Showing posts with label drive by media. Show all posts
Showing posts with label drive by media. Show all posts

Thursday, August 11, 2016

GOP Blames Victim For Media Rape

An interesting article from http://www.vdare.com about the EXTREME bias in the media! This follows this post about Donald Trump's recent endorsements. Remember, “Amnesty” means ANY non-enforcement of existing immigration laws! This follows this comment and this post about how to Report Illegal Immigrants! Also, you can read two very interesting books HERE.
Please follow me here.

It's particularly bad when you consider that Trump's "controversies" are un-PC statements, and Clinton's scandals are actual felonies.It's particularly bad when you consider that Trump's "controversies" are un-PC statements, and Clinton's scandals are actual felonies.

Ann Coulter: GOP Blames Victim For Media Rape


511nk5odwLL._SY344_BO1204203200_-198x300[1]Even having predicted that the media’s attacks on Trump would be unprecedented, I’m still amazed. Every single news outlet is dedicated to hysterically denouncing Trump, every minute of every day, while cooing at Hillary.
Everything Hillary has ever touched has failed, been engulfed in scandal, resulted in massive investigations, litigation, financial ruin, prison or death. The final stage of any Hillary enterprise is a grand announcement that Hillary did not technically break the law. Or no one can prove she did. Or, even if she did, no one ever gets prosecuted for it.
She’s prone to coughing fits and lapses of memory in the middle of speeches, and falls down all the time. But that’s not nearly as important as the media’s manufactured story about Trump throwing a baby out of a rally!
Trump is supposed to be joined at the hip to David Duke based on not “disavowing” him with sufficient ferocity the 17th time he was asked about this person he’s never met, never mentioned and didn’t invite to speak at his convention.
Hillary invited the mother of violent cop-hating criminal Mike Brown to speak at her convention, and the Democratic platform expressly endorses the anti-police Black Lives Matter–even as these celebrated cop haters inspire the mass slaughter of police officers across the country, in New York City, Dallas and Baton Rouge.
hillaryrallyNow we find out that another honored guest at Hillary events is the father of Omar Mateen, the Muslim jihadist who murdered 49 people at a gay nightclub in Orlando a few months ago. On Monday night, he attended a Hillary rally where he sat cheering, right behind her on the stage.
Is David Duke’s father given VIP seating at Trump events? (As long as you mention it, did David Duke gun down 49 people in June? Or ever? Or anyone?)
Via the Media Research Center, a typical, possibly coordinated media attack.
ADVERTISEMENT
It took the national media 24 hours to mention the fact that the jihadist’s father is a big Hillary supporter, sitting in the camera’s line of sight at her Florida rally. A Google search of Trump and David Duke produces more than 11 million hits. A Google search of Hillary and Omar Mateen gets a few hundred thousand hits.
Hillary’s being supported by the father of a jihadist is treated like back-page stuff, presented amid florid excuses and rationalizations. It was a staffer’s mistake, an “unforced error,” and Hillary’s opponents are “leaping on it.”
The main story this week: The media’s psychotic claim that Trump called for Hillary’s assassination.
Trump said: “Hillary wants to abolish, essentially abolish, the Second Amendment. If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don’t know.”
Hmmm. What could Second Amendment people “do”? One thing they could do is what they did do — in 1994. That was the year gun rights supporters voted out dozens of Democrats who voted wrong on guns, ushering in the first Republican Congress in 40 years.
It’s been nearly a quarter century, and the Democrats are still so traumatized by their sweeping losses in 1994, that, even after Gabby Giffords was shot in Arizona, even after the Aurora movie theater shooting, even after the Sandy Hook massacre, Democrats refused to take up a gun bill in the U.S. Senate.
Apparently, the only news you’ll be getting from now until the election is the media’s own insane interpretation of every little thing Trump says or does. Anyone remember the week-long scandal about a star on a Trump retweet?
No one, not even Joe McCarthy, has ever faced this level of obsessive hatred from our constitutionally protected guardians of liberty in the press. Anyone else would be chewed up and spit out after one minute of such relentless attacks.
But sissy conservatives who have never faced one minute of press hostility blame the victim, saying it’s Trump’s fault for giving the media openings to twist his words.
The sissies have no idea what they’re talking about. There’s no way to phrase something so that it can’t be lied about. Here are the first three lines from an affectionate article on Hillary Clinton in Wednesday’s New York Times:
— “Hillary Clinton Hopes to Capitalize on Republican Defectors”
Hillary to accept bribes from Goldman Sachs, Halliburton and the Koch brothers.
— “Hillary Clinton’s campaign would like to turn the drip-drip-drip of Republican defectors abandoning Donald J. Trump into a deluge.”
Hillary supports the use of Chinese water torture.
— “On Wednesday, after days in which several high-profile Republicans said they could not support Mr. Trump or were endorsing Mrs. Clinton, her campaign introduced an official outreach effort to target Republicans …”
Hillary campaign to “target” Republicans for murder.
There’s no strategy for overcoming this level of media hostility. Trump has made some mistakes during this campaign, but he hasn’t done anything wrong for months now. He could say “yes,” and the media would change the question to, “Are you a child molester?”
Craven Republicans who blame Trump for the media’s lies may as well blame a rape victim for wearing a short skirt. Except with Trump, it’s the Muslim standard: They’re blaming a woman’s rape on being a woman.
511nk5odwLL._SY344_BO1204203200_-198x300[1]COPYRIGHT 2015 ANN COULTER
DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL UCLICK
Ann Coulter is the legal correspondent for Human Events and writes a popular syndicated column for Universal Press Syndicate. She is the author of ELEVEN New York Times bestsellers—collect them here.
Her book, ¡Adios America! The Left’s Plan To Turn Our Country Into A Third World Hell Hole, was released on June 1, 2015.

Tuesday, April 1, 2014

Help! I've Been Brainwashed

An interesting article from http://www.ucg.org/ about atheism and other means of brainwashing. This follows this post about reports which turned out to be bogus. For a free magazine subscription or to get the book shown for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886- 8632. You can follow me at blogspot here and at twitter here https://twitter.com/brianleesblog. Please consider following both in case one goes down!




Help! I've Been Brainwashed

Printer-friendly version


This article is addressed especially to high school and college students who will be taking biology classes. If you take this subject, you will most likely be exposed to teachers who will falsely teach that evolution is how life came into existence. Don't let them do to you what they did to me.

I had been brainwashed! Believe me, it was not a good feeling. It happened while in high school, and it happened in my favorite class—biology. Here is how it came about.
My father was a medical doctor in Murphy, North Carolina, and I wanted to follow in his footsteps. Seeing an obvious connection between being in this vocation and science, I couldn't get enough of biology. At that time, I had been taught evolution by my biology teachers, and it made sense. Besides, I had a church background that taught that God created the first cell and then evolution took over to create the rest of the species.
So you see, I had been brainwashed by my church as well. My focus was that God had created the cell and then all living things had evolved. Yet this belief indirectly undermined the Bible's teaching that God had created Adam and Eve as completely finished, and not as evolved beings. So I wasn't interested in the Bible at the time and believed my church was the ultimate authority—what it taught was to be believed. As a result, I started contemplating a loose moral lifestyle. After all, if I had evolved from a monkey, and evolution was true, why should I believe in biblical laws that limited me?
Confronting an evangelical
Then, in my last year of high school, I met Danny, an evangelical. He said he didn't believe in evolution. I thought that was such an unsophisticated belief and that it showed great ignorance.
So I brought out a host of evolutionary "proofs." I told him about fruit flies evolving after being exposed to radiation and having different colored eyes or more wings. I told him about the British moths that had turned a different color, from white to black, as the industrial revolution had spewed so much soot in the air that the white trunks of some trees had been darkened, making the moths change color as a camouflage. I told him about Darwin's finches, and how they had evolved different beak sizes in the Galapagos Islands. I told him about the fossil record, and how species went from simple to complex over time. I told him about the embryos of different species resembling each other, and about the fossils of ape-men. So I managed to convince him, after making him feel very ignorant.
A life-changing experience
Yet a few weeks later I met another fellow student, Sammy, who would change my life. We both liked to play chess, and one day while playing chess at his home I talked about my background. I had come from Cuba to the United States when I was 7. We had lost all our basic freedoms to communism and were exiled. I mentioned that after my father arrived in the United States, he once remarked, "If the U.S. falls, where will we go to keep these freedoms and be safe?"
Sammy said, "That's interesting. I have an article where it says, if WW III occurs, is there a place of safety?"
I borrowed the article and became acquainted with Bible prophecy for the first time. I was astounded to read that the Bible talks about today's issues and gives a warning as well as hope. I asked him to lend me a Bible, and I started reading it and biblical literature. I was amazed to find everything in the Bible was true—historically, and, more surprisingly, scientifically.
So, I reasoned, if the Bible was historically true, then evolution was wrong. As I read on, all my arguments about evolution crumbled and I realized I had been brainwashed. I had been shown only one side of the story—and a distorted side at that!
I proved God exists and that cells couldn't have evolved. I learned that God created animals and human beings in a perfect and complete way. I slowly realized each "fact" of evolution had been a clever lie! It seems some scientists had chosen not to acknowledge the possibility that there could be a Creator God, which led them, whether knowingly or not, to distort the evidence. Why? It turns out that some of the early proponents of Darwinism had pushed the theory to avoid giving account of their sinful deeds to a righteous God.
As Aldous Huxley, one of the most fierce defenders of evolution, once admitted. "I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning, consequently assumed it had none… For myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality . We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom … There was one admirably simple method of confuting these people and at the same time justifying ourselves in our political and erotic revolt : we could deny that the world had any meaning whatsoever" ( Ends and Means , 1937, pp. 272-273, emphasis added).
An old argument
This idea that the creation doesn't need a Creator, but created itself or has always existed is not new. The Greeks of Paul's day had similar, although simpler, theories about the origin of life without God.
Paul, in his critique of Greek philosophy, showed the consequences of this type of reasoning.
He wrote in Romans:1:18-24: "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them.
"For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.
"Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things. Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves…"
This type of philosophy is certainly alive and well today.
Apologizing to Danny
So after I proved I was wrong about evolution, I went back to Danny and apologized to him, admitting I was mistaken. It left him speechless. It was only many years later that I again met him, and to my surprise, he had become a Church of God member! He had been so surprised by my complete about-face that he had looked into what I believed and came to the same conclusion.
In hindsight, I must say the biggest part of my conversion had been understanding and applying God's holy laws. As each of you mature, you will also face a world deeply prejudiced against God and the Bible. But since my high school days, I've made many additional discoveries that have gone against evolution and for a Creator.
As Stephen Meyer, an expert in physics, philosophy and molecular biology, wrote, "The major developments in science in the past five decades have been running in a strongly theistic direction. Science, done right, points toward God" (Lee Strobel, The Case for a Creator , 2004, p. 77).
The book of nature and the book of Scripture
Let's briefly look at some of these discoveries along with the Scriptures that support them.
In Psalm 19, God revealed to David that there are two books that witness to God's existence: the book of nature and the book of Scripture. In this Psalm, David says the majesty and the orderliness of the heavens declare the glory of God. He mentions the wonders of the spinning earth, the cycles of day and night, and our benign sun that emits light and heat.
The more scientists study our galaxy, the Milky Way, the more they see how perfectly arranged it is for life. It is a spiral galaxy, which is the most stable of galactic systems, and our solar system is situated between two spiral arms, which is one of the safe zones, away from the core of the galaxy, where supernovas explode and can decimate entire solar systems.
The earth's orbit keeps it at just the right distance from the sun. A bit farther away from the sun and it would be too cold, freezing the oceans, while a bit closer would make it too hot, melting the ice caps and flooding the whole globe.
Our moon is situated perfectly to protect the earth from many meteorite hits, and its gravitational pull regulates the tides, another essential part of our ecosystem. The tides keep the oceans oxygenated, allow currents to form and gently sweep the coastal beaches of any debris, not permitting the seas to stagnate.
The earth has the right spin, right size, right core, right chemicals and the right axis. Scientist call this anthropic fine-tuning, where all systems are fine-tuned to permit our fragile life system to exist. They have found that all the laws of nature and its physical constants combine in a mathematically incredible way to make life in the universe possible.
Another remarkable proof of this fine-tuning is what scientists call the big bang, the moment when the universe began. According to Nobel-prizewinning physicist Steven Weinberg, this was not a typical explosion that starts from a definite center and spreads out, but an explosion that occurred simultaneously everywhere , filling all of space from the beginning with every particle of matter rushing apart from every other particle.
"In three minutes," said Bill Bryson, "98% of all matter was produced. We have a universe. It is a place of the most wondrous and gratifying possibility, and beautiful too, and it was all done in about the time it takes to make a sandwich" (ibid., p. 94).
This is very hard to reconcile with evolutionary thought. Nobel-prizewinner Arno Penzias said about the big bang: "The best data we have are exactly what I would have predicted had I nothing to go on but the first five books of Moses, the Psalms and the Bible as a whole" (ibid., p. 77).
What is the conclusion? Dr. Meyer said, "When I look at the stars in the night sky, it is an occasion for me to worship the Creator who brought them into existence. So exploring the scientific and historical evidence for God is not only a cognitive exercise, but it's an act of worship for me. It's a way of giving the Creator the credit and honor and glory that are due to him" (ibid., p. 91).
This is exactly what David was saying in the first part of Psalm 19. In addition, as a lasting reminder that He is the Creator of the universe, God left us with the Fourth Commandment, the command to remember our Creator by resting and worshipping Him on the seventh day (Exodus:20:8-11).
The book of Scripture
Then, after David finished mentioning the wonders of the "book of nature" where we glorify God as our Creator, he turned to the marvels of the book of Scripture. He says we should also give God glory for having given us His Word.
In verses 7 to 11, he praised its power to restore the person to a healthy wholeness, by assuring forgiveness and cleansing. God's Word also gives wisdom to those who accept it, even to the "simple" or inexperienced.
By applying the Scriptures, David said, we learn what "the fear of the Lord" is all about—developing a deep respect for God and His way of life. As a result, we will have "joy," or the inner peace and tranquility that comes from loving God with all our heart. The Bible is also "trustworthy" because its laws are true and are verifiable by life's experiences.
As a result of studying God's "two books" that give witness to Him, our faith is strengthened. We read in Hebrews:11:1-3 about this type of faith: "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. For by it the elders obtained a good testimony. By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible." This is what scientists are discovering as well—the physical could not have invented itself, but must have come from some superior and invisible source.
We also learn we have a spiritual and moral responsibility to our Maker. Hebrews:11:6 says, "But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him." Yes, this is a God who is concerned about us and wants to bless us as we obey Him.
So, please, don't allow yourself to be brainwashed as I once was. Remember what Psalm:14:1 says, that only "the fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God.'" VT

Monday, March 10, 2014

MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow’s Show Calls Abortion Practitioners Heroes

An interesting story from www.lifenews.com about the pro-abortion bias of a mainstream media reporter. This follows this post about the Girl Scouts and their Planned Parenthood link. For more that you can do to get involved click HERE and you can also get two very interesting books HERE.  You can follow me at blogspot here and at twitter here https://twitter.com/brianleesblog. Please consider following both in case one goes down!






MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow’s Show Calls Abortion Practitioners HeroesAbortion practitioners across the country are responsible for nearly 57 million abortions. They kill unborn babies on a daily basis, kill and injure women in failed abortions, and leave women, men, and families dealing with devastating mental health and spiritual issues as a result.
While a majority of Americans oppose abortion and believe abortions ought to be illegal, MSNBC held a segment calling abortion practitioners heroes. The Maddow show story focused on the anger abortion advocates have over pro-life laws in Texas and other states resulting in closing abortion businesses because they can’t seem to follow the law. http://www.lifenews.com/2014/03/07/msnbcs-rachel-maddows-show-calls-abortion-practitioners-heroes/

Monday, February 8, 2010

Internet Filters—Private Sector First Amendment Workaround, or Gov't Censorship In Disguise?

A timely article from James Fulford of www.vdare.com about internet censorship, particularly from corporate places of work. Most businesses will allow news media in that they deem fit while filtering out what they don't want and of course this is something that is hard to complain about because, even if you are getting your work done, they seem to view internet viewing as time wasting as opposed to radio listening or water cooler chatting. The article below shows the bias that some places are allowing. For the consequences of bias click here and for more interesting stories like this click here to follow this blog

Internet Filters—Private Sector First Amendment Workaround, or Gov't Censorship In Disguise?
[See also The Fulford File: VDARE.COM Censored by Corporate Software]
If you're reading this, you're lucky enough to live in a free country, but also lucky enough to have a free computer. A lot of people are not that lucky.
Internet filtering has become a problem for us, because our heterodox opinions, frequently on subjects where any opinion at all can get you in trouble, have led us to be classed by our enemies as "haters." (We are not “haters”, and do not advocate or commit anti-immigrant violence, which tends to be committed by the same people who commit violence against non-immigrants.)
However, some people seem to have gotten the impression that we're "Not safe for work."
Here's a typical, but fairly stupid reaction:
“[VDARE.com Contributor]: did you look at the site?
“Answer: I called it up at work and up popped this white head, sort of like a Nazi site. I got off right away because I didn't want to get into trouble at work.”
That "white head" is picture of a doe (a deer—a female deer.)
There is also the problem that Southern Poverty Law Center insists we're a hate group. The SPLC is best thought of as a fundraising organization; the more "hate" they find, the more money they can raise.
The same goes for George Soros's Media Matters—they make their living finding politically incorrect thought, and they are as likely to find it as a tort lawyer is to find negligence.
As a result, several internet filtering companies have classed us as a "hate site."
Hate means practically anything disapproved of in the 21st century, but perfectly normal in even the second half of the twentieth. For example, Bob Jones University was accused of hate for extreme Protestantism—but Protestantism is sort of supposed to be anti-Catholic. Pope Benedict, on the other hand, was considered hateful for saying that Buddhism was wrong. Again, the Pope is supposed to be in the business of preaching what the Church teaches to be the truth.
And as far as accusations of racism are concerned, I once pointed out that Mahatma Gandhi and Frosty the Snowman have been accused of being racist, along with a surprising number of others.
Internet filtering of "hate" in the workplace is usually part of the corporate desire to avoid any controversy, because of possible bad publicity, and because of a desire to avoid being sued for "Hostile Work Environment" harassment.
H. L. Mencken once defined Puritanism as "The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy." The crusade against "hate" is a similar strain of Puritanism.
Or reverse Puritanism—a site called Jesus-is-Lord.com, whose owners actually are Puritans (in the same sense that Oliver Cromwell was) was banned by Google, apparently for their anti-abortion stance.
There's nothing that can't be called hate—by someone who hates it. But even if we were guilty of "hate," of course, that wouldn't affect the freedom of speech issue—"hate speech" is as much a Constitutional right as any other speech, as First Amendment expert Eugene Volokh points out. ["Hate Speech", Eugene Volokh, Volokh.com, June 7, 2008]
So as result of corporate and government filtering there are a lot of places in America, that block us. The same as they do in the Arab world.
When we find that a particular company is blocking us, we have a lawyer write them a letter. That usually causes them to back down.
Here's a letter we got from a company that is no longer blocking us. (Name withheld because they were nice about it, and besides, if I mention that they unblocked us, they'll get flak from the other side.)
“I am writing, as …General Counsel, to confirm the decision of my client, [withheld] with regard to its designation of VDARE.com, published by your client VDare Foundation. Initially, please let me remind you that [our client] does not “block” any URL. [Our client] categorizes the various URL’s it reviews, and [our client]’s customers make their independent decision how to treat them on the customer’s own internet access.
“After review of further research and your explanatory letter, [our client] will, as I stated in our conversation, categorize VDARE.com as ‘social opinion’. You may be sure that [our client's] actions were inadvertent and not the result of negligence or malice. With this letter and my client’s recategorization of VDARE.com as “social opinion”, we consider the matter closed.”
Which it is…but there are a lot of censorware companies out there. Here are some of the players in the censorware game:
www.8e6.com , a California company, so called because they "86" bad stuff on the web. They used to classify us as something bad, but they don’t' anymore. You can contact them here, and if you feel we or another site has been mischaracterized, you can "submit a site" here.
Provisio GMBH of Germany. They had a program called SiteKiosk that hotels in the US use. (And K-Mart, for some reason.) I did a blog about them here, when we found that they'd announced that their goal was to filter "pornographic content and content glorifying violence, as well as right-wing and other so-called forbidden content ( but not, of course, left wing content). Let's just say that Germany has never had a history of supporting free speech.
Websense—a large multinational, with offices all over, including the Republic of Ireland. Their site lookup tool is here, and you can phone them at 1 800.723.1166, or email them here. We had to write them a letter at one point, and also submit a change request to their website. Anti=censorware activist Bennett Haselton found in when he checked in 2006 that they classified us as something innocuous—and immediately tried to change that, see my blog And This Is How We Repay Them.
Secure Computing/Smartfilter—an American company with headquarters in San Jose and Reston, Virginia, where they deal with the Federal Government. Their URL checker is here, (they're classifying us as Extreme at the moment, which I think is a step down from hate speech, but still…) and you can contact them here. [Phone 1-800-379-4944, email ] They say "If you believe that the category should be changed you can either fill out the category suggestion form from our website (http://www.securecomputing.com/index.cfm?sKey=234) or you can submit your request by sending an email to sites@securecomputing.com."

So it's important for you to contact us with details if you see that we're blocked at your place of work, library or whatever, so we can fight back.
You can usually tell who's doing the filtering because the name of the filter will pop up on your screen. If it doesn't, please send us the exact text of the message, since each message is unique to a particular company. "Access to this web page is restricted at this time", for example, is what you get when you're blocked by Websense.
One of the strangest and most worrisome things about the prevalence of filtering is that it even affects the computers of journalists, who are supposed to be getting the facts, some of which are only available on filtered sites. It's possible that some facts, even if not exclusive to VDARE.com, will themselves be automatically filtered. (Examples—relative crime rates among races, Martin Luther King's private life, political associations, and plagiarism, the standard scientific position on differences in IQ.)
One radio host interviewed Steve Sailer on the radio, discussing Sailer's book America's Half Blood Prince: Barack Obama's "Story of Race and Inheritance", which can be downloaded for free—an easy way for journalists to find out what's in it—or bought in hard copy for a mere $29.95. But the host reported that he couldn't access it from his station's computer!

What will it do to journalism when a MainStream Media writer isn't allowed to know what everyone with an unfiltered internet connection can find out?

Of course, the writer could finish his work at home—but future censorship laws may make content considered hateful unavailable in your own computer in your own home, as is the case in China. The OpenNet Initiative publishes a map of countries like Iran that filter all internet access . America isn't on that map—yet. But there are filtered computers all across the country.
I was discussing this with an IT Professional who supported, for example, the Army's right to censor internet access for the purpose of maintaining good order and discipline:
IT Professional: The military is very much justified in restricting any access in time of war. Some things that you can look at on line will get you killed in other countries our soldiers may be serving in.
Me: You mean you'll be offending Muslims looking over your shoulder?
IT Professional: Something like that.
My feeling is that if Muslims in a war zone are looking over your shoulder, you've got worse problems than internet censorship can solve.
But the rest of us are not in a war zone—we're trying to use the internet for research, and blocking any part of it diminishes its usefulness. Furthermore, the campaign against "hate" on the internet is similar Janet Murguia's attempt to get Lou Dobbs, and all patriotic immigration reformers, off the air waves, or David Brock's attempt to silence Sam Francis—an attempt to drive people like both VDARE.COM's writers and our readers out of public life.
What can be done about this situation?
As an individual victim of filtering, there are a number of things you can do to bypass filters. You can read on your personally owned Blackberry, et cetera, or run portable programs from a thumb drive. (If the words "running portable programs from a thumb drive" mean absolutely nothing to you, then you may not be computer literate enough to use this kind of advice. ) If you are computer literate, then see Lifehacker's post Geek to Live: Survive IT lockdown for some ideas. (Some of these are covered in my earlier article.)
If you're in a position of responsibility, owning your own business, head of an IT department, or otherwise in charge of computer policies, you can refuse to use the filters, or at least refuse to let them block political sites.
As a citizen, you can engage in anti-filter activism, doing what you can to prevent these things being required by law.

And finally, of course, because we're on the front line of the filter wars, because we're both fighting against the censors, and being censored by them, you can fight censorware by supporting VDARE.COM.

Tuesday, September 8, 2009

Civic Duty: Go See ‘United 93’


A reminder of something to do this week since the mainstream media will not show this!!! H/t George Will.



Civic Duty: Go See ‘United 93’
http://www.newsandopinion.com/ In most movies made to convey dread, the tension flows from uncertainty about what will happen. In "United 93," terror comes from knowing exactly what will happen. People who associate cinematic menace with maniacs wielding chain saws will find that there can be an almost unbearable menace in the quotidian — in the small talk of passengers waiting in the boarding area with those who will murder them, in the routine shutting of the plane's door prior to departure from Newark Airport on Sept. 11, 2001.

But two uncertainties surrounded "United 93": Would it find an audience? Should it?
It has found one, which is remarkable, given that in 2005 most moviegoers — 57 percent — were persons 12 to 29 years old. Twenty-nine percent were persons 12 to 24. These age cohorts do not seek shattering, saddening experiences to go with their popcorn.

But in its first weekend "United 93" was the second most-watched movie, with the top average gross per theater among major releases. It was on 1,795 screens, and 71 percent of viewers were 30 or older.

To the long list of Britain's contributions to American cinema — Charles Chaplin, Bob Hope, Cary Grant, Stan Laurel, Deborah Kerr, Vivien Leigh, Maureen O'Hara, Ronald Colman, David Niven, Boris Karloff, Alfred Hitchcock and others — add Paul Greengrass, writer and director of "United 93." He imported into Hollywood the commodity most foreign to it: good taste. This is especially shown in the ensemble of unknown character actors and non-actors who play roles they know — a real pilot plays the pilot, a former flight attendant plays the head flight attendant — and several persons who play on screen the roles they played on Sept. 11.

Greengrass's scrupulosity is evident in the movie's conscientious, minimal and minimally speculative departures from the facts about the flight painstakingly assembled for the Sept. 11 commission report. This is emphatically not a "docudrama" like Oliver Stone's execrable "JFK," which was "history" as a form of literary looting in which the filmmaker used just enough facts to lend a patina of specious authenticity to tendentious political ax-grinding.
A New York Times story on the "politics of heroism" dealt with the question of whether the movie was "inclusive."

Well, perhaps. "United 93" did violate some egalitarian nicety by suggesting that probably not all the passengers were equally heroic. Amazingly, no one has faulted the movie for ethnic profiling: All the hijackers are portrayed as young, fervently devout Muslim men. Report Greengrass to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
In a movie as spare and restrained as its title, the only excess is the suggestion, itself oblique, that the government response was even more confused than was to be expected. Most government people, like the rest of us, were in the process of having their sense of the possible abruptly and radically enlarged.

Going to see "United 93" is a civic duty because Samuel Johnson was right: People more often need to be reminded than informed. After an astonishing 56 months without a second terrorist attack, this nation perhaps has become dangerously immune to astonishment. The movie may quicken our appreciation of the measures and successes — many of which must remain secret — that have kept would-be killers at bay.
The editors of National Review were wise to view "United 93" in the dazzling light still cast by a Memorial Day address, "The Soldier's Faith," delivered in 1895 by a veteran of Ball's Bluff, Antietam and other Civil War battles. Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. said why understanding that faith is important:
"In this snug, over-safe corner of the world . . . we may realize that our comfortable routine is no eternal necessity of things, but merely a little space of calm in the midst of the tempestuous untamed streaming of the world, and in order that we may be ready for danger. . . . Out of heroism grows faith in the worth of heroism."
The message of the movie is: We are all potential soldiers. And we all may be, at any moment, at the war's front, because in this war the front can be anywhere.
The hinge on which the movie turns are 13 words that a passenger speaks, without histrionics, as he and others prepare to rush the cockpit, shortly before the plane plunges into a Pennsylvania field. The words are: "No one is going to help us. We've got to do it ourselves." Those words not only summarize this nation's situation in today's war but also express a citizen's general responsibilities in a free society.

Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in Washington and in the media consider "must reading."
Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.


George Will's latest book is "With a Happy Eye but: America and the World, 1997-2002" Comment on this column by clicking here.