Best-selling author Edward Klein drops a bomb in his new book “All Out War” publishing the FBI documents warning of violence coming from Antifa and other left-wing groups.
“In the FBI report that I have reproduced in full in my book, it says that these violent left wing groups traveled to Europe, met with representatives of al-Qaida and the Islamic State, or ISIS. They also went to Syria and got bomb making instructions and toxic chemical instructions.
As a campaign to crack down on sexual harassment intensifies, France is considering doing something long ago adopted in other Western nations: setting a minimum age of consent for having sex.
In recent court cases, judges refused to prosecute men for having sex with minor children because there was no proof of coercion.
“We want the irrefutable presumption that a minor cannot agree to engage in sex with an adult,” said Catherine Brault, a lawyer who defends child victims in Paris.
The measure is part of proposed legislation to curb “lecherous” behavior in France, part of the fallout from the sexual harassment scandals that have erupted in the United States and since spread to France.
Adults now can be charged with groping and sentenced to a maximum of five years in prison if they’re found guilty of abusing a child under 15. The more serious charge of aggravated sexual assault or rape of a child carries a sentence of up to 20 years — but coercion or violence must be proven.
As the law is written now it can be interpreted that “a girl can consent to a sexual relationship, but she cannot consent to groping,” said Brault. “This gap has been denounced for years and years.
Justice Minister Nicole Belloubet has suggested a legal minimum age of 13 for sexual consent. Other French leaders have called for an age of 15. Adults violating the age of consent would immediately face rape charges with or without signs of coercion.
In the United States, the age of consent set by the states ranges from 16 to 18.
The debate here was prompted by outrage over recent cases involving young children.
On Nov. 7, a 30-year-old French man was acquitted of rape after a jury found no evidence that he had forced an 11-year-old into having sex. The jurors ruled that the elements that constitute rape such as “coercion, threat, violence and surprise were not established,” since the girl had followed him willingly.
The girl became pregnant and gave birth to a boy who has been placed in a foster home.
“There’s no justice!” said Farida Oubelkacem, 46, a housewife in reaction to the verdict. “When this man is acquitted, what kind of message does it send? The justice system must set an example and in this case it sets a very bad example. This girl is destroyed, so is her son and all of her family.”
In another case in October, prosecutors declined to file rape charges against a 28-year old man who had sex with an 11-year-old girl, stating they could not justify the charges since she had shown no resistance.
For Fatima-Ezzahra Benomar, spokeswoman for the feminist association Les Effronté-e-s (The Shameless), securing an age of consent has been a long, uphill battle.
“French people are only discovering now that today’s law allows 11-year-old girls to consent to sexual (intercourse with) men,” she said. “We’ve been asking for this minimum age (of consent) for a long time. At 11, you can imagine that you have no clue what is actually happening to you.”
“And then they turn it around and say: I was attacked, I was surprised, I was dragged into the room.”
Spacey and Weinstein have each been accused of sexual harassment by more than a dozen men and women. The Hollywood heavyweights are scrambling to find supporters as more and more people come to the defense of their alleged victims.
Morrissey, however, is apparently in both men’s corner — calling the claims against Spacey “ridiculous” and blasting the countless women who’ve come forward and publicly named Weinstein as their abuser.
“People know exactly what’s going on,” Morrissey reportedly said after being asked about the movie producer. “And they play along…But if everything went well, and if it had given them a great career, they would not talk about it.”
The former Smiths frontman added, “I hate rape. I hate attacks. I hate sexual situations that are forced on someone. But in many cases one looks at the circumstances and thinks that the person who is considered a victim is merely disappointed.”
The 58-year-old appeared to do most of his victim blaming while discussing the allegations against Spacey.
“As far as I know, he was in a bedroom with a 14-year-old. Kevin Spacey was 26, boy 14. One wonders where the boy’s parents were,” he said. “One wonders if the boy did not know what would happen. I do not know about you, but in my youth I have never been in situations like this. Never. I was always aware of what could happen. When you are in somebody’s bedroom, you have to be aware of where that can lead to. That’s why it does not sound very credible to me. It seems to me that Spacey has been attacked unnecessarily.”
Morrissey, nicknamed Moz, has not responded to media requests for comment.
He was getting eviscerated by social media users over the weekend as word spread about his comments.
“A Morrissey fan for 26 years, I’ve stood by him through bad records, frivolously canceled shows, ignored his dalliances w/ fascism…but sex abuse victim blaming? Defending a pedophile like Kevin Spacey? No. Just no,” another person said. “I’m going to eat a f–king cheeseburger. F–k you @officialmoz.”
On Sunday, mass murderer Charles Manson finally received the trip to Hell he earned long ago. The world universally condemned his life’s work — as, of course, they should, given that Manson’s followers were responsible for nine murders in 1969 alone, that one of his followers attempted to assassinate Gerald Ford, and that he hoped to initiate a race war through “Helter Skelter,” a strategy of chaos and death.
The universal hatred of Manson is revisionist history. There was a small but significant element of the radical left — people who are now praised in academia and on the political left — who praised Manson fulsomely. Among them: Bernardine Dohrn, of the Weather Underground. After the Manson family slaughtered fully pregnant Sharon Tate, Dohrn reveled, “Dig it, first they killed those pigs, then they ate dinner in the same room with them, then they even shoved a fork into a victim’s stomach. Wild!” No wonder she felt that way: at a Weathermen “war council” in Michigan, the Weathermen Underground preached Manson’s race war message. Dohrn spent over two decades teaching law at Northwestern University Law School, and her husband, Bill Ayers, is one of the more famous radicals of the 1960s-cum-professor at University of Illinois.
As Vincent Bugliosi reports in his book, Helter Skelter, it wasn’t just Dohrn:
The underground paper Tuesday’s Child, which called itself the Voice of the Yippies…spread his picture across the entire front page with a banner naming him MAN OF THE YEAR. The cover of the next issue had Manson on a cross. Manson posters and sweat shirts appeared in psychedelic shops, along with FREE MANSON buttons.
Leftist social activist Jerry Rubin stated, “I fell in love with Charlie Manson the first time I saw his cherub face and sparkling eyes on TV … His words and courage inspired us.”
Manson had connections in the music industry, too. Manson was friendly with Dennis Wilson of the Beach Boys. Neil Young knew him, and said that he liked Manson’s songwriting, but that it was a “little out of control.” Young later added, “It was the ugly side of the Maharishi. There’s this one side, the nice flowers and white robes and everything. And then there’s something that looks a lot like it, but just isn’t it at all.” The New York Times acknowledges that the Manson family were “viewed as heroes by the extreme wing of young revolutionaries.”
Manson was one of the most evil people on Earth. But the fact that so many people on the Left fell under his sway because he mouthed platitudes about race and class demonstrates that lengths to which human beings will go to justify the atrocities of people they consider to be their political allies.
As an instructor for the HIDTA program I have trained numerous members of the Army’s Military Intelligence Corps. Over the years I have seen the disturbing trend of outside influence of the Army brass by Carl Rogers pop-psychology cabal.
“You’re ok I’m ok, how does that make you feel?”
This negative influence will affect the stability and lethality of the Army…mark my words.
People with a history of “self-mutilation,” bipolar disorder, depression and drug and alcohol abuse can now seek waivers to join the Army under an unannounced policy enacted in August, according to documents obtained by USA TODAY.
The decision to open Army recruiting to those with mental health conditions comes as the service faces the challenging goal of recruiting 80,000 new soldiers through September 2018. To meet last year’s goal of 69,000, the Army accepted more recruits who fared poorly on aptitude tests, increased the number of waivers granted for marijuana use and offered hundreds of millions of dollars in bonuses.
Expanding the waivers for mental health is possible in part because the Army now has access to more medical information about each potential recruit, Lt. Col. Randy Taylor, an Army spokesman, said in a statement. The Army issued the ban on waivers in 2009 amid an epidemic of suicides among troops.
“The decision was primarily due to the increased availability of medical records and other data which is now more readily available,” Taylor’s statement to USA TODAY said. “These records allow Army officials to better document applicant medical histories.”
But accepting recruits with those mental health conditions in their past carries risks, according to Elspeth Ritchie, a psychiatrist who retired from the Army as a colonel in 2010 and is an expert on waivers for military service. People with a history of mental health problems are more likely to have those issues resurface than those who do not, she said.
“It is a red flag,” she said. “The question is, how much of a red flag is it?”
While bipolar disorder can be kept under control with medication, self-mutilation — where people slashing their skin with sharp instruments — may signal deeper mental health issues, according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Health Disorders, which is published by the American Psychiatric Association.
If self-mutilation occurs in a military setting, Ritchie said, it could be disruptive for a unit. A soldier slashing his or her own skin could result in blood on the floor, the assumption of a suicide attempt and the potential need for medical evacuation from a war zone or other austere place.
A legacy of problems
Accepting recruits with poor qualifications can cause problems. In 2006, for example, an Iraqi girl was raped and her family killed by U.S. soldiers, one of whom required waivers for minor criminal activity and poor educational background to join the Army.
Memos and documents obtained by USA TODAY outline the hurdles that a potential recruit must clear to join the Army.
Guidance for screening potential recruits with histories that include self-mutilation make clear that the applicant must provide “appropriate documentation” to obtain the waiver, according a September memo to commanders. Those requirements include a detailed statement from the applicant, medical records, evidence from an employer if the injury was job-related, photos submitted by the recruiter and a psychiatric evaluation and “clearance.”
Slides for military officials who screen recruits show examples of people whose arms, legs and torsos have been scarred by self-mutilation.
“For all waivers,” one memo states, “the burden of proof is on the applicant to provide a clear and meritorious case for why a waiver should be considered.”
Taylor said many “meritorious cases” had been found of highly qualified applicants who had been disqualified because of events that had occurred when they were young children.
“With the additional data available, Army officials can now consider applicants as a whole person, allowing a series of Army leaders and medical professionals to review the case fully to assess the applicant’s physical limitations or medical conditions and their possible impact upon the applicant’s ability to complete training and finish an Army career,” Taylor said. “These waivers are not considered lightly.”
Under the right circumstances, a waiver for self-mutilation could be appropriate, Ritchie said.
“I can see a rationale that that shouldn’t be an absolute but could be a waiver,” she said.
Unknown number of waivers
The Army did not respond to a question of how many waivers, if any, have been issued since the policy was changed.
Data reported by USA TODAY in October show how the Army met its recruiting goals by accepting more marginally qualified recruits.
In fiscal year 2017, the active-duty Army recruited nearly 69,000 soldiers, and only 1.9% belonged to what is known as Category Four. That refers to troops who score in the lowest category on military aptitude tests. In 2016, 0.6% of Army recruits came from Category Four. The Pentagon mandates that the services accept no more than 4% of recruiting classes from Category Four. In addition, waivers for marijuana use, illegal while in uniform, jumped from 191 in 2016 to 506 in 2017. Eight states have legalized recreational use of marijuana.
Recruiting generally is more challenging for the services when the economy is strong. The Army has responded by offering more bonuses to those who sign up for service. In fiscal year 2017, it paid out $424 million in bonuses, up from $284 million in 2016. In 2014, that figure was only $8.2 million. Some recruits can qualify for a bonus of $40,000.
The Army’s decision to rescind the ban for a history of mental health problems is in part a reaction to its difficulties in recruiting, Ritchie said.
“You’re widening your pool of applicants,” she said.
Is a 13-year-old old enough to agree to sex with an adult? That’s a question France is asking as the government prepares to set a legal age for sexual consent for the first time.
Twice in recent weeks, French courts have refused to prosecute men for rape after they had sex with 11-year-old girls because authorities couldn’t prove coercion. Amid the public disbelief over the situation, the French government is drafting a bill to say that sex with children under a certain age is by definition coercive.
Justice Minister Nicole Belloubet provoked consternation among feminist groups Monday by saying a legal minimum age of 13 for sexual consent “is worth considering.”
Activists staged a small protest Tuesday in central Paris to argue that the age of consent should be set at 15. Protesters waved placards that read “for him impunity, for her a life sentence” in reference to the recent cases.
“We want the law to guarantee that before 15 there can be no concept of consent,” prominent French feminist activist Caroline de Haas said.
“I don’t know why (Belloubet) said it,” added Alice Collet, a member of the National Collective for Women’s Rights. “It’s a sign of ignorance of the issues.”
Establishing a legal age of consent is one piece of a pending bill to address sexual violence and harassment in France. The subject of sexual misconduct has drawn fresh attention worldwide since rape and sexual assault allegations were made against Hollywood film producer Harvey Weinstein.
“In America with the Weinstein fallout, there have been legal investigations. But here it has been radio silence from politicians,” said de Haas.
French women have increasingly been speaking out online and to police in recent weeks about past abuse, but no high-profile men in France have lost their jobs or suffered reputational damage so far.
A report Tuesday night in the newspaper Liberation detailed allegations by eight women accusing the former head of the Socialist Party’s youth movement of serial harassment in 2010-2014. The alleged perpetrator, Thierry Marchal-Beck, is quoted as saying that he was “stupefied” by the accusations and threatened possible legal action. It may be too late for the women to press charges under French law.
On Saturday, The New York Times ran yet another execrable op-ed, this time from Professor Ekow Yankah of the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law at Yeshiva University. This op-ed argued that black children should not be friends with white children, and that their parents ought to warn them off of such relationships. This assuredly makes things awkward at Yeshiva University, a Jewish school.
The piece begins with Yankah’s oldest son, who is 4, talking about his friends:
My oldest son, wrestling with a 4-year-old’s happy struggles, is trying to clarify how many people can be his best friend. “My best friends are you and Mama and my brother and …” But even a child’s joy is not immune to this ominous political period. This summer’s images of violence in Charlottesville, Va., prompted an array of questions. “Some people hate others because they are different,” I offer, lamely. A childish but distinct panic enters his voice. “But I’m not different.” It is impossible to convey the mixture of heartbreak and fear I feel for him. Donald Trump’s election has made it clear that I will teach my boys the lesson generations old, one that I for the most part nearly escaped. I will teach them to be cautious, I will teach them suspicion, and I will teach them distrust. Much sooner than I thought I would, I will have to discuss with my boys whether they can truly be friends with white people.
This is insanity. Because Donald Trump was elected, all white people are suspect? Because there were 1,000 evil people marching for an evil cause in Charlottesville, some 200 million white people across America are suspect? This is racism of the highest order. And teaching your children not to be friends with people based on their race is the essence of racism.
But Yankah continues:
Meaningful friendship is not just a feeling. It is not simply being able to share a beer. Real friendship is impossible without the ability to trust others, without knowing that your well-being is important to them. The desire to create, maintain or wield power over others destroys the possibility of friendship. The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s famous dream of black and white children holding hands was a dream precisely because he realized that in Alabama, conditions of dominance made real friendship between white and black people impossible.
Well, no. MLK’s dream was a dream because he wanted to see it fulfilled and believed that it could be. If he didn’t, he would have gone home and joined Malcolm X. But he should have, says Yankah, since “History has provided little reason for people of color to trust white people in this way, and these recent months have put in the starkest relief the contempt with which the country measures the value of racial minorities.”
The piece continues in this vein, citing differential treatment of the opioid epidemic (largely white) vs. the crack cocaine epidemic (largely black), and ignoring the income levels of those affected by the epidemics, which is a serious confound; black underemployment, which Yankah attributes to “robust evidence of continuing racism,” without showing any evidence; policing, which has not been shown to be systemically racist by statistics. Yankah’s conclusion:
As against our gauzy national hopes, I will teach my boys to have profound doubts that friendship with white people is possible. When they ask, I will teach my sons that their beautiful hue is a fault line. Spare me platitudes of how we are all the same on the inside. I first have to keep my boys safe, and so I will teach them before the world shows them this particular brand of rending, violent, often fatal betrayal.
So we are not all the same on the inside. Which is an idea that John C. Calhoun or Richard Spencer might be comfortable with. But Yankah couches his vitriol in the guise of safety preparations for his children:
Of course, the rise of this president has broken bonds on all sides. But for people of color the stakes are different. Imagining we can now be friends across this political line is asking us to ignore our safety and that of our children, to abandon personal regard and self-worth. Only white people can cordon off Mr. Trump’s political meaning, ignore the “unpleasantness” from a position of safety. His election and the year that has followed have fixed the awful thought in my mind too familiar to black Americans: “You can’t trust these people.”…I do not write this with liberal condescension or glee. My heart is unbearably heavy when I assure you we cannot be friends.
The condescension is real, and the glee is palpable. To teach your children not to hope for a day when black and white can be friends – in fact, to teach your children now that such a day isn’t here – is asinine. And to pretend that every Trump voter is replete with hatred is just as asinine. But racism and bigotry are fine so long as they come from the Left, apparently.
Drag queens are being brought into nursery schools for storytelling sessions to teach children from the age of two about issues such as gender fluidity.
Bristol-based organisation Drag Queen Story Time (DQST) runs reading sessions with ‘queer role models’ for young children in schools, libraries and hospitals.
Launched by Bristol University Law graduate Thomas Canham, the project aims to teach children about transgender issues through storytelling, in addition to misogyny, homophobia and racism.
The 26-year-old was inspired to set up the project after learning about a similar scheme in the US named Drag Queen Story Hour.
Nursery bosses said the sessions are needed so that children encounter people “who defy rigid gender restrictions”, according to the Mail on Sunday.
They reportedly want to target two and three-year-olds in order to influence them early against hate crime.
Children this age have not yet developed any discriminatory ‘isms’, it was suggested.
But critics told the Mail that the sessions could “blind impressionable children of two and three to one of the most basic facts of human existence”.
Child psychotherapist Dilys Daws, co-author of the book Finding Your Way With Your Baby, feared the sessions could confuse young children about their own sexual identity.
She said: “There’s this idea that’s sweeping the country that being transgender is an ‘ordinary situation’.
“It’s getting so much publicity that it’s getting children thinking that they might be transgender, when it otherwise wouldn’t have occurred to them.
“But it’s perfectly normal for most young children to think about being the opposite sex. It’s probably because they are identifying with a parent or sibling.”
DQST will hold sessions at seven nurseries run by the London Early Years Foundation (LEYF) over the winter, the newspaper reported.
If successful they are apparently due to be rolled out across the nursery’s 37 sites.
Sessions for the project, which started in May, include drag queens reading books on a wide range of issues, in addition to activities such as face painting or ‘drag discos’.
Drag queens available include Donna La Mode, who is described as “the Fairy Queen of the drag world”.
June O’Sullivan, chief executive of LEYF, told the Mail: “By providing spaces in which children are able to see people who defy rigid gender restrictions, it allows them to imagine the world in which people can present [themselves] as they wish.”
She told BBC London radio it was good to expose very young children to men who dress as women, “because children are very open until about three”.
“At three they begin to absorb all the “isms” that adults have developed very effectively,” she explained.
Violence is endemic to American life. We know this because people are largely inured to it, at least when it happens to other people.
The routine slaughter of young black men over minuscule beefs in Baltimore and Chicago is waved away as some sort of racist myth. Mass killings, meanwhile, happen so frequently that they rarely shock anymore. When Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold killed 12 people at Columbine High School nearly 20 years ago, it stunned the nation. Now, Stephen Paddock murders 58 concertgoers in Las Vegas, and the public and the media quickly move on. Barely a week after the worst mass shooting in America history, Paddock’s atrocity had been relegated to page B-26, next to the legal notices.
The same will probably happen after the church massacre in Texas. (That attack has been described as the “worst massacre at a house of worship in American history.” We have so many mass killings that we break them down by specific location of atrocity.) Unsurprisingly, the U.S. murder rate is much higher than that of other industrialized countries.
People often point to America’s unusually lax gun laws as being solely responsible for the elevated homicide rates. And it’s true that roughly 11,000 Americans are murdered each year by gunshots, according to the CDC. That’s a rate of 3.5 deaths per 100,000 Americans.
The total homicide rate in the U.S., meanwhile, is 5.0 deaths per 100,000, meaning the non-gun homicide rate is 1.5 per 100,000 Americans. And here’s the thing: at 1.5 per 100,000, our murder rate is still higher than many of our peer nations. Sweden’s murder rate is 1.15; Denmark’s is .99; Australia’s, .97; Germany and Greece each have murder rates of .85 per 100,000. Spain comes in it .66, Ireland at .64. Japan’s is an amazing .31 per 100,000.
So even if we removed every gun homicide in America, we would still be significantly more violent than other countries. And in a way, that’s much, much more disturbing than the fiction that America’s violence problem is one of technology, and not of deep societal rot.