π₯π₯π₯π₯π₯π₯π₯π₯π₯π₯π₯π₯π₯π₯
Liberal-Conservative Divide -- Americans Self-Segregate Culturally
We’re Not in a Civil War, but We Are Drifting Toward Divorce
At an increasing rate, Americans separate themselves into culturally and ideologically homogeneous enclaves.
“It is a little bold to talk about the China–California partnership as though we were a separate nation, but we are a separate nation,” Brown said of the state, with nearly 40 million residents and the world’s sixth-largest economy. “We’re a state of mind. I include Silicon Valley, I include the environmental activism, the biotech industry, agriculture. This is a place of great investment in innovation.” Indeed, California has such a different view of the relationship between citizen and state, it’s virtually seceding from the Constitution, overriding the First Amendment time and again for the sake of “social justice.” And now its legislature is even taking the first steps to implement a $400 billion single-payer health plan — a plan so expensive and radical that even Governor Brown is skeptical. The trends are clear. In the age of Trump, California is determined to go its own way.
None of this is surprising. Our national political polarization is by now so well established that the only real debate is over the nature of our cultural, political, and religious conflict. Are we in the midst of a more or less conventional culture war? Are we, as Dennis Prager and others argue, fighting a kind of “cold” civil war? Or are we facing something else entirely? I’d argue that we face “something else,” and that something else is more akin to the beginning stages of a national divorce than it is to a civil war. This contention rests fundamentally in two trends, one political and the other far beyond politics. The combination of negative polarization and a phenomenon that economist Tyler Cowen calls “matching” is leading to a national separation so profound that Americans may not have the desire to fight to stay together. Unless trends are reversed, red and blue may ultimately bid each other adieu. First, let’s deal with negative polarization. I’ve written about this before, but it’s worth repeating. Americans tend to belong to their political “tribe” not so much because they love its ideas but rather because they despise their opponents. The Pew Research Center has been documenting this trend for some time, and few of their (many) charts document the mutual hatred better than this one:
That’s right, Republicans and Democrats have basically the same view of each other — the only real difference is that Republicans view Democrats as more immoral, while Democrats view Republicans as more dishonest. And lest you think this is the way things have always been, look at the trend lines. Partisan Americans like each other less and less:
Source:>>>>>>>>Here
π₯π₯π₯π₯π₯π₯π₯π₯π₯π₯π₯π₯π₯π₯
Media: Islamic Faith Prevents Sexual AssaultThe propaganda machine is firing on all cylinders. Harvey Weinstein must have pissed someone off to be sacrificed by the elite. Perhaps it was a religious sacrifice of sorts. One arm of the propaganda machine is pushing the idea that adherence to the Islamic religion can prevent sexual assaults and oppression against women.
The media is now running stories which claim that the Islamic religion pre-empts abuse of women, by providing a set of moral rules for men to follow. The Independent ran an article called How the teachings of Islam could help us prevent more sexual abuse scandals.
The author, a Muslim, says that government laws are not enough, because they only punish after an incident has occurred, as opposed to stopping it beforehand. But by listening to the prophet Muhammad, men will follow a code of conduct apparently out of fear of reprisal from Allah.
This is where Islamic teachings and Prophet Muhammad’s example provide a solution that no state truly can…
Chapter 4:35 furthermore prevents violence against women by forcing men to control themselves and never resort to physically harming women– preempting physical abuse.
The Quran further obliges men to provide for a woman’s every financial need, while holding that anything a woman earns is hers alone – preempting financial abuse.
What the Quran actually says, just before the Chapter he cites, in chapter 4:34 is:
Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, as God has given some of them an advantage over others, and because they spend out of their wealth. The good women are obedient, guarding what God would have them guard. As for those from whom you fear disloyalty, admonish them, and abandon them in their beds, then strike them.
That doesn’t exactly sound like it preempts abuse of women. It sounds like a suspicious husband is allowed to beat his wife, according to the Quran. It sounds like a man provides for his women because she is basically his property, his responsibility, like a farm animal.
So the teachings of Islam really view women as dependent on men, saying that God created men with an advantage over women.
But the author goes on to say Muhammad saw men and women as equals under the law.
…on numerous occasions Prophet Muhammad punished an accused rapist on the testimony of the rape survivor alone.
That must be where modern colleges get their inspiration. It is not uncommon for men to be expelled from universities on an unproven accusation of sexual assault.
So in this sense, Muhammad stood up for women, in the same way, modern progressives ignore the whole “innocent until proven guilty” thing.
But Muhammad also didn’t care much about objective truth when it came to punishing women either. All he required was four male witnesses, and a woman could be placed under house arrest for the remainder of her life.
Those of your women who commit lewdness, you must have four witnesses against them, from among you. If they testify, confine them to the homes until death claims them, or God makes a way for them.
And maybe Muhammad was lenient towards female victims, but according to Islamic law, four male witnesses are also required to punish a rapist. And if a woman accuses a man of rape, and it is not “proven” by four witnesses, she just admitted to adultery.
Up until 2015, women in predominantly Muslim Sudan were sometimes prosecuted for adultery when they came forward with rape allegations.
And ISIS soldiers have been widely reported to rape female prisoners. Some claim it is in the process of converting them to Islam.
The whole idea that the Islamic faith offers any sort of example for how to treat women is absurd.
And yet the progressive media still pushes the idea that this religion promotes peace and equality. Why? Why do they ignore the murder and punishment of gay men by Muslim governments? Why do they ignore the mistreatment of women in majority Muslim countries?
It is all part of a campaign of misinformation about the religion. It happens, ironically, while the same people demonize Christian religions. But in the New Testament of the Bible, which Christians are supposed to follow instead of the Old Testament, there really are no violent teachings.
When people brought an adulteress to Jesus, he told said to them, you who is without sin, cast the first stone.
When Muhammad heard of an adulteress:
He went to her in the morning and she made a confession. And Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) made pronouncement about her and she was stoned to death. (Sahih Muslim 4209)
Jesus really did preach peace and equality. Muhammad did not.
Let’s take a look at the example set by Muhammad.
The Hadith is a collection of Muhammad’s teaching. Hadith Muslim Book 8 section 3433 recounts how after a military victory Allah actually sent down a command that it was okay to rape the female captives in front of their husbands. The soldiers were worried about raping married women since that would be adultery. But their God made a special exception. Slave women are fine to rape, whatever the circumstances.
War seems to have been one of Muhammed’s favorite hobbies. And part of the payment to his soldiers was the captive women, taken as slaves. In Hadith Bhakari Book 34 section 432, some of Muhammad’s soldiers are worried about impregnating their slaves when they rape them. Muhammad told them not to worry because Allah wouldn’t allow a woman to get pregnant if he didn’t want her to have a baby.
Here’s another gem, from Book 8 of Muslim, section 3371:
We went out with Allah’s Messenger (May peace be upon him) on the expedition to the Bi’l-Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women; and we desired them, for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing ‘azl (Withdrawing the male sexual organ before emission of semen to avoid conception). But we said: We are doing an act whereas Allah’s Messenger is amongst us; why not ask him? So we asked Allah’s Messenger (May peace be upon him), and he said: It does not matter if you do not do it, for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born.
The article from the Independent sought to weave a pro-Islam brainwashing into a piece which repeated the same things that the media usually says: we live in a rape culture.
If we live in a rape culture, it is because the government teaches people that consent is not required.
And from what we can tell, the religion is Islam certainly does not preach consent.
Source:>>>>>>>>Here
π₯π₯π₯π₯π₯π₯π₯π₯π₯π₯π₯π₯π₯π₯
Does Individual Sovereignty Preempt Abusive Government?
They don’t play by any rules. But they force you to follow them. Some governments do this by blunt force. Other governments do it by controlling the media narrative. Still, others twist the law to fit their purposes and appear legitimate. Most use a combination of tactics to keep people compliant.
In America, governments and corporations like to pretend there is some sort of objective law. They spend time in legislatures and courts determining what will pass as legal and what will not. But it is basically just a silly dance. They are trying different combinations to unlock the “do whatever the hell they want” box.
Certain dance moves are preferred by the populous, who are easily entranced. Money to pay lawyers and lobbyists helps to sell as legitimate. And political connections help too. But for the everyday citizen or small business owner, the deck is stacked against you.
For instance, the Constitution is pretty clear about citizens being allowed to own guns, as well as run businesses. Supposedly laws must be applied evenly.
But San Francisco wants to ban gun stores. They can’t just go and ban gun stores. They have to be clever.
So they think up an ordinance. Somehow local laws can stomp all over people’s property rights–citizens have accepted that. They make a local code that says gun stores cannot operate with 500 feet of a school, liquor store, bar, or residential district.
They have performed a dance that San Franciscans accept. It seems to make sense–guns don’t seem to mix well with alcohol, or children.
Yet now, all San Francisco has to do is make sure one of those things occurs at least every 1,000 feet, and they have effectively banned gun stores.
They can make anything they want a residential district. There is probably already a bar or liquor store every 1,000 feet. And an appeals court just upheld the ban, saying the second amendment does not guarantee gun store owners have the right to locate anywhere they wish.
Do any of us have a right to locate anywhere we wish? Or must everything be approved of by the government? Couldn’t this argument also be used for gun owners? Or for that matter, couldn’t this argument be used for any of our rights?
The arbitrariness of laws is what gives rise to corruption and discrimination. This is the same philosophy that allows certain corporations to get special subsidies and tax breaks. This is the underlying logic behind government enforced racial segregation.
If the government gets to slice up the population and decide who will get to exercise what rights and where, then there are no rights. If the government can arbitrarily make special rules for segments of society, then there is no objective rule of law.
So private property doesn’t really exist, does it? Local governments can restrict what you can do with the land, and require permits if you want to move a pebble. And then they charge you yearly rent they call property taxes.
If we accept that they have this control over us, what’s the use of complaining about this particular law or that particular law? It is all based on whims, and our preferences just relate to what is best for us. The corporations’ and politicians’ preferences relate to what is best for them.
Guess whose benefit is going to win?
Rejecting any authority over our lives pre-empts the idea that we can be arbitrarily controlled by this little ordinance or that little code. Those “little things” are what open the door to an unequal society. It is what allows governments to put in the fix for corporations and cronies.
That being said, it is easy enough to move out of San Francisco and choose a better place. The real problem comes when rules are enforced on such a large scale that there is hardly any alternatives to choose from.
So why continue the dance? Why make San Francisco go to court to defend their terrible ordinances? Why not just let local jurisdictions do what they want to do?
If people see a benefit to living in such close quarters, and voluntarily decide to submit to a local government, so be it. I would prefer to let cities and towns be as draconian as they wish if it meant not allowing a bigger government to come down in support of them.
When it comes to living in such close quarters, there are obviously going to be more rules in order to prevent clashes. A sovereign individual could accept that, and voluntarily suppress some of his own interests for whatever benefit he sees in living there.
The option would always exist to go somewhere without other people, and therefore not have to compromise your way of life. This too would have benefits and detriments a sovereign individual could weigh.
People who think and act sovereign will allow the real innovation to occur. Their lives are experiments in how to be free, and not accept arbitrary and unlimited authority from above. And the best part is, they are already operating, testing limits, and trying new styles of living.
Tell me in the comments how sovereign you think it is possible to be in this day and age.
π₯π₯π₯π₯π₯π₯π₯π₯π₯π₯π₯π₯π₯π₯
Bring Out The Gimp: Everybody Loves Hitler
Everybody loves Hitler.
Hitler is a one-size-fits-all kinda guy. He’s always on time, never complains and works for free. The perfect Government stooge.
Have doubts about free-for-all immigration?
Annoyed by militant feminism?
Believe in traditional values?
Not seduced by Socialism?
Got no love for Sharia law?
Why, you must be a Nazi.
It’s simple.
Hitler is the most prized horse in the entire stable. He has got more guff than Saddam. More grit than Bin Laden. And that fat little North Korean could never compete.
He’ll outlast them all by a long shot because this fascist is always in fashion.
Make no mistake, he’s Hollywood’s whore. They get to pimp him out because they’re the ones who resurrected him right after he blew his own brains out.
Then for the next 75+ years, they injected his specter into damn near everything.
But why is he the favorite whipping boy?
Why not Stalin or Mao? Didn’t they murder even more? Why don’t they get anywhere near the treatment Hitler gets in Film and Media?
It may be that Hitler’s greatest affront to the Elite was that he was a National Socialist. And anything to do with Nationalism is a no-go in their eyes. Had he been an International Socialist like Stalin or Mao, he might not have pissed off the big boys as much.
(Of course, there’s that whole thing with the Jews as well, no doubt. But hey, that bone is picked dry.)
So Hitler gets to be the shit paintbrush. Anything they don’t like they smear with him. The nation-state, family, and tradition are constant targets. Because these are the biggest barriers to a malleable people.
But why are the reactions to the Hitler smears so mindless and predictable? Why do people duck and cover like cowards as soon as he’s summoned?
Kubrick laid it all out in his masterpiece A Clockwork Orange.
In the film, the character Alex DeLarge has been very naughty. He ends up in jail after a night out drinking drug-laced milk with the boys (as you do).
Welcome to 2017 – There are bootlickers everywhere. That’s because Hitler is everywhere waiting for you to slip up. From ‘Putin is Hitler’ to Saturday Night Live and your kid’s cartoons, he’s there.
75+ years of Hitler being hammered home in the movie theaters has shaped the modern mind. We allow would-be dictators to use a dead dictator to dictate the narrative.
(Even Satan isn’t as evil as Hitler. Look at the After School Satan Clubs popping up around the county.)
The handful of Nazis that actually exist suckle the same teats as Antifa. They think they’re rebels because they’re told loving Hitler is the ultimate taboo. Nurturing idiots is what Hitler does, Left and Right.
There is a very simple mechanism that makes Hitler so popular. You’ll find it everywhere.
Repetition.
Muslim minarets bang the Allah drum 5 times a day, every day, for life. Is it any wonder all Jihadis can ever manage to say is Allah Akbar? You must have noticed.
How about the radio playing songs on repeat until you want to vomit. They’re hammering home a message. The pop star is only the packaging, your brain is the receptacle.
A Beyonce song from a few years back has the line “Who run the world? Girls!” in it repeated more than 50 times. If a hit song gets 3 hours of heavy rotation per day, then Beyonce spewed the line “Who run the world? Girls!” 1,800 times per day on a single station.
This is what technocratic control looks like. They stopped with the physical lashings and now apply the mental ones. And repeated mental lashings turn you onto the path of their choice.
Hijacked bootlick culture on repeat breeds reflexive, emotional distress. The victims are Pavlov’s Dogs and the scale is epic.
Source:>>>>>>>Here
π₯π₯π₯π₯π₯π₯π₯π₯π₯π₯π₯π₯π₯π₯
"FIGHTING FOR FREEDOM AND LIBERTY"
Stand Up To Government Corruption and Hypocrisy
NEVER FORGET THE SACRIFICES
BY OUR VETERANS Note: We at Friends of Liberty cannot make any warranties about the completeness, reliability and accuracy of this information.
Don't forget to follow the Friends Of Liberty on Facebook and our Page also Pinterest , Twitter , Tumblr and Google Plus PLEASE help spread the word by sharing our articles on your favorite social networks.
Friends of Liberty is a non-partisan, non-profit organization with the mission to Educate, protect and defend individual freedoms and individual rights.
Support the Trump Presidency and help us fight Liberal Media Bias. Please LIKE and SHARE this story on Facebook or Twitter.
WE THE PEOPLE
TOGETHER WE WILL MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!
Join The Resistance and Share This Article Now!
Help us spread the word about the Friends Of Liberty Blog we're reaching millions help us reach millions more.
‼️️ ♻️ PLEASE SHARE ♻️ ‼️️
Please SHARE this now! The Crooked Liberal Media will hide and distort the TRUTH. It’s up to us, Trump social media warriors, to get the truth out. If we don’t, no one will!
Share this story on Facebook and let us know because we want to hear YOUR voice!
Please SHARE this now! The Crooked Liberal Media will hide and distort the TRUTH. It’s up to us, Trump social media warriors, to get the truth out. If we don’t, no one will!
Share this story on Facebook and let us know because we want to hear YOUR voice!
No comments:
Post a Comment