Search This Blog

Loading...

Saturday, September 24, 2016

The Myth Called ‘Race

iStock_89333691_MEDIUM__1474727031_71.164.139.145

It's often said, "There is only one race -- the human race." While the phrase has become almost cliche in repetition, it happens to be 100 percent accurate, both scientifically and theologically speaking.

From Ferguson to Baltimore, Tulsa to Charlotte -- and on college campuses from coast-to-coast -- a great divide is sweeping America. It is fueled largely, if not entirely, by half-truths and outright lies. Truth is irrelevant. Only the narrative matters. When "Hands Up Don't Shoot(TM)" can do so very much to further "the cause," it matters not that it represents a holocaust-denial-level of detachment from reality.

Which tells you everything you need to know about the cause.

This is by design. These embers of racial division are purposely fanned to a red-hot flame by certain political leaders, "social justice" warriors and "community organizers" (cut principally from the same ideological cloth) in order to permanently ingrain a turbulent level of cultural division based solely upon the varying shades of people's skin. This, in turn, is intended to provoke widespread governmental dependency and, thus, one-party political control in perpetuity.

Yet, even at its core the idea of racial division, of race itself, is a myth. To sub-divide humanity based upon nothing more than varying levels of skin pigmentation is to rely upon the weakest of genetic markers.

And "race" really does signify nothing more than skin color.

Science dispels the myth of 'race'

In a Feb. 5 Scientific American articletitled, "Race is a Social Construct, Scientists Argue," journalist Megan Gannon writes, "Today, the mainstream belief among scientists is that race is a social construct without biological meaning. And yet, you might still open a study on genetics in a major scientific journal and find categories like 'white' and 'black' being used as biological variables."

"In an article published today (Feb. 4) in the journal Science," continues Gannon, "four scholars say racial categories are weak proxies for genetic diversity and need to be phased out."

"It's a concept we think is too crude to provide useful information, it's a concept that has social meaning that interferes in the scientific understanding of human genetic diversity, and it's a concept that we are not the first to call upon moving away from," notes Michael Yudell, professor of public health at Drexel University in Philadelphia. Under the latest genetic research, race is "understood to be a poorly defined marker of that diversity and an imprecise proxy for the relationship between ancestry and genetics," he adds.

While not directly involved with the research, Dr. Svante Paabo, a biologist and director of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Germany, agrees wholeheartedly with its findings. "What the study of complete genomes from different parts of the world has shown is that even between Africa and Europe, for example, there is not a single absolute genetic difference, meaning no single variant where all Africans have one variant and all Europeans another one, even when recent migration is disregarded."

Still, as the researchers likewise note, "Assumptions about genetic differences between people of different races have had obvious social and historical repercussions." Indeed, there are those on both extremes of the political spectrum with a vested interest in making sure these social and historical repercussions remain as inflamed and catastrophic as possible.

"Race" is a divisive means to a selfish political end.

It is not a scientific reality.

God's final word on 'race'

We love labels. We love to pit people against one another and lump them into neat, fixed little categories of put-upons, most often based upon outward appearances: black vs. white; Hispanic vs. Asian; tall vs. short; skinny vs. fat; old vs. young; abled vs. disabled, and so on.

Yet these divisions are artificial. They're man-made. Every human being is created by a holy God, in His image and likeness, and imbued by Him with infinite worth and import. There is only one true and transcendent physical division, and that division was both created and intended by God to become reconciled (as one flesh) through the holy bonds of marriage - this, to propagate the human race: "So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them" (Genesis 1:27).

Male and female. The XY and the XX. Immutable distinctions with a beautiful and bountiful difference. That's it. All other physical divisions, especially racial divisions, remain artificial.

Our bodies, you see, are merely outward shells. As the great Scottish author and theologian George MacDonald once wrote, "Never tell a child 'you have a soul.' Teach him, you are a soul; you have a body."

We are souls. We have a body -- an outward shell or "earth suit" as one of my favorite professors used to say. Why on God's earth are we so deceived to believe that we must separate ourselves and hate one another based upon superficial, almost cosmetic outward appearances?

"I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them" (Romans 16:17).

To be sure, Christ Jesus alone can dissolve these divisions. "For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him" (Romans 10:12).

These are not financial riches, but riches of love, life Spirit and salvation.

As a man with an Italian wife, a black sister-in-law, a Filipino uncle and biologically related half Filipino cousins, a step-grandmother who illegally immigrated from Mexico, biologically related half Mexican aunts and uncles, and dozens of foster brothers and sisters from across the globe, I have learned firsthand throughout my life that "race" is truly meaningless -- it's less than skin deep.

Until we learn this as a nation, we will remain a nation divided.

Yes, love is the answer. "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another" (John 13:34).

There is no political fix to this problem.

It's a spiritual problem, requiring a spiritual fix.

And His name is Jesus.

 

Matt Barber is founder and editor-in chief of BarbWire.com. He is author of "Hating Jesus: The American Left's War on Christianity," a columnist, a cultural analyst and an attorney concentrating in constitutional law. Having retired as an undefeated heavyweight professional boxer, Matt has taken his fight from the ring to the culture war. (Follow Matt on Twitter: @jmattbarber).


Read More Here

Why isn't Hillary Clinton 50 points behind?

Mainstream Conservatives and the Alt-Right

Lawmakers Vow to Override Obama’s Veto of Sept. 11 Bill

Obama Saudi Arabia_perr__1474718746_71.164.139.145

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Democrats and Republicans are vowing to decisively override President Barack Obama’s veto of a bill to allow families of Sept. 11 victims to sue the government of Saudi Arabia for the kingdom’s alleged backing of the terrorists who killed nearly 3,000 people.

Obama rejected the bill Friday, warning of a host of unintended and severe consequences if it were enacted. The legislation, according to Obama, could leave American troops and diplomats overseas vulnerable to lawsuits in foreign courts from people seeking redress for actions taken by armed groups that are backed or trained by the United States.

The bill’s proponents disputed Obama’s rationale, arguing the measure is narrowly tailored and applies only to acts of terrorism that occur on U.S. soil.

“This is a disappointing decision that will be swiftly and soundly overturned in Congress,” said Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., who sponsored the bill. “If the Saudis did nothing wrong, they should not fear this legislation. If they were culpable in 9/11, they should be held accountable.”

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, another of the bill’s sponsor, criticized Obama for failing to listen to the families of the victims and said he looked forward to the opportunity for Congress to override the veto.

The bill, which has strained already tense relations with a key Middle East ally, passed the House by voice vote earlier this month. The measure cleared the Senate in May, also by voice vote.

Saudi Foreign Minister Adel bin Ahmed Al-Jubeir had warned lawmakers they were on a path to turning “the world for international law into the law of the jungle.”

Saudi Arabia had no immediate comment Friday on the veto, which came two days after the Senate voted convincingly to back a $1.15 billion sale of American weapons to the kingdom.

The legislation gives victims’ families the right to sue in U.S. court for any role that elements of the Saudi government may have played in the 2001 attacks that killed thousands in New York, the Washington, D.C., area and Pennsylvania. Under the terms of the bill, courts would be permitted to waive a claim of foreign sovereign immunity when an act of terrorism occurs inside U.S. borders.

Fifteen of the 19 Sept. 11 hijackers were Saudi nationals, and speculation continues to persist over links at least a few of them had to other Saudis, including government officials. The allegations were never substantiated by U.S. investigations into the attacks.

Hillary Clinton broke with Obama over the legislation, saying Friday through a spokesman she would sign the bill if she were president. A spokesman, Jesse Lehrich, said the Democratic presidential nominee supports efforts to “hold accountable those responsible” for the attacks.

Donald Trump criticized Obama for the veto and also promised to sign the bill if elected president.

A two-thirds majority vote is required in the House and Senate to override a veto. Obama has vetoed nine bills during his two terms in office. None has been overridden.

The Senate’s top Republican, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, said earlier this week that “our assumption is that the veto will be overridden.” His spokesman, David Popp, said Friday the Senate will consider the veto override “as soon as practicable in this work period.”

With no recorded votes on the bill, it’s unclear exactly how many members will back the override. There could be lawmakers having second thoughts about bucking the president after Defense Secretary Ash Carter gave weight to concerns the bill could backfire on service members.

Carter said during testimony Thursday before the Senate Armed Services Committee that it could be a problem if another country was “to behave reciprocally towards the United States.”

In a letter Friday to his GOP colleagues, Rep. Mac Thornberry of Texas, the Republican chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, amplified the military’s concerns and urged Republicans to study the bill’s consequences. He said he opposes the legislation.

“The risks of discovery or trial in foreign courts, including the questioning of government employees under oath, will disclose sensitive information and subject Americans to legal jeopardy of various kinds,” Thornberry said.

But Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., said he is confident Congress will overwhelmingly override Obama’s veto.

“This veto denies Americans the opportunity to hold those evil extremists accountable through the very system of justice that they tried -- and failed -- to strike down,” Blumenthal said.

___

Follow Richard Lardner on Twitter: http://twitter.com/rplardner

 

Copyright 2016 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.


Read More Here

Obama Used Pseudonym to Email Hillary’s Private Server

Businessman scrolling with the thumb on the smartphone. He is sitting on the desk at the office. Hand and smartphone are in focus.

President Barack Obama used a pseudonym when communicating with then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton by email, and at least one of those emails ended up on Clinton's private email server, new FBI documents reveal.

The FBI dumped a large batch of documents Friday concerning its investigation into Clinton's private email server. The heavily-redacted documents include numerous notes the Bureau made of interviews with Clinton aides and Department of State officials concerning her private email server.

One of those interviews is with Clinton aide Huma Abedin. During the interview, the FBI presented Abedin with an email exchange between Clinton and a person she did not recognize. Eventually, the FBI revealed the unknown person's name was believed to be a pseudonym used by Obama. The revelation provoked consternation from Abedin.

"How is this not classified?" She said, before asking for a copy of the email herself.

The FBI documents do not reveal what Obama's pseudonym was, or what was in the text of the email. The subject, "Re: Congratulations," combined with the date (June 28, 2012) suggests it may have been about the Supreme Court's ruling upholding the constitutionality of Obamacare.

The email was never previously released, with lawyers citing "presidential communications privilege" to avoid turning them over under the Freedom of Information Act.

The revelation raises questions about Obama's claim that he knew nothing about Clinton's private email server. When news of the server started to emerge in 2015, Obama said he learned about it by watching the news just like everybody else did. Obama has never denied knowing Clinton's email address, though since it used the domain "clintonemail.com," that would be a giveaway to an observant person that Hillary was using a non-government email.

It's also unclear what reason Obama had for using a pseudonym, though he wasn't the only person to use one. Notably, Clinton's daughter Chelsea Clinton frequently went by the alias "Diane Reynolds."

 

Follow Blake on Twitter. Send tips to blake@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Copyright 2016 Daily Caller News Foundation


Read More Here

Friday, September 23, 2016

The Justice Department’s Hillary Investigation Reeks Of Corruption

The Associated Press is reporting that the FBI had reached criminal immunity deals with three of Hillary Clinton’s close advisers in exchange for information that could have been attained through subpoenas or search warrants – or, perhaps, simply by asking.

Since I’m not a lawyer, though, I’m assuming there are rational, completely non-corrupt explanations for why the FBI surrendered all its leverage granting immunity to Cheryl Mills, and two other high ranking staff members – all potential co-conspirators in a criminal case.

After all, Clinton’s former chief of staff, Mills, was granted immunity in exchange for the kind cooperation any non-guilty person would freely offer. According to a number of reports, Mills was given partial immunity in exchange for handing over her computer – which might have proved she too illegally handled classified information. Does the Justice Department regularly grant immunity for mere cooperation? If Mills was the beneficiary of immunity before the FBI even knew what was on her computer, what influence would prosecutors have to impel her to give up the target of the investigation should they find illegality?

And how often is a political operative like Mills granted immunity and then allowed to represent the target of the investigation in an interview with the investigators and Congress?

Mills is widely reported as one of Clinton’s closest confidants, her former chief-of-staff; a person who is likely to be thoroughly familiar with Hillary’s illegal private email system – even helping set it up and dismantle it. And yet, as Andrew McCarthy noted back in May, the Justice Department had worked with Mills’ lawyers to block the FBI from asking pertinent questions about the case. Why would the Justice Department limit the scope of questioning?

This question is especially significant when you consider that the FBI had to engage in forensic searches to recover tens of thousands of emails that Hillary and her staff tried to delete after news of the private server became public. These are government records that were illegally hidden and deleted. Some of them are still being recovered. Some of them will never be recovered.

Here’s FBI Director James Comey’s surreal statement arguing that Hillary was completely guilty but not prosecutable:

It is also likely that there are other work-related e-mails that they did not produce to State and that we did not find elsewhere, and that are now gone because they deleted all e-mails they did not return to State, and the lawyers cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery.

Here’s what he forgot to mention: One of the people tasked with deciding which of emails were deleted and retained was Heather Samuelson, who, if reports are correct, was also given immunity before anyone got to look at her computer. Again, I’m no lawyer, but it seems to me she’d be a really useful person to have leverage over if she broke the law. I’m sure there’s a good explanation for why Samuelson was preemptively given immunity.

Also, let’s not forget that Hillary’s technology director at the State Department, who it looks like was on Reddit seeking advice on how to wipe servers clean, and who is now in contempt of Congress for refusing to testify, also got himself an immunity deal from the Department of Justice.

Does this strike an open-minded person like an investigation seriously concerned about getting to the truth?

Reminder: According to the FBI, Clinton, who spent years on the foreign relations committee and was Secretary of State of the United States of America and who is more qualified than any person who’s ever run for president, sent 110 emails that contained clearly marked classified information. Thirty-six of them contained secret information. Eight of those email chains contained “top secret” information. Comey, you’ll remember, claimed that hackers working for foreign nations probably had access to her emails, but would have been far too sophisticated to leave behind any evidence – which is the very reason we have laws about the mishandling classified information, in the first place.

Hillary is above these laws. She was never going to be indicted. Now we know none of her friends had to worry, either.


Read More Here

The New Rules of Engagement

The Seattle Mariners have suspendedutility player Steve Clevenger for the remainder of the baseball season for tweets that are critical of President Obama and the Black Lives Matter hell-raisers and looters in Charlotte.

Clevenger’s tweets include such as “Black people beating whites when a thug got shot holding a gun by a black police officer” and,  “Black Lives Matter is pathetic again! Obama you are pathetic once again! Everyone should be locked behind bars like animals.”

Of course Clevenger’s employers, the Seattle Mariners, immediately defended his right of free expression, just as Colin Kaepernick’s employers, the entire sports media, and the President of the United States did for him.

Ha ha — just kidding.

After reviving from fainting dead away, Mariners GM Jerry DiPoto decided to cast Clevenger into outer darkness, issuing this statement on the matter: “While he (Clevenger) is certainly free to express himself, his tweets do not in any way represent the opinion of the Seattle Mariners. We strongly disagree with the language and tone of his comments.” DiPoto’s statement did not include, but in all honesty should have included: “And because he did not choose the progressive, politically correct side of this issue, we have fired his sorry ass.”

This latest incident should clarify, for those who haven’t caught on yet, what the new rules of engagement are for athletes: Rip the country that has made you rich and famous as well as the police who keep you safe, support the crackpot Black Lives Matter narrative, and you’re a cultural hero, the toast of the media, and saluted by the president. Tell the truth about Obama and Black Lives Matter and you’re out of a job.

For contrast, read San Francisco Forty-Niners Coach Chip Kelly’s defense of Kaepernick: “You look at what’s gone on in Tulsa and Charlotte the last two nights, it’s an issue that’s at the forefront of our country. It needs to be addressed, it needs to be taken care of. Because what’s going on is not right. So, I think, again, he is shedding light on the situation that is heinous and shouldn’t happen in this country. We all have inalienable rights as a citizen of this country. They’re being violated and that’s what I think Colin is standing up for.”

I expect Clevenger, and millions of other Americans, would agree that “what’s going on is not right.” But in today’s big media and sports worlds, there is only one allowable view of what’s not right. Clevenger stood up for the wrong view.

 


Read More Here