Various commentators, including Fox News senior political analyst Brit Hume, have expressed disbelief with the statement of House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., on Fox News Sunday that he had no idea of the extensive FISA abuse found by Inspector General Michael Horowitz. I share that view. Schiff’s predecessor at the House Intelligence Committee, Devin Nunes, raised many of these abuses which were adamantly denied by Schiff for months. The media for its part virtually mocked such claims as conspiracy theories and false news. Now the media and Schiff is claiming total surprise by the findings (if they acknowledge them at all). The lack of media scrutiny over Schiff’s denial is breathtaking and explains why many voters do not trust reporting over the various investigations.
In his interview on “Fox News Sunday,” Schiff told Chris Wallace there were “serious abuses of FISA that I was unaware of . . . Had I known of them, Chris, yes, I would’ve called out the FBI at the same time. But I think it’s only fair to judge what we knew at the time.”
That is one of the more extraordinary statements to come out of these scandals. Schiff spent two years swatting back these claims and was repeatedly confronted with them by their prior Chair of the Committee. Schiff not only showed little interest in confirming the allegations but assured the public that they were meritless. Yet, the media has, again, simply taken his statement as somehow manifestly true.
Hume took after Schiff over the statement:
“One of the most striking things about this IG report … is how closely it mirrors what the Devin Nunes investigation — when Nunes was still chairman and Schiff was ranking member on the intelligence committee — what Nunes found and what he said about the FISA abuses, and so on — to which, this very same Adam Schiff issued a report and rebuttal, which disputed the Nunes findings — findings now confirmed by the IG report.”
For those of us who have been commenting on these controversies, there have been ample reports about the omissions in the FISA application and the lack of evidence supporting the allegations against figures like Carter Page, the subject of a recent column.
What is equally disturbing and baffling is President Donald Trump’s most recent attack on Fox for even interviewing figures like Schiff. Even if one puts aside the continued attacks on the free press and its obligation to hear all sides of these controversies, President Trump could at least recognize that such interviews tend to expose inconsistencies and falsehoods. Wallace supplied a probing and substantive interview — precisely what Trump has argued is missing in much of the coverage.
“Peterson has also been interviewed by Joe Rogan like 6 times; most of them got over 6 million views each.”
Prairie, It’s still a single data point and the perspective, 6 million to 8 billion, is still quite small.
“I just heard another interview on Dave Rubin’s show in which another lifelong Democrat realized he could no longer call himself a Democrat.”
Again I will say that I think Donald Trump is the leading force pushing the nation in the right direction and we know how many complaints there are about him being rude.
“Which is why Olly is a great person to be sharing Bastiat’s works.”
Prairie, I hate to start a completely different subject and I certainly like what Olly brings to the table but his sharing doesn’t mean action on your part. Action on your part is what would make Olly’s sharing great.
“I disagree. A personally significant comment can effect change in a person such that then their actions can effect change in the world. “
Prairie, we have to be somewhat realistic. Anything can effect the world even that butterfly flapping its wings. However, I don’t think that is what is under discussion so I return to what I previously said.
“Prairie if everything is significant then nothing is insignificant and we are unable to differentiate from the mass of things that are written.”
You are free to believe what you will.
Prairie, I am unable to get the location of the posting so I am posting as new.
——————
“That’s why speaking to individuals civilly on this blog is important. Perhaps that individual discussion will help prevent them from becoming part of a mob.”
…And to some people perhaps speaking uncivilly “on this blog is important. … ” What you are providing above is a conclusion not a logical argument or proof.
—–
““I am returning terms that my group has been accused of such as bigotry, racism, deplorables etc.”
Which can be done civilly.”
——
Andy Ngo was civilly creating a permanent reflection of the mob in action so that reflection could accurately be reviewed over and over again by everyone including the perpetrators. He was nearly killed. Is that what you are advocating?
“I am a bit concerned about the phrase ‘my group’ you used above. Seems like you are playing into the identity politics business that is so detrimental right now.”
I am not creating identity politics rather the ones calling a large segment of society deplorables are the ones dealing in identity politics. There was no identity known as “deplorables” until created by the Democratic candidate for President.
Allan,
““That’s why speaking to individuals civilly on this blog is important. Perhaps that individual discussion will help prevent them from becoming part of a mob.”
…And to some people perhaps speaking uncivilly “on this blog is important. … ” What you are providing above is a conclusion not a logical argument or proof.
From OpenMathBooks.org:
“An argument is a set of statements, one of which is called the conclusion, and the rest of which are called premises. An argument is said to be valid if the conclusion must be true whenever the premises are all true.”
So, my series of statements from our conversation over multiple pages, including that which you define as a conclusion, are part of a logical argument. That statement does not define all the reasons why civil discourse is important; it is one element of the discussion.
You must disagree with one of my premises, since we still seem to be in disagreement on this one small part of the topic of civil discourse. Perhaps it is because I lack clarity on something you are saying.
_______________
“Andy Ngo was civilly creating a permanent reflection of the mob in action so that reflection could accurately be reviewed over and over again by everyone including the perpetrators. He was nearly killed. Is that what you are advocating?”
We have already discussed not engaging a mob directly. We have already discussed Andy Ngo’s response and I answered. We were discussing civil discourse in online forums.
““I am a bit concerned about the phrase ‘my group’ you used above. Seems like you are playing into the identity politics business that is so detrimental right now.”
I am not creating identity politics rather the ones calling a large segment of society deplorables are the ones dealing in identity politics. There was no identity known as “deplorables” until created by the Democratic candidate for President.”
I did not say you were ‘creating identity politics’. I said it seemed like you were playing into the identity politics game. Why go along with it?
“You must disagree with one of my premises”
Prairie, your arguments attempt to prove one method and has gaps along with a lack of proof. It doesn’t disprove any other methods. You failed to make your case and your proof was mostly subjective.
“We have already discussed not engaging a mob directly.”
What you are doing is carving out portions of your argument when something doesn’t fit.
“I did not say you were ‘creating identity politics’. I said it seemed like you were playing into the identity politics game. Why go along with it?”
How can I be playing “into the identity politics game” when I have no control over the identity politics brought in by others? Essentially what you must be saying is that to prevent “playing into the identity politics game” all discussion must cease.
Allan,
“Prairie, your arguments attempt to prove one method and has gaps along with a lack of proof. It doesn’t disprove any other methods. You failed to make your case and your proof was mostly subjective.”
I didn’t realize I was writing a term paper. 😉
What gaps?
What proof are you looking for? Research studies? I have some.
We have been talking about several perspectives. We already agree that civil discourse not only works but is preferential. What I was arguing against was the use of incivility, particularly in online forums, even against those who were already uncivil.
————————————
Prairie Rose: ““We have already discussed not engaging a mob directly.”
Allan: “What you are doing is carving out portions of your argument when something doesn’t fit.”
How so? Because civil discourse is not particularly applicable to a mob? Incivility in a mob is not helpful either, and I had research for that. By the time people have been ramped-up into a mob, civil discourse cannot be heard but insults can, and such commentary agitates a mob even more.
—————————
Prairie Rose: “I did not say you were ‘creating identity politics’. I said it seemed like you were playing into the identity politics game. Why go along with it?”
Allan: “How can I be playing “into the identity politics game” when I have no control over the identity politics brought in by others? Essentially what you must be saying is that to prevent “playing into the identity politics game” all discussion must cease.”
Not at all, discussion should continue. Refuse, as an individual, to be pigeon-holed into the false monolith of an “identity group”.
“I am returning terms that my group has been accused of such as bigotry, racism, deplorables etc.”
I am questioning putting “my group” as a main part of a discussion or even as a main part of a person’s identity. The unfair use of those terms can most certainly be argued against without putting yourself into a group.
I think we agree that identity politics is pathological. It erases the individual. Western culture is grounded in the rights of the individual. If the debates start to be played according to the nasty game of identity politics, then it becomes group against group and the rights, the conception, of an individual are torn asunder.
“I didn’t realize I was writing a term paper. “
It is not about writing a term paper. It is about having a reasonably complete argument to prove your case. Without that you shouldn’t be drawing definitive conclusions.
“What gaps? What proof…?”
I don’t find the requisite material for the conclusions you have drawn. Example: a singular data point does not tell you things are moving in any specific direction or even if they are moving at all.
“Not at all, discussion should continue. Refuse, as an individual, to be pigeon-holed into the false monolith of an “identity group”.”
By responding you are playing into the game. If you do not think that is true then showing them a reflection of themselves whether it be rude or not is also not playing into the game.
Allan,
One of my kids was sick yesterday and we had a lot going on last night with the other kiddos and then had to plan for the upcoming busy weekend of kid activities. I will get to this post but time is especially precious right now. I may try to respond in smaller posts as time permits.
May I but in her to say this? You sound like an amazing person. And mom. 🙂
May I but in HERE, that is !!! Go mom!!
Thank you, Anonymous. You are very kind. 🙂
Allan,
I have a tournament to head to shortly. Here is a portion that I could get written.
—————————————–
““What gaps? What proof…?”
I don’t find the requisite material for the conclusions you have drawn. Example: a singular data point does not tell you things are moving in any specific direction or even if they are moving at all.””
You are right, a singular data point does not tell you things are moving in any specific direction or at all. I have given you more than one data point.
“I do not see us as moving backward at all. Peterson’s Twelve Rules for Life has sold over 3 million copies worldwide. Prager’s The Rational Bible is also a best-seller, surprising even him.”
You yourself provided some data points regarding some of Trump’s policies or bills he has signed. The Prison Reform bill is an excellent example.
Those two examples may not be enough to signal a growing awakening.
In addition to Jordan Peterson’s book selling more than 3 million copies and being listened to by over 6 million people almost each time he’s been interviewed on the Joe Rogan podcast (not to mention that many of his Youtube videos have gotten over 1 million views), I also noted Dennis Prager’s The Rational Bible: Exodus is a bestseller, as well (it was a #1 non-fiction bestseller on Amazon in 2018). Viktor Frankl’s Man’s Search for Meaning is on Amazon’s bestseller list. There are atheists attending Bible discussion Meetup groups at an Orthodox Christian church and a Dutch Reform church in very disparate places: Texas and California. There are probably other similar events at other churches, but these are two I’m aware of. Yes, it’s only two, but whoever heard of atheists attending churches to discuss the Bible (out of curiosity no less rather than antipathy)? Kanye West’s Sunday Service at Coachella drew 50,000 people. His Jesus Is King album topped the charts and there were 196.9 million on-demand audio streams.
People exploring meaning and exploring their values and beliefs will come before action. While I agree that a *great* deal more needs to happen to continue moving in the right direction, it does seem to be the beginning of a shift towards the better.
Firstly Prairie, sorry your child was sick. They always come first. Glad the child is better so you can go out and do your things.
“Those two examples may not be enough to signal a growing awakening.”
If you recall somewhere back there I was talking about a bright point, Donald J. Trump, and we can add some leadership changes around the world such as Boris Johnson. However, as many on this blog have stated Donald J Trump is considered rude.
Allan,
Antibiotics work wonders, so he is feeling much better. Hooray! I will be off to bed now, though, because it is very late and I got up very early so we could all get out the door. 🙂
Prairie, here is something from Gatestone. Today not only are people not agreeing with the left’s disasterous policies called ‘deplorables’ but they are now being called mentally ill. (Sort of reminds us of the days of Stalin.)
—
Yale Psychiatrist Issues Diagnosis of “Psychotic” for Defending Constitutional Rights
by Alan M. Dershowitz
January 11, 2020 at 5:00 am
Dr. Bandy Lee is literally claiming that we are mentally ill and our views should be considered symptoms of our illness, rather than as legitimate ideas.
Publicly offering “professional opinions” or diagnoses in the absence of a psychiatric examination, is a violation of psychiatric ethics and the rules of the American Psychiatric Association.
Dr. Lee has a history of such unethical conduct….
Her resort to diagnosis rather than dialogue is a symptom of a much larger problem that faces our divided nation — too many Americans are refusing to engage in reasoned dialogue with people with whom they disagree. Dr. Lee is part of that problem, not its solution.
A Yale professor of forensic psychiatry has diagnosed guess who — your truly — as suffering from “psychosis” for expressing legal views that happen to be on the Constitutional rights of President Donald Trump. Dr. Bandy Lee has never met me, never examined me, never seen my medical records, and never spoken to anyone close to me. Yet she is prepared to offer a diagnosis of “psychosis” which she attributes to my being one of President Trump’s “followers.” (I voted for Hillary Clinton and am a liberal Democrat.)
Indeed, Dr. Lee went even further, diagnosing “the severity and spread of ‘shared psychosis’ among just about all of Donald Trump’s followers.” Nor does she seem to be using these psychiatric terms as political metaphors, dangerous as that would be. She is literally claiming that we are mentally ill and our views should be considered symptoms of our illness, rather than as legitimate ideas.
Publicly offering “professional opinions” or diagnoses in the absence of a psychiatric examination, is a violation of psychiatric ethics and the rules of the American Psychiatric Association. According to that esteemed organization, “it is unethical for a psychiatrist to render a professional opinion to the media about a public figure unless the psychiatrist has examined the person…”
Dr. Lee has a history of such unethical conduct. She previously diagnosed President Trump as being psychotic. Now she is doubling down accusing me of having a “shared psychosis” with President Trump, and having “wholly taken on Trump’s symptoms by contagion.”
Dr. Lee’s absurd conclusions rest on the factual assumption that I am guilty of sexual misconduct in the Jeffrey Epstein case, despite overwhelming evidence that I never even met the woman who accused me. My accuser has essentially admitted never meeting me in a series of emails and a draft manuscript that she unsuccessfully tried to hide. Her own lawyer, in a recorded conversation, has admitted that it was impossible for us to have met and that she was “wrong … simply wrong” in accusing me. Despite this overwhelming evidence — all documented in my book, Guilt by Accusation: The Challenge of Proving Innocence in the Age of #MeToo, Dr. Lee includes as a factor in her diagnosis, my unwillingness to show “remorse” for something I did not do. She cites as additional “proof” of my “psychosis” that I express “delusional level impunity,” and a “lack of empathy.” All this without ever meeting me!
She also believes that my use of the word “perfect” — the same word used by Donald Trump in describing his phone call to the Ukrainian President — is evidence of a “shared” psychosis. She does not mention that I used the word “perfect” in the context of rebutting the false accusations against me and proclaiming, quite truthfully, that I have never had sex with any woman other than my wife, since the day I met Jeffrey Epstein. I used the word “perfect” in reference to my fidelity during the period in which I was falsely accused, just as someone might say she had a “perfect” attendance record. Moreover, Dr. Lee neglects to mention that the interview during which I used that word took place months before President Trump used it. I guess she believes he caught the contagion from me.
It is difficult to imagine anyone ever hiring Dr. Lee as a forensic psychiatrist to offer an actual diagnosis of a litigant. On cross-examination she would have to admit that she has diagnosed “just about all of Donald Trump’s followers” as having “shared psychosis.” This would likely include jury members and perhaps the judge, along with millions of voters.
If it is difficult to imagine Dr. Lee as an effective forensic witness, just try to imagine her as a fair teacher. Even at Yale, some of her students are likely to be Trump followers. Would she grade them — or diagnose them? Would she prescribe anti-psychotic drugs to her students who she believed were Trump “followers”? Would she refuse to recommend them because of their illness? Would they be entitled to the protection of the American with Disabilities Act? Does she teach her students to diagnose their classmates and friends who disagree with them politically, instead of engaging with them?
Her resort to diagnosis rather than dialogue is a symptom of a much larger problem that faces our divided nation — too many Americans are refusing to engage in reasoned dialogue with people with whom they disagree.
Dr. Lee is part of that problem, not its solution.
Alan M. Dershowitz is the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law Emeritus at Harvard Law School and author of the forthcoming book, Guilt by Accusation: The Challenge of Proving Innocence in the Age of #MeToo, Skyhorse publishing, November 2019.
Thank you for sharing this article, Allan.
Alan Dershowitz has written a very civil article that also demonstrates he is standing his ground.
“Her resort to diagnosis rather than dialogue is a symptom of a much larger problem that faces our divided nation — too many Americans are refusing to engage in reasoned dialogue with people with whom they disagree. Dr. Lee is part of that problem, not its solution.”
Very well said.
Prairie, when I talk about complacency this is one of the things I am thinking about.
Christians Beheaded for Christmas, The West Goes Back to Sleep
by Giulio Meotti
January 5, 2020
How much bigger and more extended must this war on Christians become before the West considers it a “genocide” and acts to prevent it?
The day after Christians were beheaded in Nigeria, Pope Francis admonished Western society. About beheaded Christians? No. “Put down your phones, talk during meals”, the Pope said. He did not speak a single word about the horrific execution of his Christian brothers and sisters. A few days before that, Pope Francis hung a cross encircled by a life jacket in memory of migrants who lost their lives in the Mediterranean Sea. He did not commemorate the lives of Christians killed by Islamic extremists with even a mention.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel has said that her priority will be fighting climate change. She did not mention persecuted Christians. Meanwhile The Economist wrote that Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, a passionate defender of persecuted Christians, politically “exploits” the issue.
“The United Nations has held inquiries and focuses its anger on Israel for defending itself against that same terrorist organization [Hamas]. But the barbarous slaughter of thousands upon thousands of Christians is met with relative indifference”. — Ambassador Ronald S. Lauder, President of the World Jewish Congress, The New York Times, August 19, 2014.
Cintinued at: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/15369/christmas-christians-beheaded
Let’s look at the facts:
“IS militants behead 11 Christians in Nigeria on Christmas Day”
https://www.vaticannews.va/en/world/news/2019-12/islamic-state-nigeria-christians-killed-on-christmas.html
ISIL-linked group claims ‘execution of 11 Christians’ in Nigeria
“President Muhammadu Buhari criticised ‘agents of darkness’ ISWAP, urging unity between the country’s faith groups.”
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/12/isil-claims-execution-11-christians-nigeria-191227141817907.html
“Fact-check: Have 60,000 Christians been killed in central Nigeria since 2001?”
https://www.news24.com/Africa/News/fact-check-have-60-000-christians-been-killed-in-central-nigeria-since-2001-20181213
Excerpt:
Nigeria is facing violence across the country and in some northern states there are clashes between Muslim farmers and Muslim herders, indicating the underlying cause is not religion.
The Global Terrorism Index 2018 acknowledges there was a “dramatic increase in violence involving Fulani extremists” in the last 12 months.
It said nearly 1,700 violent deaths were attributed to “Fulani Ethnic Militia” between January and September this year.
It said there had been 2,998 deaths attributed to Fulani since 2010.
A December 2013 Human Rights Watch report estimated that more than 10 000 people in Plateau and neighbouring Kaduna state had been killed in communal violence since 1992.
Yet the claim of Muslims targeting Christians has been spread, particularly in the United States, by groups such as Open Doors USA, which says it supports persecuted Christians, and the right-wing think-tank the Gatestone Institute.
What conclusion can we draw?
There is no credible evidence to support the claim that Muslims have killed 60 000 Christians in central Nigeria since 2001.
There is no reliable death toll that identifies the religion of victims of the conflict and reports citing figures appear to have conflated wider studies about violence in the region.
Attempts to catalogue the scale of the conflict – by whatever methodology – have given a lower death toll.
Right-wing, conservative groups in the United States, however, have latched on to the narrative to further their agenda.
Reliable data is difficult to obtain. I won’t argue about the numbers but I will stand with the fact that Christians have been and are being killed because of their religion in the middle east. We also see churches being destroyed and new ones not being permitted to be built.
If you wish to say none of this has been and is happening that is your choice but it only demonstrates a lack of knowledge of what is occurring in the world today. The numbers of Christians has fallen throughout the middle east continuously. We also can’t forget the approximately 700,000 jews that were thrown out of middle east countries on the threat of death. Most left with no property and their lands were taken over.
You are an ideologue so of course anything that disagrees with your leftist ideology has to be wrong. Unfortunately that type of rationale is deprived of critical thinking skills.
Allan: ““Sometimes the problem is that the individuals being dealt with are of very low intelligence and they are threatened by people with normal intelligence”
Prairie: I don’t think it is a matter of intelligence. ”
—
Prairie, it is only part of a picture but I think it exists even if you don’t think the same.
“Right-wing, conservative groups in the United States, however, have latched on to the narrative to further their agenda.”
Their agenda being calling attention to Christians being slaughtered on the global stage which includes Nigeria. Since you are not in Nigeria but the agencies providing these numerous annual reports are, we understand your desperate attempt to seek relevance on this blog of less than 20 people. Maybe you should try to be the man your dog thinks you are.
Open Doors Australia:
“In the north and Middle Belt (middle region) of Nigeria, 3,731 Christians were killed for their faith. That’s almost double the number of Christians killed in Nigeria from the 2018 World Watch List. Villages were completely abandoned by Christians, forced to flee from the violence, as armed attackers moved in and settled. Persecution comes mainly from the nomadic, Muslim-majority Fulani Herdsmen, and the Islamic extremist group Boko Haram.
Of the 4,136 recorded deaths of Christians directly resulting from persecution reported in the 2019 World Watch List, Nigeria alone accounts for about 90% (3,731).”
https://www.opendoors.org.au/persecuted-christians/blog/2019-world-watch-list-1-in-9-christians-persecuted-for-their-faith/
Open Doors Australia Inc is registered as a charity with the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission ABN 52209804287.
Open Doors Australia Inc is tax exempt. Donations to Open Doors Australia Inc are not tax deductible.
11/10 Gladstone Road, Castle Hill, NSW 2154 – Phone: 02 9451 2999
“Allan says: January 6, 2020 at 7:09 PM
Prairie, when I talk about complacency this is one of the things I am thinking about.”
Allan you drive the bulk of the web traffic for the website treating it like a chat room. Complacency is an understatement
Are you bored again Anonymous the Stupid? Try counting your other set of toes.