On this new special edition of Anni Cyrus’s “Top 10”, Anni focuses on The Top 10 Innocent Women Executed in Iran, asking us to never forget them — and to reflect on the true meaning of Sharia:
And make sure to watch another special Anni Cyrus Top 10 in which Anni discusses the Top 10 Facts About Pre-Islamic Iran, sharing why she is so proud to unveil these facts today — and why the Mullahs never will.
http://jamieglazov.com/2016/08/27/top-10-innocent-women-executed-in-iran-an-anni-cyrus-video/
Note from Dr. John A…..”Bill gets a cool $17.6 million (!!) merely for being an ‘inspiration’ (!!) to students at a for-profit university; university gets favourable treatment from the Administration while Hillary is Secretary of State..”
It’s got all the makings of a conspiracy theory.
After Hillary Clinton became secretary of state, Bill Clinton received $17.6 million in payments from a for-profit university. Since that time, another organization with a connection to that university received almost $90 million in grants from an agency that’s part of the State Department.
Critics of the Clintons have cried foul. But is there really something shady going on?
There is no shortage of connections between the Clintons and Laureate International Universities. Laureate is a for-profit university — the same kind Hillary Clinton has railed against for saddling students with huge debts.
“[Students] find little support once they actually enroll, or they graduate and discover that, when it comes to finding a job, their degree isn’t worth what they thought,” she told an audience last year.
Laureate has about one million students worldwide, mostly in Latin America, with five schools in the United States.
Laureate has faced investigations in Brazil over whether students were getting what they paid for, and in Chile concerning its for-profit status. U.S. students have complained the school failed to deliver on its promised degree programs.
In addition, three of the five schools Laureate operates in the United States are under what the U.S. Department of Education calls “heightened cash monitoring” because of potential problems with its “financial responsibility.” The school told CNN it disagrees with the government’s methodology.
The Clinton campaign told CNN that the candidate intends to hold for-profit colleges accountable.
“Hillary Clinton has made it clear that all for-profit institutions should be held to the same standards and she will crack down on law-breaking for-profits by expanding support for federal regulators to enforce laws against deceptive marketing, fraud, and other illegal practices.”
When classes reconvene at Harvard this fall, the all-female Seneca Organization, which promotes female empowerment among Harvard’s students, will officially go “gender neutral,” in accordance with new Harvard policy guidelines. But it won’t actually have to admit any men.http://heatst.com/culture-wars/all-clubs-at-harvard-have-to-be-gender-neutral-except-womens-clubs/
How does that work? you might ask.
How does that work? you might ask.
Although male-only “final clubs” gear up for war with the administration, which has told them their members won’t be considered for scholarships or leadership positions if they remain male-only, Harvard’s Dean of Student Affairs reportedlyassured the Seneca group that it could “could continue to operate as it always has.” All it has to do is make semantic changes to its bylaws.
“Like Women in Business or Latinas Unidas, although men may apply, our membership can be made up wholly of women without incurring the sanctions of the administration’s new policy,” the group’s leader told Seneca’s members in an email.
The administration insists that Seneca can violate the new rules because it has 501(c)(3) non-profit status, and isn’t “purely social.” But Harvard’s policy seems to carry no such official exceptions; the only quality that invokes the rule’s drastic punishment is that the club is gender-specific.
An attorney who is consulting with one of Harvard’s single-gender final clubs about the policy called the Seneca exception “a very convenient carve-out.”
The new elastic interpretation also seems to coincide with outcry from Harvard’s all-female groups, who want the gender-inclusive policy enforced, just not against them. A group called the Crimson Women’s Coalition has demonstrated against the policy several times, claiming that women’s-only groups are “safe spaces” for female students, and that welcoming men opens those organizations to the possibility of sexual assault.
“By removing… spaces for women, Harvard is making our campus less safe for women,” one student protester told a crowd of demonstrators in May, just after the gender-inclusive policy had passed.
It seems, now, Harvard is actually figuring out how best to accommodate campus feminists.
The sociology department of the University of Pennsylvania is tackling only the most important issues of our time.
It has a paper in the most recent issue of Social Psychology Quarterly examining the various ways zoos are cesspools of dangerous gender stereotypes that parents (intentionally or inadvertently) reinforce with their kids. You’ll have to pay to read the full article (or have a subscription to Social Psychology Quarterly), but you can get the gist of the paper from its abstract.
The study says that adults seem to want to characterize zoo animals according to “binary” gender terminology, forcing the camels and penguins and elephants of this world to conform to either “male” or “female,” even though those particular zoo animals haven’t truly examined whether they would like to identify as their birth gender. Although zoology does allow for checking the actual sex of an animal, adults should, apparently, refrain from referring to zoo animals as a “girl” or a “boy,” unless they’ve asked the said animals.
Another problem: Parents tend to use zoo exhibits to model traditional family roles. The study says “adults mobilize zoo exhibits as props for modeling their own normative gender displays.”
Talking about “mother” and “father” animals, then, forces children to believe in traditional, gender constructs, which could harm their psyches as they grow older. Children will question whether their parents will love them even if they don’t fit a typical gender definition—all because that giraffe was characterized as male or female.
All of this makes the search for one’s place on the gender spectrum a difficult journey, apparently. No doubt, the UPenn sociology department would recommend that signs in zoos be changed to reflect a more fluid approach to wild animal sexuality.
In one generation, Europe will be unrecognizable.
Eastern Europe now has “the largest population loss in modern history”, while Germany overtook Japan by having the world’s lowest birth rate.
Europe, as it is aging, no longer renews its generations, and instead welcomes massive numbers of migrants from the Middle East, Africa and Asia, who are going to replace the native Europeans, and who are bringing cultures with radically different values about sex, science, political power, culture, economy and the relation between God and man.
Deaths that exceed births might sound like science fiction, but they are now Europe’s reality. It just happened. During 2015, 5.1 million babies were born in the EU, while 5.2 million persons died, meaning that the EU for the first time in modern history recorded a negative natural change in its population. The numbers come from Eurostat (the statistical office of the European Union), which since 1961 has been counting Europe’s population. It is official.
There is, however, another surprising number: the European population increased overall from 508.3 million to 510.1 million. Have you guessed why? The immigrant population increased, by about two million in one year, while the native European population was shrinking. It is the substitution of a population. Europe has lost the will to maintain or grow its population. The situation is as demographically as seismic as during the Great Plague of the 14th Century.
This shift is what the British demographer David Coleman described in his study, “Immigration and Ethnic Change in Low-Fertility Countries: A Third Demographic Transition.” Europe’s suicidal birth rate, coupled with migrants who multiply faster, will transform European culture. The declining fertility rate of native Europeans coincides, in fact, with the institutionalization of Islam in Europe and the “re-Islamization” of its Muslims.
In 2015, Portugal recorded the second-lowest birth rate in the European Union (8.3 per 1,000 inhabitants) and negative natural growth of -2.2 per 1,000 inhabitants. Which EU country had the lowest birth rate? Italy. Since the “baby boom” of the 1960s, in the country famous for its large families, the birth rate has more halved. In 2015, the number of births fell to 485,000, fewer than in any other year since the modern Italy was formed in 1861.
Eastern Europe now has “the largest population loss in modern history”, while Germany overtook Japan by having the world’s lowest birth rate, when averaged over past five years. In Germany and Italy, the decreases were particularly dramatic, down -2.3% and -2.7% respectively.
“We are living in a crazy time … in a world of total and absolute chaos … As a growth industry antisemitism has become immense … Europe is under siege … Jeremy Corbyn is promoting the worst form of leftist antisemitism and he himself is a primitive troglodyte … ”
That’s just part of Isi Leibler’s compelling introduction to Dr Manfred Gerstenfeld discussing “the British Disease”.
To quote the uploader of this long video, the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs:
“In recent months, a large number of extreme anti-Semitic expressions by elected representatives of the British Labour Party have come to light. The publicity has forced Labour, which is under the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn, to investigate antisemitism, Islamophobia, and racism in the party. The antisemitism issue is overshadowed by the many consequences of Brexit, which include a major crisis in Labour.
Dr Manfred Gerstenfeld is the former Chairman of the Board of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. His many books deal with European-Israeli and European-Jewish issues. He received the Lifetime Achievement Award by the Journal for the Study of Anti-Semitism, and the International Leadership Award by the Simon Wiesenthal Center.”
David Harsanyi has already written a fine critique about the recent NPR story “Should We Be Having Kids in the Age of Climate Change?”, but the entire NPR article is such a bit of weapons-grade stupidity that as someone who works professionally on energy and climate policy, I need to offer an even more forceful rebuttal.
It’s hard to know what’s more shocking and depressing—that there are large numbers of people out there who take nonsense like this seriously or that our government-funded radio network has reporters credulous enough to report on it without a trace of mockery.
Nobody knows what will happen to our future climate, and you can find estimates from serious scholars ranging from the dire to the optimistic (I lean fairly strongly toward the latter view). But betting that climate will cause catastrophic disruption to human populations, at least in countries like America – changes so disruptive that they would make child-bearing a bad idea – is simply, based on history, a terrible bet. NPR’s piece is a pure form of climate propaganda in which arrogance, both on the part of the reporter and her subjects, masquerades as self-sacrifice.
The article informs us that “scientists and world leaders agree” that a change of over two degrees Celsius ”would trigger cataclysmic consequences” (scientists are agreed on no such thing, and not having crystal balls, it wouldn’t matter if they did agree—they simply can’t know).
One of the stars of the NPR article, Travis Rieder, a bioethicist at Johns Hopkins with one child, claims to know about ethics, but he clearly knows nothing about history, which, at least in the developed world, has been rife with failed predictions of environmental doom and a continued under-estimation of human resiliency (a finding extensively documented 35 years ago by economist Julian Simon and built on by countless scholars since).
Segregation is back. These past few weeks have seen controversy over black-student housing ads for roommates directed to “people of color” only, and over colleges and a law school that created separate class sections restricted for black students.
What is going on? It appears, alas, that public universities have formally reintroduced and made fashionable racial segregation, in the guise of creating safe spaces for “their” minority students — to endorse, fund, and foster black separatism in higher education. And that’s what the University of Connecticut has instituted with its plans to open a dormitory on its Storrs campus, where black male students will be clustered and separated from their peers of other skin colors.
But the last thing that campuses should be doing these days is encouraging racial isolation and stereotyping, along with a sense of grievance and a victim mentality. All that is certain to make race relations at our universities worse, not better.
The claim, according to University of Connecticut officials and documents obtained by us through a freedom-of-information request, is that this housing segregation will help address the lower graduation rates of its black-male students — lower as compared with male students of other colors and with women. But the social science here is iffy and laden with the paternalism, doubletalk, and the soft bigotry of low expectations whereby black men are burdened and labeled as being “at risk.”
UConn boasts that this “choice” of housing is precisely what its black-male students need and want. If so, the decades-old lament of social psychologist Kenneth B. Clark has come full circle: He observed that white racism would have gained its greatest triumph had it been able in the 1950s and 1960s “to persuade its black victims that segregation was not only acceptable but desirable in itself, and that the justification for this separatism was color alone.” Clark’s research on the effects of Jim Crow segregation was prominently cited in the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education, which struck down segregation on the ground that separate public schools are “inherently unequal.”
Nonetheless, UConn sought and got a grant from a private educational foundation to fund the “special” dorm. Only after criticism from us and a few others, including two members of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, did UConn change its public rhetoric — explaining that the dorm would be “open” to any students who identified with the African-American male experience. But there’s no doubt that racial classifications will be used and racial segregation encouraged.
‘Confidentiality”?
Yes, that’s the State Department’s story on why the Obama administration is stonewalling the American people regarding the president’s illegal and increasingly suspicious Iransom payoff. The administration refuses to divulge any further information about the $1.7 billion the president acknowledges paying the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism.
Grilled on Wednesday about how Obama managed to pay the final $1.3 billion installment — particularly given the president’s claim that it is not possible to send Tehran a check or wire-transfer — State Department spokesman Mark Toner decreed that the administration would continue “withholding this information” in order “to protect confidentiality.”
Whose confidentiality? The mullahs’? That of the intermediaries the president used? Whose privacy takes precedence over our right to know how Obama funneled our money to our enemies?
The closest thing to an answer we have to the latest round of questions comes courtesy of the perseverance of the investigative journalist Claudia Rosett. (You weren’t expecting the Republican Congress to be minding the purse, were you?)
Recall that we have been asking about the $1.3 billion payment since the first revelations about this sordid affair. After all, if, as Obama and his toadies maintain, the payment is totally on the up and up — just a routine legal settlement involving Iran’s own money — then why won’t they answer basic questions about it?
Why are such matters as the administration’s process in tapping a congressionally appropriated funding source for the settlement — a settlement Congress did not approve and seems to be in the dark about paying for — being treated as if they were state secrets so sensitive you’d need have a Clinton.mail account (or be a Russian hacker of a Clinton.mail account) to see them?
Generally speaking, the State, Treasury, and Justice Departments cannot issue press releases fast enough to salute themselves over legal settlements that supposedly benefit taxpayers by billions of dollars — at least according to the same math that brought you all those Obamacare savings. How is it that, in what is purportedly a completely aboveboard legal case, we are not permitted to know how our own money was transferred to the jihadist plaintiff?
With the administration taking the Fifth, it was left to Claudia to crawl through Leviathan’s catacombs. In her New York Sun report on Monday, we learned that she hit pay dirt: stumbling upon a bizarre string of 13 identical money transfers of $99,999,999.99 each — yes, all of them one cent less than $100 million — paid out of an obscure Treasury Department stash known as the “Judgment Fund.” The transfers were made — to whom, it is not said — on January 19, just two days after the administration announced it had reached the $1.7 billion settlement with Iran. They aggregate to just 13 cents shy of $1.3 billion, the same amount the State Department claims Iran was owed in “interest” from the $400 million that our government had been holding since the shah deposited it in a failed arms deal just prior to the Khomeini revolution.
So, stacked atop of the pallets of $400 million in foreign cash that Obama arranged to shuttle from Geneva to Tehran as ransom (or, as the administration prefers, “leverage”) for the release of American hostages — via an unmarked cargo plane belonging to Iran Air, a terrorist arm of the mullahs’ terrorist coordinator, the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps — we now have a second whopping money transfer that (a) violates federal criminal laws against providing things of value to Iran and (b) looks like it was conceived by Nicky Barnes.
A week ago in Minneapolis, Republican donors attending a Trump fundraiser were assaulted, robbed and spat upon by a violent leftist mob as they were leaving the event. Attendees say that even though there was a strong law enforcement presence at the convention center downtown where the fundraiser was held, they were not afforded any police protection when coming to and leaving the event — and even more incredibly, there were no arrests.
Many people who attended the event told Fox 9 that police seemed to back down from intervening, but the Minneapolis Police Department insists there was no stand-down order.
Twin Cities News Talk TCNT morning hosts Andrew Lee and MN state Senator David Osmek took calls on Monday from attendees who also said that the police seemed to be holding back. One male attendee claimed he was told by more than one officer that law enforcement had been ordered to “stand down” — and that the order had “come from the top.”
The first caller, Carol, said that as attendees were leaving, they were urged to use alternative doors because the protesters were by the front doors. Because it was raining outside, she wrapped her autographed Trump sign in her sweater so it wouldn’t get wet.
“When we came out on the sidewalk, there weren’t any protesters,” she said. But it didn’t take long for the mob to figure out what was happening. “We were ambushed,” she continued. “They came running at us — I was grabbed. Women with bandannas over their noses and mouths screamed obscenities at us.” She noted that she didn’t see any police in the immediate area.
Carol said that when she screamed, the thugs mocked her and called her a “white supremacist.” She said that when she wrestled herself away, her Trump sign became uncovered. When the protesters saw it, she said she ran really fast across the street and that once she crossed the street, the mob stopped pursuing her.
Another caller, Cynthia, said she was dropped off about a block away from the convention center because her driver didn’t want to get in close proximity to the intimidating mob.
Top Stories @ Fox News