“He that takes truth for his guide, and duty for his end, may safely trust to God’s providence to lead him aright.” – Blaise Pascal. "There is but one straight course, and that is to seek truth and pursue it steadily" – George Washington letter to Edmund Randolph — 1795. We live in a “post-truth” world. According to the dictionary, “post-truth” means, “relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief.” Simply put, we now live in a culture that seems to value experience and emotion more than truth. Truth will never go away no matter how hard one might wish. Going beyond the MSM idealogical opinion/bias and their low information tabloid reality show news with a distractional superficial focus on entertainment, sensationalism, emotionalism and activist reporting – this blogs goal is to, in some small way, put a plug in the broken dam of truth and save as many as possible from the consequences—temporal and eternal. "The further a society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those who speak it." – George Orwell “There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn’t true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true.” ― Soren Kierkegaard
The Equality Act is unlike any other bill before Congress. Most legislation is meant to spark debate and help unite our country around a common purpose. With this bill, though, the radical Left has revealed it no longer cares about simply winning the debate. Rather, the Left wants to stop the debate from ever happening.
When members of Congress first introduced the Equality Act, which will likely be voted on this week, President Joe Biden strongly supported the bill, asserting that “every person should be treated with dignity and respect.” That is, everyone except those who disagree with the revolutionary aims of the legislation. And despite being named the “Equality Act,” the law further entrenches unequal treatment for the most vulnerable among us, putting their lives at risk.
At a time when America is suffering from deep divisions and the president himself has made impassioned pleas for national unity, the Equality Act appears designed to stoke conflict. It violates both the reason and conscience of every single American who fails to affirm the most extreme dogmas of the farthest fringes of the modern Left. The bill would provide public funding for left-wing social engineering and use the force of the state to silence debate on the most contentious issues of our time. It would also open the door to unprecedented funding for the abortion industry.
Let’s look at abortion. Gone are the days when pro-abortion politicians demanded the so-called “right” to an abortion. It is no longer enough that killing one’s child is upheld as a constitutional right—now your neighbors must pay for it. The Equality Act requires all federal and state health programs, along with every hospital, clinic, school or health care organization that receives federal funds, to stop what it calls “pregnancy discrimination” and provide access to all “treatments” for the “condition” of pregnancy.
Federal law already bars discrimination against pregnant mothers. What the bureaucratese in the Equality Act actually means is that sustaining a pregnancy must be treated exactly the same as ending a pregnancy. Providing an ultrasound for a mother to see her baby’s hands and hear her baby’s heart would be considered no different than committing an abortion that stops a baby’s heart and forcibly removes a baby’s hands, head and limbs from his mother’s womb piece by agonizing piece.
Liberals believe that individuals can do little and that solving the problem requires changing the systems. Whereas conservatives believe that to solve the problems even in the systems means changing the people who are caught up in them.
Last week we had a post about how some on the right and some on the left are showing some agreement when it comes to issues of war, donor protection, and political correctness. But obviously there are big differences between those two factions, and even when they agree on an issue, they often do so for different reasons.
So what are the different values and assumptions that the two sides are working from? And what are the different interests, ideologies, and worldviews that give rise to those values and assumptions?
These are big questions, which we cannot fully think through in one blog post, but two recent articles that I have read can get us started.
She asks why Americans of any stripe would be in any way supportive of old world monarchs and aristocracies, but she notes that in the aftermath of that interview, liberals were expressing support for Meghan as a victim of racism and other kinds of mistreatment from her royal in-laws, whereas American conservatives were expressing support for the royal family and skepticism about the complaints of this fabulously wealthy and privileged celebrity.
My own response–shaped too by watching The Crown–was to marvel that most of us lowly peasants, for all of our troubles, are evidently far happier than the members of this dysfunctional family who enjoy the highest social status, untold wealth, and enormous political power. And how this should be a lesson to us all about the pursuit of status, wealth, and power. But I digress. . .
Weiss asks why conservatives, in particular, who profess to adhere to the principles of the Founders–who, we might remember, staged a revolution against the monarchy–would take the Windsor’s side. I was expecting to read another diatribe against conservatives for not really holding to what they say they believe, but instead her article took a different turn. The different reactions to the issues aired in that interview simply demonstrate the differences in how liberals and conservatives approach problems.
Liberals, she says, tend to see problems in terms of systems. Whereas conservatives tend to see problems in terms of personal responsibility.
Liberals saw Meghan’s difficulties as manifestations of large, impersonal forces: systemic racism and sexism towards a biracial woman; the conformist pressures of the British class system and Royal tradition; the psychological stress of celebrity culture fueled by an intrusive media.
Conservatives saw Meghan as an incredibly privileged individual, whose complaints about perceived slights pale before the real-world problems of most non-titled people, including actual victims of racism. Yes, being in the royal family has its demands, forcing its members to sometimes put aside their own desires out of a sense of duty for the higher good. That simply shows that Britain’s constitutional monarchy is about more than personal aggrandizement. As for Meghan’s complaints about the media violating her privacy, they don’t ring true in a globally-broadcast TV show in which she spills her guts and her family’s secrets to Oprah. In doing so, she has damaged her family–including the Queen, whom she admits always treated her well–and her country.
“Prayer Is a Shield to the Soul” Romans 1:9–10; Colossians 1:9; 1 Thessalonians 5:17; 1 Timothy 5:5
Pray often, for prayer is a shield to the soul, a sacrifice to God, and a scourge for Satan.
Ritzema, E., & Vince, E. (Eds.). (2013). 300 Quotations for Preachers from the Puritans. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press.
Impossible to Be Humble and Trust in Our Righteousness Habakkuk 2:4; Matthew 23:25–28; Mark 12:38–39; Luke 18:9–14; 20:45–46; Romans 7:24
What means do we have of humbling ourselves, except by submitting, all poor and destitute, to the divine mercy? For I do not call it humility if we suppose that we have anything left. And until now they have taught a pernicious hypocrisy, who have connected these two maxims: that we should entertain humble thoughts of ourselves before God, and that we should attach some dignity to our own righteousness.
Ritzema, E. (2013). 300 Quotations for Preachers from the Reformation. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press.
22:14 “The-Lord-Will-Provide” is a play on the verb translated “provided.” The verb means basically “see,” as the English word “provide” is from the Latin, meaning “see beforehand.” God sees our need before it arises and makes provision for it.
22:14 The Lord will provide. The Hebrew word here translated “provide” means “see,” or “see to it” (used in vv. 4, 8, 13, 14). The name by which Abraham commemorates the event shows that he perceives God’s revelation of His saving purpose.
22:14the mountain of Yahweh it shall be provided God provides a sacrificial ram as a substitute for Isaac. In response, Abraham names the place yhwy yir’eh in Hebrew (which may be literally rendered “Yahweh will see”). The narrative immediately adds “it shall be provided,” a descriptive reference to the ram. Since the ram was God’s substitute upon “seeing” Abraham’s faith, “provided” is an appropriate translation.
22:14 Echoing Abraham’s earlier comment to Isaac in v. 8, the location is named The Lordwill provide. On the basis of this, the belief developed (as it is said to this day) that God would provide the sacrifice necessary to atone for sin. the mount of the Lord. This probably denotes the hill on which the temple was later built in Jerusalem (see Isa. 2:3).
22:14 — And Abraham called the name of the place, The-Lord-Will-Provide; as it is said to this day, “In the Mount of the Lord it shall be provided.”
The Lord will provide—always. He may surprise us, He may perplex us, He may make us wait. But He will always provide exactly what we need, when we need it.
22:14 The wonderful name The-Lord–Will-Provide is developed from the faith statement of Abraham to Isaac in v. 8. Compare the name of faith that Hagar gave to the Lord, “The-God-Who-Sees” (16:13). As God provided a ram instead of Abraham’s son, so one day He would provide His own Son! Moriah is where Jerusalem and later the temple were built. And it was at Jerusalem that the Savior would die.
Ver. 14. Abraham called the name of that place Jehovah-jireh.—The Lord will provide:—
The Lord will provide for the body. Temporal blessings, no less than spiritual, come to us through the medium of the covenant of grace.
The Lord will provide food for the body. He will bring round the seasons without fail, and make corn to grow for the service of man.
The Lord will provide raiment for His people. For forty years in the wilderness, amid the wear and tear of journey and of battle, the raiment of the Israelites waxed not old because Jehovah provided for them; and doth He not still remember His own?
The Lord will provide for His people protection. Many times are they delivered in a most wonderful way, and to the astonishment of the world.
The Lord will provide for the soul.
Jehovah has provided a Lamb; in the gift of His Son we have the guarantee for the supply of every needed blessing.
The Lord will provide for you His Holy Spirit. The gift of the Spirit comes to us through the atonement of Christ, and the sufficiency of the Sacrifice entailed and implied the promise of the Spirit, so that He who hath provided the Lamb is confidently to be trusted for this also.
The Lord will provide for the soul an eternal home, as is clear from that word, “I go to prepare a place for you.” When the toils of life’s pilgrimage are over there remaineth a rest for the people of God. (J. Thain Davidson, D.D.)
This incident teaches—
God’s right to our greatest blessings.
Man’s duty in the highest trial.
God’s providence in the greatest emergency.
The provisions of the Divine interposition correspond exactly with human wants.
Its provisions are obtained in connection with individual agency.
III. Its provisions are often strikingly memorable. (Homilist.)
In the season of extremity, God appears for the relief of His people.
Severe trials are intended to prove the strength and purity of our faith. The Christian must walk by faith, not sight.
And may not another reason be, to stir us up to fervency in prayer?
We may also add, that the hand of God appears more obviously when He delivers just at the crisis of danger. Lesson: We need never despair of Divine help when we are pursuing the path of Christian obedience. (D. C. Lansing, D.D.)
The Lord our Provider, and none other:—
In the first place it is a fact. God will provide. It is His province. It is His, as the Lord. Providing is not the child’s, but the father’s business. Work as I may, care as I may, it is still the Lord who provides. I work and the Lord provides.
God does all His business thoroughly. Nothing that He ought to do, does He ever leave undone; and all that the Lord does, He does as God; not as man would do the thing, but as God alone can do it. If God provide, it must be in harmony with an eye that never sleeps, with hands that are ever working, with arms that are never weary, with a heart of paternal solicitude that never, never can change.
Then, observe, while providing is God’s business, He does it in a Godly style. There is no doubt about God’s plans being carried out. God has not pleased you always in the provision He has made; and yet the provision has been sure and good. In plain language God has never neglected anything which He ought to have done for you.
Now look at the time. When will He do it? Why, “in the mount of the Lord it shall be seen.” God allows you to come to the mount before He provides for you; that is, before He shows the provision. The provision is made long beforehand, but He does not show it. What does this fact say? Why this simple fact says, “wait.” If you cannot do a right thing to meet your own difficulties, do nothing. If you can do a right thing, and God give you the ability and the opportunity, that act may be God’s instrument for meeting your wants; but if you can do nothing without doing wrong, then it is quite clear you are to do nothing, and you are to say, “In the mount of the Lord it shall be seen.” Now, why does God thus sometimes try you? Why! because you think too much of your own providing. Why! because you think too much of your fellow-creatures’ providing. Why! because you make gods of His creatures. (S. Martin.)
The Lord will provide:—
Let us consider what God had provided for Abraham in time past.
The Lord provided for him an unusual measure of faith.
God had provided for Abraham a ram for a burnt-offering in the stead of his son.
Let us consider the inference which Abraham drew from what God had provided for him in time past. “Jehovah-jireh,” said he, “the Lord will provide.” So much as to say, “What He has done is a pledge and an earnest of what He will do. Since He has shown so much of His grace and goodness to me in time past, He will show more in time to some.” Do you ask, What will He provide?
He will provide for us in the life that now is.
God will provide for us in that life which is to come.
How precious is the grace of faith.
How devoted should we be to the service of God.
And lastly, how firm and assured should be the Christian’s confidence in his God. (D. Rees.)
What will God provide? Two answers may be given to this question. One is furnished by the direct teaching of the passage, and the other by its inferential teaching.
It is clear from the direct teaching of this passage that God will provide for the greatest necessities of His people. This was what He did for Abraham. And now the cross of Jesus stands before us as the grand illustration of the truth and meaning of this great covenant name, Jehovah-jireh. The Lord promised to provide a ransom; and the ransom is provided.
And then there is an inferential teaching from this name—that He will provide for our lesser necessities. Jehovah has bridged the great gulf that once lay between us and heaven, and He will certainly bridge all the smaller gulfs that may meet us on our way.
How will God provide?
Wisely. He seeth the end from the beginning, and is infallible in all His plans and purposes. “The work of the Lord is perfect.” An important part of His work is to provide for His people. And when we apply the word “perfect” to this work, what an assurance we have of the wisdom that marks it! It is only when we lose confidence in this feature of God’s work that our hearts are troubled. Not long ago a Christian merchant met, unexpectedly, with some very great losses. He began to doubt the wisdom of that Providence which could allow such trials to overtake him. He returned to his home one evening in a gloomy and despairing state of mind. He sat down before the open fireplace in his library, “tossed with the tempest” of doubt and destitute of comfort. Presently his little boy, a thoughtful child of six or seven years, came and sat on his knee. Over the mantel-piece was a large illuminated card containing the words—“His work is perfect.” The child spelled out the words, and pointing to them, said, “Papa, what does perfect mean here?” And then, before his father, who was somewhat staggered by the inquiry, could make a reply, there came another question from the little prattler: “Doesn’t it mean that God never makes a mistake?” This was just the thought that troubled father needed to have brought before his mind. If the angel Gabriel had come down from heaven to help him, he could have suggested nothing more timely. And then the father, clasping the little one to his bosom, exclaimed, “Yes, my precious darling, that is just what it means.” His confidence in God revived. The dark cloud that had settled down upon him was scattered.
Tenderly. He is the God of the dew-drop as well as of the thunder and the tempest. He is the God of the tender grass as well as of the gnarled and knotted mountain oak.
Faithfully. He will provide for His people, not the things that they would most like to have here—not those that are the most pleasant and agreeable—but those that are the best. The foundation promise of the covenant is—“No good thing will He withhold.”
Why does He thus provide for His people? Two motives operate with Him to do this. One of these has reference to His people; the other has reference to Himself.
The motive in His people which leads God thus to reveal Himself as their Provider is their need—their weakness, or their want.
The motive in Himself is because He has the fulness required to meet our necessities. In us is weakness, in Him is strength; in us is ignorance, in Him is wisdom; in us is poverty, in Him is riches; in us is emptiness, in Him is fulness. And it is from the blending of these two elements—this weakness in us and this strength in Him—that the resultant force is found which will lead us on to victory. Let us take a familiar illustration of this statement. Yonder is a little fly. It is walking over the ceiling of the room with its head downwards, and yet it walks as safely as you or I do on the floor of the same room with our heads up. And now let us take our stand near yonder massive rock, over which the waves of the ocean are dashing continually. See, there is a little mollusc clinging to the smooth side of that rock. The sea sends up its mighty billows to dash in foam and thunder on that rock. But they can no more move that mollusc that clings there, than they can move the rock itself from its firm base. And what gives to these feeble creatures the security that attends them in their positions of danger? Under the foot of the fly, as it walks over the ceiling, is a little vacant space, a point of emptiness. And there is the same under the shell of the mollusc, as it clings to the rock. The power of the atmosphere is brought to bear on that point of emptiness in the foot of the fly and the shell of the mollusc. This gives to the fly and to the mollusc all the security and support they realize. And the same principle applies to spiritual things. “When I am weak,” said St. Paul, “then I am strong.” When I feel my weakness, i.e., and take hold of the strength that is offered me, then I am strong. The fly and the mollusc make use of the weakness that is in them to draw strength from the atmosphere by which they are surrounded. This gives to the fly the strength of the ceiling over which it walks, and to the mollusc the firmness of the rock to which it clings. And in the same way the Christian who feels his own weakness and takes hold of God’s strength is made as strong—yes! tell it out with boldness, for it is the truth—is made as strong as the omnipotent arm on which he leans, and the Almighty Jehovah to whom he clings. (R. Newton, D.D.)
Jehovah will provide:—
Look at the words as they bear on that grand central event in the world’s history to which they had a prospective reference, and in which they were destined to find their full accomplishment. For in this same place nearly two thousand years after—on or near the spot to which Abraham gave the name of “Jehovah will provide”—Jehovah did provide a Lamb for a burnt-offering, whose death will be the theme of all heaven throughout eternity! God never knew another from the beginning. I doubt not that Isaac was a Divinely ordained type of Him. Was Isaac the child of the promise? The true Child of the promise was Christ. Was Isaac long promised and long waited for before his birth? Four thousand years elapsed, of promise and long expectation, ere Simeon took up the Child Jesus in his arms, saying, “Mine eyes have seen Thy salvation.” Was Isaac’s birth supernatural? “The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee; therefore also that Holy Thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.” Did Isaac meekly submit to be bound to the altar on the wood? “He is led as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so He openeth not His mouth.” But here the resemblances seem to stop. Or, if there be anything, as I doubt not there is much, in the semblance of Isaac’s death and resurrection, yet assuredly it is here but a shadow. For no sinner might ever die to expiate sin; and our God never would have a human sacrifice even to prefigure the true. But now behold, at last, “the Man that is God’s fellow!” Behold the Lamb for a burnt-offering—O yes, consumed by the fire of that Divine holiness and justice, of which the fire of all the burnt-offerings was but the shadow.
“Hath appeared.” Abraham used the future tense—will provide. Are you in deep perplexity as to your path, and fearful of taking a false step? Write Jehovah-jireh, the Lord will provide counsel. The name of this Lamb is Wonderful, Counsellor—“I will instruct thee, and teach thee in the way in which thou shalt go; I will guide thee with Mine eye.” Are you called to some arduous duty? Write Jehovah-jireh, the Lord will provide strength—“My strength is made perfect in weakness.” Are you straitened as to temporal provision? Write still this word, Jehovah-jireh, for “your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of these things.” Do you anticipate painfully the conflict with the last enemy? Write Jehovah-jireh—“O death, I will be thy plagues; O grave, I will be thy destruction.” And as for the eternity beyond, still write Jehovah-jireh, for “the Lamb, which is in the midst of the throne, shall feed them and shall lead them unto living fountains of waters; and God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes.” (C. J. Brown, D.D.)
God the provider:—
What does God provide for His people? For their wants:
When is it that God provides for His people? Just when He sees fit; just as it accords with His infinite wisdom, and not as it accords with our carnal conceptions. He has “a set time” to favour Zion.
III. How does God provide for His people? Little do we know of the numberless expedients to which God has recourse in His providence. (R. Luggar.)
The Lord will provide:—
No man who will tread in the steps of Abraham, that is, believe God and obey Him, will ever want a place on which to write Jehovah-jireh. He who shall do this may inscribe Jehovah-jireh on his purse, his table, his cupboard, his trade, his temptation, his trials, his afflictions, his dying day, and his future immortality. Faith—Obedience—The Lord will provide, are three points in the economy of God, as inseparable as the attributes of the Divine nature. (J. Bate.)
Long before the establishment of Bible societies, the Rev. Peter Williams, a pious, distinguished clergyman of Wales, seeing that his countrymen were almost entirely destitute of the Bible, and knowing that the work of the Lord could not prosper without it, undertook, though destitute of the means, to translate and publish a Welsh Bible for their use. Having expended all his living, and being deeply involved in debt, with the work unfinished, he expected every hour to be arrested and imprisoned, without the means or hope of release. One morning he had taken an affectionate leave of his family for the purpose of pursuing his pious labours, with an expectation that he should not be permitted to return, when, just as he was mounting his horse, a stranger rode up and presented him a letter. He stopped and opened it, and found, to his astonishment, that it contained information that a lady had bequeathed him a legacy of £300 sterling. “Now,” said he, “my dear wife, I can finish my Bible, pay my debts, and live in peace at home.” (Ibid.)
A lady, who had just sat down to breakfast, had a strong impression upon her mind that she must instantly carry a loaf of bread to a poor man, who lived about half a mile from her house, by the side of a common. Her husband wished her either to postpone taking the loaf of bread till after breakfast, or to send it by her servant; but she chose to take it herself instantly. As she approached the hut, she heard the sound of a human voice. Willing to hear what it was, she stepped softly, unperceived, to the door. She now heard the poor man praying, and among other things he said. “O Lord, help me! Lord, Thou wilt help me; Thy providence cannot fail; and although my wife, myself, and children have no bread to eat, and it is now a whole day since we had any, I know Thou wilt supply me, though Thou shouldst again rain down manna from heaven.” The lady could wait no longer; she opened the door, “Yes,” she replied, “God has sent you relief. Take this loaf, and be encouraged to cast your care upon Him who careth for you,” and when you ever want a loaf of bread, come to my house.” (J. G. Wilson.)
The Lord has made full provision for every human being. Behold the fields of fertile earth! Count the millions of acres on which we can grow food for man and beast. There is enough for each, for all, and for evermore.
He will provide a path for our life. You have seen a book without a title-page, and may have thought, “My life is like this book; I came into the world by chance, as a mite is found on the cheese.” The Lord made provision for your life. He gave a body in which your spirit could live, eyes with which to see, the power of speech, the command of thought; and, having provided you with a beginning, He also prepared a path in the world for your life.
The Lord will provide us with love. When you came into the world, He looked upon you with love, and His heart never changes. God is said to be like a sun. You can open your door and let in the blessed sunlight; and in the same way, you may open the chambers of your soul and be filled with the love of God.
The Lord will provide us with pardon.
The Lord also provides salvation for us.
He has provided for us peace of soul. Yesterday, when coming down Oxford Street, I noticed a painter on the top of a very high ladder. People were passing to and fro continually, yet the painter did not look down, and he did not appear to have the slightest anxiety. I stood and heard him humming a song. He was in a dangerous position; on the top of a high ladder resting upon the flags with people passing who might jog against the ladder and knock it over; yet he sang forth in gladness, and when he saw me nodded with delight. What was the secret? I will tell you. At the foot of the ladder stood a man holding it firmly, and this man was his safeguard. The painter had perfect peace up there on the ladder; he knew that his friend at the bottom was holding it, and that if any one came near the ladder unawares, the man at the bottom of it would warn them off. Likewise, the Lord provides peace for all His people. He holds our souls in His hands, and nothing shall happen to us unknown to Him. He orders our steps, directs our paths, and numbers the very hairs of our heads. The man who knows this fact enjoys a solid peace which nothing can shake.
Let me close by showing that He will provide us with the power of true manhood. (W. Birch.)
The cure for care:—
The first thing that God provides for His people is—protection is danger. It is wonderful how many illustrations we find, both in the Bible and out of it, of the way in which God provides protection in danger for His people. When we open the Bible for these illustrations, they meet us everywhere—Noah, Joseph, Moses, Jonah, Daniel. The animal and the vegetable kingdom afford us plenty of illustrations of this same truth. Look at the scales of the crocodile, and the thick, tough hide of the rhinoceros, and the powerful trunk of the elephant, and the strength and courage of the lion. Look at the turtle, with the castle that it carries about with it, and the snail crawling along with its house on its back. When you see how God provides for the protection of all these different creatures, you see how each of them illustrates the truth which Abraham was taught on Mount Moriah, when he called the name of it Jehovah-jireh. A friend of mine has a very powerful microscope. One day he showed me some curious specimens through it. Among these were some tiny little sea animals. They were so small that they could not be seen with the naked eye. They are made to live on the rocks under the water; and, to protect themselves from being swept away by the force of the waves, they are furnished with the tiniest little limbs you ever saw. Each of these is made exactly in the shape of an anchor. This they fasten in the rock; and as I looked at them with wonder through the microscope, I thought: Why, even among these very little creatures we see Jehovah-jireh, too! The Lord provides for their protection. And every apple and pear and peach and plum that grows shows the same thing, in the skin which is drawn over them for their protection. And so does every nut, in the hard shell which grows round its kernel. And so does every grain of wheat, and every ear of Indian corn, in the coverings so nicely wrapped around them to keep them from harm. And God is doing wonderful things all the time for the protection of His people. A Christian sailor, when asked why he remained so calm in a fearful storm, said, “If I fall into the sea, I shall only drop into the hollow of my Father’s hand, for He holds all these waters there.”
The second thing that God provides for His people is—relief in trouble. Here is a striking illustration of the way in which God can provide this relief, when it is needed. Some years ago there was a Christian man in England, who was in trouble. He was poor, and suffered much from want of money. A valuable property had been left to him. It would be sufficient to make him comfortable all the rest of his life, if he could only get possession of it. But in order to do this, it was necessary to find out some deeds connected with this property. But neither he, nor any of his friends, could tell where those deeds were to be found. They had tried to find them for a long time; but all their efforts had been in vain. At last, God provided relief for this man in his trouble in a very singular way. On one occasion, Bishop Chase, who was then the Bishop of Ohio, in America, was on a visit to the city of Philadelphia. He was stopping at the house of Mr. Paul Beck. One day, while staying there, he received a letter from one of the bishops of the Church of England. This letter was written to Bishop Chase, to ask him to make some inquiries about the deeds relating to the property of which we have spoken. The letter had been sent out first to Ohio, and then to Washington, where the bishop had been. From there it had been sent on after him to Philadelphia. If Bishop Chase had received this letter in Ohio, or in Washington, he would probably have read it, and then have said to himself, “I can’t find out anything about these deeds,” and would have written to his friend, the English bishop, telling him so. But the letter came to him while he was at Mr. Beck’s house. Mr. Beck was present when the letter was received. The bishop read it to him. When Mr. Beck heard the letter read, he was very much astonished. “Bishop Chase,” said he, “it is very singular that this letter should have come to you while you are at my house. Sir, I am the only man in the world that can give you the information asked for in this letter. I have the deeds in my possession. I have had them for more than forty years, and never could tell what to do with them, or where to find the persons to whom they belong.” How wonderful it was that this letter, after coming across the ocean, and going from one place to another in this country, should reach the bishop while he was in the house, and in the presence of the only man in the world who could tell about those lost deeds! And if the poor man to whom the property belonged, when he came into possession of it, knew about the singular way in which those deeds were found, he certainly would have been ready to write upon them, in big round letters, the words, “Jehovah-jireh—the Lord will provide.” God provided relief for him in his trouble.
III. But there is a third thing that the Lord will provide, and that is—salvation for the soul. Here is an illustration of a man who was very much burdened with care on account of his soul, and who had this care cured by the salvation which Jesus provides. Many years ago there was a very celebrated preacher, whose name was the Rev. George Whitefield. He went travelling all over England and this country preaching the gospel, and did a great deal of good in this way. One day a brother of Mr. Whitefield’s heard him preach. The sermon led him to see what a sinner he was, and he became very sorry on account of his sins. He was burdened with care because he thought his soul could not be saved; and for a long time it seemed as if he could get no relief from this burden. And the reason of it was that he was not willing to believe the word of Jesus. It is only in this way that we can be saved. When we read the promises of Jesus in the Bible, we must believe that He means just what he says. We must trust His word, and then we shall be saved. Well, one evening this brother of Mr. Whitefield was taking tea with the Countess of Huntingdon. This was an earnest Christian lady, who took a great interest in all good ministers, and the work they did for Jesus. She saw that the poor man was in great trouble of mind, and she tried to comfort him as they took their tea by talking to him about the great mercy of God to poor sinners through Jesus Christ. “Yes, my lady,” said the sorrowful man, “I know what you say is true. The mercy of God is infinite. I am satisfied of this. But, ah! my friend, there is no mercy for me. I am a wretched sinner, a lost man.” “I am glad to hear it, Mr. Whitefield,” said Lady Huntingdon. “I am glad in my heart that you have found out you are a lost man.” He looked at her with great surprise. “What, my lady!” he exclaimed, “glad, did you say? glad at heart that I am a lost man?” “Why, certainly I am, Mr. Whitefield,” said she; “for you know, Jesus Christ came into the world ‘to seek and to save them that are lost.’ And if you feel that you are a lost man, why, you are just one of those that Jesus came to save.” This remark had a great effect on Mr. Whitefield. He put down the cup of tea that he was drinking, and clapped his hands together, saying, “Thank God for that! Thank God for that!” He believed God’s promise then. That cured his care. It took away his trouble. It saved his soul. He was taken suddenly ill and died that same night, but he died happy.
Observe, as you read this chapter, that this was not the first time that Abraham had thus spoken. When he called the name of the place Jehovah-jireh he had seen it to be true—the ram caught in the thicket had been provided as a substitute for Isaac: Jehovah had provided. But he had before declared that truth when as yet he knew nothing of the Divine action, when he could not even guess how his extraordinary trial would end. His son Isaac had said to him, “Behold the fire and the wood, but where is the lamb for a burnt-offering?” and the afflicted father had bravely answered, “My son, God will provide.” In due time God did provide, and then Abraham honoured Him by saying the same words, only instead of the ordinary name for God he used the special covenant title—Jehovah. That is the only alteration; otherwise in the same terms he repeats the assurance that “the Lord will provide.” That first utterance was most remarkable; it was simple enough, but how prophetic!
It teaches us this truth, that the confident speech of a believer is akin to the language of a prophet. The man who accepts the promise of God unstaggeringly, and is sure that it is true, will speak like the seers of old; he will see that God sees, and will declare the fact, and the holy inference which comes of it. The believer’s child-like assurance will anticipate the future, and his plain statement—“God will provide”—will turn out to be literal truth.
True faith not only speaks the language of prophecy, but, when she sees her prophecy fulfilled, faith is always delighted to raise memorials to the God of truth.
Note yet further, that when faith has uttered a prophecy, and has set up her memorial, the record of mercy received becomes itself a new prophecy. Abraham says, “Jehovah-jireh—God will see to it”; what was he doing but prophesying a second time for future ages?
When Abraham said “Jehovah will provide,” he meant us, first of all, to learn that the provision will come in the time of our extremity. The Lord gave our Lord Jesus Christ to be the Substitute for men in view of the utmost need of our race.
Secondly, upon the mount the provision was spontaneously made for Abraham, and so was the provision which the Lord displayed in the fulness of time when He gave up His Son to die.
III. But, thirdly, we ought to dwell very long and earnestly upon the fact that for man’s need the provision was made by God Himself. The text says, “Jehovah jireh,” the Lord will see to it, the Lord will provide. None else could have provided a ransom. Neither on earth nor in heaven was there found any helper for lost humanity. I will only interject this thought here—let none of us ever interfere with the provision of God. If in our dire distress He alone was our Jehovah-jireh, and provided for us a Substitute, let us not think that there is anything left for us to provide. O sinner, do you cry, “Lord, I must have a broken heart”? He will provide it for thee. Do you cry, “Lord, I cannot master sin, I have not the power to conquer my passions”? He will provide strength for thee. Do you mourn, “Lord, I shall never hold on and hold out to the end. I am so fickle”? Then He will provide perseverance for thee.
That which God prepares for poor sinners is a provision most gloriously made. God provided a ram instead of Isaac. This was sufficient for the occasion as a type; but that which was typified by the ram is infinitely more glorious. In order to save us God provided God. I cannot put it more simply. He did not provide an angel, nor a mere man, but God Himself. Come, sinner, with all thy load of sin: God can bear it; the shoulders that bear up the universe can well sustain thy load of guilt. God gave thee His Godhead to be thy Saviour when He gave thee His Son. But He also gave in the person of Christ perfect manhood—such a man as never lived before, eclipsing even the perfection of the first Adam in the garden by the majestic innocence of His nature. When Jesus has been viewed as man, even unconverted men have so admired His excellence that they have almost adored Him. Jesus is God and man, and the Father has given that man, that God, to be thy Redeemer.
Fifthly, the provision was made effectively. Isaac did not die: the laughter in Abraham’s house was not stifled; there was no grief for the patriarch; he went home with his son in happy companionship, because Jehovah had provided Himself a lamb for a burnt-offering. The ram which was provided did not bleed in vain; Isaac did not die as well as the ram; Abraham did not have to slay the God-provided victim and his own son also. No, the one sacrifice sufficed. Beloved, this is my comfort in the death of Christ—I hope it is yours—that He did not die in vain.
Turn we then, sixthly, to this note, that we may well glorify Jehovah-jireh because this provision was made for every believer.
VII. But now I close with a remark which will reveal the far-reaching character of my text. “Jehovah-jireh” is true concerning all necessary things. The instance given of Abraham being provided for shows us that the Lord will ever be a Provider for His people. As to the gift of the Lord Jesus, this is a provision which guarantees all other provision. “He that spared not His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not with Him also freely give us all things?” (C. H. Spurgeon.)
The Lord will provide:—
A poor woman, holding the hand of her little boy, recently said to the preacher, “Sir, the word ‘Jehovah-jireh’ has been a great comfort to us through this child. Owing to my husband’s long illness we were in great want. But one Sunday Robert came running home and said: ‘Cheer up, father and mother, the Lord will be sure to provide; Jehovah-jireh!’ And often after that, when we have been in trouble, he has said: ‘Come, let us sing a verse of Jehovah-jireh—
‘ “Though troubles assail and dangers affright,
Though friends should all fail, and foes all unite,
Yet one thing secures us, whatever betide,
The Scripture assures us—The Lord will provide.” ’
“Once, when we had no food left, he again told us not to forget Jehovah-jireh. He went out, but came back in a few minutes holding up a shilling he had found on the pavement, and saying: ‘Here’s Jehovah-jireh, mother; I was sure He would provide!’ ” Who will say this betokened childish ignorance and not Christian wisdom? Might not our philosophy be more sound, if we were more as “little children”? We know who said, “Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings Thou hast perfected praise.” Hast not help often come to the people of God as unexpectedly, giving rise to the proverb, “Man’s extremity is God’s opportunity”? Should we not gratefully acknowledge such “interposition of Providence”; such special help from Jehovah the Provider. (Newman Hall, LL.B.)
In the mount of the Lord it shall be seen:—
The Lord will be seen. In His special providence to His servants in their afflictions.
The time when He will be seen. “In the mount,” i.e., when things are brought to an extremity; when we think there is no more help nor hope, that is the time when the Lord will be seen.
It is God’s usual manner to bring His children to extremities.
And the first cause why the Lord doth so usually do it is, when He brings afflictions on His children; He lets it run along till they may think there is no more help nor hope, that so it may be an affliction to them. If a man were in a smoky house, and had a door opened, it were no difficulty for him to shift himself out of it; but when we are shut up, that is it which makes it difficult; and that it might be so, the Lord suffers it to come to an extremity.
Secondly, the Lord brings us to an extremity because the Lord might be sought to; for so long as the creatures can do us any good, we will go no further; but when they fail us, we are ready to look up to the Lord; as it is with men which are on the seas, when they are in an extremity, those that will not pray at any other time, will pray now, and be ready to say with these in the prophet Hosea, “Come and let us return unto the Lord; for He hath torn, and He will heal us; He hath smitten, and He will bind us up” (6:1); and the reason is, because where the creature ends, the Lord must begin, otherwise there can be no help at all.
Thirdly, the Lord doth it, because that hereby it comes to pass that the Lord may be known to be the helper; that when we are delivered He may have all the praise.
Fourthly, the Lord doth it, because all that we have, we may have as a new gift; therefore the Lord suffers us, as it were, to forfeit our leases, as it were, that He may renew them; otherwise we should think ourselves to be freeholders.
Fifthly, the Lord doth it because He may teach us by experience to know Him. But here some man will be ready to say, Why cannot that be without these extremities? To this I answer, you must know when a man goes on in a course, without any troubles or changes, his experience is to no purpose; for he hath no great experience of the Lord. But when a man is in tribulation, that brings experience; and experience, hope; for it is another kind of experience that is so learned, than that which comes without it; and indeed nothing is well learned till it be learned by experience.
Lastly, the Lord does it for proof and trial, as in the case of Abraham.
In the time of extremities will the Lord be seen, and not before. Why?
Because the Lord knows this is the best way to draw forth the practice of many graces and good duties, which otherwise would be without use.
Because He would give a time to men to repent and meet Him in, which is good for His children; otherwise we would not seek unto the Lord.
To let us know the vanity of the creature. The use of it is to teach us not to make too much haste for deliverance in the time of distress, but to wait upon the Lord, yea, depend upon His providence when we seem to be without help. If we look upon the creature, yet then are we to depend upon the Lord, so as never to say there is no help, but on the contrary to say, “I will trust in Him though He kill me.”
III. Godly men’s extremities are but trials, sent for their good; not punishment sent for their hurt and ruin. Ay, but what is that good? Why, this; first, it shall increase grace in your hearts; for as the gold which is tried loseth nothing but dross, and so is made the better thereby, so it is with our afflictions, for “the trial of our faith,” saith the apostle, “bringeth forth patience”; for the greater thy trial is, the more it strengthens thy faith, and so increaseth comfort; for when the afflictions of the apostle abounded, his consolation abounded also. Again, you shall have the greater wages; for when a man hath a friend that hath been employed about any great thing for him, why, the greater the trouble was which he did undergo for him, the more will he be beholden to him, and the greater reward will he bestow upon him; even so, the greater the trials are from the Lord, the greater benefit will come to us by them. (J. Preston.)
The celebrated Richard Boyle, Earl of Cork, who rose from a humble station in life to the highest rank, and passed through strange and trying vicissitudes, used these words as his motto, and ordered them to be engraved on his tomb: “God’s providence is my inheritance.” (Old Testament Anecdotes.)
Trust in the Lord:—
Paul Gerhardt, the German poet and preacher, after ten years of pastoral work in Berlin, was deprived of his charge by the King of Prussia, and expelled from the country. He turned towards Saxony, his native land, accompanied by his wife and little children, all on foot, without means and without prospect. They stopped at a village inn to pass the night, and there the poor woman naturally gave way to a burst of sorrow and anxiety. Her husband endeavoured to comfort her, especially dwelling upon the words of Scripture, “Trust in the Lord with all thine heart, and lean not to thine own understanding; in all thy ways acknowledge Him, and He shall direct thy paths.” The same evening two gentlemen entered the inn parlour, and mentioned that they were on their way to Berlin to seek the deposed clergyman, Paul Gerhardt, by order of Duke Christian, of Merseburg, who desired to settle a considerable pension on him as a compensation for the injustice from which he had suffered. (Fifteen Hundred Illustrations.)
14. Jehovah-jireh is, apart from the name for God, the expression Abraham had used in 8. Provide is a secondary meaning of the simple verb ‘to see’ (cf. our ‘see to it’), as in 1 Samuel 16:1c. Both senses probably coexist in the little saying of 14b (which deserves to be better known), i.e. ‘In the mount … it will come clear’.
14. And Abraham called the name of that place. He not only, by the act of thanksgiving, acknowledges, at the time, that God has, in a remarkable manner, provided for him; but also leaves a monument of his gratitude to posterity. In most extreme anxiety, he had fled for refuge to the providence of God; and he testifies that he had not done so in vain. He also acknowledges that not even the ram had wandered thither accidentally, but had been placed there by God. Whereas, in process of time, the name of the place was changed, this was done purposely, and not by mistake. For they who have translated the active verb, ‘He will see,’ passively, have wished, in this manner, to teach that God not only looks upon those who are his, but also makes his help manifest to them; so that, in turn, he may be seen by them. The former has precedence in order; namely, that God, by his secret providence, determines and ordains what is best for us; but on this the latter is suspended; namely, that he stretches out his hand to us, and renders himself visible by true experimental tokens.
14. That is, the Lord will provide. Reader! cannot your experience bear a thousand testimonies to this sweet scripture? Have you not been called upon many times, to set up your Jehovah-jirehs?
14 Appropriately Abraham names this place Yahweh-yireh, “Yahweh sees (or provides).” He does not call this site “Abraham-shama” (“Abraham obeyed”). The name does not draw any attention to Abraham’s role in the story. Thus his part in the story is not memorialized; rather, it is subordinated to that of Yahweh. The name highlights only the beneficent actions of Yahweh. The reader will come away from this story more impressed with God’s faithfulness than with Abraham’s compliance.
This emphasis is borne out by the fact that the following phrase, and even today it is said, lifts the event out of Abraham’s time and projects it into the time of the narrator. Thus the phrase gives to the entire narrative a certain timelessness. It witnesses to the gracious provisions of God.
There are some textual problems in the last few words of the verse: beharYHWH yērāʾeh. The following are possible translations of the text as it stands: “In the mountain of Yahweh he is seen”; “In the mountain of Yahweh he shall be seen”; “In the mountain of Yahweh it shall be provided.” The problem here is to identify the relationship, if any, between the active of rāʾá in Yahweh-yireh, “Yahweh sees,” and the passive of rāʾá, yērāʾeh, “is seen.”
The ancient versions do not reflect the MT. Hence LXX En tṓ órei kýrios ṓphthē, “in the mountain the Lord is seen,” necessitates reading the first word in the MT (behar) as bāhār. The Vulg. reads yirʾeh (Qal) for MT yērāʾeh (Niphal), and thus translates “In the mountain the Lord sees” (in monte Dominus videbilt).
Other suggestions are that the variation of yirʾeh and yērāʾeh reflects the fact that the Masorah possessed two vocalizations of the place name and has preserved both variants, or that the relative clause in v. 14b is so obscure that it probably did not originally belong with v. 14a. Perhaps even “Yahweh-yireh” is an explanation for a lost name.
The use of the active and passive of rāʾá may be deliberate, and if so, we should be hesitant about excising it. God not only sees and provides for the needs of his servants but also shows himself to his servants. Elohim is no anonymous philanthropist. But in this incident at least, God shows himself not in any self-revelation but by his act of providing a ram in lieu of Isaac. Revelation for Abraham at Moriah was a visible manifestation of God’s act.66
 Criswell, W. A., Patterson, P., Clendenen, E. R., Akin, D. L., Chamberlin, M., Patterson, D. K., & Pogue, J. (Eds.). (1991). Believer’s Study Bible (electronic ed., Ge 22:14). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.
Just before leaving the disciples, Jesus gathered them together and commissioned them with an important task. He told them, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you…” (Matthew 28:18-20). Jesus understood the importance of discipleship (the process of making disciples). In fact, it was so important, He made sure it was His last directive to those who followed Him. What precisely is discipleship and why is it so important? Is it simply a matter of making converts? No, it’s much more. The process of making disciples is often misunderstood and neglected in the Church today, and as a result, we are in danger of losing our identity as Christians. Christian discipleship is critical to Christian survival.
Even secular dictionaries recognize discipleship as something more than simply creating “members” or “converts”. Dictionary.com describes a disciple as “a person who is a pupil or an adherent of the doctrines of another.” Webster’s online dictionary defines a disciple as “one who accepts and assists in spreading the doctrines of another.” At least one aspect of discipleship involves learning the doctrines of a particular system or teacher. This intellectual aspect of being a disciple is affirmed in the Bible. The Greek word used for “disciple” in the New Testament is “mathētḗs” and its root, “math-“, means the “mental effort needed to think something through“. Disciples are “learners”, “scholars” and followers of Christ who “learn the doctrines of Scripture and the lifestyle they require”. There is an important connection between doctrine and behavior. It’s not enough to simply follow Jesus’ moral teaching related to behavior, true disciples must understand the doctrines of Christianity. What does our worldview teach, theologically or philosophically? How are we to make a defense (1 Peter 3:15), hold fast the faithful word which is in accordance with this teaching (Titus 1:9), recognize a heresy when we see one (Titus 3:10), and guard the treasure which has been entrusted to us (2 Timothy 1:14)? Becoming a disciple means becoming a learner.
Sadly, many in the Church have neglected this important aspect of discipleship, and their hesitancy to celebrate the life of the mind continues to put the Church in great peril. History demonstrates the importance of discipleship and the life of the mind. In the early 19th Century, the lack of discipleship resulted in the rise of several heretical religious worldviews. From the 1790’s to the 1840’s the movement known as the “Second Great Awakening” spread through the young American nation. This Protestant movement was wildly successful in gaining converts, but not nearly as successful in discipling new believers. The Second Great Awakening was facilitated by a number of charismatic preachers (Charles Finney was perhaps the most famous). These preachers were excellent communicators and their camp-style revivals were designed to solicit responses from the people who heard them. These same preachers, however, were less than effective in establishing a discipleship process for the new Christian converts. In the wake of the revival meetings, new converts were left largely on their own; local churches were not ready to teach and mentor those who were now interested in learning the truth about Jesus. As a result, a number of groups emerged simultaneously: The Church of Latter Day Saints (Mormons), The Evangelical Christian Church in Canada, The Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), the Seventh-day Adventist Church (from which Jehovah’s Witnesses eventually appeared), and the Cumberland Presbyterian Church were all the result of rapid growth followed by inadequate discipleship.
It’s not enough to embrace the name of Jesus. There are lots of groups (including Muslims) who include Jesus’ name in their scripture. We must understand, acknowledge and embrace the true Jesus. It’s not enough to live morally as Jesus might have lived. There are lots of well-behaved people in every religious (and non-religious) worldview. If we want to be disciples of Jesus, we must learn the true doctrines of Christianity, be ready to make a defense, hold fast the faithful word which is in accordance with this true Christian teaching, recognize a heresy when we see one, and guard the treasure which has been entrusted to us. Becoming a disciple requires each of us to become a learner.
The intellectual aspect of Christian discipleship is just as important today as it has ever been. Click To Tweet
The intellectual aspect of Christian discipleship is just as important today as it has ever been. Mormons, for example continue to convert people to their worldview, distorting the nature of Jesus, God the Father, salvation, scripture and heaven as they present a clear heresy to those they convert. Who, statistically, are converted to Mormonism at the greatest rate? Undiscipled Christians. Many young Christians walk away from the Church in their college years after sitting in University classes taught by outspoken atheists. Who, once again, leaves the Church at the highest rate? Undiscipled young Christians. Discipleship produces Christ-followers who look more and more like Jesus. That’s a good, important goal. But beyond this, discipleship, protects believers from error and heresy. When we know the truth well enough to defend it in our own mind, we’ll actually defend it in our own mind when presented with a lie. True discipleship celebrates the role of the mind in the Christian life and prepares Christian disciples to live the Christian life, even as they are defending the Christian truth. That’s why Christian discipleship is critical to Christian survival.
Death Comes to Us All Ecclesiastes 3:19; 7:2; 1 Corinthians 15:26
Death comes equally to us all and makes us all equal when it comes.
Ritzema, E. (Ed.). (2012). 300 Quotations for Preachers. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press.
Three Kinds of Worship Isaiah 29:13; Matthew 15:7–9; Mark 7:6–7; John 4:23–24
One man praises the Lord because He is mighty; another because He is good unto him; and, again, another simply because He is good. The first is a slave, and fears for himself; the second mercenary, and desires somewhat for himself; but the third is a son, and gives praise to his Father.
BERNARD OF CLAIRVAUX
Ritzema, E., & Brant, R. (Eds.). (2013). 300 quotations for preachers from the Medieval church. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press.
Drones swarmed 5 US warships off CA coast in 2019 and no one knows who’s behind it Five different U.S. Navy warships operating near San Clemente Island, Calif., were swarmed by drones over the course of four separate nights in July 2019. The source of the drones remains unknown, but a new investigative report by The Drive published Tuesday details how the drones swarmed the U.S. ships and the efforts investigators took to find the perpetrator.
Elon Musk’s China … Tour Continues We don’t know what’s more relevant: the fact that Elon Musk is literally kissing the _ _ _ of the Chinese government, or the fact that U.S. media seems to be digesting this as a meaningful story. Regardless it has been tough to not notice that Elon Musk has been “cozying up” to China, as the New York Post so eloquently put it this week. The Tesla CEO apparently “sang Beijing’s praises in a recent interview with state-run China Central Television,” the report notes, while trying to deflect concerns about his vehicles.
US Intelligence Community Increasingly Involving Itself In Domestic Politics: Greenwald A report declassified last Wednesday by the Department of Homeland Security is raising serious concerns about the possibly illegal involvement by the intelligence community in U.S. domestic political affairs. Entitled “Domestic Violent Extremism Poses Heightened Threat in 2021,” the March 1 Report from the Director of National Intelligence states that it was prepared “in consultation with the Attorney General and Secretary of Homeland Security—and was drafted by the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and Department of Homeland Security (DHS), with contributions from the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA).”
North Korea fired projectile into the sea North Korea on Wednesday night fired at least one unidentified projectile into the sea, the South Korean Joint Chiefs of Staff said, according to the Yonhap news agency. Additional details were not immediately available. It marks North Korea’s second missile launch in recent days.
After getting into the Knesset, his Wife entered the Temple Mount to Thank God Head of the Otzma Yehudit party (Jewish Strength) Itamar Ben Gvir was voted into the Knesset on Tuesday following numerous previous failed attempts. Ben Gvir, considered to be among the most right-wing activists in Israel, told Israel365 News in 2019 that he supports building the Third Temple. After Ben Gvir finally got in, his wife Ayala expressed her gratitude by making a pilgrimage to the Temple Mount in Jerusalem to thank God.
Lost Tribe of Bnei Menashe prepares Matza for Passover in Northeast India The Bnei Menashe community throughout the remote northeastern Indian state of Manipur today began preparing for Passover – including by baking matzah, the holiday’s traditional unleavened bread – at the Shavei Israel Hebrew Center in Churachandpur. The Bnei Menashe, or sons of Manasseh, claim descent from one of the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel, who were sent into exile by the Assyrian Empire more than 27 centuries ago.
Iran says it made five major military improvements last year Iran continues to improve its air defenses, citing the use of the Bavar-373 system and other capabilities. Iran says it has overcome the difficulties of the pandemic and continues to focus on its armed forces. “In a series of reports, we intend to review the most important military events in the country in the last year,” the report at Tasnim News says.
With 91.6% of votes counted, still no clear victor in Israel elections With more than 91.6% of the vote counted in Tuesday’s elections in Israel, there was still no clear winner Thursday morning, as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Opposition Leader Yair Lapid both lacked the handful of Knesset seats needed to form a right-wing or centrist coalition government respectively.
Cargo ship stuck in Egypt’s Suez Canal affects shipping worldwide Efforts to dislodge one of the world’s largest container vessels that has choked traffic along the Suez Canal have resumed at high tide, with five tugs working to drag the vessel to deeper water… Marine services firm GAC issued a note to clients overnight on Wednesday, saying efforts to free the vessel using tug boats continued, but that wind conditions and the sheer size of the vessel “were hindering the operation”.
Here’s How DC Statehood Could Backfire On Democrats Congressional Democrats’ push for DC statehood is an obvious power-grab cloaked in a moral argument, which would shift the balance of power through brute-force political tactics – potentially sparking an ‘arms race’ of new Senate seats which could massively backfire on the left.
Outdoors now closed: Feds ban visitors to blooming cherry blossoms at Jefferson Memorial “In accordance with guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and DC Health and in consultation with the National Park Service Office of Public Health, the National Park Service will limit all vehicular and pedestrian access to the Tidal Basin, East Potomac Park and West Potomac Park during the peak bloom period of the cherry blossoms as a public health precaution to mitigate the spread of COVID-19,” the NPS said.
Severe weather leaves 45 people dead, more than 2 000 homes damaged in Colombia As many as 45 people have died while more than 2 000 homes have been damaged as a result of severe weather in Colombia since March 1, 2021, according to a statement by the country’s National Unit for Disaster Risk Management (UNGRD) on Tuesday, March 23. Recently, heavy rains have caused major flooding in the municipality of Dabeiba in Antioquia on Monday, March 22.
Leaked Docs Show Obama’s Administration Gave Google Its Monopoly Eight years ago, the Federal Trade Commission had the chance to face down Google — the giant of Silicon Valley whose power now alters the free flow of information at a global scale, distorts market access for businesses large and small, and changes the nature of independent thought in ways the world has never experienced.
Cambridge Passed Measure Approving Multiple Domestic Partnerships The Massachusetts city of Cambridge has put in place a measure that recognizes domestic partnerships of more than two people, euphemistically referred to a polyamorous “families,” which in practice means sexual relationships between multiple adults in one household.
“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms … disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes… Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” —Cesare Beccaria
The court contradicts the Second Amendment and itself in a bizarre anti-gun ruling.
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” —Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
“There is no right to carry arms openly in public; nor is any such right within the scope of the Second Amendment.” —Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
Who are you going to believe, the Founders who wrote the Second Amendment or the lying despots seated on the Ninth Circuit?
The 7-4 en banc majority of the Ninth Circuit is apparently of the leftist school of thought that insists the Second Amendment is all about militias and not the people. In the original understanding of the Founders, however, the people are the militia, so these leftists are plainly wrong.
The judges added, “We can find no general right to carry arms into the public square for self-defense.” Instead, they insist, the Second Amendment applies only to the “defense of hearth and home.” They have reduced the word “bear” to utter meaninglessness.
Imagine this onerous restriction in light of any other constitutional right. “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech [in the home].” Or even of faux constitutional rights like abortion or marriage. You can have an abortion, so long as the doctor comes to your home. You can marry a same-sex partner, but it doesn’t count once you leave your house.
The absurdity is self-evident. Yet that’s what passes for leftist logic when it comes to guns.
Moreover, the offending judges reach around the Constitution by appealing to 150-year-old Hawaii law. “In order to reach their conclusions,” notes gun writer Cam Edwards, “the judges in the majority decided that laws in place in Hawaii before it ever became a state take precedence over the clear and unambiguous language of the Second Amendment, which declares that the right of the people to both keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. According to the Ninth Circuit, those ‘longstanding traditions’ in Hawaii law matter more than the Constitution itself.”
That’s to say nothing of King Edward I, whom the judges also cite in going all the way back to English law in the Middle Ages. Didn’t we fight a war of independence from England in which the first shots were fired over an attempt at gun confiscation? Yes, yes we did.
This bizarre ruling also flies in the face not only of the Ninth Circuit’s own previous jurisprudence but of the Supreme Court’s important rulings in Heller and McDonald. Unfortunately, Hellerlargely focused on confirming that the Second Amendment is an individual right, while McDonald held that the Second Amendment is “incorporated” against the states. That narrow focus left the question of bearing arms outside the home a glaring example of the Supreme Court’s dereliction on the Second Amendment.
Perhaps that will change now that the Ninth Circuit has somewhat contradicted itself, as well as two other circuit courts. Three years ago, the Ninth struck down Hawaii’s “may issue” gun-permit regime. In Young v. Hawaii, Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain, who dissented in this week’s case, wrote, “The Second Amendment does protect a right to carry a firearm in public for self-defense.”
The current majority nevertheless pointed to a 2016 ruling in which it “held that individuals do not have a Second Amendment right to carry concealed weapons in public.” Yet that ruling was itself an en banc decision overturning a previous ruling to the contrary.
The court, as O’Scannlain put it in his dissent, “has decided that the Second Amendment does not mean what it says.”
Obviously, it’s time for the Supreme Court to provide some clarity on an amendment that is abundantly clear to originalists but has been treated as a second-class right.
Never mind the fact that as a candidate she held to a radical open-borders platform.
President-in-Waiting Kamala Harris may have just laughed off a visit to the U.S.-Mexico border, but that didn’t stop Joe Biden from tapping her as his new border czar to lead the effort in tackling the “dangerous surge of migration” at the U.S. southern border.
Thousands of unaccompanied minors are now being held in cages facilities while the number of illegals entering the U.S. has reached the highest level in 20 years. Yet the White House continues to reject calling the massive migrant surge a “crisis,” despite the fact that current numbers are six times higher than what the Obama administration called crisis levels. Perhaps using Harris as a border fixer means Biden has finally recognized that he’s losing the PR battle and must at least appear to be doing something.
“This increase has been consequential,” Biden admitted. “I can think of nobody who is better qualified than this woman, who led the second-biggest attorney general’s office in America.” Yikes.
This time avoiding any laughter, Harris embraced the role by once again referencing the administration’s ridiculous “come but just not yet” message. “There’s no question that this is a challenging situation,” she said. “While we are clear that people should not come to the border now, we also understand that we will enforce the law [emphasis added].”
The news of Harris taking the lead in dealing with the border crisis was certainly not welcomed by Arizona Governor Doug Ducey, who blasted her as “the worst possible choice.” He highlighted an inconvenient truth: “At no point in her career has [Harris] given any indication that she considers the border a problem or a serious threat. If President Biden’s intent was to show that he’s taking this issue seriously, he’s really done the exact opposite [and has] completely trivialized the issue by putting someone in charge who flat out just doesn’t care.”
Ducey noted that Biden is “totally divorced from the reality on the ground” and has yet to visit the border. “I’ve been governor under three presidents,” he said, “and this is by far the worst situation we’ve seen. Washington has never been more out of touch, and it starts at the top.”
Meanwhile, Biden continued to deflect responsibility for the border crisis by, of course, blaming Donald Trump, this time by making the ridiculous assertion that Trump’s decision to opt against using a $700 million federal program targeting Northern Triangle countries was the causal factor. “The best way to keep them from coming,” Biden claimed, “is to keep them from wanting to leave.” He meant leave their home countries, we’re sure. Really.
However, even Mexico’s leftist President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador knows that Biden, not Trump, is to blame. He recently stated, “Expectations were created that with the government of President Biden there would be a better treatment of migrants. And this has caused Central American migrants, and also from our country, wanting to cross the border thinking that it is easier to do so.”
Now Harris, who as a Democrat presidential candidate held a radical open-borders policy position — she advocated for the decriminalization of illegal border crossings — will now lead the border-enforcement effort. What could go wrong?
The Democrats’ new strategy is to (hypocritically) label the Senate rules as “racist.”
The Democrats have come up with some pretty laughable excuses for why they want to get rid of the Senate filibuster, but their latest is a real gem: The filibuster must be done away with because it’s racist. With leftists seeing racism in everything from what we watch on television to what we buy at the grocery store, it was only a matter of time until the parliamentary procedure of our government would be considered racist, too, though that’s especially rich coming from Democrats.
As part of the Democrats’ strategy to do away with the filibuster, they have labeled it everything from “a mockery of democracy” to “a weapon of mass obstruction.” We’ve known since before the 2020 election that the filibuster was on the chopping block if the Democrats won control of the Senate. But labeling it a racist procedure is hypocritical in the extreme.
Massachusetts Democrat Senator Elizabeth Warren has been one of the most vocal about the so-called racist filibuster. “The filibuster has deep roots in racism, and it should not be permitted to serve that function, or to create a veto for the minority,” Warren said last week. “In a democracy, it’s majority rules.” (Fact-check: The filibuster isn’t racist, and we’re a republic.)
But what about all that Democrat lip service about being concerned for minorities? Oh well. Do whatever you gotta do on your path to absolute power. Warren would know; she owes her whole political career to playing the race card.
And she’s not the only one screaming racism. The media has taken up the faux battle cry. CNN, USA Today, and The Atlantic, just to name a few, have equated the filibuster with racism in op-eds masquerading as manufactured news stories.
Warren may see the filibuster as racist now, but she certainly had no problem filibustering Republican Senator Tim Scott’s police reform bill in 2019. So, going by Warren’s rationale, since Scott is black, does that mean that Warren is racist, too? Don’t be silly. Only white Republicans can be racist.
Nevertheless, let’s not forget the sordid history of Democrats and the filibuster. If the filibuster has any racist connotation attached to its practice, it is the so-called Party of the People that’s to blame. Democrats wielded the filibuster like a cudgel during the 1940s, ‘50s, and ’60s to prevent civil rights legislation from passing the Senate. They did not want to see an end to their political dominance in the South, a dominance that was maintained by continuous violent suppression of blacks for a hundred years after the Civil War.
So-called recent compromises to dial back the filibuster offered by Senator Dick Durbin and President Joe Biden are no compromises at all and should not even be entertained by Republicans. Democrats aim to wipe out the filibuster, then propose merely to neuter it and expect to be awarded for being magnanimous. It’s a time-honored tactic of hard-nosed politics, and the GOP shouldn’t fall for it.
Let no one be confused. The real reason for getting rid of the filibuster is to remove one of the final procedural roadblocks standing in the way of Democrats ramming their leftist agenda through the 50-50 Senate. Fed up to the gills with our republican form of government, the Left is doing what it does best — bending and breaking all the rules that stand in its path to converting America into a socialist “paradise.”
The Chinese pejorative for “white Western leftists” is so very applicable.
It’s no secret that everything the progressive Left embraces — from Critical Race Theory and open borders to the transgender agenda and the Cancel Culture to everything in between — is based on the self-aggrandizing notion that it owns the franchise on “superior” wisdom and morality. Those who disagree are not just wrong; they are bigots, deplorables, bitter clingers, irredeemables, supremacists, privileged etc., etc. ad nauseam. Yet there is one group of people that not only knows exactly who American progressives are but that won’t be the slightest bit intimidated by any blowback from them.
“Baizuo” is a derogatory term in Mandarin that refers to white leftist Western elites. It’s the Chinese version of “useful idiots,” and it has become increasingly popular among China’s netizens. Analysts attribute that popularity to the Chinese public’s resentment against what they view as a superiority complex that animates Western elites’ ideological agenda against China.
An article, “The curious rise of the ‘white left’ as a Chinese internet insult,” written in May 2017 by Zhang Chenchen, who has a PhD in political theory and science, gets to the heart of the criticisms. Zhang notes that Baizuo refers to people who “only care about topics such as immigration, minorities, LGBT and the environment” and who “have no sense of real problems in the real world.” Furthermore, they only advocate for peace and equality to “satisfy their own feelings of moral superiority” and are “obsessed with political correctness.”
Zhang further reveals the term “first became influential amidst the European refugee crisis, and [German Chancellor] Angela Merkel was the first western politician to be labelled as a Baizuo for her open-door refugee policy.” It was an accurate assessment. Merkel allowed more than one million “refugees” to enter Germany, and in short order, the nation endured a rape epidemic, a skyrocketing “migrant” crime wave, and a series of terror attacks that culminated in the 2016 Berlin Christmas market atrocity that killed 12 and injured 48, courtesy of Tunisian national Anis Amri, who came to Germany during the 2015 rush.
Today in America, we are neck deep in our very own “open door” refugee policy, driven by progressives’ own feelings of moral superiority that are so profoundly corrupt, the Biden administration is providing illegal aliens with hotel rooms while hundreds of thousands of homeless Americans languish in tent cities in Democrat-controlled cities throughout the nation.
In 2017, Global Times columnist Qu Qiuyan explained that Baizuo “is not limited to referring to the white liberal elites, as former US president Obama was considered as an advocate of Baizuo ideology.” Qu further notes that on a Chinese question-and-answer website, Zhihu, the question “why are well-educated elites in the West seen as naïve ‘white left’ in China?” received more than 400 answers. One user said it’s because leftist elites are those “who advocate inclusiveness and anti-discrimination but cannot tolerate different opinions,” while another asserted that elitists’ opinions are so shallow they tend to maintain social equality by embracing ideologies that run against the basic concept of equality.
As if on cue four years later, the Biden administration is instituting “equity” in lieu of equality. The “Executive Order on Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government” is all about abandoning meritocracy in favor of government-mandated equal outcomes for those who are deemed “marginalized.”
If that sounds familiar, it’s because Karl Marx wrote “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” in 1875, and that idea formed the basis of communist societies going forward. Societies that required massive levels of government coercion to enforce equity, even as the enforcers inevitably lived far better than those they were oppressing.
Yet far worse, equity will assure one outcome above all others: widespread mediocrity. As schools eliminate standardized testing and advanced placement classes, and businesses become entities that hire people based on the color of their skin and not the content of their character, there will be no incentive to work hard or aspire to excellence.
That institutionalized mediocrity would be wholly destructive to American society? For our Baizuo elitists, that is a far more preferable outcome than a meritocracy where “too many Asians” outpace other ethnic groups. That reality was made clear by Ivy League college admission “standards” such as those at Harvard that required Asians to produce higher SAT scores than other minorities to gain admission, or those at Yale where “race is the determinative factor in hundreds of admissions decisions each year,” as the DOJ stated last year.
Unfortunately, the Biden administration epitomizes mediocrity, and nothing made that clearer than the recent meeting between Chinese and American diplomats in Alaska, where China’s top diplomat, Yang Jiech, revealed the self-debilitating mediocrity of America’s new secretary of state, Tony Blinken. When Yang asserted that many Americans “actually have little confidence in the democracy of the United States, and they have various views regarding the government of the United States,” and that China doesn’t believe in “invading through the use of force, or to topple other regimes through various means, or to massacre the people of other countries, because all of those would only cause turmoil and instability in this world,” Blinken’s response bordered on sophomoric. “I have to tell you, what I’m hearing is very different from what you described,” he said. “I’m hearing deep satisfaction that the United States is back.”
Back from where? To what? Yang further noted that a nation that’s capitulated to Black Lives Matter, antifa, and other radicals is in no position to lecture China. And Blinken proved him right. Despite bringing up “deep concerns with actions by China, including in Xinjiang, Hong Kong, Taiwan, cyberattacks on the United States, economic coercion of our allies,” the coronavirus — along with the Chinese lies and stonewalling that facilitated its worldwide spread — wasn’t even part of the discussion.
Fox News host Tucker Carlson explains the enormity of that omission, noting that China’s stance with regard to the coronavirus “is a crime of enormous proportions.” What did Biden do about it? Carlson answered, “As one of his first acts as president of the United States, Biden signed an executive action ordering federal agencies to stop making reference to the pandemic by the ‘geographic location of its origin.’”
Columnist Roger Kimball was even more direct. “Joe Biden has been in office for just two months,” he writes. “Has any US president had such a disastrous opening chapter on the world stage? None that I can recall.”
The most frightening words of that assessment? “Opening chapter.” How much damage — some of which may be irreparable — America’s Baizuo elites precipitate going forward is anyone’s guess.
Is it any wonder that New York Governor Andrew Cuomo put the welfare of his family before that of his constituents?
Perhaps this isn’t even newsworthy, given how little we’ve come to expect of New York’s Emmy Award-winning governor. And perhaps putting the safety and wellbeing of one’s elite family above that of the unwashed masses is just part of being Andrew Cuomo.
But one wonders: When are self-respecting New Yorkers finally going to do something about the occupant of the governor’s mansion?
As the New York Post reported yesterday, “Andrew Cuomo and Health Commissioner Dr. Howard Zucker allegedly directed that members of the governor’s family and bigwigs with ties to his administration should get priority coronavirus testing last year. … Relatives of Cuomo, including his brother, CNN anchor Chris Cuomo, one of their sisters and their mom, Matilda Cuomo, were tested several times during the early days of the pandemic, the Albany Times-Union reported. The testing was done by high-level members of the state Health Department, often at private homes.”
In response, a flack for the governor said the accusations were “insincere efforts to rewrite the past.”
No word on whether Cuomo’s spokesman also considers the accusations of sexual harassment and misconduct with at least eight women and the accusations of a cover-up of the true death toll caused by his lethal policy of shoving the state’s coronavirus-positive seniors back into nursing homes as “insincere efforts to rewrite the past.”
Speaking of hardworking flacks for political hacks, here’s what a CNN spokesperson said about Chris Cuomo, the cable “news” anchor who also benefited from this preferential treatment: “It is not surprising that in the earliest days of a once-in-a-century global pandemic, when Chris was showing symptoms and was concerned about possible spread, he turned to anyone he could for advice and assistance, as any human being would.”
Indeed, as “The Most Trusted Name in News” sees it, if you take issue with the royal treatment the First Family of New York has afforded itself during this pandemic, you’re not human.
Put another way: Perhaps you don’t know who we are.
“Nobody surprised here,” tweeted Democrat Assemblywoman Yuh-Line Niou in response to the news that her state’s governor put his family first.
“This latest report of prioritizing his family members for COVID testing … and having their tests moved to the front of the line … adds to a very long list of reasons why Cuomo’s Gotta Go,” said New York Representative Lee Zeldin in a statement.
If ever there were a reason to distrust the mainstream media, Andrew Cuomo is it. Remember: It was its unfailingly fawning coverage during the pandemic that helped Cuomo win an Emmy Award and a sweet six-figure advance for his book on leadership lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic.
Cleary, though, there’s at least one leadership lesson that Andrew Cuomo never learned: putting the welfare of the people first.
Given the Biden/Harris surge to the left, it’s a good time for a transition of Heritage leadership.
In 1996, when we launchedThe Patriot Post, we did so with sage advice from conservative protagonists William F. Buckley (National Review, Emeritus) and Ed Feulner, PhD (Heritage Foundation, Emeritus) — which is one reason our First Amendment exercise is now one of the longest-running news and policy publications on the Web. I had known Ed for a decade before our launch, and he became one of our earliest endorsers: “The best Websites wield remarkable influence in the marketplace of ideas. The Patriot Post is a ‘must read’ for informed conservatives.”
The Heritage Foundation is the nation’s premier conservative think tank. From its start in 1973 under the leadership of Paul Weyrich, Ed Feulner, and Joseph Coors, it became the primary institutional policy advisor for Ronald Reagan and has been that for Republican presidents and key conservative members of Congress ever since. With revenues of $5 million during the Reagan years, Heritage grew rapidly and now has annual revenues in excess of $80-$100 million — which is to say its policy team and influencers have likewise grown to become second to none.
In December of 2012, Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC), who had been instrumental in the successful 2010 Tea Party movement, returning the House to Republican control in order to combat Barack Obama’s regime, resigned from the Senate to take the reins at Heritage after Feulner’s retirement.
Given the exigency of the times, Heritage took on a much more partisan tone under DeMint. Notably, however, by 2016, Donald Trump’s incoming administration hired hundreds of key people from Heritage’s list of most trusted conservatives — much as the Federalist Society provided Trump’s go-to list for his judicial appointments. The Heritage Foundation’s motto is, after all, “Leadership for America.”
Heritage hired Kay Coles James in 2018, the former director for the Office of Personnel Management under George W. Bush. Thanks to her leadership, in February of this year, Heritage was recognized in Forbes as the top-ranked free-market think tank.
But James’s tenure at Heritage during the tumultuous Trump years proved challenging, and this week, she and her executive vice president, Kim Holmes, announced their resignations.
James noted, “When we came on board as the executive leadership team three years ago, we set several goals and told Heritage’s board of trustees that we would … see them through. We accomplished everything we set out to do. Now, it’s time to let someone else take the reins.” For his part, Holmes noted, “Heritage is strongly positioned to provide principled conservative public policy solutions to the current challenges facing America. I am deeply proud of our accomplishments and honored to have played a role in helping Heritage to be ‘True North’ for the conservative movement long into the future. I look forward to seeing the great successes yet to come.”
That is largely true, but James was also the subject of earned criticism last summer after the death of a black man while in the custody of Minneapolis police. She claimed in an op-ed: “Racism is America’s Achilles’ heel. It has been embedded into our culture for 400 years, since the first Africans were seized from their homes on the other side of the world and brought to colonial America in chains and enslaved. … It’s time America takes responsibility and expands human flourishing to all of its citizens — not just the majority of them.”
James sounded more like a race-bait apologist for the Left than a cornerstone of conservative principles, much less the head of the nation’s leading conservative think tank. I presume she was consumed in the moment, as were too many otherwise thoughtful Americans. But as cities were besieged with burning, looting, and murdering mobs, James should have repudiated the surging Democrat Party claims fueling those riots — that America is consumed with “systemic racism.”
What James failed to make clear at the time, long-time Patriot Post supporter and George Mason University scholar Walter Williams made abundantly clear: “The true plight of black people has little or nothing to do with the police or what has been called ‘systemic racism.’” And the fact that James’s primary defender was Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson speaks volumes.
Unfortunately, James did not recover from that unfortunate error, and I suspect in the end she was subject to a quiet vote of no confidence. She will retain her board position as a Heritage Fellow and remain in an advisory capacity through the transition.
Given the dramatic surge to the left under the Biden/Harris regime, it is a good time for a transition of Heritage leadership — and we hope that includes a call to battle stations. We also hope that the selection of the next leader for Heritage will include a broader consensus of its membership and avoid the board room vacuums, which take too many good organizations down the wrong path.
A “transgender” activist raises another lawsuit against Colorado baker Jack Phillips.
The reason we coined the term “Rainbow Mafia” as a reference to activist homosexual and “transgender” lobbyists is due to the fact that they work so hard to force public acceptance of their deviancy, with no individual objections allowed. It’s all too similar to the criminal mobs forcing concessions and payments from those they harass and terrorize.
One case that continues to demonstrate the validity of this assessment is the ongoing harassment of Christian baker Jack Phillips. Ever since the first lawsuit was raised against Phillips over his refusal to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding eight years ago, the Rainbow Mafia has targeted Phillips for cancellation.
Even after a U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2018 that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission had violated Phillips’s religious rights by failing to hold to a standard of neutrality in its anti-discrimination lawsuit against him, the Rainbow Mafia couldn’t take the loss and leave Phillips alone.
On the same day that SCOTUS agreed to take the first case back in 2017, Autumn Scardina, a “transgender woman” — in other words, a biological man — sought to set up Phillips by ordering a cake celebrating his gender “transition,” a request Phillips politely declined on the grounds that it conflicted with his deeply held Christian beliefs. But the animosity began long before that. Way back in 2012, Scardina sent nasty emails to Phillips calling him a “bigot” and a “hypocrite.”
On Monday, hearings began in this case. This clearly vindictive “transgender” activist aims to force Phillips out of business over his refusal to celebrate his identity choice. Scardina explained his reasoning in suing Phillips: “[Masterpiece Cakeshop] indicated that I was welcome back in their shop and entitled to the same treatment as every other customer that telephones or comes through its doors. … I found it sort of offensive and wanted to see if that’s true too. So I called and spoke with who I believed to be Mr. Phillips. He answered the phone this time. I think I indicated — I asked: ‘Do you serve religious cakes?’ Because I noted in his several examples, they had nothing regarding religious cakes. Mr. Phillips indicated that he did. I asked him, ‘Well, could you prepare a religious cake for me that had’ — I think a picture of Satan smoking a joint is the religious cake I asked for.”
Given the outcome of the last case, it’s likely that Phillips will win again. However, given the mentality of those in the Rainbow Mafia, it’s also likely they won’t stop harassing him for refusing to bend his Christian beliefs to satisfy their deviant demands.
Tammy Duckworth didn’t think “the most diverse cabinet in history” was quite diverse enough.
Perhaps it’s a sign of the times, but we’ve come to expect our elected representatives to disgrace themselves on occasion. After all, a gang of 435 is bound to have its Anthony Weiners, its Katie Hills, its Tim Murphys, its Adam Schiffs, and its Eric Swalwells. But less so our senators. They’re supposed to be cut from better cloth. At least in theory. That’s clearly not the case, though, with Thailand’s own Tammy Duckworth, whose racism and bigotry were on full display this week.
As the New York Post reports, “Illinois Democratic Sen. Tammy Duckworth said Tuesday that she will oppose most of President Biden’s nominees in protest of his lack of Asian-American cabinet picks. … ‘There’s no AAPI representation in the cabinet. There’s not a single AAPI in a cabinet position. That’s unacceptable,’ Duckworth told reporters at the Capitol, using a term for Asian-Americans and Pacific islanders. ‘President Biden will be the first president in 20 years without a cabinet secretary who is AAPI.’”
Told of Duckworth’s protest, Biden shot back: “We have the most diverse cabinet in history. We have a lot of Asian Americans that are in the cabinet and in sub-cabinet levels.”
But what really set Duckworth off had happened the night before. That’s when Biden’s 2020 campaign manager, Jennifer O’Malley Dillon, made what Duckworth called an “incredibly insulting” remark on a webcast with fellow Democrats. Essentially, Dillon reminded the race-counting Duckworth that President-in-Waiting Kamala Harris is biracial and suggested that she should be happy with a veep whose mother was born in India and whose father was born in Jamaica.
Kamala’s worth a triple word score! we can imagine Dillon saying.
Duckworth, though, was indignant: “To be told that, ‘Well, you have Kamala Harris, we’re very proud of her, you don’t need anybody else’ is insulting. … Last night, that was the trigger for me. … Multiple times I’ve heard that. And that’s not something you would say to the black caucus, ‘Well, you have Kamala, we’re not going to put any more African-Americans in the cabinet because you have Kamala.’”
The trouble with diversity, of course, is that once it’s introduced, it tends to eat its own. How long, for example, before a pressure group of Greenland natives begin denouncing the Biden administration for its abject lack of Inuit representation?
“I’ve been talking to them for months,” Duckworth said. “And they’ve still not addressed it, so I am not going to be voting for any nominee from the White House other than diversity nominees — probably a ‘no’ on every one until they figure this out.” Asked to clarify who she would support as a “diversity” candidate, she said, “I will vote for racial minorities and I will vote for LGBTQ, but anybody else I’m not voting for.”
Whew. For a moment there, we thought she’d forgotten the LGBTQ community.
By late Tuesday, though, Duckworth had backed down. Perhaps it was the criticism from people of color that helped her realize anti-white racism is still racism and anti-heterosexual bigotry is still bigotry.
Take the tweet of one Patrice Lee Onwuka: “This is disgusting,” she said. “I am a black woman and I don’t believe that senators should approve or deny cabinet nominees based on their skin color. That is not progress but racism.”
As Fox News reports, “Ben Garmisa, her spokesman, said in a statement obtained by Fox News that Duckworth ‘appreciates’ the Biden administration’s ‘assurances that it will do much more to elevate AAPI voices and perspectives at the highest levels of government, including appointing an AAPI senior White House official to represent the community, secure the confirmation of AAPI appointments and advance policy proposals that are relevant and important to the community.’”
Growing up, I learned that someone was being “racist” when they treated certain people differently based on the color of their skin or ethnicity — and especially when excluding them from participation in the activities enjoyed by the majority race. Shockingly, the segregated graduation events taking place at Columbia University fit that exact criteria.
The graduation ceremonies being held are selective to Native, Asian, “Latin X,” and black students, as as well as low-income students. There’s even a special lavender ceremony for the so-called “LGBTIAQ+ community.” In a social media post this week, Columbia officials said, “Reports today … misrepresent our multicultural graduation celebrations, which exist in addition to not instead of, university-wide commencement.” Interestingly enough, middle-class and white students do not get these special segregated privilege ceremonies.
It does not stop there on university campuses. Candace Owens recently noted, “Netflix now has a category for ‘Black Cinema,’ and Uber eats now has a category for black restaurants — the Left has reintroduced segregation back into American Society under the guise of progressivism.”
I support the celebration of cultural heritage and our differences as individuals, but I find the double standards blatant and offensive. Elevating certain races or cultures while excluding others amounts to segregation, which encourages ethnocentricity and racial supremacy. American civil rights activist Ruby Bridges, the first black child through the desegregated doors of all-white William Frantz Elementary School in Louisiana, once observed: “Kids know nothing about racism. They’re taught that by adults.”
The constant effort of leftist adults to segregate colleges, TV shows, restaurants, and social media has the effect of teaching my generation that this is how the world is supposed to be. It’s not.
Allegations of rampant white supremacy undermine trust in our Armed Forces.
Mackubin Thomas Owens is a Marine Corps infantry veteran of the Vietnam War. He was also a professor at the U.S. Naval War College for nearly 30 years and is a senior national security fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute in Philadelphia. In other words, he understands the military, but he isn’t a career high-ranking political animal.
Thus, his fears of the politicization of the military carry a lot of weight. In an outstanding recent article for National Review, he explains the history of slandering the U.S. military going all the way back to the Vietnam era. He then explains the difference between racism and racial prejudice while discussing the pervasive leftist view that the military is somehow overrun with white supremacists.
After that setup, he gets to the core issue — undermining trust:
The claim that extremism and white supremacy are widespread in the military undermines trust on two levels: First, between the American people and the military as an institution; and second, between the military rank-and-file on the one hand and their leaders on the other.
Americans hold the military in high regard, perhaps too high. But if civilians have tended to place members of the military on a pedestal, implying that extremism and white supremacy are rampant in the military can only engender civilian disrespect for the armed forces and lead to unjust condemnation. This, needless to say, does not bode well for healthy civil-military relations.
Regarding trust within the force, what is the rank-and-file soldier to think when both politicians and especially senior officers seem to suggest that supporting President Trump or traditionally conservative ideas such as gun rights and smaller, less intrusive government might make him or her a threat to the country? What will be the consequences for morale and discipline if the ranks believe that senior leaders have sold them out by their apparent willingness to go along with such accusations?
I am personally aware of increasing disillusionment on the part of service members who feel betrayed by their senior leadership. Individuals join the military for a variety of reasons, but a dominant one is a sense of patriotism, which is undermined if service members believe that senior officers are willing to sacrifice them to trendy political ideas.
It is disheartening to note that no senior officer to my knowledge has stepped forward to denounce this latest slander against the American soldier. While real instances of extremism and white supremacy must be identified and perpetrators separated from the service, as has been the practice in the past, suggesting that white supremacy and extremism are rampant in the military is a disservice to the force. Both political leaders and senior officers owe it to the country in general and the military in particular to define extremism, identify actual cases, and provide data supporting their claim that a real problem does in fact exist. To do otherwise is to contribute to a calumny against those they claim to lead.
Today, March 25, is National Medal of Honor Day — the anniversary observance of the first Medal of Honor recipients. It’s an opportunity to recognize all of the recipients of our nation’s highest military award and recall their extraordinary service and sacrifice on behalf of their brothers in arms and in defense of American Liberty. Read more about it here.
Insight: “After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn’t do it. I sure as hell wouldn’t want to live in a society where the only people allowed guns are the police and the military.” —William S. Burroughs (1914-1997)
Tongue-in-cheek: “Before climate change Central America was in great shape and never had any revolutions.” —David Harsanyi
Friendly fire: “Expectations were created that with the government of President Biden there would be a better treatment of migrants. And this has caused Central American migrants, and also from our country, wanting to cross the border thinking that it is easier to do so.” —Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador
The buck stops… “I mean, first of all, we were left with a very challenging situation [at the border]. … I mean, again, we were presented, when we came in, with some serious challenges.” —VP Kamala Harris
And we’ve got beachfront property to sell in Tennessee: “Stop pushing the false choice that this means everybody’s trying to come after your guns. That is not what we’re talking about.” —Kamala Harris
The BIG Lie: “In a majority of states, new voters are able to obtain a rifle quicker than they’re able to cast their first ballot. It seems to me we have our priorities entirely backwards when it comes to this — when we make it easier to buy a gun than we do to cast a ballot.” —Senator Alex Padilla
Non compos mentis I: “We’re living in a nation today where 30% or 40% of the American people have given up on democracy — a worldwide problem. How do we combat that? We got to deal with voter suppression and the effort of Republicans to make it harder and harder for people of color, lower-income people, to vote.” —Senator Bernie Sanders
Non compos mentis II: “I believe that we should do away with the filibuster. I think the filibuster is an impediment to addressing the needs of this country, and especially of working-class people. So I believe that at this moment we should get rid of the filibuster, and I will work as hard as I can to do that.” —Bernie Sanders
Braying jackass: “The Republican Party has moved not only very far to the right, but moved in the direction of authoritarianism.” —Bernie Sanders
Alpha jackass: “What Trump understood is we are living in a very rapidly changing world. And there are many people … who feel that they’re losing control of the world that they used to dominate. And somebody like Donald Trump says: ‘We are going to preserve the old way of life, where older white males dominated American society. We’re not going to let them take that away from us.’ That is where [the Republicans’] energy is.” —Bernie Sanders
A blind squirrel finds a nut I: “I think there is not an appreciation of rural America or the values of rural America, the sense of community that exists in rural America. And somehow or another, the intellectual elite does have, in some cases, a contempt for the people who live in rural America.” —Bernie Sanders
A blind squirrel finds a nut II: “If you’re asking me, do I feel particularly comfortable that the then-president of the United States could not express his views on Twitter? I don’t feel comfortable about that. … Because yesterday it was Donald Trump who was banned, and tomorrow, it could be somebody else who has a very different point of view. I don’t like giving that much power to a handful of high-tech people.” —Bernie Sanders
And last… “There is a reason the Left uses mass shootings as the pretext for gun control. That’s because generalized homicide stats show that the best solution to homicide is more policing, and that gun control in America’s major cities – where murder is most common — has failed.” —Ben Shapiro
Thursday, March 25 at 1:15 p.m. ET: President Biden is holds his first solo press conference since the inauguration. He will likely receive questions about the situation at the U.S. southern border, the proposed $3 trillion infrastructure package, coronavirus, gun control and more.
The mainstream media cheered for Joe Biden’s inauguration, but two months in, are they prepared to ask the tough questions their job demands at his first solo presser? If CNN is anything to go by, the answer is a resounding no.
President Joe Biden is holding his first solo press conference later on Thursday afternoon. Both Donald Trump and Barack Obama had held multiple conferences by this point in their presidencies, but Biden has kept the media waiting an unprecedented nine weeks. Only Calvin ‘Silent Cal’ Coolidge made reporters wait longer, when he took office nearly 100 years ago.
Also on rt.com
There is much to talk about. Biden has signed more than 50 executive orders, put his pen to a $1.9 trillion stimulus bill, and launched missiles at Syria. Tens of thousands of illegal immigrants have poured over the Mexican border since Biden shredded Trump’s strict immigration policies, and both Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris have mounted a push for gun control in the wake of two mass shootings.
The press has plenty to work with, but this is Joe Biden we’re talking about. His inauguration was treated by many commentators in the mainstream media as a kind of spiritual moment, in which Biden metaphorically extended his arms to “embrace America,” to quote CNN political director David Chalian. “Let the healing begin,” tweeted his equally rapturous colleague, Shimon Procupecz.
Though CNN’s reporters no longer speak of Biden in messianic terms, the network published a list of potential questions for Biden on Thursday, and to call them “softballs” would be an understatement.
The list inspired mockery on Twitter, as commenters guessed just how low the bar would be set.
On Covid-19, CNN wants to know “how ambitious will you get?” and “how can we convince people to take the vaccines?” Note that both of these questions set Biden up to answer as he sees fit, as does the question “how will you make the vaccine distribution more equal?” Biden could be hammered on discrepancies between states and communities in vaccine distribution, but this method avoids placing the president under any undue stress.
Fresh from vaccines, CNN wants to know whether Biden will ban gasoline vehicles and “back electric cars.” At a time when Biden’s executive orders have already axed the Keystone XL oil pipeline and banned new drilling contracts on federal land, the energy workers who’ve lost their jobs (1,000 already and up to a million by 2022, per some worst-case scenario statistics from the industry) surely want to know when Biden will deal their industry another haymaker.
CNN also devoted a number of questions to former President Donald Trump. The network wants to know whether Biden will regulate Trump’s proposed social media platform, whether he thinks Trump incited his followers to commit “sedition” on Capitol Hill in January, and whether “presidents and their top advisers should be given special protection from congressional and other investigations after they leave office.” Every single one of these questions sets Biden up to bash his predecessor, as does the open-ended “how did this border situation happen?” Biden has already blamed the unprecedented migration surge on Trump, and will likely do so again if given a chance like this.
Also on rt.com
CNN also wants to know not if, but when Biden will expand and pack the Supreme Court, and when his party will move to end the filibuster, a Congressional rule standing between them and issuing progressive edicts with a simple majority vote. Conservatives oppose both of these measures, and Biden himself only recently came out in support of the latter. But CNN, understood here as an advocacy group for progressive liberalism, has already decided that they must happen, and Biden must be the man to do it.
Barring a question on whether Biden is spending too much money – having proposed a $3 trillion infrastructure, climate and “equality” bill, another on minimum wage, and another on why he hasn’t appointed more Asian-Americans to cabinet positions – CNN’s questions are extremely friendly, and a doddle for Dear Leader to answer how he sees fit.
CNN wonders when Biden will “increase taxes on wealthy Americans and corporations?” It could ask instead why Biden has already cut in half the income threshold over which Americans will start to see tax increases, but that might look too much like journalism and too little like PR.
Also on rt.com
Of course, if CNN were a serious news outlet, its reporters could ask Biden any number of tough questions. Why, for example, did his administration promise transparency but impose a media blackout on migrant detention facilities at the border? Why did Biden overturn every single one of Trump’s immigration policies, including the ‘Remain in Mexico’ policy that – politics aside – prevented surges like the present one from happening?
They could call Biden out for lying about how the US “didn’t have” a vaccine when he came into office, despite having personally received one a month earlier. They could point out how Vice President Harris sought to assure gun owners that the government isn’t “coming after your guns,” despite both Harris and Biden promising to do just that.
CNN is not alone in treating the Biden administration with kid gloves. From Newsweek articles on his adventures playing Mariokart with his family to MSNBC’s commentators literally comparing him to Jesus Christ, Biden has gotten a far easier ride from the media than his predecessor.
Thursday’s press conference is “open to pre-credentialed media,” meaning Biden’s aides have already chosen whom to allow in. That doesn’t rule out tough questions, but does make them far less likely.
At least we might finally learn the president’s favorite flavor of milkshake.
President Biden responded to the Boulder, Colorado, shootings by calling on Congress to pass a ban on assault weapons. Whatever that means. Aren’t all guns to some extent capable of assaulting? It’s the people who are firing those weapons we really need to stop, yes?
Throughout the Trump years and in particular during the 2020 COVID pandemic crisis, the nation was lectured by the Left “to follow the data,” as the Democrats proclaimed themselves the “party of science.”As sober and judicious children of the enlightenment, they alone offered the necessary disinterested correctives to Trump’s supposed bluster and exaggeration—and to his anti-scientific deplorable following (often dismissed by Biden as dregs, chumps, and Neanderthals).
In truth, leftists and Democrats have become the purveyors of superstition.Their creation of a fantasy world is not because they do not believe in science per se, but because they believe more in the primacy of ideology that should shape and warp science in the proper fashion for the greater good. What prompted Paul Ehrlich, Al Gore, or Representative Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) hysterically and wrongly to forecast widespread demographic or climatological catastrophe in just a few years was not ignorance of science per se, buta desire to massage science for our own good.
The Godheads of COVID-19
The medical pandemic godhead of the Left has been octogenarian Dr. Anthony Fauci. His twin chief public relations explainer has been liberal darling New York governor Andrew Cuomo. Both were always supposed to be on top of “the science.”
Dr. Fauci has not just been flat-out wrong on the science of COVID– in his assessments of the origins and possible dangers of COVID-19, of when we can get back to normal, of when the vaccinations would appear, and of which particular governors have been doing the most or least effective management of the disease.He has also, by his own admission, deliberately lied.
That is, Fauci has rejected science, as he knew it, to mislead the public. For our own interests, he adopted the Platonic “noble lie” on occasion. So, for example, he conceded that he had downplayed the value of masks (he now seems to approve of wearing one on top of another) in order to prevent too many wearing them, and thus the public shorting the supply available to more important health care workers.
Fauci also proverbially moved the goal posts on herd immunity, from the high 60s to the low 90s as a percent of the population, either vaccinated or with antibodies, necessary to achieve a de facto end of the pandemic.Again, Fauci defied the science on the theory he knew better, in assuming that the childish public would become too lax when and if it believed herd immunity was on the horizon.
Unspoken, is that Fauci usually errs on the side of what is deemed progressive orthodoxy.In contrast, Dr. Scott Atlas warned us that extended and complete lockdowns in any cost-benefit analyses might well inflict more human and economic damage than the virus.And he added that an opened-up Florida and Texas might do no worse virally than a locked-down California or New York, while avoiding the severe recessionary collateral damage.
Yet Atlas was damned for “not following the science” for the crime of working for Trumpand for following the science: while targeted wearing of masks and social distancing and quarantining of vulnerable populations are necessary, complete quarantines of the entire population and extended closing schools are counterproductive.
Little need be said of Cuomo other than the applicable Roman dictum he created a desert and called it peace. When the federal government delivered a tent-hospital and a huge hospital ship, they went unused. When it sent ventilators, Cuomo raged that they were too little, too late.
When his own record in New York of COVID mismanagement became public (currently over 2,500 deaths per million population, the second highest state in the nation and about 35-40 percent higher than the open, but hated Texas and Florida), he lied about his own redirection of COVID patients into pristine long-term care facilities that resulted in a proverbial bloodbath.
In his adherence to science, Cuomo received an Emmy for his narcissistic press conferences and adeptness at blame-gaming.That he was brought low not by his lethal politicking, but by serial allegations of being rude and handsy with female staffers suggests that his unscientific approaches to the pandemic were of little concern to his “scientific” supporters.
The “Science” of Quarantines
Consider another scientific debacle. In the midst of the quarantine, when governors and mayors were threatening to jail any who violated social distancing, mask wearing, or assembling en mass outdoors, hundreds of thousands hit the nation’s streets in crowded phalanxes of screaming and saliva-projecting protestors—all supposedly in violation of “the science” of epidemiology and public health.
The reaction of our elected officials—not just silence but open approbation—is to be expected, given the political class is so often timid and simply genuflects to perceived voter pressure groups.But “the science” on spec also came to the rescue of the quarantine violators to offer pseudo-scientific support for violating government-mandated “data”-driven policies.
Over 1,200 healthcare officials weighed in with their “expertise” and postmodern gibberish to defend mass violations of quarantine rules: “Instead, we wanted to present a narrative that prioritizes opposition to racism as vital to the public health, including the epidemic response.”
And the experts added all sort of postmodern hedging to emphasize that their recalibrated woke “science” was now different than others’ less woke “science”:
However, as public-health advocates, we do not condemn these gatherings as risky for COVID-19 transmission. We support them as vital to the national public health and to the threatened health specifically of Black people in the United States.
So in Animal Farm terms, some protests “are more in violation than others.”In a more historical vein, we might imagine these “experts” at another time and place, joining the chorus of scientists praising the agronomic genius of Joseph Stalin, whose “brilliant” and “scientific” irrigation fantasies began the destruction of the Aral Sea. In any case, millions decided why stay indoors when millions of others hit the streets to protest, loot, burn, destroy, and injure—with the sanction of our experts.
Non Compos Mentis
The Left hammered the 74-year-old overweight Trump about his supposedly iffy health. They brought in a Yale psychiatrist, Dr. Bandy X. Lee, to testify about his incapacity to Congress. There and in op-eds, she offered a pseudo-scientific assessment of debility (e.g., “I and hundreds of mental health professionals are available and eager to assist with any or all these efforts”). Yes, and unethically so, without ever having examined the patient in question.
According to Lee, Trump was mentally impaired, a sociopath, and needed an “intervention,”a serious medical diagnosis that soon became a “scientific” grounding for the wild charges leveled at Trump of incompetence on network and cable news. Trump in his exasperation at “fake news,” took the Montreal Cognitive Assessment Test to prove his powers of recall and analysis. He aced the exam.
But where is Lee now in the era of a 78-year-old Joe Biden in the White House?
Or rather, where is the Left to use her “research” to question whether Joe Biden is compos mentis? In the last 30 days, he has claimed there were none vaccinated when he entered office (he was photographed receiving a shot on December 21, a month before his inauguration).
In truth, 1 million a day were receiving vaccinations when Biden assumed the presidency. He cannot at times remember the name of his own secretary of defense or of the Pentagon where Gen.(ret.) Lloyd Austin works, and increasingly needs a translator to make sense of his slurred words, raspy voice, off-topic wandering, truncated vocabulary, and fragmented syntax.
Trump was once said to be shaky and disguising an obvious illness because after a long day at West Point he walked slowly in his leather shoes on a smooth ramp. In contrast, this week Joe Biden staggered and fell three times climbing the stairs to Air Force One—without a commensurate media howl.Will Joe be subject to an outside medical assessment? Might Dr. Lee reappear to give him the Montreal test?
I think we know the answer.“Science” is used to denigrate a perceived enemy of the people, and ignored to enhance a guardian of the flock.
Hate Crimes by Whom?
Joe Biden and the Left are implying if not outright asserting that there is now an epidemic of Anti-Asian violence perpetrated by white racists, insidiously emboldened by Trump’s past references to the “Wuhan” or “China” virus. No doubt, in a nation of 330 million, there are lots of haters who happen to be white, but are they the main culprit for racially-motivated crimes of hatred against Asians?
Recently, a deranged sex-addict and religious fanatic shot and killed eight people in the Atlanta area, six of whom were apparently Asian Americans. When apprehended, the 21-year-old confessed to the murders. In unhinged fashion, he claimed that he sought to eliminate sex workers and their places of business in general, with which he was apparently obsessed.
The unhinged shooter denied that race drove his murdering and indeed, he murdered two whites and injured a Latino. And his past proven sex addition and mental instability, along with his lethal shooting of non-Asians, suggest he was a pathological, mentally impaired murderer, not a race hater bent of mowing down the Other.
No matter.The media massaged the story into proof of its theories that a spate of recent hate crime attacks against Asian Americans were fueled by white supremacists, or at least those goaded on by the racist Donald Trump.That narrative was lacking evidence in both the Georgia shootings and the recent assaults on Asians.
One data point to justify such unsubstantiated charges that we might not see is a list of all Asian American victims of recent hate crimes, calibrated by the race/ethnicity of the attacker, and then adjusted to percentages in the general population—all in the context of clear racial animosity.
To do so, might suggest that in all those attacks where a clear, premeditated racial motive, rather than random violence or psychological deviance, is found, black males are inordinately represented.
For example, in the FBI hate crime statistics for 2019, the most recent year available, 4.4 percent of all single bias racial hate crimes were Asian Americans. Where the race and ethnicity of the perpetrators for all hate crimes was known, 52.5 percent were “white,” of whom 33.1 percent were in the ethnic category list as “Not Hispanic or Latino.”
Such so-called non-Hispanic whites make up about 65-70 percent of the population, depending on the method of categorization. In contrast, 23.9 percent of hate-crime perpetrators were identified as black or African American, while they comprise only 12-13 percent of the population. Data from New York and San Francisco on bodily violence or crimes in general against Asians suggest the same pattern.
The science might suggest that in matters of hate crimes –if society insists on focusing on the race and ethnicity of the attacker and knows the motive – it should then compare relative percentages of the population to determine who is inordinately, or not inordinately, committing such crimes.
To the degree, some progressives follow the science, the more honest left-wing venues have conceded that blacks may have been inordinately responsible, in demographic terms, for anti-Asian violence and indeed are over-represented in race-driven hate crimes in general. But they escape the obvious ramifications of such intersectional hatreds, by offering an exculpatory exegesis: nonetheless, whites are responsible for the hate, by pitting one racial group against another to ensure Roman-like divide-and-conquer “white supremacy.”Thus, for example, one Antoine Watson ran across the street to push down and kill 84-year-old San Franciscan Vicha Ratanapakdee because either Donald Trump had used the phrase “Chinese virus” or due to the insidious “white supremacy” that had conditioned the African American Watson to hate immigrants from Thailand.
Fencing in Cities, Vaccination, and Ruskies
The science might also tally up all the material and human damage committed in 2020 in Los Angeles, Minneapolis, Portland, Seattle, and Washington, D.C. and then compare it to the carnage of January 6 at the Capitol. And then experts might show whether there is a scientific correlation between the number of federal troops posted in Washington to other major riot-torn cities, at least in terms of soldiers stationed per person injured and killed or millions of dollars in property damaged. Otherwise, why the inordinate military build-up around the Capitol?
In truth, our woke officials pay little attention to science.If the point is to vaccinate first all Americans most likely to die or become seriously ill by COVID-19, then age and proven comorbidities might have been the most effective scientific criteria to schedule vaccinations. Yet for weeks in many states instead we floundered by ignoring science as scientists haggled over which particular marginalized or essential community should gain precedence over another.
In the Russian collusion hoax, to this hour, we have ignored the findings of Robert Mueller’s failed $35 million, 22 month investigation.Christopher Steele testified that he had no data to present to back up his mythical, now biblical dossier. James Comey pleaded amnesia 245 times as in “I don’t recall” when asked under oath about his own investigation. Robert Muller himself testified that he knew almost nothing about Fusion GPS and the Steele dossier, the catalysts for his own investigation. James Clapper had no evidence, he testified under oath, to substantiate his public charges that the president of the United States may be a “Russian asset.” No matter, in “learning-nothing-forgetting-nothing” fashion, we are now returning to the theme of Trump as a Russian asset and colluder on the basis of “new” evidence from the “intelligence community.”
Such is the “science” of Russian collusion.
As a general rule, the next time an official, a politician, or an expert lectures us on the “science,” make sure that he is not projecting his own unscientific biases onto others.
This website was launched by the European Medicines Agency in 2012 to provide public access to reports of suspected side effects (also known as suspected adverse drug reactions). These reports are submitted electronically to EudraVigilance by national medicines regulatory authorities and by pharmaceutical companies that hold marketing authorisations (licences) for the medicines.
EudraVigilance is a system designed for collecting reports of suspected side effects. These reports are used for evaluating the benefits and risks of medicines during their development and monitoring their safety following their authorisation in the European Economic Area (EEA). EudraVigilance has been in use since December 2001.
This website was launched to comply with the EudraVigilance Access Policy, which was developed to improve public health by supporting the monitoring of the safety of medicines and to increase transparency for stakeholders, including the general public.
The Management Board of the European Medicines Agency first approved the EudraVigilance Access Policy in December 2010. A revision was adopted by the Board in December 2015 based on the 2010 pharmacovigilance legislation. The policy aims to provide stakeholders such as national medicines regulatory authorities in the EEA, the European Commission, healthcare professionals, patients and consumers, as well as the pharmaceutical industry and research organisations, with access to reports on suspected side effects.
Transparency is a key guiding principle of the Agency, and is pivotal to building trust and confidence in the regulatory process. By increasing transparency, the Agency is better able to address the growing need among stakeholders, including the general public, for access to information. (Source.)
Their report through March 13, 2021 lists 3,964 deaths and 162,610 injuries following injections of three experimental COVID-19 shots:
There is also data for a fourth experimental COVID “vaccine,” COVID-19 VACCINE JANSSEN (AD26.COV2.S). We have not included data from the Johnson and Johnson COVID shot in this report, but will do so in future reports.
A Health Impact News subscriber in Europe ran the reports for each of the three COVID-19 shots we are including here, and here is the summary data through March 13, 2021.
Total reactions for the experimental mRNA vaccine Tozinameran (code BNT162b2, Comirnaty) from BioNTech/ Pfizer: 2,540 deaths and 102,100 injuries to 13/03/2021