ideas, and apparently labeled them evil based on their deeds.

As readers, what are we to do when we read such testimony? Can torture narratives teach us anything? Isn’t the endless circling around stories of atrocities a form of obscenity itself? When does the fight for justice and truth end and human rights pornography begin? Evil Men is painful to read. Horror and terror are etched into every page. Atrocities are reflected upon – sometimes calmly; other times with cold fury. The book’s author, James Dawes, forces us to think carefully about the ethics of telling stories – true ones – about acts of staggering cruelty. Disturbingly, it is a book about friendship, too. When we are brought face to face with men who raped, tortured and murdered men, women and children, where should we look? Straight into their eyes, he advises.

Other columns:

Jonah Goldberg’s rebuttal None Dare Call It Evil?

Kevin Jackson also takes him to task:CNN writer implies calling ISIS evil is a bad idea

Conservative Firing Line took issue with him Liberal cautions that U.S. faces a danger in calling ISIS ‘evil’

Part 2
RightRing | Bullright

Peru: sterilization charges dropped on fmr President

Hadn’t seen this till now, from months ago. Plus a look back at golden years. (as some view them)

Fujimori cleared in sterilization case

AP Frank Bajak conntributed to this report | January 25, 2014

Alberto Fujimori at Andrews Air Force Base in 1998 Wikipedia

LIMA, Peru (AP) — Peruvian prosecutors say they have dropped a criminal investigation against former President Alberto Fujimori and health ministers who served under him over a 1990s mass sterilization program under which thousands of women say they were forcibly sterilized.

The probe had been re-opened in 2011 under pressure from the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. But in a statement Friday, prosecutor Marco Guzman said he had shelved the inquiry against Fujimori and 26 former high-ranking officials after deciding that no crime against humanity had been committed.

Sigfredo Florian, a lawyer representing the victims, said they would appeal and referred to the forced sterilization case of Mamerita Mestanza. “Only four low-ranking provincial doctors have been accused in the 1998 death of the peasant Mestanza,” Florian said. “And not taken into account were the 140 volumes of evidence from the complaints of the other 2,074 peasant women” who say their tubal ligations were coerced.

Mestanza, a 33-year-old mother of seven, died in 1996 after being pressured into the surgery. Peru had agreed to pay more than $100,000 to Mestanza’s survivors and guarantee her children free education through high school as well as free medical care. But the Inter-American commission, dissatisfied that the settlement was not honored, pressed for a criminal probe.

Fujimori, now imprisoned for corruption and authorizing death squads, claims the sterilizations from 1995 to 2000 of more than 300,000 mostly poor, illiterate indigenous women were voluntary. The women say they were deceived, browbeaten, threatened with jail, bribed with food parcels and otherwise pressured into the operations to meet program quotas.

Activists say that besides being forced, the sterilizations were often carried out in unsanitary conditions. They documented 18 cases of women who, like Mestanza, died of infections shortly after surgery.

Mestanza had been told she needed to be sterilized because women who gave birth to more than seven children were being imprisoned, according to the settlement. In the annals of government-sanctioned involuntary sterilizations, Peru’s appear to be among the biggest in modern history, also affecting nearly 25,000 men.

Fujimori boasted that it dropped Peru’s birth rate from 3.7 children per woman in 1990 to 2.7 children a decade later. Officials of Fujimori’s government claimed any excesses were the fault of overzealous local medical authorities. But the program was so controversial that the U.S. Congress cut aid payments to Peru that had been used to fund the program.

After Fujimori’s government fell in a 2000 corruption scandal, lawmakers initially recommended genocide charges against the president. That probe was shelved in 2009 after prosecutors determined the statute of limitations had run out on the alleged crimes of serious bodily injury and manslaughter.

Reproductive rights activists claimed, however, that the sterilizations constituted a crime against humanity due to their scale and systematic nature.

 

This took place in the 1990’s and all these years later they decide ‘not enough evidence’ and drop the charges. Sounds suspicious considering the scale. So this was going on while Clinton was in office. Better yet, we had an aid program that even funded it.

There were sterilizations from 1995 to 2000 of more than 300,000 women. But that wasn’t so bad and and they see no crimes here. Nothing to see.

From Wikipedia: (had support, including that American aide funding)

The 1991 Barrios Altos massacre by members of the death squad Grupo Colina, made up of members of the Peruvian Armed Forces, was one of the crimes cited in the request for his extradition submitted by the Peruvian government to Japan in 2003.

From 1996 to 2000, the Fujimori government oversaw a massive family planning campaign known as Voluntary Surgical Contraception. The United Nations and other international aid agencies supported this campaign. The Nippon Foundation, headed by Ayako Sono, a Japanese novelist and personal friend of Fujimori, supported as well. Nearly 300,000, mostly indigenous, women were coercively or forcefully sterilized during these years.

This illustrates the evils of celebrated contraception and birth control programs. At least he was charged on death squads and corruption. Yet while the forced sterilization program was in full force, it received funding from the US and glowing support of the UN.

He is still serving 25 years for death squads and corruption. But sterilization charges and the government enforcers are off the hook.

Although rife with corruption and politics resembling third world class, he was credited with economic reforms and continues to have a popular following. Interesting that his administration played out while Clinton was in office. Clintons benefited from the economy and Republicans’ fiscal policies, and still enjoyed popularity despite all the scandals and their brand of politics. Even now many people nostalgically look back at the golden Clinton years. There are some parallels.

RightRing | Bullright

Pakistan church blast kills dozens

BBC – reports
22 September 2013

A twin-suicide bombing outside a church in Peshawar in Pakistan has killed at least 75 people, in one of the worst attacks on Christians in the country.

Two bombers blew themselves up as worshippers were coming out of the city’s historic All Saints church after attending Sunday Mass, police say.

Relatives of the victims gathered at the scene to protest against the government’s failure to protect them.

Militants linked to Pakistani Taliban have said they carried out the bombing.

The group, Jandullah, said it was in retaliation US drone strikes in Pakistan’s tribal northwest.

Sunday’s twin attacks targeted Peshawar’s historic All Saints Church as hundreds of worshippers were attending Mass.

More: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-24193734

Snowden’s faith in Obama was rocked

Snowden had ‘faith’ in Obama, but was disappointed

By JENNIFER EPSTEIN — Politico

6/17/13

 Edward Snowden says he decided to release classified information about national security surveillance after President Obama failed to live up to his 2008 campaign promises.

“Obama’s campaign promises and election gave me faith that he would lead us toward fixing the problems he outlined in his quest for votes,” Snowden said in a Monday question-and-answer session with readers of The Guardian. “Many Americans felt similarly.”

“Unfortunately,” he continued, “shortly after assuming power, [Obama] closed the door on investigating systemic violations of law, deepened and expanded several abusive programs, and refused to spend the political capital to end the kind of human rights violations like we see in Guantanamo, where men still sit without charge.” 

Sounds like that snowball of Snowden’s turned into a boulder, sitting on his shoulder.
And Obama’s ‘campaign blame’ is getting a dose of his own medicine.

No lack of politicking from pulpits

Can’t get no, can’t get no… satisfaction … no, no, no. [part 1]

I never imagined saying this, but our problem today does not stem from a lack of taking on political issues from the pulpit. No. Wait; hold the tomatoes! It’s just that when they do mention anything related to politics, it is mostly a sanitized politically correct view. I know that is not every church or pulpit. Some pastors treat social issues equally serious.

But many pastors and clergy who will not talk about something in any way related to politics often do find their voice, but on other political matters. One could make a list: social justice, peace, being thy brother’s keeper, not judging others, not using certain outdated labels that may sound offensive, tolerance, and so on. So it is just so-called hot button issues they will not talk about – i.e. abortion, gay marriage, etc. Is that what we are called to do, effectively “screen” our speech? And to do it for political correctness?

(Note: keep in mind that I had written this a while ago, over a year, as the elections were still heating up)

I recently got schooled from the pulpit about vocal support and candidate endorsements. The sermon was basically we should “be very cautious about endorsing” in politics. (one notable Texas pastor’s endorsement of Perry was Exhibit A) You can read into that, ‘you ought to refrain from publicly endorsing politics or candidates’. You would be reading my mind too. The basis was probably meant as endorsing from the pulpit but there it was in broad daylight, an anti-activism type message to Christians.

It is far deeper than just candidate endorsements of clergy from the pulpit, the same principle is then applied to all politics and all of us. Message: stay clear of politics. You also might correctly assume the basis for all this was ‘render to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s’. The actual passage and I’ll give various scriptures:

Mark 12:15-17
But Jesus knew their hypocrisy. “Why are you trying to trap me?” he asked. “Bring me a denarius and let me look at it.” 16 They brought the coin, and he asked them, “Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?”

“Caesar’s,” they replied.

17 Then Jesus said to them, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.”

Matt 17:24-27
Capernaum, the collectors of the two-drachma tax came to Peter and asked, “Doesn’t your teacher pay the temple tax?”

25 “Yes, he does,” he replied.

When Peter came into the house, Jesus was the first to speak. “What do you think, Simon?” he asked. “From whom do the kings of the earth collect duty and taxes — from their own sons or from others?”

26 “From others,” Peter answered.

“Then the sons are exempt,” Jesus said to him. 27 “But so that we may not offend them, go to the lake and throw out your line. Take the first fish you catch; open its mouth and you will find a four-drachma coin. Take it and give it to them for my tax and yours.”

This is usually the reference used

Matt 22:17-21
17 Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not?”

18 But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, “You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? 19 Show me the coin used for paying the tax.” They brought him a denarius, 20 and he asked them, “Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?”

21 “Caesar’s,” they replied.

Then he said to them, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.”

Of course, many use that latter exchange to broadly lecture us to “Give to Caesar’s what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.” Thus, since this politics stuff is rendered Caesar’s turf now, it all therefore belongs to him. “Go back to your prayer closet, Christians.” The truth is our life and rights come from God. With that we have some responsibility. We are accountable to God. And we are responsible for our leadership, and choices.

Something similar may unfold in the Middle East, in countries where people are crawling out from under brutal dictators. We might sympathize with them but they could be headed down a tough road – do they know it? That is, if as they say claims are true that they strive for democracy. Whether that is really the case or not, let us accept that premise for now. They might discover the ideal is not as simple as it sounds. They will share some responsibility for their democracy at some point. Then, they cannot just blame a tyrant and authorities for the results. They will have to accept some blame for problems and consequences, or reap credit when things go well. So they might have a few surprises ahead, such as accountability. It will not be easy for those who have not experienced “freedom” before. Providing they get that far … and that is their goal.

We have the example of Jesus crucifixion. Remember Pilate washed his hands of the deed, or tried to, in as much as the event was already in process. He wanted to escape responsibility for Jesus’ death. Though we still associate Pilate with Jesus’ crucifixion. In Acts, the apostles made it known to political elites that they had a shared responsibility for His death. That was not a convenient message they wanted to hear, and it did not tickle their ears. In fact, they wanted to shut down the apostles for that reason. It made them look bad. Some people suggest “…but we must keep clear of politics.” But we can see in Christ’s time the air was thick with politics.

The Sadducees didn’t care much for the resurrection message; and the apostles didn’t care to be silenced by political pressure. The point is the apostles did not stop preaching, even as it was seen as a form of political speech and dissent with powers that be. On the contrary, they prayed and with the help of the Holy Spirit grew bolder in speaking out. (even to those who sent Jesus to his death)

I don’t read those events as an example to stifle or tone down one’s message to suit elite politicos, and cede one’s virtue to authorities or powers that be. Likewise, those cautious clergy today never suggest taking a silent approach on, say, the “social justice” agenda. They endorse that. The social justice advocates will demand taking a bold approach to preferred “social issues” – just not certain others – while likening their stand to bold traditional Christian activism.

So my instinctive reaction about ceding certain aspects, political issues or turf to powers that be – under the guise of giving to Caesar what is his – is to remember Pilate. Are we to reject our own responsibility for the circumstances we are in and our God-given rights, remaining silent, then try to wash our hands of the blame for the results in view of the consequences? That would be slightly hypocritical, wouldn’t it? Should we render to Caesar the all-encompassing political turf, stifling our conscience or virtue, and cede all “controversial” social matters to his authority? Politics have usurped cultural matters

Our first allegiance is still to God. If I silence my voice, or cede to status quo those matters over to political authorities or others, I cannot escape accountability. I still bear some responsibility for the outcome. So what then about what we owe God?

The double standards are amplified when the pulpits do talk about their pet issues, social justice and peace. They want to do that “loudly and proudly”. Seriously, are the rest of us demanding injustice, or are we actively opposing peace just for the sake of it? It’s been a while since I attended a good anti-peace march, or a rally against justice. Sorry, I never did and don’t know anyone who has. But I somehow am vehemently against peace and justice according to them, if you follow their accusation to its logical conclusion. That is, to follow their entire “social justice” agenda – as they define it. In fact, they actually posit in their rhetoric that, unless we jump aboard their political agenda, we must be anti-peace or anti-social justice. Many Christians resent that insinuation but it does exist. Many Christians have signed on to that. (one only has to look at the [message of churches])

It’s like that with “99-percenters”, Wall Street Occupiers. They point to everyone outside that 1 percentile of wealth as part of the 99% they speak for. Thus, we must be part of that 1%, then, if we don’t agree with their agenda. I think there are more than 1% of us who look past this fallacy and their unreasonable approach. Some Christians are disgusted by these political tactics. But many buy into them.

When I hear preachers and leftists claim their staunch support for social justice, I wonder who is opposed to justice? It must need a whole lot of defending. Of course, their subjective, ever-evolving definition of “social justice” holds the real key to them.(and we are beholden to their definition) But in simple and clear terms, supporting true justice or peace is a no-brainer. Who could really disagree? We can support justice. It’s a fallacy that we do not.

However, many of these passionate advocates are reluctant to take on matters of abortion, gay marriage, or state-sponsored euthanasia from the pulpits. (all presently ensconced in politics) Their ‘passion pond’ dries up quickly. Statistics are reserved for issues like war or hunger. No, those “political” issues are too controversial. “Better to wash our hands of those. We don’t want the stains that come with those.” In doing so, they advise the flock to leave those “cultural” matters alone. But if their advocacy were not so lopsided and full of double standards, it probably would look much different.

We may better ask if we are really cheating God and not rendering to God what is His? And are we giving Caesar more power authority and control than he should have? Those questions do not seem to come up.

Today, rendering to Caesar not just what is his but what he wants is far more popular and convenient than giving to God what is God’s.

The message is clear: “everything will be fine if you just leave those divisive, controversial, cultural matters alone.” Leave that all to Caesar. Otherwise, full steam ahead. Some see all this as “a culture war”, but I think it’s more like ‘cultural survival of the best fit’, to compliant Christians.

So some clergy can keep right on making blanket disclaimers about not endorsing any specific political candidates or Party politics. But they will likely keep right on endorsing specific “preferred” political issues .

Part 2 to follow
(continued- Part 2 )

Churches call for Congressional investigation into aid to Israel

 

The NY Times is reporting that a group of Christian churches are asking Congress to investigate and hold hearings on US aid to Israel, due to what they call human rights abuses toward Palestinians.

It also reports that while they claim both sides are responsible for problems, they only call for an investigation “into Israel’s activities.”.

Church Appeal on Israel Angers Jewish Groups

By LAURIE GOODSTEIN
Published: October 20, 2012

“The controversy began on Oct. 5, when the Christian groups sent a letter urging Congress to hold hearings into whether Israel was violating the terms for foreign aid recipients. The Christian leaders wrote that they had “witnessed widespread Israeli human rights violations against the Palestinians, including killing of civilians, home demolitions and forced displacement, and restrictions on Palestinian movement.”
/…
The signers, besides the Presbyterians, included leaders of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the United Methodist Church, the National Council of Churches, the United Church of Christ, the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), the American Friends Service Committee (a Quaker agency) and the Mennonite Central Committee. Two Catholic leaders also signed, one with the Conference of Major Superiors of Men, an umbrella group of men’s religious orders. “

The Christian leaders’ letter acknowledged that both Israelis and Palestinians had suffered, and that both sides bore responsibility. But it called for an investigation into only Israel’s activities.

The Jewish leaders said such an approach was a double standard. The Palestinian Authority also receives foreign aid from the United States and has also been accused of rights violations, they said.

“Where’s the letter to Congress about Syria, which is massacring its own people?” said Rabbi Steven Wernick, the chief executive of the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism. “When Israel is the only one that is called to account, that’s when it becomes problematic.”

The letter says
U.S. churches and religious organizations committed to seeking a just peace for Israelis and Palestinians. [in closing]

Unfortunately, unconditional U.S. military assistance to Israel has contributed to this deterioration, sustaining the conflict and undermining the long-term security interests of both Israelis and Palestinians. This is made clear in the most recent 2011 State Department Country Report on Human Rights Practices covering Israel and the Occupied Territories1, which details widespread Israeli human rights violations committed against Palestinian civilians, many of which involve the misuse of U.S.-supplied weapons.

Accordingly, we urge an immediate investigation into possible violations by Israel of the U.S. Foreign Assistance Act and the U.S. Arms Export Control Act which respectively prohibit assistance to any country which engages in a consistent pattern of human rights violations and limit the use of U.S. weapons2 to “internal security” or “legitimate self-defense.”3 More broadly, we urge Congress to undertake careful scrutiny to ensure that our aid is not supporting actions by the government of Israel that undermine prospects for peace. We urge Congress to hold hearings to examine Israel’s compliance, and we request regular reporting on compliance and the withholding of military aid for non-compliance.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/21/us/church-appeal-on-israel-angers-jewish-groups.html?hp&_r=1&

________________________________________________________

Israel Seizes Pro-Palestinian Activist Ship off Gaza

Saturday, 20 Oct 2012

The Israeli navy seized an international pro-Palestinian activist ship on the Mediterranean high seas on Saturday to prevent it breaching Israel’s blockade of the Gaza Strip, a military spokeswoman said.

She said no one was hurt when marines boarded the SV Estelle, a three-mast schooner, and that it was rerouted to the Israeli port of Ashdod after it ignored orders to turn away from the Hamas-governed Palestinian enclave.

Read more on Newsmax.com: Israel Seizes Pro-Palestinian Activist Ship off Gaza