Friends Of Liberty's Weekend Edition:10/21/17-Liberal-Conservative Divide-Islamic Faith-and More

💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥

Liberal-Conservative Divide -- Americans Self-Segregate Culturally 

We’re Not in a Civil War, but We Are Drifting Toward Divorce

At an increasing rate, Americans separate themselves into culturally and ideologically homogeneous enclaves.

Last week there were two telling incidents — one small, the other more consequential — that spoke volumes about the state of our national life. Let’s start small. Over in Seattle, in the midst of a debate over juvenile justice, a city-council member invoked his “Republican friends” as a symbol of the broad-based agreement that incarceration policies need to change. One of his colleagues, Kshama Sawant, snapped back with the proud declaration that she didn’t have any Republican friends. The crowd cheered. Sure, it’s but one small incident, but consider something bigger. The state of California is in the process of taking a series of political steps that are not only cementing its status as a progressive enclave, it’s stumbling toward its own foreign policy. After Donald Trump withdrew America from the Paris climate agreement, California governor Jerry Brown rushed to fill the void. California is touting its collaborations with China to combat global warming. Here’s Brown, in reporting by the Sacramento Bee:

“It is a little bold to talk about the China–California partnership as though we were a separate nation, but we are a separate nation,” Brown said of the state, with nearly 40 million residents and the world’s sixth-largest economy. “We’re a state of mind. I include Silicon Valley, I include the environmental activism, the biotech industry, agriculture. This is a place of great investment in innovation.” Indeed, California has such a different view of the relationship between citizen and state, it’s virtually seceding from the Constitution, overriding the First Amendment time and again for the sake of “social justice.” And now its legislature is even taking the first steps to implement a $400 billion single-payer health plan — a plan so expensive and radical that even Governor Brown is skeptical. The trends are clear. In the age of Trump, California is determined to go its own way.

None of this is surprising. Our national political polarization is by now so well established that the only real debate is over the nature of our cultural, political, and religious conflict. Are we in the midst of a more or less conventional culture war? Are we, as Dennis Prager and others argue, fighting a kind of “cold” civil war? Or are we facing something else entirely? I’d argue that we face “something else,” and that something else is more akin to the beginning stages of a national divorce than it is to a civil war. This contention rests fundamentally in two trends, one political and the other far beyond politics. The combination of negative polarization and a phenomenon that economist Tyler Cowen calls “matching” is leading to a national separation so profound that Americans may not have the desire to fight to stay together. Unless trends are reversed, red and blue may ultimately bid each other adieu. First, let’s deal with negative polarization. I’ve written about this before, but it’s worth repeating. Americans tend to belong to their political “tribe” not so much because they love its ideas but rather because they despise their opponents. The Pew Research Center has been documenting this trend for some time, and few of their (many) charts document the mutual hatred better than this one:

That’s right, Republicans and Democrats have basically the same view of each other — the only real difference is that Republicans view Democrats as more immoral, while Democrats view Republicans as more dishonest. And lest you think this is the way things have always been, look at the trend lines. Partisan Americans like each other less and less:

These trends would be troubling enough, but combine them with “matching” and you get a nation whose citizens increasingly lives separate lives — living in separate locations, enjoying separate media, and holding separate religious beliefs. As Cowen relates in his important book, The Complacent Class, Americans now have an extraordinary ability not just to meet, interact, and maintain relationships with people of our own social and political class but also to form extraordinarily precise and insulated subcultures. The Internet brings all of human knowledge to our smartphones, but rather than using it as a tool for outreach and understanding, we’re using it to find and live with people just like us. In other words, we’re sorting. Let’s go back to politics. Consider the growth of the “landslide county,” a county that one party or the other wins by at least 20 points. Here’s the New York Times, in a report shortly after the 2016 election: “The proportion of voters living in counties that were won in a landslide for the Democratic or Republican presidential candidate has steadily increased over the last seven elections and now makes up a whopping 60 percent of the electorate.” This isn’t new. Here’s the Times with more:

In 1992, 38 percent of voters lived in one of these landslide counties, defined here as being won by 20 percentage points or more. This shift reflects the growing tendency of like-minded people to live near one another, according to Bill Bishop, a co-author of The Big Sort, a 2008 book that identified this phenomenon. Mr. Bishop said Americans have been self-segregating by lifestyle, though not necessarily politics, for several decades, but lifestyle has grown to reflect politics. “We’re sorting by the way we live, think and — it turns out — every four years or every two years, how we vote.”

Bishop is exactly right: You can overlay the electoral map with any number of additional maps, including church-attendance maps and even maps of television ratings, and you’ll see clear political and cultural divides. Consider the church -attendance map below:

Each of the lowest-attendance states is blue. Each of the highest- and above-average-attendance states is solidly red. Most of the below-average-attendance states are blue. Just as striking (and important in their own way) are maps showing different television habits. It’s one thing to note that the decline in network dominance and a greater multiplicity of channels has increased choice. It’s another thing entirely to see how that choice plays out geographically. Late last year, the New York Times published a series of ratings maps that showed exactly how a show can be popular without penetrating huge sections of the country. Take one of my favorite shows, Game of Thrones. Its appeal is heavily clustered in deep-blue coastal cities, something that’s completely unsurprising to this rural Tennessee resident. I have a hard time finding anyone who watches the show, much less someone who cares enough to do a deep dive into Westerosi lore. If you watch Game of Thrones, you’re also generally watching The Daily Show and Modern Family. Do you reject George R. R. Martin’s epic series? Then Duck Dynasty is the most likely show for you. Put all these trends together and you can discern the reason for the “politicization of everything.” It’s easy: It’s often the path of least resistance, and it gives people a sense of larger purpose. When you live, work, and speak with people of like mind, it’s virtually inevitable that common expressions of shared views will leak into sports, corporate policy, and even debates about superhero movies. Americans have choices, and millions have chosen ideologically closed enclaves. Why wouldn’t they continue to extend that choice beyond the realms of politics and religion? A civil war results when the desire for unification and domination overrides the desire for separation and self-determination. The American civil war is a classic example. There were grounds for separation — North and South were culturally different on a scale that dwarfs modern divides between red and blue — but the North did not consent. It sought to first unify and then transform the southern states. By contrast, had Scotland voted to leave the United Kingdom, would England have mobilized in response? No, the U.K. came close to its own national divorce, the dissolution of a union generations older than the American republic. Here is the core American question. As we continue our own “big sort,” will the desire to separate trump the desire to dominate? Or can we instead choose to tolerate? We’re still quite far from the kind of near-miss that Britain just experienced, and we’re even farther removed from the vicious strife of a true civil war, but the trends are pointing toward continued matching of like with like — and along with that, increasing hostility against communities not like our own. In my Memorial Day column, I asked what I believe to be the key question: “Is there a single significant cultural, political, social, or religious trend that is pulling Americans together more than it is pushing us apart?” I don’t believe a civil-war mentality will save America. There are simply too many differences and too many profound disagreements for one side or the other to exercise true political dominance. Red won’t beat blue in the same way that blue beat gray. Adopt the civil-war mentality and you’ll only hasten a potential divorce. No, absent a presently unforeseen unifying ideology, event, or person, the idea that will save America is one of the oldest ideas of the Republic: federalism. So long as we protect the “privileges and immunities” of American citizenship, including all of the liberties enumerated in the Bill of Rights, let California be California and Texas be Texas. De-escalate national politics. Ideas that work in Massachusetts shouldn’t be crammed down the throats of culturally different Tennesseans. Indeed, as our sorting continues, our ability to persuade diminishes. (After all, how can we understand communities we don’t encounter?) If we seek to preserve our union, we’re left with a choice — try to dominate or learn to tolerate? The effort to dominate is futile, and it will leave us with a permanently embittered population that grows increasingly punitive with each transition of presidential power. There is hope, however, in the quest to tolerate. Our Constitution is built to allow our citizens to govern themselves while protecting individual liberty and providing for the common defense. It’s built to withstand profound differences without asking citizens or states to surrender their strongest convictions. We can either rediscover this federalism, or we may ultimately take a third path — we may choose to separate

Source:>>>>>>>>Here

💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥

Media: Islamic Faith Prevents Sexual Assault

The propaganda machine is firing on all cylinders. Harvey Weinstein must have pissed someone off to be sacrificed by the elite. Perhaps it was a religious sacrifice of sorts. One arm of the propaganda machine is pushing the idea that adherence to the Islamic religion can prevent sexual assaults and oppression against women.

The media is now running stories which claim that the Islamic religion pre-empts abuse of women, by providing a set of moral rules for men to follow. The Independent ran an article called How the teachings of Islam could help us prevent more sexual abuse scandals.

The author, a Muslim, says that government laws are not enough, because they only punish after an incident has occurred, as opposed to stopping it beforehand. But by listening to the prophet Muhammad, men will follow a code of conduct apparently out of fear of reprisal from Allah.

This is where Islamic teachings and Prophet Muhammad’s example provide a solution that no state truly can…

Chapter 4:35 furthermore prevents violence against women by forcing men to control themselves and never resort to physically harming women– preempting physical abuse.

The Quran further obliges men to provide for a woman’s every financial need, while holding that anything a woman earns is hers alone – preempting financial abuse.

What the Quran actually says, just before the Chapter he cites, in chapter 4:34 is:

Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, as God has given some of them an advantage over others, and because they spend out of their wealth. The good women are obedient, guarding what God would have them guard. As for those from whom you fear disloyalty, admonish them, and abandon them in their beds, then strike them.

That doesn’t exactly sound like it preempts abuse of women. It sounds like a suspicious husband is allowed to beat his wife, according to the Quran. It sounds like a man provides for his women because she is basically his property, his responsibility, like a farm animal.

So the teachings of Islam really view women as dependent on men, saying that God created men with an advantage over women.

But the author goes on to say Muhammad saw men and women as equals under the law.

…on numerous occasions Prophet Muhammad punished an accused rapist on the testimony of the rape survivor alone.

That must be where modern colleges get their inspiration. It is not uncommon for men to be expelled from universities on an unproven accusation of sexual assault.

So in this sense, Muhammad stood up for women, in the same way, modern progressives ignore the whole “innocent until proven guilty” thing.

But Muhammad also didn’t care much about objective truth when it came to punishing women either. All he required was four male witnesses, and a woman could be placed under house arrest for the remainder of her life.

Those of your women who commit lewdness, you must have four witnesses against them, from among you. If they testify, confine them to the homes until death claims them, or God makes a way for them.

And maybe Muhammad was lenient towards female victims, but according to Islamic law, four male witnesses are also required to punish a rapist. And if a woman accuses a man of rape, and it is not “proven” by four witnesses, she just admitted to adultery.

Up until 2015, women in predominantly Muslim Sudan were sometimes prosecuted for adultery when they came forward with rape allegations.

And ISIS soldiers have been widely reported to rape female prisoners. Some claim it is in the process of converting them to Islam.

The whole idea that the Islamic faith offers any sort of example for how to treat women is absurd.

And yet the progressive media still pushes the idea that this religion promotes peace and equality. Why? Why do they ignore the murder and punishment of gay men by Muslim governments? Why do they ignore the mistreatment of women in majority Muslim countries?

It is all part of a campaign of misinformation about the religion. It happens, ironically, while the same people demonize Christian religions. But in the New Testament of the Bible, which Christians are supposed to follow instead of the Old Testament, there really are no violent teachings.

When people brought an adulteress to Jesus, he told said to them, you who is without sin, cast the first stone.

When Muhammad heard of an adulteress:

He went to her in the morning and she made a confession. And Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) made pronouncement about her and she was stoned to death. (Sahih Muslim 4209)

Jesus really did preach peace and equality. Muhammad did not.

(For a great comparison of Christianity and Islam, check out MUSLIM: What You Need to Know About the World’s Fastest Growing Religion)

Let’s take a look at the example set by Muhammad.

The Hadith is a collection of Muhammad’s teaching. Hadith Muslim Book 8 section 3433 recounts how after a military victory Allah actually sent down a command that it was okay to rape the female captives in front of their husbands. The soldiers were worried about raping married women since that would be adultery. But their God made a special exception. Slave women are fine to rape, whatever the circumstances.

War seems to have been one of Muhammed’s favorite hobbies. And part of the payment to his soldiers was the captive women, taken as slaves. In Hadith Bhakari Book 34 section 432, some of Muhammad’s soldiers are worried about impregnating their slaves when they rape them. Muhammad told them not to worry because Allah wouldn’t allow a woman to get pregnant if he didn’t want her to have a baby.

Here’s another gem, from Book 8 of Muslim, section 3371:

We went out with Allah’s Messenger (May peace be upon him) on the expedition to the Bi’l-Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women; and we desired them, for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing ‘azl (Withdrawing the male sexual organ before emission of semen to avoid conception). But we said: We are doing an act whereas Allah’s Messenger is amongst us; why not ask him? So we asked Allah’s Messenger (May peace be upon him), and he said: It does not matter if you do not do it, for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born.

The article from the Independent sought to weave a pro-Islam brainwashing into a piece which repeated the same things that the media usually says: we live in a rape culture.

If we live in a rape culture, it is because the government teaches people that consent is not required.

And from what we can tell, the religion is Islam certainly does not preach consent.

Source:>>>>>>>>Here

💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥

Does Individual Sovereignty Preempt Abusive Government?

Once you accept that you are not sovereign, it is just a matter of maneuvering for governments to do whatever they want.

They don’t play by any rules. But they force you to follow them. Some governments do this by blunt force. Other governments do it by controlling the media narrative. Still, others twist the law to fit their purposes and appear legitimate. Most use a combination of tactics to keep people compliant.

In America, governments and corporations like to pretend there is some sort of objective law. They spend time in legislatures and courts determining what will pass as legal and what will not. But it is basically just a silly dance. They are trying different combinations to unlock the “do whatever the hell they want” box.

Certain dance moves are preferred by the populous, who are easily entranced. Money to pay lawyers and lobbyists helps to sell as legitimate. And political connections help too. But for the everyday citizen or small business owner, the deck is stacked against you.

For instance, the Constitution is pretty clear about citizens being allowed to own guns, as well as run businesses. Supposedly laws must be applied evenly.

But San Francisco wants to ban gun stores. They can’t just go and ban gun stores. They have to be clever.

So they think up an ordinance. Somehow local laws can stomp all over people’s property rights–citizens have accepted that. They make a local code that says gun stores cannot operate with 500 feet of a school, liquor store, bar, or residential district.

They have performed a dance that San Franciscans accept. It seems to make sense–guns don’t seem to mix well with alcohol, or children.

Yet now, all San Francisco has to do is make sure one of those things occurs at least every 1,000 feet, and they have effectively banned gun stores.

They can make anything they want a residential district. There is probably already a bar or liquor store every 1,000 feet. And an appeals court just upheld the ban, saying the second amendment does not guarantee gun store owners have the right to locate anywhere they wish.

Do any of us have a right to locate anywhere we wish? Or must everything be approved of by the government? Couldn’t this argument also be used for gun owners? Or for that matter, couldn’t this argument be used for any of our rights?

The arbitrariness of laws is what gives rise to corruption and discrimination. This is the same philosophy that allows certain corporations to get special subsidies and tax breaks. This is the underlying logic behind government enforced racial segregation.

If the government gets to slice up the population and decide who will get to exercise what rights and where, then there are no rights. If the government can arbitrarily make special rules for segments of society, then there is no objective rule of law.

So private property doesn’t really exist, does it? Local governments can restrict what you can do with the land, and require permits if you want to move a pebble. And then they charge you yearly rent they call property taxes.

If we accept that they have this control over us, what’s the use of complaining about this particular law or that particular law? It is all based on whims, and our preferences just relate to what is best for us. The corporations’ and politicians’ preferences relate to what is best for them.

Guess whose benefit is going to win?

Rejecting any authority over our lives pre-empts the idea that we can be arbitrarily controlled by this little ordinance or that little code. Those “little things” are what open the door to an unequal society. It is what allows governments to put in the fix for corporations and cronies.

That being said, it is easy enough to move out of San Francisco and choose a better place. The real problem comes when rules are enforced on such a large scale that there is hardly any alternatives to choose from.

So why continue the dance? Why make San Francisco go to court to defend their terrible ordinances? Why not just let local jurisdictions do what they want to do?

If people see a benefit to living in such close quarters, and voluntarily decide to submit to a local government, so be it. I would prefer to let cities and towns be as draconian as they wish if it meant not allowing a bigger government to come down in support of them.

When it comes to living in such close quarters, there are obviously going to be more rules in order to prevent clashes. A sovereign individual could accept that, and voluntarily suppress some of his own interests for whatever benefit he sees in living there.

The option would always exist to go somewhere without other people, and therefore not have to compromise your way of life. This too would have benefits and detriments a sovereign individual could weigh.

People who think and act sovereign will allow the real innovation to occur. Their lives are experiments in how to be free, and not accept arbitrary and unlimited authority from above. And the best part is, they are already operating, testing limits, and trying new styles of living.

Tell me in the comments how sovereign you think it is possible to be in this day and age. 

Source:>>>>>>>>Here

💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥

Bring Out The Gimp: Everybody Loves Hitler

Everybody loves Hitler.

Hitler is a one-size-fits-all kinda guy. He’s always on time, never complains and works for free. The perfect Government stooge.

Have doubts about free-for-all immigration?
Annoyed by militant feminism?
Believe in traditional values?
Not seduced by Socialism?
Got no love for Sharia law?

Why, you must be a Nazi.

It’s simple.

Hitler is the most prized horse in the entire stable. He has got more guff than Saddam. More grit than Bin Laden. And that fat little North Korean could never compete.

He’ll outlast them all by a long shot because this fascist is always in fashion.

Make no mistake, he’s Hollywood’s whore. They get to pimp him out because they’re the ones who resurrected him right after he blew his own brains out.

Then for the next 75+ years, they injected his specter into damn near everything.

But why is he the favorite whipping boy?

Why not Stalin or Mao? Didn’t they murder even more? Why don’t they get anywhere near the treatment Hitler gets in Film and Media?

It may be that Hitler’s greatest affront to the Elite was that he was a National Socialist. And anything to do with Nationalism is a no-go in their eyes. Had he been an International Socialist like Stalin or Mao, he might not have pissed off the big boys as much.

(Of course, there’s that whole thing with the Jews as well, no doubt. But hey, that bone is picked dry.)

So Hitler gets to be the shit paintbrush. Anything they don’t like they smear with him. The nation-state, family, and tradition are constant targets. Because these are the biggest barriers to a malleable people.

But why are the reactions to the Hitler smears so mindless and predictable? Why do people duck and cover like cowards as soon as he’s summoned?

Kubrick laid it all out in his masterpiece A Clockwork Orange.

In the film, the character Alex DeLarge has been very naughty. He ends up in jail after a night out drinking drug-laced milk with the boys (as you do).

To cure him of his criminal habits the State brainwashes him in a movie theatre. They drug him and subject him to repeated showings of violence and, funny enough, Hitler. Afterwards, he can no longer defend himself when abused and to avoid abuse he licks boots.

Welcome to 2017 – There are bootlickers everywhere. That’s because Hitler is everywhere waiting for you to slip up. From ‘Putin is Hitler’ to Saturday Night Live and your kid’s cartoons, he’s there.

75+ years of Hitler being hammered home in the movie theaters has shaped the modern mind. We allow would-be dictators to use a dead dictator to dictate the narrative.

It’s no wonder groups like Antifa see him in every nook and cranny. They are the ultimate pawns in the age of psycho-cultural control. Spawned in the school and television bubble Hitler is all they were ever allowed to know.

(Even Satan isn’t as evil as Hitler. Look at the After School Satan Clubs popping up around the county.)

The handful of Nazis that actually exist suckle the same teats as Antifa. They think they’re rebels because they’re told loving Hitler is the ultimate taboo. Nurturing idiots is what Hitler does, Left and Right.

There is a very simple mechanism that makes Hitler so popular. You’ll find it everywhere.

Repetition.

Muslim minarets bang the Allah drum 5 times a day, every day, for life. Is it any wonder all Jihadis can ever manage to say is Allah Akbar? You must have noticed.

How about the radio playing songs on repeat until you want to vomit. They’re hammering home a message. The pop star is only the packaging, your brain is the receptacle.

A Beyonce song from a few years back has the line “Who run the world? Girls!” in it repeated more than 50 times. If a hit song gets 3 hours of heavy rotation per day, then Beyonce spewed the line “Who run the world? Girls!” 1,800 times per day on a single station.

I guess men and women aren’t allowed to run the world together. No wonder Beyonce is an Establishment favorite. She’s busy brainwashing young women to turn against men, pure divide and conquer.

This is what technocratic control looks like. They stopped with the physical lashings and now apply the mental ones. And repeated mental lashings turn you onto the path of their choice.

Hijacked bootlick culture on repeat breeds reflexive, emotional distress. The victims are Pavlov’s Dogs and the scale is epic.

Source:>>>>>>>Here

💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥

 

TRY FRIENDS OF LIBERTY ADD FREE

FRIENDS OF LIBERTY

 "FIGHTING FOR FREEDOM AND LIBERTY"

Stand Up To Government Corruption and Hypocrisy

                                                                                                    

NEVER FORGET THE SACRIFICES

BY OUR VETERANS 

Note: We at Friends of Liberty cannot make any warranties about the completeness, reliability and accuracy of this information.

Don't forget to follow the Friends Of Liberty on Facebook and our Page also Pinterest , Twitter , Tumblr and Google Plus PLEASE help spread the word by sharing our articles on your favorite social networks.

Friends of Liberty is a non-partisan, non-profit organization with the mission to Educate, protect and defend individual freedoms and individual rights.

Support the Trump Presidency and help us fight Liberal Media Bias. Please LIKE and SHARE this story on Facebook or Twitter.

WE THE PEOPLE

TOGETHER WE WILL MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN! 

Join The Resistance and Share This Article Now!

Help us spread the word about the Friends Of Liberty Blog we're reaching millions help us reach millions more.

‼️️ ♻️ PLEASE SHARE ♻️ ‼️️

Please SHARE this now! The Crooked Liberal Media will hide and distort the TRUTH. It’s up to us, Trump social media warriors, to get the truth out. If we don’t, no one will!

Share this story on Facebook and let us know because we want to hear YOUR voice!