There was a hostage situation in Texas on the weekend. Everything was resolved favorably (no hostages harmed, suspect neutralized). But what was interesting was the press conference where the FBI explained who the suspect was, and what his motives were. Although they love to label conservative parents as “domestic terrorists”, they weren’t nearly as direct this time.

Here’s the story from Jerusalem Post:

Soon after the FBI freed four hostages held by a gunman for 11 hours at Congregation Beth Israel in Colleyville, Texas, on Saturday, Matthew Desarno, the special agent in charge of the FBI Dallas Field Office, made a truly baffling statement.

“We do believe from our engagement with this subject that he was singularly focused on one issue, and it was not specifically related to the Jewish community. But we are continuing to work to find [the] motive,” he said.

[…][T]he gunman entered Congregation Beth Israel on a Saturday morning, when Shabbat services are held.

FBI can’t figure out the motive.

And what was the objective of this mysterious hostage taker? Was he insurrectionisting for Trump? That’s what CNN will probably say.

But why would the gunman ask for the release of Aafia Siddiqui?

Siddiqui, nicknamed “Lady al-Qaeda,” was born in Pakistan and traveled to the US on a student visa in 1990. She received her PhD in neuroscience from Brandeis University…

[…]Siddiqui was arrested in Afghanistan for her part in plotting al-Qaeda terrorist attacks in the US, UK and Pakistan, shooting at US Army troops as they detained her…

So, just to refresh you, the FBI thinks that parents who disagree with having their daughters raped in a women’s bathroom by a man dressed in a skirt are “domestic terrorists”. But a guy who takes hostages in a synagogue to get an al-Qaeda plotter freed is not. And don’t you dare say that he is a Mus1im, either.

One of the organizations that has been advocating Siddiqui’s release in recent weeks is the Council on American-1slamic Relations (CA1R). In November, CA1R’s Texas chapter and MPower Change, a Mus1im activist group, hosted an online event titled “Injustice: Dr. Aafia and the 20-year legacy of America’s wars.”

I thought this was very interesting:

You might recognize that group “CA1R”, because they collaborated with the FBI to ensure proper sensitivity to the peaceful Mus1im community.

Judicial Watch explains:

Judicial Watch exclusively obtained droves of records back in 2013 documenting how, under Mueller’s leadership, the FBI purged all anti-terrorism training material deemed “offensive” to Mus1ims after secret meetings between 1slamic organizations and the FBI chief. Judicial Watch had to sue to get the records and published an in-depth report on the scandal in 2013 and a lengthier, updated follow-up in 2015.

As FBI director, Mueller bent over backwards to please radical 1slamist groups and caved into their demands. The agency eliminated the valuable anti-terrorism training material and curricula after Mueller met with various 1slamist organizations, including those with documented ties too terrorism. Among them were two organizations—1slamic Society of North America (ISNA) and Council on American 1slamic Relations (CA1R)—named by the U.S. government as unindicted co-conspirators in the 2007 Holy Land Foundation terrorist financing case.

So what is the FBI concerned about? Well, we’ve already seen that they are anxious to label concerned, involved parents as “domestic terrorists”. But here’s a former #2 at the FBI to explain their long-term plans:

Have you ever wondered what disgraced former deputy FBI directors do after trying to stage a coup and lying under oath? Apparently, they give talks about “protecting democracy” at top-rated institutions of higher learning. Indeed, this last Thursday the University of Chicago invited former deputy FBI director Andrew McCabe to join a panel of partisans to discuss the Jan 6 “insurrection.”

McCabe was fired as the deputy FBI director for leaking sensitive information about an investigation into the Clinton Foundation and then lying about it under oath. He also took part in spying on the Donald Trump campaign through a secret warrant granted by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court.

The dossier he used to obtain the surveillance warrant was funded by Hillary Clinton’s campaign and, in an ironic twist, was itself the product of Russian disinformation. McCabe and his allies in corporate media justified all sorts of similar illegal and undemocratic tactics to discredit and attempt to unseat President Trump.

Of course, neither the University of Chicago nor McCabe acknowledged the irony in him discussing the integrity of “democracy” in America on Thursday evening. In fact, what McCabe said at the University of Chicago event on Jan. 6, 2022 is even more shocking than his invitation to speak in the first place. Below are four of the most appalling assertions and policy proposals McCabe made at the public event.

Here are the 4 points:

1. Conservatives Are in The Same Category As 1slamic Terrorists
2. Parents at School Board Meetings Pose A ‘Threat To National Security’
3. McCabe Wants More Surveillance of ‘Mainstream’ Conservatives
4. McCabe Believes No One Is Above The Law (Except Himself)

Let’s take a look at #1, because if the FBI were not spying on you, then maybe they could prevent more Pakistan-backed 1slamic terrorist attacks on US soil:

McCabe likened conservatives to members of the 1slamic Caliphate: “I can tell you from my perspective of spending a lot of time focused on the radicalization of international terrorists and 1slamic extremist and extremists of all stripes… is that this group shares many of the same characteristics of those groups that we’ve seen radicalized along entirely different ideological lines,” he said.

McCabe went on to describe the rise of the 1slamic caliphate in Syria and how 1slamic extremists were radicalized across socioeconomic, educational, and racial lines, likening it to the “mass radicalization” of the political right across demographics. That’s right, according to McCabe a grandma who shares a Federalist article on Facebook and your uncle with a “Let’s Go Brandon” coffee mug are in the same category as a jihadist who killed 49 people at an Orlando nightclub.

We have elections in November. It may be our last chance to vote in competent leaders who focus on actual criminals and terrorists instead of pushing their own secular left dogma on taxpayers. The FBI we have now is not working properly. They don’t deserve salaries, benefits or pensions. They are not protecting the public who are paying their salaries.

What’s the official position of YouTube (owned by Google) on rape? In the Christians apologetics business, we have this argument called “the moral argument”, where we argue for a divine moral lawgiver on the basis of objective moral laws. The example that’s frequently given is “rape”. Christians think that even atheists will think that rape is objectively wrong. But do they?

YouTube (owned by Google) is well known for censoring speech that is critical of the Democrat party. Recently, a news story came out about a public school in Loudon county, Virginia where a female student was raped by a biological male in a skirt. After Steven Crowder reported on the story, Youtube / Google suspended him for 7 days.

Steven Crowder’s web site reproduced the e-mail from Youtube / Google.

It says (in part):

On September 30, Mr. Crowder uploaded another video… [that] contains a segment that targets the transgender community in an offensive manner, for example, by indicating that trans people pose a rape threat to women. Consistent with the recklessness provisions of its hate speech policy, YouTube has removed this video from the service and assessed a strike against the Steven Crowder channel. Per YouTube’s strikes policy, this results in a one-week upload freeze for the channel. Further violation of YouTube’s hate speech policy will result in additional penalties.

They didn’t want Crowder reporting on a rape committed by a boy in a skirt in a girl’s bathroom. Why would they not want people to know about that?

Let’s look at the facts of the case, as reported by Daily Wire.

On June 22, Scott Smith was arrested at a Loudoun County, Virginia school board meeting, a meeting that was ultimately deemed an “unlawful assembly” after many attendees vocally opposed a policy on transgender students.

What people did not know is that, weeks prior, on May 28, Smith says, a boy, allegedly wearing a skirt, entered a girls’ bathroom at nearby Stone Bridge High School, where he sexually assaulted Smith’s ninth-grade daughter.

Juvenile records are sealed, but Scott’s attorney, Elizabeth Lancaster told The Daily Wire that a boy was charged with two counts of forcible sodomy, one count of anal sodomy, and one count of forcible fellatio, related to an incident that day at that school.

As a result of the viral video showing his arrest, Smith became the poster child for what the National School Boards Association has since suggested could be a form of “domestic terrorism”: a white blue-collar male who showed up to harangue obscure public servants on his local school board.

[…]Minutes before Smith’s arrest at the school board meeting, the Loudoun County Public Schools (LCPS) superintendent lectured the public that concerns about the transgender policy were misplaced because the school system had no record of any assault occurring in any school bathroom.

[…]At 4:48 pm on the day of the incident, the principal sent out an email to the community that claimed nothing jeopardizing student safety had occurred, painting Smith as the villain, and offering counseling services for witnesses of Smith’s blowup…

[…]Smith was charged with disorderly conduct and resisting arrest.

Why did Youtube / Google not want Crowder telling people this story? Is it because they think that little girls are appropriate victims for boys dressed in skirts who go into women’s bathrooms? I would guess that there are a lot of people who work in Big Tech who do want biological men to be able to go into women’s bathrooms. And showers, too. They want naked biological men as close as possible to naked biological women. And the younger the girls, the better.

People who defend the rape of children and the arrest of the fathers of those children are immoral. I understand that the story makes teachers, teacher unions, school boards, etc. look bad. And I understand that the story makes Democrat politicians look bad. But no one should use suspensions to suppress the truth about what really happened.

My advice to people in Big Tech would be to be careful about letting devotion to the Democrat political party affect your products and services. But in addition to that, don’t let it affect your morality. It can be very tempting to use your products and services to bring about the election results that you want. And people who lack God as a ground for morality will not have much resistance to that desire. But if there is one thing that people should agree on, it’s that raping children is wrong. It’s also wrong to censor people who try to tell the truth about rape victims.

I think what this story shows is the importance of hiring people who have a rational basis for morality. If you hire a whole bunch of sexually immoral people whose atheistic worldviews don’t rationally ground objective morality, then you will get immoral behavior. The mantra of the secular left (“don’t judge”) doesn’t protect little girls from being raped.

By the way, I watched the Steven Crowder show about his suspension. He mentioned a lot of interesting news stories that Youtube / Google probably wouldn’t like. Stories about rapes of women in women’s bathrooms committed by biological men.

Here’s one:

• Transgender activist charged with raping 4-year-old on video (sentenced to 30 years in prison)

Crowder says the LGBT activist spent months advocating for allowing biological men in women’s bathrooms. Isn’t that Google / Youtube’s position as well? What would they say to the rape victim? They’d probably say “Too bad”.

Here are a couple others:

• Transgender woman (biological man) commits sex attacks against women in women’s prison
• Man who claimed to be transgender assaults multiple women in women’s shelter

Crowder talked about a whole bunch of stories like this.

Were these rapes morally wrong? I think so, but I’m really not sure what Google / YouTube would say. And I do think they would censor any reporting of the rapes as “hate speech”.

Here’s the article from Red State, written by Brandon Morse.

The first point he makes is that feminism teaches women to have character traits that make them unattractive to marriage-minded men. Feminism teaches women that evaluating men for marriage according to traditional male roles is “sexist”. There are no traditional male roles that women should prefer. Moreover, feminism teaches women that there are no female roles either. So, these women don’t understand men, and they aren’t prepared to be wives and mothers.

Brandon writes:

Even in modern families, men are taught how to treat a woman, provide for her, and work hard to keep her happy. Women aren’t taught how to treat a man or how to make him happy; they’re strictly taught what to expect from a man.

I can’t speak for all men, but in my case, I have definite plans for my marriage, and so a woman’s preparation and desire to be supportive is very important to me.

I’m trying to achieve these goals:

• influence the church with apologetics
• influence the university campus (students and professors) with apologetics
• be involved in politics, advocate for conservative policy
• open the house to students and neighbors to teach apologetics and demonstrate a loving marriage
• raise 3-4 financially independent and influential children

And when I ask women what they bring to the table to help me to achieve all that, they often say that they’ve done nothing. Even the Christians try to get out of having to do anything hard by saying that God has a mysterious will that’s higher than my plans – plans which are designed to achieve specifically Christian goals. But if you look at the woman’s life, this mysterious God’s will never requires her to do anything difficult that would serve God. In practice, “God’s will” is just another word for doing what is easy, fun and peer-approved.

Brandon writes:

The sad truth is that many young women nowadays don’t know how to be in a marriage… they’re not taught how to treat a man, but what to expect from him… they’re flat-out dissuaded from providing anything but their presence to the partnership. They believe that offering their love to the man is sufficient and that men should just be grateful to have them.

What can you tell about a woman who has not prepared for tasks, like defending her faith, promoting conservative policies, or raising effective children? If she has not studied or practiced to do these things, then she isn’t suddenly going to become disciplined and effective after a wedding ceremony.

Men like when they set out to do something, and get support from their wives to achieve it. Can women today support men?

Brandon writes:

Along the lines of never learning how to treat a man, women are never taught how to value a man’s emotions unless they pertain positively to her. He must prove every day how much he values her for just existing. She expects this but is taught by our society to not reciprocate unless he earns it.

Men feel this weight, and the thing that would give them strength is withheld. Men suffer attempting to emotionally support the partner who has no interest in uplifting him in return. It’s a lonely existence in a relationship for two, making it, in truth, a relationship for one…her. What makes matters worse is that women are confused by their men’s lack of emotions. They were never taught how we think, much less appreciate it.

It’s rare for me to get support from younger women. Older Christian women can do it, but they are from a different time.

Now, people say to me “just go ahead and get married, and you can change the woman’s mind afterwards to value the things you care about”. But do young women today offer a way for men to change their minds about anything?

Brandon writes:

Now, let’s say you’re a young man entering into the stage of your life where dating to marry becomes typical. Looking at your prospects for marriage you see career-oriented women, some of whom make more money than you do and are very proud of this fact…. their opinions on any given subject seem more trendy than well thought out. They seem shallow as a result.

You see these women in your dating pool consistently exhibit opinions about your sex that are less than kind on social media. They’re taught they’re your intellectual superiors, that they’re right in any given argument no matter what… Very rarely do they display any joy in being giving or of service to their men. Even more rare are displays of humility. It reeks of narcissism.

One of the questions that I ask women to see if they are teachable is “where do you get your political news”? This question is to see if they care about anything other than their own feelings and social standing. I also ask “have you ever read any non-fiction that caused you to change your mind”? This to see whether she changes her mind about anything by increasing her knowledge.

But what I get from the Christian fundamentalists AND the career-focused feminists is the same: “I don’t read news, and I don’t read non-fiction”. If she doesn’t form her beliefs by gaining knowledge, then what method does a man have for leading her? She will only do what she feels like or what is pleasing to her peer group. If she doesn’t respect knowledge in general, then she doesn’t respect a man’s knowledge.

Brandon concludes:

Men want to feel welcome in their own relationships. Right now, they aren’t. They feel like passengers, or maybe even more accurately, chauffeurs. If women want men to marry them, then women will have to become marriage material and that means leaving behind the mainstream pop-philosophy and looking into the idea that maybe the feminists were wrong.

The schools, churches and culture are not doing anything to teach women how to be valuable to men. So why would a man marry? If I have to commit my time and money to being someone else’s slave / handbag then that will cause me to achieve goals less, right? As a Christian man, I don’t see how being a slave / handbag to a woman serves God.