Category: Hypocrisy


Resultado de imagem para images obama vacation hawaii
image edited by Web Investigator
WIKK WEB GURU

WIKK WEB GURU

ceo

Piore_BR_artwork

What makes a person magnetic and why we should be wary.

For weeks I had been researching what science has to say about the power of charisma. Why do some people so clearly have it and others don’t? Why do we fall so easily under its influence? Charismatics can make us feel charmed and great about ourselves. They can inspire us to excel. But they can also be dangerous. They use charisma for their own purposes, to enhance their power, to manipulate others.

Scientists have plenty to say about charisma. Individuals with charisma tap our unfettered emotions and can shut down our rational minds. They hypnotize us. But studies show charisma is not just something a person alone possesses. It’s created by our own perceptions, particularly when we are feeling vulnerable in politically tense times. I’m going to tell you about these studies and spotlight the opinions of the neuroscientists, psychologists, and sociologists who conducted them.

But first I want to tell you about a magnetic preacher who spent decades wowing audiences in churches across America with the holy words of Jesus. Then he lost his faith and now preaches about how to live happily without God. What scientists study about charisma, Bart Campolo lives.

I first read about the newly non-believing Campolo in The New York Times Magazine last December. “An extreme extrovert, he was brilliant before a crowd and also at ease in private conversations, connecting with everyone from country-club suburbanites to the destitute souls he often fed in his own house,” wrote Mark Oppenheimer. Campolo’s father is Tony Campolo, one of America’s superstar evangelists for the past 50 years, who counseled Bill Clinton through the Monica Lewinsky scandal, and today continues to mobilize people into a movement for Jesus’ messages of love and redemption.

Who would know more about the power of charisma to both charm and deceive than a preacher’s son gone rogue? Campolo, 53, who today volunteers counseling young people as a “humanist chaplain” at the University of Southern California, didn’t disappoint. He was wonderfully frank and engaging, energetic and insightful, just like a, well, evangelical preacher.

The early 20th-century German sociologist Max Weber wrote charisma is a quality that sets an individual “apart from ordinary men,” and causes others to treat him as “endowed with supernatural, superhuman, or at least specifically exceptional powers or qualities.” Such qualities, Weber wrote, “are not accessible to the ordinary person, but are regarded as of divine origin or as exemplary, and on the basis of them the individual concerned is treated as a leader.”

Campolo had long believed that was true. “I was convinced charisma flowed directly from God,” he told me. “It was a gift.” As he began to lose his faith, he said, “I passed through every stage of apostasy on my way to heresy, I slowly left my ability to believe in all this stuff.” He began to preach that charisma may be something you’re born with, but it wasn’t supernatural; you could employ it at will. “You can use it to get women in bed, you can use it to win people down the aisle for Jesus, or you can use it to sell insurance,” Campolo said. What’s more, it was a quality that could, at least in part, be learned and perfected.

Who would know more about the power of charisma to both charm and deceive than a preacher’s son gone rogue?

That was precisely what John Antonakis, a professor of organizational behavior, and the director of the doctoral program in management at the University of Lausanne who has spent years studying charismatic speakers, told me. “Charismatic techniques can be taught,” he said. Antonakis has identified a series of what he calls Charismatic Leadership Tactics (CLTs), which range from the use of metaphors and storytelling to nonverbal methods of communication like open posture and animated, representative gestures at key moments. When taken together, he has shown, they have helped decide eight of the last 10 presidential elections. “The more charismatic leadership tactics used, the more individuals will be seen as leader-like by others,” he said. (Read here how Antonakis breaks down the CLTs of super-popular TV preacher Joel Osteen.)

Tony Campolo had mastered all the tactics. In the 1970s and ’80s, Bart Campolo and his father traversed the country in a beat-up, sky-blue Dodge Coronet, giving sermons wherever they could. Campolo marveled at his father in action. “My dad was one of the most charismatic people in the world,” Campolo said. “I’ve been around black preachers and people like my dad, who can go up and down the spectrum, do the whisper that you can’t help but listen to, tell the joke, then tell the tear-jerking story, and then the fiery fulmination. He can do it all over the map.”

Many of the most important lessons of Bart’s vocation came after the elder Campolo’s sermons were over. That was when Bart’s dad would ask his son what he’d seen, what worked, what didn’t, and why. Like how to read a room.

“You try to figure out who’s the most difficult part of the room,” Campolo said. “Say you’re at a college campus and there’s a bunch of athletes sitting on the back row. If you don’t get to them, they’re going to hurt you all night long.” So before you get up to speak, Campolo said, you go to the back of the room and talk to the potential troublemakers. “You might say, ‘Hey man, why did you choose this school? How did you here?’ You try to get those people on your side even before you get up on the stage.” Or you seek them out while you’re speaking, making eye contact, reaching directly to them…

more…

http://nautil.us/issue/45/power/the-anatomy-of-charisma

WIKK WEB GURU

WIKK WEB GURU

By Matthew Voegtli

Why should Americans feel obligated to open our borders for Muslims to move here en masse?  Foreign nationals in foreign countries do not have U.S.  Constitutional rights.  As the Supreme Court has held, an unadmitted and nonresident alien “had no constitutional right of entry to this country as a nonimmigrant or otherwise.” (Mandel, 408 U.S.  at 762; see Plasencia, 459 U.S.  at 32.)  Beyond this fact, the president has plenary power over foreign affairs and this includes, under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, the power to suspend or impose restrictions on the entry of foreign nationals if he determines their entry “would be detrimental to the interest of the United States.”  The president as commander-in-chief is given this power, not New York Times columnists, not wailing Democrats, not the Council on American-Islamic Relations and the many activists groups calling for massive increases in Muslim immigration.

Remarkably many supporters of enhanced vetting to protect Americans have gone into a protective crouch and have not articulated reasons why we should be very careful about admitting more and more Muslims into America.

But we should be concerned.

There are claims that not one Muslim from the seven nations named in Trump’s executive order has been implicated in terrorism.  The New York Times in a lead editorial stated that not one person from those nations has engaged in terrorism, despite a Somalian refugee going on a rampage at Ohio State University last year.   Seattle-based  District Court Judge James Robart asked a federal prosecutor how many citizens of those seven countries were arrested for terrorism since September 11.  “Let me tell you, the answer to that is none, as best as I can tell.”

Then he issued an injunction freezing Trump’s executive order.  More significantly, even the San Francisco appeals court that upheld that injunction turned a blind eye (justice is supposed to be blind but not this type of blind) to the fact that 72 persons from the seven mostly Muslim nations covered by Trump’s extreme vetting order have been convicted of terrorism — not arrested, not indicted but convicted Deroy Murdock of National Review provides a few thumbnail sketches of some of those immigrants who have terrorized or planned to terrorize Americans and is correct to conclude that Trump’s executive order is meant to protect us from real-life mayhem

Scott Johnson, one of the founders of Powerline, has one superb work in uncovering the terrorism epicenter that the Somalian community of his hometown of Minneapolis has become over the years.  Many  Syrian refugees (and many other refugees from other Muslim majority nations)  support ISIS, according to a poll by the Arab Center for Policy and Research Studies; they harbor anti-Semitic and anti-Western ideologies and are primed to turn those views into action,

What has also been pronounced is the media blackout and amnesia over the litany of Muslim terror attacks over the years in America.  Here is a sampling: the first World Trade Center bombing, 9/11, Boston Marathon massacre, San Bernardino, the Orlando nightclub massacre, Fort Hood, Chattanooga, the aforementioned Ohio State attack, and on and on and more to come (for a much longer list see, “A Complete List of Radical Islamic Terror Attacks on U.S.  Soil Under Obama”).  There have also been planned attacks that were not successfully completed, among them the Underwear Bomber and the plot to blow up Times Square.

Apologists are wont to say some of these attacks were done by U.S.  citizens.  That is true, but they are often the sons of Muslim immigrants, and members of the second generation of Muslim immigrants too often become alienated from America and radicalized by mosques in America or by online campaigns to stoke terrorism against America.  The conclusion can be made that but for their parents moving to America there would be fewer murdered Americans.

Terror groups have openly boasted of their efforts to slip terrorists into the stream of immigrants coming into America from Muslim nations.  James Comey, head of the FBI, and James Clapper, Obama’s Director of National Intelligence, warned that vetting procedures were inadequate to protect us from the threats of terrorists coming to America .

Sometimes the future is visible in the present, and this is one of those times, since we can see how the European experiment with open borders and welcoming of Muslim refugees has turned out for them: mass terror attacks that have become so routine that even James Taylor has given up trying to bring solace to the beleaguered and endangered Europeans.  Crime waves have followed refugee waves.  Too many Europeans have paid a price for the generosity they have shown to Muslims, who have reciprocated by upping their demands, truck attacks, nightclub attacks, stadium attacks, Louvre attacks, attacks on women, beheading of  priests, desecration of churches, torture of Jews, London subway and bus bombings, and beheading a British soldier.  Are there any safe zones for Europeans?

more…

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/02/why_should_muslims_feel_ementitledem_to_move_to_america.html#ixzz4YwdtXZuf
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

 

WIKK WEB GURU

WIKK WEB GURU

Illustration By Erin Taj

by Alana Hope Levinson

On the agony & ecstasy of sharing romantic love online

The first night we met he took a picture of me. We stayed out until 2 a.m., our stomachs full of beer and cheap whiskey shots. It was summer 2012. The dance floor had a strobe above it that let off rainbow beams of light, which looked like tiny fireworks when captured by his iPhone. In the photo, my silhouette was dark, my face obscured, and the strobe’s yellow star bursts somehow contained within my body’s outline. In the bottom of the frame, two strangers are about to embark on a dance, their arms outstretched, fingertips almost touching. Before I left the bar, I asked him (Alex) to send me the picture as an excuse to get his number — intrigued by the way it perfectly captured the rush of a chance first meeting.

In the wee hours of that morning, he texted to ask me out the following week. He couched it with, “You can say no,” showing the bashfulness I’d later fall in love with. I took the entire day to respond, mulling over my loosening ties to the city he lived in, my fast-approaching move to California. I knew it was a bad idea, but the force of the night before propelled me to text: “Okay.”

When I got home, I posted the photo on Instagram. It would be the first of many.

Unlike most memes, no one has obsessively tracked (or taken credit for) the origin of “Relationship Goals,” which is odd, especially for something so prolific. You’ve seen it scattered across the web, as a hashtag on Twitter, a listicle on BuzzFeed, the caption on your annoying college roommate’s photo of his girlfriend on Instagram. Relationship Goals signifies a piece of content that is everything one aspires to be romantically; it’s like a culture-wide Pinterest board for romantic ideation. Scrolling through the hashtag reveals that we still value partnership, particularly the performance of it.

Everyone knows “that couple” on social media — the one who feels the need to constantly reinforce the strength of their bond publicly. They post pictures together, anniversary status updates and inside jokes about that one time they got food poisoning in Costa Rica. This couple loves “ussies,” and using the Man Crush Monday (#mcm) and Woman Crush Wednesday (#wcw) tags. They seem to live by the credo that if love isn’t broadcast on social media, it isn’t love at all. Very few people who exist in 2017 aren’t this couple to at least some degree, even if they actively don’t want to be. (I once spoke to a woman for a story on wedding hashtags who was vocal about not wanting one of her own; in the end, it wasn’t up to her — her guests made several.)

When it’s not you, it’s easy to surmise that a couple must be oversharing to overcompensate for something. Gwendolyn Seidman, a psychology professor at Albright College who researches couple’s social media habits, found that this behavior definitely makes a couple “less likable” to onlookers. But she also found no evidence that extreme oversharing is indicative of a weak or shallow relationship. “I think [skeptics would] be surprised to hear that it is associated with being genuinely happy in their relationships,” she told The Atlantic

more…

https://melmagazine.com/the-trouble-with-relationshipgoals-655ccc55a337#.gm6g7xg4h

WIKK WEB GURU

WIKK WEB GURU

Friendvy

Brett Ryder/Heart Agency

Coming to terms with how we really feel about our friends’ good fortune

By Joan Duncan Oliver
 
At the gym, I idly thumb through a back issue of the Harvard Business Review. A headline, “Envy at Work,” catches my eye. I glance at paragraph one:

As you enter your recently promoted colleague’s office, you notice a photograph of his beautiful family in their new vacation home. He casually adjusts his custom suit and mentions his upcoming board meeting and speech in Davos. On one hand, you want to feel genuinely happy for him and celebrate his successes. On the other, you hope he falls into a crevasse in the Alps. Hello. You’re playing my song. Alas, I’ve been there more than once, my good Buddhist training battling—unsuccessfully—my envious heart.

Hello. You’re playing my song. Alas, I’ve been there more than once, my good Buddhist training battling—unsuccessfully—my envious heart.

And I’m not alone, right? Envy is “universal,” assert the authors of the HBR article, psychologist Tanya Menon and Leigh Thompson, a management professor. And psychologists, anthropologists, and philosophers for the most part agree: envy is a standard-issue human emotion, albeit the one we are least likely to admit to, even to ourselves.

With that in mind, I ask two young colleagues, “What do you think about envy?” Vigorous shaking of heads. “Nope, never feel it,” one declares. Nodding in agreement, the other says, “My mother always told us not to envy anyone. You don’t know their story—what the rest of their life is like, or what they’re feeling inside.”

She’s right, of course. Envy rests on comparing ourselves to others—and coming up short. Comparing per se isn’t the problem. It can be beneficial if it motivates us to take action on our own behalf—to start exercising or meditating, say, or to apply for a more challenging job. But invidious comparisons are deleterious all around.

In Buddhist teachings, envy isn’t clearly distinguished from jealousy. So I try another tack with my colleagues. “What about jealousy? Ever feel that?” I ask. “Of course!” one shoots back, laughing. “All the time!” And off we go on the fickleness of boyfriends.

Jealousy—fear of losing someone we value—is at least marginally justifiable and therefore socially acceptable. Envy—discontent or anger that someone else has something we want but don’t possess, be it beauty, talent, a coveted job, or just dumb luck—is neither justifiable nor condoned. La Rochefoucauld, that astute observer of human nature, defined the difference: “Jealousy is in some measure just and reasonable since it tends only to retain a good which belongs to us, whereas envy is a fury that cannot endure the good of others.”

However couched it might be, envy by its very nature is hostile. The word comes from the Latin invidere, to regard maliciously, to grudge. Unlike its cousin greed, envy doesn’t just crave the object of its desire, it taints the whole project, begrudging others what they have and, when all else fails, devaluing or destroying the desired object.

Psychologists, unlike Buddhists, distinguish between envy and jealousy. Jealousy is a triangulation among equals: I’m jealous of the glamorous new neighbor my boyfriend has been chatting up, afraid that she’s going to drive a wedge between us. Envy is an unequal misalliance of two, with the envied person one up, the envier one down. I envy the new hire for being younger, smarter, and more tech savvy than I. And if I’m convinced my job is in jeopardy as a result, then consciously or unconsciously, I might try to sabotage the upstart.

Nothing good attaches to envy, a sin in every major religion. Two German social psychologists who study envy say that “among the seven deadlies, it occupies a unique position: it’s the only sin that is never fun.” Even schadenfreude—wicked pleasure in someone else’s misfortune—is usually short-lived: soon enough, the bitter taste of hatred rises in your throat, and shame and guilt flood your system…

more…

https://tricycle.org/magazine/friendvy/

WIKK WEB GURU

WIKK WEB GURU

 

by Julian Rose, Contributor, Waking Times

The Universe is sexual. Electric. Sexual-electric. Its electricity produced by a state of polarity. Polarity which causes friction. Friction as the fundamental life force. The life force which catalyzes birth. Birth: an act of procreation; ‘pro-creation’. A Divine act. The birthing of the Universe as Divine Action.

An action brought about by the mutual attraction existing between two interconnected, gravity enhanced polar opposites. Negative/positive; day/night; yin/yang; male/female. No life without duality. No duality without polarity. No birth without duality/polarity. No evolution without procreation, and no procreation without the sexes.

Sexuality is sacred, an eternal fountain of the profoundly creative: therefore, in a monotone world, where survival depends upon materialistic uniformity of thought and sterile conformity of inaction, sexuality is dangerous.

That danger has led to an attempt to neuter our electrically charged reality, and render obsolete the role of man, woman and even procreation itself, so as to make way for a robotic cyber race and subsequent trans-humanist take-over of this planet.

Let us explore this phenomenon further. Let us bring it to light of day so that all shall see, and cease to deny, what stands behind the glorious actuality of life, death and universal movement. And at the same time, to recognize the existence and manifestation of a cruel master-plan, to block and set in reverse, this great unfolding adventure: the evolution of Life.

To those who are entrained to oppose, repress and suffocate the life force which stands behind Creation, sexuality is indeed dangerous. Especially so, since it is aligned with the birth of new life, a vessel and messenger of universal spiritual creativity.

The forces that take fright from this energetic expression of creative freedom, are aligned with an opposing state of existence. One that, for the sake of this article, we will call ‘anti-creation’. A force that seeks to subsume creative energy and invert it into its opposite.

Such beings (and the entities that possess them) do not oppose the existence of electric energy per se. They do not wish to destroy that which provides them with the fuel needed to carry through their master-plan. But they do wish to gain control over it and use it for their own ends. Not for pro-creation, but for its opposite – anti-creation, a form of life abortion.

They wish to possess that which is pure, claiming unto themselves such untainted energies, and using them as ammunition within an unquenchable ambition for power, possession and absolute dominance.

This form of power comes without empathy, compassion or love. It is hard, cold and often ruthless. It can murder, maim and eviscerate life with seemingly cool disdain.

To warm, red-blooded humans, it seems almost inconceivable. Almost inconceivable that there could be an entity devoid of these instincts; one supported (worshipped) by human beings keen to emulate its cold, robotic machismo.

But amongst what are referred to as ‘the 1%’, such beings are indeed to be found. Those who practice pedophilia and child sacrifice, while holding high office in government, banking, law, media and other similar professions. In other words, those who run the day-to-day life of this planet.

It is within the ambition of such people, to support external and extra dimensional forces that wish to take control of human DNA, while confining humanity to playing-out a slavish role in support of the ‘anti-creation master plan’.

Great swathes of humanity cannot (or do not wish to) believe that such entities – and the earthly beings who emulate them – actually exist and engage in such heinous acts of violence on the young and innocent who walk amongst us. Most of the inhabitants of planet Earth cannot see that they are under the spell of a global indoctrination agenda. And that this agenda is the dominant controlling mechanism of this neo-liberal corporate era.

We are here to help change that situation.

Neutering, Crudifying and Sublimating Sexual Polarity

Let us draw breath a moment and ask: how is the subversion and inversion of natural sexuality actually achieved here on planet Earth?

Given that it is a key element of the anti-creation mission, what is the methodology being applied to ensure its widespread adoption?

Let me start the answer to this question by reminding us that the uncorrupted nature of human and universal sexuality is spiritual in nature. We are blessed with this power. The power of pro-creation.

Every male is in part, also female. Every female is in part, also male. We recognize these qualities in ourselves. They allow both sexes to empathise with each other. They are distinctive, yet entirely interconnected. Looked at dynamically, they are engaged in a Flamenco like dance of magnetic attraction within each one of us; just as they are between us. Love starts within.

As outlined at the beginning, sexuality (sex-duality) is the essential driving force of universal life. Of movement, change, evolution. Without the ‘friction’ stemming from the attraction of complementary opposites, living energy-matter would never have come into existence. The source of sexuality (sex-duality) is therefore sacred.

What the anti-creation doctrine aims to do, in order to achieve its goal, is to pry apart these two lovers and make them appear to be at odds with each other. To make natural duality appear to be a conflict rather than a resolution. Distorting and contorting that which is whole so that it seems like two opposing elements.

One ‘anti-creation’ solution would appear to be perfecting the watering down and morphing into each other of these two states, so that they no longer appear to be distinct, but indistinct and almost entirely lacking in definition. In effect, sterilising, homogenising and neutering them. Collapsing the divine natural polarity…

more…

About the Author
Julian Rose is an early pioneer of UK organic farming, international activist and author. Contact Julian at www.julianrose.info to find out more. He is President of The International Coalition to Protect the Polish Countryside, and is the author of two books with some very powerful perspectives: Changing Course for Life and In Defence of Life.
Like Waking Times on Facebook. Follow Waking Times on Twitter.
This article (The Gender Ending Agenda of Anti-Creationists) was originally created and published by Julian Rose and is re-posted here with permission. It may be re-posted freely with proper attribution, author bio, and this copyright statement.

http://www.wakingtimes.com/2017/02/13/gender-ending-agenda-anti-creationists/

 

WIKK WEB GURU

WIKK WEB GURU

 

 

 

 

The European assault on freedom of speech

Both the EU and post-EU Britain are throttling the liberty to think.

Hhead of spiked’s conference in central London next Wednesday – ‘Enemies of the State: Religious Freedom and the New Repression’ – Paul Coleman asks if Britain outside of the EU will be any more respectful of freedom of thought and speech.

It has been argued that Brexit will make us freer. Not just in an economic or political sense, but also in terms of individual civil liberties. spiked’s Mick Hume wrote that ‘the referendum result is a triumph for free speech and a smack in the eye for the culture of You Can’t Say That’. And it is.

Post-Brexit Britain will no longer be bound by an EU Code of Conduct that seeks to police the online speech of over 500million citizens and ban ‘illegal online hate speech’. Or an EU law that encourages the criminalisation of ‘insult’. Or a proposed EU law that undermines fundamental freedoms by purging Europe of every last shred of supposed ‘discrimination’.

We can distinguish ourselves from our European neighbours that are intent on pursuing more and more censorship. Just over the summer it was reported that prosecutors in Spain initiated criminal proceedings against the Archbishop of Valencia for preaching a homily alleged to have been ‘sexist’ and ‘homophobic’. In the Netherlands, a man was sentenced to 30 days in prison for ‘intentionally insulting’ the king on Facebook. And in Germany a prosecution was launched against a comedian who made jokes against Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

These kinds of cases have become normal on the continent. So much so that they barely generate news. And they are often willingly cheered on by the EU and other European institutions. Britain can tread a different path.

There is just one, small problem: when it comes to censorship and the quashing of civil liberties, the UK doesn’t need any encouragement from the EU, or anybody else.

Take the issue of free speech. In Britain there are countless attacks on this fundamental freedom that have little or no connection to EU law. Evangelical street preachers are routinely arrested for public preaching; peaceful campaigners have been prosecuted for holding allegedly insulting signs; and the police have started labelling wolf-whistling a ‘hate crime’. None of this was EU-mandated.

Or take the issue of conscience. Elderly guesthouse-owners have been sued for daring to operate a room policy that corresponds to their deeply held convictions on marriage. Printers have been sued for refusing to print messages that they profoundly disagree with. And of course there is Ashers Bakery in Northern Ireland, sued by an arm of the state, the ironically named Equality Commission, because its owners could not in good conscience ice a cake with the slogan ‘Support Gay Marriage’.

Again, all these examples stem from British legislation that is not EU-mandated, and which actually goes well beyond the censorship that exists in many other European countries.

True, these examples are all connected to existing laws. Perhaps the new post-Brexit Britain will be a bastion of freedom going into the future. But again there’s a problem, because the biggest challenge to civil liberties in Britain today comes directly from the prime minister, Theresa May, and the legislation her government is proposing…

more…

http://www.spiked-online.com/freespeechnow/fsn_article/the-european-assault-on-freedom-of-speech#.WKBIEVWLSUk

WIKK WEB GURU

WIKK WEB GURU

article image

Trump is right; America is far from innocent when it comes to killing, even when compared to Putin’s Russia

by Caitlin Johnstone

Let me start this off by saying that I am in no way a supporter of Vladimir Putin, and I have no respect for anyone who is. People who say America’s presidents are evil while forgiving Putin’s obscene abuses of power are as dumb and hypocritical as those who demonize the Russian government while pretending America is a Bambi-eyed cherub. A lot of American lefties seem to think there’s some sort of progressive trophy to be won by condemning the abuses of their own administrations while forgiving the transgressions of all others, which is just another kind of myopia. The ex-KGB autocrat is not our friend, my lefty brothers and sisters. This should be obvious. Moving on.

The President of the United States saying “You think our country’s so innocent?” to Bill O’Reilly on Fox News was one of the best things that’s ever happened. For years Republicans have been moronically bashing Obama for a completely made up “apology tour” wherein they pretend the President went around apologizing for America’s war crimes and heinous abuses, and meanwhile Democrats were rightly calling Bush a bloodthirsty monster while wrongly ignoring Obama’s bloodbaths all across the globe. And now the establishment Democrats are eagerly embracing the leftover evil neocons from the Bush administration as they form an alliance against Trump. The President’s statements (which included a condemnation of the Iraq invasion) were a big, fat dick slap on every single one of these horrible people, and they needed it. If Donald Trump has a stronger moral compass than you, you need to seriously rethink your life.

Predictably, the liberal media seized upon Trump’s quote with their trademarked righteous indignation, saying he was “defending Putin” by bringing up America’s extensive history of insatiable bloodlust when O’Reilly called Putin a killer. How dare he? America isn’t perfect, but to compare its track record of killing to that Russian dictator’s is ridiculous!

Well guess what, snowflakes? It’s not. 

If you take every single war that Putin has overseen, either as President or as Prime Minister, and include his extrajudicial killings and assassinations of political rivals, you still get nowhere near the body count of the Bush and Obama administrations. Adding the least conservative estimates of the total death tolls of the Second Chechen War, the Russo-Georgian War, the undeclared warfare in Donbas and elsewhere in Ukraine, the insurgency in the North Caucasus, Russia’s involvement in the Syrian conflict, and a sprinkling of assassinations and disappearances, you get around three hundred thousand deaths. The least conservative estimates of America’s Iraq invasion alone are over a million deaths, which is five percent of the population of the entire country.

That’s more than enough to make my point, but feel free to add in the tens of thousands of killings in Afghanistan, the tens of thousands killed in America’s unforgivable toppling of Gaddafi in Libya, the unknowable number of people killed in Obama’s drone strikes (ten times as many as Bush), and the hundreds of thousands killed in the Syrian conflict, largely due to America’s fanning the flames of insurgency and actively arming terrorist groups with the goal of toppling the Syrian government, and any of the seven countries Obama has dropped tens of thousands of bombs on every year.

So, like, I dunno, maybe when someone suggests that America has no room to talk when it comes to the subject of killings, they’re not doing something outrageous or unreasonable. This doesn’t excuse the actions of Putin, but the rest of the world would be grateful if America could go ahead and drop the holier-than-thou schtick when it comes to violently ending people’s lives. A lot more self awareness from the most powerful military force on the planet can only be a good thing.

http://www.newslogue.com/debate/327

WIKK WEB GURU

WIKK WEB GURU

http://lifehacker.com/the-problem-with-being-too-agreeable-1791893359

WIKK WEB GURU

WIKK WEB GURU

%d bloggers like this: