Month: June 2012
Pre Mubarak: 60 Female MPs ~ Post Mubarak: Just 8 (Islamo-Fascism and Its Treatment of Women)
From the Egypt Indepedent, “Alarming assaults on women in Tahrir Square”:
Reports of assaults on women in Tahrir, the epicenter of the uprising that forced Hosni Mubarak to step down last year, have been on the rise with a new round of mass protests…
Continuing:
The post-Mubarak political reality for women also has deteriorated. They have lost political ground in the 16 months since Mubarak’s ouster — even winning fewer seats in Parliament in the first free and fair elections in decades. The 508-member Parliament has only eight female legislators, a sharp drop from the more than 60 in the 2010 Parliament thanks to a Mubarak-era quota. Women’s rights groups also fear the growing power of Islamist groups will lead to new restrictions.
Detroit Made Its Bet With the Devil, and Lost!
How Darwinian evolution refutes naturalism and atheism (Serious Saturday)
This is very connected to this Serious Saturday, and it is by an apologist I enjoy, Dr. Ken Samples, so, enjoy:
From video description:
How Darwinian evolution refutes naturalism and atheism. Titled: “Darwin’s Doubt: Can Naturalistically Evolved Human Minds Be Trusted to Yield True Beliefs About Reality?” Presented to CNS on November 15, 2010 by: Dr. Ken Samples, Reasons to Believe
A reflective person by nature, Charles Darwin initially had doubts about his proposed theory of evolution. Darwin worried about the philosophical implications of his biological theory. One of the areas in particular that bothered Darwin was whether an evolved human mind could be trusted to produce reliable truth about reality. This lecture by professor Kenneth Samples proposes that atheistic, evolutionary naturalism faces three potential defeaters in its attempt to explain humankind’s rational faculties in general and truth about reality in particular.
This is a PowerPoint video of the lecture. The PowerPoint slides begin to change 3 minutes into the lecture.
Columbia Spec-Ops with a Remington Modular Sniper Rifle
Mayor Bloomberg`s Coercive Soda-Ban Is Evolution In Action ~ We Evolved to Need Soda-Bans
From video description:
Dennis Prager reads from an editorial written by an evolutionary biologist from Harvard via the New York Times. The professor says that mankind evolved to need a “nanny state,” so-to-speak. This is how tyrannical states thought to be needed by the intelligentsia of the Left. Evolution.
For more clear thinking like this from Dennis Prager… I invite you to visit: http://www.dennisprager.com/
“The stronger must dominate and not mate with the weaker, which would signify the sacrifice of its own higher nature. Only the born weakling can look upon this principle as cruel, and if he does so it is merely because he is of a feebler nature and narrower mind; for if such a law [natural selection] did not direct the process of evolution then the higher development of organic life would not be conceivable at all…. If Nature does not wish that weaker individuals should mate with the stronger, she wishes even less that a superior race should intermingle with an inferior one; because in such a case all her efforts, throughout hundreds of thousands of years, to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being, may thus be rendered futile.” (Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, translator/annotator, James Murphy [New York: Hurst and Blackett, 1942], pp. 161-162.)
From First Things:
…I’m sorry to be blunt, but the notion that Darwinism supports conservatism is absurd. Steven Pinker notoriously gleaned support for infanticide from the Origin of Species. Other Darwinists have argued that rape and inner–city teenage pregnancy are evolutionary adaptations. None of these is a conservative goal. If Professor Arnhart’s ideas were correct we would expect that university biology departments would be hotbeds of conservatism. Take it from me, they aren’t. Perhaps Prof. Arnhart should explain to John Maynard Smith, the prominent evolutionary theoretician and Marxist, how natural selection supports conservative principles. Or Steven Jay Gould. Or—to show the historical roots of conservative Darwinism—J. B. S. Haldane, who was a big fan of Stalin.
Darwinism—even if true—has no resources to support any real philosophy, whether conservative or liberal, vegetarian or royalist. Organisms have traits, the traits vary, some variations help the organism leave more offspring than other organisms—that’s the whole Darwinian ball of wax. Nothing in Darwinism tells you what those traits should be, either now or in the future, or even what a “trait” is. Nothing says whether it is the average of the traits that is important, the novelties, or the most extreme variation. “Important” has no meaning in Darwinism other than to leave more offspring, which can be done by means pleasant or brutal. A person can use Darwinism to justify any preference; he simply points to some person or animal with the trait he likes and argues that it’s natural. And everyone else can do the same. Postmodernists are not known to be hostile to natural selection…
Medved Deals a Death Blow to the Mantra that Republicans Outspent Democrats 7-to-1 in Wisconsin
From video description:
(Posted by Religio-Political Talk) After playing the audio (in this case, the video) of the “end of democracy” guy, Michael Medved starts looking at what was really spent and by whom in Wisconsin. In rare form, the New York Times helps with the truth in this area, and their graph easily explains that it was a 3-to-1 disparage. Similar to how much Obama outraised McCain (take note that there is also a controversy regarding undisclosed overseas funds given to Obama as well — see image below). In other words, id this is the end of democracy because Gov. Walker outraised Barrett, then wouldn’t it have died in 2008?
After listening to this short blurb you will add another arrow to your quiver to shoot down brain dead libtards and their bumper sticker slogans. Medved takes a call on this topic that I include in this posting.
These numbers do not include the huge machine that bused in protestors for months, feeding them and housing them on many unions (out of state unions) dole. I wonder what the whole tally is when considering the man power put into the state by outside unions.
For more clear thinking like this from Michael Medved… I invite you to visit: https://www.medvedmedhead.com/
Here is BigJournalisms comments (Black & Right h/t):
=========================================================
…Not so fast. As it turns out, labor unions spent an additional $21 million on the recall election. When it came to state senate recall elections back in September 2011, Democrats outspent Republicans $23.4 million to $20.5 million.
While Politico’s Glenn Thrush says that there’s “only one paragraph you really need to read this ayem, courtesy of the Center for Public Integrity,” then quotes a paragraph talking about Walker’s biggest donors, that’s hackish reporting. The CPI actually adds:
Campaign contributions tell only part of the story. National unions have kept Barrett’s campaign alive by funding outside groups dedicated to defeating Walker. More than a year since Walker limited collective bargaining rights for most public employees, the nation’s three largest public unions — the National Education Association (NEA), American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), and the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) — have channeled at least $2 million from their treasuries and super PACs to two Wisconsin-based independent expenditure groups.
It’s also worth noting that while Republicans largely had to build their ground game from the ground up, labor unions have a consistent ground game – funded by tax dollars. All of the donations to Walker and pro-Walker groups were not mandated. The same is not true of Big Labor dollars, which come from mandatory unions dues in most cases.
In terms of strict numbers, Walker spent some $30 million; Barrett and the unions spent $25 million. That’s not a 7-to-1 differential. And when you add in unions’ inherent advantage in ground game, you’re talking about a better-than-even split for Barrett….
Jon Stewart Mentions MSNBC Bias
Tooo Funny! Ed Schultz Tweet 18-minutes Before MSNBC Called the Race for Walker
`Clean Up on Aisle 9`
Via The Blaze:
The liberal mantra coming after the Wis. recall election is likely to be that it isn’t that important in the grand scheme of things and that it has little to no implication for the fall election. But that’s not how they were treating it months ago.
The group American Future Fund has come out with a scathing and telling ad showing how important liberals such as Rachel Maddow, Michael Moore, and Russ Feingold thought the election was before Tuesday’s results. It cleverly opens with the question, “Do you recall?”