전세계가 중공미인계에 몸살/크리스틴 팡 동영상 국내최초 공개/전 일본총리도 당했다/아이언 돔, 하마스 지원하는 바이든 https://youtu.be/8UD4lb-Qj_g 박상후의 문명개화 최근 한국에서도 인민망 지사장 저우위보로 떠들썩합니다. 중공의 미인계로 세계가 몸살을 앓고 있습니다. 미국의 경우 크리스틴 팡이란 여성이 캘리포니아 정계를 쥐고 흔들었습니다. 이번 방송에서는 사진으로만 알려진 크리스틴 팡이 미 사교계를 누비며 어떻게 환심을 샀는지를 보여주는 동영상을 국내최초로 공개합니다. 빌 게이츠 재단의 통역으로 활동했던 Zhe Shely Wang 王喆도 중공의 미인계 스파이로 추정되고 있습니다. 중공의 미인계로 한국도 시끄럽지만 이는 일본도 마찬가지였습니다. 중공의 주일대사관에서 근무한 여성을 통역으로 고용한 하시모토 류타로 전 총리도 미인계에 넘어갔었던 것으로 보도돼 일본이 떠들썩했던 사례가 있습니다. 여성 한명에 농락당해 중공에 해외개발원조 ODA를 적극적으로 제공하기도 했습니다. 그러나 일본과 한국의 차이점은 분명히 있습니다. 일본의 경우 중공의 미인계를 끊임없이 추적해 국민의 경각심을 올리는 시도가 있어왔습니다. 이번 방송에서는 또 이스라엘과 하마스 무장조직간의 분쟁에서 크게 위력을 발휘한 아이언 돔을 소개합니다. 그리고 이스라엘을 버리고 하마스 편에 선 바이든에게 폼페오 전 국무장관과 트럼프가 경고를 날렸다는 소식도 전합니다. --->세계 역사에 이렇게 여러 나라에 미인계로 작전을 벌인 나라가 있었나? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 오마이뉴스 산림청이 저지른 엄청난 사건, 국민 생명 위험하다 [최병성 리포트] 기후 재난 부추기는 정부의 30억 그루 나무심기 --->좌파들도 이런 미친 짓은 감당이 안되나 보다. 지금 문죄인 일당을 시급히 정신병원에 넣어야 나라가 산다. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 주옥파의 주옥같은 남자들(이번에는 동아일보 ㅋ) RightSide http://www.ilbe.com/view/11342633509 박대통령 탄핵의 배후에 중국이 있다는 의혹 실체는?? 탄핵에 주도적인 언론인들이 있었음. 하종대 베이징 특파원 출신 동아일보 기자(뉴스연구 팀장) 2016년 탄핵정국에 주옥파와 붙어앉아서 팥빙수를 하나만(?) 주문하고 나눠먹으면서 서로의 타액을 공유하고 있음. 자랑하고 싶어서 SNS 올림 ㅎㅎㅎ 탄핵관련 계속된 센~~~발언으로 여론 형성 . 태극기부대가 촛불집회보다 많이 나오는데 자신감인가요????? 비아냥거림 노희찬을 추모 ㅎ 베이징 특파원 출신이지만 대놓고 친중이 심함. 중국 대사가 임명되고 언론인 간담회하면 바로 대사옆에서 사진찍는 하종대 클라스 중국 대사와 전하지는 못할 정도로 깊은 이야기를 나누었다. 대단하노 ㅎㅎ 박대통령에게 마지막 꼼수를 생각하고 있을 수도.. 본인의 가치 판단을 포함해서 스스로 자질부족을 드러내는 현직 동아일보 기자 클라스~~ 박대통령 탄핵의 정당성을 계속 강조했던 언론인들 뒤에는 중국이???? 주옥파와 취환같은 중국여성들의 고위직 남성들에게 접근한 의혹에 대해서 언론들의 침묵 !!! 왜냐하면 주요 언론사마다 주요 친중인사들이 박혀있음 동아일보는 하종대 ㅋㅋㅋ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 윤석열은 절대로 대선 출마 못한다 세월호는쓰리썸 http://www.ilbe.com/view/11342659689 윤석렬은 죄없는 이재수사령관을 범죄자로 만들려고 이재수사령관의 아들을 비롯한 주변인물을 압수수색하는등 천인공로 할 만행을 저질러 모멸감과 수치심 그리고 자신때문에 괴롭힘을 당하는 주변인들의 억울함에 우리의 소중한 애국자 이재수 사령관을 죽게 만들었다 극악무도한 범죄자가 바로 윤석렬이다 윤석렬은 직권남용 사건조작 증거조작 증인협박 허위자백 강요등등의 혐의로 수사를 받아 정의의 법정에서 심판을 받아야 할 인물이다 이런 개색히가 대통령이 된다? 정신 차리자 애국세력들 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 한국이 망가지는 근본 이유? (Scott 인간과 자유 이야기) http://www.ilbe.com/view/11342659242 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 이제 기간산업은 정부가 하고 싶어하는 모든 것을 의미하게 되었다. 좌파들이 흔히 하는 속임수는 토론에서 쟁점이 되는 단어의 정의를 바꾸어서 자신들의 결론에 부합하도록 하는 것이다. 그런데 이번 바이든 대통령의 2조 달러 기간산업 법안에도, 역시 같은 수법이 동원되었다. 법안에는 4천억 달러에 이르는 아동보육 프로그램과 기타 유사한 프로그램의 법안이, 기간산업에 포함되어 있는 것이다. 아동보육 프로그램으로 어머니들이 육아에서 해방되면, 밖으로 나가 직업을 잡게 되니 기간산업을 돕게 된다는 논리였다. 정부가 제공해야 한다고 인식되고 있는 대부분의 사업들은 사실은 역사적으로 볼 때 모두 민간 업자들에 의해 제공되었다. 교육, 도로 건설 유지, 주화(鑄貨), 우편배달, 소방, 경찰, 법원, 국방 등이 모두 여기에 속한다. "Infrastructure" Is Now Anything the Government Wants To Do Robert Zumwalt A common rhetorical tactic is to change the definition of a key word in a debate to fit a preferred conclusion. This tactic is now being used by President Biden and other lawmakers in support of an anticipated $2 trillion infrastructure bill they are expected to propose by arguing that the definition of “infrastructure” should be expanded to include anything remotely connected to the economy. The forthcoming bill is expected to propose approximately $400 billion for childcare and other care programs under the heading of “infrastructure,” the argument being that spending taxpayer money on these programs would free up more mothers and others who currently devote their time to providing care to take jobs outside the home. Because it would enable more mothers to work outside the home, the argument goes, “infrastructure” should include childcare. There is, of course, nothing new about lawmakers seeking to implement new programs at taxpayers’ expense. What is new is how open supporters of this effort have been about the fact that they are attempting to do this by changing the definition of a word, the New York Times opining with approval that Biden’s plan “is a radical reimagining of what infrastructure means.” The Fallacy of Four Terms Supporters of the anticipated bill wish to reach the conclusion that the United States should enact progressive social programs and, to reach that conclusion, they are attempting to change the definition of “infrastructure” in this context from “the system of public works of a country, state, or region” to anything that makes it easier for an individual to get to her job. The New York Times opinion piece noted above frames it thusly: “Functioning and affordable care is a public good: It is the foundation for Americans to provide for their families, tend to their loved ones and perform their jobs.” This type of argumentation tactic relies on the so-called fallacy of four terms. Typically, a basic logical argument is said to consist of three terms, for example, all A are B, and all B are C, therefore all A are C. This logically valid argument contains three terms, A, B, and C. However, if each time we mentioned B, we really meant two different things, then this argument would really be, all A are B1, and all B2 are C, therefore all A are C. This argument actually has four terms and is logically invalid because the equivalency between A and C depended on B being the same thing both times it was mentioned. One way the middle “B” term gets distorted like this is when the meaning of a word used for that term is ambiguous. An argument makes this error if it says, for example: all boys swing bats, all bats are nocturnal flying mammals, therefore all boys swing nocturnal flying mammals. The single word “bat” in this example actually must count as two terms because we have used it with two different meanings. It is not necessarily false to say childcare is in some sense a kind of infrastructure if it allows more mothers to take on jobs outside the home, (although it does beg the question why mothers should be deemed more productive when working outside the home than when working in it). Because childcare can plausibly be called a kind of infrastructure, it can pseudo-logically be grafted onto existing beliefs among most Americans about the propriety of government spending on traditional infrastructure, even though the ideas are materially different. Why This Rhetoric Matters None of this is intended to mean that governments should involve themselves in the provision of traditional infrastructure in the first place. However, as Murray Rothbard pointed out in his work Man, Economy, and State, it is nonetheless a common modern belief that such spending is appropriate, or even necessary: “[E]very single service generally assumed to be suppliable by government alone has been historically supplied by private enterprise. This includes such services as education, road building and maintenance, coinage, postal delivery, fire protection, police protection, judicial decisions, and military defense—all of which are often held to be self-evidently and necessarily within the exclusive province of government.” This existing acceptance most people seem to have of government spending on traditional infrastructure, misguided as it may be, is now being used to expand their ideas about what is acceptable government expenditure to include publicly funded childcare programs. In a practical sense, new government programs like these will undoubtedly involve not only higher taxes, but also more regulatory control over things that ought to remain within the capable discretion of private individuals and families. New regulations on how many children a childcare provider can enroll at a time and whether providers will be required to have a college degree and a state-issued license are likely to follow, placing needless new burdens on existing childcare providers. (Any doubt about this can be dispelled by reviewing some of the recommendations already published by the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services Office of Child Care here.) If our experience with government intervention in healthcare is predictive, the cost of childcare will only increase and its provision will become more impersonal and less responsive to the particular needs of individual families. But this use of deceptive rhetoric raises even more fundamental concerns. There is nothing new about lawmakers using false or nonexistent logic to support their proposals, but there is something novel to the boldness with which even established mainline party politicians—including influential senators like Elizabeth Warren and Kirsten Gillibrand—are now so openly embracing this rhetorical tactic despite its reliance on a “radical reimagining” of the meaning of an existing word. The issue it raises is this: Do we really believe that these experienced politicians actually think voters are so dimwitted they cannot grasp the relevant difference between bridges and childcare? As Professor David Gordon recently pointed out, “unless there is very strong evidence, we should avoid attributing to someone an error it would be hard to overlook.” It therefore seems unlikely they really expect these arguments to cause a significant number of the public to undergo a personal revelatory enlightenment and suddenly realize they have supported government provided childcare all along. It seems more likely they are instead dictating to the rest of us what the new meaning of infrastructure shall be in order to make enactment of their desired social programs possible. Finally, this seems to represent an importation of the kind of Orwellian newspeak rhetorical methods we are used to hearing from more openly socialist voices in society. We have long heard, for example, about the “exploitation” of labor. While it may be true that an entrepreneur “exploits” the use of labor in the same mundane sense that a carpenter “exploits” the force multiplying effect of a lever to pry nails out of a piece of wood, advocates of the Marxian concept of exploitation rely on the deep negative connotations of the word to justify condemning owners of capital who earn a profit by hiring workers. The current calls for “social justice” are similar. Advocates of collectivist redistribution schemes describe their socialist goals as a certain kind of justice. Changing the definition of justice to “social justice” shifts the focus of the debate about what is just from people receiving what they deserve to people receiving the same thing regardless of what they deserve. If this new argument about infrastructure arises from the same mindset as social justice ideology, as I argue, we should heed Professor Michael Rectenwald’s warning about social justice that the: “claims of social justice ideologues amount to a form of philosophical and social idealism that is enforced with a moral absolutism. Once beliefs are unconstrained by the object world and people can believe anything they like with impunity, the possibility for assuming a pretense of infallibility becomes almost irresistible, especially when the requisite power is available to support such a pretense. […] Because it usually contains so much nonsense, the social and philosophical idealism of the social justice creed must be established by force, or the threat of force.” Conclusion The attempt to characterize childcare and similar government programs as infrastructure cannot be understood as an honest attempt to convince average Americans to support a policy through rational argumentation. It should instead be understood as powerful lawmakers openly adopting a rhetorical tactic common to social justice ideologues to dictate to the masses what they should believe about the expanded role the state should play in everyone else’s lives. Robert Zumwalt is an attorney with undergraduate degrees in economics and political science. -------------------------------------------------------