Thursday, August 05, 2021
Wisdom.
“If you alter or obscure the Biblical portrait of God in order to attract converts, you don't get converts to God, you get converts to an illusion. This is not evangelism, but deception.”
―
―
Many Thanks, CL. We Are Moving From Stupidity To CRASS Stupidity.
Written By Classical Liberal
Male-born transgender prisoners were first allowed to request a transfer to women’s jails in England and Wales in 2016. The risks of this policy were made clear only one year later when a convicted rapist was moved to women’s prison HMP New Hall and sexually assaulted two female inmates. Karen White identified as a woman but was still legally a man and had not undergone surgery. White was jailed for life in 2018 by a judge who branded her a ‘highly manipulative predator’. Despite the history of such assaults, in July 2021, the courts decided that ultimately the rights of transgender women trumped the rights of natal female prisoners.
Cultural Marxists must be jumping for joy as they watch second and fourth-generation feminists tear each other to pieces over what it means to be a woman. In her own words, ‘Amy Jones’ (a pseudonym) was ‘sexually assaulted in a women’s prison … by a fellow inmate with male genitalia’. The prisoner who sexually assaulted Amy at HMP Bronzefield in Ashford, Middlesex, is referred to as ‘J’ because she cannot be identified for legal reasons. J is a transgender woman with a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC). And, therefore, is referred to by the female pronoun but still has male genitalia.
J was serving a sentence for a serious sexual assault on a child. Yet, she had secured a coveted job as a cleaner at the prison gym where Amy also worked. While Amy was in the gym’s lavatory block, J assaulted her in 2017. ‘What were the officers even thinking, letting her clean toilets in which women would be in a state of undress and alone? Why was there a child sex offender with a penis cleaning the toilets of the gym in a women’s prison’? asks Amy. I would also ask why do they have gyms in prisons? Yet another ridiculous waste of taxpayer’s money, if you ask me.
‘When J went for a shower, the prison put a sign on the door saying that no one else should enter because they knew it would upset the women if they saw her naked, but J objected to this and said it was an infringement of her human rights’, recalls Amy. ‘She said, “I am a woman and I want to shower with other women”’. Yet another example of workers at the sharp end trying to exercise common sense and being soundly defeated by the PC Brigade because their bosses are too cowardly to back them up in the face of all of this nonsense.
Indeed, J, wielding the threat that any criticism of her behaviour would be considered ‘transphobic’, was permitted concessions that would not be granted to other women prisoners. For example, although rules state that most cosmetics purchased from outside the prison are banned, J was allowed to have toiletries brought in. As Amy explains, ‘Trans prisoners claim they have to disguise their beards and want to look feminine so they are given special privileges’.
Amy heard that J had been sent to the segregation unit as punishment for not taking the medication that prevented her from getting an erection, ‘which begs the question: why was she still allowed around us’? After the assault, Amy told a senior prison officer what happened and asked, ‘Why a child sex offender with a penis was allowed to clean the women’s toilets in the gym’? The officer replied: ‘Everyone deserves a second chance’.
Amy observes that ‘Sex offenders are master manipulators, and if they sniff vulnerability they target it. At the same time, they are going on about their human rights and scaring the prison officers into looking the other way’. Surely, our culture has lost its moral compass if convicted child abusers are allowed to lecture the rest of us on human rights!
This month Amy learned that she had failed in a judicial review challenge to the Ministry of Justice (MOJ) policy concerning allocating high-risk transwomen prisoners – including sex offenders – to female prisons. Amy’s lawyers argued that the law currently discriminates against women prisoners and that the Government failed to consider the provisions of the Equality Act, which allow for certain single-sex exemptions, permitting men and women to use separate facilities in particularly sensitive circumstances. In his ruling, Lord Justice Holroyde accepted Amy raised genuine concerns. Many women would ‘suffer fear and acute anxiety if required to share prison accommodation and facilities with transgender women with male genitalia and convictions for sexual and violent offences against women’. He also allowed that the statistical evidence showed the proportion of transgender prisoners previously convicted of sexual offences was ‘substantially higher’ than for non-transgender men and women prisoners.
Between 2016-2019, 97 sexual assaults were recorded in women’s prisons. Transgender prisoners without a GRC committed seven. It is unknown whether transgender women with a GRC committed any because they are disregarded in Government figures. Once again, the Government conveniently forgets to collect statistics that might show how bad things are. But, Holroyde concluded that the statistics ‘… are so low in number, and so lacking in detail, that they are an unsafe basis for general conclusions’. The judgement recognises that housing transgender women with convictions for sexual assault creates a real risk but considers that the prison service has put measures in place to manage that risk. However, the evidence seems to belie Holroyde’s optimistic claim. Amy’s case against the prison service was bolstered by evidence from another prisoner at HMP Bronzefield who also complained of assault by J.
Yet, the prison service didn’t report the assaults by J on either woman to the police. According to Amy, ‘The staff turned a blind eye to this behaviour. They protected themselves and didn’t speak out as they were worried that they would get into trouble because of the trans policy in prison; a policy which doesn’t consider the impact on women prisoners’.
HMP Downview in Banstead, Surrey, established a separate wing for high-risk transgender women with a GRC. Initially, three transgender women were housed there, but since then, all have successfully challenged their allocation to the wing as ‘transphobic’. All are now back in the general prison population—yet another example of common sense being defeated by political correctness.
Indeed, if we cannot put transgender women in men’s prisons because that puts them at risk of harm, putting them in separate wings has to be better than putting them in the general population of women’s prisons, posing an obvious threat to natal women prisoners.
Of course, this is small beer! In March 2019, thirty-four transgender women without a GRC were allocated to a woman’s prison. The number of transgender prisoners with a GRC is thought to be in single figures across the prison population.
But it is an extreme and obvious example of a more significant point: how political correctness defeats common sense and creates a country where decent people suffer ... Independence Daily.
Wednesday, August 04, 2021
Feeble England Bat Poorly On The First Day of First Test v India.
So few of the batsmen had played any form of long game cricket in recent months - and did it show! Our system is a bad one and The wretched Hundred has already had a major deleterious effect!
England opted to bat first (?) and the conditions were never easy with a swinging ball and low cloud cover but nobody was surprised to see them skittled for a feeble 183. Only skipper Root managed as much as a half century.
At stumps, India were 162 behind with all ten wickets intact.
Rescuing this match looks nigh on impossible. (Anyone know how to do a Native American rain dance?)
So WHY Was Jesus Tried At Night?
Pastor Rick Bartosic outlines several 'minor irregularities' in The Trial Of Jesus before The Sanhedrin:1. There was to be no arrest accomplished by a bribe.
2. All criminal cases had to be tried in the daytime.
3. There could be no secret trials, only public.
4. Sanhedrin trials could only take place in the Hall of Judgement in the temple compound. No decision was valid which did not take place there.
5. All evidence had to be guaranteed by two or three witnesses whose testimony had to agree in every detail or the prisoner was discharged immediately.
6. The witnesses were the accusers who had seen the crime, arranged for the arrest and presented the accusation before the judges.
7. A false witness was put to death.
8. Before a trial could begin there must be a presentation of the accusation by the witnesses (indictment) then arrest and trial.
9. At the trial the defense had to come first.
10. The judges were never to seek to condemn the accused. They were to take his side and seek every means for his acquittal.
11. The accused person never to be allowed to testify against himself.
12. A person could never be condemned on the basis of his own words alone.
13. In cases of capital punishment, the trial and the guilty verdict cannot occur at the same time but must be separated by 24 hours.
14. The verdict must be announced in the daytime.
15. After hearing the testimony of the witnesses, they must vote individually beginning with the youngest so they would not be influenced by the elders.
16. A unanimous decision for guilt shows innocence since it is impossible for 23 to 71 men to agree without plotting.
17. The judges were to be humane and kind.
18. The condemned person was not to be beaten or scourged beforehand.
"The law was broken so many times in the trial of Jesus that it is hard to see how a trial could have been more illegally run or the laws of Israel more thoroughly flouted." James Boice.
BLM - A Rotten Philosophy! - Below We See A Far Better Philosophy.
For those who don't remember, BLM listed its 13 Guiding Principles online for four years before they removed them after public criticism in 2020. Here is the text of the "Black Villages" principle:
"We are committed to disrupting the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and 'villages' that collectively care for one another, and especially 'our' children to the degree that mothers, parents and children are comfortable."
BLM's village does not include husbands, fathers, or even men in general. It was not an anomaly. None of BLM's 13 principles did. The organization's founders received a great deal of public criticism because of their views on the nuclear family, which only intensified after they identified themselves as Marxists. Understanding their views on Marx are an important piece of the puzzle because Marx himself called for the abolition of the family. His view in the 1800s was that the ruling class used the families of the proletarians for economic gain. He claimed abolition of the family would prevent the exploitation of working-class children.
Getting a chance to spend time with my family and celebrate my best friend's birthday reminded me of the village in which I was raised. That village included both my extended family of aunts, uncles, and cousins as well as my church family. Most of the adults in both groups immigrated to the United States between 1970 and 1990 from the Caribbean. Most of their children were educated entirely in America.
My three best friends and I — affectionately known to our families as the Four Horsemen — were all raised in families with both of their parents. The other families from our church that made up our village had similar structures. Everyone worked hard and lived modestly. All our families were strict, and the men worked with their hands. Whether they did carpentry and construction during the day or gardening in the evening, they were always focused on building and growing things.
We went to church picnics every summer, played in a basketball league, and did demolition and construction work with the older men. Families would help each other out as needs arose. Every time someone bought a house, at least 10 people would show up to help them move in and get settled.
Our families had similar standards, so no child could attempt to go to one house to skirt the rules laid down by their own parents. We got into plenty of mischief as teenage boys growing up in New York, but the values instilled in us by our parents have borne fruit. The kids in my generation are productive members of society. We have amassed degrees, certifications and self-sustaining careers, but it is the replication of our village that I believe makes our parents most proud. There has been a steady stream of weddings and baby showers over the past decade, and it is a blessing to see how much our parents enjoy being grandparents.
This is the vision of family life and community I see when I think about a village. BLM wants to erase men, aside from the ones whose corpses they can exploit for their own gain. Their village model exists within their broader worldview — one in which capitalism, private property, police, prisons, and any social norms they deem oppressive are abolished. In their world, the state would instill values in our children through public schools and the government would provide for everyone's material needs.
If corporate media wasn't populated with such sycophantic activist journalists, maybe one would have thought to ask BLM an obvious question: why would an organization committed to black life be opposed to the family structure that has proved most beneficial to children?
I have yet to hear a credible argument about why the black community is suffering from too many nuclear families. Stronger nuclear families make for stronger villages and extended families. They provide an environment of love and protection for children navigating the hard realities of life on a daily basis. Weakening those bonds only makes sense to people that think BLM stands for "buying large mansions.''
Blaze.
Simply Unsustainable.
Mass migration has driven Britain’s foreign-born population to nine million and the ethnic minority population to 13 million in just 20 years, according to new figures from Migration Watch UK.
The massive shift in demographics has come about as a result of the fact that “foreign migration has been running at about 300,000 per year for the past 20 years” — Britain’s Armed Forces are comprised of around 159,000 personnel, trained and untrained, for comparison’s sake — coupled with generally higher birth rates among the migrant and migrant-descended population, with the report noting that “34 per cent of births in England and Wales in 2019 involved at least one parent who was not born” there.
The report notes that “the non-UK born population [has] double[d] to nine million” over the last 20 years, while “the ethnic minority population, whether or not born in the UK, has more than doubled to thirteen million, increasing their share of the population from 10 per cent to just over 20 per cent” — this figure includes “those who identify as ‘Other White’ (mainly from the EU)” as well as so-called “visible minority ethnic” or VME individuals. Breitbart.
Antisemitism.
The west's tsunami of antisemitism.
Diaspora Jews in Britain and America are paralysed by a fantasy of acceptance
 |
|
 |
In this podcast with Allen Roth, president of Secure America Now, I discussed the “tsunami” of antisemitism in the west and the inadequacy of the responses to it. Forming an “axis of evil that spans continents,” an unholy alliance has developed between leftists and Islamists. Worse still, cultural and political leaders in both Britain and America have been paralysed into virtual silence by moral and cultural relativism, which prohibits any criticism of the developing world; while the campaign against “Islamophobia,” which is used to suppress any criticism of the Islamic world however well-founded, has further colonised the minds of untold thousands.
I also talked about the supine response of Jewish community leaders in both Britain and America. Some are too frightened to tell the truths that urgently need to be told to counter the demonisation and delegitimisation of Israel, including making known the unambiguous anti-Jewish incitement that is pumped out by the supposedly moderate Palestinian Authority. Many others have themselves signed up both to the false narrative about Israel and to the wider onslaught upon truth and morality in the west, which means that tragically they do the Jew-haters’ dirty-work for them.
These Jewish leaders are gripped by the perennial diaspora fantasy that if they only do this or that they will fit in and be accepted and will never again be the victims of prejudice. But bitter history tells us that “fitting in” is always made conditional on something — a lesson that today’s diaspora Jews still refuse to learn.
Tuesday, August 03, 2021
Are You As Blameworthy As I?
“What is blameworthy is that people who live quite differently to the wicked, and abhor their deeds, are nonetheless indulgent towards the sins of others when they ought to teach them otherwise and rebuke them. It is blameworthy, that is, when they do this for fear of offending people who might do them harm with regards to things which the good may certainly use permissibly and innocently, but which they are pursuing more avidly than is proper for people who are only on pilgrimage in this world, bearing with them the hope of a heavenly homeland.” St Augustine.
Dystopia.
Julie Roys is host of a national talk show on the Moody Radio Network called "Up For Debate."
Jesus confronted the money-changers and challenged believers to give to the needy. But, would he support socialism?
Increasingly, Americans think he would. In fact, a recent Barna poll found that more Americans think Jesus would prefer socialism (24%) than those who believe he would prefer capitalism (14%). The other 62% responded neither or not sure, but the poll still reveals a disturbing trend.
Last Saturday, Micah Conkling, a Christian writer and podcaster, argued on my radio program that socialism is the political and economic system that best fulfills the Golden Rule. Not surprisingly, Conkling is a Millennial, the most pro-socialist generation America has ever known. According to a recent Reason-Rupe survey, 53% of Americans under 30 view socialism favorably, compared to less than a third of Americans over 30. Similarly, Gallup found that 69% of those under 30 said they would be willing to vote for a socialist presidential candidate.
I understand why Millennials are wary of the current system. They've witnessed a consistently declining economy; one of the most partisan eras in American history; the fall of the twin towers; and a war predicated on weapons of mass destruction that were never found. I agree with them that our political system desperately needs reform. But, socialism is not the answer. Though it may sound compassionate and Christian, it's actually antithetical to everything Christianity teaches.
Here's why:
1. Socialism is Based on a Materialistic Worldview
According to socialists like Bernie Sanders, the greatest problem in the world is the unequal distribution of wealth.
His website declares: "The issue of wealth and income inequality is the great moral issue of our time, it is the great economic issue of our time, and it is the great political issue of our time."
This betrays a fundamentally materialistic worldview, which is the basis of socialism.
To socialists, all that really exists is the material world. In fact, Karl Marx, the father of socialism/communism, invented the notion of dialectical materialism — the belief that matter contains a creative power within itself. This enabled Marx to eliminate the need for a creator, essentially erasing the existence of anything non-material.
To socialists, suffering is caused by the unequal distribution of stuff — and salvation is achieved by the re-distribution of stuff. There's no acknowledgment of spiritual issues. There's just an assumption that if everyone is given equal stuff, all the problems in society will somehow dissolve.
This worldview contradicts Christianity, which affirms the existence of both a material and a non-material world — and teaches that mankind's greatest problems are spiritual. The Bible says the cause of suffering is sin and salvation is found in the cross of Christ, which liberates us from sin. Because of sin, though, there will always be inequalities in wealth. As the parable of the talents shows, those with good character tend to accumulate more; those with bad character may lose everything they have. Yet, even if we are unable to accumulate wealth, Christianity teaches that we can still have an abundant life. That's because our quality of life is not determined by how much stuff we have, but by our relationship to Christ.
2. Socialism Punishes Virtue
Socialists want to distribute wealth to individuals according to their need, regardless of virtue.
As Karl Marx, famously said, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."
However, whenever any institution provides aid, it runs the risk of removing God-designed rewards and consequences. It can punish those who are industrious by making them pay for those who are not. And, it can reward those who aren't industrious by giving them the fruits of another man's labor. This is precisely what socialism does.
Interestingly, Marx mooched off others his whole life, and failed to provide for his wife and children.
As Aristotle once noted, "Men start revolutionary changes for reasons connected with their private lives."
The Bible teaches that aid should be tied to responsibility. First, anyone who refuses to work should be refused aid.
As 2 Thessalonians 3:10 says, "The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat."
Next, no one should be given aid whose family can provide for him. In fact, the Apostle Paul said that a man who fails to provide for his family is "worse than an unbeliever." (1 Tim. 5:8) The church also required widows receiving aid to have "a reputation of good works." (1 Tim. 5:10) So, even in dispensing aid, the church rewarded virtue and discouraged vice. Unfortunately, socialism does just the opposite.
3. Socialism Endorses Stealing
Barack Obama once defended his socialist policies to a little girl by saying, "We've got to make sure that people who have more money help the people who have less money. If you had a whole pizza, and your friend had no pizza, would you give him a slice?"
That sounds pretty Christian, right? What Christian wouldn't endorse sharing your abundance with someone who has nothing? However, Obama wasn't endorsing people voluntarily sharing their wealth with others; he was endorsing the government forcibly taking a piece of the pie from one person and giving it to someone else. Put another way, that's saying that if you have three cars and your neighbor has none, the government has a right to take your car and give it to your neighbor. That's not Christian; that's stealing!
But, socialists don't believe in private property. And, some Christian socialists actually assert that the Bible doesn't either. That's preposterous.
Both the Old Testament and New Testament unequivocally affirm private property. We can't even obey the eighth commandment to not steal, unless we accept the notion of private ownership. Nor, can we steward our money as the Bible commands if the state owns our money, not us. So, for an economic and political system to be Christian, it must protect private ownership and allow individuals freedom to allocate their resources according to their conscience.
4. Socialism Encourages Envy and Class Warfare
Socialists demonize the rich, blaming all of society's problems on them.
Bernie Sanders once posted to his Facebook Page: "Let us wage a moral and political war against the billionaires and corporate leaders on Wall Street and elsewhere, whose policies and greed are destroying the middle class of America."
Here, Sanders is mimicking Karl Marx, who viewed history as a series of class struggles between the rich and the poor — and advocated overthrowing the ruling class.
Scripture strongly warns the rich and powerful not to oppress the poor.
In fact, Proverbs 14:31 says, "Whoever oppresses the poor shows contempt for his maker . . ."
But, Sanders — and other Leftists, including Hillary Clinton — go far beyond decrying specific acts of injustice. They basically condemn an entire class of people simply for possessing wealth. And, they encourage those who are poor to overthrow them. In fact, Clinton once said the U.S. economy required a "toppling" of the wealthiest 1%.
The rich are not causing all the problems in American society. People like Bill Gates are not acquiring wealth by stealing from the masses. They're creating great products, which produce wealth, and actually provide jobs for many people. But, even if they were exploiting the poor, nowhere does Scripture support the have-nots demanding money from the haves. Instead, it teaches that we should not covet (Exodus 20:17) and should be content in all circumstances (Phil. 4:11-13).
5. Socialism Seeks to Destroy Marriage & Family
A little known fact about socialism is that, from its beginning, it has sought to destroy marriage and family. Grove City Professor Paul Kengor explains this in detail in his book, Takedown: From Communists to Progressives, How the Left Has Sabotaged Marriage and Family. Essentially, what socialism seeks is for the state to replace the family. That way, it can indoctrinate children in its Leftist way of thinking, and remove from them any notions of God and religion.
Friedrich Engels, co-author with Marx of the "The Communist Manifesto," once wrote that the society he envisioned would be one where "the single family ceases to be the economic unit of society. Private housekeeping is transformed into a social industry. The care and education of the children becomes a public affair."
Similarly today, Bernie Sanders calls for a "revolution" in childcare and for the government to provide early childhood education beginning with children as young as six-weeks-old. And, he's a proud supporter of gay marriage — what Kengor calls "communism's Trojan Horse" to secure the final takedown of traditional marriage.
To socialists, what Bernie describes is a utopia. But, to Christians, it's a dystopia. That's because there's nothing Christian about socialism — and there's absolutely no way Jesus would ever support it. CP.
Anti-Semitism and Social Media.
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-58058428
I can't help but wonder how this compares with other forms of discrimination but I think I can probably guess. Phil C.
Monday, August 02, 2021
Slightly Dated But Still Relevant.
THE OVERLOOKED CRISIS IN EAST AFRICA THAT’S AS IMPORTANT AS CORONAVIRUS
The world has rightly turned its attention to China and the Coronavirus but, says Joseph Kamara, there is a crisis enveloping East...
What Is YOUR First Line of Defence?
''We tend to use prayer as a last resort, but God wants it to be our first line of defence ...'' Oswald Chambers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Most Interesting.
Mums show support for abortion pill reversal against California lawsuit. (Photo: Unsplash) Over 200 mothers who took treatment to counter...
-
Calls for investigation after monk killed at Ukrainian monastery A law firm representing the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC) has said the ...
.jpg)
