Three Things You Need to Know - November 14, 2017

It's Not Looking Good for Roy Moore

It’s not looking good for Roy Moore.

Senate Republicans really don’t want him to get elected. And neither do at least five women.

Yesterday, Beverly Young Nelson announced at a news conference that Moore attacked her in his car when she was 16-years-old and he was 30.

Nelson said Moore offered to drive her home one night after her waitressing shift was over at a local restaurant. He drove her to the back of the restaurant where she said he groped her, tried to take her shirt off, grabbed her neck and tried to force her head toward his crotch. She said, “I thought that he was going to rape me.”

After she struggled against his advances, she said he dumped her out of the car in the parking lot and sped away.

She also said Moore told her that he was the District Attorney and she was a child, so “no one will ever believe you,” if she tried to report the incident.

Moore still says this is all a witch hunt. But even if just one of the allegations against him is even partially true, he should drop out of the race and check into therapy.

Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell believes the women and wants Moore to drop out. Now Republicans are brainstorming ways to kick out Moore even if he wins Alabama’s special Senate election on December 12.

One option would be for Republicans to allow him to be seated in the U.S. Senate, then move to expel him. Some are even considering a write-in candidate. That seems unrealistic this close to the election, but then, no Democrat has won a Senate seat from Alabama in 25 years, so maybe it’s not so far-fetched.

This Alabama Senate election is a microcosm of America’s current social and political quagmire: the flood of sexual assault and harassment accusations against powerful men, and the willingness of voters – on the Right and Left – to overlook serious character problems in candidates in order to win.

Some things are more important than winning and we need to rediscover them quickly, because our sons and daughters are watching.

Rand Paul Update

What if I told you Bernie Sanders’ legs were broken by his neighbor when he was outside recycling his RC Cola cans?

What if I told you Elizabeth Warren’s arm was pulled out of her socket by an angry neighbor when she went to pick up her Amazon Prime box of custom presidential buttons?

You would be outraged. Why? Because you’re human and have feelings. No person should be viciously assaulted by another person. At that point, your political opinions don’t mean anything.

But speaking of political views, could you just imagine how crazy the Left would be over one of their own being treated so badly? They would be livid and calling for immediate criminal prosecution.

Why is it that I hear crickets when it comes to Rand Paul’s attack?

In his first interview since he was assaulted by his neighbor, Rand struggled to speak. Six broken ribs and a damaged lung will do that to you. Despite his injuries he tried to explain that there still was no motive that he could imagine. Rand said that his first encounter with this neighbor was when he was attacked. They never had words over anything.

There has been speculation that the neighbor attacked the senator because of his anti-Trump views. Sure, Rand has a record of siding with Trump, but he is by no means the president’s biggest cheerleader.

There was also talk that they had an argument about maintaining yard work where they share a property line, but neighbors have debunked that as a false narrative.

Only time will tell what the real motive actually was.

But we do know one thing for certain: Rand’s neighbor, who was charged with fourth-degree assault, was released on Saturday on $7,500 bail.

It’s time to speak up about one of our fellow humans and make sure this attacker knows that his behavior is never acceptable—not matter what your political bent is.

Citizen Kap

GQ has named their ‘Citizen of The Year’, and his name… is Colin Kaepernick. You know, it kinda makes you wonder what exactly their selection criteria is. I’m having a hard time seeing this one, so let’s take a quick run down memory lane. Back in 2013 Kaepernick was one of the best players in football. A true ‘Citizen of The Year’ would have begun his activism when he was on top, but Colin was mysteriously quiet during this time. Oh he was posing naked in ESPN’s ‘Body Issue’, but activism? He didn’t have time for that. He had a brand to build.

Kaepernick’s meteoric NFL rise was rivaled only with his fall. As his play declined and the magazine covers dried up, suddenly he appeared VERY interested in speaking out. Colin didn’t have to move far to begin taking a knee, his position on the bench made it a quick trip. But GQ apparently doesn’t find this suspicious. They elevated him to the level of Muhammad Ali and Jackie Robinson, forget the fact that he was NEVER interested in speaking out until it became convenient for him to do so. And when it stopped being convenient - and as his prospects in the NFL ran out - he went silent for an entire year to try and get his job back.

So let’s recap Colin Kaepernick’s ‘Citizen of the Year’ campaign: the winner of GQ’s award went to a man that began a misguided cause for selfish reasons, and who abandoned that misguided cause - again - for selfish reasons. Oh, and I haven’t even mentioned that he glorifies Che Guevara - a mass murderer and that he admitted that he doesn’t even vote. This qualifies as ‘Citizen of The Year?’

How many people can you think of, JUST OFF THE TOP OF YOUR HEAD, that are more deserving? How about J.J. Watt? He raised over 37 million dollars to help the victims of Hurricane Harvey. 37 MILLION… completely on his own, with NO outside help, and NO selfish reasons. What about Stephen Willeford? Willeford is the definition of a private citizen exercising his rights - the 2nd Amendment - and, in the process, stopped a mass murderer. What about the police that took down the NYC truck terrorist, the Green Beret’s that died fighting terrorists in Niger, or Collette Sulcer, who sacrificed her own life to save her infant daughter from Hurricane Harvey flood waters.

All of my examples were of heroes committing uncommon acts of selflessness. Can GQ say the same for Colin Kaepernick?

MORE 3 THINGS

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

Stop trying to be right and think of the children

Mario Tama/Getty Images

All the outrage this week has mainly focused on one thing: the evil Trump administration and its minions who delight in taking children from their illegal immigrant parents and throwing them all in dungeons. Separate dungeons, mind you.

That makes for a nice, easy storyline, but the reality is less convenient. Most Americans seem to agree that separating children from their parents — even if their parents entered the US illegally — is a bad thing. But what if that mom and dad you're trying to keep the kids with aren't really the kids' parents? Believe it or not, fraud happens.

RELATED: Where were Rachel Maddow's tears for immigrant children in 2014?

While there are plenty of heartbreaking stories of parents simply seeking a chance for a better life for their children in the US, there are also corrupt, abusive human traffickers who profit from the illegal immigration trade. And sorting all of this out is no easy task.

This week, the Department of Homeland Security said that since October 2017, more than 300 children have arrived at the border with adults claiming to be their parents who turned out not to be relatives. 90 of these fraud cases came from the Rio Grande Valley sector alone.

In 2017, DHS reported 46 causes of fraudulent family claims. But there have already been 191 fraud cases in 2018.

Shouldn't we be concerned about any child that is smuggled by a human trafficker?

When Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen pointed out this 315 percent increase, the New York Times was quick to give these family fraud cases "context" by noting they make up less than one percent of the total number of illegal immigrant families apprehended at the southern border. Their implication was that Nielsen was exaggerating the numbers. Even if the number of fraud cases at the border was only 0.001 percent, shouldn't we be concerned about any child that is smuggled by a human trafficker?

This is the most infuriating part of this whole conversation this week (if you can call it a "conversation") — that both sides have an angle to defend. And while everyone's busy yelling and making their case, children are being abused.

What if we just tried, for two seconds, to love having mercy more than we love having to be right all the time?

Remember when cartoons were happy things? Each panel took you on a tiny journey, carrying you to an unexplored place. In Understanding Comics, Scott McCloud writes:

The comics creator asks us to join in a silent dance of the seen and the unseen. The visible and the invisible. This dance is unique to comics. No other artform gives so much to its audience while asking so much from them as well. This is why I think it's a mistake to see comics as a mere hybrid of the graphic arts and prose fiction. What happens between . . . panels is a kind of magic only comics can create.

When that magic is manipulated or politicized, it often devolves the artform into a baseless thing. Yesterday, Occupy Wall Street published the perfect example of low-brow deviation of the artform: A six-panel approach at satire, which imitates the instructions-panel found in the netted cubbyhole behind seats on airplanes. The cartoon is a critique of the recent news about immigrant children being separated from their parents after crossing the border. It is a step-by-step guide to murdering US Immigrations and Customs Enforcement agents.

RELATED: Cultural appropriation has jumped the shark, and everyone is noticing

The first panel shows a man shoving an infant into a cage meant for Pomeranians. The following five panels feature instructions, and include pictures of a cartoonish murder.

The panels read as follows:

  1. If an ICE agent tries to take your child at the border, don't panic.
  2. Pull your child away as quickly as possibly by force.
  3. Gently tell your child to close his/her eyes and ears so they won't witness what you are about to do.
  4. Grab the ICE agent from behind and push your knife into his chest with an upward thrust, causing the agent's sternum to break.
  5. Reach into his chest and pull out his still beating heart.
  6. Hold his bloody heart out for all other agents to see, and tell them that the same fate awaits them if they f--- with your child again.

Violent comics are nothing new. But most of the time, they remain in the realms of invented worlds — in other words, not in our own, with reference to actual people, let alone federal agents.

The mainstream media made a game of crying racism with every cartoon depiction of Obama during his presidency, as well as during his tenure as Senator, when the New Yorker, of all things, faced scrutiny for depicting him in "Muslim clothing." Life was a minefield for political cartoonists during the Obama era.

Chris Hondros/Getty Images

This year, we saw the leftist outrage regarding The Simpsons character Apu — a cartoon representation of a highly-respected, though cartoonishly-depicted, character on a cartoon show composed of cartoonishly-depicted characters.

We all remember Charlie Hebdo, which, like many outlets that have used cartoon satire to criticize Islam, faced the wrath and ire of people unable to see even the tamest representation of the prophet, Muhammad.

Interesting, isn't it? Occupy Wall Street publishes a cartoon that advocates murdering federal agents, and critics are told to lighten up. Meanwhile, the merest depiction of Muhammad has resulted in riots throughout the world, murder and terror on an unprecedented scale.

The intersection of Islam and comics is complex enough to have its own three-hour show, so we'll leave it at that, for now. Although, it is worth mentioning the commentary by satirical website The Onion, which featured a highly offensive cartoon of all the major religious figures except Muhammad. It noted:

Following the publication of the image above, in which the most cherished figures from multiple religious faiths were depicted engaging in a lascivious sex act of considerable depravity, no one was murdered, beaten, or had their lives threatened.

Of course, Occupy Wall Street is free to publish any cartoon they like. Freedom of speech, and so on—although there have been several instances in which violent cartoons were ruled to have violated the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" limitation of the First Amendment.

Posting it to Twitter is another issue — this is surely in violation of Twitter's violent content policy, but something tells me nothing will come of it. It's a funny world, isn't it? A screenshot of a receipt from Chick-fil-A causes outrage but a cartoon advocating murder gets crickets.

RELATED: Twitter mob goes ballistic over Father's Day photo of Caitlyn Jenner. Who cares?

In Understanding Comics, Scott McCloud concludes that, "Today the possibilities for comics are — as they've always been — endless. Comics offers . . . range and versatility, with all the potential imagery of film and painting plus the intimacy of the written word. And all that's needed is the desire to be heard, the will to learn, and the ability to see."

Smile, and keep moving forward.

Crude and awful as the Occupy Wall Street comic is, the best thing we can do is nod and look elsewhere for the art that will open our eyes. Let the lunatics draw what they want, let them stew in their own flawed double standards. Otherwise, we're as shallow and empty as they are, and nothing good comes of that. Smile, and keep moving forward.

Things are getting better. Show the world how to hear, how to learn, how to see.

People should start listening to Nikki Haley

ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS/AFP/Getty Images

Okay. Let's take a vote. You know, an objective, quantifiable count. How many resolutions has the UN Human Rights Council adopted condemning dictatorships? Easy. Well. How do you define "dictatorship"?

Well, one metric is the UN Human Rights Council Condemnation. How many have the United Nations issued to China, with a body count higher than a professional Call of Duty player?

Zero.

How about Venezuela, where socialism is devouring its own in the cruelest, most unsettling ways imaginable?

Zero.

And Russia, home of unsettling cruelty and rampant censorship, murder and (actual) homophobia?

Zero.

Iraq? Zero. Turkey? Iraq? Zero. Cuba? Zero. Pakistan? Zero.

RELATED: Nikki Haley just dropped some serious verbal bombs on Russia at the UN

According to UN Human Rights Council Condemnations, 2006-2016, none of these nations is as dangerous as we'd imagined. Or, rather, none of them faced a single condemnation. Meanwhile, one country in particular has faced unbelievable scrutiny and fury — you'll never guess which country.

No, it's not Somalia. It's Israel. With 68 UN Human Rights Council Condemnations! In fact, the number of total United Nations condemnations against Israel outnumbers the total of condemnations against all other countries combined. The only country that comes close is Syria, with 15.

The Trump administration withdrew from the United Nations Human Rights Council on Tuesday in protest of what it perceives as an entrenched bias against Israel and a willingness to allow notorious human rights abusers as members.

In an address to the UN Security Council on Tuesday, Nikki Haley said:

Let's remember that the Hamas terrorist organization has been inciting violence for years, long before the United States decided to move our embassy. This is what is endangering the people of Gaza. Make no mistake, Hamas is pleased with the results from yesterday... No country in this chamber would act with more restraint than Israel has.

Maybe people should start listening to Haley. Hopefully, they will. Not likely, but there's no crime in remaining hopeful.

Here's a question unique to our times: "Should I tell my father 'Happy Father's Day,' even though he (she?) is now one of my mothers?"

Father's Day was four days ago, yes, but this story is just weird enough to report on. One enjoyable line to read was this gem from Hollywood Gossip: "Cait is a woman and a transgender icon, but she is also and will always be the father of her six children."

RELATED: If Bruce was never a he and always a she, who won the men's Olympic gold in 1976?

Imagine reading that to someone ten — even five — years ago. And, honestly, there's something nice about it. But the strangeness of its having ever been written overpowers any emotional impact it might bring.

"So lucky to have you," wrote Kylie Jenner, in the Instagram caption under pre-transition pictures of Bruce Jenner.

Look. I risk sounding like a tabloid by mere dint of having even mentioned this story, but the important element is the cultural sway that's occurring. The original story was that a band of disgruntled Twitter users got outraged about the supposed "transphobic" remarks by Jenner's daughter.

But, what we should be saying is, "who the hell cares?" Who cares what one Jenner says to another — and more importantly and on a far deeper level — who cares what some anonymous Twitter user has to say?

When are we going to stop playing into the hands of the Twitter mob?

When are we going to stop playing into the hands of the Twitter mob? Because, at the moment, they've got it pretty good. They have a nifty relationship with the mainstream media: One or two Twitter users get outraged by any given thing — in this case Jenner and supposed transphobia. In return, the mainstream media use the Twitter comment as a source.

Then, a larger Twitter audience points to the article itself as proof that there's some kind of systemic justice at play. It's a closed-market currency, where the negative feedback loop of proof and evidence is composed of faulty accusations. Isn't it a hell of a time to be alive?