Author Archives: Grif

Illegal Alien Charged with Murder Had Been Arrested and Released Nine Times

Here is  yet another reason to build the wall, close our southern border, and strictly enforce existing immigration law.

A homeless man arrested on Monday, March 11, for stabbing a San Jose woman to death last month was an illegal alien who had been ordered detained by federal authorities nine times, officials said Tuesday. But the man, who had multiple convictions for misdemeanor and felony offenses, was released from the Santa Clara County California jail twice in the months before the killing.

From the San Jose Mercury News: Nico Savidge March 13, 2019:

On Tuesday, San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo issued a sharply-worded criticism of the county’s policy of not honoring federal immigration detention orders at the jail. Liccardo said the policy “undermines public safety, and violates common sense.”

San Jose Police Chief Eddie Garcia joined with Liccardo and Santa Clara County Sheriff Laurie Smith in criticizing the policy Tuesday. At a press conference, Garcia said he was well aware of the ways in which the case probably would be politicized amid a heated national debate over immigration and local “sanctuary” policies meant to protect undocumented residents from federal authorities.

But, Garcia said, there was a distinction between protecting and embracing “otherwise law-abiding undocumented residents” and policies that he said “shield admitted gangsters or violent criminals.”

“When we have violent or serious offenders that are preying on our community, we must have the ability to protect our residents,” Garcia said.

Police arrested 24-year-old Carlos Eduardo Arevalo-Carranza on Monday in the death of 59-year-old Bambi Larson, who was found dead in her home on Knollfield Way on the afternoon of Feb. 28.

Arevalo-Carranza, a native of El Salvador, had been living in the country illegally, and was the subject of at least nine “detainers” from U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement since 2016, according to Erik Bonnar, the agency’s acting field director the agency’s San Francisco field office.

Under those detainers, local law enforcement agencies hold immigrants for up to two days until ICE agents can take custody of them. Santa Clara County has not honored them since 2011.

Garcia said Arevalo-Carranza had been arrested several times in Santa Clara County in recent years for a string of charges, most recently when he was arrested in January on charges of possession of methamphetamine and paraphernalia. He had also been arrested in October. But Garcia said Arevalo-Carranza was never turned over to ICE because of the county’s policy of ignoring federal detention orders.

Bonnar leaped to criticize the county in a statement Tuesday, writing that it “allowed Arevalo-Carranza back on the streets to reoffend.”

“These sanctuary policies have unintended, but very real, and often tragic consequences to public safety,” Bonnar said.

Liccardo said he would like the county to honor ICE detention orders for “prior first-degree home burglaries and other ‘strike’ offenses.” Garcia did not describe specific changes he would like to see to the policies, but said he believes local law enforcement should be involved in the conversations.

Smith, who as sheriff runs the Santa Clara County Jail, said Arevalo-Carranza should have been held for federal officials.

“It has been my long-standing position that all undocumented immigrants who are a serious or violent felon, should be held for ICE evaluations,” Smith said.

Authorities have not been able to determine any connection between Arevalo-Carranza and Larson, Garcia said, though they believe he “stalked” the quiet South San Jose neighborhood where the crime occurred.

Larson’s son had gone to check on his mother on the afternoon of Feb. 28 after he said coworkers told him she had not shown up to work that day. He found her covered in blood in her apartment.

~ Grif

 

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Sandy Hook families can sue AR-15 gunmaker Remington, court rules

March 14, 2019

The Connecticut Supreme Court today ruled that the families of those killed in the Dec. 14, 2012 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., would be allowed to sue Remington Arms, the manufacturer of the Bushmaster AR-15 used in the attack. In a 4-3 decision, the court reversed a ruling of the lower court, Bridgeport Superior Court, which originally dismissed a lawsuit filed by Sandy Hook families against Remington in 2015.

The lower court’s 2015 ruling rested on the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA).
The law protects firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable when crimes have been committed with their products. A one vote majority of the Connecticut Supreme Court, however, ruled that PLCAA did not shield Remington (and by extension all gun manufacturers and dealers) from being sued.

According to the Hartford Courant, the justices contend that the victims’ families are permitted to argue Remington’s alleged violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA)’

“We further conclude that PLCAA does not bar the plaintiffs from proceeding on the single, limited theory that the defendants violated CUTPA by marketing the XM15- E2S to civilians for criminal purposes, and that those wrongful marketing tactics caused or contributed to the Sandy Hook massacre,” Justice Richard Palmer wrote. “Accordingly, we affirm in part and reverse in part the judgment of the trial court and remand the case for further proceedings.”

“Following a scrupulous review of the text and legislative history of [the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act] we also conclude that Congress has not clearly manifested an intent to extinguish the traditional authority of our legislature and our courts to protect the people of Connecticut from the pernicious practices alleged in the present case. The regulation of advertising that threatens the public’s health, safety, and morals has long been considered a core exercise of the states’ police powers.” Justice Palmer added.

“Accordingly, on the basis of that limited theory, we conclude that the plaintiffs have pleaded allegations sufficient to survive a motion to strike and are entitled to have the opportunity to prove their wrongful marketing allegations,” Palmer concluded.

Connecticut law, the court wrote in the majority opinion, “does not permit advertisements that promote or encourage violent, criminal behavior.” While federal law does offer protection for gun manufacturers, the majority wrote, “Congress did not intend to immunize firearms suppliers who engage in truly unethical and irresponsible marketing practices promoting criminal conduct, and given that statutes such as CUTPA are the only means available to address those types of wrongs, it falls to a jury to decide whether the promotional schemes alleged in the present case rise to the level of illegal trade practices and whether fault for the tragedy can be laid at their feet.”

The families’ original lawsuit filed against Remington in 2015, alleged that the company manufactured and marketed a military weapon that ended up in the hands of a civilian.

Bridgeport Superior Court dismissed the lawsuit in 2016, declaring that it “falls squarely within the broad immunity” provided under the PLCAA.

“There is no need for a legal re-examination of the law,” said James Vogts, Remington’s attorney at the time. “Under the law, the manufacturer of the gun used by the criminal that day isn’t responsible legally for his actions.”

Some legal analysts now however say Remington might be held liable under the “negligent entrustment” exception in the law, which defines the “supplying of a qualified product by a seller for use by another person when the seller knows, or reasonably should know, the person to whom the product is supplied is likely to, and does, use the product in a manner involving unreasonable risk of physical injury to the person or others.

Major liberal me outlets, most notably The New York Times, seem positively giddy over the prospect of suing America’s firearms manufacturers out of business.

Times reporters Rick Rojas and Kristin Hussey called today’s Connecticut court ruling a “major blow to the firearms industry on Thursday, clearing the way for a lawsuit against the companies that manufactured and sold the semiautomatic rifle used by the gunman in the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School.”

They continued, “The lawsuit mounted a direct challenge to the immunity that Congress granted gun companies to shield them from litigation when their weapons are used in a crime. The ruling allows the case, brought by victims’ families, to maneuver around the federal shield, creating a potential opening to bring claims to trial and hold the companies, including Remington, which made the rifle, liable for the attack.

The 4-3 majority largely upheld arguments made by lawyers for Remington that the company is protected from suit in many instances. The court ruled, however, that Congress did not intend the PLCAA to preclude state law.

Ultimately, the majority said, the plaintiffs should have the opportunity to prove that Remington violated the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA) by marketing a military-style weapon to civilians.

A Connecticut Superior Court judge dismissed the lawsuit in 2016, agreeing with lawyers for Remington that the case falls within the “broad immunity” gun manufacturers and sellers are afforded under the PLCAA. The state Supreme Court decision, however, paves the way for the suit to continue and for lawyers to access internal documents from the firearms companies.

Lawyers for the gunmaker argued that there was no way for Remington to assess the shooter, and therefore no way they could have known what the gun would be used for.

According to the Times, the lawsuit was originally filed in 2014 by nine families of the victims and a teacher who was injured in the shooting. It names gun manufacturers and distributors Bushmaster, Remington, Camfour Holdings LLP, as well as Riverview Gun Sales Inc., the gun shop where the shooter’s mother purchased the Bushmaster AR-15 rifle, and the store’s owner.

Remington Arms filed for bankruptcy in March of 2018, which effectively stalled the lawsuit. In May 2018, the company announced that it had emerged from bankruptcy.

“The decision represents a significant development in the long-running battle between gun control advocates and the gun lobby,” the Times said. “And it stands to have wider ramifications, experts said, by charting a possible legal road map for victims’ relatives and survivors from other mass shootings who want to sue gun companies.”

Edify this morning called the ruling a “high-stakes challenge to gun companies, which have rarely been held liable for crimes committed with their products, and could mark a new front in the battle over gun regulations and corporate accountability. . . An eventual ruling against Remington could establish legal precedent, opening doors for more lawsuits against gun manufacturers, and expose the company’s communications about its marketing plans.”

The National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action outlines the issue as follows:

On October 26, 2005, President Bush signed S. 397, the “Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.” Introduced by Sens. Larry Craig (R-ID) and Max Baucus (D-MT), this legislation is a vitally important first step toward ending the anti-gun lobby`s shameless attempts to bankrupt the American firearms industry through reckless lawsuits. Reps. Cliff Stearns (R-FL) and Rick Boucher (D-VA) introduced similar legislation, H.R. 800 in the House of Representatives.

•These suits are intended to drive gunmakers out of business by holding manufacturers and dealers liable for the criminal acts of third parties who are totally beyond their control. Suing the firearms industry for street crime is like suing General Motors for criminal acts involving Buicks.

•These lawsuits seek a broad range of remedies relating to product design and marketing. Their demands, if granted, would create major restrictions on interstate commerce in firearms and ammunition, including unwanted design changes, burdensome sales policies, and higher costs for consumers. While the suits are unwarranted, the firearms industry has had to spend over $200 million in defense.

•Congress has the power-and the duty-to prevent activists from abusing the courts to destroy interstate commerce.

•The bill provides that lawsuits may not be brought against manufacturers and sellers of firearms or ammunition if the suits are based on criminal or unlawful use of the product by a third party. Existing lawsuits must be dismissed.

S. 397 provides carefully tailored protections for legitimate suits:

•The bills expressly allow suits based on knowing violations of federal or state law related to gun sales, or on traditional grounds including negligent entrustment (such as sales to a child or an obviously intoxicated person) or breach of contract. The bill also allows product liability cases involving actual injuries caused by an improperly functioning firearm (as opposed to cases of intentional misuse).

•The Congress has often passed limitations on liability for specific groups, including light aircraft manufacturers, food donors, corporations affected by “Y2K” computer problems, charitable volunteers, health officials, medical implant manufacturers, and makers of anti-terrorism technology.
These lawsuits usurp the authority of the Congress and of state legislators, in a desperate attempt to enact restrictions that have been widely rejected. Thirty-four states have also enacted statutes blocking this type of litigation.

~ Grif
Molon Labe

Please follow and like us:
0
 

‘Child Abuse’? Massachusetts Therapy Ban Means Parents Could Lose Their Kids if They Try to Help Them

Massachusetts lawmakers are considering a therapy ban that would not only make it illegal to counsel children about unwanted same-sex attraction or gender confusion, but also punish parents who allow it by taking custody of their children.

Andrew Beckwith, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute, told CBN News that the bill “categorizes the treatment itself as child abuse.”

It appears that Massachusetts is the first state to consider defining such therapy as abusive and allow for the option of taking away parental custody.

“This is a bill that would allow the state to take, for example, your daughter, and make her someone else’s son,” Beckwith said.

According to the Human Rights Campaign, a powerful LGBTQ advocacy organization, 15 states and Washington, DC have already passed therapy bans for youth. Beckwith says Massachusetts could be the first to add the abuse definition. Lawmakers in Maine and Colorado are also considering therapy bans for youth right now. LGBTQ advocates have argued for years that therapy that allows youth to discuss their concerns about unwanted same-sex desires or gender identity issues is harmful.

Massachusetts lawmakers first introduced a youth therapy ban bill in 2013. Beckwith says proponents appear to have an “aggressive timeline” right now, because last year lawmakers couldn’t agree on the abuse provision and delayed a vote until the end of the session in June.

This year, according to Beckwith, they’re already taking action. Lawmakers held a hearing on March 5 to consider testimony from those the measure would impact.

Parental custody is already an issue in transgender cases involving children across the country. Recently, Ohio officials stripped parental rights from a couple that opposed medical treatment for their teenage daughter who wanted to become a boy. In Texas, a divorced father and mother are fighting over medical treatment for their 6-year-old son. The mother says he identifies as a girl and wants to pursue medical treatments to help him change. The father says the boy identifies as a boy and opposes the treatments.

The Massachusetts Senate’s bill S.70, titled “Relative to abusive practices to change sexual orientation and gender identity,” was reported favorably by committee Monday, March 11, and referred to the committee on Senate Rules.

Hearings on Massachusetts House Bill H.110, “An Act banning conversion therapy,” was extended for additional testimony. A new date for the extended hearings has not been set. The House version of the bill would “prohibit practices by health care providers that attempt to change sexual orientation or gender identity. Children, Families and Persons with Disabilities.”

~ Grif

Please follow and like us:
0
 

USA “gets ass handed to it” in WW3 simulations with China, Russia: analysts say

Laura Widener, writing for American Military News, outlined a chilling prediction from the RAND research organization that the United States would not survive in an all out war with Russia and China.

Widener writes: The U.S. repeatedly “gets its ass handed to it” in World War III simulations, according to the global research organization RAND.
“In our games, when we fight Russia and China … blue gets its ass handed to it,” RAND senior researcher David Ochmanek said during a panel discussion at the Center for a New American Security think tank last week.

Watch his remarks at approximately 13:07 in the video below:

https://americanmilitarynews.com/2019/03/us-gets-ass-handed-to-it-in-ww3-simulations-with-china-russia-analysts/

“We lose a lot of people. We lose a lot of equipment. We usually fail to achieve our objective of preventing aggression by the adversary,” he added.

Ochmanek said the scenarios often end with the “red” – Russia and China – destroying U.S. fighter jets while still on the runway, sinking U.S. warships, and destroying U.S. military bases and other vital military systems. “In every case I know of, the F-35 rules the sky when it’s in the sky,” said Robert Work, a former deputy secretary of defense and an expert war game analyst. “But it gets killed on the ground in large numbers.”

U.S. aircraft carriers are also considered more vulnerable to enemy attacks. “Things that sail on the surface of the sea are going to have a hard time,” Ochmanek said. The Chinese would “attack the American battle network at all levels, relentlessly, and they practice it all the time,” Work said. “On our side, whenever we have an exercise, when the red force really destroys our command and control, we stop the exercise and say, ‘Let’s restart.’”

There is a widespread assumption that paints America as a leading military power who wins handily in any wartime scenario, Ochmanek pointed out. However, he noted that this isn’t the case, and people are shocked to learn the truth – that all five warfare domains are contested.

“We do not have air superiority over the ballast space at the outset of these wars. We do not have maritime superiority. Our space assets are under attack with kinetic and non-kinetic means. Our command-and-control is under attack by electromagnetic attacks and cyber,” he continued.

The “brain and the nervous system that connects all of these pieces is suppressed, if not shattered,” Ochmanek said.

He also explained that the forward bases U.S. forces operate from are eliminated in war scenarios, taking away critical points of operation; researchers are unsure of what that means for America’s fate.
U.S. bases in Europe also pose a vulnerability due to their scattered proximity and insufficient defense capabilities.

“If we went to war in Europe, there would be one Patriot battery moving, and it would go to Ramstein [in Germany]. And that’s it,” Work noted. “We have 58 Brigade Combat Teams, but we don’t have anything to protect our bases. So what difference does it make?”

The researchers stressed that a military defeat is imminent unless the U.S. employs a major change in strategy.

“These are the things that the war games show over and over and over, so we need a new American way of war without question,” Work urged.

~ Grif
Si vis pacem, para bellum.

Please follow and like us:
0
 

How Many Poops Does it Take to Create a Petty Dictator?

Only a third-world backwater communist dictator would have ordered something like this.

Kim Jong Un, North Korean dictator, butcher, and murderer of his own brother, has decreed that every able-bodied citizen must turn in 100 kg (220 pounds) of human feces a day to be used for fertilizer, to bolster the agricultural sector.

North Korean Poop Mandate

Kim announced the poop scoop requirement in his New Year’s address saying that the agricultural front would be the primary instrument for economic reconstruction, according to an article published on Radio Free Asia (RAF) January 18.

Quoting an anonymous source in North Hamgyong province, RFA’s Korean Service said, “After Kim Jong Un’s [speech], the entire population has been mobilized to produce manure as the first major task of the year The authorities in each local region task factories, institutions and citizens groups with assigning production quotas to each individual”.

“They are demanding that each person produce 100kg of human feces per day, or about 3 tons per month,” said the source. “But how on earth can it be possible for one person to make 3 tons of human feces and deliver it?”

Well, yeah!

While the collection of human feces is a yearly task, high quotas this year are driving many to find interesting ways to collect human feces in the bitter cold, or to find ways to get out of their quota.

Some however, are critical of the government, saying the high quotas amount to a shakedown of the people.

“If you cannot fill the quota, you have to supply 300kg of compost or livestock manure instead,” the source added.

“Most people can’t [make or collect] 100kg per day, so they end up giving what they think is sufficient. The quota is therefore meaningless,” said the source.

“[The quotas] are the same in both the cities and the countryside because the quotas are applied to everyone evenly,” said the source, adding “When the city’s clothing and food factories are [operating at full capacity], workers will try all sorts of ways to fill the quota.”

There are, however, alternative ways for North Korean citizens to buy their way out of the potty pot.

“Compared with last year, there’s a growing number of residents who are choosing to pay cash instead of providing the manure itself,” said the source.

In addition to paying cash, citizens can buy manure from merchants.

“The manure merchants are doing really well these days, charging 20 yuan (about $3) per 100kg of human feces or 300kg of compost,” the source said.

“Young women who work in restaurants and beauty parlors usually just pay cash, though,” said the source.

Another source, also in North Hamgyong province, said, “The residents of Chongjin City have been fully mobilized to fulfil this task. Authorities are encouraging people to produce more manure, stressing that it provides a vital boost to the agricultural front, and thereby the socialist movement in general,” the source said.

“People are becoming increasingly dissatisfied though, as authorities are keeping production records for each person and putting pressure on those who haven’t produced enough [to fill their quota.],” said the source.

So, if one day’s pile of poop to equals 100 kg, how many piles of poop do you have to make before you have a Kim Jong Un?

“In winter, there isn’t as much manure and compost. Cash payments exceed the value of the manure that actually ends up being delivered, so people are saying the regime is just using the quota as a means to collect more money from the citizens,” the source said.

“More than 80% of all the female workers in Chongjin’s clothing factory pay cash instead of manure,” said the source.

“People are angry, criticizing the regime for [deliberately setting quotas so high] to force people to pay cash, then claiming it’s for agricultural production.”

~ Grif

Please follow and like us:
0
 

“Traditional Masculinity” is Harmful, American Psychological Association Says

Well, it’s finally happened. Teaching a boy to be a man is now deemed harmful for the boy.

I’m not making this up. This assessment is not the ranting of a rabid libtard feminazi, but the considered opinion of the august organization, the American PsychologicalAssociation (APA).

The APA said it could be damaging to teach boys about “traditional masculinity.” In its recently released report titled, “APA Guidelines for the Psychological Practice with Boys and Men,” the APA said the “traditional masculinity philosophy not only is ‘harmful’ but also could lead to homophobia and sexual harassment.”

The U.S. News & World Report said the APA cited traditional masculinity as including elements of “anti-femininity, achievement, eschewal of the appearance of weakness, and adventure, risk and violence.”

Fox News this week quoted an APA press release stating, “The main thrust of the (APA’s) subsequent research is that traditional masculinity – marked by stoicism, competitiveness, dominance and aggression – is, on the whole, harmful.”

The Daily Caller wrote that the APA report held that “traditional masculinity is psychologically harmful and that socializing boys to suppress their emotions causes damage that echoes both inwardly and outwardly.”

“Traditional masculinity ideology has been shown to limit males’ psychological development, constrain their behavior, result in gender role strain and gender role conflict, and negatively influence mental health and physical health,” the 36-page report says, Fox reported.

Further, the report proposes that “masculine boys may put their energy toward disruptive behaviors such as homophobia, bullying and even sexual harassment rather than strive for academic excellence.”

The report suggests that psychologists relinquish any predisposition when treating boys, and offers tips on how to do that while also advising them to teach them how “power, privilege and sexism work both by conferring benefits to men and by trapping them in narrow roles.”.

Never before has the APA delivered guiding principles to aid psychologists to “specifically address issues with men and boys,” According to a U.S. News & World Report article.

Ronald F. Levant, Ed. D, a professor emeritus of psychology, told Fox, “Though men benefit from patriarchy, they are also impinged upon by patriarchy.”

The APA published statistics to support their research, “including that men are four times more likely than women to die of suicide worldwide, are ‘far more likely’ than women to be arrested and charged with intimate partner violence in the U.S., and commit about 90 percent of all homicides nationwide.”

Stephanie Pappas, writing in an APAP article said that, “[M]en still dominate professionally and politically: As of 2018, 95.2 percent of chief operating officers at Fortune 500 companies were men. According to a 2017 analysis by Fortune, in 16 of the top companies, 80 percent of all high-ranking executives were male. Meanwhile, the 115th Congress, which began in 2017, was 81 percent male,” the Daily Caller reported.

~ Grif

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Senator Feinstein Files Bill to Ban Nearly All Civilian Firearms

Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) filed legislation Wednesday (January 9) that if passed, would ban practically all semi-automatic firearms. A press release from Feinstein’s office said the legislation would not affect “more than 2,200 guns for hunting, household defense or recreational purposes.” Yet the actual terms of the proposed ban tell a different story.

The legislation would ban all firearms that can have “a detachable ammunition magazine” or that have “one or more military characteristics including a pistol grip, a forward grip, a barrel shroud, a threaded barrel, or a folding or telescoping stock,” the release states. Practically all semi-automatic rifles, handguns, and even some shotguns utilize detachable magazines. The inclusion of threaded barrels would eliminate noise suppressors. And, finally, the inclusion of pistol grips, a forward grip, barrel shrouds, or a folding or telescoping stock, all of which would be banned under the legislation, would effectively disarm a majority of law-abiding gun owners.

The Feinstein’s proposed “assault weapons” ban includes a grandfather clause that exempts all weapons lawfully possessed at the date of enactment. But even those firearms would come under strict government oversight and excessive restrictions for maintaining ownership.

Key provisions of the legislation:

•Bans the sale, manufacture, transfer and importation of 205 military-style assault weapons by name. Owners may keep existing weapons.

•Bans any assault weapon that accepts a detachable ammunition magazine and has one or more military characteristics including a pistol grip, a forward grip, a barrel shroud, a threaded barrel or a folding or telescoping stock. Owners may keep existing weapons.

•Bans magazines and other ammunition feeding devices that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition, which allow shooters to quickly fire many rounds without needing to reload. Owners may keep existing magazines.

•Requires a background check on any future sale, trade or gifting of an assault weapon covered by the bill.

•Requires that grandfathered assault weapons are stored using a secure gun storage or safety device like a trigger lock.

•Prohibits the transfer of high-capacity ammunition magazines.

•Bans stocks that are “otherwise foldable or adjustable in a manner that operates to reduce the length, size, or any other dimension, or otherwise enhances the concealability of a firearm.”

•Bans assault pistols that weigh 50 or more ounces when unloaded, a policy included in the original 1994 ban.

•Bans assault pistol stabilizing braces that transform assault pistols into assault rifles by allowing the shooter to shoulder the weapon and fire more accurately.

•Bans Thordsen-type grips and stocks that are designed to evade a ban on assault weapons.

Support for the proposed gun ban was decidedly based on emotional appeal. Senator Murphy said, “Military-style assault rifles are the weapons of choice for mass murderers. There’s just no reason why these guns, which were designed to kill as many people as quickly as possible, are sold to the public,” said Senator Chris Murphy. “This past year, we’ve seen Americans rise up and demand Congress change our gun laws. Banning assault weapons would save lives, and I’m proud to join Senator Feinstein in introducing this bill.”

Senator Blumenthal opined, “Assault weapons and high-capacity magazines are deadly and dangerous weapons of war that belong on battlefields—not our streets. They have no purpose for self-defense or hunting, and no business being in our schools, churches and malls. By passing this legislation, Congress can honor the memory of the beautiful lives cut short by military-style assault weapons in Newtown, Parkland, Las Vegas, San Bernardino and far too many other American cities. This is the year for my colleagues to turn our rhetoric into reality and finally end America’s gun violence epidemic.”

Senator Feinstein referenced the faux “spontaneous student protest”, saying, “Last year we saw tens of thousands of students nationwide take to the streets to demand action to stop mass shootings and stem the epidemic of gun violence that plagues our communities. Our youngest generation has grown up with active-shooter drills, hiding under their desks—and now they’re saying enough is enough. Americans across the nation are asking Congress to reinstate the federal ban on military-style assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. If we’re going to put a stop to mass shootings and protect our children, we need to get these weapons of war off our streets.”

Co-sponsors of the proposed legislation included many of the usual demobrat anti Second Amendment rat pack, and included senators Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Tom Carper (D-Del.), Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), Ben Cardin (D-Md.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), Bob Casey (D-Pa.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Tina Smith (D-Minn.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and Mark Warner (D-Va.).

~ Grif

Rom 8:38-39

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Facebook Suspends Evangelist Franklin Graham for his Biblical “Hate Speech”

Facebook’s “hate speech” suspension only lasted 24 hours. But it may have been the longest 24 hours yet for the social media giant. Evangelist Franklin Graham, CEO of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, told the Charlotte Observer that he was recently suspended from Facebook for taking a stand for his biblical beliefs. The offending “hate speech” that shut down Graham’s account was nothing recent. Rather it stemmed from an April 9, 2016 post in which Graham endorsed a North Carolina law that prevents men from being able to use women’s restrooms and locker rooms. In addition, Graham’s post urged a return to biblical principles as a way of life.

The Facebook suspension prompted an immediate flurry of comment from numerous media outlets, including Fox News, the Washington Post and The New York Times. In addition, the suspension was concurrent with a Times investigative report revealing that Facebook maintains a secret rule book for policing—and censoring—Facebook members’ speech.

Facebook moved quickly to remove the suspension, but not soon enough. By the time Facebook restored Graham’s account, the word was out. On December 28, Facebook apologized. A Facebook spokesperson admitted to the Charlotte Observer that Graham was indeed punished for his post. And while the spokesperson is now apologizing for censoring Graham, it’s clear that some of Facebook’s team of 15,000 speech police can censor conservative Christians at will.

Graham says it’s just wrong that his biblical comments would be ever considered “hate speech.”

“Facebook said the post went against their ‘community standards on hate speech.’ Facebook is trying to define truth. There was a character in a movie a few years back who said, ‘The truth is what I say it is!’ That’s what Facebook is trying to do. They’re making the rules and changing the rules,” Graham said.

But he says God’s truth will always be the only real truth. “Truth is truth,” Graham said. “God made the rules and His Word is truth. Actually, Facebook is censoring free speech. The free exchange of ideas is part of our country’s DNA.

Graham reposted his 2016 post, last week, asking readers to judge whether what he said was “hate speech.”

“April 9, 2016—Bruce Springsteen, a long-time gay rights activist, has cancelled his North Carolina concert. He says the NC law #HB2 to prevent men from being able to use women’s restrooms and locker rooms is going ‘backwards instead of forwards.’ Well, to be honest, we need to go back! Back to God. Back to respecting and honoring His commands. Back to common sense. Mr. Springsteen, a nation embracing sin and bowing at the feet of godless secularism and political correctness is not progress. I’m thankful North Carolina has a governor, Pat McCrory, and a lieutenant governor, Dan Forest, and legislators who put the safety of our women and children first! HB2 protects the safety and privacy of women and children and preserves the human rights of millions of faith-based citizens of this state.”

The suspension, however brief, raises serious questions. If Facebook is willing to block one of the most prominent Christian leaders in the world, then what’s next? Graham’s Facebook suspension also reinforces ongoing reports of censorship against Christian beliefs by other social media giants and the tech companies that control so much of the communication and interaction in our world today – companies such as Google, Twitter, WordPress and Apple.

The revelation that Facebook records, monitors, scrutinizes and judges all subscribers’ speech according to a draconian and biased set of secret rules is frightening. It is a direct threat to free expression and an assault on conservative and Christian values. Had Graham’s suspension been confined to his account, Facebook might have been able to say that it was a simple error in judgment. But it was not an aberration. It was a punitive suspension levied according to corporate policy that was, until then, a secret. But the cat, so to speak, is out of the bag.

Christopher Carbone, writing for Fox News, outlined the report by The New York Times that disclosed the existence of Facebook’s rulebook. He said the rulebook was Facebook’s attempt to eliminate misinformation and hate speech. But he noted that the effort was predicated on a “byzantine and secret document of rules packed with spreadsheets and power point slides that gets updated regularly for its global content moderators.”

He said the New York Times showed the social network to be “a far more powerful arbiter of global speech than has been publicly recognized or acknowledged by the company itself.” The Times, he said, discovered a range of gaps, biases and outright errors — including instances where Facebook allowed extremism to spread in some counties while censoring mainstream speech in others.”

The rulebook’s details were revealed by a Facebook employee who leaked more than 1,400 pages of the speech policing rulebook to the Times because he “feared that the company was exercising too much power, with too little oversight — and making too many mistakes.”

Carbone said that Facebook “is trying to monitor billions of posts per day in over 100 languages while parsing out the subtle nuances and complicated context of language, images and even emojis. The group of Facebook employees who meet every other Tuesday to update the rules, according to the Times, are trying to boil down highly complex issues into strict yes-or-no rules.”

Facebook, he said, then outsources the content moderation to other companies that tend to hire unskilled workers. The 7,500-plus moderators “have mere seconds to recall countless rules and apply them to the hundreds of posts that dash across their screens each day. When is a reference to “jihad,” for example, forbidden? When is a “crying laughter” emoji a warning sign?”

In the U.S., Facebook has banned the Proud Boys, a far-right group that has been accused of fomenting real-world violence. It also blocked an advertisement about the caravan of Central American illegal aliens put out by President Trump’s political team.

“It’s not our place to correct people’s speech, but we do want to enforce our community standards on our platform,” Sara Su, a senior engineer on the News Feed, told the Times. “When you’re in our community, we want to make sure that we’re balancing freedom of expression and safety.”

Monika Bickert, Facebook’s head of global policy management, said that the primary goal was to prevent harm, and that to a great extent, the company had been successful. But perfection, she said, is not possible.

“We have billions of posts every day, we’re identifying more and more potential violations using our technical systems,” Bickert told the newspaper. “At that scale, even if you’re 99 percent accurate, you’re going to have a lot of mistakes.”

Facebook’s most politically consequential and potentially divisive document could be an Excel spreadsheet that the Times reports lists every group and individual the company has barred as a “hate figure.” Moderators are told to remove any post praising, supporting or representing any of the people on that list.

Anton Shekhovtsov, an expert in far-right groups, told the publication he was “confused about the methodology.” The company bans an impressive array of American and British groups, he added, but relatively few in countries where the far right can be more violent, particularly Russia or Ukraine.

Still, there’s inconsistency in how Facebook applies the rules. In Germany, where speech in general is more scrutinized, Facebook reportedly blocks dozens of far-right groups. In nearby Austria, it only blocks one.

For a tech company to draw these lines is “extremely problematic,” Jonas Kaiser, a Harvard University expert on online extremism, told the Times. “It puts social networks in the position to make judgment calls that are traditionally the job of the courts.”

~ Grif

Rom 8: 38-39

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Landlord Tells Harvard Grad Student to Move Out Over Gun Ownership

 

 

Leyla Pirnie–victim of discrimination over gun ownership

 

Leyla Pirnie, a 24-year-old Harvard graduate student, has been asked to move out of her Massachusetts student apartment after her roommates ransacked her room while she was away for a weekend.

Pirnie told the Washington Free Beacon that her roommates confessed they went looking for guns because she is from Alabama and owns a Make America Great Again hat—two items that led them to believe that she also would own firearms.

She said she was confronted about her guns by her six roommates on her return from her weekend break.

“When I asked them why they were in my room to begin with, they each came up with completely contradicting stories (none of which made any sense), but one comment struck me in particular: ‘We saw that you had a MAGA hat and come on, you’re from Alabama… so we just kind of assumed that you had something,'” she said. “I asked why they didn’t just call me and ask me before intruding. One of the girls responded that fear took over her body and she felt compelled to search my room until she found proof… I cannot make this up.”

Pirnie also said that despite explaining she was trained in the use of guns, her roommates were more concerned with someone breaking in and turning the guns on them or that a gun “might go off on [its] own.” Although, Pirnie said her biggest issue was her roommates, who she barely knew, going through her personal belongings. Pirnie went on to say that she believes her landlord “showed tremendous prejudice against my right to legally have firearms.”

The discovery of Pirnie’s firearms prompted one of the roommates to e-mail the landlord, David Lewis, to verify that Pirnie was in compliance with applicable firearms laws.

“We discussed with Leyla that all of us are uncomfortable with having firearms in the house, and that their presence causes anxiety and deprives us of the quiet enjoyment of the premise to which we are entitled,” the roommate wrote to Lewis.

Lewis, president of Avid Management, the company that owns the apartment house, said in an e-mail to the household, “Since it’s clear that Leyla wants to keep her firearms, it would be best for all parties if she finds another place to live.” That e-mail came after Lewis had consulted with his attorney and after an inspection of the firearms by Somerville, Massachusetts Police Captain James Donovan. Donovan told Lewis and the tenants that Pirnie was in full compliance with Massachusetts state law, and that the firearms were kept, stored and maintained in full compliance with Massachusetts state law.

Lewis acknowledged that Pirnie was well within her rights and that she was not violating any laws. But his e-mail continued, “That being said, it is clear that the rest of the housemates are extremely uncomfortable with the idea of Firearms (sic) being kept in the household and this difference in philosophy and life style has led to an uncomfortable level of tension and stress for the entire household.”

Pirnie has refused to vacate her apartment. She said that when the roommates confronted her about her firearms she explained to them she was a legal gun owner who is trained in the safe handling of firearms. She said the roommates weren’t concerned with Pirnie’s handling of the guns but rather that somebody might break in and turn the guns on them or the guns “might go off on their own.”

She told the Beacon that her landlord’s concern over some of her roommates being uncomfortable with legally owned firearms is misplaced and his request that she move out is inappropriate.

“What I find uncomfortable is coming home to find out that six people I barely know went into my bedroom without permission and went through every single one of my drawers, without any regard to my privacy whatsoever,” Pirnie said. “My landlord’s e-mail, though carefully crafted, showed tremendous prejudice against my right to legally have firearms.”

Pirnie said her motivations for owning firearms have been ignored even though she shared them with her roommates. While an undergrad, she said she was in a physically abusive relationship. She said the experience is part of what drives her to be armed.

“Nobody has bothered to question, ‘Well, why do you want to have protection? Could it be because you’ve experienced something where you need to protect yourself as you see fit?'” she said. “I have a real and legitimate reason as to why I want to protect myself.”

When Pirnie and her father rejected Lewis’s request that she move out in the middle of studying for finals, Lewis responded by saying his request “was based strictly on practical and not ideological terms.” He then warned that if the other roommates moved out Pirnie would have to pay their rent.

“If the other roommates were to move out, Leyla would need to find roommates to share the place or foot the entire $6000+ monthly rent herself,” Lewis wrote in an email to Pirnie and her father. “Obviously it would be much easier for the others to stay and just fill one room (and I’m confident—were this to happen—that the remaining housemates will release Leyla from any further responsibility under the lease) and that’s why I proposed what I did.”

Pirnie feels she’s being punished for being a gun owner.

“I’m still very much so being threatened out of my apartment,” she said. “Either I leave and incur moving expenses or my roommates move and I incur their rent expenses… Doesn’t seem right. Not only is this a blatant violation of my privacy, but it’s also a violation of my rights.”

A search of Pirnie’s social media accounts reveals much about her political and religious philosophy. According to her Facebook page, Pirnie is from Izmir, Turkey. Pirnie says on her page that she began studying at Harvard on September 4. In a Facebook conversation about Ronald Reagan and the belief that the United States is a Christian nation, Pirnie identifies as a Christian. In response to a Reagan quote that saw the 40th president quoted as saying, “The constitution was never meant to prevent people from praying: its declared purpose was to protect their freedom to pray,” Pirnie said, “It’s important to keep in mind that this country was founded on Christian principles and values, with the belief that we should be tolerant of other religions. That doesn’t mean that we should be changing things like “in God we trust” or “merry Christmas” to “happy holidays” just because it might offend someone. Christians can’t be the only ones who are tolerant of other religions.”

Pirnie said in a University of Alabama questionnaire in 2015, “My name is Leyla Pirnie. I was born and raised in Izmir, Turkey for 12 years; however, my parents are both American. My mother is from German descent, while my father is from Scottish descent.”

A search for Pirnie’s Twitter account shows that her account has been suspended. It is not clear why this occurred; the last mention for her username came in May 2015.

Since Pirnie’s eviction story spread across the internet, she has deleted her LinkedIn account. A view of a cached version of that page shows that Pirnie is a graduate of Fairhope High School, class of 2009, and a 2017 graduate of the University of Alabama. At Alabama, Pirnie studied International Relation and Affairs, French and Political Science.

While at the University of Alabama, Pirnie was the social chair of the Pi Beta Phi Fraternity for Women and the Director of Public Relations for the International Students Association. Pirnie also said on her LinkedIn page that she is a senior director of Ropir International S.A., a package delivery company based in Doral, Florida. A separate online profile shows that Pirnie lived in Paris, France, for a time.

Since November 30, when the Washington Free Beacon broke the story of her threatened eviction, support from conservatives has skyrocketed. She was interviewed by FOX News. In addition, her story has struck a chord with conservatives on Twitter, with many rushing to offer their support to the Harvard grad student. Here are just a couple of their illustrative responses:

“A Christian in Turkey is almost as bad as being a Conservative in a Starbucks or at Harvard…….Dave Lewis has no legal grounds to remove her and if he attempted to do so, it would be in violation of her 2nd Amendment rights. As for her two roommates, I’m assuming all three of them signed the lease agreement. If they did and the two roommates moved out, the bigoted Dave Lewis’s only legal recourse would be to pursue them for non payment of their portion of the rent……”

“This is why people should talk about gun ownership before becoming roommates. Her roommates should never have searched her room or her belongings. A lot of younger people claim to her values, but their values seem to be do “whatever I feel like even if it’s wrong.”

Alex Roberts, writing for Halsey News December 1, concluded his article with a sentiment that many who support Pirnie echoed on their social media accounts.

“What this situation comes down to is another white educated woman who has found herself attacked when she has done nothing wrong. The landlord clearly displays no respect for the rights of Layla Pirnie who was legally within her rights and met the state requirements according to the very police officers who David Lewis had inspect the situation.”

 

 

 

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Netflix twists ‘Anne of Green Gables’ into a queer soirée with 5 LGBT characters

If anyone still needs a reason to dump Netflix, here it is.

Moira Walley-Beckett, a screen writer whose loafers obviously don’t touch the ground, has created a new Netflix series titled “Anne With an E,” based upon Lucy Maud Montgomery’s immensely popular 1908 novel Anne of Green Gables. But the new Netflix series takes a bizarre and twisted turn.

The new series is produced by Northwood Entertainment.

Critic Mark Martin, writing for the entertainment section of the Christian Broadcasting Network July 21, said the Netflix adaptation of Montgomery’s novel has been revised to include multiple homosexual characters. As an example, the beloved character Great Aunt Josephine Barry is now a grouchy lesbian.

“Upon reading (the novel) again as an adult, I was wondering about Aunt Jo,” Walley-Beckett told IndieWire. “In the book, she’s a spinster, and she’s just a bit of a curmudgeon, and that’s kind of it. So I’m like, ‘Well, she’s coming to the Barrys for a month and she’s grieving;’ that’s why I decided to justify why she’s there: Who is she grieving?”

Aunt Jo revealed in Season 1 that she was grieving over the loss of a character known as Aunt Gertrude, Aunt Jo’s partner.

IndieWire reports their relationship is what’s called a “Boston marriage,” when two women live together without being supported financially by a man. But the term didn’t exist during the time period of the novel.

Walley-Beckett said, “And so we touch on that in Season 1, and in Season 2 we get to expand upon it in a way that allows her to provide a forum of acceptance.”

That “forum of acceptance” is known as a “queer soirée.” In Season 2, Aunt Jo holds her first queer soirée since the passing of her partner.

“It was very exciting for me and the writers to create that,” Walley-Beckett continued. “We’ve been talking about the queer soirée, which is how we refer to it, since we all first sat down together.”

IndieWire goes on to say that one of the artists attending the soirée is the show’s creation of the real-life pianist and composer, Cécile Chaminade.

“Cécile Chaminade is really torn from the pages of history. We didn’t invent anything about her really,” said Walley-Beckett. “She was a feminist and a gay icon and a composer, and she travels the world playing piano. So that’s how Jo would know her.”

The new Netflix series also features two homosexual male characters. One is Anne’s good friend, “Cole.”

“It would only make sense that there would be somebody in the class who was struggling with identity,” Walley-Beckett claims. “I was very keen to include a storyline like that.”

And it doesn’t end there. The children’s teacher, Mr. Phillips, is also gay.

“Also, in my mind, their teacher Mr. Phillips has always been an unidentified closeted homosexual,” Walley-Beckett said. “He just has no idea that he was.”

Walley-Beckett said there is an opposing view in the series through the character of “Diana.”

“It is very difficult for Diana confronted with this sudden circumstance about her two aunts, basically,” she said. “I felt like to balance things, it was great to have the kids have a conversation about it, and have conflicting points of view because those are the points of views that are within the families who are watching the show.”

“I am just so proud to be a part of something that can offer this to people, and I hope to all the kids, too, who are struggling with their gender (and sexual) identity, who may not have the empathy or understanding around them that they need,” she said.

Tess Farrand, a contributing writer for Movieguide: The Family Guide to Movies and Entertainment, spoke out against all the prominent homosexual story lines depicted in “Anne With an E”:

“The creators of the series have carefully manipulated the classic story with an agenda that fits their worldview. ANNE WITH AN E’s attempt to also push LGBT in programming that would normally attract more faith-based audiences is utterly unnecessary.

“Moreover, focusing attention on the sexuality subplot of the series detracts from the moral redemptive nature of the story. Obviously, the minds behind the series are jumping onto the ideological bandwagon that already has concerned parents even more worried.

“The discussion of gender and sexuality are in fact discussed ad nauseam. People in 2018 don’t need or want to see political/social debates take place on ‘family’ TV shows; they see enough of it on social media or see it on the 5 ‘o clock news.

“Rather, we should be turning to the ultimate resource for clarification on these pressing topics: the Bible.”

Farrand encourages audiences to know the “power” they have to make changes in the entertainment industry.

“Audiences need to recognize the power of their part in the industry,” she wrote. “We can say no to entertainment choices, and we can pray that the individuals that make up the industry would be shaped by God’s Word, which has the power to transform and renew everyone.”

See also:

Grif

Please follow and like us:
0