53percenter's Blog

This November was meant to be the month for MP Geert Wilders’ second “Draw Muhammad” contest, but Islamic law won a de facto victory over Dutch law mere weeks ago as Wilders announced the contest’s cancellation. When — among many other threats similar attacks — a 19-year-old Afghan stabbed two American tourists in Amsterdam, citing the planned contest as motive, Wilders canceled the event out of concern about further violence.

The Islamists had made their point: “Having the law on your side makes no difference. Do what we want, or somebody is going to get hurt.”

Such antics by Islamist Muslims are not new to Wilders and other speech and conscience advocates. In retribution for his firm and outspoken stance on this subject, he has “spent 15 years living in safe houses and escorted by a security detail due to constant death threats.” These are the tactics, of course, of any common mafia.

In securing Wilders’ retreat, the terrorists established Sharia’s authority for now in the Netherlands on the issue of speech.

The first “Draw Muhammad” contest, organized by Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer, was held on May 3, 2015 in Garland, Texas. The purpose of Geller and Spencer, and the purpose of Wilders in organizing another this year, was to preserve space for free speech in the face of known supremacist Muslim intentions to forcefully diminish that space.

During the 2015 event, two Muslim men — one a convert but both American-born — armed with multiple rifles and handguns and 1500 rounds of ammunition, began shooting their way into the venue. Both were killed. The purpose of “the Islamist mob” is to assert authority for Islam over all other legal authorities, to become dominant.

What is going on, in other words, are tests of national sovereignty, a battle of civilizations. In this most recent round, I regret to report, the winner was not Western civilization, but rather the Islamist mob.

The Islamist mob is training many societies, and most particularly non-Muslims within them, to behave the way it wants them to behave. They are doing so through well-known manipulative techniques. Some being employed in this case include:

Threats of violence: “If I don’t not get my way, you will suffer or die. And it will be your fault, since I gave you fair warning.” (No. The guilt for an act of violence lies with the perpetrator of that violence.)

Tantrums: “I am going to lose control and make a big scene because of what you do.” (No. Children throw tantrums but grownups find more productive ways to resolve their concerns.)

False equivalence: “My hurt feelings warrant your death.” (No. Hurt feelings are unfortunate, but death of the one who gave a perceived or actual slight is hardly a proportionate or justified response.)

Any mob is comprised of several different types of people:

Agitators

These are the vocal demagogues who take center stage or move about the crowd stirring people up. There are typically only a small number of agitators in any given mob. In this analogy, the agitators are those Muslim leaders and activists, and their Western leftist allies, who call for the imposition of Islamic law’s speech limits in the West.

 Sympathetic attendees

These are people who readily assent to the ideas of the agitators. Not all sympathetic attendees take direct action, but their presence and consent helps to advance the cause of the agitators.

In this analogy, the sympathetic attendees are the portion of Muslims and non-Muslims in the West and abroad who support restrictions on speech relating to Muhammad and the Qur’an, both those who speak out and those who remain silent as the agitators move their argument forward.

 “Lookie-loos”

These are curious, indifferent, or timid onlookers. They are not sympathetic to the cause and many would oppose it if they gave it some thought but are useful to the agitators for their silence, which helps the optics by giving appearance of wide agreement. In this analogy, these are regular folks who may know something is wrong but don’t want to stick their necks out.

Today is a moment in history. Many of us see ourselves as spectators without a serious part to play in the larger affairs of the world. I encourage you to understand that what you say matters. I encourage you to live purposefully and to, in love for your neighbor, take a stand for liberty in speech and deed as you go about your daily life.

Do not give up free speech so casually. It is a precious thing.

Dr. Daniel A. Brubaker is a writer for the Legal Project, an effort of the Middle East Forum.

This November was meant to be the month for MP Geert Wilders’ second “Draw Muhammad” contest, but Islamic law won a de facto victory over Dutch law mere weeks ago as Wilders announced the contest’s cancellation. When — among many other threats similar attacks — a 19-year-old Afghan stabbed two American tourists in Amsterdam, citing the planned contest as motive, Wilders canceled the event out of concern about further violence.

The Islamists had made their point: “Having the law on your side makes no difference. Do what we want, or somebody is going to get hurt.”

Such antics by Islamist Muslims are not new to Wilders and other speech and conscience advocates. In retribution for his firm and outspoken stance on this subject, he has “spent 15 years living in safe houses and escorted by a security detail due to constant death threats.” These are the tactics, of course, of any common mafia.

In securing Wilders’ retreat, the terrorists established Sharia’s authority for now in the Netherlands on the issue of speech.

The first “Draw Muhammad” contest, organized by Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer, was held on May 3, 2015 in Garland, Texas. The purpose of Geller and Spencer, and the purpose of Wilders in organizing another this year, was to preserve space for free speech in the face of known supremacist Muslim intentions to forcefully diminish that space.

During the 2015 event, two Muslim men — one a convert but both American-born — armed with multiple rifles and handguns and 1500 rounds of ammunition, began shooting their way into the venue. Both were killed. The purpose of “the Islamist mob” is to assert authority for Islam over all other legal authorities, to become dominant.

What is going on, in other words, are tests of national sovereignty, a battle of civilizations. In this most recent round, I regret to report, the winner was not Western civilization, but rather the Islamist mob.

The Islamist mob is training many societies, and most particularly non-Muslims within them, to behave the way it wants them to behave. They are doing so through well-known manipulative techniques. Some being employed in this case include:

Threats of violence: “If I don’t not get my way, you will suffer or die. And it will be your fault, since I gave you fair warning.” (No. The guilt for an act of violence lies with the perpetrator of that violence.)

Tantrums: “I am going to lose control and make a big scene because of what you do.” (No. Children throw tantrums but grownups find more productive ways to resolve their concerns.)

False equivalence: “My hurt feelings warrant your death.” (No. Hurt feelings are unfortunate, but death of the one who gave a perceived or actual slight is hardly a proportionate or justified response.)

Any mob is comprised of several different types of people:

Agitators

These are the vocal demagogues who take center stage or move about the crowd stirring people up. There are typically only a small number of agitators in any given mob. In this analogy, the agitators are those Muslim leaders and activists, and their Western leftist allies, who call for the imposition of Islamic law’s speech limits in the West.

 Sympathetic attendees

These are people who readily assent to the ideas of the agitators. Not all sympathetic attendees take direct action, but their presence and consent helps to advance the cause of the agitators.

In this analogy, the sympathetic attendees are the portion of Muslims and non-Muslims in the West and abroad who support restrictions on speech relating to Muhammad and the Qur’an, both those who speak out and those who remain silent as the agitators move their argument forward.

 “Lookie-loos”

These are curious, indifferent, or timid onlookers. They are not sympathetic to the cause and many would oppose it if they gave it some thought but are useful to the agitators for their silence, which helps the optics by giving appearance of wide agreement. In this analogy, these are regular folks who may know something is wrong but don’t want to stick their necks out.

Today is a moment in history. Many of us see ourselves as spectators without a serious part to play in the larger affairs of the world. I encourage you to understand that what you say matters. I encourage you to live purposefully and to, in love for your neighbor, take a stand for liberty in speech and deed as you go about your daily life.

Do not give up free speech so casually. It is a precious thing.

Dr. Daniel A. Brubaker is a writer for the Legal Project, an effort of the Middle East Forum.

Artificial intelligence (A.I.) is the current hot item in “tomorrow world,” as techies see it as the next new thing to take over outmoded human brains, some of which actually do possess a modicum of native intelligence.  A.I. algorithms have been successfully implemented by many enterprises to do such tasks as determining credit risk, consumer marketing optimization, credit card fraud detection, investment decision making, x-ray and electrocardiogram interpretation, and efficient travel and navigation choices.  So far, so good.

In the mold of “I am from the government and here to help you,” A.I. is being promoted to even more critical tasks – say, driving a car.  However, programmers and engineers might reflect a bit more on one of the more pervasive and deadly laws of the universe – the law of unintended consequences – and the limits of programmed intelligence.

Consider the recent crash of a Boeing 737 MAX aircraft, operated by Indonesian Lion Air, killing all 189 people on board.  Flight data reports detail the vain struggle of the pilots trying to keep the aircraft level while the latest addition to the automated functions of the aircraft had erroneously declared an imminent stall and put the plane into a sharp, corrective dive.  Attempts by the pilots to pull the plane to level flight were apparently overridden by the newest enhancement of the on-board computer system, and it nose-dived into the sea.

While the A.I. computer was making a billion calculations per second in a game of “match the output of the sensors to the library of stored known objects,” the pilots of the doomed aircraft probably could tell that the aircraft was flying level in spite of questionable sensor input to the contrary.

Replacing human sensory input with electro-mechanical devices is common enough that the possibility of malfunction of either is a real consideration.  Humans have the evolutionary advantage in that their brains have an innate ability to make distinctions in the real world.  A.I. systems require learning exercises to identify objects and situations already mastered by a six-month-old child.  The A.I. computer must build its own library of objects against which it will base future decisions as it navigates its decision tree based on sensor inputs.  What happens when a bug or ice fouls a sensor?  A.I. also lacks the adaptability and value-judgement skills possessed by humans to deal successfully with a situation for which it has no prior training or reference data in its decision-tree core.

The unnecessary death of 189 people is a high price to pay for a computer programming glitch.  ”To err is human” is good advice for A.I. programmers as well.

Charles G. Battig, M.S., M.D., Heartland Institute policy expert on environment; VA-Scientists and Engineers for Energy and Environment (VA-SEEE).  His website is www.climateis.com.

Artificial intelligence (A.I.) is the current hot item in “tomorrow world,” as techies see it as the next new thing to take over outmoded human brains, some of which actually do possess a modicum of native intelligence.  A.I. algorithms have been successfully implemented by many enterprises to do such tasks as determining credit risk, consumer marketing optimization, credit card fraud detection, investment decision making, x-ray and electrocardiogram interpretation, and efficient travel and navigation choices.  So far, so good.

In the mold of “I am from the government and here to help you,” A.I. is being promoted to even more critical tasks – say, driving a car.  However, programmers and engineers might reflect a bit more on one of the more pervasive and deadly laws of the universe – the law of unintended consequences – and the limits of programmed intelligence.

Consider the recent crash of a Boeing 737 MAX aircraft, operated by Indonesian Lion Air, killing all 189 people on board.  Flight data reports detail the vain struggle of the pilots trying to keep the aircraft level while the latest addition to the automated functions of the aircraft had erroneously declared an imminent stall and put the plane into a sharp, corrective dive.  Attempts by the pilots to pull the plane to level flight were apparently overridden by the newest enhancement of the on-board computer system, and it nose-dived into the sea.

While the A.I. computer was making a billion calculations per second in a game of “match the output of the sensors to the library of stored known objects,” the pilots of the doomed aircraft probably could tell that the aircraft was flying level in spite of questionable sensor input to the contrary.

Replacing human sensory input with electro-mechanical devices is common enough that the possibility of malfunction of either is a real consideration.  Humans have the evolutionary advantage in that their brains have an innate ability to make distinctions in the real world.  A.I. systems require learning exercises to identify objects and situations already mastered by a six-month-old child.  The A.I. computer must build its own library of objects against which it will base future decisions as it navigates its decision tree based on sensor inputs.  What happens when a bug or ice fouls a sensor?  A.I. also lacks the adaptability and value-judgement skills possessed by humans to deal successfully with a situation for which it has no prior training or reference data in its decision-tree core.

The unnecessary death of 189 people is a high price to pay for a computer programming glitch.  ”To err is human” is good advice for A.I. programmers as well.

Charles G. Battig, M.S., M.D., Heartland Institute policy expert on environment; VA-Scientists and Engineers for Energy and Environment (VA-SEEE).  His website is www.climateis.com.

BY: Bill McMorris Follow
@FBillMcMorris

November 24, 2018 5:00 am

An elderly tech inventor is accusing the federal government of personally targeting him to block him from patenting his life’s work.

Anyone who uses a computer or television has enjoyed the fruits of Gil Hyatt’s labor. He has pioneered technology and computer programming used by Panasonic, Sony, Philips, and Toshiba. He poured the licensing fees back into the lab where he has continued his research for decades. But beginning in the mid-1990’s, Hyatt said the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) began enforcing a blockade against his patent applications. The agency, his suit claims, went so far as to create a dedicated group of regulators committed to delaying numerous applications until the 80-year-old inventor expires.

“The PTO founded what the agency calls the ‘Hyatt Unit’ in 2012 for the purpose of miring all of Mr. Hyatt’s applications in administrative purgatory until Mr. Hyatt gives up or dies,” the suit says.

Hyatt’s suit mentions the monetary toll the PTO’s actions have had on his life. He has invested thousands of dollars into complying with the agency’s paperwork requests and eventually litigation to get them the up-or-down judgment regulators refuse to grant. The delays have no doubt cost him potential earnings, denied licensing and partnerships with companies interested in his inventions—earnings that might have netted him millions, but some of the research has been rendered obsolete as the agency sat on his applications. The money, however, is not his greatest concern. An inventor lives and dies by his reputation.

“Character assassination and poisoning the well are part of their [PTO’s] stock and trade,” he told the Washington Free Beacon in a phone interview. “They have taken away much of my wealth, caused me much emotional distress by making up these bad stories about me…I need closure and I need my reputation to be cleared.”

An agency spokesman declined comment, saying it does not discuss ongoing litigation.

Hyatt is no stranger to delays. He waited 22 years before the microprocessing tech he pioneered received a patent in 1990—one of the 75 patents has obtained from the agency before seeing his applications go seemingly dormant. The agency treated him as a “submariner”—one who adds small tweaks to existing patents to generate new ones—or worse a “patent troll”—a person who uses patents solely to sue other companies in the same field. Hyatt insists he is neither.

“I believe that the PTO, starting in the mid-90s was very strongly against individual inventors and were being lobbied and to some degree controlled by big companies,” Hyatt said. “I’ve never litigated against a company for infringement—I’ve never sued anyone for patents.”

PTO has argued that Hyatt is inappropriately attempting “to have this Court provide oversight into the complex and ongoing examination of his almost 400 applications comprised of over 115,000 claims.” The agency says the Court cannot issue a review until it renders a final judgment on the worthiness of the applications. PTO blamed Hyatt for the decades-long delay, saying his litigation “only serve to inhibit the agency from coming to a final decision.”

“There is simply no legal basis for the relief Mr. Hyatt seeks beyond the actions the USPTO has already taken,” the agency said in a motion to dismiss. “Agencies need the freedom to deliberate and come to final decisions on their own before the courts step in and review.”

Hyatt’s attorney, Andrew Grossman of Baker Hostetler, said the agency has abused its discretion in violation of the inventor’s constitutional rights. Regulators had “acted in bad faith” and sat on his applications for decades, stalling tactics that deprived him of his intellectual property and his ability to seek judicial relief. He described PTO as a “rogue agency” hoping to dodge oversight.

“The idea that an agency can decide to discriminate in every way against a specific citizen and a court can’t do anything about it because the agency isn’t done discriminating against him yet is ludicrous,” Grossman said. “That’s the kind of stuff an agency argues when it cannot win on the merits.”

All Hyatt is asking for, according to Grossman, is an up-and-down decision. He’d take a rejection over the stalling tactics that prevent him from seeking relief. The agency should do away with the “Hyatt Unit” and weigh his inventions on their merits, rather than the name at the top of the applications.

“It is not PTO’s role to pass judgment on people. It’s their role to evaluate applications. They’re not supposed to be in the business of value judgments,” Grossman said. “They are violating their obligations as servants of the public and violating Gil’s constitutional property rights.”

The case is now before the U.S. District Court in Eastern Virginia.

Now that #MeToo has made heroines out of women accusing powerful men of sexual abuse, Monica Lewinsky is providing her side of the story of the encounters that led to Bill Clinton’s impeachment. Had Hillary Clinton won the presidency, the same array of forces that circled the first Clinton White House to dismiss her as one of the “nuts and sluts” (hat tip: James Carville, who is all but invisible in the media) would be suppressing her story. But now that Hillary is a loser and embarrassment, and Bill old, feeble, and evoking shame among those Dems that are capable of that emotion, the former intern has a platform and an audience.

The A&E cable network is running a six part documentary series, featuring new interviews with now middle-aged Monica Lewinsky. The UK Daily Mail has a lengthy account of what is contained in the episodes broadcasts so far, including:

Monica Lewisnky recounted the moment that the sitting president encouraged her to lie under oath on the final episode of the A&E docuseries The Clinton Affair.

It marked the first time that Lewinsky has actually stated that Bill Clinton advised her to deny their affair if called to testify in the Paula Jones case, pointing out that she could avoid being deposed if she simply denied the charge in an affidavit.

Then, in a shockingly bold move, Clinton called for Lewinsky a few days later and the pair enjoyed an intimate, and private, Christmas party in the White House.

Unbeknownst to Lewinsky that was the end of the pair’s relationship, with Clinton quickly bailing on his 24-year-old paramour who was left to do battle with the special prosecutor, the FBI and the American public on her own while he fell back on a multi-million dollar legal fund raised by supporters.

It became too much for Lewinsky at one point she said, and she seriously considered taking her own life.  

When Bill told her that she was on the witness list to be called to testify in the Paula Jones lawsuit, he didn’t directly ask her to lie, but hinted at the possibility:

‘I was petrified. I was frantic about my family, and this becoming public. Thankfully, Bill helped me lock myself back from that and he said I could probably sign an affidavit to get out of it, and he didn’t even know if a 100 percent I would be subpoenaed.’

Lewinsky then pointed out that Clinton never said: ‘Now, listen you’re gonna have to lie here.’

She followed that up though by stating he also never said: ‘Listen, honey, this is gonna be really awful we’re gonna have to tell the truth.’

In case anyone doubted that Bill Clinton is a cad (I know, it’s an old fashioned word in this era of Grinder and hookups), her account of his arranging a final tryst before letting her know that her services were no longer required settles the question.

Read the whole thing.

There is more to come, no doubt. Lewinsky speaking out will not help Hillary appeal to the feminist wing of the party if she seeks the nomination in 2020.

Now that #MeToo has made heroines out of women accusing powerful men of sexual abuse, Monica Lewinsky is providing her side of the story of the encounters that led to Bill Clinton’s impeachment. Had Hillary Clinton won the presidency, the same array of forces that circled the first Clinton White House to dismiss her as one of the “nuts and sluts” (hat tip: James Carville, who is all but invisible in the media) would be suppressing her story. But now that Hillary is a loser and embarrassment, and Bill old, feeble, and evoking shame among those Dems that are capable of that emotion, the former intern has a platform and an audience.

The A&E cable network is running a six part documentary series, featuring new interviews with now middle-aged Monica Lewinsky. The UK Daily Mail has a lengthy account of what is contained in the episodes broadcasts so far, including:

A&E screen grab

Monica Lewisnky recounted the moment that the sitting president encouraged her to lie under oath on the final episode of the A&E docuseries The Clinton Affair.

It marked the first time that Lewinsky has actually stated that Bill Clinton advised her to deny their affair if called to testify in the Paula Jones case, pointing out that she could avoid being deposed if she simply denied the charge in an affidavit.

Then, in a shockingly bold move, Clinton called for Lewinsky a few days later and the pair enjoyed an intimate, and private, Christmas party in the White House.

Unbeknownst to Lewinsky that was the end of the pair’s relationship, with Clinton quickly bailing on his 24-year-old paramour who was left to do battle with the special prosecutor, the FBI and the American public on her own while he fell back on a multi-million dollar legal fund raised by supporters.

It became too much for Lewinsky at one point she said, and she seriously considered taking her own life.  

When Bill told her that she was on the witness list to be called to testify in the Paula Jones lawsuit, he didn’t directly ask her to lie, but hinted at the possibility:

‘I was petrified. I was frantic about my family, and this becoming public. Thankfully, Bill helped me lock myself back from that and he said I could probably sign an affidavit to get out of it, and he didn’t even know if a 100 percent I would be subpoenaed.’

Lewinsky then pointed out that Clinton never said: ‘Now, listen you’re gonna have to lie here.’

She followed that up though by stating he also never said: ‘Listen, honey, this is gonna be really awful we’re gonna have to tell the truth.’

In case anyone doubted that Bill Clinton is a cad (I know, it’s an old fashioned word in this era of Grinder and hookups), her account of his arranging a final tryst before letting her know that her services were no longer required settles the question.

Read the whole thing.

There is more to come, no doubt. Lewinsky speaking out will not help Hillary appeal to the feminist wing of the party if she seeks the nomination in 2020.

We are extremely fortunate at this time to have a moderate leader as president of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Can you imagine what would happen if some hard line goon like former President Mahmoud Amadinejad was in charge? Both the US and Israel would be threatened with annilhation, the people of Iran would be subject to the draconian religious laws in the Iranian constitution, and Iran would be looking to expand its influence throughout the region.

But, thankfully, we are truly blessed that the moderate leader, Hassan Rouhani is president.

Oh…wait.

Fox News:

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani on Saturday called on the world’s Muslims to unite against the United States, as his country grapples with another round of sanctions recently reimposed by the Trump administration.

“Submitting to the West headed by America would be treason against our religion … and against the future generations of this region,” Rouhani said at the Islamic Unity Conference in Tehran, in a speech broadcast live on state television, Reuters reported.

Earlier this month, Trump reimposed sanctions on Iran that cover the country’s shipping, financial and energy sectors months after pulling the U.S. out of the 2015 Iran nuclear deal negotiated by the Obama administration.

The U.S. has said the sanctions are intended to prevent Iran from supporting militant groups and its development of long-range ballistic missiles.

In addition to the U.S., Rouhani also criticized Israel, calling it a “cancerous tumor” established by Western nations to advance their interests in the Middle East. Iranian leaders have pledged support to groups like Hezbollah and Hamas that are committed to Israel’s destruction.

I suppose it’s “moderate” that Rouhani wants to kill Jews a little more slowly than his predecessor. There is also talk of Rouhani being in favor of modernizing the severe dress code in the country. Perhaps he will allow women to show their ankles.

And the “moderate” Rouhani is reportedly ending the practice of throwing gay people off of roofs and instead, simply hanging them from piano wire in the public square. I’m sure you’ll agree that’s a much more “moderate” and humane way to deal with homosexuals.

How did this Iranian thug get the moniker “moderate”? He still leads chants of “death to America” every Friday after mosque services. He still wants to destroy Israel. He still believes in the strictest interpretation of sharia law. And he still has the messianic belief that Iran should dominate the region.

Repeat after me: There is no such thing as a “moderate” Iranian leader. 

 

 

We are extremely fortunate at this time to have a moderate leader as president of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Can you imagine what would happen if some hard line goon like former President Mahmoud Amadinejad was in charge? Both the US and Israel would be threatened with annilhation, the people of Iran would be subject to the draconian religious laws in the Iranian constitution, and Iran would be looking to expand its influence throughout the region.

But, thankfully, we are truly blessed that the moderate leader, Hassan Rouhani is president.

Oh…wait.

Fox News:

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani on Saturday called on the world’s Muslims to unite against the United States, as his country grapples with another round of sanctions recently reimposed by the Trump administration.

“Submitting to the West headed by America would be treason against our religion … and against the future generations of this region,” Rouhani said at the Islamic Unity Conference in Tehran, in a speech broadcast live on state television, Reuters reported.

Earlier this month, Trump reimposed sanctions on Iran that cover the country’s shipping, financial and energy sectors months after pulling the U.S. out of the 2015 Iran nuclear deal negotiated by the Obama administration.

The U.S. has said the sanctions are intended to prevent Iran from supporting militant groups and its development of long-range ballistic missiles.

In addition to the U.S., Rouhani also criticized Israel, calling it a “cancerous tumor” established by Western nations to advance their interests in the Middle East. Iranian leaders have pledged support to groups like Hezbollah and Hamas that are committed to Israel’s destruction.

I suppose it’s “moderate” that Rouhani wants to kill Jews a little more slowly than his predecessor. There is also talk of Rouhani being in favor of modernizing the severe dress code in the country. Perhaps he will allow women to show their ankles.

And the “moderate” Rouhani is reportedly ending the practice of throwing gay people off of roofs and instead, simply hanging them from piano wire in the public square. I’m sure you’ll agree that’s a much more “moderate” and humane way to deal with homosexuals.

How did this Iranian thug get the moniker “moderate”? He still leads chants of “death to America” every Friday after mosque services. He still wants to destroy Israel. He still believes in the strictest interpretation of sharia law. And he still has the messianic belief that Iran should dominate the region.

Repeat after me: There is no such thing as a “moderate” Iranian leader.