Monday, February 16, 2015
Leftists hating their own country again
The BBC’s coverage of the bombing of Dresden in which Britain was described as ‘worse than the Nazis’ was condemned as disgraceful by RAF veterans and MPs last night.
Despite dedicating more than 32 minutes of airtime to the 70th anniversary of the fire-bombing that killed tens of thousands at the end of the Second World War, there was barely a mention of British airmen who lost their lives.
The BBC’s four major news shows and Radio 4 interviewed multiple German survivors of the bombings.
They also showed a British prisoner of war who berated those who ordered the raids, adding it was ‘demonic’ and ‘evil’.
But the coverage failed to mention the 55,000 airmen who died for Britain during the war. Nor did it mention the devastating Nazi bombing raids on London and Coventry.
One presenter even referred to Dresden as a ‘war crime’ and another spoke of how Britain ‘deliberately unleashed devastation on civilians’, while failing to refer to Auschwitz or Hitler.
During the only interview – which lasted just 23 seconds – with an RAF crewman who flew on the raid, the 91-year-old was asked: ‘Did you ever feel guilty about what happened at Dresden?’ Former Lancaster bomber rear gunner Harry Irons DFC simply replied: ‘No, not really.’
Last night politicians, historians and military figures said the coverage was a ‘disgrace’ and disrespectful to the airmen who served and died in Bomber Command.
Sir Gerald Howarth, a former defence minister, told the Daily Mail: ‘It is very unfortunate that the BBC chose on all days to produce such a one-sided account. ‘It was just as one might expect from the BBC, concentrating on the negatives.
‘What about the civilians in London who were bombed out of their homes? What about the bombing in the Blitz? To suggest that those responsible for the bombing of Dresden were on a par with Hitler or guilty of war crimes is an absolute disgrace.’
Most of the BBC coverage focused on an interview with Victor Gregg, 95, who was a British prisoner of war in Dresden during the bombing. He said: ‘I saw people killed every day... but what I saw in Dresden – I’ve never seen women and children involved before.’
Asked by the presenter if he thought it was a war crime, he said: ‘Definitely.’
Mike Brundle, who served in the RAF for over 25 years, said: ‘The BBC should have had someone who was a member of Bomber Command on that operation – those are the ones who risked their lives.
A total of 125,000 men served as Bomber Command aircrew during the Second World War. Their chance of surviving the war was lower than that of infantry officers in First World War trenches. Bomber Command had a 44 per cent death rate – 55,573 died in action.
Some 3,249 Lancasters were lost in action – nine during the bombing of Dresden.
A woman who wrote a letter to the Daily Mail added: ‘The BBC is beyond belief. Do we hear you “celebrating” the “hell” that was Swansea burning, or Coventry, or Plymouth, or Portsmouth – with the same unctuous sympathy as you are showing for Dresden? We have nothing to be guilty about.’
Military historians and former military top brass defended the bombing of Dresden.
Historian Frederick Taylor told the Mail: ‘Thousands of innocent civilians as well as soldiers were dying every day as battles raged in east and west – not forgetting the concentration camp inmates who were still being murdered by starvation, violence, disease, and forced marches.
‘How could any resource – including the massive Allied air forces – be left unused in trying to shorten the war and save many, many thousands more innocent lives? There should have been more room for another view.’
Sir Michael Graydon, former head of the RAF, added: ‘It was an entirely understandable target. The bomber crews carried out the duty they were equipped to do with bravery and efficiency. I would have liked to see (the BBC) talking about the lessons of the war and a mention of Bomber Command.’
A BBC spokesman said: ‘The bombing of Dresden has always been a controversial episode. On Thursday evening the main BBC News bulletins reflected this and featured interviews with British veterans in coverage of preparations for the commemoration. On Friday we covered the commemoration ceremony in Dresden, which understandably reflected on the German experience.’
A BBC spokesperson added: 'BBC News has covered in greater depth than any other broadcaster many aspects of the commemoration of World War II - both the human cost on all sides and the military action - and will continue to do so.'
Evil Feminist Aborts Male Child Because She ‘Couldn’t Bring Another Monster Into The World’
A feminist blogger has created a massive uproar by detailing her decision to kill her male child in an article entitled “I Aborted My Baby – Because it was a Boy“. She initially believed that she was going to have a girl, and she was making all sorts of plans for her future. But when an ultrasound showed that it was going to be a boy, she decided that she must have an abortion because she “couldn’t bring another monster into the world”. And she says that she would do it again “if the curse returns”. So what would cause a woman to want to kill her own child just because it is a boy? How twisted has feminism in America become if this is the result?
You can read her entire article right here. A lot of people that have read it have become extremely angry, but personally it makes me very sad. We will never know what that young boy could have become. We will never know what gifts he could have shared with the world. He will never love and be loved. And it is all because of a very selfish and cruel decision by his mother.
So is this what the “right to choose” is all about? When this young mother initially believed that she was going to have a girl, she was filled with joy…
“As spring turned into summer and my belly started to grow, my mind ran wild with the thoughts of teaching my daughter from a young age tolerance and feminist ideals. Choosing the right all-girls daycare, then elementary school, all so that she could grow up and thrive in an environment where women are told that they can do anything that they want to do. No man will be around to hurt her progress, no boys there to demean her or call her names.”
But then one day she went in for an ultrasound, and her joy turned into utter despair…
“I was in shock, I started crying, weeping at the thought of what I was about to curse the world with.”
To many people, this kind of radical feminism seems extremely bizarre. But the truth is that this is what they are teaching our young women at colleges and universities all over the nation.
Getting back to the story, it only took a couple of days for this young mother to decide to have an abortion…
“By the third day, I started regaining some of my mental strength and knew what I had to do. I couldn’t bring another monster into the world. We already have enough enemies as it is.”
And after she had her son killed, she felt really great about it. In fact, she feels like she did “something that would actually make a difference” in the world…
“A few days later, I went in for the procedure, as it was fairly later in my pregnancy, I was aware there were certain risks, but it went off without a hitch. My body’s betrayal was no more, I was free, and for the first time since the airplane incident, I felt strong. I had done something positive, something that would actually make a difference, something good, even though as I would find out, many others wouldn’t see it that way.”
So does she have any regrets after all this time? Not at all…
“If the curse returns, I would do the exact same thing all over again.”
Needless to say, there was a huge backlash against her article. People were absolutely outraged that any mother would choose to do such a thing…
"Later, Lana said she was shocked at the public’s response to her blog posting, claiming she had even received death threats.“I cannot believe some of the emails that have been forwarded to me,” she wrote in a follow-up post. “[D]o people really exist who want to see me dead because of what I chose to do with my own body? Those are the minds of mentally disturbed individuals … I suspect that many of you reading this will be the kind of people who are sending emails from their mom’s basement, leaving comments on here and on social media websites as you degrade mentally more and more while sitting on your crusty computer chairs. Do everyone a favor: GROW UP!”
In reality, this abortion is not really any different from the tens of millions of other abortions that have been performed in America since Roe vs. Wade was decided in 1973.
Everyone that gets an abortion has a “reason” for getting one done. This mother’s reason may seem a bit more outrageous than others, but the end result of any abortion is always a murdered baby.
So how does a women get to the point where she gleefully has her baby put to death just because it is a male?
Well, the truth is that the cultural forces shaping this woman’s decisions go back a long, long way. The following is an excerpt from a recent Infowars article…
"This diabolical “us vs. them” mentality pushed by today’s so-called feminists highlights how feminism has transformed from a genuine women’s rights movement in the late 19th century into a top-down tool of social control steered by the CIA and other powerful interests to make women more dependent on the government while breaking up the traditional family model.
Simply put, people generally hold more allegiance to their own families than they do the state, so what better way to destroy families than to corrupt feminism into an “us vs. them” movement pitting women against men?
A leading icon of the feminist movement, Gloria Steinem, even admitted she received funding from the CIA and the Rockefeller foundation to influence the counter-culture movement in the 1960s."
The minds of our young people are literally being poisoned, and it is going to get even worse the farther we plunge down the cultural toilet.
We have been taught that it is normal to kill our own babies, and since 1973 more than 50 million Americans have been killed this way.
Obama's abortion oscillations
It’s a good thing President Obama doesn’t work for NBC – or else he might have been suspended for lying too! Like the NBC’s Brian Williams, voters would have a difficult time narrowing down all the untruths to one. This President has told so many whoppers that Burger King should name a sandwich after him! David Axelrod, a former political advisor, spilled the beans about one of the President’s most unconvincing fibs in his new book, Believer.
Although it was no secret to anyone who followed Obama’s early career, the candidate-and-later-President was fully on board with same-sex “marriage” from Day 1. Before he was an Illinois senator, the up-and-coming Democrat was clear on a questionnaire about where he stood – only to change his position when it wasn’t politically advantageous.
Now, Axelrod is forcing the President out of the closet on his motivations, saying that he deliberately compromised just to advance his career. “If Obama’s views were ‘evolving’ publicly,‘ they were fully evolved behind closed doors,” David wrote.
In particular, the former top advisor said, the African-American community’s overwhelming support for natural marriage drove the decision to hide his true colors. “Opposition to gay marriage was particularly strong in the black church, and as he ran for higher office, he grudgingly accepted the counsel of more pragmatic folks like me, and modified his position…” But even now, when he has the opportunity to come clean, the President is still trying to keep up the façade, insisting that Axelrod “is mixing up my personal feelings with my position on the issue.”
Americans might have given the “if-you-like-your-plan-you-can-keep-it” President the benefit of the doubt before, but not after a trail of tales that makes even Pinocchio seem honest. Fool us once, shame on you. Fool us 16 times, and you become almost irrelevant.
Unfortunately, this President hasn’t exactly staked his legacy on honesty. From Benghazi, taxpayer-funded abortion, and ObamaCare to Fast and Furious, religious liberty, and executive authority, it’s become more difficult to find instances when the President has told the truth. The facts are such a foreign concept in this White House that even left-leaning PolitiFact has logged more than four pages of lies from this President. And we wonder why the American people are so cynical about politics! In this case, the President’s “evolution” was a not-so-intelligent design.
Of course, President Obama is right about one thing in this litany of falsehoods: supporting natural marriage is a winning political strategy. And it continues to be, as more states and leaders push back on the courts’ agenda to redefine marriage. In conjunction with National Marriage Week, the House and Senate are both introducing legislation to stem the attack on federalism at the states' borders. Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Congressman Randy Weber (R-Texas), who both introduced the State Marriage Defense Act this time last year, know these bills have never been more important – especially on the eve of the Supreme Court arguments this spring.
“Even though the Supreme Court made clear in United States v. Windsor that the federal government should defer to state ‘choices about who may be married,’” Cruz said, “the Obama administration has disregarded state marriage laws enacted by democratically-elected legislatures to uphold traditional marriage.”
In the House, Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-Kans.) is taking a different tact, offering a federal amendment that would define marriage as the union of a man and woman in the U.S. Constitution. Dozens had done exactly that until the courts intervened and doubled the number of states with same-sex “marriage” to 37 since last October. Of course, that exposes one of the media’s lies, which is that Americans have evolved right along with the President. Voters only approved his radical position on marriage in three of those 37 states. Fortunately for FRC and a majority of conservatives, we never believed in evolution anyway!
Does Marriage Make You Happier? What a New Study Found
Journal abstract: "Subjective well-being research has often found that marriage is positively correlated with well-being. Some have argued that this correlation may be result of happier people being more likely to marry. Others have presented evidence suggesting that the well-being benefits of marriage are short-lasting.
Using data from the British Household Panel Survey, we control individual pre-marital well-being levels and find that the married are still more satisfied, suggesting a causal effect, even after full allowance is made for selection effects.
Using new data from the United Kingdom's Annual Population Survey, we find that the married have a less deep U-shape in life satisfaction across age groups than do the unmarried, indicating that marriage may help ease the causes of the mid-life dip in life satisfaction and that the benefits of marriage are unlikely to be short-lived.
We explore friendship as a mechanism which could help explain a causal relationship between marriage and life satisfaction, and find that well-being effects of marriage are about twice as large for those whose spouse is also their best friend.
Finally, we use the Gallup World Poll to show that although the overall well-being effects of marriage appear to vary across cultural contexts, marriage eases the middle-age dip in life evaluations for all regions except Sub-Saharan Africa."
“Those who marry are more satisfied than those who remain single,” claims a new study by the National Bureau of Economic Research.
But does marriage itself influence happiness? Or is it just that happier people are more likely to wed?
This study gives support to the idea that marriage itself contributes to happiness. (In other words, even the grumps that get married may find themselves happier because they are married.)
Another finding from the study is that that friendship is a mechanism that may explain the link between marriage and life satisfaction. In fact, those who see their spouse as their best friend benefit even more from marriage.
But, during National Marriage Week (Feb. 7-14), it’s good to remember that happiness isn’t the only benefit marriage brings.
For instance, married adults tend to live longer and be healthier. They also have higher incomes, and not simply because two incomes mean more money. Marriage itself appears to boost men’s salaries: they work more hours and earn higher incomes.
Marriage doesn’t just help adults: it also serves an especially important role in the lives of children. Children who live in intact families tend to have better educational attainment and exhibit fewer behavioral problems. They also experience better physical and emotional health and are more likely to experience economic well-being.
Unfortunately, even with the good news about marriage, marriage rates have continued to drop and are at an all-time historic low.
The marriage rate has fallen by approximately 50 percent since the 1960s. Since then, the number of couples who cohabit has risen to nearly 12 percent. However, cohabiting relationships do not have the same benefits as marriages. In fact, cohabitation before marriage is linked to decreased marital stability and lower marriage quality. According to a government study on cohabitation, the risk of divorce is specifically higher for women who cohabit before marriage.
This decline in marriage is particularly problematic for children.
As marriage rates have declined, unwed childbearing has skyrocketed. Now, over 40 percent of all children are born to single mothers. In more than half of these cases, the child is born to a single mother who is in a cohabiting relationship.
Children born outside of marriage are roughly five times more likely to be poor compared to their peers in married-parent homes and are at risk for other negative outcomes. Yet the vast majority of women value marriage, and most Americans desire to get married.
National Marriage Week, happening until Feb. 14, presents a chance to focus on rebuilding a culture of marriage for this generation.
Policymakers should focus on reforming policies that penalize marriage, as many means-tested welfare programs do. Cultural leaders should also make efforts to strengthen marriage, helping more Americans achieve the dream of a happy and stable marriage and receive all the benefits of the institution—for themselves and their children.
Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.
American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of other countries. The only real difference, however, is how much power they have. In America, their power is limited by democracy. To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges. They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did: None. So look to the colleges to see what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way. It would be a dictatorship.
For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and DISSECTING LEFTISM. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.