NRA Political Donations Myth

THINK PROGRESS, a Leftist organization, back in 2012 went on to prove the following:

In a series of posts for Think Progress beginning today, I’ll detail what the data on the NRA’s involvement in elections actually tells us, and what conclusions we can draw about the status of an issue that has been largely dormant in our politics in recent years. The results of this analysis include the following:

  • NRA contributions to candidates have virtually no impact on the outcome of Congressional races.
  • An NRA independent expenditure (IE) campaign does not improve a candidate’s chance of winning.
  • The NRA’s endorsement, so eagerly sought by so many candidates, has almost no impact on the outcome of elections; the bulk of NRA endorsements go to incumbent Republicans with almost no chance of losing.
  • Despite what the NRA has long claimed, it neither delivered Congress to the Republican party in 1994 nor delivered the White House to George W. Bush in 2000.

[…..]

In a more recent post, GUNMART notes the under-funding of gun issues:

The liberal lie of the ‘Big Money NRA’ buying congress and funding their way to controlling our laws is a myth. Here is a look at the stats…

Now look at those dollar amount from those top special interests and compare and contrast those numbers to what the NRA’s real financial power isThey come in with a ranking of only 155th place among top lobbyists and 464th place among top contributions.

 

 

Dennis Prager Highlights Two WaPo Stories Debunking Leftist Positions

Dennis Prager gives credit where credit is due. The Washington Post debunks two widely believed stats gobbled up by the Mainstream Media (MSM).

The first story by WAPO fact checks Rubio’s statement about proposed laws making no difference in the recent school shootings:

The other story looks into the widely repeated claims about 18-school shooting already in 2018

Myth About Trump’s Unilateral Rescinding Obama’s Mental Health Law

Rush Limbaugh dismantles a lie from the Left expressed by Jimmy Kimmel’s monologue regarding Trump’s first few days in office and his rescinding an Obama era bill that was an Executive Order.

If the Left do not like this legal snafu of one President rescinding another’s E.O., pass laws through Congress dammit! U-n-l-e-s-s they just want to u-s-e the controversy to support their wild positions that have no reality in the real world. Here are the organizations who supported Trump’s action (via the WASHINGTON FREE BEACON):

Officials at the American Civil Liberties Union opposed the rule and called for its repeal because the process did not include sufficient due process protections.

  • “The rule includes no meaningful due process protections prior to the SSA’s transmittal of names to the NICS database,” the group said in their letter. “The determination by SSA line staff that a beneficiary needs a representative payee to manage their money benefit is simply not an ‘adjudication’ in any ordinary meaning of the word. Nor is it a determination that the person ‘[l]acks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs’ as required by the NICS. Indeed, the law and the SSA clearly state that representative payees are appointed for many individuals who are legally competent.”

The National Council on DisabilityConsortium for Citizens With Disabilities, and National Coalition for Mental Health Recovery all submitted letters calling for the reversal of the rule during hearings conducted by the Ways and Means Committee….

The WASHINGTON EXAMINER also looks into the pressure from right and left organizations

….This is why America’s new favorite charity, the American Civil Liberties Union (along with many other groups that are not particularly conservative or pertinent to gun rights per se) advocated and wrote in favor of what House Republicans did yesterday. This is from the ACLU’s letter of support:

On behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), we urge members of the House of Representatives to support the resolution disapproving the final rule of the Social Security Administration which implements the National Instant Criminal Background Check System Improvement Amendment Acts of 2007….

In December 2016, the SSA promulgated a final rule that would require the names of all Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefit recipients – who, because of a mental impairment, use a representative payee to help manage their benefits – be submitted to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), which is used during gun purchases.

We oppose this rule because it advances and reinforces the harmful stereotype that people with mental disabilities, a vast and diverse group of citizens, are violent. There is no data to support a connection between the need for a representative payee to manage one’s Social Security disability benefits and a propensity toward gun violence. The rule further demonstrates the damaging phenomenon of “spread,” or the perception that a disabled individual with one area of impairment automatically has additional, negative and unrelated attributes. Here, the rule automatically conflates one disability-related characteristic, that is, difficulty managing money, with the inability to safely possess a firearm.

The rule includes no meaningful due process protections prior to the SSA’s transmittal of names to the NICS database. The determination by SSA line staff that a beneficiary needs a representative payee to manage their money benefit is simply not an “adjudication” in any ordinary meaning of the word. Nor is it a determination that the person “[l]acks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs” as required by the NICS. Indeed, the law and the SSA clearly state that representative payees are appointed for many individuals who are legally competent

…[R]egulation of firearms and individual gun ownership or use must be consistent with civil liberties principles, such as due process, equal protection, freedom from unlawful searches, and privacy. All individuals have the right to be judged on the basis of their individual capabilities, not the characteristics and capabilities that are sometimes attributed (often mistakenly) to any group or class to which they belong. A disability should not constitute grounds for the automatic per se denial of any right or privilege, including gun ownership.

So, if you donated the ACLU after President Trump’s executive travel ban, congratulations. Yesterday’s vote was your victory, too…..

Who Will Google Silence Next?

Google and YouTube dominate internet search with over 75% of the market. If you disappear on Google, your ability to voice your opinion disappears too. PragerU is an educational non-profit that has had over 40 of their videos restricted by YouTube. That’s why they have recently filed a lawsuit against the tech giant. This is not just about PragerU being silenced – it’s about the targeting of dissenting opinions. Tomorrow it could be your point of view that is silenced.

How Lincoln Changed the World in 2-Minutes (Ideals vs. Compromise)

Why do Lincoln’s iconic words at Gettysburg still matter to each and every one of us? Professor Doug Douds of the Army War College explains.

Is It the Democratic Party Platform or the Communist Manifesto

The original video is now an official PragerU video. Watch Ami play a game with liberals to see if they can tell the difference between the Democratic Party platform and the communist manifesto!

 

Inclusion of Women in Front-Line Combat

This is with a hat-tip to CHICKS ON THE RIGHT via DAILY MAIL:

US Army drops grenade throwing as a requirement to graduate because new recruits can’t throw far enough (but do they mean women?)

  • US Army will no longer require recruits to show adequate hand grenade skills
  • Change is being made because many enlistees ‘can’t throw it far enough’ 
  • Recruits also won’t be required to pass land navigation course to graduate 
  • Army’s redesign of Basic Combat Training is aimed at instilling more discipline 
  • Army would not comment on whether the specific requirements are particularly a problem for women 
  • Many on Twitter used the development to attack influx of female enlistees 

[…..]

The new policy was reported by Military.com.

‘What we have found is it is taking far, far too much time,’ said Maj. Gen. Malcolm Frost, the commanding general of the US Army Center of Initial Military Training.

‘It’s taking three to four times as much time … just to qualify folks on the hand grenade course than we had designated so what is happening is it is taking away from other aspects of training.’

‘We are finding that there are a large number of trainees that come in that quite frankly just physically don’t have the capacity to throw a hand grenade 20 to 25 to 30 meters,’ he said.

The above was originally uploaded by myself to my MRCTV account on April 26th, 2012. I wrote a post on it on my blog with the same date. I am uploading the audio to my YouTube for easier embedding. Here is the description from the original post being updated today:

Dennis discusses the purpose of the Marines, to win. For the same reason a professional baseball team does not have women on its team is because they cannot perform as well as a man in most situations similar to the analogy of baseball and combat. If so, why not make full fledged women brigades for the front lines? Also, a woman caller who served in the Air Force mentions her not qualifying for the K-9 unit because she could not carry 70lbs. She agreed with that policy… that is, if a women cannot physically meet the demands, then, they should not be allowed into such a position.

Another caller that was in the ARMY when they integrated training points out some of the below in rough terms:

It was July 1959. With about 60 other recruits, I was being welcomed to basic training at Fort Jackson, S.C. According to John Leo’s “A Kinder, Gentler Army” (in U.S. News & World Report on Aug. 8, 1997), such a welcome is now out. Today’s Army manual dictates, “Stress created by physical or verbal abuse is nonproductive and prohibited.” Forget whether traditional adversative training produced a first-class military throughout our history.Why the changes? Partly, it’s because today’s youth are unaccustomed to discipline and authority, but mainly it’s because our lovelies want to be fighting persons. To accommodate them means the military must lower standards. Carrying a stretcher used to be a two-man job, now it’s a four-person job. The Navy finds that few of its females can manage shipboard emergency tasks such as hefting fire hoses or carrying wounded personnel up a ladder on a stretcher.

Females pass physical training because of gender-norming. Yellow lines are put on climbing ropes. Male trainees have to climb to the top, but for our lovelies the yellow line will do. As for those awful push-ups, men have to do 20 and women just six. Then there’s the “confidence course,” called the obstacle course in the pre-P.C. days. At Quantico’s Marine training facility, a visitor noticed a footstool placed in front of an 8-foot wall so no trainee would fail to climb over it.

There’s one male/female strength difference quite worrisome. At Parris Island, it was discovered that 45 percent of female Marines were unable to throw a hand grenade far enough to avoid blowing themselves up. Translated in Williams’ terms: If I were in a foxhole with a woman about to toss a hand grenade, I’d consider her the enemy.

Walter Williams book, “More Liberty Means Less Government,” [see: http://tinyurl.com/zdxxkk4], also his article: “Double standards in military could be scary in actual combat


MORE


Similarly, when it comes to first responders, we want the best person to protect civilians in the best possible manner. Suzanne Venker and Phyllis Schlafly in their book, The Flipside of Feminism: What Conservative Women Know — and Men Can’t Say, note the following:

If there is indeed a social revolution under way, it shouldn’t stop with women’s choice to honor their [own] nature. It must also include a newfound respect for men. It was New York City’s firemen who dared to charge up the stairs of the burning Twin Towers on September 11, 2001. The death tally of New York City’s firefighters was: men 343, women 0. Can anyone honestly say you would have wanted a woman coming to your rescue on that fateful day?

(Washington, D.C.: WND Books, 2011), 181-182.

To further make the point, here is David Mamet — of Glengarry Glen Ross fame — noting the above in a very erudite manner:

There is a Liberal sentiment that it should also punish those who take more than their “fair share.” But what is their fair share? (Shakespeare suggests that each should be treated not according to his deserts, but according to God’s mercy, or none of us would escape whipping.)

The concept of Fairness, for all its attractiveness to sentiment, is a dangerous one (cf. quota hiring and enrollment, and talk of “reparations”). Deviations from the Law, which is to say the Constitution, to accommodate specifically alleged identity-group injustices will all inevitably be expanded, universalized, and exploited until there remains no law, but only constant petition of Government.

We cannot live in peace without Law. And though law cannot be perfect, it may be just if it is written in ignorance of the identity of the claimants and applied equally to all. Then it is a possession not only of the claimants but of the society, which may now base its actions upon a reasonable assumption of the law’s treatment.

But “fairness” is not only a nonlegal but an antilegal process, for it deals not with universally applicable principles and strictures, but with specific cases, responding to the perceived or proclaimed needs of individual claimants, and their desire for extralegal preference. And it could be said to substitute fairness (a determination which must always be subjective) for justice (the application of the legislated will of the electorate), is to enshrine greed—the greed, in this case, not for wealth, but for preference. The socialistic spirit of the Left indicts ambition and the pursuit of wealth as Greed, and appeals, supposedly on behalf of “the people,” to the State for “fairness.”….

….But such fairness can only be the non-Constitutional intervention of the State in the legal, Constitutional process—awarding, as it sees fit, money (reparations), preferment (affirmative action), or entertainment (confiscation)….

….”Don’t you care?” is the admonition implicit in the very visage of the Liberals of my acquaintance on their understanding that I have embraced Conservatism. But the Talmud understood of old that good intentions can lead to evil—vide Busing, Urban Renewal, Affirmative Action, Welfare, et cetera, to name the more immedi­ately apparent, and not to mention the, literally, tens of thousands of Federal and State statutes limiting freedom of trade, which is to say, of the right of the individual to make a living, and, so earn that wealth which would, in its necessary expenditure, allow him to provide a living to others….

…. I recognized that though, as a lifelong Liberal, I endorsed and paid lip service to “social justice,” which is to say, to equality of result, I actually based the important decisions of my life—those in which I was personally going to be affected by the outcome—upon the principle of equality of opportunity; and, further, that so did everyone I knew. Many, I saw, were prepared to pay more taxes, as a form of Charity, which is to say, to hand off to the Government the choice of programs and recipients of their hard-earned money, but no one was prepared to be on the short end of the failed Government pro­grams, however well-intentioned. (For example—one might endorse a program giving to minorities preference in award of government contracts; but, as a business owner, one would fight to get the best possible job under the best possible terms regardless of such a pro­gram, and would, in fact, work by all legal and, perhaps by semi- or illegal means to subvert any program that enforced upon the pro­prietor a bad business decision.)*

Further, one, in paying the government to relieve him of a feeling of social responsibility, might not be bothered to question what in fact constituted a minority, and whether, in fact, such minority con­tracts were actually benefiting the minority so enshrined, or were being subverted to shell corporations and straw men.


* No one would say of a firefighter, hired under rules reducing the height requirement, and thus unable to carry one’s child to safety, “Nonetheless, I am glad I voted for that ‘more fair’ law.”

As, indeed, they are, or, in the best case, to those among the applicants claiming eligibility most capable of framing, supporting, or bribing their claims to the front of the line. All claims cannot be met. The politicians and bureaucrats discriminating between claims will neces­sarily favor those redounding to their individual or party benefit—so the eternal problem of “Fairness,” supposedly solved by Government distribution of funds, becomes, yet again and inevitably, a question of graft.

David Mamet, The Secret Knowledge: On the Dismantling of American Culture (New York, NY: Sentinel Publishing, 2011), 116-117, 122, 151, 154.

What this boils down to is people wanting to feel good about themselves…. but like Mamet noted, would rather not “feel good” about themselves if their own family member is involved.

Anglo-American Traditions – Jeff Sessions

Michael Medved’s discussion of history as it relates to our law enforcement traditions and the Left’s lack of knowledge regarding our Anglo-American history… which they enjoy.

  • “I want to thank every sheriff in America. Since our founding, the independently elected sheriff has been the people’s protector, who keeps law enforcement close to and accountable to people through the elected process,” Sessions said in remarks at the National Sheriffs Association winter meeting, adding, “The office of sheriff is a critical part of the Anglo-American heritage of law enforcement.” – Jeff Sessions

MOONBATTERY notes Senator Schatz’s (like in “I shat” my pants?) offense taken and explains in written word what Medved does in spoken word:

This failure to despise Anglo-American heritage was seized upon at once by the thought police. Senator Brian Schatz (D-HI) righteously barked:

Do you know anyone who says “Anglo-American heritage” in a sentence? What could possibly be the purpose of saying that other than to pit Americans against each other? For the chief law enforcement officer to use a dog whistle like that is appalling. Best NO vote I ever cast.

Uh oh. Barack Obama is a dog-whistling racist too:

Obama, who taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago for more than a decade, said captured suspects deserve to file writs of habeus corpus.

Calling it “the foundation of Anglo-American law,” he said the principle “says very simply: If the government grabs you, then you have the right to at least ask, ‘Why was I grabbed?’ And say, ‘Maybe you’ve got the wrong person.’”

Schatz could use some edification regarding why of our Anglo-American legal tradition is relevant to the office of sheriff:

THE WORD “SHERIFF” IS A COMBINATION OF THE ANGLO-SAXON WORDS FOR “SHIRE” (WHAT WE TODAY CALL A “COUNTY”) AND “REEVE” (MEANING “GUARDIAN”). THE COUNTY GUARDIANS OF ANGLO-SAXON ENGLAND WERE RESPONSIBLE FOR ORGANIZING COMMUNAL DEFENSE.

Never mind. The most useful thing about dog whistles is that moonbat demagogues can hear them whenever they want to.

(emphasis added for history)

Communal Defense. You mean these Leftist Democrats are against a “communal” organization? How did a community organizer win the Presidency twice then? What about this:

  • We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.

Is that racist? We already have a community guardian, a sheriff. Is calling for another one assuming Anglo-American traditions a dog whistle?

POWERLINE ONE:

William F. Buckley used to remark about what he called the “invincible ignorance” of liberals. Too bad he didn’t live to see Sen. Brian Schatz. After Senator Schatz complained about Attorney General Jeff Sessions’s use of “Anglo-American tradition” as a “dog whistle” for racists, Paul called him a moron, presumably because there aren’t many stronger words available for ignorance this epic. On thing I will say for liberals like Schatz: they have a finely-tuned sense of hearing, as they are able to make out “dog whistles” that even dogs can’t hear.

I wonder whether Sen. Schatz has taken a look at the flag of the state he represents (Hawaii) lately:

The Hawaiian flag was designed at the request of King Kamehameha I. It has eight stripes of white, red and blue that represent the eight main islands. The flag of Great Britain is emblazoned in the upper left corner to honor Hawaii’s friendship with the British. The combination of the stripes of the United States flag and the Union Jack of Great Britain is said to have pleased the merchant shippers of both nations. The flag was adopted for official state use in 1959.

POWERLINE TWO:

Paul and I have already commented on the invincible ignorance of Sen. Brian Schatz’s comment that invoking “Anglo-American heritage” is racist, and it really does seem as though Sen. Schatz was jumping to someone’s talking points memo about what right-thinking people on the coasts should say about Attorney General Sessions. Because Schatz has company, such as this from the likely next governor of California:

read more

BTW, as an aside… someone at my LIVE LEAK posting of Medved’s audio noted the following: “Why is it ok to say African American, but now it’s taboo to say Anglo American?” Indeed.

Presidential Portraits

JUMP TO spoofs of Obama’s portrait below.

Here is some great commentary from a few different posts by Gateway Pundit (HERE and HERE):

The artist who painted former President Obama’s portrait for the Portrait Gallery, part of the Smithsonian Institution, has an interesting past.

[….]

Since Obama’s portrait was unveiled, I’ve received a flurry of text messages from outraged artist friends I made while living in New York. No, they weren’t outraged because they saw Kehinde Wiley’s other painting that feature black women murdering white women. They were outraged because Kehinde Wiley is a terrible artist who only rose to prominence, something they have been attempting to do their entire lives, in the art world because he is a racist gay black man. And if that werent enough: he doesn’t even paint his own work.

Back in April 2012, Wiley New York magazine wrote a glowing piece covering Wiley and his “global reach.” When Wiley was asked about one of the anti-white paintings in his studio, his response is not only shocking but shows a complete lack of any sort of intellectual depth:

A tall, elegant black woman in a long blue dress—the canvas is enormous, eight feet by ten feet—calmly staring down the viewer. In one hand, she holds a knife. In the other, a cleanly severed brunette female head. “It’s sort of a play on the ‘kill whitey’ thing,” Wiley says.

That unabashed bombast has made Wiley a walking superlative: the most successful black artist since Basquiat, possibly the wealthiest painter of his generation, certainly the one who made his name earliest (he was 26 for his first major solo show), a gay man who has become the great painter of machismo for the swag era, a bootstrapper from South Central who talks like a Yale professor (much of the time), a genius self-­promoter who’s managed to have it both ways in an art world that loves having its critical cake and eating the spectacle of it, too, and a crossover phenomenon who is at once the hip-hop world’s favorite fine artist (Spike Lee and LL Cool J own pieces) and the gallery world’s most popular hip-hop ambassador. Not to mention an all-around positive guy.

– NY Mag

[….]

Can you imagine for a second if George W. Bush, or any other former president, decided on a painter who was famous for depicting white people killing black people to paint his official portrait? It’s hard to imagine, right? Yea, that’s because it’s disgusting and backward.

DAILY CALLER notes as well that the artist puts sperm into his portraits — and many are saying Obama has a big goo on his face:

The artist who painted former President Barack Obama for the National Portrait Gallery in the Smithsonian has a history of including depictions of sperm in his work, and has been described as “predatory” and “perverse” by The Village Voice.

Kehinde Wiley is well-known for recreating famous paintings, but replacing the featured white person – often a noble or general – with a young black man. Wiley often met the men on the street, brought them into his studio, and had them pick a work to be painted into, the famously left-wing Village Voice reported in March 2015.

Wiley “lures young men into his studio with the promise of power and glamour,” writer and art critic Jessica Dawson wrote. She called the behavior “predatory” and “perverse.”

Dawson also points out the sexuality in several of his pieces and highlights that they often include sperm. Wiley’s rendition of “St. Andrew,” for example, shows a black man grinding “his crotch against a wooden cross” with “free-floating spermatozoa” painted on the canvas, Dawson wrote.

[…..]

A high-resolution version of the whole painting can be found here.

What you are witnessing is very similar to Homer Simpson… A disappearing President. Or as Clint Eastwood would say, an empty chair.

My rendition includes an ode to Obama’s “Choom Gang” days (marijuana leaves and joint added of course):


Welcome To The Digital Age


Whoopi Says Gays Meeting Pence Are Like Jews Meeting Nazis

  • A liberal society might, then, find it prudent to ignore homosexuality, It might well deem it unwise to peer into private bedrooms. However, this is not the issue before us. Today the demand is that homosexuality be endorsed and promoted with the full power of the law. This would require us to abandon the standard of nature, the one standard that can teach us the difference between freedom and slavery, between right and wrong. (Source)

Via NEWSBUSTERS:

On Thursday’s The View show, during a discussion of reports that gay Olympic skater Adam Rippon had turned down the opportunity to meet with Vice President Mike Pence because of his views on gay rights, co-host Whoopi Goldberg at one point defended the decision by suggesting that meeting with Pence would be like a Jew having a meeting with a Nazi.

[….]

She then asked: “But should they have a sit-down — should they sit down to talk with this gentleman who doesn’t even sort of recognize him as a person?”

After co-host Joy Behar joked about gay conversion therapy, Goldberg got back in and likened Vice President Pence to Nazis as she added: “I think it would be like asking a Jewish person to sit down and understand where the Nazi is coming from. I think that would be a difficult thing.”

This is just a reminder to THE VIEW…. same-sex attraction is a complicated thing. And many gays do reject the attraction by changing orientation, or rejecting the orientation to serve Christ in a more meaningful way (see more HERE). I wish to tackle this in two ways here. FIRST, sexuality is fluid when persons are young. It is a surge of hormones and environment that account for the following:

One study followed approximately 10,800 adolescents between the ages of 16 and 22 years old. Of the 16 year-old males who had exclusively SSA, 61% had opposite-sex attraction at age 17. For same-sex attracted females, 81% changed to opposite attraction in just one year.

The study also compared sexual attraction at ages 17 and 22, with similar results. For example, 75% of adolescent males with SSA at age 17 had opposite-sex attraction at age 22….


Recent studies indicate the same thing. An article published in Psychological Reports in 2000 investigated 882 dissatisfied homosexuals. After pursuing some form of therapy, 34% of the participants reported shifting their orientation to an exclusively or almost exclusively heterosexual orientation. They experienced statistically significant reductions in “homosexual thoughts and fantasies” and improvements in their “psychological, interpersonal, and spiritual well-being.”

(See more HERE)

Which is why we can really say there are more ex-gays alive today than gays. Is this “anti-science”? Another avenue in dealing with this is to show how the gay agenda is warping a proper understanding of nature presented to our children. Here is an example from another post of mine, “Gay Animals.”

Before I get to a continuing conversation, I wanted to talk about an example I heard of a long time ago, and it has to do with the “famous” gay penguins, Roy and Silo. So popular was this pair of “gay” penguins that children’s books were produced to explain that homosexuality should be acceptable, based on this male pair of penguins. (One being “And Tango Makes Three.”) As we will see, using arguments like these often backfires on the person who thinks behaviors rooted in nature should be applauded in the Homosapien world.

Conservapedia notes that in July of 2009, the alleged homosexual penguin pair in a California zoo crumbled under the weight of nature. Peter LaBarbera reported:

San Francisco’s Fox affiliate KTVU reports: “The San Francisco Zoo’s popular same-sex penguin couple has broken up.

“Male Magellan penguins Harry and Pepper have been together since 2003. The pair nested together and even incubated an egg laid by another penguin in 2008, but their relationship hit the rocks earlier this year when a female penguin, Linda, befriended Harry after her long-time companion died.

“Zookeepers say Harry and Linda are happy and were able to successfully nest this year,” reported KTVU.

But not everyone is celebrating Harry and Linda’s newfound love. Some believe there can be no such a thing as an “ex-gay” penguin. Upon news of Harry’s decision to fly the same-sex-coop, outspoken pro-homosexual activist and anti-ex-gay crusader Wayne Besen cried fowl:

“Attempts to change sexual orientation are patently offensive, discriminatory by definition, theologically shaky, uniformly unsuccessful and medically unsound!” exclaimed a visibly angry Besen. “There is no ‘ex-gay’ sexual orientation. Harry is simply in denial. He’s living what I call the ‘big lie.’”

When will we see a book on penguin sexual behavior showing that reparative therapy works, and there can be ex-gays? And that one can choose by volition over his or her nature, when is this kids book coming? The Telegraph expounds upon this behavior in penguins more as more is known:

The homosexual behaviour of male king penguins has already been noted in zoos.

Now in a new study, scientists have found the evidence of male pairs in the wild. The research found that more than a quarter of the colony in Antarctica were in same sex partners, mostly two males.

In the past, it was claimed that penguins could not discern between the sexes because they looked alike. Male pairs in zoos in the US and Germany have hatched and reared ‘adopted’ chicks.

However the new study by the Centre for Functional and Evolutionary Ecology in Montpellier, France found that the penguins are only pairing up with other males because they are “lonely”.

There are not enough females in the colony and the males have high levels of testosterone, which drives them to engage in mating displays – even if it is with other males.

During the mating season king penguins “flirt” with potential partners by closing their eyes, stretching their heads skyward and moving them in a half-circle to “take peeks” at one another.

The male pairs engaged in the displays for short periods of time but did not bond in the same way as a heterosexual pair would, by learning each other’s calls or caring for eggs.

Professor F. Stephen Dobson, one of the authors of the study published in the journal Ethology, said the number of same sex pairs was actually lower than expected. When the colony was studied over time he found all the ‘gay’ penguins chose a heterosexual partner. A female pair also ‘split up’ to raise an egg with male partner. (Emphasis added)

This “loneliness,” really high testosterone levels, is a great description the N.Y. Times gives to the Roy/Silo conundrum:

The two male chinstrap penguins had found each other in the big city. They had remained faithful. They had even raised a child. But then, not too long ago, they lost their home. Silo’s eye began to wander, and last spring he forsook his partner of six years at the Central Park Zoo and took up with a female from California named Scrappy. Of late, Roy has been seen alone, in a corner, staring at a wall.

This tale of betrayal, sexual identity and penguin lust set in Manhattan has reverberated around the world. IT HAS “ROCKED THE GAY SCENE,” AS THE POPULAR BLOGGER ANDREW SULLIVAN, WHO IS GAY, WROTE IN THE SUNDAY TIMES OF LONDON THIS WEEK.

No one was more disappointed than Rob Gramzay, the senior penguin keeper at the zoo, who said simply in an interview yesterday, “They seemed to be a good pair together.”…. (emphasis added)

“Heartbreaking!” I am sure Andrew Sullivan was beside himself… weeping and gnashing of teeth was worldwide I am sure. Okay, a “pop-culture” example removed, lets move to my discussion via Facebook. Again, to be clear, since Dr. Antonio Pardo makes it known that there isn’t an animal that’s exclusively “gay,” and we have a popular example of this in Silo “switching teams,” I see two things:

1) this can at the most be an argument for bisexuality, and

2) the mutability of homosexuality.

(read it all)

Obamagate

Here are two very long episodes of the Mark Levin Show where Dan Bongino was filling in. Both are similar, Part II emphasizes more article referencing as well as the NEW YORK TIMES breaking news about the CIA spending $100,000 to get dirt on Trump. Please take note, I was going to merely link to Dan’s “OBAMNAGATE FILES” page, but I want to show the source for each link. “Enjoy” (If you have time for only one of these — listen to PART II):

PART ONE

PART TWO

[The pictured partial news story to the below/right is from the New York Times.]

On the setup of Lt. General Mike Flynn:

Here is Mark Levin a year ago (March 2017) using only Leftist sources:


MORE