Television and Violence

link

JAMA, June 10, 1992--Vol 267, No. 22

Special Communication
Television and Violence
The Scale of the Problem and Where to Go From Here
Brandon S. Centerwall, MD, MPH

IN 1975, Rothenberg's Special Communication in JAMA, "Effect of Television Violence on Children and Youth," first alerted the medical community to the deforming effects the viewing of television violence has on normal child development, increasing levels of physical aggressiveness and violence.¹ In response to physicians' concerns sparked by Rothenberg's communication, the 1976 American Medical Association (AMA) House of Delegates passed Resolution 38: "The House declares TV violence threatens the health and welfare of young Americans, commits itself to remedial actions with interested parties, and encourages opposition to TV programs containing violence and to their sponsors."²

Other professional organizations have since come to a similar conclusion, including the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Psychological Association. In light of recent research findings, in 1990 the American Academy of Pediatrics issued a policy statement: "Pediatricians should advise parents to limit their children's television viewing to 1 to 2 hours per day." Rothenberg's communication was largely based on the findings of the 1968 National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence⁵ and the 1972 Surgeon General's report, Television and Growing Up: The Impact of Televised Violence.⁶Those findings were updated and reinforced by the 1982 report of the National Institute of Mental Health, Television and Behavior: Ten Years of Scientific Progress and Implications for the Eighties, again documenting a broad consensus in the scientific literature that exposure to television violence increases children's physical aggressiveness.⁷ Each of these governmental inquiries necessarily left open the question of whether this increase in children's physical aggressiveness would later lead to increased rates of violence. Although there had been dozens of laboratory investigations and short-term field studies (3 months or less), few long-term field studies (2 years or more) had been completed and reported. Since the 1982 National Institute of Mental Health report, long-term field studies have come into their own, some 20 having now been published.⁸


In my commentary, I discuss television's effects within the context of normal child development; give an overview of natural exposure to television as a cause of aggression and violence; summarize my own research findings on television as a cause of violence; and suggest a course of action....
All Canadian and US studies of the effect of prolonged childhood exposure to television (2 years or more) demonstrate a positive relationship between earlier exposure to television and later physical aggressiveness, although not all studies reach statistical significance.⁸The critical period of exposure to television is preadolescent childhood. Later variations in exposure, in adolescence and adulthood, do not exert any additional effect.^23,24 However, the aggression-enhancing effect of exposure to television is chronic, extending into later adolescence and adulthood.^8,25 This implies that any interventions should be designed for children and their caregivers rather than for the general adult population....

The Failure of Modern Public Education

THE PSYCHOPATHIC SCHOOL

John Taylor Gatto

He came to the conclusion that the government education system is broken, unfixable, and he was quitting.  He then wrote the book, The Underground History of American Education, a classic on the tragedy happening in American education.  He documents the takeover by socialist, centralized-government people who were not interested in honest education, but in mind-control.  (On that subject, see also two books by Samuel Blumenfeld, Is Public Education Necessary?   and   NEA: Trojan Horse in American Education

link

Our form of compulsory schooling is an invention of the State of Massachusetts around 1850. It was resisted - sometimes with guns - by an estimated eighty percent of the Massachusetts population, the last outpost in Barnstable on Cape Cod not surrendering its children until the 1880s, when the area was seized by militia and children marched to school under guard.

Now here is a curious idea to ponder. Senator Ted Kennedy's office released a paper not too long ago that prior to compulsory education the state literacy rate was ninety-eight percent, and after it the figure never exceeded ninety-one percent, where it stands in 1990.

Here is another curiosity to think about. The home-schooling movement has quietly grown to a size where one and half million young people are being educated entirely by their own parents; last month the education press reported the amazing news that children schooled at home seem to be five or even ten years ahead of their formally trained peers in their ability to think.
===============
Two institutions at present control our children's lives: television and schooling, in that order. Both of these reduce the real world of wisdom, fortitude, temperance, and justice to a never-ending, nonstop abstraction. In centuries past, the time of childhood and adolescence would have been occupied in real work, real charity, real adventures, and the realistic search for mentors who might teach what you really wanted to learn. A great deal of time was spent in community pursuits, practicing affection, meeting and studying every level of the community, learning how to make a home, and dozens of other tasks necessary to becoming a whole man or woman.

But here is the calculus of time the children I teach must deal with:

• Out of the 168 hours in each week my children sleep 56. That leaves them 112 hours a week out of which to fashion a self. 
• According to recent reports children watch 55 hours of television a week. That then leaves them 57 hours a week in which to grow up.
• My children attend school 30 hours a week, use about 8 hours getting ready for and traveling to and from school, and spend an average of 7 hours a week in homework - a total of 45 hours.  

• During that time they are under constant surveillance. They have no private time or private space and are disciplined if they try to assert individuality in the use of time or space. 

• That leaves them 12 hours a week out of which to create a unique consciousness. Of course my kids eat, too, and that takes some time - not much because they've lost the tradition of family dining - but if we allot 3 hours a week to evening meals we arrive at a net amount of private time for each child of 9 hours per week.

It's not enough, is it? The richer the kid, of course, the less television he or she watches, but the rich kid's time is just as narrowly prescribed by a somewhat broader catalogue of commercial entertainments and the inevitable assignment to a series of private lessons in areas seldom of his or her own choice.

But these activities are just a more cosmetic way to create dependent human beings, unable to fill their own hours, unable to initiate lines of meaning to give substance and pleasure to their existence. It's a national disease, this dependency and aimlessness, and I think schooling and television and lessons have a lot to do with it.

Get The Book!

Dumbing Us Down: The Hidden Curriculum of Compulsory Schooling by John Taylor Gatto
For Gatto's superb The Underground History of American Education, call The Odysseus Group, in NYC, 212 529-9397.
Suggested Reading List - the Demise of the Educational System - OBE (Outcome-Based Education), NEA (National Education Association), educational psychology, German psychology & influences, demise of public education, educational sabotage, Wundt, Pavlov, Dewey, Skinner, Watson.

©Gene Zimmer 1999 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

===================================================================

Walking Targets

By B. K. Eakman

View this Author's Spotlight

eBook (PDF), 301 Pages 

     This item has not been rated yet

Preview

Price: $7.95

America gave up the three R's and got back the three I's: ignorance, illiteracy, and illegitimacy.

Parents of the postwar years wanted a “kinder and gentler nation.” Americans were vulnerable to the arguments of behavioral psychologists. These came at them through articles and books touting appealing but unworkable philosophies of child management that denounced adult guidance and leadership. These messages were later repeated through colleges of education in the form of courses in "educational psychology.''

Today’s schools promote success without achievement, ethics without religion, and character without morals. Clinical-sounding labels such as “emotionally handicapped” may make failure more palatable. They certainly make it more permanent.

"As you may be aware, data-mining is presented to the public as strictly for security purposes.  Not exactly:  These screening instruments, which I first exposed as “psychographics,” are calculated to predict attitudes through invasive surveys and questionnaires masquerading as “tests” and, if possible, to modify opinions early on via left-wing school curriculum, “enrichment” activities and textbooks.

  

"In 2003, the Education Department, among others, continued to deny that it was collecting, sharing and storing psychological (“politically sensitive”) data on schoolchildren and families.  Today, federal agencies actually brag about their data-collection activities — the same psychological evaluations and lesson plans I described in my 1998 book. With new legislation recently passed, there is nothing now to stop these assessments of political correctness, under the cover of "mental health," from landing on the desktops of company executives, law enforcement agencies or university admissions officers. This gives new meaning to the term "career screening," and it can prevent your child, whatever his or her grades, from aspiring to a position of leadership or influence."

"For the past decade students have had to plow through not only quasi-tests called "assessments," featuring all sorts of questions about their parents and home life, but a multitude of intimate and personal surveys, nearly all of them computerized, as part of their class work. Where do you think newspapers get statistics like "12% of students say they have had intercourse by age 15," or smoked a joint in the last 6 months, or dislike their parents?

"But, of course, these responses are anonymous, you say.

"Dream on. Surreptitious "slugging," "bar-coding," "sticky-labeling," and "embedding identifiers": All these techniques, and more, are described at length in the testing contracts and literature, should anyone bother to read them.

"Children have always been the consummate sources of data, notoriously undiscerning about the kinds of information they disclose. Like all computerized facts and figures, youngsters' responses can be cross-matched with everything from medical and health insurance records to credit card transactions. But no legislation or guidelines have emerged from our hallowed regulative bodies to sufficiently put the brakes on the tremendous upswing of such activity over the past two decades. The 80s and 90s were spent largely in denial. If anything, our leaders made it worse by swallowing malarkey about the supposed benefits of mental health profiling, personality inventories and behavioral screening - to identify potential troublemakers and ensure public safety. Society's reward? More Columbine-like atrocities - and a near-perfect political weapon, now neatly in place."
==========================================================================

Protect yourself and use secure communications with Pink Pagoda service.

Spy v. Spy : Protect Yourself. No One Else Will

link

It’s been known for some time that Skype, the popular standalone peer-to-peer application specializing in providing video chat and voice call services was initially developed by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), contrary to the official story regarding its origins. Marketed for its groundbreaking proprietary Internet telephony (VoIP) protocol, its real purpose was data mining and domestic surveillance.

Click to see ‘Times article

In retrospect, this should not be surprising; in post-Edward Snowden America, even publications like The New York Times have reported on tech companies like Yahoo, Google, Facebook, YouTube, AOL, Apple and many others as having cooperated with an increasingly intrusive (and in some cases criminal) government in crafting its Internet surveillance programs.

=========================================================

How surprised Silicon Valley and the government must have been to discover that through social media, most people were willing to simply give away just the kind of information in which these entities were interested! And we probably don’t have to tell you that the current administration has stretched the limits of intrusion upon personal privacy to criminal proportions…

The data that has been collected through these and other means (such as illegal NSA domestic surveillance programs brought to light in recent years) has been used to harass and persecute private organizations, political organizations, businesses, and private citizens.

The bottom line is that your Skype conversations are anything but private; if you’ve heard names like Max Kelly, Project Chess, or Prism, you know this to be true. And since government agencies build networks and databases based upon nodes of activity and the online routines of groups of people, engaging in unsecure online communications is comparable to a person having indiscriminate, frequent, unprotected sex.

So… what’s a user to do?

Product Information

Knowing what we know today, would you have indiscriminate, unprotected sex? Probably not. So when you make a phone call, do you discuss private information of a personal nature, or business, or your investments, or your credit card info?

Did you know how easy it was for someone to listen in to your Skype calls?

Protect yourself with the only product that the world’s real whistleblowers believe in – You might know their names – Julian Assange of Wikileaks, former CIA agent and whistleblower extraordinaire Scott Bennett, and the guy with all the information – Edward Snowden. If these fellows want protection they go to one place in Canada (of all places) for it – The Pink Pagoda.

What is it?

The Pink Pagoda is proprietary to the Bethune Institute of Canada and China, and was developed by people in the fields of intelligence and communications. Can’t ask for more expertise than that…

Click image to see Breitbart article

Why is Canada a good place to hide stuff?

Because American law doesn’t apply. Your goodies are safe from the prying eyes of an ever-intrusive government which has already proven that it has no respect for your privacy.

How does it work?

Well, if we told you that, we’d have to kill you. But seriously – if we were to disclose that, it would compromise our ability to protect you and ensure your online privacy. The method is proprietary, but works much in the same way other online services to which customers subscribe work – with a little other technology thrown in to detect when you are engaged in digital voice or video communications on any of your devices.

What does it do for you?

It renders your video chat and voice calls private (nobody can listen in). Our main concentration and launch was to be America only, but people talk and the need for personal communications privacy is life or death for folks in some foreign lands. We had no idea our utility was going to strike a nerve such as it has. Our capacity at the moment is unlimited, so we are not surprised at the number of foreign inquiries we are receiving. Ask Edward Snowden if he feels that his life might be in jeopardy; the answer is obviously ‘yes,’ and you see where he is putting his trust.

How do I get it?

The Pink Pagoda is now offering access to its secure calling utility at an annual introductory rate of $100.00 in one payment, or via monthly payments of $10.00.

 Available here.   You can trust this vendor.

Is the European Project Falsifiable?

link

"... I’ve developed the habit of asking proponents of the European project what would have to happen for them to stop adhering to it. Is there anything that might cause them to doubt their belief in the merger of European countries? The question is inspired by Karl Popper, who saw in the ability to answer this question the ultimate proof of a rational, scientific approach. He called this principle falsifiability: those defending a position – for example that European integration is important and necessary – should be able to say what would have to happen for them to abandon it. If they are unable to do so, their convictions are not rational or scientific, but ideological or religious...."

Popper introduced this question into the most important debate of his time and used it to expose Marxism. For it is impossible to falsify the view of history as a class struggle that will ultimately result in world revolution. It is a closed theory, based on a vision of the past (‘oppression’) and a vision of the future (‘revolution’), and nothing can possibly refute or prove it wrong. Marxism has an explanation for every possible event. If the workers revolt that is a confirmation of Marxist theory. If the workers do not revolt, then that is also a confirmation of Marxist theory, because failure to revolt is proof of their continued oppression. Whatever happens, we’re never to doubt Karl Marx’s prophecy.

The quasi-argumentation that currently justifies the European project is analogous in significant respects to the type of reasoning once employed by Marxist ideologues. Therefore, when I ask its supporters what would have to happen, or what would have to be proven, to make them change their mind, I never get an answer. Instead, a ritual-like repetition of the EU party line is rattled off, starting with the credo that ‘in the past, Europe waged war’ and that ‘unification brings peace’. The terrorist attacks in Paris, or indeed any other catastrophe (such as the eurocrisis), could never change that fundamental belief – because, so they’ll say, it’s a historical fact. Upon the suggestion that NATO’s role be included in our understanding of the peace we’ve witnessed since 1945, as well as the emergence of the Cold War, the rebirth of Germany as a democratic nation, the rise of the welfare state, the nuclear deterrent and a declining demography (all of which having absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the EU), the europhile won’t argue with you (lest he might be forced to concede). Instead, he’ll shift the subject and say: “But the EU brings prosperity.”

If one then explains that free trade is perfectly possible without Brussels’ centralized management of the economy, that countries outside the EU do perfectly fine, and the euro currency has driven several member states to the edge of economic abyss, the Europhile counters that, actually, the real purpose of the EU is to form a ‘block’ against emerging powers such as China and Brazil. To the objections, then brought forward, that the EU undermines the real and unique strength of Europe – its political, legal, and cultural diversity – and that all decisive breakthroughs in European history, including the Protestant Reformation, the Enlightenment, the industrial revolution, oversees exploration, technological innovation and economic competition, were possible precisely – and only – because of its decentralization, the true believer’s response is to remind you that Europe has enjoyed sixty years of peace. And so the argument comes full circle.

When people voice objections to further expansion of EU powers in referendums or opinion polls the conclusion is always: ‘We need to explain it better’. When its concocted schemes break down, as in the case of the euro, the answer is: ‘It was introduced too soon’. And when the open borders lead to enormous immigration problems and terrorist attacks, they call for a European army! Should you then point out, finally, that the Scandinavian countries and Britain will never agree to be ruled from Brussels by a federal government and an integrated army, the europhile generously suggests a ‘Europe of two speeds’.

Yes, why not have a two-speed Europe? It suggests an open worldview – tolerant and welcoming. Prudent. But what it really means, indeed, what is actually implied in the term, is that we are all on the same track – with the same destination. Some countries are going faster, others more slowly, but we’re all moving in the same direction. The Europhile simply can’t imagine two destinations. There’s only one destination, history moves towards one goal only. Some of us are pulling ahead (at full speed) while others are lagging behind (at a lower speed). But there can be no doubt about the final dot on the horizon.

Overwhelmingly, Europeans do not want the EU’s usurpation of their democratic rights of self government. Southern European economies are on the verge of collapse. Open borders have led to an immigration explosion and now terrorist attacks. A Weimar scenario is unfolding in Greece and Portugal. The Europhile draws only one conclusion: ‘We need more Europe’. His worldview is as hermetically sealed as that of the Marxist, and reality has absolutely no bearing on him. Over sixty-five years after the publication of Karl Popper’s The Open Society and its Enemies, the poverty of historicism is still with us, alive and well, and shared by the overwhelming majority of our hopeless elite.

Thierry Baudet

Thierry Baudet is the author of The Significance of Borders. Why Representative Government and the Rule of Law Require Nation States, and he is the founding director of the independent thinktank Forum for Democracy.

About the Author

ChemTrails

link

https://youtu.be/lZaD-H_j3pU

indigo skycode

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjujZ4Pr5u4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHm0XhtDyZA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3lW-TGGlk0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXsG4McpsqY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsBQpuBklI8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gC1epPqqziE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BlTeqBwf2Ic

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gZG6LTgBi8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcZaJEMsSwM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWVU6DKcjyA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npHlLp4QmKI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPnWaBsMYnY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XjLzPivKp8

Big Brother

link

"Today, Friday 31 July 2015, 9am CEST, WikiLeaks publishes "Target Tokyo", 35 Top Secret NSA targets in Japan including the Japanese cabinet and Japanese companies such as Mitsubishi, together with intercepts relating to US-Japan relations, trade negotiations and sensitive climate change strategy.

The list indicates that NSA spying on Japanese conglomerates, government officials, ministries and senior advisers extends back at least as far as the first administration of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, which lasted from September 2006 until September 2007. The telephone interception target list includes the switchboard for the Japanese Cabinet Office; the executive secretary to the Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga; a line described as "Government VIP Line"; numerous officials within the Japanese Central Bank, including Governor Haruhiko Kuroda; the home phone number of at least one Central Bank official; numerous numbers within the Japanese Finance Ministry; the Japanese Minister for Economy, Trade and Industry Yoichi Miyazawa; the Natural Gas Division of Mitsubishi; and the Petroleum Division of Mitsui."

The Spyfiles 4

2014-09-15

Today, 15 September 2014, WikiLeaks releases previously unseen copies of weaponised German surveillance malware used by intelligence agencies around the world to spy on journalists, political dissidents and others.

FinFisher (formerly part of the UK based Gamma Group International until late 2013) is a German company that produces and sells computer intrusion systems, software exploits and remote monitoring systems that are capable of intercepting communications and data from OS X, Windows and Linux computers as well as Android, iOS, BlackBerry, Symbian and Windows Mobile devices. FinFisher first came to public attention in December 2011 when WikiLeaks published documents detailing their products and business in the first SpyFiles release.

https://www.gammagroup.com/default.aspx

https://wikileaks.org/spyfiles3

"Documents in Spy Files #3 include sensitive sales brochures and presentations used to woo state intelligence agencies into buying mass surveillance services and technologies. Spy Files #3 also includes contracts and deployment documents, detailing specifics on how certain systems are installed and operated.

Internet spying technologies now being sold on the intelligence market include detecting encrypted and obfuscated internet usage such as Skype, BitTorrent, VPN, SSH and SSL. The documents reveal how contractors work with intelligence and policing agencies to obtain decryption keys.

The documents also detail bulk interception methods for voice, SMS, MMS, email, fax and satellite phone communications. The released documents also show intelligence contractors selling the ability to analyse web and mobile interceptions in real-time."

[The site IS safe.  Google is warning because authorities have warned Google to make this material unavailable by posting a warning.  If you click "more details" there is an open link to the material there, which is entirely safe, but which they want to scare you about. Doubtless, your visit to that link will be reported to the NSA.]

If you trust the USG, the ATF, the IRS, etc., you still might not like that customers of FinFisher could be ANY government anywhere in the world including Mongolia, Oman, Dubai, Estonia, Pakistan, Vietnam, and even Nigeria.   Everyone in Nigeria is part of a criminal enterprise or two so your data could go into the hands of such crooks.  If you think Nigeria wouldn't allow that to happen, ask yourself "how many arrests have ever been made in Nigeria for the infamous 419 Advance Fee Fraud racket.

No President has ever made a long-term arms control agreement on his own authority.

link
"... this deal may represent the single worst policy outcome of all of Obama’s illegalities.

Mike Ramsey has set forth the case that the Iranian deal is unconstitutional both under the original meaning and under modern law.  Under the original meaning, the Constitution’s provides the way to make major international agreements – through supermajority approval in the Senate, as set forth in Article II, Section 2.  Moreover:

Making major international agreements in the way the text prescribes is not just an eighteenth-century relic; it is the usual course for the United States today (subject to some exceptions noted below).  And the usual course is that if an agreement cannot get two-thirds approval in the Senate, there is no agreement.

What then are the possible justifications for it?  First, the “deal is an executive agreement, done on the President’s independent authority.”  But under the original meaning, there is a strong argument that executive agreements must relate to temporary and minor matters.  Moreover, a similar result obtains under modern law:

the agreements made by prior Presidents under this power have been minor and typically limited to settlements of claims, arrangement of military affairs, diplomatic recognition, and other matters within the President’s military and recognition powers.  No President has ever made a long-term arms control agreement on his own authority.

Second, “The deal is a nonbinding “political commitment” rather than a treaty.  Ramsey claims such nonbinding actions are legitimate under both the original meaning and modern law.  But the Iran deal:

doesn’t look like a nonbinding agreement.  Iran appears to understand it as a binding agreement.  And at least some of its terms appear to (purportedly) constrain U.S. action in the future, beyond the end of President Obama’s term.  It’s likely that a vocal defense of the agreement as nonbinding would substantially undermine the deal.

Finally, Congress will approve the deal.  While the original meaning does not allow a majority of each house of Congress to approve a treaty, in modern times sometimes Congress has done so.  But Congress is very unlikely to approve the deal.

Not only is the deal unconstitutional, its unconstitutionality is essential to it occurring.  If the President had to secure two thirds of the Senate or a majority of both houses, this deal almost certainly would not be approved.

Thus, once again, this President is taking illegal action to make an end run around the Congress to do things that are extremely problematic.  But this time, I fear, the consequences of his action may be worse than in the other cases.  The Iran deal is dangerous."

Chappaqua

link

'A meeting between Frank Giustra and Kazakhstani nuclear holding company Kazatomprom was held in the Clintons’ home in Chappaqua, NY. Clinton officials and Giustra both denied such a meeting took place until a NYT reporter, Jo Becker, told them “Well, we already talked to the head of Kazatomprom who not only told us about the meeting, but actually has a picture of him and Bill in front of the home in Chappaqua that he proudly displayed on the office wall.”

'Only then did both parties concede that such a meeting had taken place, Becker tells Fox News.'

[Has the NYT decided not to coverup for the Clintons now?  Maybe Obama through Valarie Jarrett and Suzy Rice is leaking info for revenge on the Clintons so  he can avoid endorsing her for the Dem nomination?   Then shoe in Lizzy Warren with the woman card and the Left credentials he wants.]

More of the Same from the NYTimes

Now, over 100 years of tradition:

link

Unfortunately, this kind of behavior isn’t new to Andrew Rosenthal, the man who runs the editorial page for the New York Times. Rosenthal has a long history of deliberately misstating facts in order to make his enemies — people who aren’t hardcore liberals — look bad. Rosenthal was the individual who falsely reported in 1992 that President George H. W. Bush had never before seen an everyday supermarket scanner. Rosenthal’s lie was so blatant that even his fellow reporters thought it was a “cheap shot.”

Then there’s the deceptive headline Rosenthal’s team added to a Mitt Romney op-ed about Detroit’s financial troubles: “Let Detroit Go Bankrupt.” Romney never said that or anything close to it, but properly reporting facts has never really been Rosenthal’s forte. He is not a reporter; he is a liberal activist with a soapbox and a megaphone.

Sadly, today’s faceplant by Rosenthal and the New York Times editorial board should really come as no surprise. They don’t care about facts. They don’t care about accuracy. And they certainly don’t care if their lies about guns and the NRA have no basis in reality. The New York Times has an agenda, and that agenda has nothing to do with reporting the truth."

Mr. Rosenthal is the son of Abe W. Rosenthal, former reporter, city editor, managing editor, executive editor, and chief architect of the modern Times.    He famously fabricated a story as rooky city editor that made his name and his career.  

"One article assigned by Mr. Rosenthal, focusing on New Yorkers' fear of involvement in crime, recounted the murder of Kitty Genovese, a Queens woman whose screams were ignored by 38 neighbors while her killer stalked and attacked her repeatedly on a street for 35 minutes. The article shocked New York, and Mr. Rosenthal later wrote a short book on the episode, "Thirty-Eight Witnesses."   http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/11/nyregion/11rosenthal.html?pagewanted=6&fta=y>

Focusing on thoughtless, cruel, selfish urban sensibilities to not "get involved" in fellow citizens lives and victimization, the article became the basis for psychology textbooks teaching psychology students that this "urban apathy" is a real thing and a feature of our decadent society.

The REAL story missed by Abe the elder, an overzealous young reporter on the make was that New York's foolish and evil Sullivan Law alone brought about Kitty Genovese's stabbing murder in front of her apartment because even as a gay bar manager, transporting cash, even as a lesbian subject to all sorts of hate and threats, coming home alone daily at the wee hours of 3 AM, she was not able to obtain a handgun permit from the City of New York.  THAT's the story!  

The same could be said for John Lennon and countless other innocent, law abiding New York City residents murdered defenselessly.

Of course, further aggravating is that the NYTimes was a major driving force behind enactment of the Sullivan Law in 1911, jumping on a bandwagon launched by an assistant medical examiner after a Gramercy Park murder with a handgun.  Similarly, the REAL story was the corruption and criminality of state assemblyman Sullivan.

=========================================

Books MARCH 10, 2014 ISSUE

A Call for Help

What the Kitty Genovese story really means.

BY NICHOLAS LEMANN

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/03/10/a-call-for-help

"Classic Hillary"

Watergate-era Judiciary chief of staff:

Hillary Clinton fired for lies, unethical behavior

Published by: Dan Calabrese on Wednesday January 23rd, 2013link

"...  Polk recalls Zeifman sharing with him at the time that he believed Hillary’s primary role was to report back to Burke Marshall any time the investigation was taking a turn that was not to the liking of the Kennedys.

'Jerry used to give the chapter and verse as to how Hillary was the mole into the committee works as to how things were going,' Polk said. 'And she’d be feeding information back to Burke Marshall, who, at least according to Jerry, was talking to the Kennedys. And when something was off track in the view of the Kennedys, Burke Marshall would call John Doar or something, and there would be a reconsideration of what they were talking about. Jerry used to tell me that this was Hillary’s primary function.'

Zeifman says he had another staff member get him Hillary’s phone records, which showed that she was calling Burke Marshall at least once a day, and often several times a day.

A final note about all this: I wrote my first column on this subject because, in the aftermath of Hillary being caught in her Bosnia fib, I came in contact with Jerry Zeifman and found his story compelling. Zeifman has been trying to tell his story for many years, and the mainstream media have ignored him. I thought it deserved an airing as a demonstration of how early in her career Hillary began engaging in self-serving, disingenuous conduct.

Disingenuously arguing a position? Vanishing documents? Selling out members of her own party to advance a personal agenda? Classic Hillary. Neither my first column on the subject nor this one were designed to show that Hillary is dishonest. I don’t really think that’s in dispute. Rather, they were designed to show that she has been this way for a very long time – a fact worth considering for anyone contemplating voting for her for president of the United States."

President John Quincy Adams on Islam

President John Quincy Adams on Islam

Posted on February 23, 2015 by Dave Miller Filed under Bible, Christianity, Foreign Policy, History, Islam, Low Information Voters, Military, National Security, Political Correctness, Politics, Religion, Terrorism, War

The average American’s lack of awareness of the past has left our nation in an extremely vulnerable position. The multi-culturalism, pluralism, “diversity,” and political correctness that now blanket American culture mean that many are oblivious to and unconcerned about the threat that Islam poses to the American (and Christian) way of life. The Founders of the American Republic were not so dispossessed. They were well-studied in the ebb and flow of human history, and the international circumstances that could potentially impact America adversely. They, in fact, spoke openly and pointedly about the anti-American, anti-Christian nature of the religion of Islam.

image: http://www.apologeticspress.org/image/rr/2008/0812resa.jpg

Consider, for example, the writings of an early President of the United States, John Quincy Adams. Not only did Adams live during the founding era (born in 1767),

not only was his father a primary, quintessential Founder, but John Quincy was literally nurtured by his father in the vicissitudes and intricacies of the founding of the Republic. John Adams involved his son at an early age in his own activities and travels on behalf of the fledgling nation. John Quincy accompanied his father to France in 1778, became Secretary to the American Minister to Russia, was the Secretary to his father during peace negotiations that ended the American Revolution in 1783, served as U.S.foreign ambassador, both to the Netherlands and later to Portugal, under George Washington, to Prussia under his father’s presidency, and then to Russia and later to England under President James Madison. He served as a U.S.Senator, Secretary of State under President James Monroe, and then as the nation’s sixth President (1825-1829), and finally as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, where he was a staunch and fervent opponent of slavery.

After his presidency, but before his election to Congress in 1830, John Quincy penned several essays dealing with one of the many Russo-Turkish Wars. In these essays, we see a cogent, informed portrait of the threat that Islam has posed throughout world history:

In the seventh century of the Christian era, a wandering Arab of the lineage of Hagar, the Egyptian, combining the powers of transcendent genius, with the preternatural energy of a fanatic, and the fraudulent spirit of an impostor, proclaimed himself as a messenger from Heaven, and spread desolation and delusion over an extensive portion of the earth. Adopting from the sublime conception of the Mosaic law, the doctrine of one omnipotent God; he connected indissolubly with it, the audacious falsehood, that he was himself his prophet and apostle. Adopting from the new Revelation of Jesus, the faith and hope of immortal life, and of future retribution, he humbled it to the dust, by adapting all the rewards and sanctions of his religion to the gratification of the sexual passion. He poisoned the sources of human felicity at the fountain, by degrading the condition of the female sex, and the allowance of polygamy; and he declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind. THE ESSENCE OF HIS DOCTRINE WAS VIOLENCE AND LUST: TO EXALT THE BRUTAL OVER THE SPIRITUAL PART OF HUMAN NATURE.

image: http://www.apologeticspress.org/image/rr/2009/Title%20Page.jpg

Between these two religions, thus contrasted in their characters, a war of twelve hundred years has already raged. That war is yet flagrant; nor can it cease but by the extinction of that imposture, which has been permitted by Providence to prolong the degeneracy of man. While the merciless and dissolute dogmas of the false prophet shall furnish motives to human action, there can never be peace upon earth, and good will towards men. The hand of Ishmael will be against every man, and every man’s hand against him. It is, indeed, amongst the mysterious dealings of God, that this delusion should have been suffered for so many ages, and during so many generations of human kind, to prevail over the doctrines of the meek and peaceful and benevolent Jesus (Blunt, 1830, 29:269, capitals in orig.).

Observe that Adams not only documents the violent nature of Islam, in contrast with the peaceful and benevolent thrust of Christianity, he further exposes the mistreatment of women inherent in Islamic doctrine, including the degrading practice of polygamy.

A few pages later, Adams again spotlights the coercive, violent nature of Islam, as well as the Muslim’s right to lie and deceive to advance Islam:

The precept of the koran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that Mahomet is the prophet of God. The vanquished may purchase their lives, by the payment of tribute; the victorious may be appeased by a false and delusive promise of peace; and the faithful follower of the prophet, may submit to the imperious necessities of defeat: but the command to propagate the Moslem creed by the sword is always obligatory, when it can be made effective. The commands of the prophet may be performed alike, by fraud, or by force (Blunt, 29:274).

No Christian would deny that many Christians in history have violated the precepts of Christ by mistreating others and even committing atrocities in the name of Christ. However, Adams rightly observes that one must go against Christian doctrine to do so. Not so with Islam—since violence is sanctioned:

The fundamental doctrine of the Christian religion, is the extirpation of hatred from the human heart. It forbids the exercise of it, even towards enemies. There is no denomination of Christians, which denies or misunderstands this doctrine. All understand it alike—all acknowledge its obligations; and however imperfectly, in the purposes of Divine Providence, its efficacy has been shown in the practice of Christians, it has not been wholly inoperative upon them. Its effect has been upon the manners of nations. It has mitigated the horrors of war—it has softened the features of slavery—it has humanized the intercourse of social life. The unqualified acknowledgement of a duty does not, indeed, suffice to insure its performance. Hatred is yet a passion, but too powerful upon the hearts of Christians. Yet they cannot indulge it, except by the sacrifice of their principles, and the conscious violation of their duties. No state paper from a Christian hand, could, without trampling the precepts of its Lord and Master, have commenced by an open proclamation of hatred to any portion of the human race. The Ottomanlays it down as the foundation of his discourse (Blunt, 29:300, emp. added).

The Founders were forthright in their assessment of the nature and teachings of Islam and the Quran. Americans and their political leaders would do well to take a sober look at history. To fail to do so will be catastrophic.

The above article was originally published at Apologetics Press and dis reprinted by permission.

REFERENCES

Joseph Blunt (1830), The American Annual Register for the Years 1827-8-9 (New York: E. & G.W. Blunt), 29:267-402, [On-line],

Read more at http://godfatherpolitics.com/20605/president-john-quincy-adams-on-islam/#LukzO8Vd8g6TkEfx.99