Leatherneck Blogger

Archive for the ‘Self-governance’ Category

Abby Johnson: I Could Have Quit Planned Parenthood Two Years Sooner But Something Awful Happened

leave a comment »

By Abby Johnson
August 7, 2017

I resigned from Planned Parenthood in 2009, but it could have been two years earlier. I had developed a relationship with one of the anti-abortion sidewalk counselors who stood in front of my facility. We talked regularly through the fence and she had asked me to go have coffee with her one day. I was impressed with her persistence and, honestly, I thought I would really like her if I got to know her. I remember sitting at my desk, contemplating whether to pick up the phone and schedule that coffee date.

Then my cell phone rang. It was my mom telling me that a man who frequently harassed us and our patients had sent a letter to the neighborhood where my parents lived, comparing me to a child molester and telling everyone that I killed children. It even had a picture of my face on it and a very derogatory comment about my physical appearance.

I remembered the times I had seen my pro-life acquaintance talking to this man on the sidewalk. Were they friends? They seemed to be. How could I trust her if she was friends with that guy? I decided that I couldn’t.

I didn’t move across that fence for another two years. Two years. How many lives had been taken in that two years? How many more babies died by my hands because I didn’t make that call?

Respect, Patience, and Kindness Matter

How pro-lifers are perceived by those who oppose us is important. It matters because it’s these people we are trying to persuade to our side: it’s the women who see us outside the abortion facilities, their partners who read the news, and their families who may have the opportunity to persuade them one way or another who are on Facebook watching videos of protestors.

There is one abortion facility left in Kentucky, and it has become a hotbed of protest activity. Photos of older white men screaming at women have been plastered in the press. They are identified as “pro-life.”

This is not me, this is not the majority of the pro-life movement I know. Yet, it is these photos and videos that are the face of the pro-life movement in Kentucky, and to many others all across the nation who see those stories.

I am not a part of them. I am part of a movement that loves women into conversation and conversion. I am part of the pro-woman movement. I recognize that a baby cannot be saved unless we reach the hearts of the women walking into abortion facilities exactly like the one I used to work in.

I do not believe we will ever win hearts through intimidation or illegal tactics. We won’t be able to help women if we scare them. It’s illogical to think that a woman already in a vulnerable position would willingly walk up to a man who is holding a graphic image, engaging in civil disobedience, and calling her a murderer just to, you know, have a conversation with him.

Don’t Make an Abortion Clinic a Safe Place

I’ve seen it firsthand from my time working inside the abortion industry. I have seen women literally run into the abortion facility because someone was yelling Bible verses at them or pushing a graphic image in their faces. I recognized that they saw us, the abortion clinic, as a safe haven. We were going to kill their babies, and somehow, we had become their safe place.

I currently run a ministry, And Then There Were None, which has helped nearly 360 abortion workers quit their jobs and start anew at places that don’t take lives. These workers have seen the same things I did—women running into their facilities, hating the supposed pro-life people outside of the abortion facility who were screaming at them.

We must do better as a movement. We must show love, not frustration and desperation. Perception matters in this fight. Lives are depending on it.

LifeNews Note: Abby Johnson is a former Planned Parenthood abortion clinic manager, who has become a pro-life advocate. She now heads up the ministry And Then There Were None.

Federal Bill Seeks To Block Sales Of Pistols Lacking Microstamping Technology

with 2 comments

By Tom Knighton
Bearing Arms
August 9, 2017

Microstamping is supposed to stop crime. The idea is that each round will be stamped with a number unique to the firearm and thus making it easier for the police to catch those who use guns in violent crimes.

Unfortunately, the technology is expensive, unreliable, and controversial. That won’t stop some politicians from trying yet again to require its use.

Introduced as the Make Identifiable Criminal Rounds Obvious (MICRO) Act last month, the proposal would strip the ability of federal firearms licensees to sell pistols that do not carry the controversial microstamping technology. Backers argue that as much as 40 percent of murders go unsolved due to lack of evidence, which the bill is meant to address.

“We must do everything we can to ensure gun violence can be investigated and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law,” said the bill’s author, U.S. Rep. Anthony Brown, D-Md., in a statement. “Microstamping offers law enforcement the chance to track bullet casings to the source of the crime, and is one more step we can take to ensure the safety of the American people.”

A previous attempt in California to require such stamping is currently sitting before the California Supreme Court. As a result, the number of approved firearms permitted by the state has dropped by almost 50 percent. That has led some critics to call the legislation an incremental pistol ban.

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra penned similar legislation during his time in Congress referred to the technology as “smart, effective, and constitutional.”

Frankly, all three remain to be seen.

Becerra and Brown have also overlooked one tidbit that will render this technology useless. They forget that few criminals go into a gun store and buy their weapons. Instead, they buy them from people selling stolen guns out on the street.

A microstamped casing will only point to who previously owned the weapon prior to its theft, not to the person responsible, and only in states with a registration scheme in place. Without that, all they know is what kind of gun was used…in theory.

At best, a microstamped round can be used to match a casing with a weapon found in the possession of a suspect, but even then, it’s unlikely to be enough on its own. Ballistics tests will most likely still need to be conducted to verify it is indeed the same weapon.

Realistically, however, that will only happen with the dumbest of criminals.

Most will either dump it after they’ve shot someone, or modify the weapon so it’ll be untraceable. The proposed bill does make that illegal, but it’s also illegal to remove a guns serial number, and that happens all the time.

It’s shocking, but apparently criminals really don’t like following the law. Go figure.

Once again, liberals are trying to treat ordinary gun owners as would be criminals just waiting for the opportunity to slaughter the innocent. A group of gun-grabbing politicos once again create a law that only the law-abiding will be impacted by, even though the law-abiding are the last people they need to worry about.

Currently, the law has 12 co-sponsors, all of whom are Democrats. Shocking, I know, but there it is.  Also, with a Republican controlled Congress, it’s unlikely that any such bill will ever see the outside of a committee, much less be passed and signed into law.

Still, it’s good to see what the gun control crowd is up to.

Here’s How One Professor Chose to Protest Texas’ Campus Carry Law

with one comment

By Erika Haas
Bearing Arms
August 4, 2017

This past week, community and junior colleges in Texas joined the list of places CCW permit holders can carry their firearms – and one professor is making his thoughts on the matter known in a rather interesting way.

On Tuesday morning, the day the law went into effect, Alamo Community College adjunct professor Charles Keith Smith walked into his Physical Geography class wearing…a bullet proof vest and an army helmet.

I guess we know where he stands.

“This is me making a statement that I do not approve of it [camps carry], and I feel threatened,” Smith told The Ranger.

The science professor doesn’t think students in their early twenties are responsible or mature enough to carry a firearm.

He also believes that firearms could make an otherwise common situation dangerous. If you don’t know the mental stability of someone, you could easily set them off, he argues. And with a gun involved, things could become deadly.

“I had a fistfight break out in class over seating two years ago,” Smith recalled. “What if a student gets an F in my class? It is automatically my fault.”

Smith goes on to note that “a shooting can happen with or without the concealed carry. “But,” he says, “you have got the person who has the gun, and they do not have to drive home to get the gun or have time to think about it. They have a weapon on the spot. It is intimidating.”

Doesn’t Smith realize that if a student is that unstable, that if they’re going to become murderous over a grade or a chair, that that student certainly isn’t going to obey some rule that says gun aren’t allowed on campus?

Smith was right when he said a shooting can happen whether or not concealed carry is permitted on campus. The only difference is whether or not those being attacked have a way to defend themselves.

CBS Accidentally Stumbles On Harsh Truth About Gun Laws

with 3 comments

By Tom Knighton
Bearing Arms
August 5, 2017

It’s safe to say that CBS and other mainstream media organizations aren’t precisely friends of the Second Amendment. A recent story about gun violence in Chicago appears to keep up that trend when it’s announced, “The problem we heard – and saw – over and over again, was guns.”

The firearm enthusiast community would be easily forgiven for simply rolling their eyes at the post and not thinking anything of it. After all, a mainstream media story blaming guns for violence? That only happens on days that end in the letter “Y”, right?

In the midst of the standard fear mongering about guns, however, CBS accidentally exposes a truth that they might not have intended to.

Asked where he got his .40-caliber gun, he said, “Off the streets, people sell ’em.”

“Just like that, that’s how easy it is,” another man said.

“It’s worth it for you to keep these guns?” Diaz asked.

“We felons. You know what I’m saying? Ain’t nobody gonna give us no jobs. The cops don’t give a f*** about us.”

Admitted felons saying they have no real problems getting their hands on guns.

Every licensed firearm dealer in this country is required to do a background check. They require a photo ID and the purchaser is required to fill out ATF Form 4473, which specifically asks if one is a felon.

In Chicago, it’s a bit more involved. There you have to get a Firearms Owners Identification Card from the Illinois State Police, take an approved safety course, get a Chicago Firearms Permit, then after you buy the gun you have to register it with the city within five days of the purchase. Failure to register it within those five days, and your gun is deemed unregisterable.

These are all steps people have been assured would reduce gun violence.

Yet CBS is able to report that violent felons are able to get their hands on firearms “off the streets.” How is this possible?

The reality, something CBS missed in its report, is that only the law abiding who abides by laws. All of the myriad of steps required to legally purchase a firearm in the city of Chicago appears to do little to dissuade violent criminals such as gang members from getting guns.

Instead, it merely created legal and financial roadblocks to those who want to follow the law.

By following all the steps required by the City of Chicago, would be gun owners are forced to pay an additional $250 to $260 over and above the cost of a gun. That’s more than some people pay for their low-budget firearms in the first place.

All in an attempt to stop criminals from getting guns.

For all the left’s pontification on firearms being a public safety hazard, they still haven’t figured out how to convince the average gangbanger to stop breaking gun laws. If they ever do, maybe they can then turn those newfound skills on convincing killers not to kill rather than disarming law-abiding Americans?

Federal Court Forces Pregnancy Center to Obey Obamacare Mandate, Pay for Abortions

with one comment

By Steve Ertelt
August 4, 2017

In a horrible defeat for pro-life organizations, a three-judge panel of a federal appeals court ruled that a secular pregnancy center must be forced to comply with the Obamacare mandate that forces organizations to pay for drugs that cause abortions.

Most pro-life voters are familiar with the Supreme Court decisions in the Hobby Lobby and Little Sisters of the Poor cases that held that a religious oriented company or organization does not have to comply with the Obamacare mandate and be forced to pay for abortion-causing drugs in their employee health care plans. However those decisions were limited in scope and did not apply to every kind of pro-life organization or company.

The pro-life group Real Alternatives, based in Pennsylvania, filed a lawsuit against the Obama administration concerning the mandate and its compelling portions that require religious groups to pay for drugs that may cause abortions. Real Alternatives, which provides abortion alternatives in Pennsylvania and elsewhere, field suit to protect itself and its employees form the mandate.

Considering another lawsuit related to the Obamacare mandate, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that pro-life organizations that are secular in nature are not entitled to the religious exemption from the mandate even though their consciences compel them to oppose abortion and being forced to pay for abortions.

Here is more about this disappointing ruling:

The court’s ruling affirms a federal judge’s dismissal of a challenge to the mandate under the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution filed by Real Alternatives Inc., which describes itself as a “life-affirming” pregnancy-support organization not affiliated with any religious body.

“Real Alternatives is in no way like a religious denomination or one of its nontheistic counterparts—not in structure, not in aim, not in purpose, and not in function,” Senior Third Circuit Judge Marjorie Rendell wrote in the court’s majority opinion, joined by Judge Joseph A. Greenaway Jr. “We do not doubt that Real Alternatives’s stance on contraceptives is grounded in sincerely-held moral values, but ‘religion is not generally confined to one question or one moral teaching; it has a broader scope.’”

The majority’s holding drew a sharp rebuke from dissenting judge Kent A. Jordan, who disagreed with the court’s reasoning that religious employees’ freedom to worship is not impinged by subscribing to a health plan that provides coverage for birth control.

“According to the government, the mandate has nothing to do with deep questions about the beginning of life, or the boundaries of moral culpability, or about faith and one’s obligations to God,” Jordan said. “Religious beliefs are not being burdened in any meaningful sense, so people should just stop complaining. That is the line pressed by the United States Department of Justice, and it is the line accepted by my colleagues in the majority, but I reject it.”

Previously, Judge John E. Jones III of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania sided with the Obama administration and dismissed their case despite their claim that their religious freedoms were violated.

Real Alternatives had excluded payment for abortion-causing drugs from its health insurance plan since 2008, and was able to continue doing so until 2014 because its plan was “grandfathered” against requirements of Obamacare. But the insurer eventually opted to discontinue the plan, and after 2014 Real Alternatives was unable to buy coverage that didn’t include those drugs.

One of the Real Alternatives arguments dismissed by Jones was that the government has no legitimate purpose in mandating people to have benefits they don’t want or won’t use.

At that time, Kevin Bagatta, the director of Real Alternatives, told LifeNews.com he was “very disappointed with this ruling.”

“Real Alternatives, a secular, nonreligious, nonprofit company, administers programs on behalf of three states to operate pregnancy and parenting support services programs to assist women to choose childbirth instead of feeling they have to have an abortion. Real Alternatives believes the science is undeniable that abortion ends the life of a human person and as a matter of conscience is wrong,” he said back then.

Bagatta continued: “The government is forcing Real Alternatives to purchase insurance coverage that covers devices that can cause an abortion. This government requirement forces Real Alternatives to violate its stated mission and its underlying purpose for its existence.”
“By analogy, this would be no different than if the government would require the American Lung Association to purchase cigarettes for its employees. It would run completely counter to the entire corporate philosophy, purpose, and mission of the American Lung Association,” he said. “Real Alternatives is conferring with its attorney’s to decide the next steps to take to prevent this government intrusion and over reach.”

A December 2013 Rasmussen Reports poll shows Americans disagree with forcing companies like Hobby Lobby to obey the mandate.

“Half of voters now oppose a government requirement that employers provide health insurance with free contraceptives for their female employees,” Rasmussen reports.

The poll found: “The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 38% of Likely U.S. Voters still believe businesses should be required by law to provide health insurance that covers all government-approved contraceptives for women without co-payments or other charges to the patient.

Fifty-one percent (51%) disagree and say employers should not be required to provide health insurance with this type of coverage. Eleven percent (11%) are not sure.”

Another recent poll found 59 percent of Americans disagree with the mandate.

Oakland Muslim: “I’m going to place a bomb in a gay club,” also wanted to murder 10,000 people

with one comment

By Robert Spencer
Jihad Watch
July 31, 2017

We tried to sound a warning on this, and were vilified for doing so. When AFDI ran ads highlighting the mistreatment of gays in Islamic law, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, which is its city council, issued a resolution condemning not that mistreatment, but our ads. Gay advocates such as Theresa Sparks and Chris Stedman attacked us for daring to call attention to the institutionalized mistreatment of gays under Islamic law. Their gay advocacy doesn’t extend to standing up to Sharia oppression of gays, even though that oppression is far more virulent and violent than anything from “right-wing extremists” in the U.S. And you can’t blame them: given the Leftist/jihadist alliance, it’s clear that if they spoke out against Sharia mistreatment of gays, they would no longer be invited to the best parties, and might even be branded as “right-wing.”

More on this story. “I-TEAM EXCLUSIVE: Oakland man allegedly planned Bay Area terror attacks,” by Dan Noyes, KGO, July 24, 2017:

WEST OAKLAND, Calif. (KGO) — Investigators say a West Oakland man told an undercover agent he wanted to “redefine terror” and kill 10,000 people in support of the terror group ISIS.

The ABC7 I-Team obtained a recording of Amer Alhaggagi’s detention hearing from December. Here are some of the most explosive accusations.

In an exclusive interview with the head of the San Francisco FBI and from federal court recordings obtained by the ABC7 I-Team, new details are emerging in the government’s terror case against Amer Sinan Alhaggagi.

Alhaggagi was arrested back in November 2016 on aggravated identity theft charges. But when he went to court a month later, his defense attorney asked for his release on bond in an unusual hearing closed to the public for a case that was ordered sealed by a federal judge. We obtained an audio recording of that detention hearing.

His defense attorney told the court the defendant was in many ways a typical American youth who might need counseling. He asked the judge to fashion a bond arrangement that would have Alhaggagi freed with electronic monitoring.

But a federal prosecutor revealed details of another case, one Alhaggagi had not been charged in, and convinced Federal Magistrate Kandis Westmore to order the defendant be held in custody.

RELATED: Oakland man indicted on terrorism charges after allegedly promoting ISIS rhetoric online

On Monday, FBI Special Agent in Charge John Bennett emphatically reiterated the government’s position in an exclusive interview, telling ABC7’s Dan Noyes, “This was a case of grave importance for us. This was a clear and present danger for public safety here in the Bay Area.”

The I-Team was first tipped off to the case almost a year ago, but the FBI asked us to delay reporting the story on behalf of national security and a fear the suspect would flee.

While most of the media reports since Alhaggagi’s indictment last week focused on his use of social media to promote ISIS, the FBI’s top guy in the Bay Area says it went well beyond that.

FBI agents began communicating with Alhaggagi online more than four months before he was arrested. The prosecutor told the court the first clue to his identify was when, “He said he wanted to plan to start a huge fire in an area near where he lived and he specifically mentioned the Berkeley Hills as a potential target.”

The 22-year-old was born in Lodi and grew up in the East Bay. He attended Berkeley High and was living [sic] an apartment complex in West Oakland at the time of his arrest. Prosecutors say by the time he was arrested, he had been communicating with a confidential source working for the FBI and they allege Alhaggagi [sic] spent months planning attacks and discussing his willingness to kill and be killed for ISIS….

In that December 2016 court hearing, prosecutors revealed Alhaggagi talked about plans to sell cocaine laced with rat poison in Bay Area nightclubs. The undercover agent says he was looking for information on the exact mixture of strychnine and cocaine to use in that scheme. He showed the agent an ISIS bomb-making manual he downloaded on a computer and he sent the agent photographs of guns he said he obtained.

“He then told confidential source number one, ‘I live close to San Francisco, that’s like the gay capital of the world. I’m going to handle them right, LOL,’ meaning laughing out loud. ‘I’m going to place a bomb in a gay club, Wallah or by God, I’m going to tear up the city.’ And I quote, ‘The whole Bay Area is going to be up in flames,’” the federal prosecutor explained to Judge Westmore in his argument to have Alhaggagi detained.

He also told the court how Alhaggagi took the undercover agent, posing as an ISIS supporter from Salt Lake City, on a tour of the Bay Area including the Cal Berkeley campus. The feds say he wanted to plant backpack bombs at the dorms and went along with the undercover agent to set up a storage unit where he would store supplies for his plans.

The FBI’s investigators say one sign of how serious he was about his support for ISIS came when he showed up at a meeting with the undercover agent at the storage unit with three backpacks to be used to carry bombs.

Alhaggagi’s lawyer released a statement Friday saying, “Amer is not anti-American and does not support ISIS or any other terrorist organization. He is completely nonviolent and he took no actions to harm anyone.”

She described him as “a very young and naive man,” and said, “it appears he allowed himself to be drawn into conversations that he should have been far more suspicious of.”

The federal prosecutor says he tried to get a job with the Oakland Police Department.

He told the court, “If he was unable to make bombs himself, then his intent was to get employed by a police department and steal weapons from the police department once employed there and in that context, he said and I quote, ‘I’m going to redefine terror.’”…

That tip Noyes got last year was a law enforcement bulletin cautioning police the suspect could be armed and wearing an explosive belt. Prosecutors say Alhaggagi boasted about his plans saying he was confident he could kill 500 people but his real goal was to kill 10,000.

His family released a statement describing him as peaceful and kind. They insist he is not and never has been radicalized and they said he grew up in this country and loves it here.

Woman Who Thought She Was Aborting Her 35-Week-Old Baby Finds He Was Sold to Her Cousin

with one comment

By Micaiah Bilger
July 31, 2017

Almost too strange to believe, a nurse in China has been convicted of rescuing and later selling a baby whose mother thought doctors had aborted.

The Daily Mail reports 18-year-old Lili from Inner Mongolia had an abortion when she was 35 weeks pregnant in 2013.

It is unclear why Lili had the abortion or waited so long. China prohibits families from having more than two children. Sometimes women are forced or coerced to abort their unborn babies in China if they break the law. Being so young, Lili may have been unmarried. Unmarried women in China who become pregnant also can be penalized with heavy fines and often face social stigma.

Lili said she was told the abortion succeeded, but she learned otherwise three days later when police contacted her.

According to police, Liang Xiaohua, a maternity nurse, noticed that Lili’s baby still was alive after the abortion. The nurse said she pulled the baby out of a plastic disposal bag when she heard it crying. She rescued the baby by giving it oxygen and water and hiding it in a cupboard, according to the report. The baby’s sex is not mentioned.

Here’s more from the report:

The nurse was overheard calling someone and asking if they wanted a child and telling them that she did not know if it was a boy or a girl.

She sold it to her cousin who took the child to her home.

Local villagers became suspicious of the cousin and informed police of the baby.

Some three days later, Lili found out that the baby had not died during the abortion and that the child had been sold.

Liang Xiaohua later was arrested and convicted of child abduction. A judge sentenced her to two years in prison, the report states. Lili requested 1.1 million yuan (about $163,000) in compensation, but courts did not grant her request. The court case settled in May, according to the report.

Abortion claims the lives of about 9 million unborn babies in China every year. The Asian country has the highest abortion rate in the world. Because of the country’s oppressive population control laws, some women are forced to abort their unborn babies or threatened with heavy fines and job loss for their entire families.

Unborn baby girls particularly are targeted. According to current population data, there are 34 million more men than women in China. Experts say this is largely due to sex-selection abortions.

In October, the BBC reported how one family went into hiding to protect their third child from being forcibly aborted. Government officials also admitted to frequently visiting pregnant women’s homes and pressuring them to abort their unborn babies.

Three Republicrat Stooges

with one comment

Dana Bash, an anchorwoman and political correspondent for CNN, on Friday (August 4, 2017) congratulated two genderfluid senators, Susan Collins (R-ME) and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), for having the “cajones [sic]” to vote “nay” on the Republicrat’s “skinny Obama Care repeal.” These two Republicrat Party Platform deserters were joined by none other than the radical Leftist Democratic favorite son and darling of the legacy propaganda media complex, John McCain (R-AZ).

The senators from Alaska and Maine claimed their vote was to prevent the defunding of the “baby killing” mill – Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood funds over 300,000 “non-due process executions” per year. Collins’ and Murkowski’s support of taxpayers funding the abortion industrial complex runs against “the “self-evident” truths enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed” plank in the Republican Party’s Platform.

Had John McCain avoided being shot down by anti-aircraft artillery (AAA) over Hanoi, North Vietnam  he undoubtedly would have returned to the the United States to the radical Leftists’ shrills of, “Baby killer!” The accusations of “baby killer” were unwarranted for those brave enough to serve in the armed forces during that crazy time in America’s exceptional history. Yet his cocky quip of “come watch the show” to a reporter when asked how he planned to vote on the “skinny Obama Repeal” bill and resulting “nay” vote proves he chose to stand with real “baby killers” rather than support his party’s pro-life platform.

In the end, these three senator stooges took off their armor of supporting life and became useful idiots for the baby-murdering radical Leftist Democrats.

Google’s new “hate speech” algorithm is anti-Semitic and pro-jihad

with one comment

By Robert Spencer
Jihad Watch
July 30, 2017

As I revealed here several days ago, Google has bowed to Muslim pressure and changed its search results to conceal criticism of Islam and jihad. Search results that Muslim leaders (whose motives Google apparently never questions or investigates) have made sure that sites such as Jihad Watch are buried in search results, with numerous site dissimulating about the nature and magnitude of the jihad threat appearing above it.

And now this, which comes as no surprise given the fact that those who are manipulating Google are Muslims, and anti-Semitism is deeply embedded with the Qur’an.

Find out the full extent of what is happening in my book The Complete Infidel’s Guide to Free Speech (and Its Enemies).

“Google’s New Hate Speech Algorithm Has a Problem With Jews,” by Liel Leibovitz, The Tablet, July 26, 2017 (thanks to the Geller Report):

Don’t you just hate how vile some people are on the Internet? How easy it’s become to say horrible and hurtful things about other groups and individuals? How this tool that was supposed to spread knowledge, amity, and good cheer is being use to promulgate hate? No need to worry anymore: Google’s on it.

Earlier this year, Silicon Valley’s overlords introduced Perspective API, the latter being nerd-speak for Application Program Interface, or a set of tools for building software. The idea behind it is simple: because it’s impossible for an online publisher to manually monitor all the comments left on its website, Perspective will use advanced machine learning to help moderators track down comments that are likely to be “toxic.” Here’s how the company describes it: “The API uses machine learning models to score the perceived impact a comment might have on a conversation.”

That’s a strange sentiment. How do you measure the perceived impact of a conversation? And how can you tell if a conversation is good or bad? The answers, in Perspective’s case, are simple: machine learning works by giving computers access to vast databases, and letting them figure out the likely patterns. If a machine read all the cookbooks published in the English language in the last 100 years, say, it would be able to tell us interesting things about how we cook, like the peculiar fact that when we serve rice we’re very likely to serve beans as well. What can machines tell us about the way we converse and about what we may find offensive? That, of course, depends on what databases you let the machines learn. In Google’s case, the machines learned the comments sections of The New York Times, the Economist, and the Guardian.

What did the machines learn? Only one way to find out. I asked Perspective to rate the following sentiment: “Jews control the banks and the media.” This old chestnut, Perspective reported, had a 10 percent chance of being perceived as toxic.

111Maybe Perspective was just relaxed about sweeping generalizations that have been used to stain entire ethnic and religious groups, I thought. Maybe the nuance of harmful stereotypes was lost on Google’s algorithms. I tried again, this time with another group of people, typing “Many terrorists are radical Islamists.” The comment, Perspective informed me, was 92 percent likely to be seen as toxic.

What about straightforward statements of facts? I reached for the news, which, sadly, has been very grim lately, and wrote: “Three Israelis were murdered last night by a knife-wielding Palestinian terrorist who yelled ‘Allah hu Akbar.’” This, too, was 92 percent likely to be seen as toxic.

44You, too, can go online and have your fun, but the results shouldn’t surprise you. The machines learn from what they read, and when what they read are the Guardian and the Times, they’re going to inherit the inherent biases of these publications as well. Like most people who read the Paper of Record, the machine, too, has come to believe that statements about Jews being slaughtered are controversial, that addressing radical Islamism is verboten, and that casual anti-Semitism is utterly forgivable. The very term itself, toxicity, should’ve been enough of a giveaway: the only groups that talk about toxicity—see under: toxic masculinity—are those on the regressive left who creepily apply the metaphors of physical harm to censor speech not celebrate or promote it. No words are toxic, but the idea that we now have an algorithm replicating, amplifying, and automatizing the bigotry of the anti-Jewish left may very well be….

Wasserman Schultz seemingly planned to pay Muslim IT suspect even while he lived in Pakistan

with one comment

By Robert Spencer
Jihad Watch
July 30, 2017

“Imran Awan did admit to me that my phone is tapped and there are devices installed in my house” and “Imran Awan threatened that he is very powerful and if I ever call the police again, [he] will … kidnap my family members back in Pakistan,” his stepmother, Samina Gilani, claimed.

This man “could read all emails sent and received” by Wasserman Schultz “and see all files on the staff members’ computers.”

This is an immense scandal with multiple implications, and cries out for a full and thorough investigation. But there will almost certainly not be one: too many powerful people involved, with too much at stake. And that in itself demonstrates again why a full investigation is needed.

“Wasserman Schultz Seemingly Planned To Pay Suspect Even While He Lived In Pakistan,” by Luke Rosiak, Daily Caller, July 29, 2017:

Democratic Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz seemingly planned to pay cyber-probe suspect and IT aide Imran Awan even while he was living in Pakistan, if the FBI hadn’t stopped him from leaving the U.S. Monday. Public statements and congressional payroll records suggest she also appears to have known that his wife, a fellow IT staffer, left the country for good months ago — while she was also a criminal suspect.

In all, six months of actions reveal a decision to continue paying a man who seemingly could not have been providing services to her, and who a mountain of evidence suggests was a liability. The man long had access to all of Wasserman Schultz’s computer files, work emails and personal emails, and he was recently accused by a relative in court documents of wiretapping and extortion.

Records also raise questions about whether the Florida Democrat permitted Awan to continue to access computers after House-wide authorities banned him from the network Feb. 2. Not only did she keep him on staff after the ban, but she also did not have any other IT person to perform necessary work that presumably would have arisen during a months-long period, according to payroll records.

Wasserman Schultz employed Pakistani-born Awan and his wife Hina Alvi, and refused to fire either of them even after U.S. Capitol Police said in February 2017 that they were targets of the criminal investigation. She said police wouldn’t show her evidence against the couple and, without it, she assumed they might be victims of anti-Muslim profiling.

Awan booked a round-trip ticket to Pakistan in July and planned to depart Monday, July 24 with a return ticket in six months. He was arrested at Dulles Airport during his attempt to leave….

The office’s insistence that his termination was prompted by the Monday arrest — and not the House Sergeant at Arms banning him and his wife from touching congressional computers or his six months in Pakistan — suggests that had he boarded the flight without incident he would still be on payroll.

“Does that mean if he had boarded the flight as planned the office would have been paying him for six months while he was abroad?” TheDCNF investigative group asked Wasserman Schultz’s spokesman Thursday. “Why would it do that?” The spokesman did not respond.

Awan’s wife, Hina, left the country under similar circumstances March 5, after withdrawing the couple’s three kids from school without telling Virginia education officials, packing up all of her possessions, and hiding $12,000 in cash, according to an FBI affidavit. She allegedly had hundreds of thousands of dollars waiting in Pakistan for her — money the FBI says Awan had obtained partly through mortgage fraud and had wired overseas using a false explanation.

Two days later, on March 7, House records show Hina was cut from Wasserman Schultz’s payroll.

Though Hina bought a round trip ticket with a return in six months, the FBI said it “does not believe that Alvi has any intention to return to the United States.”…

Hina and Awan were both IT aides whose jobs required access to the network, but the House Sergeant-At-Arms banned them from accessing it beginning Feb. 2. Awan and Hina were her only IT staffers, and payroll records through the latest available period, March 31, indicate that no other IT staffer or vendor was added to the payroll after their ban.

A House source said Awan was seen in the House office building multiple times after the network ban. “Imran Awan is working in an “advisory” role for Wasserman Schultz, her spokesman said, “providing advice on technology issues.”

The spokesman wouldn’t say who did the office’s computer work after the ban, if not Awan.

As IT administrators, the suspects could read all emails sent and received by the lawmaker and see all files on the staff members’ computers, numerous House IT aides said. WikiLeaks shows that Awan also had the password to Wasserman Schultz’s iPad.

In public court documents filed in Fairfax, Va., Awan’s stepmother accused him of wiretapping and extortion. “Imran Awan did admit to me that my phone is tapped and there are devices installed in my house” and “Imran Awan threatened that he is very powerful and if I ever call the police again, [he] will … kidnap my family members back in Pakistan,” his stepmother, Samina Gilani, claimed in the documents (p. 21) filed April 14….

%d bloggers like this: