RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://pjmedia.com/culture/gwendolynsims/2021/06/03/disturbing-report-suggests-pornography-exposure-doesnt-harm-children-n1451955

Did you know that online pornography isn’t bad for our children? Heck no, according to a report released by the UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF) exposure to pornography even makes some children feel happy feelings.

What could be wrong with that? We want our children to be happy, right?

The report, “Digital Age Assurance Tools and Children’s Rights Online across the Globe,” discussed the technical, legal, cultural, and policy uses of online age verification tools on internet sites involved with pornography, gaming, and social media.

Ultimately, the report concluded that online age verification tools warranted further study and development. As they are now, the age verification tools are ineffective at best and they may intrinsically violate the rights of children at worst. That’s pretty non-disturbing, right?

The disturbing part was hidden in the conclusion of the section on pornography that asked, “What is the evidence of risk and harm?” That section took it one step further by suggesting that there may not actually be any harm:

The 2020 EU Kids Online study compared survey findings from 19 European countries and found that in most countries, most children who saw sexual images online were neither upset nor happy (ranging from 27 per cent in Switzerland to 72 per cent in Lithuania); between 10 per cent and 4 per cent were fairly or very upset; and between 3 per cent of children (in Estonia) and 39 per cent (in Spain) reported feeling happy after seeing such images.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2021/06/lefts-urgent-mission-sexualize-kids-mark-tapson/

During a speech at Joint Base Langley-Eustice in Hampton, Virginia last Friday, listless President Joe Biden drifted into a strange reverie addressed to a female child in the audience, daughter of guest Brittany Bean, the wife of a soldier currently deployed in Afghanistan.

“I love those barrettes in your hair, man. I tell you what, look at her. She looks like she’s 19 years old sitting there like a little lady with her legs crossed,” Biden mused breathlessly. The little girl looked to be no older than perhaps seven years old.

This deeply disturbing behavior is not atypical of the 78-year-old Biden, who has a long, well-documented history of cringe-worthy touching and sniffing of girls and women in public. It is so typical, in fact, that this leering in the middle of his speech didn’t even raise an eyebrow among his fellow Democrats, particularly in the activist news media, who did not report on it. Imagine the apoplectic outrage if Biden’s comments had been made instead by former President Donald Trump, whom the media routinely demonized as a sexual predator for a boastful comment he made about grown women, not little girls, in a private conversation ten years before he was president.

But then, why should the left find Biden’s apparent sexualization of children inappropriate? After all, sexualizing little children ranks very high on their anti-family agenda.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/texas-bars-protest-civics-and-crt/?utm_source=recirc-desktop&utm_medium=homepage&utm_campaign=river&utm_content=featured-content-trending&utm_term=second

The Texas legislature has just passed House Bill 3979, a landmark education bill. It is the first law in the country barring not only the core concepts of Critical Race Theory (CRT) from K–12 schools, but “protest civics” as well. The practice of protest civics — mandatory student protests and lobbying after school (invariably for leftist causes) — is every bit as much a threat to K–12 schools as CRT. Even if every state legislature in the country were to bar CRT, the federal civics bills being considered right now in Congress could still force leftist indoctrination on the states via protest civics. That is why the passage of Texas H.B. 3979 is so important.

The momentum coming out of Texas is significant. Already, Ohio representative Don Jones has introduced a bill broadly similar to what just passed in Texas. Other states are considering legislation that also take on both protest civics and CRT. We may soon see a wave of expanded K–12 protections sweep over the states. That means the news out of Texas — and now Ohio as well — is very good.

That said, the Texas bill emerged from its legislative struggle a bit raggedy. Democrats fought the measure tooth and nail. While they failed to undo the protections against protest civics and CRT, Democrats did manage to weigh the bill down with a long, scattershot list of readings that inappropriately forces a detailed and highly debatable curriculum onto local districts. Quite apart from arguments about the readings themselves, states should not dictate curriculum to districts at this level of specificity. Democrats also managed to block a number of important technical fixes to the bill.

None of this is prohibitive. Governor Abbott should certainly sign H.B. 3979. Abbott would be well-advised, however, to pare down the vastly over-extended list of required readings and make some additional technical fixes during September’s special session.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/banning-critical-race-theory-11622670206?mod=opinion_featst_pos1

An emerging reality of the current American presidency is that any normalcy Joe Biden may have promised was entirely fake.

The latest exhibit is the first anniversary of George Floyd’s murder in Minneapolis occurring as about six states are enacting or planning restrictions on teaching what Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and Gov. Kristi Noem of South Dakota are calling “critical race theory.”

This was the sort of hyper-polarization Mr. Biden was supposed to arbitrate. Instead, he marches leftward, covering his trail with pixie-dust rhetoric.

As always, it defaults to the media to substitute its own explanations for the country’s social tension. Two reporters for the New York Times connected the dots in a piece this week: “Republicans’ attacks on critical race theory are in sync with the party’s broad strategy to run on culture-war issues in the 2022 midterm elections.” Little wonder so many say they are tuning out politics and the media. The reductionism is hopeless.

This new divide is a textbook example of the Founding Fathers’ (if one may still cite them) fears about destructive political factions. “By a faction,” James Madison wrote in his now constantly cited Federalist No. 10, he meant citizens “who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens” (emphasis added). We are there.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2021/06/ami-loose-video-duke-university-north-carolina-frontpage-editors/

Filmmaker Ami Horowitz is back with another “Ami on the Loose” video exposé. This time he catches a shameful, major antisemitism conference on film! Check out the short video below:

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2021/06/rutgers-university-surrenders-anti-semitic-pro-joseph-klein/

Anti-Semitic attacks against Jews in the United States have surged since the latest war between Israel and Palestinian terrorists in Gaza erupted last month. People of good will, regardless of their religion, ethnicity, or background, would condemn such hate crimes because they represent a dark blot on our common humanity. New Jersey’s Rutgers University-New Brunswick did just that at first and condemned anti-Semitism – the world’s oldest continuing form of bigotry. But in a blink of the eye Rutgers’ high-level administrators bowed to pressure from the anti-Semitic Rutgers Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) and apologized for having done the right thing. We are living in a sick society when a major public university cowers to anti-Semites and walks back its clear condemnation of anti-Semitism that has exploded to the surface once again.

On May 26th, the chancellor of Rutgers University-New Brunswick, Christopher J. Molloy, and the provost, Francine Conway, released a statement declaring, “We are saddened by and greatly concerned about the sharp rise in hostile sentiments and anti-Semitic violence in the United States.” The statement condemned other forms of bigotry as well, but its focus on anti-Semitism enraged the hate-filled Rutgers branch of the Students for Justice in Palestine. They demanded an apology from the university’s administration for daring to express compassion and concern for Jews being harassed – even beaten – simply because they are Jews. It is no surprise that SJP is serving as the propaganda arm on U.S. campuses for both the Hamas terrorists and the pro-Palestinian mobs who are largely responsible for the most recent hate crimes against Jews in the United States.

Indeed, caravans of pro-Palestinians launched unprovoked attacks on Jews in New York City, Los Angeles, and places in between. The Jew-haters have been out in force in New Brunswick where the Rutgers campus that Chancellor Molloy and Provost Conway represent is located. Rutgers Hillel has reported that ”in New Brunswick in recent weeks, identifiably Jewish students have been verbally assaulted” and that some of them have had their car tires slashed. AEPi House, a Jewish fraternity, had been previously vandalized on Holocaust Memorial Day.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2021/06/muslim-prof-claims-islamic-scholars-have-placed-andrew-harrod/

Islamic scholars historically have placed “too much emphasis on jihad as basically a violent” rather than nonviolent doctrine, stated Mount Holyoke College international relations professor Sohail Hashmi in an April 11 webinar. Hosted by the Muslim group Critical Connections in Hashmi’s Pioneer Valley region of Massachusetts, his lucid lecture on “Jihad vs Just War: A Comparative Analysis” provided detailed, disturbing insight into Islamic doctrines of jihad warfare.

As in a previously analyzed webinar, Critical Connections founder Mehlaqa Samdani moderated and worried in her introduction about “Islamophobic groups” dominating discussion of hot-button issues like jihad. Her “Islamophobia” reference ironically recalled the religiously repressive nature of the terrorism-sponsoring Islamic Republic of Pakistan, the home of her co-moderator, Karachi University student Rutaba Tariq. She represented Pakistan’s branch of the Model Organization of Islamic Cooperation (MOIC), a student affiliate of the OIC, whose fifty-seven member states (including “Palestine”) have long sought to ban “Islamophobic” criticism of Islam worldwide. While Hashmi took no critical notice of the OIC, she encouraged viewers to join MOIC; additionally, Georgetown University professor John L. Esposito, an apologist for these efforts and all things Islamist, made a brief cameo appearance.

Yet Hashmi’s presentation did not deny that serious concerns about jihad are well-founded, not irrational, even as he claimed that Christian just war and Islamic jihad doctrines are “extremely alike.” He argued that Jesus’ teachings in the New Testament are “very heavily biased in the pacifist direction,” such that Christian thinkers developed just war theory largely on the basis of self-defense in natural law. More disturbingly, although “jihad is a very broad concept,” which “means simply to struggle,” in the eighth-ninth centuries Islam’s “classical jurists spent most of their time talking about what we could call an expansionist or an offensive jihad.”

This was a “jihad to expand the Islamic empire, to expand the realm of Dar al-Islam,” Hashmi noted. The “fundamental aspect of Dar al-Islam is that this is the territory where Islamic law is supreme” and “Muslims are not necessarily the majority.” Thus Muslim-conquered areas like Mesopotamia and Egypt “remained primarily non-Muslim for centuries,” he explained.

This “imperialist jihad” in the classical view, Hashmi explained, would supposedly benefit non-Muslim “benighted peoples.” “Once non-Muslims had lived under the benefits of this divine law, of this Islamic law, they would of their own accord realize the merits of Islam, the religion, and they would of their own accord, of their own free will, convert to Islam,” he said. He later specified how the modern Islamic Republic of Iran’s constitution advocates the “spread of an Islamic community of nations.”

https://www.jns.org/opinion/anti-semitism-at-rutgers-isnt-all-academic/

(June 1, 2021 / JNS) It’s a little hard to combat a phenomenon by kowtowing to its promoters, but leave it to academia to make a feeble attempt at doing so. Having spent the past few decades favoring sophistry over the imparting of knowledge, American institutions of higher learning are well-versed in double-speak.
Imagine their surprise, then, when even their best efforts at intellectual manipulation are met with derision by the very “woke” bullies whom they aim to please. Take the latest brouhaha at New Jersey-based Rutgers University as a case in point.

It all began on May 26, when the school’s chancellor, Christopher Molloy, and its provost, Francine Conway, issued a joint statement “against acts of anti-Semitism.”
In an e-mail addressed to the “Rutgers-New Brunswick Community,” Molloy and Conway wrote: “We are saddened by and greatly concerned about the sharp rise in hostile sentiments and anti-Semitic violence in the United States. Recent incidents of hate directed toward Jewish members of our community again remind us of what history has to teach us. Tragically, in the last century alone, acts of prejudice and hatred left unaddressed have served as the foundation for many atrocities against targeted groups around the world.”
Taking care to eliminate the particularity of anti-Semitism—a no-no in intersectional circles that consider the Jews to be born of “white privilege”—the two Rutgers honchos hastily turned their attention to George Floyd. His “murder” last year, they asserted, “brought into sharp focus the racial injustices that continue to plague our country, and over the past year there has [sic] been attacks on our Asian American Pacific Islander citizens, the spaces of Indigenous peoples defiled, and targeted oppression and other assaults against Hindus and Muslims.”
Patting themselves on the back for having paid required homage to any and all victims of “racial injustices,” they didn’t bother with something as banal as proofreading, but at least felt safe enough to return to their original subject.
“Although it has been nearly two decades since the U.S. Congress approved the Global Anti-Semitism Review Act, the upward trend of anti-Semitism continues,” they stated. This was right before going on to equate the Jewish state with the terrorists bent on its annihilation.
“We have also been witnesses to the increasing violence between Israeli forces and Hamas in the Middle East leading to the deaths of children and adults and mass displacement of citizens in the Gaza region and the loss of lives in Israel,” they wrote.
They continued by mentioning the general, rather than specific, “death, destruction and ethnic strife” caused by the “ravages of the pandemic and proliferation of global conflict,” boasting that “the university stands as a beacon of hope for our community … a model for institutions that respect and value the dignity of every human being.”
You get the gist, which is that the Rutgers administration wanted to stress its denunciation of “acts of hate and prejudice against members of the Jewish community and any other targeted and oppressed groups on our campus and in our community.”