#frontpagemag

[culturevulturette]

The Frictionless Souls Addicted to the Cause | FrontpageMag

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic

[arcticdementor]

Reporting on Muslim Persecution of Christians Offends Facebook’s ‘Standards’ - Frontpagemag

Reporting on the horrific persecution Christian minorities experience in the Muslim word is a “punishable” offense for Facebook, as that topic falls beneath the social media giant’s “standards.”

That’s what I was told when I logged onto my Facebook account a few days ago.  A box popped up saying, “This post goes against our Community Standards,” followed by, “Only you can see this post because it goes against our standards,” with a link to the “offensive” post.  I was then locked out for 24 hours.

The problematic article in question, which I published online and shared on Facebook back on Feb. 15, 2021—a full eight months ago—is titled “New Film Commemorates 21 Coptic Christian Martyrs.”  In it, I discussed how an Arabic-language film was being made about the 21 Egyptian Christians savagely slaughtered by the Islamic State in Libya in 2015.

…

So what is it about that particular article that caused it to be banned—again, eight months after it first appeared on Facebook—and me “punished”?  If it’s the accompanying picture, which is hardly that graphic, Facebook could’ve done what it has done to other articles of mine: keep the post but remove the image.  Aside from mentioning the movie, that article recaps the execution of 2015, quotes some family members’ views on the forthcoming film, and closes by mentioning how a memorial for the 21 Christian martyrs was erected in the Egyptian village of Al Our, whence several of them hailed.

The following excerpt from that article is the only thing I can think of that might have especially vexed Facebook (even though it’s 100% true):

It’s worth recalling that, at the time of their abduction and subsequent butchery, Western media were largely absent.  Indeed, before the video appeared, the BBC had falsely reported that the majority of those now slaughtered Copts were “released.”  (Such downplaying of Muslim persecution of Christians is not uncommon for the BBC.)

Around the same time that article got taken down from Facebook, on Oct. 15, 2021, the following comment appeared under another much more recent article on my website—one also about the Muslim persecution of Christians in Egypt:

I shared this article on Facebook and Facebook took it down saying it violated “Community Standards” with no further explanation given.

…

The only conclusion is that, not content with shadow banning articles on the brutal persecution Christians suffer at the hands of Muslims, Facebook is now openly and more aggressively outright banning them.

Moreover, there is reason to believe that Facebook’s actions are at least partially motivated by foreign entities.  Seeing that the two articles that got “flagged” both dealt with the persecution of Egyptian Christians—Copts—I contacted Coptic Solidarity, to see if they’ve had similar experiences. Its director, Lindsay Vessey, wrote back saying,

Numerous countries, including Egypt, employ large cyber teams to flag content critical of their leader/government meaning that discussion of human rights violations in countries like China, Saudi Arabia and Egypt can be blocked, with repercussions to the account owner. Facebook needs to hire individuals who not only have the language skills to review posts, but who can maintain professional neutrality and distinguish between abusive content, and legitimate criticism of human rights abuses. My colleague, Faith McDonnell, who is a titan in the realm of religious freedom advocacy, had her Facebook account shut-down without warning, merely for posting an image of the Coptic martyrs on the beach in Libya. Her account was only reinstated after substantial negative publicity towards Facebook.

[arcticdementor]

San Francisco State University Prof Says Jewish Pot is Making Black Men Gay - Frontpagemag

Wesley Muhammad believes that the U.S. government and the Jews are using marijuana to make black men gay. The “Pot Plot” is a popular theory in Muhammad’s Nation of Islam cult.

At the Saviours Day Convention in Chicago, an official Nation of Islam event, Wesley Muhammad claimed that, "It is Jewish genius that has helped… to weaponize the weed so that it may effeminize the black male of America. And be clear, it is Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam that is standing in between the total demasculinization of the black man in America.”

Some years back, Wesley Muhammad's lecture, “How to Make a Homosexual: The Scientific Assault on Black America" was canceled at a Philly black beauty expo because of its hateful content. But what wasn't good enough for the 23rd Annual International Locks Conference, a black natural hair expo, is unfortunately all too welcome at San Francisco State University.

…

Wesley Muhammad's bio at the taxpayer-funded university notes that he is a lecturer in the Africana Studies Department of SFSU's College of Ethnic Studies. It mentions his publications in the Final Call newspaper of the Nation of Islam hate group, and his book, "Understanding the Assault on the Black Man, Black Manhood and Black Masculinity" which contains thoughtful chapters such as "Why Saggin is Faggin" and "Birth of the Black Man (God)". 

…

A course listing shows Muhammad teaching courses on “Black Religion” and “Malcolm X in the Context of Black Nationalism”. The courses are taught online which apparently allows Muhammad, a top official in the Nation of Islam, to teach remotely.

That the Nation of Islam killed Malcolm X only adds another layer to this obscene farce.

By describing the pandemic as a "pestilence from heaven", Muhammad echoed Farrakhan's remarks that the coronavirus was one of Allah's "great plagues". But Muhammad additionally claimed that "we've documented the first area codes that were devastated by coronavirus in America were Jewish area codes" implying that the virus was aimed by Allah at the Jews.

A lecturer celebrating the coronavirus for allowing him to teach remotely and claiming that black gay men are the products of a Jewish conspiracy may seem out of place on today’s college campuses where a Chinese composer was forced out of the classroom for showing an Othello movie and at Yale an American Indian student faced the threat of sanctions for a party invite touting fried chicken, but there are two sets of rules. And at SFSU, the bigots have always enjoyed the second set.

[arcticdementor]

What’s a few billion more for social justice?

The homeless are everywhere in the City of Angels. The retail strip of any neighborhood, no matter how glitzy, will host at least one wandering schizophrenic cursing random pedestrians and the sky. Colorful tent cities grow in the shade of blighted overpasses like poisonous mushrooms. There are homeless encampments on the lawn at City Hall across from the LAPD HQ. Near Venice Beach, the smell of ordure can be overpowering, and last year the befouling of public streets led to a Hepatitis A outbreak. The hard rain that’s falling isn’t coming from the cloudless sky: it’s streets being power washed with bleach.

…

Proposition HHH was going to solve the homeless crisis by hiking property taxes to raise $1.2 billion. The money would be used to build housing for the homeless. $1.2 billion could house all the homeless.

Couldn’t it? If it couldn’t, it was part of a $4.6 billion package of homeless tax hikes. There was Proposition H which added to the already hefty sales tax. Los Angeles voters backed that one too.

But instead the number of homeless increased faster than the supply of homeless housing. By ’18, the number of homeless was up to 58,000 from 32,000 in 6 years. Increasing subsidies to the homeless only increased their number. As usual, government social welfare was generating more of the problem.

And, even more predictably, no amount of social services spending was ever enough. The annual shortfall was estimated this year at $270 million. The new projected cost hovers at $628 million.

…

Why is “affordable housing” so unaffordable? One reason is that, as usual, it’s also kickbacks to a variety of special interest groups. If you want incentives for building affordable housing, you have to pay union wages. And that raises costs by 30% making building affordable housing… unaffordable to actually build.

…

All the plans to fight homelessness only attracted more homeless. That’s the reality behind the mysterious massive increase in the homeless population. Whether it’s in Los Angeles or New York, when lefties begin a major campaign to fight homelessness, the number of homeless suddenly increases.

There are a variety of reasons for this phenomenon, including newfound motives by activist groups to discover more homeless once there’s a funding bonanza. And the programs bring in homeless from outside the area or incentivize people who aren’t homeless to claim the status to get the benefits.

At the rate of $479,000 per unit, trying to house every homeless vagrant will quickly outpace any of the old tax hikes and revenue plans. When 26,000 new homeless people can show up in 6 years, building housing for all of them would cost $13 billion. And housing them would require permanent subsidies.

[shadowfromthestarlight]

The problem with Hillary Clinton’s candidacy isn’t that she would take office at the age of 69. An older and more mature president is not a bad thing. It’s how little she has done in that time.

After 2008, when Hillary was beaten by an even more inexperienced candidate, most people forgot just how little experience she has holding elected office.

Hillary Clinton only won one political office and she did so in her fifties. Despite winning two elections, her Senate career only covered the period from January 2001 to January 2009.

It’s more time than Obama spent in the Senate, but that’s not saying much.

JFK was considered young and inexperienced after spending 14 years in Congress. Hillary Clinton isn’t young, but her experience in elected office at the age of 69 will be less than his was at the age of 44.

Hillary’s supporters will argue that she has plenty of experience in public life. Unfortunately it’s the wrong kind of experience.

Like Elizabeth Warren, a slightly younger and more left-wing Hillary clone, she spent a good deal of time in the corrupt intersection between leftist non-profits, corporate boards and politically connected legal positions. The bad lessons those posts taught her are evident from Whitewater and HillaryCare.

Hillary Clinton embodies the corrupt culture of Washington D.C. whose cronyism and nepotism she has far too much experience with as the other half of a power couple notorious for personal and political corruption.

When they left, Bill and Hillary trailed illegal pardons and stolen property behind them.  As recently as 2008, Bob Herbert of the New York Times wrote, “The Clintons should be ashamed of themselves. But they long ago proved to the world that they have no shame.”

Back in 2001, he had suggested that the Clintons might one day be “led away in handcuffs.”

That’s Hillary Clinton’s real experience and it’s not policy experience or foreign policy experience. It’s the politics of political corruption. Hillary Clinton’s track record doesn’t consist of policy achievements. It’s in the people she knows and owes favors to, the legion of corrupt associates of Clintonworld and the millionaires and billionaires who fund her unscrupulous political ambitions with their dirty money.

If Hillary’s last name were still Rodham, no one would have even proposed her for Senate. There is absolutely nothing in her record or her ideas that recommends her for higher office.

Not only is she inexperienced and inept, despite her many makeovers she is a colorless figure with the speaking style and fashion sense of a college registrar, and a bureaucrat’s cagey instinct for pre-emptive cover-ups that only make her look more suspicious even when she didn’t actually do anything wrong.

Hillary Clinton did nothing of note either as Senator or Secretary of State. The reason why her time in the Senate is remembered on the left for her Iraq War vote and her time as Secretary of State is remembered on the right for Benghazi is that there isn’t anything else to remember her for.

The high points of her national career are negative; terminated from Watergate after unethical behavior, a failure on government health care as First Lady, an Iraq War vote that she spent five years lying about and the abandonment of Americans in Benghazi as Secretary of State.

And a track record of trying to blame her decisions on everyone else.

Despite voting for the Iraq War, Hillary blamed Bush for a “rush to war” and for “triggering” the conflict. Few on the left have forgotten that she had even more positions on the Iraq War than John Kerry and that her positions changed completely based on what was going on in America and Iraq at the time.

When it came to Benghazi, other people took the fall for a horrifying failure that she claimed to be accepting responsibility for, while her own pet committee shifted the blame onto others.

Hillary Clinton accused Obama of being unready for a 3 A.M. phone call, but does anyone believe that she would take a 3 A.M. phone call and make a quick decision in a crisis? Is there anything in her track record in the Senate or as Secretary of State that suggests that she is bold and decisive?

Anything at all?

Hillary Clinton carefully avoided a track record. In the Senate, she invariably went with the least controversial position on every issue until she began overcompensating on Iraq to win back the left.

In the Senate, she was for a ban on flag burning, Cap and Trade, nuclear power, for Israel, for  Palestine, for abortion, against abortion, for harsh criminal penalties, against harsh criminal penalties, for No Child Left Behind, against No Child Left Behind, for gay marriage, against gay marriage, for medical marijuana and against medical marijuana.

If the polls opposed gay marriage, she was against it. If the polls supported it, she was for it. The same went for everything else.

As Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton staked out a bold position in favor of visiting other countries and shaking hands with their leaders.

This is not a woman who takes 3 A.M. phone calls. Not without polling them first and issuing a non-definitive statement in the vaguest possible language that she can’t be held accountable for in any way.

This isn’t a record that speaks of experience. It’s the record of a woman working hard to avoid ever having an experience, a position or a conscience.

JFK came into the White House having seen combat and having come close to dying many times. He had spent almost a decade and a half in Congress and taken positions on important issues.

Hillary Clinton may be almost 70 at that same point, but without a fraction of his experience, and she has tried to make up for it with childish lies like claiming to have come under sniper fire in Bosnia, claiming to have negotiated open borders for refugees in Kosovo and claiming to have been instrumental in the Irish peace process.

It’s no wonder that the chief counsel to the House Judiciary Committee in Watergate said of her, “She was a liar.”

Hillary’s experience is as imaginary as her work bringing peace to Northern Ireland. The issue isn’t her age; it’s her lack of principles and her lack of courage. Hillary Clinton compensates for a mediocre career of political cronyism with ridiculous lies in an act of neurotic insecurity.

Hillary Clinton isn’t too old to be president. She’s too adolescent, untried and immature. She has made too few decisions that matter, taken too few risks and even less responsibility and lives an imaginary Walter Mitty life of death-defying adventures that only exist in her mind and her press releases.

Hillary isn’t just incompetent, corrupt or a liar. Like too many of her peers, she’s a 66-year-old child.