By ilana mercer
For journalists to discourage an inquisitive stance, even distrust, toward government and the elections process is astounding. But not surprising. I’m thinking of CNN journo Brian Stelter who asserted—they never argue, do they? They only ever assert—that skepticism about voting irregularities in America is “dangerous.”
Well, a journalist decrying inquisitiveness and skepticism: Now that’s dangerous. Continue reading
David Mc Donagh
A factor in the pro-super-state vote in 1975 was the background of the press and mass media message, from about 1960 to ’75, that held a very pessimistic account of the UK and, by contrast, a high estimation of both France and especially Germany. This was certainly a factor in getting many to go for the EEC, as it then was called. Continue reading
Mobility, Meritocracy and Other Myths
At the American Enterprise Institute, Mark Perry (“Yes, America’s middle class has been disappearing… into higher income groups,” Dec. 17) justifies the shrinking middle class and growing economic inequality by citing the finding of a recent Pew Institute study that of the 11% shrinkage in the American middle class, 7% have gone to the top and only 4% to the bottom. Continue reading
There will be many watching the antics of the Labour Party who will be wondering what on Earth is going on. Corbyn and his close associates are constantly at war with most of the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP) including members of the Shadow Cabinet while being regularly assailed with embarrassing political connections from the past such as a rather cosy relationship with Irish Republicans and quotes which show them to be very Hard Left personnel indeed. The unrelenting absurdity of the situation was starkly demonstrated when Corbyn attacked his shadow Foreign Secretary Hilary Benn for supporting British military action in Syria. Continue reading
Sandhya SomethingOrAnother is a “social change” reporter for the Washington Post. (Yes, the WaPo has such a beat.) Ms. Somashekhar (her surname copied and pasted) implied that WND columnist Pamela Geller ought to repent for staging a Muhammad Art Exhibit and Cartoon Contest in Garland, Texas, an event that was briefly attended by two, uninvited ISIS-Americans. Sandhya must have been angry because she called Geller, in error, “a housewife from Long Island.” Progressives don’t much like housewives. Continue reading
Anonymous – though Sean knows who the author is
No word has done more to spark both disgust and delight than the word “revolution.” For libertarians, this is no exception. Oftentimes, the word conjures up memories of storming the Bastille, the Jacobin Terror, the firing squads and gulags of the Soviet Union, the anti-Western Third World revolutionary movements, and other pejorative images. For many libertarians, revolutionaries are statists who want to switch to a new way of screwing Peter to pay Paul. For them, revolutionaries are ineffective at fostering change for the better and are stupid demagogues whom any sane person ought to hate. Likewise, advocates of revolution are seen as agent provocateurs sent out to destroy the liberty movement and catch unsuspecting listeners into the web of the state’s fiery wrath. To them, it is almost axiomatic that revolutionary change will always make things worse than what they were before such change occurred, and considering the historical examples one can pick of how revolutionary change failed to bring about lasting change for liberty, it would be natural for them to blanch at my clarion call for a revolutionary movement. Continue reading
Right from the start I will say this: I consider stoning to be a form of torture and that therefore its practice should be outlawed. Having said that, and having gone on record as a strong supporter of Gary North’s view of things in general, here is my take on North’s apparent endorsement of stoning (at least in the past).
In the 1986 edition of his book The Sinai Strategy (TSS) North included a subchapter with the heading “In Defense of Stoning”. However, in his later, 2006 edition, that subsection was removed completely (not just “toned down”). Here are his arguments from the 1986 edition in brief:
- Stoning is cheap: “the implements of execution are available at virtually no cost”.
- It is communal: “no one citizen can regard himself as ‘the executioner’”
- By the same token, the community cannot hide behind an outsourced executioner. The “whole community is responsible for preventing criminal behaviour”.
- It is personal: “The condemned man has a right to confront his executioners face to face”.
- It is symbolic of the promise in Genesis 3:15 that the serpent’s head will be crushed.
(See North, G.: The Sinai Strategy, Tyler, Texas, 1986, pages 122-23)
What I have not found is a definitive synopsis of exactly under which circumstances (meaning for which crimes) North says that the death penalty is required for and, secondly, for which this has to be stoning. I have found, in another book of his, that he is definitely in favour of the death penalty for murderers: