Warning: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable in /home/tbrnew5/public_html/wp-includes/post-template.php on line 284

TBR News May 24, 2020

May 24 2020

The Voice of the White House
Washington, D.C. May 24, 2020: Working in the White House as a junior staffer is an interesting experience.
When I was younger, I worked as a summer-time job in a clinic for people who had moderate to severe mental problems and the current work closely, at times, echos the earlier one.
I am not an intimate of the President but I have encountered him from time to time and I daily see manifestations of his growing psychological problems.
He insults people, uses foul language, is frantic to see his name mentioned on main-line television and pays absolutely no attention to any advice from his staff that runs counter to his strange ideas.
He lies like a rug to everyone, eats like a hog, makes lewd remarks to female staffers and flies into rages if anyone dares to contradict him.
It is becoming more and more evident to even the least intelligent American voter that Trump is vicious, corrupt and amoral. He has stated often that even if he loses the
election in 2020, he will not leave the White House. I have news for Donald but this is not the place to discuss it. “
Comment for May 24, 2020 : The corona virus that appeared in Europe, just after a similar virus had appeared in China, was not the same virus and, unlike the Chinese virus, the European one was created in a laboratory.
Where was this laboratory located and who owned it?
The location is just outside of Coloeno Monsese, a town northeast of Milan, Italy, off of Highway A-51. A heavily fenced and guarded entity, it was known as the KM-805 establishment. It was, is, owned by a Swiss holding company and the organizers and controllers are two American citizens; Robert Arthur Pelham and George Campbell. Both live in Vienna, Virginia, and both are paid employees of the American CIA.
There is ongoing and persistent rumor in Washington official circles that the release of the laboratory-created virus was an experiment in domestic American politics.
President Trump, fearful lest he not be reelected to high office in November of 2020, sought a way to block the popular vote. The plan decided on was to create a disease similar, but not as deadly, as the 1917 Spanish flu and use it to shut down any and all public meetings…such as voting lines.
This experiment, as we now know, was successful in shutting down nearly everything and the next step would be to see that there was a re-occurrence of the virus just before election time and the resulting shut down of voting polls “for national protection and health safety.”
That large numbers of Europeans and Americans have died as a result of these political experiments means nothing to President Trump and his advisors. He suffers from narcissism and as a result, has no empathy or sympathy for others; only for himself.”

The Table of Contents

• Trump Hails “Good Bloodlines” of Henry Ford, Whose Anti-Semitism Inspired Hitler
• That Time Donald Trump’s Father Was Arrested at A KKK Rally In Queens
• Strategic hot spot Greenland sparks global tug-of-war
• Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, Halifax, Nova Scotia
• Important New Source for Secret Intelligence
• Physical Love: The New Testament Gays
• The Encyclopedia of American Loons

Trump Hails “Good Bloodlines” of Henry Ford, Whose Anti-Semitism Inspired Hitler
May 22, 2020
by Robert Mackey
The Intercept
Donald Trump’s campaign to change the subject from the coronavirus pandemic took a bizarre turn on Thursday, as the president paused during a speech at a Ford Motor Company plant in Michigan to praise the “good bloodlines” of the family descended from the firm’s founder, Henry Ford, a notorious anti-Semite and favorite of Adolf Hitler.
In an apparent ad-lib, Trump looked up from his prepared remarks — which praised the firm for teaming up with General Electric to produce ventilators and face shields for medical workers — to observe that Henry Ford’s descendants, like the current chairman, Bill Ford, who had introduced the president, have “good blood.”
“The company founded by a man named Henry Ford,” Trump’s prepared text appeared to say, “teamed up with the company founded by Thomas Edison — that’s General Electric.” But when Trump came to Ford’s name, he looked up from the text and observed: “good bloodlines, good bloodlines — if you believe in that stuff, you got good blood.”
Trump has made no secret of his own belief that he inherited everything from intelligence to an ability to withstand pressure through the “great genes” passed on to him by his parents and grandparents. He has also frequently compared the importance of “good bloodlines” in humans to the breeding of champion racehorses, a view that overlaps in uncomfortable ways with those of eugenicists and racists like Ford.
“I’m proud to have that German blood,” Trump once told an interviewer. “You’ve all got such good bloodlines,” Trump reportedly told British business leaders at a dinner in 2018. “You’ve all got such amazing DNA.”
Trump has also frequently suggested that because his uncle, John Trump, taught for decades at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, he is similarly smart. “My uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT,” Trump said at a South Carolina rally in 2015. Pointing at his right temple, he then added: “Good genes, very good genes — okay? — very smart.”
Then in March, after he spoke to scientists working on the coronavirus response at the CDC in Atlanta, Trump told reporters: “I like this stuff. You know, my uncle was a great person. He was at MIT, he taught at MIT for, I think, like a record number of years. He was a great super genius. Dr. John Trump. I like this stuff. I really get it. People are surprised that I understand it…. Every one of these doctors said, ‘How do you know so much about this?’ Maybe I have a natural ability.”
Trump also suggested on Thursday that Ford and Edison were both in heaven, “looking down right now.” The president’s belief that Ford, the only American singled out for praise in Hitler’s “Mein Kampf,” should be in heaven was a stark contrast to his sarcastic comment during a visit to Michigan in December that the late Democratic congressman, John Dingell, might be “looking up” from hell.
Among the many reasons to believe that Henry Ford does not deserve a place in heaven is the fact that, as the writer Matthew Wills noted, starting in 1920, “Ford’s newspaper, the weekly Dearborn Independent, which was distributed through Ford dealers and sent free to schools and libraries around the country, published 90 anti-Semitic articles, later collected and distributed as a book called ‘The International Jew.’”
Victoria Saker Woeste, the author of “Henry Ford’s War on Jews and the Legal Battle Against Hate Speech,” explained that “the first article staked out the familiar anti-Semitic trope of ‘The Jew’ as ‘the world’s enigma. Poor in his masses, he yet controls the world’s finances,’ and was, ‘the power behind many a throne.’” The articles recapitulated and excerpted the notorious anti-Semitic forgery, “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion,” for nearly 700,000 readers.
The collected articles were sold as a pamphlet, which was subsequently translated into German, and inspired Hitler’s praise for Ford in “Mein Kampf.” “It is Jews who govern the stock exchange forces of the American Union,” Hitler claimed, “only a single great man, Ford, to their fury, still maintains full independence.”
The New York Times reported in 1922 that Ford’s importance to Hitler was very obvious. “The wall beside his desk in Hitler’s private office is decorated with a large picture of Henry Ford,” the newspaper’s Berlin correspondent observed. “In the ante-chamber there is a large table covered with books, nearly all of which are a translation of a book written and published by Henry Ford.”
Although Ford was eventually forced to sign a public apology for the articles in 1927, after being sued for libel in federal court by Aaron Sapiro, a Jewish-American activist smeared by his newspaper, he remained an anti-Semite and a favorite of the Nazis. In 1938, Ford accepted the Grand Cross of the German Eagle, the Nazi regime’s highest honor for foreigners, on the occasion of his 75th birthday. The two Nazi diplomats who pinned the medal on his chest also brought a personal message of congratulations from Hitler.
In 1940, Steven Watts recounted in “The People’s Tycoon: Henry Ford and the American Century,” Ford told the automobile editor of The Associated Press that he blamed the Jews, not Hitler, for the war in Europe. “I still think this is a phony war made by the international Jewish bankers,” Ford said, in remarks later reported by the automaker’s former personal secretary.
Trump’s praise of Ford on Thursday prompted Jonathan Greenblatt, the chief executive of the Anti-Defamation League, to demand an apology from the president for hailing a man who was “an antisemite and one of America’s staunchest proponents of eugenics.” “If he doesn’t know why,” Greenblatt added, the president should read his organization’s history of Ford’s role as an anti-Jewish propagandist.

**********
The current American President, Donald Trump, a proclaimed dedicated friend of Israel, once claimed his family was Swedish but then admitted was German, from the Westerwald. The reason for claiming Swedish origins is because his great uncle in the direct line, was Arnold Trump(f), a native of the village of Kallstadt in the Westerwald area
Arnold Wilhelm August Trumpf. was Vorstand Reichsverband Deutscher Landwirtschaftlicher Genossenschaften-Raiffensene.V and Hauptabteilungsleiter III of the Reichsnahrstand, Allegemeine SS since 1934.
This Trumpf was also a director of the Reichsbank.
SS background of Arnold Trumpf:
SS-Oberführer / Leutnant d.R. a.D.
Born: 27. Oct. 1892 in Gifhorn
Died: 7. January 1985 in Garmish-Partenkirchen
NSDAP-Nr.: 389 920 from 1, December 1930
SS-Nr.: 187 119
Promotions:
SS-Oberfuhrer: 30. Jan. 1939
Career:
Bei dem RuS-Hauptamt: (9. Nov. 1944)
Decorations & Awards:
1914 Eisernes Kreuz II. Klasse
Kriegsverdienstkreuz II. Klasse ohne Schwerter
Verwundetenabzeichen, 1918 in Schwarz
Ehrenkreuz fur Frontkampfer
Ehrendegen des RF SS
Totenkopfring der SS
The RuSHA was founded in 1931 by Reichsführer-SS Heinrich Himmler
Among their duties were:
• Kidnapping of children suitable for Germanization
• Population transfers
• The persecution and liquidation of Jews

The RuSHA also employed Josef Mengele from November 1940 to early 1941, in Department II of its Family Office, where he was responsible for “care of genetic health” and “genetic health tests”
This family information is never discussed by Trump or his Repubican co-conspirators for fear of alienating the American Jewish voters.
References
• http://de.metapedia.org/wiki/Trumpf,_Arnold
• Das Deutsche Führerlexikon, Otto Stollberg G.m.b.H., Berlin 1934
• Dienstaltersliste der Schutzstaffel der NSDAP 9, November 1944

That Time Donald Trump’s Father Was Arrested at A KKK Rally In Queens
August 16, 2017
by Larry Cohler-Esses
Forward
Some journalists looking for clues to Donald Trump’s sometimes conflicted attitudes toward the Ku Klux Klan have pointed to his family history — including the fact that Trump’s father was once arrested at a Ku Klux Klan rally in Queens.
According to a New York Times article published on June 1, 1927, a man with the name and address of Donald Trump’s father was arraigned after Klan members at a Memorial Day rally attacked cops in Jamaica, Queens.
The old Times story reports that Fred Trump, of 175-24 Devonshire Road, was one of seven men arrested at the rally for allegedly brawling with cops at the parade. His case, however, was discharged at the arraignment.
After the arrests, the Klan leafleted the Queens neighborhood with broadsides denouncing the New York City Police Department, under the headline: “Americans Assaulted By Roman Catholic Police of New York City!”
“Native born Protestant Americans,” the leaflets decried, are “clubbed and beaten when they exercise their rights in the country of their birth.”
No one in authority at the time said, “I think there is blame on both sides.”
Instead, Police Chief Joseph Warren told the press he favored fewer “extraneous” parades in the city on Memorial Day, citing another parade organized by black shirted Italian pro-fascists that also required police attention the same day. Two of the fascists were killed on their way to the parade by apparent anti-fascists. Warren said he supported the main Memorial Day parade in Manhattan, but “class” parades for “this, that and the other thing” seriously diverted police resources.
. In 1973,the Justice Department sued Fred Trump and Donald Trump for barring blacks from the rentals they ran as chairman and president, respectively, of Trump Management. A New York Times investigation later found “a long history of racial bias” at the Trump family firm’s properties. Much earlier than that, folk icon Woody Guthrie denounced “Old Man Trump” in a poem and later, a song, for discriminating against African Americans at a Coney Island property in which Guthrie himself lived.

Strategic hot spot Greenland sparks global tug-of-war
The US has always seen Greenland under its sphere of influence. But the island’s increasing independence is threatening that. As it becomes more global, China and Russia see a chance to control the Arctic.
May 23, 2020
by Alex Matthews
DW
Strategic hot spot Greenland sparks global tug-of-war
The US has always seen Greenland under its sphere of influence. But the island’s increasing independence is threatening that. As it becomes more global, China and Russia see a chance to control the Arctic.
The last time the US opened a consulate on Greenland was in 1940. The German Army had just invaded Denmark and the Americans wanted to stop the Nazis gaining a foothold in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean.
This summer the US is reopening its diplomatic mission in Nuuk for the first time since 1953, as well as offering the island nation $12 million (€11 million) in investments. The money will be used to boost the territory’s mineral industries, tourism and education.
The United States’ goal this time is exactly the same it was 80 years ago. A US State Department official said a press briefing that it wants “a secure and stable Arctic where US interests are safeguarded.” But this time around it’s not Germany the US sees as challenging its interests. Now it’s Russia and China.
Greenland not for sale
Greenland is an autonomous territory of the Kingdom of Denmark. Since 2009, a self-government agreement allows it run all its own affairs except foreign policy and defense, which fall under Denmark’s remit.
Sara Olsvig was leader of Greenland’s largest opposition party, Inuit Ataqatigiit, until October 2018 and is about to begin a doctorate on US-Greenland relations. “The self-government agreement from 2009, in which we are also recognized as a people in international law, is still something that is the foundation of how we see ourselves in the world as a people,” she explains.
Unimpressed by Greenlanders’ increasing independence and seeking more US influence, US President Donald Trump suggested he could buy the island from Denmark last year.
“That was a whole part of President Trump stating his wish to purchase Greenland, which was forgotten in the debate. That we are a people pursuant to international law, and we perceive ourselves as such, with the right to self-determination that comes with that recognition,” says Olson.
Open for business
Much to Washington’s chagrin, Greenland’s growing independence means more opportunities. As it seeks to boost its economy, the island has been making overtures across the globe for trading partners.
East Asia is its largest export market for fish — Greenland’s largest industry — and the government has been looking into the idea of establishing an East Asian consulate. A Chinese state-owned mining company, Shenghe Resources, has taken a leading role in processing minerals, which are used in technology projects, from Greenland’s largest mining project.
“Greenland is open for all. It’s certainly not up for sale, but it is open to business,” summarizes Louise van Schaik, head of unit EU and global affairs at the Clingendael Institute in The Netherlands.
Diverging interests
The possibility of new business is primarily driving China’s push for influence in Greenland and the Arctic, argues van Schaik. “China’s interest in the Arctic comes from wanting to have a stake in any new sea lanes and rare earth minerals. Its strategy is to create a presence there,” she explains.
“Looking at Greenland specifically, it has those rare earth minerals, and it is also a significant fish market for China.”
As well as economic interests, Russia has security concerns about the US extending its influence over the Arctic. The US maintains the Thule Air Base in the northwest of Greenland, which gives it a strategic point to monitor satellites and intercontinental missiles, as well as launch aircraft.
“The Arctic is important militarily for Russia, as it’s the home of its nuclear fleet and Russia needs to make sure it is protected and has access to the North Atlantic between Greenland and Iceland,” says Ekaterina Klimenko, a researcher in Russia and the Arctic at the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. “Any aggression in the region makes this more difficult.”
She says recent policy documents released by Russia show a continuation of Arctic policy, although politicians have become more forceful in their language. “There are signals of increasing tensions, especially from the US, and we have heard harsh rhetoric in response from [President Vladimir] Putin himself.”
At the same time, Russia has a longstanding and deep cultural connection to the Arctic that China lacks — most notably in the form of its Soviet-era adventurers from the 1930s, who were world leaders in Arctic exploration. “Although it’s not mentioned explicitly, the Arctic is culturally important to Russian identity. It is a great power with a long history in the region, and it does not want to lose that,” adds Klimenko.
Greenlanders were among the first to feel the affects of climate change, both from rising sea levels and melting arctic ice. Recently, scientists recorded a massive ice melt on the island that hadn’t been predicted to occur until 2070. If the all of Greenland’s ice disappears, sea levels will rise 23 feet, destroying massive amounts of coastal areas worldwide.

Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, Halifax, Nova Scotia
Friday, November 22, 2013
I am grateful for the opportunity to be here and participate in a very important forum. Thank you, Minister Nicholson, for your hospitality. And I recognize as well our friend Peter Mackay for his imagination, and resourcefulness, innovation, leadership, and a driving force behind this institution. Thank you all who have had a significant role in organizing and ensuring that this forum continues to grow and strengthen and become even more relevant as the years go by, and address, as Minister Nicholson noted, some of the great challenges and issues that face our world today and I fear will be with us for some time.
Over the years, this conference has grown into an important venue for dialogue and discussion on emerging security trends, from cyber defense to the evolving threat of terrorism. It brings together leaders from around the world, including a U.S. Congressional delegation that has been recognized already, led by Senators John McCain and Tim Kaine. Their presence and leadership is an important part of why this gathering has become so successful. I am always reassured when I see members of Congress with me, or at least most of the time – it depends on the forum and the hearings. I do want to note their presence, and I know they particularly had a quite stimulating day yesterday. I also know they welcome the opportunity to escape Washington. We’re glad you’re here. To my friend John McCain, thanks for his continued leadership and presence, I know what he has meant to keep this thing going. His being here initially, I think Peter, was of particularly importance. Thank you to my former colleagues and senior members of Congress who help lead our country.
The growth of this forum, as has been noted, is also a tribute to the vision of Minister Nicholson’s predecessor, Peter Mackay, and to the leadership of Peter van Praagh. The Halifax Security Forum reflects Canada’s important role as a force for peace and security. The United States deeply values its alliance with Canada, as we share much more than a 5,000-mile border. We share a common history, a common history of values, and many common security interests. We fought side-by-side in Afghanistan under a NATO umbrella, and we worked together to advance peace and security in the Western Hemisphere and around the world. Earlier today, Minister Nicholson and I signed a defense policy framework that will help guide our future cooperation in the Asia-Pacific.
We also share the common interests of being Arctic nations. Today, I want to focus my remarks on the forces that are driving dramatic changes in the world and the region’s environment, the long-term security implications of these changes, and how the U.S. Department of Defense is preparing to adapt to these 21st Century Arctic region challenges.
To fully appreciate what’s happening in the Arctic and the world, we should take a step back and consider the many dynamic shifts occurring in every region of the world. Among them are the growing economic and geopolitical importance of the Asia-Pacific; conflict and instability across the Middle East and North Africa; the unprecedented diffusion of global economic power; new sources of and demand for energy; the rise of China, India, Brazil, and other nations; environmental degradation and devastating natural disasters; and the role of technology in closely linking the world’s people, their aspirations, and their grievances.
History is a recording of the past … it has recorded the rise of great powers, the fall of empires, and technological revolutions that have transformed the way people communicate, travel, trade, fight wars, and meet new threats and opportunities.
But the challenge of global climate change, while not new to history, is new to the modern world. Climate change does not directly cause conflict, but it can significantly add to the challenges of global instability, hunger, poverty, and conflict. Food and water shortages, pandemic disease, disputes over refugees and resources, more severe natural disasters – all place additional burdens on economies, societies, and institutions around the world. Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines is a reminder of humanitarian disaster brought on by nature. And climatologists warn us of the increased probability of more destructive storms to come.
The Department of Defense has been aware of these challenges for many years, and we are addressing them – including through a review of our energy strategy. DoD invests in energy efficiency, new technologies, and renewable energy sources at our installations and all of our operations because it makes us a stronger fighting force and helps us carry out our security mission.
Last year, energy efficiency and renewable energy improvements such as tactical solar gear at combat outposts in Afghanistan saved roughly 20 million gallons of fuel – taking 7,000 truckloads worth of fuel off the battlefield. Over the same period of time, U.S. Air Force innovations and more efficient route planning saved $1.5 billion. By 2025, private-sector investments on DoD installations will be generating 3,000 megawatts of renewable energy. That’s enough to power 750,000 homes – 50 percent more power than the Hoover Dam. And because we know that climate change is taking place, we are assessing our coastal and desert installations to help ensure they will be resilient to its effects. Planning for climate change and smarter energy investments not only make us a stronger military, they have many additional benefits – saving us money, reducing demand, and helping protect the environment. These initiatives all support President Obama’s Climate Action Plan, which outlines how the United States will work with the international community in addressing these serious global challenges. This plan also helps prepare our nation for the effects of climate change and lays out how we will work to reduce carbon emissions.
America’s energy security has also been strengthened through new domestic energy exploration technologies in North America. Natural gas, in particular, promises cheaper fuel with lower carbon emissions across the continent.
As energy sources evolve, and the global demand for energy increases amid a changing climate, as nations see this and plan for this they will shift their strategic priorities, placing more and more emphasis on new sources of energy from new frontiers, including the Arctic.
Climate change is shifting the landscape in the Arctic more rapidly than anywhere else in the world. While the Arctic temperature rise is relatively small in absolute terms, its effects are significant – transforming what was a frozen desert into an evolving navigable ocean, giving rise to an unprecedented level of human activity. Traffic in the Northern Sea Route is reportedly expected to increase tenfold this year compared to last year.
Over the long-term, as global warming accelerates, Arctic ice melt will lead to a sea level rise that will likely threaten coastal populations around the world. But it also could open up a transpolar sea route, a possibility that has been discussed since the USS Nautilus made its historic submerged crossing of the North Pole many years ago.
As the Arctic changes, it creates new opportunities – and new challenges – that will shape the region for decades to come. With Arctic sea routes starting to see more activities like tourism and commercial shipping, the risk of accidents increases. Migrating fish stocks will draw fishermen to new areas, challenging existing management plans. And while there will be more potential for tapping what may be as much as a quarter of the planet’s undiscovered oil and gas, a flood of interest in energy exploration has the potential to heighten tensions over other issues – even though most projected oil and gas reserves in the region are located within undisputed exclusive economic zones.
Despite potential challenges, these developments create the opportunity for nations to work together through coalitions of common interest, as both Arctic and non-Arctic nations begin to lay out their strategies and positions on the future of the region.
Earlier this year, the United States joined many of these nations, releasing its National Strategy for the Arctic Region – emphasizing responsible Arctic stewardship and strengthening international cooperation. Secretary of State Kerry visited Sweden earlier this year to attend the ministerial session of the Arctic Council – which Canada now chairs, and which the United States will chair in two years.
The United States’ interests in the Arctic encompass a broad spectrum of activities, these activities include supporting responsible environmental policies and safe commercial and scientific operations.
The United States takes its responsibilities as an Arctic nation very seriously, and the United States military has extensive experience operating in the Arctic. Alaska is home to more than 22,000 soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines, as well as nearly 5,000 Guardsmen and reservists. DoD’s Arctic capabilities include ski-equipped C-130s and nuclear submarines, which have all been operating in the polar regions for more than 50 years. In 2009, the U.S. Navy released an Arctic roadmap, and in 2011, a realignment of combatant commands simplified our command and control arrangements in the Arctic.
Today, I am announcing the Department of Defense’s first Arctic Strategy, this strategy is to help guide our efforts going forward. This strategy supports President Obama’s national strategy for the region, and reflects America’s desire to work closely with allies and partners to promote a balanced approach to improving human and environmental security in the region.
The Arctic is a region of established nation-states. Engagement and cooperation with Canada and the other Arctic nations – Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia and Sweden – is a cornerstone of our strategy. Arctic nations have publicly committed to work within a common framework of international law and diplomatic engagement.
As President Obama has said, “the Arctic region is peaceful, stable, and free of conflict.” Our goal is to help assure it stays that way. Ultimately, we envision a secure and stable Arctic, where all nations’ interests are safeguarded, and where all nations work together to address problems and resolve differences.
DoD has focused on eight points to accomplish its objectives.
First, we will remain prepared to detect, deter, prevent and defeat threats to our homeland and we will continue to exercise U.S. sovereignty in and around Alaska.
Second, we will work with both private and public-sector partners, including the state of Alaska, Federal agencies, such as the U.S. Coast Guard, to improve our understanding and awareness of the Arctic environment so that we can operate safely and effectively. This is the first new frontier of nautical exploration since the days of Ericsson, Columbus, and Magellan, and it provides a clear opportunity to work together to ensure we have accurate observations, maps, and models of the Arctic’s atmospheric, oceanic, and sea ice conditions.
Third, we will help preserve freedom of the seas throughout the region, to ensure that the Arctic Ocean will be as peacefully navigated as other oceans of the world. These activities will be carried out within existing frameworks of international law, which provide a comprehensive set of rules that govern the rights, the freedoms, and the uses of the world’s oceans and airspace – including the Arctic – as well as mechanisms for peacefully resolving disputes.
Fourth, we will carefully evolve our Arctic infrastructure and capabilities at a pace consistent with changing conditions. DoD will continually re-evaluate its needs as activities in the Arctic increase, as we balance potential Arctic investments with other national security priorities. We are beginning to think about and plan for how our Naval fleet and other capabilities and assets will need to adapt to the evolving shifts and requirements in the region.
Fifth, we will continue to comply with our existing agreements with allies and partners, while also pursuing new avenues of cooperation, as we work all of us together to meet shared security challenges. By taking advantage of multilateral training opportunities with partners in the region, we will enhance our cold-weather operational experience, and strengthen our military-to-military ties with other Arctic nations. This includes Russia, with whom the United States and Canada share common interests in the Arctic, creating the opportunity to pursue practical cooperation between our militaries and our nations and promote greater transparency.
Sixth, we will be prepared to help respond to man-made and natural disasters in the region. Our support will extend not only to civil authorities in Alaska and around its coast, but also to cooperation with allies and partners through humanitarian assistance and disaster relief operations.
Seventh, we will work with other agencies and nations, as well as Alaska Natives, to protect the environmental integrity of the Arctic. DoD will use existing capabilities to help address safety-related challenges, including international search-and-rescue missions as well as incident and disaster response. We will work closely with our Canadian partners on emergency response operations that help save lives.
And eighth, we will support the development of the Arctic Council and other international institutions that promote regional cooperation and the rule of law. DoD will work with the Department of State as we participate in new initiatives like the Arctic Security Forces Roundtable and the recent meetings of the Northern Chiefs of Defense. These engagements will help strengthen multilateral security cooperation throughout the region, this will ultimately help reduce the risk of conflict.
All of these approaches are informed by DoD’s global responsibilities and strategic interests, budget limitations, and shifts in both the Arctic environment and the geostrategic landscape.
DoD’s Arctic Strategy is a long-term endeavor – and our efforts to implement it will unfold over years and decades, not days and months. Even as we grapple at home with near-term challenges, including steep, deep, and abrupt defense budget reductions and continued budget uncertainty, this kind of long-range thinking is vital for our future. Like always, it requires that we closely align our resources and long-term investments with our national security objectives. As shifts occur in the strategic landscape, the United States and its allies must be prepared to adjust their defense institutions and capabilities to meet these new challenges.
The effects of climate change and new energy resources are far-reaching and unpredictable … demanding our attention and strategic thinking. While the opening of the Arctic will create unprecedented challenges, it will also create historic opportunities. It could open up new avenues for commerce and establish new areas for cooperation between nations in the interests of all the people of the world. But this won’t happen on its own.
We must wisely manage these 21st century possibilities. In order to realize the full potential of the Arctic, nations must collaborate and build trust and confidence through transparency, cooperation, and engagement.
It is the responsibility of every Arctic nation – and all nations who have interests there – to work together to build a peaceful and secure region.
Throughout human history, mankind has raced to discover the next frontier. And time after time, discovery was swiftly followed by conflict. We cannot erase this history. But we can assure that history does not repeat itself in the Arctic.
We remember the words of explorer Frederick Cook. After many attempts to discover the North Pole – and after believing he had found it – he wrote: “It occurred to me … that, after all, the only work worthwhile, the only value of a human being’s efforts, lie in deeds whereby humanity benefits.”
That is why we look to the Arctic – this new frontier – to help make a better world for all mankind.
Thank you.

Important New Source for Secret Intelligence

We have just received a notice from a firm that specializes in digging electronic information out of the woodwork. The firm lists several pages of topics, some of which are unbelievable. They are very expensive but one must assume that their data is correct. We are excerpting some of this list and have included their address for those who have the money to learn the truth as, according to the précis, it has never been available before.

• Successor to the NSA ‘Harvest” programs that catalog important overseas telephone calls made via communications satellites.
• In depth information on the DoD’s DISA systems / VIPER and others
• USIA/Warrentown files
• In depth dossiers on members of Congress. These, the list advises us, consists of medical and financial records.
• A 250 page report on the fake coronavirus project
• Firms and individuals in foreign countries known to be friendly sources.
• Scanned copies of Governor George W. Bush’s personal correspondence and financial records, now hidden in the George H.W.Bush Presidential Library
• Lists of offshore bank accounts for senior political and military figures
• The so-called ‘Wilson Blvd.’ technical and scientific records
• A report on infiltration and surveillance of all Israeli communications with their embassy and other entities in the United States
• An analysis of a collection of documents relating to homosexual activities on the part of President Trump
• A copy of an FBI report on Edward Snowden’ employment by Russian Intelligence and a compendium of secret documents he downloaded for them from Booz-Hamilton connections

There are many more fascinating offerings but it should be noted that on the list we were sent, prices are very high indeed but approved credit cards, especially American Express, can be used. We have not availed ourselves of this reported service but as it might prove to be interesting to our many readers, especially those with large amounts of cash, we are including the address for your general information: www.spywarelabs.inc and one must apply for an entrance code.

Good hunting!

Physical Love: The New Testament Gays

In the Gospel of John, the disciple John frequently refers to himself in the third person as ‘the disciple whom Jesus loved’.” One might argue that Jesus loved all of his followers in a non-sexual way. Thus to identify Jesus’ love for John in a special way might indicate a sexual relationship. The disciple was “the” beloved. He was in a class by himself. During the Last Supper before Jesus’ execution, the author(s) of the Gospel of John describes how the “beloved” disciple laid himself on Jesus’ inner tunic — his undergarment. See John 13:25 and 21:20. It should be noted that Jesus and the beloved disciple: “… eat together, side by side. What’s being portrayed here is a pederastic relationship between an older man and a younger man. A Greek reader would understand. On the other hand: some commentators have suggested that it was a common practice in Judea at that time for heterosexual man to lay his head on another’s undergarment. Such behavior was common between two heterosexuals in an emotionally close but non-erotic relationship during the first century CE.
There are five words for love in Greek (the language in which the Gospels were written:
Agape: spiritual, unconditional love,
Eros: erotic love,
Philia: love between friends,
Storge: familial love.
The Gospels references to “the disciple whom Jesus loved” use the word “agape.” Whether the authors originally used “eros” and the word was subsequently changed is open to speculation.
Mark 7:14-16 shows that Jesus approves of homosexual acts. The critical phrase reads: “There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him…” Jesus gave great emphasis to this teaching, directing it to everyone.
“The disciple whom he loved”, as the evidence for a censored relationship between Jesus and him is quite similar. (John 19: 26-27), (John 13:23-25), (John 21:20). Granted, the accepted translation of the love bit is agape (brotherly love), rather than eros (romantic love), but it is not above speculation that this word was conveniently edited at some point by a homophobic cleric, or even simply mistranslated/misunderstood in the days before there was a written record. In any case, Jesus loved all his Apostles with agape, so why there is one apostle who is repeatedly singled out as the one that Jesus loved above all the rest? I thought God loved all his children equally.

• Jesus never married.
• He did not condemn and vilify as his so-called followers do today.
• He surrounded himself with men whom he loved.
• The Bible says nothing of Jesus’ sexuality, yet we are taught that he was both divine and fully man.
• Why did he never marry?
• Why is the New Testament silent about his sexuality?
• On balance, Jesus was probably gay and that he understood hatred and bigotry first-hand.
Mark 14:51-52 describes the incident when Jesus was arrested by the religious police. It describes how one of Jesus’ followers was scantily dressed. The King James Version says he had a linen cloth cast on his naked body; the size and location of the cloth is not defined. The New International Version says that he was “wearing nothing but a linen garment.” When the police tried to seize him, they were able to grab only his cloth; the man ran away naked. Reverend Peter Murphy wrote: “We don’t know from the sources what really was going on, but we do know that something was very peculiar between Jesus and young men.” 11 (Emphasis in the original.)
Jesus’ attitude towards a same-sex couple as described in Matthew 8:5-13: and Luke 7:2: “One day a Roman Centurion asked him to heal his dying servant. Scholars of both Scripture and Ancient History tell us that Roman Centurions, who were not permitted to marry while in service, regularly chose a favorite male slave to be their personal assistant and sexual servant. Such liaisons were common in the Greco-Roman world and it was not unusual for them to deepen into loving partnerships….
Jesus offered to go to the servant, but the centurion asked him simply to speak a word of healing, since he was not worthy to welcome this itinerant Jewish teacher under his roof. Jesus responded by healing the servant and proclaiming that even in Israel he had never found faith like this! So, in the one Gospel story where Jesus encountered people sharing what we would call a ‘gay relationship,’ we see him simply concerned about — and deeply moved by — their faith and love.” Jesus’ sensitivity towards the gay couple might have arisen from his own bisexual or homosexual orientation.
Some commentators argue from silence. They note that there is no passage in the Christian Scriptures (New Testament) that directly describes anything about Jesus’ sexuality. There are many direct and indirect references to Jesus’ sensuality. He was accused of being a “drunkard and a glutton” and of partying with “prostitutes and sinners.” He apparently enjoyed a tender foot massage from a woman. Yet, neither Jesus’ sexuality nor his celibacy is mentioned. However, physical sex, both hetero- and homosexual is referred to, elsewhere in the Bible, quite often. One might argue that the books in the Christian Scriptures might have once described Jesus’ sexual relationships, but that these passages have been vigorously censored by the later church because they were unconventional.
Other commentators have noted that Jesus is silent towards homosexuality in the Gospels. Yet, Paul’s opinions and those of many other authors in the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) are clearly stated. They conclude that Jesus might very well have been gay.
Bishop Clement of Alexandria has 3 surviving books Exhortation to the Greeks, The Insructor, and the Miscellanies, and several fragments and lesser works. One is a letter to a disciple named Theodore who had asked for advice regarding the Caprocratians, (a Gnostic Christian sect) use of the “Secret Gospel of Mark.” Clement not only confirmed the existence and authority of “Secret Mark” in his reply, but actually denounced Carpocrates for using black magic to steal a copy “Secret Mark” from the church library!
It should be noted that Morton Smith is a Christian, and typical of them, even in their critical scholarship, they are committed to certain conclusion that the evidence fails to uphold. They invariable fail to address several compelling criticisms of the New and Old Testaments. They assume certain truths, which upon scrutiny aren’t truths. In the case of Morton Smith, he holds that there is an historical Jesus, a viewpoint that has been shown to be without merit by the German School of biblical scholars at the beginning of the 20th century and improved upon by later scholars.
Scholars have long wondered at a curious passage in the canonical Gospel of Mark (undisputedly the oldest of the canonical gospels) which seems to hint that a detail or two might have been left out: “Then they came to Jericho. As he was leaving Jericho with his disciples…” (Mark 10:46). But what happened in Jericho on Jesus’ whistle-stop tour of the provinces? Did Jesus simply pass through and then leave without doing or saying anything to anyone? If the visit was so irrelevant to Jesus’ mission, why is it even mentioned? The gap suggests a mission portion of Mark’s Gospel. The Letter—supplied below–of Clement’s, who had access to the complete version of Mark’s gospel, places the events in Jericho.
A copy of a letter in the 1646 edition of letters of Ignatius of Antioch (a 2nd century church writer) at the monastery of Mar Saba, twelve miles south of Jerusalem. The letter consists of 3 pages of Greek manuscript bound in as end-papers. This letter contains quotes from what Saint Clement of Alexandria (c.156-211) refers to as “The Secret Gospel of Mark.”
Bishop Clement of Alexandria has 3 surviving books Exhortation to the Greeks, The Insructor, and the Miscellanies, and several fragments and lesser works. One is a letter to a disciple named Theodore who had asked for advice regarding the Caprocratians, (a Gnostic Christian sect) use of the “Secret Gospel of Mark.” Clement not only confirmed the existence and authority of “Secret Mark” in his reply, but actually denounced Carpocrates for using black magic to steal a copy “Secret Mark” from the church library!
So scandalous was the Carpocratian “The Secret Gospel of Mark” that Clement advised Theodore never to admit that Mark even wrote it: “You did well in silencing the unspeakable teachings of the Carpocratians. For… priding themselves in knowledge, as they say, “of the deep things of Satan,” they do not know that they are casting themselves away into “the nether world of darkness”… For even if they should say something true, one who loves the truth should not, even so, agree with them….
“Now of the things they keep saying about the divinely inspired Gospel of Mark… even if they do contain some true elements, [these] are not reported truly….
“As for Mark then, during Peter’s stay in Rome [Mark] wrote an account of the Lord’s doings, not, however, declaring all of them, nor yet hinting at the secret ones, but selecting what he thought most useful for increasing the faith of those who were instructed. But when Peter died a martyr, Mark came over to Alexandria, bringing both his own notes and those of Peter, from which he transferred to his former book the things suitable to whatever makes for progress towards knowledge. Thus he composed a more spiritual gospel for the use of those who were being perfected. Nevertheless, he yet did not divulge the things not to be uttered, nor did he write down the hierophantic teaching of the Lord… [and] he left his composition in the church in… Alexandria, where it is… most carefully guarded, being read only by those who are being initiated into the great mysteries
“But since the foul demons are always devising destruction for the race of men, Carpocrates… using deceitful arts, so enslaved a certain presbyter in the church that he got from a copy of the secret gospel, which he interpreted according to his blasphemous and carnal doctrine…
“To them, therefore, as I said above, one must never give way… [or] even concede that the secret gospel is by Mark… but deny it on oath. For, ‘Not all true things are to be said to all men…”
This portrayal of the Messiah Jesus as partaking in sexual union fits well with the view of Jesus as a prophet, like Mohammed, Elijah, and others. Much has been written on the meaning of the Messiah (“anointed leader”) and the meaning of the “Son of God” needs to be set in its proper context. A number of heroes were the son of god, including Heracles, Helen, and more recently, it was widely believed that Philip of Macedonia was not the real son of Alexander, but rather a god. Mark was first, his Gospel was incorporated with aggrandizements, and revisions by Matthew and Luke. Mark saw Christ as a mortal unto whom the spirit of god has entered when he was baptized. If he was a god or part of Yahweh (as is currently maintained) then God would not need to inform his son that he is his son, unless “son of God” meant something like chosen one—a position held by the Gnostic Christians. “Son of God, most scholars agree, is an ambiguous title at best, so too, is lord from the Aramaic mare, which could be interpreted in a spectrum of ways from the mundane “sir” to the divine “lord.” As a mortal, having intercourse with women would be fitting, and to be celibate would be very abnormal. Having sex with a young man, in the Hellenized world also was quite unexceptional
It should be noted that Morton Smith is a Christian, and typical of them, even in their critical scholarship, they are committed to certain conclusion that the evidence fails to uphold. They invariable fail to address several compelling criticisms of the New and Old Testaments. They assume certain truths, which upon scrutiny aren’t truths. In the case of Morton Smith, he holds that there is an historical Jesus, a viewpoint that has been shown to be without merit by the German School of biblical scholars at the beginning of the 20th century and improved upon by later scholars.
Scholars have long wondered at a curious passage in the canonical Gospel of Mark (undisputedly the oldest of the canonical gospels) which seems to hint that a detail or two might have been left out: “Then they came to Jericho. As he was leaving Jericho with his disciples…” (Mark 10:46). But what happened in Jericho on Jesus’ whistle-stop tour of the provinces? Did Jesus simply pass through and then leave without doing or saying anything to anyone? If the visit was so irrelevant to Jesus’ mission, why is it even mentioned? The gap suggests a mission portion of Mark’s Gospel. The Letter—supplied below–of Clement’s, who had access to the complete version of Mark’s gospel, places the events in Jericho.
Both what is missing and why is supplied by Morton Smith, the Columbia University professor scholar whose 1958 research expedition culminated in the discovery of a copy of a letter in the 1646 edition of letters of Ignatius of Antioch (a 2nd century church writer) at the monastery of Mar Saba, twelve miles south of Jerusalem. The letter consists of 3 pages of Greek manuscript bound in as end-papers. This letter contains quotes from what Saint Clement of Alexandria (c.156-211) refers to as “The Secret Gospel of Mark.” Professor Smith writes, “Based on this letter we can conclude that “The Secret Gospel of Mark” was the older and more complete, and the version we have is an edited version with the troubling passages left out by the Church fathers. The portions supplied by Clement in this letter found by Professor Morton Smith fill in the gap at Mark 10:46.
Morton Smith published his findings in 1973 in two different books: one was a rigorously academic volume from Harvard entitled Clement of Alexandria and a Secret Gospel of Mark, while the second was a popular explanation The Secret Gospel. It is the latter which I have read.
Bishop Clement of Alexandria has three surviving books Exhortation to the Greeks, The Insructor, and the Miscellanies, and several fragments and lesser works. One is a letter to a disciple named Theodore who had asked for advice regarding the Caprocratians, (a Gnostic Christian sect) use of the “Secret Gospel of Mark.” Clement not only confirmed the existence and authority of “Secret Mark” in his reply, but actually denounced Carpocrates for using black magic to steal a copy “Secret Mark” from the church library!
So scandalous was the Carpocratian “The Secret Gospel of Mark” that Clement advised Theodore never to admit that Mark even wrote it: “You did well in silencing the unspeakable teachings of the Carpocratians. For… priding themselves in knowledge, as they say, “of the deep things of Satan,” they do not know that they are casting themselves away into “the nether world of darkness”… For even if they should say something true, one who loves the truth should not, even so, agree with them….
“Now of the things they keep saying about the divinely inspired Gospel of Mark… even if they do contain some true elements, [these] are not reported truly….
“As for Mark then, during Peter’s stay in Rome [Mark] wrote an account of the Lord’s doings, not, however, declaring all of them, nor yet hinting at the secret ones, but selecting what he thought most useful for increasing the faith of those who were instructed. But when Peter died a martyr, Mark came over to Alexandria, bringing both his own notes and those of Peter, from which he transferred to his former book the things suitable to whatever makes for progress towards knowledge. Thus he composed a more spiritual gospel for the use of those who were being perfected. Nevertheless, he yet did not divulge the things not to be uttered, nor did he write down the hierophantic teaching of the Lord… [and] he left his composition in the church in… Alexandria, where it is… most carefully guarded, being read only by those who are being initiated into the great mysteries.
“But since the foul demons are always devising destruction for the race of men, Carpocrates… using deceitful arts, so enslaved a certain presbyter in the church that he got from a copy of the secret gospel, which he interpreted according to his blasphemous and carnal doctrine…
“To them, therefore, as I said above, one must never give way… [or] even concede that the secret gospel is by Mark… but deny it on oath. For, ‘Not all true things are to be said to all men…”
This letter is strong evidence that the Secret Gospel of Mark was in fact the complete version of Mark, and what we have is the edited version by the Church fathers. Barnstone at 340 lists as being visible signs of this editing process Mark 4:ll; 9:25-27; 10:21, 32,38-39; 12:32-34; 14:51-52. What, then, were these “true things” that the Church fathers hoped to hide from the untutored eyes of the average Christian? What was the unspeakable?
St. Clement quotes from this complete, “Secret” Gospel of Mark” at length towards the end of his letter. Clement in the last third of his letter to Theodore wrote: “To you, therefore I shall not hesitate to answer the questions you have asked refuting the falsifications by the very words of the [Secret] Gospel” (Barnstone 342). “And they come into Bethany. And a certain woman whose brother had died was there. And she prostrated herself before Jesus and says to him, ‘Son of David, have mercy on me.’ But the disciples rebuked her. And Jesus, being angered, went off with her unto the garden where the tomb was, and straightway a great cry was heard from the tomb. And going near, Jesus rolled away the stone from the door of the tomb. And straightway, going in where the youth was, he stretched forth his hand and raised him, seizing his hand. But the youth, looking upon him, loved him and began to beseech him that he might be with him. And going out of the tomb they came into the house of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days Jesus told him what to do and in the evening the youth came to him, wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the Kingdom of God. And thence, arising, he returned to the other side of the Jordan.”
“After these words follows the text, “And James and John come to him,” and all that section. But “naked man with naked man,” and the other things about which you wrote, are not found. And after the words, ‘And he comes into Jericho,’ the secret Gospel adds only, ‘And the sister of the youth whom Jesus loved, and his mother and Salome were there, and Jesus did not receive them. But many other things about which you wrote both seem to be and are falsifications.
“Now the true explanation and that which accords with the true philosophy. “
This passage quoted by Clement from the Gospel, could be interpreted as an account of a baptism preformed by Jesus on this young lad—and some do—but for 3 facts. One that Clement and the Church fathers not only suppressed the passage but found it “scandalous.” Second, the plain meaning of the words “naked man with naked man” and “whom Jesus loved” support the conclusion that Sexual union with a man as part of the sacrament was practiced. Third, that it was a practice of some Christian sects for (like in Tantra Yoga) to engage in sexual intercourse as part of a union with God. Such was said of some Christian communities. There are passages in the Pauline Epistles which admonishing certain unnamed sexual practices and there is a letter from a Roman physician describing in detail this practice. Morton Smith, the discoverer of the letter writes: “Freedom from the [Mosaic] law may have resulted in completion of the spiritual union by physical union. This certainly occurred in many forms of Gnostic Christianity; how early it began there is no telling” (Morton Smith, The Secret Gospel, p. 94, The Secret Gospel: The Discovery and Interpretation of the Secret Gospel according to Mark. New York: Harper & Row, 1973). From the tone of the letter of Clement, the fact that our present Gospel of Mark is incomplete in a way that indicates deliberate suppression of the passage, from the quoted passages of in the letter, and from the practices of early Christian communities it is quite reasonable to conclude that the Secret Gospel. Mark described the sexual union of Jesus with a young disciple. This portrayal of the Messiah Jesus as partaking in sexual union fits well with the view of Jesus as a prophet, like Mohammed, Elijah, and others. Much has been written on the meaning of the Messiah (“anointed leader”) and the meaning of the “Son of God” needs to be set in its proper context. A number of heroes were the son of god, including Heracles, Helen, and more recently, it was widely believed that Philip of Macedonia was not the real son of Alexander, but rather a god. Mark was first, his Gospel was incorporated with aggrandizements, and revisions by Matthew and Luke. Mark saw Christ as a mortal unto whom the spirit of god has entered when he was baptized. ] If he was a god or part of Yahweh (as is currently maintained) then God would not need to inform his son that he is his son, unless “son of God” meant something like chosen one—a position held by the Gnostic Christians. “Son of God, most scholars agree, is an ambiguous title at best, so too, is lord from the Aramaic mare, which could be interpreted in a spectrum of ways from the mundane “sir” to the divine “lord.” As a mortal, having intercourse with women would be fitting, and to be celibate would be very abnormal. Having sex with a young man, in the Hellenized world also was quite unexceptional.
Would it be very abnormal for Jesus to take a young man and in the religious initiation have sex with him? The Greeks and Romans both approved such if done with the spirit of a mentor. Bisexuality was the norm. Three centuries of Greek and Roman domination had its effects. Mark had written in his fiction on the life of Jesus things that were deemed proper in the Hellenized world? Could not Mark, who was most certainly not Mark of the disciples [i], be Hellenized? “Modern research often proposes as the author an unknown Hellenistic Jewish Christian, possibly in Syria and perhaps shortly after the year70.” Clement of Alexandria in his letter acknowledges a complete and suppressed original edition of Mark’s Gospel, a copy in the Church’s library in Alexandria. Thus the most consistent explanation of the missing passages including the one concerning Jericho is that the Church Counsel was not as Hellenized as Mark, and that they upheld the Hebraic injunction against Greek love.

The Encyclopedia of American Loons

Damon Thompson

Damon Thompson is a South Carolina-based fundie preacher formerly associated with The Ramp – a revival cult thing somewhere in Alabama run by preachers affiliated with the New Apostolic Reformation and apparently aimed at young people (this story might provide an illustration) – and more recently something called “Carolina Revival”. Thompson claims that being “saved” actually changes your DNA. Indeed, it changes your DNA so much that if you committed a crime and left behind DNA, then if you afterward became “born again” it will ensure that your DNA doesn’t match that left behind at the scene. Let us just say that anyone gambling on this idea will be in for an ugly surprise. Thompson has, as fundie preachers are wont to, of course made up an anecdote to make the claim vivid for his listeners.
He is, of course, also virulently anti-gay, offering kids “deliverance from homosexuality” at his prayer rallies. “You may think you were born gay, but you cannot be born again gay!”, says Damon Thompson.
Diagnosis: Dangerous madman. He does have the power to ruin lives, and seems unafraid to use it.

Glenn Stanton

Glenn Stanton is a spokesperson for Focus on the Family – indeed, he is director of global family formation studies – and seems to have been heavily involved in the organization’s systematic and deliberate misrepresentation of research to try to support their anti-gay political agenda. How Focus on the Family does science is well illustrated by this commentary, which compares what Stanton claims is a “clear consensus” among anthropologists in support of his favored view on marriage, with what actual anthropologists actually say. “Wait,” you may ask, “Stanton didn’t actually bother to consult anthropologists before he made a sweeping remark about anthropology?” Indeed, he didn’t. That’s how he rolls, and insensitivity to evidence appears to be one of the pinnacles of Focus on the Family’s “research” efforts. (The American Anthropological Association was not impressed with Stanton’s claims.) For other examples of Focus on the Family manipulating data and misrepresenting research, you could look at this, this (also here), this, and this. Seeing a pattern yet?
At least Stanton is convinced of the importance of his own work. According to Stanton, same-sex marriage does not only undermine the institution of marriage and therefore civilization, but “deconstructs humanity itself” (no, he doesn’t know what it means, but the appeal to postmodernist rhetoric when it suits him – it is not an isolated occurrence – is telling). Same-sex marriage is ultimately a “pernicious lie of Satan” that imperils society and humanity; Stanton means this in a very scientific way. (Stanton does, apparently, think of himself as a scientist, though he has no relevant education and no published research to his name – of course, he has no idea what science is, so it is for him a more or less an empty label to be tagged onto whatever he wants.)
Christian right leaders should distance themselves from “extreme rhetoric”. He uses Chuck Colson as an example of someone who apparently avoided extreme rhetoric, which I guess is just another example of the care with which Stanton handles data and evidence.
Diagnosis: I suppose he had everything stacked against him. Being responsible for the research part of Focus on the Family is a poor point of departure if you aim for respectability and actually contributing to knowledge.

David Snoke

David Snoke is one of the central characters of the intelligent design creationist movement. A physics professor at the University of Pittsburgh and Fellow of the American Physical Society (and, it must be emphasized, a respectable scientist in his own field), Snoke was also a co-author on a controversial paper with Michael Behe in 2004. The topic of that paper was of course outside of Snoke’s area of expertise, and apparently his contribution was an appendix verifying the numerical results with analytical calculations showing that for a novel feature requiring multiple neutral mutations the time to fixation has a sublinear dependence on population size – of course, what was wrong with the claims in the paper, which ostensibly supported Behe’s notion of irreducible complexity, was not the calculations themselves, but the thought that they measured something relevant for any aspect of the theory of evolution (there are some good comments here and here; more damning counterevidence here). Indeed, contrary to Behe’s claims (as became clear e.g. during the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial) the article might ultimately even undermine the notion of irreducible complexity, as Behe had to admit under oath. (The Discovery Institute still had no trouble hyping it, of course, since for them this was never about science, truth or evidence.)
But the Behe collaboration was not a one-off for Snoke – he has even tried on a number of variants of the old creationist appeal to information – who later wrote a gushing endorsement of Behe’s book in 2014 (with Jeffrey Cox and Donald Petcher), published a numerical study of the evolution of novel structures in the journal Complexity with a (lego) model attempting to show that “natural assumptions” for the cost/benefit of building new structures should lead to a dramatic increase of useless, or vestigial, structures in a population, and arguing that the lack of observation of such large numbers of vestigial parts in organisms thus pointing to fine tuning of the mechanisms of evolution – of course, Snoke et al. never seems to consider the, from a biological point of view, obvious alternative: numerous organisms, some with suboptimal parts, instead of single organisms with massive amounts of suboptimal parts; it’s little wonder real biologists were unimpressed. In 2014 he also published a review article for the Discovery Institute arguing that the prevailing paradigm of modern systems biology favors an intelligent design perspective, and this bizarre post appears to argue that lack of evidence for a designer is evidence for design. Snoke is also a signatory to their bankrupt petition A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism.
His 2006 book A Biblical Case for an Old Earth, argues in favor of a “day-age” interpretation of Genesis as consistent with biblical inerrancy, and he has spoken and written extensively on how to reconcile science and biblical inerrancy.
Diagnosis: Real scientist with a decidedly pseudoscientific side-career – there are some of those – and a good illustration of how expertise in one area may result in nothing but feeble nonsense when dabbling in another.

No responses yet

Leave a Reply