Court Revives Copyright Lawsuit Against Justin Bieber and Usher

June 18, 2015 A federal appeals court on Thursday revived a copyright infringement lawsuit against Justin Bieber and Usher, marking the latest in a string of high-profile decisions attempting to clarify the nebulous difference between homage and theft in the music industry.

A three-judge panel of the 4th Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals unanimously ruled that there is sufficient reason to allow a jury to consider whether “Somebody to Love,” a 2010 chart-topper from the two pop icons, bears too much resemblance to an earlier song of the same name recorded by two Virginia musicians, Devin Copeland and Mareio Overton.

“After listening to the Copeland song and the Bieber and Usher songs as wholes, we conclude that their choruses are similar enough and also significant enough that a reasonable jury could find the songs intrinsically similar,” Judge Pamela Harris wrote for the court.

The case will now be sent to a lower federal court, where it was dismissed more than a year ago on grounds that no reasonable jury would conclude copyright infringement had occurred. But Harris said that the lower court erred by leaning too heavily on the differences between music genres and not enough on technical specifics of the songs, such as chord and beat similarities.

“In our view, that analysis attaches too much weight to what the district court termed a difference in ‘mood’ and ‘tone,’ and too little to similarities between the “element” of the songs— their choruses—that is most important,” Harris wrote. She added that “a reasonable jury could find that these small variations would not prevent a member of the general public from hearing substantial similarity.”

The appeals court decision comes just months after a federal jury ruled that Robin Thicke and Pharrell’s 2013 hit “Blurred Lines” infringed on Marvin Gaye’s 1977 song “Got to Give It Up.” The jury in that case awarded more than $7 million in damages to Gaye’s family—one of the largest damages awards in the history of music copyright cases.

The challenge against Bieber and Usher could be settled out of court and may not ultimately require a jury to weigh in. In January of this year, Sam Smith settled out of court with Tom Petty, who said the British singer’s “Stay With Me” ballad bore too much resemblance to his 1989 hit “I Won’t Back Down.”

The recording industry has stepped up its lobbying of Congress over the past couple years as part of a concerted effort to push for copyright and music-licensing reform. Most of the issues being advocated by the Recording Academy and others involve the murkiness surrounding digital radio, such as lower royalty rates for Internet streaming services and a loophole that grants fewer copyright protections for songs recorded before 1972. But the efforts also reflect the complexities of dated music copyright rules.

House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte last year began an extensive review of the copyright landscape, which has not undergone major revisions since 1976.

No Rest until Sweeping Victory against Drugs, Xi Says

President Xi Jinping called for more comprehensive and coordinated efforts to combat drugs, vowing “no rest until a sweeping victory”.

Xi made the remarks Thursday when meeting groups and individuals who were honored for their outstanding contributions to the country’s antidrug cause, ahead of International Day against Drug Abuse and Illicit Trafficking, which falls on Friday.

“Drugs are a menace for society and a significant issue concerning public security. They severely harm health, corrupt will, destroy families, consumes wealth, poisons society, pollutes the social environment, and leads to other crimes,” Xi said, underlining a “very arduous” task was ahead.

“The antidrug work concerns security, prosperity and people’s well-being, and a firm opposition to drugs is the routine standpoint of the Party and the government,” Xi said, urging all departments to tackle the problem and carry out more effective and resolute measures.

French family denied help by church and state

Press release of June 24, 2015
A video released by the Taxpayers Association and already viewed more than 500,000 times, has, justifiably aroused the indignation of many French.
In this video, Angelo, a young French dad, thrown out on the street with his young family following the loss of his employment, tells how he is forced to beg in order to provide a home for their baby.
None of the State Assistance- or Community- structures he approached could give him any help. “They told me that, if I had been an asylum seeker or in an irregular situation, there would be the solution of hotel accommodation for us, but only immigrants are accommodated in that hotel. The young father shares his distress and legitimate anger.
The tragic story of Angelo is unfortunately not an isolated case:
The millitants “Identitaires” participate every winter in the operation “Generation Solidarity” among homeless and are regularly confronted with similar situations. The majority of people living in the street are of French origin, while illegal immigrants are taken in charge by the State, through the State Medical Aid (which covers all  their medical expenses from the smallest to the most expensive) and  through emergency accommodation. On June 12, a statement from the city of Nanterre informed us that 30 (French) homeless had to leave a reception center so that illegal immigrants could be housed there!
Unlike some of these illegals, Angelo asks for nothing. He did not ask for money but above all employment, preferably in hospitality, in his region of La Rochelle. If you can help, please contact us on We also pass on to him your messages of support.

Dhimmitude: Richmond Hill high school teacher under investigation for speaking his mind


TORONTO – A Richmond Hill, Ont., teacher is being investigated for a series of alleged tweets with Islamophobic themes, the York Region District School Board confirmed.

A now-deleted Twitter account used a photo that appears to be of a teacher at a Richmond Hill high school.

The school board said it was made aware of the tweets Thursday and the teacher was told about the investigation, which is also looking into whether the account was hacked by an impersonator.

Licinio Miguelo, a board spokesperson, said impersonations on social media are rare but they have happened.

Ariana Grande Sexualizes Her Entire Image For Years Then Demands People “Focus On The Music”


Singer Ariana Grande recently released an “essay” claiming that she is being objectified and oppressed by the all-encompassing patriarchy. She said was irate about the supposedly constant references to her as Big Sean’s ex, amidst her general opining about “misogyny,” “sexism,” and “double standards,” and a reference to feminist Gloria Steinem.

“Focus on my music!” is what her piece screamed, all while she continues to cloak herself in female caricatures and stereotypes labeled as sexist when men enjoy them: cat’s ears, corsets, prancing around in her underpants, and generally selling her body to sell albums. Nothing in the piece mentioned the excessive photoshopping of her on magazine and album covers, either, or an obsession with cosmetics that body image experts blame for rampantly low female self-esteem amongst the general population.

It has never been about Grande’s music because a) men typically write her songs entirely or contribute most of the lyrics and composition and b) many people can sing as well as or better than Grande. What Grande sells instead to the public is her body, perceived looks (but I’ll pass, thanks) and youth.

If you want the best singer, or at least one better than Grande, you would end up, probably, with an overweight opera singer or another girl, a rather “homely” one, who switched to pop.


Grande’s diatribe has nothing to do with double standards or “misogyny” and everything to do with celebrity culture. Celebrities are paid truly exorbitant amounts to plaster themselves across our collective social consciousness, without usually contributing anything that isn’t superficial or which doesn’t endorse narcissism.

One of the drawbacks of this massive remuneration and adoration for a person with a net worth well beyond $10 or $100 million is a menagerie of press representatives wanting a piece of their private life all the time.

I have no problem with Grande, like Kate Upton, using sexualization as a tool in her career. But the rest of us need to call a spade a spade. It becomes tedious when Grande robotically describes herself as a sexualized object and alleged “property” of a man when her entire public persona is predicated on her overt and inveterate sexualization. Her success as a performer is attributable to this fact alone.

Grande is not so special a celebrity

Take George Clooney, a much more high-brow celebrity despite his politics, as a case in point. Between 2005 and 2012, he starred in, co-wrote, directed or produced films which garnered him eight different Academy Award nominations across six different categories. Two of these nominations resulted in wins, one for Best Supporting Actor in Syriana and another for Argo being Best Picture.

He additionally received critical acclaim for other performances outside his recognition by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. One is hard pressed to name another film icon with a similar critically prolific and versatile track record over the past decade, with the exception of Clint Eastwood.

Most of the time, though, attention has been lavished much more on George Clooney’s love life and other female entanglements. Grande might argue that she’s the victim of double standards because of her genitals, but it doesn’t explain how men like Clooney are routinely invoked only to describe romantic partners and their “work” outside work.

Intrusion into one’s private life is part and parcel of the celebrity tradeoff for both men and women. Look at the litany of male stars who have legally detrimental encounters with paparazzi. They’re not accosted when they’re on-set and security could efficiently dispose of the photographers. It happens on their downtime, when they’re hand-in-hand with their latest sweetheart or frolicking shirtless at the beach.


Claiming feminism earns you big bucks


The appropriation of feminism or other ideologies by already multimillionaire female (or male) celebrities continues to generate financial windfalls for them. Lady Gaga, for example, has established herself as the preeminent campaigner for gay marriage and other LGBT causes.

I do not doubt that she legitimately believes in what she says, but you still can’t ignore the phenomenal remunerative benefits it has brought her. Being a “gay icon,” a largely straight one who says she’s bisexual and is engaged to a man, equals a gay and leftist following that fills her bank accounts even more.

It’s also rooted in an intrinsic mythology, as it allows these people to present the veneer of suffering the same slights and misfortunes of the common person. This is because celebrity status relies on a complex fusion of being both “above” the masses but “like” them. The ultimate victory of the celebrity is being idolized like a modern-day religious figure but being lauded as “down-to-earth”.

Although more implicit than other songs, Beyoncé’s Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It)(ironically written with three men) is meant to channel the “girl power” of independent women. This presupposes that the situation of, say, lower middle-class women could be in any sense like Beyoncé’s. It’s akin to me comparing my next pangs of hunger to a child in the economically and politically failed state of Somalia.

Finally, and related to the second point, it enables those who are fundamentallyprivileged to fend off accusations that they are part of any elite that should give back more. Because of “patriarchal superstructures,” women with a phenomenal net worth like Beyoncé can lump themselves in amongst the traditional stereotypes of oppressed women. The male gas station attendant has male privilege; Beyoncé is “objectified” and asserting her girl power to fight it.

Basically, if a female celebrity doesn’t like a form of attention or criticism, she can call it sexism. Male celebrities lack such a jack-of-all-trades, please-get-away-from-me card.


It isn’t even Ariana Grande’s music most of the time


It’s suitably quaint that Ariana Grande portrays herself as a victim of sexists not focusing on her music when much of that music she doesn’t write herself. A half dozen others, including men, wrote “her” number one hit from Yours Truly, called The Way. Only five of the 13 songs were co-written by her for this debut album.

Break Free, another number one from the follow-up album My Everything, was written by three men and Problem was written by Grande (finally!), Iggy Azalea and three men.

Fact Alert: Pop and many other genres are about the external appearance and persona of the singer or group, not the music. Female pop itself is invariably the marriage of soft pornography via a trim body and a voice that’s hopefully at least semi-decent.

Independent women who objectify themselves and rely on men

Get the men to write your songs for you and then they’re yours. Dress up in a way seen as misogynistic when men want women to look like that. This is all in a day’s work for Ariana Grande. Her hypocrisy knows no bounds. The command to “Look at me! Look at me!” combines very elegantly with the shrill politicking and opportunism of Grande claiming she is a victim.

The solution to this excremental situation is simple, unrelenting juxtaposition. Compare what feminists and others describe as the objectification of women by men and “society” with the identical self-presentation of unfathomably wealthy celebrities like Grande and the desperate regular girls emulating them.

Challenge the primitive assumption that “male privilege” allows any woman, no matter how elite, wealthy or advantaged in other ways, to claim the mantle of universal victimhood.

In the end, the Ariana Grandes of the world always expose themselves for the discerning and intelligently skeptical to see.

Former CAIR Official Represents Muslim Brotherhood…

Media coverage of the U.S. State Department’s decision to comply with Egypt’s request not to meet with a Muslim Brotherhood delegation this month missed an important point: That delegation included a former official from the Canadian wing of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and he has connections to several other Canadian Islamist groups.

The Muslim Brotherhood delegation visited the U.S. to advocate against the Egyptian government. The Brotherhood announced a new violent phase in January shortly after its representatives met with State Department officials. Brotherhood media outlets arecalling for acts of violence in Egypt and against the interests of countries that are friendly towards President El-Sisi.

Eric Trager of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy writes that the Brotherhood delegation included Wael Haddara, a Canadian who served as a senior campaign adviser to former Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi, the Muslim Brotherhood’s official candidate.

Haddara claims he is not a member of the Brotherhood but the group’s followers often play a game of semantics with what it means to be a “member.” He says he was a media advisor to Morsi before he launched his presidential campaign.

Haddara was on the board of the National Council of Canadian Muslims, formerly known as CAIR-Canada. CAIR is a U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entity and was banned as a terrorist group by the United Arab Emirates last year. Two other directors besides Haddara are known Muslim Brotherhood supporters. He left CAIR-Canada/NCCM in 2012 to work for Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood.

Sex offender working as principal of private tutoring program

A convicted sex offender banned from working in public schools is tutoring children in a private classroom in Toronto.

Yusuf Ali Talukder, principal of the Dhaka Learning Centre, was sentenced to six months in jail in 2010 for sexually assaulting a female student under the age of 14.

He was found guilty of putting his hand inside the student’s bra, squeezing her breast on multiple occasions and rubbing the zipper of her pants during class, according to the court decision.

Talukder, 52, pleaded not guilty, and in an interview last week he told the Star he was innocent.

The Dhaka Learning Centre is an afterschool tutorial program owned by Talukder.

Because it is a private business, provincial education authorities had no power to stop the principal, who is on the sex offender registry, from walking out of jail and back into his office.

The court forbade Talukder from being in a public area where children would likely be present, such as a park, playground or school. It also banned him from working “in a position of trust or authority towards persons under the age of fourteen” for 10 years, according to his prohibition order.

But, in a handwritten amendment to the order, Justice Donna Hackett granted Talukder the right to be employed around children — only if he was “in the immediate presence of another adult in the same room.”

When the Star visited the one-classroom learning centre last Tuesday, Talukder said a 22-year-old university student was acting as his adult supervisor. The alleged supervisor told the Star he was only 18.

Talukder had been a voluntary member of the Ontario College of Teachers since 2005. After he was released from jail, he was summoned to a disciplinary hearing, which he declined to attend.

The college, which regulates public school teachers, revoked Talukder’s licence and registration, preventing him from ever teaching in a public school again.

But because the college has no jurisdiction over the private sector, its watchdog powers fall short of the Dhaka Learning Centre.

The Ministry of Education also has no role in the regulatory oversight of private tutoring programs or any of the 900 private schools that operate in the province, a ministry spokesman told the Star.

The independent tutorial centre, which primarily caters to Toronto’s Bengali community, offers after-school tutoring for children as young as 6, according to the centre’s website.

It is tucked away inside a block of shops, up a narrow flight of stairs and down a corridor, on the corner of a busy intersection in Scarborough.

Its charges are taped to the front door: $90 for four lessons a month and $320 for 20 lessons a month. A poster on the door advertising the centre has two spelling mistakes, one corrected with a black marker.

When the Star visited the centre last week, Talukder was sitting in his office, surrounded by paperwork, while six students aged 15 to 21 quietly studied in the bare-walled classroom next door.

He moved from his office to the classroom, where he helped students with math and physics homework.

Talukder, who was born in Bangladesh, spoke softly as he explained his view of the incident that led to his conviction.

“I was teaching the person and maybe sometimes I may, my body can touch the students. So there is a complaint that things, you know here in Canada are sometimes a problem, like those things,” Talukder said in his office.

He continued: “Somebody complained about things here and, yeah, it is very difficult to work with teenagers, right. Anybody can complain.”

According to the court decision, Talukder started grooming the victim when she was 12; he would point to her bra strap and ask her what it was and then trace his hand around the neckline of her shirt.

During a tutorial period in the late 2000s, when the victim was sitting at the back of the room, Talukder put his hand into her bra and “squeezed her breast on 5 –7 separate occasions,” the decision says.

He also lifted the bottom of her shirt and “told her to sit properly when she had her legs crossed and rubbed the zipper of her pants lightly with his knuckles,” the court decision said.

“She elbowed him a little at one point to get him away from her, but it did not work. Once, he pulled his hand away quickly when one of the [other students] turned around,” it said.

The student started to cry silently in class and the decision says Talukder “gave her his notebook on which was already written in pencil, ‘Never tell anybody.’”

In court, the victim’s mother and aunt testified that when they confronted Talukder at the centre the next day, he asked for forgiveness and told them he had “misbehaved and had not slept all night.” He asked the women not to tell anybody, but to hit him instead, which the documents says is “a sign of profound disrespect in Bengali culture.”

Talukder rejected this account in his own testimony, but the judge ruled he was an inconsistent and unreliable witness. He was convicted of sexual assault and sexually touching a person under the age of 14.

The father of two said he never considered closing the Dhaka Learning Centre after his conviction because he believed he was helping students and his Bengali community.

“I already learned a lesson. I am always careful, even like, that my hand doesn’t touch to the student,” Talukder said.

When the Star asked where Talukder’s supervising adult was last Tuesday, he said: “There’s the big guy in the room there,” pointing at one of the six students seated at a desk.

Talukder said the student was 22 and in his second year of university, but when the Star asked the student how old he was, he said 18. Talukder then told the student he was 20, to which the student replied: “Yes, I am 20.”

The Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services told the Star it was “inappropriate to comment on the details of any specific case,” including the last time an officer checked in on Talukder or whether his prohibition order was being actively monitored.

Talukder declined to tell the Star if his staff members or the parents of his students were aware of his conviction.

“I don’t have any conviction now. I am free of everything now,” he said.

“Probation is over, but always for my own safety, I always keep the adult person in the room. I am always alert, always alert.”

The Star contacted Talukder on Thursday to ask if the university student was aware of the fact that he was acting as an adult supervisor, but Talukder said he was “not interested to tell anything.”

“I spoke to my lawyer and she said I couldn’t,” Talukder said.

Talukder’s lawyer, Vanessa Christie, did not respond to multiple emails and phone calls from the Star.

YHWH IS MOLOCH Human Cannibal Ritual Murder

YHWH is moloch. The word moloch is not a name of a deity, it is a type of sacrifice. Artifacts uncovered at ugarit in Syria show that the biblical yahweh is the moabite Moloch. Human ritual sacrifice originates in the bible. The deity named yahweh, is an evolution from the canaanite baal cycle.

Psalm 82:1: Elohim has taken his place in the assembly of EL, in the midst of the elohim He holds judgment.

Psalm 29:1: Ascribe to Yahweh, O sons of EL, ascribe to Yahweh glory and strength.

Psalm 89:6: For who in the skies can be compared to Yahweh, who among the sons of EL is like Yahweh,

The 12th-century Rashi, commenting on Jeremiah 7:31 state2: Tophet is Moloch, which was made of brass; and they heated him from his lower parts; and his hands being stretched out, and made hot, they put the child between his hands, and it was burnt; when it vehemently cried out; but the priests beat a drum, that the father might not hear the voice of his son, and his heart might not be moved. He is a remake of the canaanite ‘yam’ in the baal cycle. Cannibalism and human sacrifice was instated as law in the torah by the deity YHWH. Christianity is merely replicating the same apostasy the OT hebrews practiced.

College Prof Pearson Cross ” “There’s not much Indian left in Bobby Jindal.”

That’s what Pearson Cross, a political science professor at the University of Louisiana at Lafayette who is writing a book on the governor, told The Washington Postabout Louisiana Gov. Jindal, a Republican running for president.

The shocking statement has prompted many to weigh in on its inappropriateness.

National Review’s Jim Geraghty, in his “Morning Jolt” newsletter, included a picture of Cross, who is white, with snippets from his bio: “‘Dr. Cross advises the College Democrats and is chair of the Constitution Day Committee.’ No word on what credentials he has as the Indian-American Authenticity Police.”

And in a post in National Review, Mark Wright delved further into this apparent belief on the Left that Jindal is not Indian, or something:

The Post’s thesis: “Jindal’s status as a conservative of color helped propel his meteoric rise in the Republican Party,” but “many see him as a man who has spent a lifetime distancing himself from his Indian roots.” Jindal’s sins are grave: He’s a Catholic convert from Hinduism, as a young child he chose to be called “Bobby” after the youngest of the Brady Bunch, growing up he “ate food that would be familiar to other families in south Louisiana,” and — as his political clout has grown — he has expanded his donor base from a core group of Indian Americans to the wider conservative movement.

As Noah Rothman points out in Commentary, the Left just doesn’t get it: “[T]here is little evidence that Jindal is ashamed of his ethnic background so much as he is proud of his American heritage and profoundly thankful for the sacrifices his parents made in order to ensure that he could call himself an American.”

Let’s Bring Back Guilt and Shame

“I was twelve when I discovered porn.”

So begins “How I Came Out: Part 2 – My Bisexual Awakening” by Kaitlyn, a 22-year-old graduate of Pacific Lutheran University.

Please stop laughing long enough to think about this. Remember when “coming out” meant someone was actually, y’know, gay?

What’s the point of “coming out” as bisexual?

If you are actually with somebody of the same sex — which is to say, you’re in a gay relationship — then this could cause a situation at the family Thanksgiving gathering. But if all you’re doing, in terms of your bisexuality, is occasionally hooking up with partners of either sex, do you need to “come out” about that? Why?

Politics, really. Adding another soldier to the LGBT Social Justice Army in their Grand March to abolish normality. So if you ever had an “incident” at Scout camp or engaged in some “Wow, I was so drunk last night” shenanigans at college, it is now Urgently Important that you must tell everybody on the Internet. This is what Tumblr blogs are for.

Thanks for sharing your adolescent porn habits with us, Kaitlyn.

“Dear Penthouse Forum . . .”

Excuse my habitual sarcasm, but it’s hard to avoid suspecting that perversion was more fun when everybody knew it was wrong.

Now that every college has an LGBT club and every major city has a “pride” parade, the abolition of sexual shame has also abolished the frisson of pursuing Forbidden Pleasure. If nothing is taboo anymore — a lesbian comedian is hosting a popular daytime TV show and a former Olympic star makes the cover of Vanity Fair as “transgender” — where can anyone find the thrill of Guilty Secrets? As weirdness becomes more and more normalized in society, it also inevitably becomes more boring.

Young people nowadays can be excused if they find themselves wondering what life was like in the Bad Old Days, when fornication was regarded as a sin and sodomy was an abomination. Kids may be nostalgic for a society that required us to repress our unruly teenage impulses, when guys felt guilty for trying to get to third base with their girlfriends.

Well, we were supposed to feel guilty, anyway.

She’s your adolescent dream,
Schoolboy stuff, a sticky sweet romance.
And she makes you want to scream,
Wishing you could get inside her pants.
So, you fantasize away.
And while you’re squeezing her,
You thought you heard her saying . . .

“Good girls don’t,
Good girls don’t,
Good girls don’t, but I do.”

The distinction between Good Girls and Bad Girls was, of course, both a cruel fiction and a vital bulwark of social morality. Perhaps unspeakable depravity lurked in the subconscious of all those Good Girls whose respectable boyfriends were afraid to try to even get past second base. Certainly I was not the only long-haired rock-and-roll outlaw who suspected that most Good Girls secretly wanted to be Bad Girls. Yet the forces of repression were still strong — I grew up deep in the Bible Belt, where the Sexual Revolution didn’t win a sudden and complete victory — and the innate capacity for wickedness was restrained, so it is likely that most Good Girls believed they actually were good.

So, you call her on the phone
To talk about the teachers that you hate.
And she says she’s all alone,
And her parents won’t be coming home til late.
There’s a ringing in your brain,
Cause you could’ve sworn
You thought you heard her saying . . .

“Good girls don’t,
Good girls don’t,
Good girls don’t, but I do.”

Sneaky teenage guilt is ancient history now. Nothing is repressed in 2015. Perverts are marching down Main Street beneath the Rainbow Flag, declaring their pride in being abnormal, and anyone who fails to applaud the parade is condemned as a hater. As I’ve said, “Until I started studying radical feminism, I never thought of ‘normal’ as an achievement.” Feminist gender theory — the social construction of the gender binary within the heterosexual matrix — tends toward the conclusion that it’s wrong to be normal. These weird ideas, promulgated in university Women’s Studies programs, have been diffused through our culture to such an extent we may imagine young people feeling ashamed to confess that they are heterosexual. In the 21st century, a teenage girl’s peers would treat her as an outcast and a misfit if she were to declare her ambition was to fall in love with a nice guy, marry him, have babies and live in a 3BR/2BA house in the suburbs.


Being normal is old-fashioned and old-fashioned is oppressive. Therefore, the Good Girl is now stigmatized for her virtue, because feminists tell her she should be “empowered” (Yes Means Yes!) to express her sexuality, while no one can condemn the Bad Girl, because that would be “slut-shaming.” Traditional morality having thus been totally inverted — calling to mind Nietzsche’s “transvaluation of all values” — the teenage girl finds herself thrown to the wolves and expected to perform her “empowered” sexuality with that most horrible and hideous beast, the teenage boy.

And it’s a teenage sadness
Everyone has got to taste.
An in-between age madness
That you know you can’t erase . . .

“Good Girls Don’t,” as Doug Feiger sang in 1979, and it’s astonishing how this “in-between age madness” has gotten even more out of control now than it was in the Seventies, when more or less everybody in high school was on drugs. Let it be noted that Fast Times at Ridgemont Highwas actually based on a true story, a 1981 book by Cameron Crowe:

As a freelance writer for Rolling Stone magazine, Crowe went undercover at Clairemont High School in San Diego, California, and wrote about his experiences.

If that now-classic teen movie exaggerated reality for comic effect, many of us who lived through that era — before the AIDS epidemic, before mandatory “safe sex” lessons in public schools — nonetheless recognize the reality behind the laughs. There were a lot of real-life human tragedies amid all that sex, drugs and rock-and-roll. Hearts were broken and lives were ruined, and the only thing that could possibly make sense of it all was the music on the radio.

You’re alone with her at last,
And you’re waiting til you think the time is right.
Cause you’ve heard she’s pretty fast.
And you’re hoping that she’ll give you some tonight.
So, you start to make your play,
Cause you could’ve sworn you
Thought you heard her saying . . .

“Good girls don’t,
Good girls don’t,
Good girls don’t, but I do.”

It’s a miracle any of us rock-and-roll kids survived that era. You might think we would have learned enough from our experience to prevent a revival of that deviant culture, but it seems that many so-called “grown-ups” learned all the wrong lessons from their decadent youth.

“Well, we managed to make it through all right,” these alleged adults seem to have concluded, “so let’s just let our kids figure it out for themselves.” Then one day you log onto the Internet and find a young Lutheran’s bisexual confession: “I was twelve when I discovered porn.”

more at

Blacks Should Boycott The Christian Bible Before The Confederate Flag!

Lisa K Troy 5 hours ago

What is the history of the Confederate flag? In December 1860, South Carolina was the first state to secede from the Union just months after Abraham Lincoln, from the anti-slavery Republican Party, was elected president. In April 1861, the first shots of the Civil War were fired at Fort Sumter, S.C. Ten other states would eventually follow South Carolina in secession, forming the Confederate States  of America. However, of the three flags the Confederacy would go on to adopt, none are the Confederate flag that is traditionally recognized today.

The “Stars and Bars” flag, currently the subject of controversy, was actually the battle flag of Gen. Robert E. Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia. After the war ended, the symbol became a source of Southern pride and heritage, as well as a remembrance of Confederate soldiers who died in battle. But as racism and segregation gripped the nation in the century following, it became a divisive and violent emblem of the Ku Klux Klan (made up of Democrats) and white supremacist groups. It was also the symbol of the States’ Rights Democratic Party, or “Dixiecrats,” that formed in 1948 to oppose civil-rights platforms of the Democratic Party.

Poll of U.S. Muslims Reveals Ominous Levels Of Support For Islamic Supremacists’ Doctrine of Shariah, Jihad

According to a new nationwide online survey (Below) of 600 Muslims living in the United States, significant minorities embrace supremacist notions that could pose a threat to America’s security and its constitutional form of government.

The numbers of potential jihadists among the majority of Muslims who appear not to be sympathetic to such notions raise a number of public policy choices that warrant careful consideration and urgent debate, including: the necessity for enhanced surveillance of Muslim communities; refugee resettlement, asylum and other immigration programs that are swelling their numbers and density; and the viability of so-called “countering violent extremism” initiatives that are supposed to stymie radicalization within those communities.

Overall, the survey, which was conducted by The Polling Company for the Center for Security Policy (CSP), suggests that a substantial number of Muslims living in the United States see the country very differently than does the population overall.  The sentiments of the latter were sampled in late May in another CSP-commissioned Polling Company nationwide survey.

According to the just-released survey of Muslims, a majority (51%) agreed that “Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to shariah.”  When that question was put to the broader U.S. population, the overwhelming majority held that shariah should not displace the U.S. Constitution (86% to 2%).

More than half (51%) of U.S. Muslims polled also believe either that they should have the choice of American or shariah courts, or that they should have their own tribunals to apply shariah. Only 39% of those polled said that Muslims in the U.S. should be subject to American courts.

These notions were powerfully rejected by the broader population according to the Center’s earlier national survey.  It found by a margin of 92%-2% that Muslims should be subject to the same courts as other citizens, rather than have their own courts and tribunals here in the U.S.

Even more troubling, is the fact that nearly a quarter of the Muslims polled believed that, “It is legitimate to use violence to punish those who give offense to Islam by, for example, portraying the prophet Mohammed.”

By contrast, the broader survey found that a 63% majority of those sampled said that “the freedom to engage in expression that offends Muslims or anybody else is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and cannot be restricted.”

Nearly one-fifth of Muslim respondents said that the use of violence in the United States is justified in order to make shariah the law of the land in this country.

Center for Security Policy President, Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., observed:

The findings of the Center for Security Policy’s survey of Muslims in America suggests that we have a serious problem.  The Pew Research Center estimates that the number of Muslims in the United States was 2.75 million in 2011, and growing at a rate of 80-90 thousand a year.  If those estimates are accurate, the United States would have approximately 3 million Muslims today.  That would translate into roughly 300,000 Muslims living in the United States who believe that shariah is “The Muslim God Allah’s law that Muslims must follow and impose worldwide by Jihad.”
It is incumbent on the many American Muslims who want neither to live under the brutal repression of shariah nor to impose it on anybody else to work with the rest of us who revere and uphold the supremacy of the U.S. Constitution in protecting our nation against the Islamic supremacists and their jihad.

Racist crowd sets fire to a Roma squatter camp after a false accusation of rape:the young woman admitted she had been lying

A 16-year-old girl reported to the police in Turin that she had been raped on Wednesday evening. The young woman told the authorities that she was approached by two Roma men who forced her into a doorway near the Vallette district. The girl told them that one of the two Roma men raped her. In the wake of this outrage, dozens of people in Turin organized a candlelight vigil in support of the girl, an event that quickly turned into a racist demonstration.

The demonstrators’ anger soon turned into ethnic hatred and they decided to take action. The racist crowd made its way to the Roma camp situated near Cascina Continassa, where they broke in with iron bars and set fire to the huts, cars and caravans. The demonstrators then deliberately hindered the fire fighters’ attempts to extinguish the flames. Last night, however, the young woman admitted she had been lying and she had not been raped at all. The authorities have not identified or brought charges against the racists who destroyed the Roma settlement.