News Clips
News Clips
Various News Headlines Clipped Below
Clipped from Public: European Politicians Declare War On Text Message Privacy
The same EU politicians who are trying to censor the Internet now want to read all of your personal messages and break encryption
Cecílie Jílková and Alex Gutentag | Apr 30, 2024
In recent weeks, Public has documented how ruling European politicians appear to have weaponized government intelligence agencies to discredit and censor their political enemies.
Now, Public has learned that the European Union is close to winning new legislation that would allow it to monitor all private digital conversations, from text messaging to emails. The new law would give EU police the power to read all messages on Gmail, WhatsApp, and other mail and text messaging services.
The politicians, who are Members of the European Parliament (MEPs), say their legislation will be limited to “individuals or groups… linked to child sexual abuse using “reasonable grounds of suspicion.’” And, they said, “To avoid mass surveillance or generalised monitoring of the internet, the draft law would allow judicial authorities to authorise time-limited orders…”
But the technology companies themselves such as Apple say such “automatic data scanning” is technically impossible without compromising privacy and security. The new law would require Facebook, X, YouTube, Telegram, Snapchat, TikTok, and cloud services and online gaming websites to constantly monitor and report any evidence of child sexual abuse material (CSAM) on their systems and in the private chats of their users. And messaging apps including Signal, Proton Mail and Tutanota would no longer have end-to-end encryption.
As a result, "Millions of private conversations and private photos of law-abiding citizens are about to be searched and leaked using flawed technology without even a remote connection to child sexual abuse,” warned Patrick Breyer, a privacy activist and former member of the European Parliament who opposes the proposed modifications to the law, known as "Chat Control."
The details of the new law leaked on April 2 and were published in the subscribers' section of the French news site contexte.com. The draft contains the full text of the regulation, which people close to the process say means that it is getting readied for approval.
All of this is very shocking. There is no evidence of any increase in child exploitation that merits this panic. Europeans have historically cared more about privacy than Americans, and have put in place strong privacy protections for their citizens. Why is it now seeking such a massive invasion of privacy? Why is the EU on the verge of enacting mass surveillance?
“Chat Control” As Information Control
The EU’s “Chat Control” is not the first attempt to undermine encryption. WhatsApp and Telegram have been in the censorship industry’s crosshairs since late 2018, when free speech on texting apps was blamed for allowing then-candidate Jair Bolsonaro to become president of Brazil.
In March 2021, Rob Flaherty, the Biden White House's director of digital strategy, demanded that Meta, the owner of messenger app WhatsApp, moderate private conversations on its platform.
Large philanthropies have promoted spying on text messages for several years “There is currently no easy way to discover potentially problematic content on WhatsApp and other end-to-end encrypted platforms at scale,” lamented censorship advocates in a January 2022 Omidyar Foundation report.
“One potential solution is to make use of misinformation ‘tiplines’ to identify potentially misleading or otherwise problematic content,” the report concluded. “On WhatsApp, a tipline would be a phone number to which WhatsApp users can forward potential misinformation they see to have it fact-checked.”
EU institutions have been discussing mandatory control of private messages for almost two years. The EU Commissioner for Home Affairs, Ylva Johansson, and several NGOs, the most prominent of which are Thornand ECPAT, are all behind the current proposed legislation.
The proposed law is excessively "influenced by companies that pretend to be NGOs but behave more like technology companies", Arda Gerkens, former director of Europe's oldest online CSAM reporting hotline, told Balkan Insight last September.
"Groups like Thorn are using everything they can to bring forward this legislation, not only because they feel it is the way forward in the fight against child sexual abuse, but also because they have a commercial interest in it," Arda Gerkens added.
Meredith Whittaker, president of the American non-profit Signal Foundation, the company behind the encrypted chat app Signal, said at the European Digital Rights (EDRi) conference on September 26, 2023, "we're in the midst of a storm of global attacks on the human right to privacy with governments Security Services, AI companies masquerading as NGOs and a lot of money with very little transparency hard at work trying to walk back the few safe havens we've been able to carve out against the ferocious surveillance business model and the states that skim off of it."
In an interview with Balkan Insight, Whittaker said that AI companies that produce scanning systems are effectively establishing themselves as clearing houses and liability buffers for large technology companies and feel the market potential. "The more they frame this as a huge problem in the public discourse and in front of regulators, the more they incentivize big tech companies to trust them to solve problems," Whittaker said.
According to Whittaker, these AI firms are essentially offering tech companies a "free pass from liability" by telling them, "'Pay us [...] and we will [...] maintain the AI system, we will do whatever it takes to magically clean up the problem.’”
According to EDRi, it is possible that providers will rely on “already existing infrastructure, such as the PhotoDNA software“ to comply with “Chat Control.” This technology is linked to efforts to prevent “extremism.”
PhotoDNA was created in 2009 by Microsoft Research in cooperation with Dartmouth College professor Hany Farid. Farid has also emerged as one of the world's leading authorities on the spread of online disinformation— and how to bring it under control.
PhotoDNA creates a unique signature for a digital image, which can be compared with the signatures of other images to find copies of that image. According to EDRi, use of PhotoDNA tool would mean that, “In the event of the file being identified as relevant, this would not only allow to block the message from being forwarded but also an alert to be given to the police as well.”
Farid and PhotoDNA did not respond to Public’s request for comment.
The European Commission's December 2023 report refers to PhotoDNA as “the most widely used tool […] used by over 150 organizations. PhotoDNA has been in use for more than 10 years and has a high level of accuracy.“
Microsoft already uses its PhotoDNA — in combination with artificial intelligence — in a number of its products, including Skype, OneDrive and Xbox. Microsoft donated PhotoDNA to the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children (NCMEC).
As of 2022, PhotoDNA was widely used by online service providers including Google's Gmail, Twitter,Facebook, Adobe Systems, Reddit, Discord to help find, report and eliminate some of the images of child pornography online.
In June 2016, Farid, then working as a senior advisor to the Counter Extremism Project (CEP), unveiled a software tool for use by Internet and social media companies to quickly find and eliminate extremist content used to spread and incite violence and attacks. It functions similarly to PhotoDNA.
To operationalize this new technology to combat extremism, Farid and CEP proposed the creation of a National Office for Reporting Extremism (NORex), which would house a comprehensive database of extremist content and function similar to the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children.
In December 2016, Facebook, Twitter, Google and Microsoft announced plans to use PhotoDNA to tackle extremist content such as terrorist recruitment videos or violent terrorist imagery. However, according to EDRi, “the definition of “extremist content” is everything but clear; CEP’s algorithm does not (and logically cannot) contain this definition either.”
Farid also specializes in the analysis of digital images and the detection of digitally manipulated images such as deepfakes. A deepfake detector designed by Farid and Czech student Matyáš Boháček to identify unique facial expressions and hand gestures can spot manipulated videos.
“We need government oversight,” professor Farid said in an interview about disinformation in November 2023. “Europeans are doing a good job of it. They came out with a dossier recently, the Digital Safety Act. The Brits are coming out with an online safety bill. The Australians have passed one. The Americans? The Americans are lost at sea.”
PhotoDNA can recognize not only images but also videos. It can therefore identify all copies of deepfake videos on the Internet. Or videos that contain child pornography. Or videos that incite extremism. Or videos that contain disinformation or hate speech. It only depends on the assignment.
Germany And Encryption Activists Fight Back…
Worth reading in full HERE.
Clipped from The Spectator: USC’s suppression of the anti-Israel valedictorian is unacceptable
This is a textbook attack on the principle of free expression in the name of security
April 21, 2024 | Juan P. Villasmil
University of Southern California’s 2024 valedictorian, Asna Tabassum, will not be allowed to deliver a speech at the university’s commencement ceremony due to, according to the school’s provost, security concerns. The cancellation comes following a wave of criticism over what groups such as US-nonprofit StopAntisemitism labeled “her authoring [of] an antisemitic social media post on her Instagram account.”
This is a textbook attack on the principle of free expression in the name of security. The move is designed to avoid controversy and save face by unjustly silencing those whose beliefs and speech differs from that of other, often more powerful, groups.
You don’t have to agree with Tabassum. You may well see her position on Israel-Palestine as radical and impractical. But how could anyone who stands for pluralism, debate and free expression take USC’s side?
“While this is disappointing, tradition must give way to safety,” Provost Andrew Guzman wrote in an email to the university community. “This decision is not only necessary to maintain the safety of our campus and students, but is consistent with the fundamental legal obligation — including the expectations of federal regulators — that universities act to protect students and keep our campus community safe.”
“To be clear: this decision has nothing to do with freedom of speech. There is no free-speech entitlement to speak at a commencement. The issue here is how best to maintain campus security and safety, period,” Guzman added.
While somewhat rhetorically compelling, the email’s justification shouldn’t convince those who cherish free expression and meritocracy. Even if it is true that no one is “legally” entitled speaking time at the podium, Tabassum hit the highest marks and became valedictorian — she earned it. This, by definition, should be the sole criteria. Yet because of her controversial views — wanting to “abolish” Israel is a pretty common view on college campuses — she has been denied the opportunity.
Guzman’s line of logic can be — and has been — used to justify the silencing of anyone with heterodox, controversial, or simply different views. It is because of this way of thinking that dozens of conservative speakers have been disinvited from colleges throughout the country before.
In usual fashion, according to Tabassum, the so-called safety concerns remain unmentioned by university administrators. She told CBS News correspondent Carter Evans: “I was never given the evidence that any safety concerns and that any security concerns were founded.”
Responding to criticism, Guzman kept things conveniently abstract, resorting to the language of safetyism. He alluded to the “intensity of feelings” that have “grown to include many voices outside of USC,” and about how “similar risks have led to harassment and even violence at other campuses.”
Questions about the university’s self-interest and legality aside, as a matter of principle, how can the answer to this issue be shutting the speech down? Instead of canceling it, couldn’t the university have taken further steps to enhance safety for the graduation ceremony? And if there’s an identified threat, why can’t they neutralize it or explain its nature to the public?
The answer to those questions are simple. In fact, conservatives have been screaming them for years, yet the many of the liberals angry over this today have all too often looked away, if not joined the mob. In response to the 2018 visit of the Daily Wire’s Ben Shapiro to USC, student leaders introduced an amendment, attempting to give de facto veto power to their student government over which speakers are allowed on campus…
Worth reading in full HERE.
Clipped from The Spectator: On the ground at the People’s University for Palestine (formerly Columbia)
Many of the students are masked.
April 22, 2024 | Ben Appel
I’m on Columbia’s campus today. Sorry, I mean, “The People’s University for Palestine.”
I graduated from the university in May 2020. My alumni ID allows me access. A couple of days ago, student protesters started occupying the South Lawn, in front of Butler Library. The police force was called in. Some arrests were made. The police were able to clear the eastern half of the lawn, but the western half remains occupied. Students have pitched tents. Hand-painted signs hang from clotheslines that stretch around the lawn.
“Welcome to the People’s University for Palestine.” “Free All Palestinian Prisoners. Ceasefire Now.” “While You Read Gaza Bleeds.” “Admitted Students Enroll in Revolution.”
Palestine flags and keffiyehs are everywhere. And trans flags, of course.
“Japan for Palestine.” “Hindus for Intifada.” “Israel Is a Terrorist State.”
I walk the perimeter of the encampment, filming it on my iPhone. So many of the “occupiers” are women, I notice. In the northwest corner, ten or so are spread out on the grass, painting signs and posters. One paints a large tree. It’s a beautiful spring day — bright and sunny and in the mid-sixties.
How desperate these students are to reenact the 1968 protests, I think to myself. To be a part of something. To feel righteous. I was once one of them.
Many of the students are masked. “Admitted students enroll in revolution,” the sign said. And yet they don’t want to show their faces. I’m sure some are afraid of being doxxed — of having their identifying information published online. But why? So that they aren’t “canceled?” So that they can still secure a job at Goldman Sachs after they graduate from the People’s University for Palestine?
I didn’t think revolutionaries were afraid to show their faces.
Continuing around the perimeter, a young, masked woman just inside the encampment asks me to stop filming. I politely decline her request.
Now I’m in the Blue Java Café in Butler Library.
Earlier, I had stopped to chat with four students who lingered outside the encampment. I was no longer filming. I wanted to see how they felt about what was going on. They were clearly with the “resistance”: they were white, blond and accessorized with the appropriate regalia — bracelets and beanies and scarves.
They insisted everything be off the record. One student in particular seemed pretty paranoid. Her parents were probably investing a lot of money in her education. If she jeopardized her future job prospects, there would be hell to pay. I assured them that I wouldn’t identify them.
Last night, in bed, I watched a video that Sahar Tartak, the editor in chief of the Yale Free Press, had posted on X: it was nighttime in front of Butler. The occupiers had spotted “Zionists” in the camp. They linked arms and were slowly advanced in order to push the Jewish counter-protesters off of the lawn. A black student led the call-and-response. He was masked, but, judging by his voice, I would be surprised if he didn’t identify as transgender. The throngs of students — mostly women, it appears — repeated his words.
“WE ARE GOING TO SLOWLY…” WE ARE GOING TO SLOWLY…
“WALK AND TAKE A STEP FORWARD!” WALK AND TAKE A STEP FORWARD!
“SO THAT WE CAN…” SO THAT WE CAN…
“START TO PUSH THEM…” START TO PUSH THEM…
“OUT OF THE CAMP!” OUT OF THE CAMP!
“ONE STEP FORWARD!” ONE STEP FORWARD!
“ANOTHER STEP FORWARD!” ANOTHER STEP FORWARD!
“WE ASK…” WE ASK…
“THAT YOU PLEASE RESPECT…” THAT YOU PLEASE RESPECT…
“OUR PRIVACY…” OUR PRIVACY…
“AND OUR COMMUNITY GUIDELINES…” AND OUR COMMUNITY GUIDELINES…
“WHICH YOU HAVE SO FAR DISRESPECTED…” WHICH YOU HAVE SO FAR DISRESPECTED…
“AND LEAVE OUR CAMP!” AND LEAVE OUR CAMP!
“ONE STEP FORWARD…” ONE STEP FORWARD…
The leader is now centered in the frame of the video. He looks at the camera.
“Have you got enough video? ’Cause I look very pretty,” he says.
The women around him laugh. Some snap their fingers.
“You guys don’t have to do this, you know?” says a counter-protester, perhaps the one who is filming. “You’re all here because we’re here. Why are you…”
“We were here before you came here,” snaps the leader. He cackles, then continues his call-and-response as the counter-protester tries to speak.
“REPEAT AFTER ME!” REPEAT AFTER ME!
“I’M BORED!” I’M BORED!
“WE WOULD LIKE YOU TO LEAVE!” WE WOULD LIKE YOU TO LEAVE!
“REPEAT AFTER ME!” REPEAT AFTER ME!
“I’M BORED!” I’M BORED!
A young man in a keffiyeh steps in front of the camera to block the leader from being recorded. A young woman standing next to him politely tells the counter-protester, “We’re just actually trying to have a community meeting in a sec.” The young man adds, “We’re asking you nicely if you will please leave.”
“Why can’t we be on the lawn?” says a female counter-protester.
“Because you’re not respecting the safety…”
“You know I pay to go here?” she says. “And I pay for this lawn to be manicured, I pay for the lights to be on, and if you’re a student, you’re also paying for that.”
The video ends.
I returned outside to take some more photos. From atop the Sundial, a man speaks into a loudspeaker. A large crowd has gathered. He talks about the referendums for the university to divest from Israel. Columbia students voted to divest, he said. The crowd cheered. But, he added, Students for Justice in Palestine was silenced, and the university ignored the referendum. “Shame!” screamed the crowd.
“And now students at the encampment are suspended!” he added.
“SHAME!”
In 1968, the university placed on probation six anti-war student protesters inside Low Library. This outraged the student body and helped activate the larger revolt that soon followed.
“Divestment has been debated,” the man with the loudspeaker continued. “The discourse has happened at the university. And the student body at Barnard and Columbia College have decided to divest!” The crowd cheered. “Divestment is not a question anymore. It’s overdue,” he said.
“There are some things we should just not debate,” he said. “Just like we refused to debate the validity of white supremacy, we refuse to debate the humanity of Palestinians.”
“Gaza Solidarity Encampment: Community Guidelines,” written on a tall posterboard at the entrance to the encampment. I am told I must ask the students for permission to take a picture. I ask the young women holding up the poster for permission. They grant it.
We all commit to remain grounded in why we enter this space — as an act of solidarity with the Palestinian People
No desecration of the land, no littering
We recognize our role as visitors, and for many of us, colonizers, on this land. We camp on colonized Lennapehoking [sic] land and recognize Columbia’s complicity in the displacement of the Black and Brown Harlem Community
No drug/alcohol consumption inside the camp. We want to ensure people feel comfortable in this space — Please keep substance use outside the camp!
Respect personal boundaries — tight quarters are not an excuse to cross physical boundaries without affirmative consent
We commit to never photograph or videotape another community member without their affirmative consent.
We commit to never share the names of details of anyone we meet in this camp. We keep us safe, which includes refusing to comply with any demands if the NYPD or Columbia admin try to force us to disclose the identities of any fellow campers
We commit to assuming best intentions, granting ourselves and others grace when mistakes are made, and approaching conflict with the goal of addressing and repairing. [Unless you are a Zionist Jew.]
Please think of community members when making decisions about autonomous actions. Not everyone has consented to the same level of risk, but everyone will be impacted by decisions community members make
Do not engage with the counter-protestors.
“Please contact a CUAD [Columbia University Apartheid Divest, a coalition of student groups, including SJP] organizer to suggest guidelines or changes to the list above. Free Palestine!”…
Worth reading in full HERE.
Clipped from Racket News: A Saturday Massacre in Congress
On a Saturday to mark and remember, congress funds two wars and hands the intelligence agencies sweeping new surveillance power, getting nothing in return
Matt Taibbi | Apr 21, 2024
Saturday, April 20th, 2024. The NBA opened its playoff season, the city of Pinecrest, Florida was overrun by peacocks, and congressional Republicans cozied up to Democrats in in one of the all-time legislative betrayals, overriding voter sentiment to hand the national security establishment a series of historic unearned victories.
Do members of Congress work for voters, or for the Pentagon and the Intelligence Community? You be the judge:
SURRENDER #1: CONGRESS ALLOWS EXECUTIVE BRANCH TO RE-AUTHORIZE ITS OWN POWER
The first betrayal began with a lie. Heading into the weekend, it was widely reported that unless the Senate reathorized section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which among other things allows the government to collect communications of Americans without a warrant, an April 19th deadline would expire. Our poor government would be forced to make do for whole days, if not longer, without warrantless spying authority.
“House to take up bill to reauthorize crucial US spy program as expiration date looms,” as the AP put it, was a typical headline. House Speaker Mike Johnson was one of many politicians who pushed the notion, saying on April 12th, “We still have time on the clock” to get FISA re-authorized by the 19th.
This was all fake. The law was already extended. On April 5th of this year, Joe Biden’s Department of Justice effectively granted itself a one-year extension of FISA, meaning the real deadline was April of 2025. Illinois Democrat Dick Durbin and others repeatedly announced the fact, even on the Senate floor, but press didn’t report it.
“The U.S. Department of Justice has already obtained a fresh one-year certification from this Court to continue Section 702 surveillance through April of 2025,” Durbin said Thursday, while arguing the need to require warrants to spy on Americans. “There is no need for the Senate to swallow whole a House bill that expands—rather than reforms—Section 702.”
Similarly, at the end of last year, Section 702 had been set to “expire” on December 31st amid another panic. Congressional leaders inserted an extension through April 19th into the “must-pass” National Defense Authorization Act, seemingly tying the FISA extension to all military appropriations and staving off the horror of even temporary FISA-less existence.
But that too, was fake. As the ACLU, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Freedom of the Press Foundation, and over two dozen other groups wrote to congressional leaders at the end of last year, the government was already conducting surveillance “pursuant to a one-year FISA Court authorization” from the previous year.
In other words, the Executive Branch has been re-authorizing itself two years running, and Congress has gone along, setting the precedent that spy agencies need not ask permission to do anything at all.
It turns out the only real check on the continuation of the FISA program is the FISA court itself, which approved the Department of Justice’s request in late February of this year for an early extension. Assistant Attorney General Matthew Olsen told the New York Times when the request was made that bypassing Congress was necessary because it is “our responsibility” to “avoid a dangerous gap in collection.”
“Our” responsibility. Not yours.
Nonetheless, having Congressional approval is better than not, so yesterday, the Senate passed reauthorization of section 702 in a blowout. The 60-34 win included crushing defeat of two key amendments. Durbin’s amendment seeking requirement of a warrant to review the communications of Americans was squashed 50-42. An even more important Amendment introduced by Democrat Ron Wyden and Republican Cynthia Lummis (it ended up being called the Wyden-Hawley amendment) was routed 58-34.
That one was designed to cut out a seemingly small provision, covered here last week, that massively expands the number of companies and individuals who’ll be forced to cooperate with FISA surveillance requests under the new law. The new provision has been dubbed the “Everybody is a Spy” law, and all it needs now is for someone to help Joe Biden add his signature.
SURRENDER #2: KILL FISA, BUT NOT REALLY?
“KILL FISA, IT WAS ILLEGALLY USED AGAINST ME!” Donald Trump posted on Truth Social on April 10th:
It would take too long to chronicle all the huffing and puffing Republicans have done about FISA in recent years, after it was used illegally as part of an investigation into Donald Trump’s campaign in 2016, but also to obtain the communications of “tens of thousands of protesters, racial justice activists, 19,000 donors to a congressional campaign, journalists, and members of the U.S. Congress.” Republican as a result now overwhelmingly oppose reauthorization of FISA, and members like Devin Nunes effectively sacrificed their careers to expose its misuse. How could the party cave on this issue?
When Trump posted “KILL FISA,” it coincided by a move among a cadre of House Republicans to block a procedural vote allowing a vote on the overall bill. It was the fourth such instance and deemed a “major embarrassment” for leadership, suggesting that Trump, rather than Johnson, really controlled the House caucus.
Despite all this, two days later, Trump received Johnson at Mar-a-Lago and gave the appearance of backing him against a leadership challenge, among other things over this issue. “He’s doing a great job,” Trump said. Once Johnson cast the key vote to reauthorize warrantless FISA, it set the stage for yesterday’s Senate vote.
To say this is confusing is an understatement. Both Trump and Johnson spent a lot of time talking about the border in their presser, but a major subtext was mutual surrender on other issues like FISA. There is no price imaginable that Trump could extract from Johnson that would seem to make giving in on FISA worth it, politically. Was Republican opposition to FISA ever real?
SURRENDER #3: UKRAINE Shortly after Saturday’s FISA vote in the Senate, the Johnson-led House voted overwhelmingly to approve $91 billion in foreign aid, including $61 billion in aid for war in Ukraine. The House also approved a ban on TikTok as part of the same vote. This measure passed by an astonishing 311-112 margin, and just three hours later, the Pentagon announced it was considering sending more military advisers to Kiev.
Start with the obvious. As Democrats increasingly don’t want funding for Israel, Republican voters do not want more spending in Ukraine. This is from a Gallup poll in March, when Republicans were still refusing to budge on Ukraine funding:
Seeing that poll, it was hard to imagine House Republicans folding on Ukraine funding anytime soon. Then, in the first week of April, a source sent a mailer from a high-profile weapons lobby firm, offering an assessment of Johnson’s intentions…
Worth reading in full HERE.
Clipped from The Spectator: President Biden’s latest abortion ad misrepresents Texas law
The ad twists the Zurawski story to promote a pro-abortion agenda at the expense of important medical and legal facts
April 18, 2024 | Christina Francis
President Joe Biden’s latest reelection campaign ad, Willow’s Box, highlights the story of Amanda Zurawski, a Texas woman whose traumatic pregnancy loss made national news after her hospital neglected to give her the emergency care she needed, resulting in her needing two stays in the intensive care unit.
Certainly, Ms. Zurawski’s ordeal presents a harsh reminder of our healthcare system’s serious faults. However, Biden’s ad twists this story to promote a pro-abortion agenda at the expense of important medical and legal facts.
In this ad, written commentary appears between video shots of Ms. Zurawski and her husband tearfully displaying the contents of a box of items they bought for their pre-born daughter, Willow.
In 2022, Willow tragically passed away when Ms. Zurawski suffered premature pre-labor rupture of membranes, or PPROM, at eighteen weeks gestation; that is, her water broke in the middle of her second trimester. As an OB hospitalist, I have cared for dozens of women facing this complication. In such cases, it is crucial for a woman’s medical team to closely monitor her, specifically for signs of infection, which can spread rapidly and result in sepsis. This is exactly what happened to Ms. Zurawski — only it appears she was not monitored closely enough.
President Biden blames Texas’s pro-life law for Ms. Zurawski’s experience. The ad states “because Donald Trump killed Roe v. Wade, Amanda was denied standard medical care to prevent infection, an abortion.”
This is simply false. Induced abortion — defined by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists as “an intervention to end a pregnancy so that it does not result in a live birth” — is far from necessary to treat PPROM. What distinguishes induced abortion from other pregnancy interventions is that its aim is to end the life of the embryonic or fetal human being. In my two decades of practice, I have never needed to intentionally end the life of my pre-born patient for the health of my pregnant patient.
As a pro-life physician, I practice according to the same principles that drive Texas’s abortion law. When treating a pregnant woman, I treat both her and her pre-born child as my patients and as equally worthy of excellent healthcare. I, like the Texas law, recognize that killing isn’t healthcare and has no place in the practice of medicine.
Despite what President Biden says, Texas’s abortion law expressly allows physicians to separate a mother and her baby in the case of serious pregnancy complications. The Texas Health and Human Services Commission reports fifty-two instances of such emergency interventions in the state in 2023. Clearly, physicians are still able to offer lifesaving care under the current law.
The Biden ad falsely asserts otherwise. It states that due to the Texas law, “doctors were forced to send [Ms. Zurawski] home” when she presented to the emergency room with ruptured membranes…
Worth reading in full HERE.
Clipped from Racket: New NPR Chief Katherine Maher's Guide to the Holidays
What might America's future national holiday calendar look like? A trip around the calendar with new NPR chief Katherine Maher, current world champ of unintentional comedy, offers a clue
Matt Taibbi Apr 16, 2024
Katherine Maher, the new head of NPR, was a minor character in the Twitter Files. She was CEO of Wikimedia when the company was (like Twitter) being invited to election tabletop exercises at the Pentagon and “Industry meetings” with the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. She also scored the rare personal triumverate of being member of the Council on Foreign Relations, a World Economic Forum young global leader, and a fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Labs.
She took a job heading NPR in January, shortly before senior editor Uri Berliner set off a nuclear newsroom stink-bomb by publishing a tell-all article at The Free Press about station failures on stories like Russiagate. Berliner’s piece triggered a frenzy of anti-NPR Schadenfreude, which led to a furious examinations of Maher’s sitting-duck tweet history. Maher’s timeline reads so much like the Titania McGrath site spoofing overeducated nonsense-babbling white ladies that it’s difficult to believe she’s real — she even looks like the fictional McGrath, if Titania had more money to spend on personal upkeep.
Maher’s commentary dating back to the early Obama years is a gold mine of unintentional comedy. She’s gotten the most heat for using phrases like “As someone with cis white mobility privilege,” and “Sure, looting is counterproductive, but…” She also made an impressive Usain Bolt-like surge past Hillary Clinton in the Intersectional Gibberish Olympics:
When I spent what I admit is embarrassingly long period reading her social media history, I was struck by the random, unquenchable nature of Maher’s anger. Maher at rest, commenting on literally nothing at all, sounds like this:
When some poor sap tweeted about “Hereticon,” a conference of canceled-type speakers proclaiming “dissent is essential to the progressive march of human civilization,” Maher made an instant leap from a snapshot of ironic fifties conformism to a dead-serious KKK metaphor:
Maher is now in her second consecutive hugely influential role in American culture, yet her idea of happiness seemingly would involve torturing The Muppets until they give up the location of the patriarchy’s secret headquarters (inside a volcano shaped like Elon Musk’s head of course!). Reading, one wonders: does this person have a vision of enjoyment that doesn’t involve self-mortification? Out of curiosity, I took one tour with her through the holiday calendar, starting with Thanksgiving. The comprehensive list:
Don’t think she doesn’t like Thanksgiving. Despite “what it represents,” it was “always my favorite,” and now it’s even better, being an opportunity to interrogate her settler colonialist upbringing…
Worth reading in full HERE.
Clipped from The Spectator: The rise of the celebrity trans kid
The Catholic Church declares gender theory ‘grave threat’
April 10, 2024 | Amber Duke
Jennifer Garner and Ben Affleck’s fifteen-year-old daughter, Seraphina Rose, appeared to come out as transgender last weekend. The chosen venue for this announcement? Her grandfather’s funeral. The young lady recently got a buzz cut and wore a black suit to the memorial service, at which she introduced herself to the audience with her new name before reading a Bible verse.
“Hello my name is Fin Affleck,” she told the grieving audience.
The intent is not to beat up on Miss Affleck here — she is a minor and is clearly going through a lot. She is the middle child of parents who went through a very public and messy divorce with allegations of infidelity and alcoholism. Her father has since gotten remarried to an old flame. All of this happened during some of her most formative years, between the ages of nine and thirteen. To an outsider, her behavior might seem like a stereotypical teenage cry for attention.
What is quite peculiar about Seraphina/Fin’s announcement is that Jennifer Lopez, who married Ben Affleck in 2022 and is Seraphina/Fin’s stepmother, has a “nonbinary” child. Lopez revealed a couple of years ago that her daughter, Emme Maribel Muniz, uses they/them pronouns. Seraphina/Fin and Emme are reportedly close friends and are routinely pictured spending time together.
The Affleck/Lopez kids are far from an anomaly in Hollywood. Actress Jamie Lee-Curtis announced in 2021 that her twenty-eight-year-old son identifies as a woman named “Ruby.” NBA star Dwyane Wade and actress Gabrielle Union are raising a transgender daughter, Zaya. Sigourney Weaver, Charlize Theron, Cher, Busy Phillips, Tori Spelling, Cynthia Nixon, Ally Sheedy, Annette Bening and Warren Beatty, Sade, Marlon Wayans, David Tennant and Megan Fox have all publicly shared that their children identify as transgender or non-binary.
This evidence may be anecdotal, but it nonetheless seems strange that there are so many celebrities with visible transgender children — and in the case of Affleck/Lopez, that there might be two in the same family. What are the odds of that?
We’ve learned through the tireless research of people such as Abigail Shrier that transgenderism has become a social contagion among young people, particularly young girls. Children learn that they can get attention — whether positive or negative! — from their parents and status among their peers if they announce a new identity. It doesn’t seem like a stretch to suggest that children who grow up in the type of wealthy, liberal enclaves that accept gender theory and who simultaneously struggle with growing up in a parent’s shadow might see “transgender,” “queer” or “nonbinary” as a useful label. Celebrities may also reinforce this behavior because 1) they don’t want to appear un-“woke” to their friends and 2) publicly supporting an LGBTQ child earns them positive media coverage and a new fan base.
Alas, the Seraphina/Fin Affleck story comes at a difficult time for the trans activist movement.
This morning, Dr. Hilary Cass published her final report on the current treatment options for gender dysphoric children through Britain’s National Health Service. Cass’s preliminary findings prompted the NHS to discontinue prescribing puberty blockers and hormones for children with gender dysphoria outside of clinical research settings. The full report is even more devastating to the “gender-affirming model,” which suggests that children have the best outcomes when they are affirmed in their chosen gender identity and are supported in a social, and eventually medical, transition.
Dr. Cass concludes that puberty blockers do not just buy a confused child time to think about what gender they want to be — instead, they essentially lock the child in to a full gender transition. Further, there is no evidence that puberty blockers accomplish their stated goal of reducing gender dysphoria or body image issues. It is a better route, Cass suggests, to treat gender-related distress as analogous to other mental health concerns; essentially, what are the underlying psychological or environmental causes for the dysphoria?
Earlier this week, the Vatican also released the product of its five-year study of sex change operations, gender theory, and surrogacy and how they ought to be viewed in relation to Catholic doctrine. The Church has previously spoken on these issues but sought to provide fuller guidance given new scientific, political, and cultural developments and increased societal prevalence of their practice.
Worth reading in full here.
Clipped from The Spectator: What Iran’s attack on Israel means for the Jewish state, America and the region
Clear thoughts amid the fog of war
April 14, 2024 | Written By: Charles Lipson
Iran’s unprecedented attack on Israel Saturday night represents a dangerous escalation for three reasons. The first is its scale, some 300 drones and missiles. Second, it marks the first time the Islamic Regime has launched a lethal attack on Israeli territory from Iran itself, rather than through proxies. Most important of all is the combination of the first two: a major attack launched against Israel from Iranian territory. Although Israel, the US, the UK and, surprisingly, Jordan managed to shoot down nearly all the incoming drones and missiles, it was the thought that counts. And it was a very dangerous thought. Within hours, the Iranian attack changed the region’s strategic landscape. It brought the Islamic regime into direct, open military conflict with Israel and its Western partners. More bloodshed is sure to come.
Iran says it’s all over. Done. There’s no need for any response from Israel, they say. We were just “retaliating,” a term emphasized in headlines from the New York Times, MSNBC and others on the left. The effect of that framing is to justify Iran’s major escalation. That may play well on the Upper West Side, but not in Tel Aviv, Haifa, or Jerusalem. For Israel’s War Cabinet, the only questions now are how intense the Israeli response will be and whether that will lead to tit-for-tat escalation?
The crucial point is that Iran’s decision to launch a direct attack on Israel marks both a basic change in the strategy of Islamic regime and, consequently, a major change in the region’s politics, diplomacy and security.
What’s new is not that Iran has responded militarily to Israeli actions, like the one that killed a senior Iranian commander in Syria. It has always done that. What’s new is how Iran responded. Until now, it has always responded through proxies. This time was different.
Why such a dramatic change in Iranian strategy? The answer is unclear. Does it represent a shift in who controls the regime’s foreign policy? Or does it represent shifting views and greater risk acceptance by the same old leaders? We simply don’t know, at least not yet. What we do know that this barrage is not the first sign of Iran’s greater aggressiveness. Its direct attack on Pakistan is another sign.
We know, too, that the Biden administration’s efforts to deter Iran failed. The question, as always with policy failures, is whether those responsible will change their stance or dig in their heels.
In this case, the failure comes from the top: President Biden. The president, secretary of defense Lloyd Austin, national security advisor Jake Sullivan and other senior administration officials repeatedly gave Tehran a one-word message: “Don’t.” Uttering a single, ominous word was supposed to convey special authority. It didn’t work. What it told the world, we now know, is that the Biden administration’s threats were too feeble, too incredible to deter Iran.
In the last few days, the administration supplemented its rhetoric by deploying more ships and planes to the region. Neither the US military assets nor the tough talk managed to deter the radical Islamist regime. Either Tehran didn’t believe the words coming from Washington, or, like Japan before Pearl Harbor, it believed them but was willing to accept the risk. Why Iran is more “risk acceptant” now than in the past is unclear.
In any case, Iran’s attack marks the dramatic failure of US deterrence in the region. That’s a very bad sign for America’s other partners around the world, especially Taiwan.
The Iranian attack also marks the failure of the Biden administration’s broader effort to cope with Tehran by “playing nice.” Naturally, the administration will deny that’s what they have been doing. The denial is false. That’s exactly what they have been doing. It has been the foundation of their Middle East strategy.
Now that their strategy has failed, they need to acknowledge it, at least privately, so they can begin to change. Whatever the White House does, the rest of us should recognize the failure and hold the Biden administration accountable. You can be certain that Donald Trump will drive home the point and, of course, say it would never have happened on his watch.
He’s right to say the failure began when President Biden deliberately reversed the Trump administration’s strategy of building a strong anti-Iran coalition and starving the Islamic regime of foreign income. It managed to do that without putting more US troops in harm’s way. Trump’s unpredictability plus his deadly strike on Iranian military leader, Qasem Soleimani (in January 2020), made his threats credible. Biden’s threats clearly were not. Again, you can expect Trump to emphasize the difference on the campaign trail and underscore how Biden’s policies have led to disasters in Afghanistan, Ukraine and now the Middle East.
When Trump left office, Tehran was almost completely drained of foreign currency, thanks to the stringent application of sanctions. Biden’s more lenient policy — retaining the sanctions in name only but refusing to enforce them — allowed the Islamic Republic to rebuild its treasury. The administration’s forlorn hope was that Tehran would become part of a wider, more cooperative region and would be encouraged by Washington’s outstretched hand. In fact, they slapped down that hand time after time. On Saturday, they tried to amputate it. Biden’s Middle East strategy now lies in ruins.
One immediate question facing the administration is whether it will back a new arms package for Israel. A major one passed the US House with strong bipartisan support after Hamas’s terror attacks in October 2023. It died in the Senate when Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and every other Democrat opposed it, with Biden’s backing. They were not against aid to Israel, but they were unwilling to pass it without aid for Ukraine and other provisions.
House Speaker Mike Johnson could easily pass another arms package for Israel (and Israel alone) this week. It would be the right thing to do strategically and clever politically since it would force the Democratic Senate either to act or to pay a high price for refusing.
The problem for Democrats is two-fold. First, they want to pass an aid package for Ukraine, a desire shared by many, but not all, Republicans. Since funding Israel has nearly-universal support but Ukraine does not, the administration had hoped to pass the Ukraine package by tying it to Israel. That will be much harder to do now that Israel needs the aid immediately. The Republican House can hand the Senate an “Israel-only” package and force the Democratic Senate to make very hard choices.
Second, the Biden administration knows the left wing of the Democratic Party plus Muslim voters strongly oppose any military aid or diplomatic support for Israel. The president needs their votes in November. They were already accusing the Biden administration of “genocide” for giving Israel any support in Gaza. Providing more weapons to Israel now would compound Biden’s electoral problems.
Much as Israel needed the weapons six months ago, when the House passed the original package, it needs them even more urgently now. Among other things, it must replenish the anti-ballistic missiles used to thwart the Iranian attack. Without those arms, Israel would be vulnerable if Iran or its proxies renew their missile attacks. Some attacks are almost certain once Israel responds to the latest bombardment.
Worth reading in full here.
Clipped from The Spectator: Shakira is right about Barbie
The pop singer says her boys found the film ‘emasculating’
April 4, 2024 / by Amber Duke
Colombian pop singer Shakira caused quite the stir this week when she revealed that her sons “absolutely hated” the Barbie movie.
Barbie, directed by Greta Gerwig, had a major cultural moment last year. Hot pink came back in fashion, people were hosting Barbie-themed parties and everyone was obsessing over lead Margot Robbie’s vintage Barbie-inspired clothing on the movie’s press tour. It was Barbie-mania, and the film earned $1.4 billion worldwide.
Shakira’s family, though, weren’t fans of the global phenomenon. She said her nine- and eleven-year-old sons didn’t enjoy the movie because they found it to be “emasculating.” And, she added, “I agree, to a certain extent.”
Critics have slammed Shakira in response, as they do when anyone criticizes the uniculture, accusing her of not understanding the movie and missing the point. “Barbie is not made for Shakira and her pre-adolescent sons, insofar as she presents her family in the Allure piece: it’s a story about women coming into power autonomously, independent of the patriarchy and all its trappings,” a Salon writer responds.
I’d posit that Shakira actually understands the “unabashedly feminist” film more than her critics do. Her commentary on the problems she had with the movie are insightful; she acknowledges the film’s worthy goal of female empowerment while suggesting that it went too far in its negative depictions of men.
“I’m raising two boys. I want ’em to feel powerful too [while] respecting women. I like pop culture when it attempts to empower women without robbing men of their possibility to be men, to also protect and provide. I believe in giving women all the tools and the trust that we can do it all without losing our essence, without losing our femininity,” Shakira said.
She continued, “I think that men have a purpose in society and women have another purpose as well. We complement each other, and that complement should not be lost.”
The Barbie movie operates on the premise that men have to sacrifice some of their masculinity in order for women to succeed…
Worth reading in full HERE
Clipped: The Narcissism And Psychopathy Of Seizing Trump’s Assets
Byline:
Attorney General Letitia James could freeze the Republican front-runner’s bank accounts, thus interfering in the presidential election, and rattling financial markets
Former president Donald Trump committed fraud for years by lying about his wealth on financial statements to get favorable loans, say Democrats and New York Attorney General Letitia James. Judge Arthur Engoron ruled last month that Trump must pay over $354 million in damages, which has since increased to $464 million due to interest. Trump now has until Monday to post a bond. If he fails to do so, James can begin seizing his assets, including his bank accounts and properties.
“There’s not only potential asset seizures that could take place,” reported New York Times investigative journalist Susanne Craig on MSNBC yesterday. “He’s got some cash. His bank accounts could be frozen… If someone’s going to start a seizure process, they’re going to grab the most liquid thing, which is the cash.”
But Trump’s alleged fraud was victimless. The New York Times reported that Trump's bankers “testified that they had been delighted to have Mr. Trump as a client.” And, testified a banker in Deutsche Bank’s wealth management group, “It’s not unusual or atypical for any client’s provided financial statements to be adjusted to this level, or this extent.” Indeed, in 2013, the bank adjusted Trump’s net worth from the $4.9 billion he reported to $2.6 billion.
Judge Engoron, who was elected in 2015 and serves until 2029, argued that even if the bankers had no issues with the loans, “The mere fact that the lenders were happy doesn’t mean that the statute wasn’t violated, doesn’t mean that the other statues weren’t violated.” Trump could have committed fraud even if the bank did its own analysis of his finances.
But such alleged asset inflation is not uncommon, and James’ prosecution of Trump appears to be politically motivated. In 2018, James promised to “focus on Donald Trump” and “follow his money” if elected. She called him a “con man” and “carnival barker.” After her election, James said, “We will use every area of the law to investigate President Trump and his business transactions and that of his family as well.”
Seizing Trump’s cash and properties could have significant repercussions, warn business leaders. “I don’t think this case is about Trump anymore,” said investor Kevin O’Leary on CNN. “I think this case is about New York. It’s about the American brand. It’s about what we promised the world in terms of fairness and justice and investing capital in the country that’s built the largest economy on Earth. Forfeiture? Seizing of assets? Is that in our nomenclature in America? Is that what we tell people who want to bring their money here and protect property rights? Forget about Trump. Nothing to do with Trump. You think this is good for business in New York? You think this is good for business in America?”
And the bond is unprecedented and punitive. “There is no such thing as half a billion bonds,” said O’Leary, who is famous for his role on the TV investment reality show, “Shark Tank.” “Never been done before. Never. This law has never been applied.”
Democrats’ overreach could backfire and help Trump gain more support. After all, it would be easy for Trump to make the case that the courts are interfering in the election by freezing his bank accounts, which contain the cash he said he would spend on his presidential re-election campaign. ”I think we’re going to be writing an obituary of the Trump Organization,” said the Times’ Craig.
“I want you to remember this moment, and don’t forget it,” said anti-Trump pollster and consultant Frank Luntz on CNN. “If the New York Attorney General starts to take his homes away, starts to seize his assets, it’s all gonna be on camera… you’re going to create the greatest victimhood of 2024, and you’re going to elect Donald Trump.”
By violating democratic norms to prevent Trump from re-entering the White House, Democrats are thus at risk of installing him there. Why is that?
Worth reading in full at Public: HERE
Clipped: Racket News: America's Intellectual "Bloodbath"
If a censored tree falls in the forest, do we still have to misquote it?
Byline:
I planned to leave the “bloodbath” topic alone, thinking it was over. Donald Trump gives speech, mentions “bloodbath”; Democratic PAC-funded oppo outfit circulates video out of context; lots of media dopes from Joe Scarborough to the Washington Post fall for it; critics catch up to the scam. Embarrassment ensues. Fin du Media Cycle. Haven’t these people watched The Three Stooges? If you somehow throw a pie in your own face, don’t do it again.
But, they do. Post-debunk, Substack’s own Robert Reich denounced the “bloodbath” speech as straight out “Hitler’s playbook.” Former Hillary Clinton lawyer Marc Elias roared about Trump’s plan to foment “another insurrection, maybe a bloodbath, to use a phrase that he recently used.” This episode is already on its third or fourth life, and will have more.
To recap: Trump gave a speech last Sunday in Dayton, Ohio. The “bloodbath” portion concerned a promise to slap a 100% tariff on foreign cars, and the quote was, “If I don’t get elected, it’s gonna be a bloodbath.” Acyn, a media chop shop funded by blue-party PAC Meidas Touch, put out a 17-second tweet, which the Biden-Harris campaign shortened to nine seconds:
This triggered the usual outrage battery. Biden spokesperson James Singer said it was clear Trump “wants another January 6th.” David Corn said Trump “endorsed political violence.” Even Hillary Clinton slid her crypt open to contribute:
“Bloodbath” was clearly economic metaphor, and the worst thing you could say about it is that it underscored a general Trump tendency to preach doom and disaster in a way some consider irresponsible. I don’t. This rhetoric works for Trump for a reason, the same one that makes the media miss on “bloodbath” a double-insult.
This apocalyptic speech resonates in places like Dayton, a region that produced six million vehicles between 1981 and an infamous GM plant closure in 2008. There’s now a Chinese auto-glass factory on the site. Many people in that part of the world watched $30-an-hour factory jobs turned into $1-an-hour gigs for Mexican counterparts after NAFTA, which explains why crowds tend to respond to heated rhetoric about the border. You don’t have to agree with Trump’s stances on these issues, but not understanding why they work is rhetorical malpractice.
The “bloodbath” episode is exposing how even a nationwide digital blackout of Trump can’t and won’t work, ever. It’s not Trump’s own statements or online “misinformation” or Russian bots or Decepticons or Marilyn Manson or the Reverse Flash or any other diabolical villain animating Trump’s campaign. It’s people who hate him the most, in media, who’ve become nearly the whole of his PR operation.
Worth reading in full at Racket News HERE
Clipped from The Spectator: Is a Christian revival underway?
As a believer, I see signs that Christ is moving in the minds and hearts of secular intellectuals
March 30, 2024
Byline: Justin Brierley
Tom Holland recently invited me to attend a service of Evensong with him at London’s oldest church, St. Bartholomew the Great.
Holland, who co-hosts the phenomenally popular The Rest is History podcast, has been a regular congregant for a few years. He began attending while researching Dominion, his bestselling book which outlined the way the first century Christian revolution has irrevocably shaped the twenty-first century West’s moral imagination. It also recounts how Holland, a secular liberal westerner who had lost any vestige of faith by his teenage years, came to realize he was still essentially Christian in terms of his beliefs about human rights, equality and freedom.
Christianity is not just a useful lifeboat for stranded intellectuals. If it isn’t literally true, it isn’t valuable
Holland is not alone as an agnostic trying out church again. In contrast to the usual ageing demographic of many Anglican churches, the congregation of St. Bart’s seems to mainly consist of young professionals, both male and female. I noticed a famous politician among the gathered faithful, and was told that a well-known melancholy rock star has also been frequenting the church of late.
Despite the fact that “smells and bells” aren’t part of my own church tradition, I found the blend of sacred choral music, candlelit arches and incense-infused worship to be an intoxicating experience. I imagine that many people in the pews are likewise turning up for a mystical encounter as much as the preaching and prayers.
I also believe Holland’s journey reflects a wider turning of the secular tide in the West, a phenomenon I document in my book The Surprising Rebirth of Belief in God.
The New Atheists of the early 2000s — led by Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens and Daniel Dennett — predicted a utopia founded upon science and reason once we had abandoned religion. But their bestselling books proved to be full of empty promises. All that our post-Christian society has delivered so far is confusion, a mental health crisis in the young and the culture wars. It’s not surprising then that a movement of New Theists has sprung up.
Influencers such as Joe Rogan and Douglas Murray are increasingly talking about the value of Christian faith and the dangers of casting it off. The former new atheist Ayaan Hirsi Ali has been praising the virtues of our Judeo-Christian heritage, after becoming convinced that secular humanism cannot save the West. The women’s rights campaigner Louise Perry has been advocating for a return to traditional Christian morality since writing her book The Case Against The Sexual Revolution. The evolutionary biologist Bret Weinstein often describes religion as “metaphorically true.” Secular psychologists such as Jonathan Haidt and John Vervaeke have written extensively about the value of faith in the midst of a “meaning crisis” in the West.
Another significant voice speaking about the value of Christianity is the psychologist Jordan Peterson. In November I attended a lecture by him at the O2 Arena. As he often does, he pointed his vast audience of mainly young men back to the Bible as a source of deep wisdom about the human condition.
It was clear, though, that while Peterson thinks of Christianity as useful, he struggles to believe that it is true. He applies his Jungian eye to the Bible and detects “deep patterns of symbolism and meaning.” Yet, as is also the case with Weinstein, Haidt and Vervaeke, such an appraisal of faith still only amounts to regarding religion as a “useful fiction” for making sense of life.
But Christianity is not just a useful lifeboat for stranded intellectuals. If it isn’t literally true, it isn’t valuable. Whether Jesus Christ actually rose from the dead matters. It mattered to St. Paul. “If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins.” And it should matter to us.
C.S. Lewis wrote: “If you read history, you will find that the Christians who did the most for the present world were just those who thought most of the next.” The impact of Christianity on the West is intrinsically linked to the living faith of those who established its institutions and values. If people hadn’t actually believed in the Christian promise of redemption and if they hadn’t been able to hope in the face of death, they wouldn’t have had the courage to change the world in Jesus’s name.
If conservative-leaning intellectuals only “cosplay” at Christianity (Tom Holland’s phrase) without really believing it, then this “New Theist” movement will inevitably fade away. Co-opting Christianity in the cause of an anti-woke agenda or in order to fend off radical Islam turns it into a useful political tool, but drains it of any life-giving power. A Christian nationalism of the right will become as pallid and pointless as the Christianity of the progressive left that parrots the latest politically correct talking points.
However, they say God moves in mysterious ways. As a believing Christian, I see signs that he is moving in the minds and hearts of secular intellectuals. Many of them are recognizing that secular humanism has failed and, against all their expectations, seem to be on the verge of embracing faith instead.
Some have actually become Christians. The author and poet Paul Kingsnorth surprised his readership when he announced his conversion in 2021. Russell Brand is now calling himself a Christian and says he plans to get baptized. Ayaan Hirsi Ali says she has embraced Christianity after realizing she was “spiritually bankrupt.” The tech pioneer Jordan Hall recently went public about his conversion to Christianity. Significantly, both Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Jordan Hall have mentioned the influence of Tom Holland’s thesis that Christianity is the foundation on which the ethics of the West sits.
…
As a Christian I believe things that are dead can come back to life. That’s the point of the story after all. As G.K. Chesterton wrote: “Christianity has died many times and risen again; for it had a God who knew the way out of the grave.”
Worth reading in full HERE
Clipped from The Spectator: After Ronna, Republicans should ignore NBC
The network can’t possibly be viewed as a good-faith participant in ideological debate
March 27, 2024
Byline: Ben Domench
The network can’t possibly be viewed as a good-faith participant in ideological debate
NBC News’s decision to ditch Ronna McDaniel after the hissy fit thrown collectively by Chuck Todd, Joe Scarborough, Jen Psaki, Nicolle Wallace, Rachel Maddow and more should be more than enough evidence to support a commitment from the Republican National Committee and its new leadership: there is no working with NBC. Not on debates, not on town halls, not even on campaign season interviews. There’s no point in creating content for a network that finds even the most generic Republican figure so vile and scary that they don’t even want her in the building.
Obviously this is an unenforceable commitment, and someone like Chris Christie or Larry Hogan will assuredly ignore it. But the point is that NBC News can’t possibly be viewed as a good-faith participant in ideological debate — they’re just a partisan mouthpiece for the Democratic Party.
There are numerous opportunities to debate the left all across today’s media that are more prominent than anything on offer from MSNBC. And unlike their network, if you’re doing so on a program like Bill Maher’s or any of dozens of high-traffic podcasts, it’s going to be a more legitimate and intelligent battle of ideas than trying to pretend NBC is at all interested in such a discourse.
Worth reading in full HERE