Wednesday, September 22, 2021

Democrats shaft Israel

House Democrats removed a provision to give Israel $1 billion toward its Iron Dome defense system from the continuing resolution to keep the government open and funded past September 30 after opposition from the Squad.

The US was forced into crisis talks with Israel in the fallout, with House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer reportedly telling Israeli Foreign Minister Yair Lapid the removal of funds from the stopgap bill was only a 'technical delay.'

Hoyer told Lapid the money would be transferred 'in the near future.'

Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, Rashida Tlaib of Michigan and Pramila Jayapal of Washington are leading the blockade, according reports.

Funding for the Iron Dome will instead be included in Congress' bipartisan fiscal year 2022 defense bill, House Appropriations Chair Rep. Rosa DeLauro said on Tuesday.

Top Republican lawmakers have already panned Democrats for capitulating to the progressive wing.

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy wrote on Twitter, 'Democrats just pulled funding from the Iron Dome—the missile defense system that has saved countless lives in Israel from Hamas' rocket attacks.

'While Dems capitulate to the antisemitic influence of their radical members, Republicans will always stand with Israel.'

Rep. Elise Stafanik, who heads the House Republican Conference, labeled Democrats 'the party attacking Israel and their inherent right to self-defense.'

'Republicans stand strongly with Israel and support [the Iron Dome],' the New York lawmaker wrote on Twitter.

Rep. August Pfluger of Texas said, 'Democrats don't support the Iron Dome anymore. Does that mean they want rockets to hit civilians? This party gets more radical by the day.'

Texas Senator Ted Cruz, who vowed to filibuster the measure when it got to the Senate, accused Democratic leaders of surrendering to progressives.

'Tragic. Dem leadership surrenders to the anti-Semitic Left. They hate Israel so much that Dems are stripping $1 BILLION in funding for Iron Dome—a purely defensive system that protects countless innocent civilians from Hamas rockets,' he wrote on Twitter.

Cruz added, 'Will any Dems have the courage to denounce?'

The House is still aiming to pass the stopgap funding bill to keep the government running until December 3 today.

But during the House Rules Committee's Tuesday morning session, Chairman Jim McGovern of Massachusetts unexpectedly called a recess before getting to the legislation.

'We just have one [thing] to resolve, I hope it won't take very long,' McGovern said. 'I thought we were all set, but we have a little glitch we've got to figure out.'

The session resumed on Tuesday afternoon after a few hours' delay.

But the progressives took issue with the funds aimed at boosting Israel's military defense.

Lawmakers missed a July deadline to raise or suspend the debt ceiling, forcing the US Treasury into extraordinary measures to keep up the flow of dollars through government.

But that money is weeks away from running out, according to estimates by Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen.

The measure was expected to pass the Democrat-controlled House today.

With just a narrow majority, they can only afford to lose three votes to still get it through.

But moderate Democrats are already bristling at the sudden change in direction.

'Iron Dome is a defensive system used by one of our closest allies to save civilian lives. It needs to be replenished because thousands of rockets were fired by the Hamas terrorists who control Gaza,' Rep. Ted Deutch of Florida wrote on Twitter Tuesday.

'Consider this my pushing back against this decision.'


UK: One Christian preaching the faith, 14 police silencing him

OVER recent weeks the manner in which the Metropolitan Police prevented a Christian pastor going about his lawful duties has been in the hands of solicitors in a formal legal process seeking redress. It is therefore only now possible to make known the shocking police action on August 20 in Uxbridge, West London.

On this date I was preaching the gospel in the open area near to the entrance to the Underground station. I began preaching at around 1.05pm on Bible texts including, ‘All have sinned and come short of the glory of God’ (Romans 3:23), and referring to the sinful hearts of all men. I moved on to speak of the state of the nation, and made a brief reference to the immorality of abortion and to the biblical teaching that marriage can be only between one man and one woman.

I had been preaching for 15 or 20 minutes at the most when two police officers came up to me and said that ‘multiple complaints’ had been received about ‘hate speech’. A few minutes after that there were no fewer than 14 police on the scene.

Why was it necessary for so many officers to rush to deal with a pastor preaching from the Bible? The police were trying to give the impression that they were dealing with a serious public order problem, when there was no such problem at all. At one point they told onlookers to disperse, but the only reason for the increasing number of onlookers was all the police officers! In fact, there had been no adverse responses at all to the preaching in terms of heckling or gesticulations from passers-by.

The officers did not enter into any discussion about what had actually been said, and were unwilling to consider my own account. They were also unwilling to countenance the possibility that the complaints received may simply have been the subjective response of those who dislike Christian teaching anyway. Is it not the task of the police to investigate rather than to presume?

The officers expressed their concern about those in society with ‘protected characteristics’ (namely LGBT people), but did not demonstrate any parallel concern about the protected characteristic of religion, and, more particularly, about the protected characteristic of Christians who believe what the Bible teaches.

Concerning the police order to leave the area, without taking any notice of my plea that nothing remotely approaching hate speech had been engaged in, the impression was plainly given that if I refused to stop preaching and leave, an arrest would ensue. So I reluctantly complied. I suggested to one of the officers that they were acting as judge and jury, rather than trying to make inquiries.

The officers, when asked, were unable to repeat any words which I had allegedly spoken which could possibly come under the category of hate speech. They said that actual words did not matter, only that some people had taken offence. How can police possibly decide that a hate-speech crime has occurred if they cannot quote anything that was said?

When I asked the officers precisely how many complaints had been received, they insisted on adhering to the word ‘multiple’. Furthermore, an attempt by a colleague to explain the Redmond-Bate case to an officer was ignored. This was extremely relevant, because in the Redmond-Bate v DPP case of 1999 Lord Justice Sedley concluded that causing offence is not a crime, and ruled that freedom of speech under the law included ‘the irritating, the contentious . . . the unwelcome and provocative. Freedom to speak inoffensively is not worth having. A police officer has no right to call upon a citizen to desist from lawful conduct [in this regard]’.

I told an officer that if there were a Pride parade in Uxbridge, the police would be openly supporting it, my point being that the Metropolitan force appear to have no problem whatsoever about offence being caused in public to Christians. The officer replied that it would be totally appropriate for the police to support a Pride parade. This statement is surely an admission that the Met is not impartial when it comes to dealing with Christian ministers on LGBT-related issues.

The police action was nothing less than the State shutting down the public proclamation of the Christian faith. An ordained Christian minister carrying out his lawful activity in a temperate and reasonable manner should not be treated like a criminal and told to desist from preaching the very truths which Her Majesty the Queen promised to uphold in her Coronation oath. I consider that I deserve an unreserved apology from the Metropolitan Police for this shocking encroachment upon my freedom to proclaim Jesus Christ and biblical teaching in the highways and byways of our nation.


Jessica Rabbit gets politically-correct makeover from iconic femme fatale to trench coat-clad private eye for revamped ride Disneyland ride

Disneyland is giving Jessica Rabbit a politically-correct makeover as a private eye - ditching her famous low-rise red dress with a trench coat and a fedora - in one of its iconic rides.

Rabbit is being redesigned to be more empowered and less scantily-clad on Roger Rabbit's Car Toon Spin ride, Yahoo News reports, as the ride's backstory is updated to make her a private investigator trying to fight a rise in crime.

The ride originally opened in 1994 in Mickey's Toontown section of the Anaheim, California theme park and featured guests catching a taxi and following Roger Rabbit and Benny the Cab as they race through Toontown looking for Jessica Rabbit, according to Inside the Magic.

But under the park's plans, the ride will get a 'more relevant' reboot with a new plot that features Jessica as a trench coat-wearing private investigator.

'Citing the return of the Toon Patrol Weasels as the main driver behind the recent sharp rise in crime statistics throughout Mickey's Toontown, Jessica Rabbit has determined it is past time to throw her fedora into the ring by starting her own private investigation service,' a poster inside the revamped ride will read.

'While taking inspiration from longtime friend and legendary Toon Detective Eddie Valiant, Jessica shows that she certainly means business.'

A Car Toon Spin Ride scene featuring Jessica Rabbit and the weasels with an automobile, as well as the final scene of the ride are being updated under the plans, the Orange County Register reports.

One scene featuring her tied up in the trunk of a car has already been updated, one park-goer pointed out on Twitter, with the damsel in distress replaced by barrels of cartoon-erasing paint thinner.

Jessica Rabbit first debuted in the 1988 film Who Framed Roger Rabbit?, in which she is accused of murder and must turn to detective Eddie Valiant to find the killer.

The character will not be changed in the movies.

Still, the news upset some fans on social media, with one person writing that Disney 'does not understand the concept of Jessica Rabbit,' including a picture describing her as 'the most wholesome character in this movie' and an 'intentional subversion of the femme fatale trope in noir films.'

Another called the move: 'Disney blindly stumbling into the objectification vs. sex positivity debate by saying Jessica Rabbit needs to have a masculine job and wear masculine clothes in order to be empowered,' while a user 'Lukinator' said: 'The PC police have struck again.'

Other users asked, 'Why does Disney hate sexy people?' and 'Is it just me, or is Disney basically just slut shaming Jessica Rabbit?'

The news comes as construction continues at the park, with the new Mickey and Minnie's Runaway Railway trackless ride set to open in 2023, and many attractions remaining closed since Disneyland reopened from an extended coronavirus closure in late April.

The park has previously revamped some of its rides to make them more politically appropriate for the 21st century.

In June, the Walt Disney parks unveiled a revamped Jungle Cruise ride that removed 'negative depictions of native people,' according to Yahoo News, and last summer, the theme parks vowed to completely redo its Splash Mountain ride - based on the controversial 1946 film Song of the South - and replace it with a ride based on the 2009 film Princess and the Frog, which features Disney's first black princess.


Wall Street Journal Exposes Facebook Bias and Corruption

As we have noted, second only to the domestic threat the Democrats’ bulk-mail ballot fraud poses to American Liberty and Rule of Law is collusion with their Leftmedia propagandists and their BigTech First Amendment suppressors in order to throw elections.

The systemic suppression of First Amendment rights by Big Tech and the Leftmedia is the leftists’ key strategy for shaping and controlling public opinion. And they have become masters at “shadow-banning” conservative content, systemically limiting our content reach to our followers on their platforms, despite the fact that those followers have deliberately selected to see our content.

When Americans are targeted because of our constitutionally protected political and/or religious views, leading to coordinated shadow-banning of content, deplatforming individuals or organizations, and in some cases then defunding those individuals and businesses when financial institutions selectively refuse services — that constitutes a digital form of “redlining” in violation of the most fundamental of civil rights. Without a Republican gauntlet, the surge in the systemic redline suppression of civil rights by institutions will continue. And at present, few Republicans sufficiently understand the enormous impact of this background suppression being used by social media giants.

Let me be clear about this: When commercial social media companies ban individuals from their platforms because the protected First Amendment expression of their views doesn’t comport with that company’s views, that is an open violation of those individuals’ civil rights. However, the shadow-banning of content for the same reasons is invisible, but it has a far more egregious impact on suppression of civil rights than the highly visible deplatforming of high-profile individuals.

While all the congressional focus is on Big Tech high-profile bans, there is virtually no congressional focus on the invisible shadow-banning — which, again, is a much more effective means of suppression of free speech, and by a magnitude of 100 times more consequential.

Fortunately, The Wall Street Journal is undertaking a long-overdue investigative look at one of these social media giants, Facebook. The Journal has produced a five part series exposing Facebook’s bias and corruption. I link each part of that series here as the series lays an important baseline for the dangers of social media.

Part 1: Facebook Says Its Rules Apply to All. Company Documents Reveal a Secret Elite That’s Exempt — A program known as XCheck has given millions of celebrities, politicians, and other high-profile users special treatment, a privilege many abuse.

Part 2: Facebook Knows Instagram Is Toxic for Teen Girls, Company Documents Show — Its own in-depth research shows a significant teen mental-health issue that Facebook plays down in public.

Part 3: Facebook Tried to Make Its Platform a Healthier Place. It Got Angrier Instead. — Internal memos show how a big 2018 change rewarded outrage and that CEO Mark Zuckerberg resisted proposed fixes.

Part 4: Facebook Employees Flag Drug Cartels and Human Traffickers. The Company’s Response Is Weak, Documents Show. — Employees raised alarms about how the site is used in developing countries, where its user base is already huge and expanding.

Part 5: How Facebook Hobbled Mark Zuckerberg’s Bid to Get America Vaccinated — Company documents show antivaccine activists undermined the CEO’s ambition to support the rollout by flooding the site and using Facebook’s own tools to sow doubt about the COVID-19 vaccine.

There is also a podcast series on Facebook’s corrupt practices.




No comments: