Title :
link :
WWW.MOEISSUESOFTHEDAY
.BLOGSPOT.COM
Saturday, Feb. 17, 2018
All Gave Some~Some Gave All
*****
The Russians are coming,
the Russians are coming.
Associated Press Sees Florida Shooting Conspiracy: NRA –>JROTC –>Air Rifles –>Nikolas Cruz
by AWR HAWKINS
2797
PAUL J. RICHARDS/AFP/Getty Images/Broward's Sheriff's Office via Getty Images
After being fooled by the “white supremacist” conspiracy theorists, the Associated Press shifted to note that the NRA gave money to the Stoneman Douglas JROTC program, which, in turn, bought air guns, which, in turn, were used when Nikolas Cruz was part of the JROTC marksmanship program.
And a new conspiracy is born! If you connect enough dots, and are willing to equate casual with causal, then the NRA did something that may have benefited the JROTC at the time when Cruz was in it.
In other news, the National Rifle Association is dedicated to helping the JROTC because members of the group go on to be leaders in their communities and in the U.S. military. Cruz is an exception and was removed from Stoneman Douglas for “disciplinary reasons.”
The Associated Press gave Cruz’s disciplinary issues fleeting coverage then moved on to report how much money the NRA gives JROTC groups.
For example, they state that the NRA gave JROTC groups around the country a total of $2.2 million in 2016. Of that, “more than $400,000 was in cash grants, while nearly $1.8 million came as in-kind donations ranging from equipment for high school air rifle teams to gun safety programs for younger children. ”
Two things need to be noted: 1. The money given by the NRA meets needs that remain after the U.S. Army gives its funding, which means the NRA is literally working hand-in-hand with our military to be sure future military members have the equipment needed to succeed in the course of service they have chosen. 2. Some of the money is used to teach children “gun safety,” which is hard to comprehend because Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) told Joe Scarborough that the NRA is not concerned with “promoting gun safety” anymore.
The bottom line — the NRA helps future military members by giving millions to the JROTC. And they help keep children safe by giving untold amounts to teach gun safety.
Somewhere along the way, Nikolas Cruz was affiliated with a JROTC that the NRA helped, so everything is the NRA’s fault.
AWR Hawkins is an award-winning Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News, the host of the Breitbart podcast Bullets with AWR Hawkins, and the writer/curator of Down Range with AWR Hawkins, a weekly newsletter focused on all things Second Amendment, also for Breitbart News. He is the political analyst for Armed American Radio. Follow him on Twitter: @AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at awrhawkins@breitbart.com. Sign up to get Down Range at breitbart.com/downrange.
Let’s Not Ban Porn
TAYLOR MILLARD
The anti-pornography crusaders are out in force again, in hopes of expunging tawdry and explicit items from America. The latest push was by Ross Douthat at The New York Times who suggested a grand coalition of social conservatives and #MeToo feminists should band together to outlaw pornography from prying eyes. Douthat’s main treatise against pornography was in reaction to a feature in The Gray Lady on a class in Boston called “The Truth About Pornography: A Pornography-Literacy Curriculum for High School Students Designed to Reduce Sexual and Dating Violence.” The article looked at how teens are using pornography to learn about sex and body types, all at taxpayer expense.
Douthat was obviously, and understandably, horrified. “[T] he people teaching “porn literacy” have accepted a sweeping pedagogical defeat,” he crowed on Sunday. “They take for granted that the most important sex education may take place on Pornhub, that the purpose of their work is essentially remedial, and that there is no escape from the world that porn has made.”
In many of them, you see a kind of female revulsion, not against Harvey Weinstein-style apex predators, but against the very different sort of male personality that a pornographic education seems to produce: a breed at once entitled and resentful, angry and undermotivated, “woke” and caddish, shaped by unprecedented possibilities for sexual gratification and frustrated that real women are less available and more complicated than the version on their screen.
Douthat closed his argument by suggesting the only way to stop these kinds of men from becoming more and more prominent, although his fear is they’ve thrust their way into society far too deeply, is to ban pornography and damn the freedom of speech and freedom of association protections found in the First Amendment.
“The belief [pornography] should not be restricted is a mistake; the belief that it cannot be censored is a superstition,” gleefully promised Douthat. ” Law and jurisprudence changed once and can change again…That we cannot imagine such censorship is part of our larger inability to imagine any escape from the online world’s immersive power, even as we harbor growing doubts about its influence upon our psyches.”
The premise will not be one quickly put into practice, despite Douthat’s optimism or, at least, wish.
“If he said anything about production we would quickly realize none of this has to be produced in the United States,” Cato Institute senior fellow Walter Olson told me in an interview. “Basically, everything that people want could be entirely produced in other countries. It would not change what he calls the world porn has made.”
Others were quick to point out the practical issues with a porn ban.
“I’m not sure how you translate that sympathy into government policy,” R Street Institute Vice President of Policy Kevin Kosar, who has four children, including two girls, said to me over the phone. “Setting aside the kind of First Amendment issues, there’s just a more practical problem of A) differentiating what’s gonna count as smut, illicit smut, versus non-illicit smut. It gets very dicey.”
Kosar raised a salient point about what is considered pornography. There are comic books, novels, short stories, videogames, and artwork which feature nudity, and could be considered pornographic. John Ashcroft famously covered up Lady Justice’s bare breasts during his tenure as Attorney General. Would movie and TV production companies, plus publishers have to recall all their products to censor them? What about people who already own these products?
“What are we going to do with romance novels?” Kosar wondered incredulously, “Men don’t usually pick them up, but if they did, they would find a lot of them were really outrageous and racy. I mean, absolutely pornographic descriptions in print, are we just going to let that stuff go, are we going to try to take those books away?”
That would be censorship, something libertarians vociferously protest against, and believe could lead America down an even darker path.
“[The government] will almost certainly come under pressure to use that power to censor other things too. You just know it,” Olson, whose work can be found at overlawyered.com, confidently declared. “Whether it be animal cruelty videos, hate speech…whatever the category is, it’s not going to stop with porn. If you’ve got the government explicitly sending orders to screen and stop things from being sent on the Internet.”
Olson also raised concerns about the government having the right to reshape someone’s moral values outside the libertarian belief of not trying to take someone’s life, liberty, or property.
“If they can go after material that is believed to be corrupting to our character, it’s really not at all clear why it would stop with pornography.,” Olson wondered. “Why they would not also feel that next year they could go after the unpatriotic or they could go after stuff that encourages disrespect for parents or they could go after something that encourages non-sexual bullying and rudeness?”
Douthat declined to discuss whether the government should go down this path, or whether there would be checks into preventing a ban on pornography from expanding elsewhere. He also did not discuss the fact the United States government has spectacularly failed at prohibition, whether it be drugs or alcohol. The demand for pornography certainly wouldn’t diminish if it suddenly became illegal and could lead to a similar situation as the problems the government had in enforcing the Volstead Act.
“All the person-to-person technology, whether it’s I want to video call somebody and make them pay on PayPal a fee to see me strip, I mean, how are you going to stop that from happening?” Kosar asked. “How are you going to stop online meeting software, where you can have 50 people in a meeting, turn into a tool for voyeuristic activity? Good luck.”
It does not mean anti-porn advocates haven’t tried to latch onto, and co-opt, one cause or another. There was a push in 2016 and 2017 for states to require porn-blocking software on every new computer before it could be sold to a consumer. Those who wanted to uninstall the software would have to pay a $20 fee and be in a government database. The push was done under the belief it would help prevent human trafficking. It would not be surprising to see another attempt to ban pornography happen again, should this current one suggested by Douthat and his allies fail, like previous ones.
It should be pointed out neither Olson nor Kosar suggested pornography was some sort of noble endeavor. There are certainly questions about whether it can cause men and women to view the opposite sex as some sort of object to be enjoyed, then cast away when intercourse is over and done with. However, we do live in an age where consenting adults are allowed to pretty much do what they want, and view what they want, as long as no one is being hurt or their liberty being threatened. The better option may be individuals convincing other individuals to not view pornography, while being willing to recognize not everyone is going to agree with abstaining from smut.
Huma’s Influence? Hillary Let Islamic Scholar Now Charged with Rape into the US
By Dick Morris
In 2010, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reversed a decision by the Bush administration and allowed Tariq Ramadan, a world-famous Islamic scholar who donated to a terrorist front group, into the United States.
CNS reported that two weeks ago, Ramadan was arrested in Paris and charged with the rape of two Muslim women, one of whom had been disabled in a car accident, forcing her to use a crutch to walk.
Ramadan, something of a celebrity in the Muslim world, was a professor of contemporary Islamic studies at St. Anthony’s College in Oxford, U.K. His grandfather, Hassan al-Banna, was the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood.
The ban imposed by the Bush administration was a cause célèbre in the Islamic world.
Question: Did Huma Abedin, Hillary’s closest adviser, play a role in Clinton’s unjustifiable decision to lift the ban on Ramadan’s ability to travel to the U.S.? Was Hillary trying to please Huma?
Abedin had to have known all about Ramadan. Her connection with the Muslim Brotherhood runs deep.
Huma’s father founded the Institute for Muslim Minority Affairs, an institution established by the government of Saudi Arabia with the support of the Muslim World League. Former federal prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy said the Muslim World League is “perhaps the most significant Muslim Brotherhood organization in the world.”
Tariq Ramadan was barred as a security threat from entering the U.S. in 2006 by the State Department for “providing material support to a terrorist organization.” Specifically, he was found to have donated funds to a supposed charity that was really — and quite openly — a front for Hamas.
He was arrested in Paris for raping two Muslim women.
A Swiss newspaper also reported that Ramadan tried to seduce a 14-year-old student in his class and noted that three other female students have said that Ramadan seduced them.
Despite his record, Hillary reversed administration policy and lifted the ban on his travel to the U.S. Judicial Watch, the conservative watchdog group, says that Ramadan “openly supports the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas” and has done work for Iran.
The New York Times wrote that “the women’s accusations have put a dent in his (Ramadan’s) projected image as a pious family man.”
The decision to revoke the ban on Ramadan came in the form of an order personally signed by Secretary Clinton, saying that she was acting “as a matter of discretion.”
Ramadan has been a host on an Iranian television talk show “Islam and Life.” He was employed by the Dutch city of Rotterdam as an adviser on “integration,” but was terminated because of his role on Iranian television.
That Hillary Clinton used her “discretion” to let him into the United States speaks volumes about her own lack of “discretion” and may give us a clue to Huma Abedin’s ability to get Hillary to do what she wanted.
Dick Morris is a former adviser to President Bill Clinton as well as a political author, pollster and consultant. His most recent book, “Rogue Spooks,” was written with his wife, Eileen McGann.
CNS reported that two weeks ago, Ramadan was arrested in Paris and charged with the rape of two Muslim women, one of whom had been disabled in a car accident, forcing her to use a crutch to walk.
Ramadan, something of a celebrity in the Muslim world, was a professor of contemporary Islamic studies at St. Anthony’s College in Oxford, U.K. His grandfather, Hassan al-Banna, was the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood.
The ban imposed by the Bush administration was a cause célèbre in the Islamic world.
Question: Did Huma Abedin, Hillary’s closest adviser, play a role in Clinton’s unjustifiable decision to lift the ban on Ramadan’s ability to travel to the U.S.? Was Hillary trying to please Huma?
Abedin had to have known all about Ramadan. Her connection with the Muslim Brotherhood runs deep.
Huma’s father founded the Institute for Muslim Minority Affairs, an institution established by the government of Saudi Arabia with the support of the Muslim World League. Former federal prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy said the Muslim World League is “perhaps the most significant Muslim Brotherhood organization in the world.”
Tariq Ramadan was barred as a security threat from entering the U.S. in 2006 by the State Department for “providing material support to a terrorist organization.” Specifically, he was found to have donated funds to a supposed charity that was really — and quite openly — a front for Hamas.
He was arrested in Paris for raping two Muslim women.
A Swiss newspaper also reported that Ramadan tried to seduce a 14-year-old student in his class and noted that three other female students have said that Ramadan seduced them.
Despite his record, Hillary reversed administration policy and lifted the ban on his travel to the U.S. Judicial Watch, the conservative watchdog group, says that Ramadan “openly supports the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas” and has done work for Iran.
The New York Times wrote that “the women’s accusations have put a dent in his (Ramadan’s) projected image as a pious family man.”
The decision to revoke the ban on Ramadan came in the form of an order personally signed by Secretary Clinton, saying that she was acting “as a matter of discretion.”
Ramadan has been a host on an Iranian television talk show “Islam and Life.” He was employed by the Dutch city of Rotterdam as an adviser on “integration,” but was terminated because of his role on Iranian television.
That Hillary Clinton used her “discretion” to let him into the United States speaks volumes about her own lack of “discretion” and may give us a clue to Huma Abedin’s ability to get Hillary to do what she wanted.
Dick Morris is a former adviser to President Bill Clinton as well as a political author, pollster and consultant. His most recent book, “Rogue Spooks,” was written with his wife, Eileen McGann.
‘Neo-McCarthyites’ See ‘Russians Around Every Corner,’ Nunes Says
House intelligence panel chief dismisses criticism from former CIA Director Michael Hayden, recalls 2016 CNN hit when he warned of Putin interference
by Brendan Kirby
A top Republican congressional leader Friday called out “neo-McCarthyites” among the Democratic Party who see Russian conspiracies everywhere except in 2016 Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton’s campaign for president.
Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, told “The Laura Ingraham Show” that his Democratic colleagues showed little interest in Russia until Clinton lost the 2016 election.
“Now, you’re right, they’re like neo-McCarthyites,” he said. “All they do is, they see Russians around every corner. But the fact is, they’re Russian ghosts. The only place we find real Russians is if we follow the money from the Hillary campaign to the Russians.”
Nunes was referring to money that flowed from the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee through a Washington, D.C., law office to the opposition research firm Fusion GPS — and then to former British spy Christopher Steele. That effort led to “phony dirt” on President Donald Trump supplied by confidential sources in Russia, Nunes said.
Nunes spoke hours before special counsel Robert Mueller’s team unveiled an indictment charging 13 Russians with interfering in the 2016 presidential campaign.
Nunes also disputed comments by former CIA Director Michael Hayden criticizing a memo Nunes’ staffers on the committee wrote accusing the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the FBI of improperly using the unverified Steele document to obtain a warrant to eavesdrop on low-level Trump campaign volunteer Carter Page.
Hayden said the memo was destructive to U.S. national security.
“I actually really respect Director Hayden … He’s a good guy,” Nunes told Ingraham. “He’s actually a friend of mine. But he just happens to be entirely wrong on this. Maybe I need to call him and talk to him.”
“I actually really respect Director Hayden … He’s a good guy,” Nunes told Ingraham. “He’s actually a friend of mine. But he just happens to be entirely wrong on this. Maybe I need to call him and talk to him.”
Nunes disputed Hayden’s characterization of the current era of congressional oversight as “really pretty dark.”
Said Nunes, “I think it’s the opposite. We’re shining — we’re opening a light onto this. For a long time, these agencies got corrupted at the top, especially during the Obama administration. This is not something that I wanted to do.”
Nunes pointed out that he went on CNN in April 2016 to complain that then-President Barack Obama’s administration was not doing enough to confront Russian President Vladimir Putin’s interference in the campaign.
“As the chairman of the intelligence committee, I blasted them, saying that the biggest intelligence failure since 9/11 was our failure to understand Putin’s plans and his intentions,” he said.
Nunes said Obama virtually ignored Russia’s interference in eastern European democracies, its annexation of the Crimean peninsula from Ukraine and its role in propping up Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad.
“I was so frustrated that the Obama administration was doing absolutely nothing against Vladimir Putin,” he said.
That all changed, of course — when Trump won a surprise election victory in November 2016.
PoliZette senior writer Brendan Kirby can be reached at brendan.kirby@lifezette.com. Follow him on Twitter.
Chinese Catholics Call on Bishops Worldwide: Stop the Vatican Deal With Chinese Gov'
By Michael W. Chapman
(CNSNews.com) -- In an open letter to Catholic bishops throughout the world, a group of Chinese Catholic scholars, lawyers, and activists plead with the bishops to contact the Vatican and urge Pope Francis to not go forward with his plan to try to unite the underground Chinese church with the Communist-run Catholic Patriotic Association (CPA), which is schismatic and rejects some of the basic teachings of Catholicism.
"We earnestly ask you, with the love of the people of God, appeal to the Holy See," reads the letter. "Please rethink the current agreement, and stop making an irreversible and regrettable mistake."
Pope Francis reportedly is preparing to sign off on a deal with the Chinese government to supposedly improve diplomatic relations and allow Catholics to worship more freely in the Communist regime. The deal would require the Pope to accept seven bishops that were appointed not by him, but by the CPA, which is completely controlled by the government.
Pope Francis (YouTube)
These CPA bishops do not profess loyalty to the Pope and the Magesterium of the church. They also do not accept the church's teachings on such issues as right to life, abortion, contraception, and euthanasia.
"The seven illicitly ordained 'bishops' were not appointed by the Pope, and their moral integrity is questionable," reads the open letter. "They do not have the trust of the faithful, and have never repented publicly."
"If they were to be recognized as legitimate, the faithful in Greater China would be plunged into confusion and pain, and schism would be created in the Church in China," reads the letter.
A schism occurs when a small (or large) segment of the church splits off to form its own, separate identity. Martin Luther, for instance, sparked a schism, which created the Lutheran church. In England, King Henry VIII split with Rome, which started the Anglican church.
In China, many Catholics fear that the Vatican deal will prompt the faithful Catholics, who have made up the underground church since 1940, to further distance themselves from the CPA. There will still be two churches, as there exists today, but the split could become hardened. And, ironically, the situation potentially would place the Pope on the side of the Communists. The faithful Catholics would face more persecution.
"The Communist Party in China, under the leadership of Xi Jinping, has repeatedly destroyed crosses and churches, and the Patriotic Association maintains its heavy-handed control over the Church," reads the open letter. "Religious persecution has never stopped."
"Xi has also made it clear that the Party will strengthen its control over religions," states the letter. "So there is no possibility that the Church can enjoy more freedom. In addition, the Communist Party has a long history of breaking promises. We are worried that the agreement would not only fail to guarantee the limited freedom desired by the Church, but also damage the Church’s holiness, catholicity, and apostolicity, and deal a blow to the Church’s moral power. The Church would no longer be able to have the trust of people...."
The letter continues, "We are deeply shocked and disappointed. With our love and allegiance to the Holy Mother Church, we hope you and the bishops conferences would pay attention to such development.... [We urge that any agreement must be grounded in the protection of religious freedom, and an end to religious persecution."
Some of the letter signers include Dr. Kenneth Ka-lok Chan (Hong Kong), Prof. Joseph Yu-shek Cheng (Hong Kong), Mr. Yiu-leung Cheung (Hong Kong), Dr Rodney Wai-chi Chu (Hong Kong), Dr. Martin C. K. Chung (Hong Kong), Mr. Yan-ho Lai (London, UK), Dr. Wing-kwan Lam (Hong Kong) and Dr. Lisa Yuk-ming Leung (Hong Kong).
Trump orders US military to shoot down North Korean missiles
US President Donald Trump has ordered military to shoot down any missile launched from North Korea and heading toward Guam or the United States.
Sources close to the White House national security team told the media on Thursday the order was issued to the US military in the wake of last month’s threat by North Korea to fire a ballistic missile toward Guam, a US territory.
“The threat provoked the president,” one source told the news agency.
Another national security source told the media that Trump also is considering a new “shoot down” order for any North Korean missile fired toward Japan or South Korea.
“This is a clear exercise of self-defense, and there’s no question we should do it,” former US ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton told the media.
Bolton said the United States must take steps to protect South Korea and Japan which “are in jeopardy.”
Trump told Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe on Sunday that the US is ready to use the “full range” of capabilities, including nuclear arsenal, at its disposal in dealing with North Korea, after the country conducted a test of a hydrogen bomb that could be placed on an intercontinental ballistic missile.
US ready to nuke North Korea: White HouseIn his earlier remarks, Trump warned that North Korea would face “fire and fury” should it continue to threaten the United States.
North Korea on Sunday announced it had conducted a “successful” hydrogen bomb test, hours after two tremors were detected in the country.
The North Korean nuclear test came three days after two nuclear-capable US B-1B strategic bombers conducted a military drill alongside four F-35Bs and a few Japanese F-15s.
The US is against North Korea’s nuclear weapons but Pyongyang says it will not give up on its nuclear deterrence unless Washington ends its hostile policy toward the country and dissolves the US-led UN command in South Korea. Thousands of US soldiers are stationed in South Korea and Japan.
The US is against North Korea’s nuclear weapons but Pyongyang says it will not give up on its nuclear deterrence unless Washington ends its hostile policy toward the country and dissolves the US-led UN command in South Korea. Thousands of US soldiers are stationed in South Korea and Japan.
Hollywood Elites Blast Clint Eastwood’s Film for Not Portraying “Sympathetic Terrorist”
BY BEN MARQUIS
'The 15:17 to Paris' image, featuring Clint Eastwood, Patrick Vo, Mathieu Lardot,
Islamic terrorist Ayoub El-Khazzani boarded a train headed from Amsterdam to Paris in 2015, wielding an AK-47 rifle, handgun and box-cutter, with the goal of murdering innocent passengers in a jihadist attack.
Little did he know, there were three Americans on that train — Anthony Sadler, Alek Skarlatos and Spencer Stone. When the jihadist experienced difficulties operating his rifle, these brave men sprang into action, thwarting the attack and saving countless lives.
The heroic actions of those three friends was recorded in a book that was then adapted into a film by conservative Hollywood actor and director Clint Eastwood. Eastwood cast the three friends to play themselves in a movie portraying their bravery.
Despite all this, elitist Hollywood liberals have found reason to hate it, as was evidenced by numerous reviews of the film by left-leaning media outlets, according to Hollywood In Toto.
Liberal film reviewers had already made their opinions of Eastwood and American patriotism known following the 2014 release of “American Sniper,” but they have reiterated their anti-Americanism and sympathy toward Islamic extremists in their reviews of “The 15:17 To Paris.”
The reviewer for the National Post complained that the movie was akin to sitting through somebody else’s vacation, and lamented that the terrorist didn’t receive enough screen time. He wrote: “15:17 to Paris overly simplifies the attack and its aftermath. The terrorist (Ray Corasani) snarls and wears sneakers, but there’s little more to him.”
The reviewer for Slate also griped about feeling like he was watching a slideshow of another person’s vacation in Europe, and took up too much of the film too boot, and wrote, “The sense of wheel spinning only underlines the movie’s failure to make its antagonist more than a cartoon scowl with a Kalashnikov. The geese in Sully (a Tom Hanks film about a passenger jet which crash landed on the Hudson River) were more well-rounded characters.”
The Slant Magazine reviewer, when not sneering at conservatives, Christianity, the military and Eastwood’s method of film-making, took issue with the film’s departure from the “surprisingly visceral and nuanced book,” and wrote, “One misses the prismatic structure of the 15:17 to Paris book, which fuses multiple points of view—including El-Khazzani’s—and which is reduced by (screenwriter) Dorothy Blyskal’s script to cut-and-pasted bromides.”
Over at The Daily Beast, the reviewer stated that the film was “more mind-numbing than his empty chair speech” and called it a “stunning misfire.” Of the terrorist, he wrote, “As for the villain in question, Eastwood primarily films his hands, sneakers, arms, and back, all as a means of making him some sort of faceless existential threat — a symbolic vehicle for Stone’s ‘greater purpose.’ Mostly, though, it’s just another example of The 15:17 to Paris’ regrettable blankness.”
What these reviewers all seem to have missed is that the movie was intended to tell the story of the three heroes that day, and not the story of the bad guy those heroes defeated. But it wasn’t just the lack of character development of the terrorist that reviewers took issue with, as others used their reviews to take shots at American patriotism, Christianity, President Donald Trump and our nation’s gun culture.
The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette review, which did lament the exclusion of “any hint of the terrorist’s motivation,” led the way with an open bashing of American patriotism combined with a not-so-subtle shot at Trump, and wrote, “There’s a certain repellent hubris about (Eastwood’s) patriotic formula: Make America grate again, on the rest of the world, in paint-by-numbers (red, white and blue), which happen to be the same as the Tricouleur — not that Mr. Eastwood makes any use or reference to that.”
The reviewer for the The U.K. Daily Mail wrote of the three heroes, “In that sacred American way, incidentally, their Christianity is not incompatible with an obsession with firearms,” and continued with, “The narrative throbs with Eastwood’s conviction — shared, as we know, by President Trump — that the best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Better still, a good guy with a gun and a bible.”
Last, but certainly not least, we have the review from The New Yorker, in which the reviewer called the film a “reactionary fable” and described a scene in which a young Sadler and Stone play with an “arsenal” of toy guns, about which the reviewer wrote, “As I watched the scene, I thought, You could cut it out of this movie and paste it, unchanged, into another one, about a nice suburban kid who grows up and carries out a mass shooting.”
That New Yorker reviewer also criticized the lack of answers to questions about the terrorist, and wrote, “Was this not an ideal opportunity to trace the paths — whether of grievance, paranoia, faith, or wrath — that lead a young man to dreams of slaughter? Was he not, in his way, catapulted toward his purpose no less firmly than Stone and his companions were, and with an equally fervent belief that he was obeying the decrees of his God?”
Over at Truth Revolt, who also took note of the terrorist-sympathizing reviews, one commenter summed it all up with a rather provocative “thought experiment” that simply must be shared: “Amtrak train, Northeast Corridor, people commuting between NY/Phil and Washington. Some ‘White Nationalist’ whips out a gun and announces he’s going to blow away ‘all you Lefties, Jews and people of color.’ He’s overpowered by some people who unaccountably have become courageous in their old age. How much sympathetic treatment would these critics want for THAT character in a film of the incident?”
I think we already know exactly how that would play out in today’s liberal media.
Little did he know, there were three Americans on that train — Anthony Sadler, Alek Skarlatos and Spencer Stone. When the jihadist experienced difficulties operating his rifle, these brave men sprang into action, thwarting the attack and saving countless lives.
The heroic actions of those three friends was recorded in a book that was then adapted into a film by conservative Hollywood actor and director Clint Eastwood. Eastwood cast the three friends to play themselves in a movie portraying their bravery.
Despite all this, elitist Hollywood liberals have found reason to hate it, as was evidenced by numerous reviews of the film by left-leaning media outlets, according to Hollywood In Toto.
Liberal film reviewers had already made their opinions of Eastwood and American patriotism known following the 2014 release of “American Sniper,” but they have reiterated their anti-Americanism and sympathy toward Islamic extremists in their reviews of “The 15:17 To Paris.”
The reviewer for the National Post complained that the movie was akin to sitting through somebody else’s vacation, and lamented that the terrorist didn’t receive enough screen time. He wrote: “15:17 to Paris overly simplifies the attack and its aftermath. The terrorist (Ray Corasani) snarls and wears sneakers, but there’s little more to him.”
The reviewer for Slate also griped about feeling like he was watching a slideshow of another person’s vacation in Europe, and took up too much of the film too boot, and wrote, “The sense of wheel spinning only underlines the movie’s failure to make its antagonist more than a cartoon scowl with a Kalashnikov. The geese in Sully (a Tom Hanks film about a passenger jet which crash landed on the Hudson River) were more well-rounded characters.”
The Slant Magazine reviewer, when not sneering at conservatives, Christianity, the military and Eastwood’s method of film-making, took issue with the film’s departure from the “surprisingly visceral and nuanced book,” and wrote, “One misses the prismatic structure of the 15:17 to Paris book, which fuses multiple points of view—including El-Khazzani’s—and which is reduced by (screenwriter) Dorothy Blyskal’s script to cut-and-pasted bromides.”
Over at The Daily Beast, the reviewer stated that the film was “more mind-numbing than his empty chair speech” and called it a “stunning misfire.” Of the terrorist, he wrote, “As for the villain in question, Eastwood primarily films his hands, sneakers, arms, and back, all as a means of making him some sort of faceless existential threat — a symbolic vehicle for Stone’s ‘greater purpose.’ Mostly, though, it’s just another example of The 15:17 to Paris’ regrettable blankness.”
What these reviewers all seem to have missed is that the movie was intended to tell the story of the three heroes that day, and not the story of the bad guy those heroes defeated. But it wasn’t just the lack of character development of the terrorist that reviewers took issue with, as others used their reviews to take shots at American patriotism, Christianity, President Donald Trump and our nation’s gun culture.
The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette review, which did lament the exclusion of “any hint of the terrorist’s motivation,” led the way with an open bashing of American patriotism combined with a not-so-subtle shot at Trump, and wrote, “There’s a certain repellent hubris about (Eastwood’s) patriotic formula: Make America grate again, on the rest of the world, in paint-by-numbers (red, white and blue), which happen to be the same as the Tricouleur — not that Mr. Eastwood makes any use or reference to that.”
The reviewer for the The U.K. Daily Mail wrote of the three heroes, “In that sacred American way, incidentally, their Christianity is not incompatible with an obsession with firearms,” and continued with, “The narrative throbs with Eastwood’s conviction — shared, as we know, by President Trump — that the best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Better still, a good guy with a gun and a bible.”
Last, but certainly not least, we have the review from The New Yorker, in which the reviewer called the film a “reactionary fable” and described a scene in which a young Sadler and Stone play with an “arsenal” of toy guns, about which the reviewer wrote, “As I watched the scene, I thought, You could cut it out of this movie and paste it, unchanged, into another one, about a nice suburban kid who grows up and carries out a mass shooting.”
That New Yorker reviewer also criticized the lack of answers to questions about the terrorist, and wrote, “Was this not an ideal opportunity to trace the paths — whether of grievance, paranoia, faith, or wrath — that lead a young man to dreams of slaughter? Was he not, in his way, catapulted toward his purpose no less firmly than Stone and his companions were, and with an equally fervent belief that he was obeying the decrees of his God?”
Over at Truth Revolt, who also took note of the terrorist-sympathizing reviews, one commenter summed it all up with a rather provocative “thought experiment” that simply must be shared: “Amtrak train, Northeast Corridor, people commuting between NY/Phil and Washington. Some ‘White Nationalist’ whips out a gun and announces he’s going to blow away ‘all you Lefties, Jews and people of color.’ He’s overpowered by some people who unaccountably have become courageous in their old age. How much sympathetic treatment would these critics want for THAT character in a film of the incident?”
I think we already know exactly how that would play out in today’s liberal media.
Cotton: ‘Disappointing’ That American Social Media Companies Succumbed to Kremlin’s Pressure
BY: David Rutz
BY: David Rutz
Sen. Tom Cotton (R., Ark.) said Friday it is "disappointing" that social media companies would assist in the Russian government's censorship of opposition leader Alexei Navalny.
"It’s disappointing that these social-media companies, supposedly dedicated to freedom of expression, would shut down one of the few voices of opposition to Vladimir Putin just a month before Russia’s elections," Cotton said in a statement. "Putin’s henchmen don’t need any help rigging the results, and it’s not asking too much to expect American companies to defend American values in all corners of the globe."
Instagram reportedly bowed to a court order to block access to a post that embarrassed an oligarch and top government official, according to the Washington Post. Navalny's team discovered Instagram posts of metals magnate Oleg Deripaska and Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Prikhodko on a yacht in Norway:
Navalny had posted a YouTube video showing the Instagram posts and presenting evidence that women aboard Deripaska’s yacht worked for an escort service, and it went viral in Russia last week. Deripaska successfully sued for the removal of the posts and Navalny’s video, claiming they violated his right to privacy, and this week the government started implementing the court order.
On Thursday, telecom regulator Roskomnadzor said that it had ordered Navalny’s website blocked and that it was satisfied that the Instagram posts that Deripaska sought to remove were no longer available. Google, however, had not yet complied with the demand to take down Navalny’s video on its YouTube platform, the agency said.
Facebook, which owns Instagram, released a statement that governments may ask it to restrict content that violates their sovereign laws.
"We review such requests carefully in light of local laws and where appropriate, we make it unavailable in the relevant country or territory," a Facebook spokeswoman said.
Navalny slammed Instagram in a Twitter post.
"Instagram decided to comply with Russian illegal censorship requests and deleted some content about oligarch Deripaska," Navalny wrote. "Shame on you, Instagram!"
Cotton is a consistent critic of Putin's autocratic regime. Last month, he slammed Putin for his jailing of Navalny, saying it showed he feared his own people and revealed what an "oppressive" government he runs.
G’ day…Ciao…
Helen and Moe Lauzier
Thus articles
that is all articles
This time, hopefully can provide benefits to you all. Okay, see you in another article post.
You are now reading the article the link address https://fairyforreference.blogspot.com/2018/02/www_17.html
0 Response to " "
Post a Comment