Author: Papa Giorgio
The Boy Who Cried “NAZI”
The Left has been so busy calling EVERYONE Nazis, when ACTUAL Nazis show up, it falls on deaf ears. Here to illustrate this problem is Timmy, the boy who cried “NAZI!”
Two Million Dollar Crapper
John Stossel investigates a New York City park bathroom that cost $2 million to build. For that price you might expect gold-plated fixtures—but it’s just a tiny building with four toilets and four sinks.
New York City Parks Commissioner Mitchell Silver says $2 million was a good deal because “New York City is the most expensive place to build.” He estimates that future bathrooms will cost more than $3 million. Commissioner Silver argues that this park, on the outskirts of Brooklyn, will get so much use that it must be built to last, and that can be expensive.
Yet privately managed Bryant Park, in the middle of Manhattan, gets much more use and its recent bathroom renovation cost just $271,000. Since government spends other people’s money, it doesn’t need to worry about cost or speed. Every decision is bogged down by time-wasting “public engagement,” inflated union wages, and productivity-killing work rules. Two million dollars for a bathroom. That’s your government at work.
Venezuela: John Stossel vs. Noam Chomsky
Stossel has an exchange with famed M.I.T. linguist Noam Chomsky, who once praised former President Hugo Chávez socialist policies.
Iraq: Won and Lost
What if people have the war in Iraq backwards? What if George W. Bush and the U.S. military won it, and Barack Obama and the Democrats gave it away? Well, we don’t have to wonder what if, because Pete Hegseth, who served in Iraq, explains what happened.
3 Ways Antifa and White Nationalists are the SAME
Here is a FB comment of mine:
Maybe if enough of these Democrat Mayors and Governors take down enough Confederate reminders the masses will finally think Democrats had nothing to do with the Civil War, slavery, or the Trail of Tears, etc.
Another almost comical (if people haven’t been getting killed or badly hurt in the violence mainly from the Left) thing is that technically the people marching [with a permit… the KKK] are socialists. The people countering them are by-n-large socialists. Fighting over a Democratic history.
Wow.
One should note the first blows thrown were from the Black Shirt Fascists (Antifa) against the Brown Shirt Fascists (KKK) — BOTH are socialists.
- In the wake of Charlottesville, many are tempted to think that White Nationalists and Antifa are ideological opposites. On the contrary, I would argue that they are two sides of the same coin and share far more in common than either side dare admit. Allow me to present the top 3 ways they are the SAME. (1) Both Reject Peaceful Assembly; (2) Both Play Victim Card/Identity Politics; (3) Both Hate Israel.
Here is a list of why the White Nationalists and KKK are Leftists:
- They are typically socialist in their political views, and thus support the welfare state for personal financial reasons (poor) and ideological reasoning (socialist); or for the reason that it is a way of controlling minorities (racist reasoning). A modern plantation so-to-speak; There is a shared hatred for Israel and supporting of groups wanting to exterminate the Jews (Palestinians for instance). (TRUMP SIZED MYTHS)
This is a good list of Antifa “need-to-knows” about Antifa:
1. Antifa uses fascist tactics to achieve its goals.
2. The Department of Homeland Security labeled Antifa’s actions as “domestic terrorism.”
3. Antifa uses “black bloc” attacks to promote violence, sow chaos, and evade law enforcement.
4. Antifa’s garbled ideology is grounded in Marxism.
5. The mainstream Left is praising Antifa.
[….]
7. Antifa conflates speech with violence, believing that “offensive” rhetoric, “hate” speech, and micro-aggressions should be counteracted with macro-aggressions, or physical violence.
A Must Read Gay Patriot Post Regarding Charlottesville
A must read GAY PATRIOT article, of which this is the end comment:
….And that’s just a quick Google Bing and DuckDuckGo search. Its really just the tip. And it gets worse, the stigmatization of white people is now being expanded to public elementary and high schools.
So, you have Government spending millions of dollars to stigmatize a class of people based on their skin color. What makes anyone think this can go on and not have some of those people get angry about it?
This is not intended as an apologetic for the events in Charlottesville. My only point is you can’t teach people not be racist by being racist.
“I’m A Woman. There’s No Turning Back [again]” ~ He Said
- When a Man stops believing in God he doesn’t then believe in nothing, he believes anything. – G. K. Chesterton
Before getting to the excellent commentary by the Chicks’ on the Right, I wanted to note something. What I found Interesting was when I did an initial YouTube search on “Ria Cooper,” the above man, I came across this video of a skin condition where a black woman is turning white through “loss of pigmentation” — her cells turning off the ability to produce melanin. (Known as Vitiligo.) In today day-n-age — maybe as with others — what is lost is that we are all one race, the human race.
And the differences themselves between the ethnicities is small, like fat around the eyes or lips (Asian or black), melanin in the cells being produced being on or off in varying degrees (white to black), etc. CULTURE is the biggest separator of ethnicity.
HOWEVER, the difference between male and female is much deeper, genetically and physiologically speaking. If you have a uterus/womb, lactate around birth, xx vs. xy chromosome, a vagina, etc. These are HUGE differences that make the comparison between “races” child’s play. Yet here we are in a culture that says a baby in the womb is not a person till the day before delivery, but that says men can give birth. That say a white woman cannot merely decide to be black, but that says a man can be “woman of the year.”
Crazy times.
CHICKS ON THE RIGHT comment on the issue via that MIRROR’S story on this:
….Meet Ria Cooper. I don’t even know what pronoun to use for this individual, because he/she has swapped his/her gender three different times already, and he/she is only 23.
Cooper was born a boy, so I’m going to stick with “he” from here on out.
Cooper first switched his gender at 15. Why Cooper’s parents allowed that to happen is beyond me. He should actually be the poster child for not allowing teens to switch genders, because holy smokes, he has changed his mind MULTIPLE times.
As I mentioned above, Cooper– who currently goes by Ria– was born a boy. A boy named Brad. He managed to convince everyone around him– even medical professionals– that he was a girl trapped in a boy’s body and became “Britain’s youngest sex-swap patient” at the tender age of 15.
Doctors gave him the works– puberty blockers, female hormones, you name it. And he lived happily ever after as a woman. He was finally his true self.
JUST KIDDING. His female identity didn’t really work out, so he decided to transition back to a dude and live as a gay man instead. He made that decision about three years later. Brad was back.
But now Brad is leaving again. Or– he’s already gone. He’s decided to give living as a woman another go. You see, Cooper didn’t switch back to being a man because he wanted to. He still knew he was a woman. He just didn’t want society to judge him, or something.
“I’ve always known I was female – it was everyone else who was confused, not me. I was wearing make-up and heels at the age of 12, there was no question,” he said, according to the Mirror.
“But I felt under so much pressure from society that six years later I caved in. I was torn. I knew exactly who I was, but I also wanted to conform and be ‘normal,’” he continued.
It’s your fault. You’re confused. You made him uncomfortable. You kept him from being his true self. This hasnothing to do with the fact that transforming your physical body does ZERO to address serious mental issues. This is a cultural problem caused by you, you transphobic scummy jackwagon.
Speaking of mental issues, during the first transition– when he was a woman the first time around– he struggled with depression, became a prostitute and tried to commit suicide. But please. Tell me again that this isn’t a mental issue.
But now? Now he’s “older and wiser” and knows “exactly” who he is.
“I’m Ria and I’m a woman. There’s no turning back,” he said.
Unless of course he turns back, like last time. That’s always an option…..
Sexism = “Sweetheart”
CHICKS ON THE RIGHT note the follow up… (video at their link)…
Wait. It’s not over. Thank goodness, Judd provided us with an update.
The manager apologized to her as she went down her long list of grievances. He also gave her coffee vouchers and praised her for speaking up. Basically, he stroked her infected, bloated ego and made her feel like a hero. I mean, she already knew she was a good person, but now she feels like a SUPER good person, because she spoke up. YOU ARE WELCOME WORLD.
Project for a New American Century Myths (PNAC)
This is an importation of a few posts that are slightly edited for this platform and will be edited — more so — in the future. so I will simply start with the most recent post on my old site and work backwards…. here, Rosie O’Donnmel pushes the myth of an evil cabal planning the Iraq and middle-East takeover — otherwise know as Project for a New American Century (PNAC). I will precede the posts with a date:
Rosie O’Donnell Still Pushing 911 Conspiracy Myths/Lies… PNAC Her Biggest
(Originally Posted March 12, 2010)
- (Video Description) Talk about a stubborn mule: three years after misleading the public during The View regarding 9-11, Rosie O’Donnell is at it again. In fact, this is the second time in a week she’s used her radio show to revisit her widely-debunked theories.
Take note that some of these links are broken. Just shorten the link to its main website URL to explore. The following mainly comes from 9/11 MYTHS… READING BETWEEN THE LIES:
MISQUOTE EXAMPLE #1
The cabal of war fanatics advising the White House secretly planned a “transformation” of defense policy years ago, calling for war against Iraq and huge increases in military spending. A “catalyzing event — like a new Pearl Harbor”—was seen as necessary to bring this about.
MISQUOTE EXAMPLE #2
The victims of the 9/11 attacks have been disaster for Muslims because 19 Arabs were named as hijackers of the planes, but they’ve been a dream come true for the PNAC ‘think-tank’ whose 2000 Statement of Principles stated a “catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor” would advance their policies, i.e. justify wars and “regime changes”.
MISQUOTE EXAMPLE #3
There is circumstantial evidence that some part of the US administration was involved in the attack. It is certain that there was a strong desire on the part of some members for a “catalyzing event”, like Pearl Harbor, in order to provide the impetus for the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq; however desire is not proof of complicity.
These examples should suffice. So how does one respond to this tired old canard? with the real quote (the truth shall set you free). Here is the response via the counter conspiracy site, 9/11 MYTHS:
So, the first quote tells us it’s about war in Iraq and huge increases in military spending, the second says it’s about justifying war and regime changes, the third and fourth link the quote to war on Iraq and Afghanistan. It seems there’s broad agreement, so can they all be wrong? Let’s see.
First, the actual full quote is this.
“Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor”.
The odd word here seems to be “transformation”. What do they mean? Let’s look back to the beginning of the same chapter.
“To preserve American military preeminence in the coming decades, the Department of Defense must move more aggressively to experiment with new technologies and operational concepts, and seek to exploit the emerging revolution in military affairs. Information technologies,in particular, are becoming more prevalent and significant components of modern military systems. These information technologies are having the same kind of transforming effects on military affairs as they are having in the larger world. The effects of this military transformation will have profound implications for how wars are fought, what kinds of weapons will dominate the battlefield and, inevitably, which nations enjoy military preeminence”.
So “transformation” refers to the process of introducing more information technologies into the military. What does 9/11 have to do with that? Nothing at all. In fact, the attacks demonstrated that one of the PNAC’s pet schemes, a global missile shield, is entirely useless when planes can become bombs….
Can you see why many get frustrated when talking to 9/11 “truthers”? They use the title without actually using the meaning… truth.
PNAC – Project for a New American Century
(Originally Posted: December 31, 2008)
This PDF entitle, The PNAC and Other Myths: A Short List of Observations, was originally found at THE JOURNAL OF DEBUNKING 9/11. I posted this in response to this post at THE WORLD ACCORDING TO KIMBA…
- …His brother Jeb is not only considering, but 90% sure he will throw his hat into the GOP ring for the Presidency in 2008. Unfortunately for Jeb, the hat will read “I With Stupid.” What a wonderful prospect this is, yet another President who is a card carrying member of the PNAC group. The Bush brothers are pictured above left with one of the carcasses they left behind on the road to the White House…. (emphasis added)
The below is such a great help in understanding what the “Project for a New American Century” is all about… by refuting the crazy conspiracy people who love to link to anti-Semitic sites.
PNAC
Mr. Legge, like many critics of the administration in recent years, attributes both the 9/11 attacks, and the subsequent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to a plan produced by the group Project For a New American Century (PNAC). From the introduction to his paper:
It is certain that there was a strong desire on the part of some members for a “catalyzing event”, like Pearl Harbor, [3] in order to provide the impetus of the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq; however desire is not proof of complicity.
The footnote supporting this argument then points to:
3. A plan existed. The Project for the New American Century (PNAC)
“The process of transformation.” The plan said, “is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event- like a new Pearl Harbor.”
While the somewhat edited quote,1 is superficially accurate, the conclusion which is drawn from it, is completely wrong. This is not only “not proof of complicity”, this is such a mischaracterization of what that quote says as bordering on academic fraud. The author states that the “Pearl Harbor” they are referring to is “in order to provide the impetus of the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq”. The invasions of these two countries, however, are nowhere mentioned in the PNAC document, they are not even vaguely alluded to. It exists purely in the imagination of the person writing this paper. In fact the only time the paper mentions Iraqi policy at all, is in regards to continuing the containment policy around Iraq with regards to the no-fly zones,2 not in invading it.
Afghanistan only merits a brief historical mention, in regards to the cruise missile attacks carried out by President Clinton in 1998, and only while discussing the Navy’s decreased staffing. A researcher does not need to try and infer what PNAC is talking about, however, the “process of transformation” that they are referring to is specifically discussed on the page previous to the “Pearl Harbor”quote (emphasis added):
To preserve American military preeminence in the coming decades, the Department of Defense must move more aggressively to experiment with new technologies and operational concepts, and seek to exploit the emerging revolution in military affairs. Information technologies, in particular, are becoming more prevalent and significant components of modern military systems. These information technologies are having the same kind of TRANSFORMING effects on military affairs as they are having in the larger world. The effects of this military TRANSFORMATION will have profound implications for how wars are fought, what kinds of weapons will dominate the battlefield and, inevitably, which nations enjoy military preeminence.
It is no surprise that proponents of this theory only quote the one sentence, not even the whole sentence in this case, because if you read the rest of the paragraph, it becomes abundantly clear, that this has absolutely nothing to do with US international policies after 9/11 (emphasis added):
Further, the process of TRANSFORMATION, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor. Domestic politics and industrial policy will shape the pace and content of transformation as much as the requirements of current missions. A decision to suspend or terminate aircraft carrier production, as recommended by this report and as justified by the clear direction of military technology, will cause great upheaval. Likewise, systems entering production today – the F-22 fighter, for example – will be in service inventories for decades to come. Wise management of this process will consist in large measure of figuring out the right moments to halt production of current-paradigm weapons and shift to radically new designs. The expense associated with some programs can make them roadblocks to the larger process of transformation – the Joint Strike Fighter program, at a total of approximately $200 billion, seems an unwise investment. Thus, this report advocates a two-stage process of change – transition and transformation – over the coming decades.
Furthermore, there is no “strong desire” for this “catalyzing change”, not even the technological transformation which they are actually talking about. They are merely pointing out the likely timetable for these changes to take place, thus the sentence at the end about the process taking decades.
And regards to the Pearl Harbor reference, what precisely were they talking about? A sneak attack by terrorists using fanatical devotion combined with box cutters? Well, curiously enough, the PNAC document uses this Pearl Harbor reference in another part, which despite clarifying the meaning, didn’t manage to make Mr. Legge’s paper.
absent a rigorous program of experimentation to investigate the nature of the revolution in military affairs as it applies to war at sea, the Navy might face a future Pearl Harbor – as unprepared for war in the post-carrier era as it was unprepared for war at the dawn of the carrier age.
They aren’t just talking about a sneak attack, they are talking about a sneak attack using a technology that we are unprepared for, just like the Japanese aircraft carriers on December 7th, 1941. Arabs with box cutters and fake bombs may be a sneak attack, but they were hardly something that could have been prevented by this technological transformation they have spent the entire paper advocating.
An in-depth analysis of this 90 page document also shows that an invasion of Afghanistan andIraq not only fails to assist them in their “transformation”, but it would most likely hinder them. In fact the study points to the increased operational tempo of the operations in the Balkans as detracting from needed R & D funds.7 It also discusses the difficulty of carrying out this transformation without impacting even the current international obligations.8 Somehow we are to believe that two expensive and manpower intensive wars would improve this process.
Mr. Legge then continues this paragraph with:
The fact that the air attack on Afghanistan commenced on October 9, less than a month later, is not proof either, but does suggest the possibility that plans for the invasion were already in place.
This is one of many cases where the author “suggests” things that he admits he can’t prove. I am not aware of the academic merit of just suggesting things. If you have no proof, or even a logical hypothesis, then why are you bringing up the subject? Perhaps if he had done some research on this area he wouldn’t need to suggest as much. One good example is General Tommy Franks’ autobiography, “An American Soldier”, which describes the hectic process and frantic international negotiations needed to prepare for the invasion.
In regards to the “less than a month” part, on August 7, 1998 over 200 people were killed in near simultaneous bombings at US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Less than 2 weeks later, on August 20th, the US carried out attacks against suspected terrorist targets in Afghanistan and the Sudan. Is Mr. Legge going to “suggest” that Clinton had plans prepared ahead of time?
Some of the original FOOTNOTES
1. This quote from the paper titled “Rebuilding America’s defenses,” and actually reads in full from page 51: “Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.”
2. Page 73-74 “Likewise, terminating the no-fly zones over Iraq would call America’s positions as guarantor of security in the Persian Gulf into question; the reaction would be the same in East Asia following the withdrawal of US forces or a lowering of American military presence.”
[….]
7. Page 50 “Moreover, the Pentagon, constrained by limited budgets and pressing current missions, has seen funding for experimentation and transformation crowded out in recent years.”
8. Ibid page 50: The United States cannot simply declare a “strategic pause” while experimenting with new technologies and operational concepts.”
True Heroes of History vs. Faux Pop-Culture Heroes
In an age of pseudo political “science” and a waning of an understanding of true heroism in the face of evil — mainly due to a lessening of what evil “is.” I previously wrote about this true hero that had her Nobel Prize swiped from her by the fraud known as Al Gore. Maybe he believes that “global warming” is the #1 issue facing humanity in order anesthetize his understanding that Irena Sendler is a TRUE hero of humanity — who fought real evil. Al Gore’s predictions have failed to come to pass (in Old Testament times he very well may have been put to death), and the following graph shows how fleeting political and environmental heroes can be in the face of real one… like IRENA SENDLER, who should have won the Nobel Peace Prize that year instead of Gore.
JOE BASTARDI finishes off a post (after the above graph) by saying this:
….But there is more to me. Let me lay my cards on the table. Over the years I have become a big fan of Israel. I am not Jewish, but I find the history of the Jewish people remarkable, if not astonishing. What happened in World War II cannot be put into words. Here we have a case of someone with actions far beyond the fantasy of a forecast of tomorrow that took a back seat to … what? Now let me ask you this: If you were in the running for the Nobel Prize against Irena, would you even accept the award understanding that what you are doing involves an agenda that is relying on future events versus actual heroic accomplishments in one of mankind’s darkest hours? Who would do that?
Even more distressing is the idea that you actually equate your cause with causes that have real value for the people who are involved in it. For instance, equating “climate change” with racial equality. That is a flat-out insult to that cause. Or labeling people who disagree with you as “deniers” or “Nazis,” which shows total disrespect for people who can never forget what happened in one of man’s darkest hours. Shame on you. Shame on you trying to equate your straw man argument with real problems that people bled and died for and the problems the world faces today. Shame on the people who think that the heroism of the past is less worthy than fantasy-driven utopian agendas in the future.
I am glad Al Gore has his new movie out. It reminded me of Irena Sendler, who he beat out for the Nobel Prize. Because it gave me a chance to write on someone whose story should be known and once again expose someone who has gotten rich off something that can’t hold a candle to the bravery of people in the era that Irena Sendler exemplified.
Is this an example of the Left relying on old white, wealthy males to guide society rather than lauding women of history?
Steven Crowder Interviews Dinesh D’Souza About “Fascism”
Reducing the scope of government and giving more power to the individual doesn’t sound like fascism, so why are Democrats trying to pretend Republicans are the fascists?