Author: Papa Giorgio

“Gay” Animals

Published by Papa Giorgio

“Properly speaking, homosexuality does not exist among animals…. For reasons of survival, the reproductive instinct among animals is always directed towards an individual of the opposite sex. Therefore, an animal can never be homosexual as such. Nevertheless, the interaction of other instincts (particularly dominance) can result in behavior that appears to be homosexual.” ~ Dr. Antonio Pardo, Professor of Bioethics at the University of Navarre, Spain

I have been challenged with this same statement above many times, but have never posted on the topic. So here it is to be entered officially in my growing library of responses to those opposed to the traditional, historical, classical definition of marriage.

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.

More on #2: if people argued and used this example to export homosexual behavior from the animal kingdom to the “animal” Homo sapiens… then for THAT to be a valid argument, one must now admit that the example has changed to show — from nature — that homosexuality is mutable.

Here I wanted to slow down some thinking of a gentleman who typically goes into long prose that have nothing to do with the topic discussed. As you can see, it took me a while to get J.R. to keep to one topic. I will include his attempt to get off topic. Many are use to this tactic and it keeps them from having to deal with any one-example specifically. Here is the statement by J.R. that got me interested in conversation with him:

  • “Mammals of many species express homosexual behavior.”

Actual Conversation

So I started out:

...ME

I would love to dialogue with you about one of your evidential claims supporting homosexuality.

☑ “Mammals of many species express homosexual behavior.”

Would you like to discuss this all too often point used/made in this discussion with me?

[….]

just let me know “yes” or “no.” I will kick off the conversation by making a couple distinctions to what the foundational views of many here are and the view that evidential claim you inserted into the conversation comes from, followed by a question. I will not attack you and will most earnestly try and respond to you with respect and sincerity.

I also understand it is a beautiful day out (at least in SoCal right now), so I or you may not be able to respond immediately to a conversational point. Work, family, etc., can take away from time like this. I will post my “legal” statement in order to set up the parameters for what is missing from these discussions behind the keyboard:

“By-the-by, for those reading this I will explain what is missing in this type of discussion due to the media used. Genuflecting, care, concern, one being upset (does not entail being “mad”), etc… are all not viewable because we are missing each other’s tone, facial expressions, and the like. I afford the other person I am dialoguing with the best of intentions and read his/her comments as if we were out having a talk over a beer at a bar or meeting a friend at Starbucks. (I say this because there seems to be a phenomenon of etiquette thrown out when talking through email or Face Book, lots more public cussing and gratuitous responses.) You will see that often times I USE CAPS — which in www lingo for YELLING. I am not using it this way, I use it to merely emphasize and often times say as much: *not said in yelling tone, but merely to emphasize*. So in all my discussions I afford the best of thought to the other person as I expect he or she would to me… even if dealing with tough subjects as the above. I have had more practice at this than most, and with half-hour pizza, one hour photo and email vs. ‘snail mail,’ know that important discussions take time to meditate on, inculcate, and to process. So be prepared for a good thought provoking discussion if you so choose one with me.”

In fact, I am going to enjoy a Dogfish 60-Minute right now with the neighbors ~ Much thought and I look forward to conversation.

...J.R.

Please whatever I write take it with a totally nuetral tone. I actually don’t have a persistant perspective on any of this as I’ve just recently started researching this. As a matter of fact I live in NC and voted for the amendment to our constitution to support marriage as between one man and one woman. That’s when i really started doing some research.

...ME

So no response is your response? In other words, are you asking to have an answer for such a statement? If you believe that such a statement made by you is totally neutral (either the statement or the motive behind it), why say it? I am confused, maybe you can explain better to me what the purpose of your posting was then.

One of my favorite quotes came to mind:

  • “A liberal is a man too broadminded to take his own side in a quarrel.” ~ Robert Frost
...J.R.

I guess I just don’t quite understand what you’re asking. I made a statement about homosexuality in animals. Its not my opinion, its a studied phenomena. I was just making a statement. Do you understand what it means to have a discourse and alter your views from that discussion? or is this just a platform for you to voice your ideas and have a closed ear to others? I dont mean to come across as harsh but I don’t see a two sided conversation going on here. Here’s one of the links I based the state ment on. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html Oh and just so you know, i took the political questionaire from politicaltest.net and Im a severe conservative. That just doesnt make me close minded like some of them are.

...ME

Okay, I can see you are beating around the bush. So I will start the conversation.

Would you agree many here have a differing view of man’s nature via Intelligent Design, in other words, God created man as something separate, different in His nature than that of the animal Kingdom? This is a simple yes or no response, FYI.

...J.R.(a)

Yes – is my answer although your question two different questions, yes to the second. Yes to the first as well

[….]

As I was typing my next question to keep the conversation on track, J.R. posted this next part. To which I also responded to. So my two responses should be seen as in order of what was written by J.R.:

...J.R.(b)

Yes – is my answer although your question two different questions, yes to the second. Yes to the first as well

Here are my two responses, respectively:

...ME

(a) Great, would you also agree that people that wish to connect animal homosexual acts to humans have a more philosophical naturalist views point that guides this connection. In other words, a “goo to you” view of human history to put it simply. This type of thinking guides such enterprises like, ohhh, evolutionary psychology. So again, the simple question is typically those making such statements are evolutionist, they would not include God in its summation of mankind?

(b) J.R., we are talking about one subject. Dialoging about IT. If you and I were out having drinks, I would have the same conversation with you as I am here. this is not rocket science, or catch J.R. in a snafu 101… it is a conversation to get you to think deeper about the ultimate issues, from YOUR examples.

...J.R.

Sean, I have spent several hours since yesterday reading through your papers and website. I value differing opinions and perspectives ( I have an aggressive atheist on my friends list that really hurts me some of the things that get posted. But i feel I need to see all aspects of any argument. I’ll be the first to say I get confused and I don’t understand a lot of the scientific jargon I read. I just try to see all sides of it.As the Bereans, I value looking for truth. 1 Peter 3:15. So I’m sorry if I have come across as anything but gentleness and respect. I would only ask the same. I have just been a little concerned by your responses that I’m being talked at, not talked with.

...ME

J.R., I am asking a simple question. Do you think the foundational view that homosexuality in the animal kingdom — as being related to mankind in any way — is a viewpoint held by philosophical naturalists? Its a simple question really.

At this point, I went and grabbed from his Facebook profile a favorite quote of his by Eleanore Roosevelt to stir up his focus:

...ME

We are talking BIG ideas here,

  • “Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people” ~ Elanor Roosevelt
...J.R.

I do not know it that is or not a view held by philosophical naturalists.

Now J.R. is starting to catch himself, and I applaud him actively trying to stay focused.

...J.R.

Okay you didnt answer my question above. What is your answer?

...ME

You can work it out, for instance, National Geographic, as an organization, believes man evolved from an odorless/colorless gas which formed into solid matter, rain fell on rocks… eventually leading to us. They would posit that mankind ultimately came from the animal kingdom — and would connect importance to homosexuality in the animal kingdom as viewing man’s sexuality. Yeah?

Its simple:

  • a theist believes mankind was created separate from the animal kingdom, and philosophical naturalist believes mankind has its roots through evolution alone.

So again:

  • Do you think the foundational view that homosexuality in the animal kingdom — as being related to mankind in any way — is a viewpoint held by philosophical naturalists (Neo-Darwinists/evolutionists)?

[….]

So Again:

  • Do you think the foundational view that homosexuality in the animal kingdom — as being related to mankind in any way — is a viewpoint held by philosophical naturalists?
...J.R.

I would agree with that statement yes.

Miracles do happen!

...ME

Great! Now, if the naturalist view is correct, what is the logical conclusion of this “fact” you mentioned that National Geographic would acknowledge? Since homosexuality exists in nature same-sex marriage should be allowed in mankind’s.

One should take note that most of these homosexual acts in nature are essentially rape. The alpha male holding his power over other animals in the group.

Rape is very prominent in the animal kingdom, as well as cannibalism:

  • “1,500 recorded species of animals preforming the ACT of cannibalism, that’s 3 times more than homosexual acts”

Take note as well that these animals are not exclusively “gay,” they do procreate after their own kind.

So Richard Dawkins, for instance, would say that rape being morally wrong is as arbitrary as mankind evolving 5 vs 4 fingers.

Justin Brierley: When you make a value judgement don’t you immediately step yourself outside of this evolutionary process and say that the reason this is good is that it’s good. And you don’t have any way to stand on that statement.

Richard Dawkins: My value judgement itself could come from my evolutionary past.

Justin Brierley: So therefore it’s just as random in a sense as any product of evolution.

Richard Dawkins: You could say that, it doesn’t in any case, nothing about it makes it more probable that there is anything supernatural.

Justin Brierley: Ultimately, your belief that rape is wrong is as arbitrary as the fact that we’ve evolved five fingers rather than six.

Richard Dawkins: You could say that, yeah.

(See more here)

Or Sam Harris saying,

  • “…there are many things about us for which we are naturally selected, which we repudiate in moral terms. For instance, there’s nothing more natural than rape. Human beings rape, chimpanzees rape, orangutans rape, rape clearly is part of an evolutionary strategy to get your genes into the next generation if you’re a male….”

In other words, if one were to argue that same-sex marriage should be allowed because gay acts are in nature, BUT THEN NOT use the same logic for rape, cannibalism, and the like, is being disingenuous. The Judeo-Christian ethic ~ rooted in God and man’s nature as separate from that of animals ~ is the only worldview that offers respect and humanity to the gay man and woman. Rape, violence, and “alpha male” mentality (power) are something found in the naturalist worldview. These are things that our worldview says we should avoid.

Which is why a lesbian author I love said this:

▼ Even if one does not necessarily accept the institutional structure of “organized religion,” the “Judeo-Christian ethic and the personal standards it encourages do not impinge on the quality of life, but enhance it. They also give one a basic moral template that is not relative,” which is why the legal positivists of the Left are so threatened by the Natural Law aspect of the Judeo-Christian ethic. ~ Tammy Bruce

Compare that to a view that all viewpoints are equal and one should use power to enforce his (which naturalism encapsulates):

▼ “Everything I have said and done in these last years is relativism by intuition…. If relativism signifies contempt for fixed categories and men who claim to be bearers of an objective, immortal truth… then there is nothing more relativistic than fascistic attitudes and activity…. From the fact that all ideologies are of equal value, that all ideologies are mere fictions, the modern relativist infers that everybody has the right to create for himself his own ideology and to attempt to enforce it with all the energy of which he is capable.” ~ Mussolini

I have to break here and say I was hoping J.R. was going to “fact-check” my Sam Harris quote. While being a bit out of context, the full context makes the situation worse for J.R.’s vacuous case. I quoted Sam Harris as saying:

  • “…there are many things about us for which we are naturally selected, which we repudiate in moral terms. For instance, there’s nothing more natural than rape. Human beings rape, chimpanzees rape, orangutans rape, rape clearly is part of an evolutionary strategy to get your genes into the next generation if you’re a male….”

Here is the rest:

“You can’t move from that Darwinian fact about us to defend rape as a good practice. I mean no-one would be tempted to do that; we have transcended that part of our evolutionary history in repudiating it.”

How, then, can we “move from that Darwinian fact about us to defend ‘homosexuality’ as a good practice?” Have we not “transcended that part of our evolutionary history”? Or, do political points of view dictate what we have-and-haven’t “transcended”?

This led to my final comment, final in that J.R. has yet to continue the convo:

Dr. Antonio Pardo, Professor of Bioethics at the University of Navarre, Spain, wrote:

✪ “Properly speaking, homosexuality does not exist among animals…. For reasons of survival, the reproductive instinct among animals is always directed towards an individual of the opposite sex. Therefore, an animal can never be homosexual as such. Nevertheless, the interaction of other instincts (particularly dominance) can result in behavior that appears to be homosexual. “

My hope in this post is to offer some responses to a challenge many do not know how to respond to. Also, this is posted as a model in keeping someone zeroed in on a topic at a time. Too often people will state one thing, hear an answer, and instead of dealing with the implications the instead move onto another subject. It is incumbent on us to learn how to keep the discussion on one topic/evidence at a time. It is hard, and I have to again applaud J.R., he did what some cannot do. Focus like a laser-beam… at least for a short while.

Wisdom vs. Compassion

Published by Papa Giorgio

Dennis Prager recalls an old Jewish proverb from the Haggadah called, “The Four Sons.” In the telling Prager shares that only recently has he figured out why the proverb doesn’t have a “good son.” He notes that GODLY wisdom pre-dates and a good morality/ethic… of course a healthy “fear of God” is a prerequisite. I have rewritten Proverbs 16:6b with Proverbs 15:33 in mind:

➤ “And by humbly seeking Godly instruction [wisdom], we will depart from evil.”

Amen.

Breatharianism

Published by Papa Giorgio

THE “AIR CULT” (Practice)

Here is a quick run-down of the cult via THE INDEPENDENT:

…Born in Australia as Ellen Greve, Jasmuheen has herself warned of the dangers of life with no or very food.

“If a person is unprepared and not listening to their inner voice there can be many problems with the 21-day process, from extreme weight loss to even loss of their life,” she wrote in one of her books.

Jasmuheen took part in a monitored fast for Australia’s 60 Minutes news programme in an attempt to prove her claims, but the show’s doctors cut short her attempt to last seven days after she became dehydrated, lost weight and her speech began to slow.

Nevertheless, Castello and Ricardo, who live between California and Ecuador, say they have forgotten what it feels like to be hungry.

They claim they survive on the “energy that exists in the universe and in themselves”.

“Humans can easily be without food, as long as they are the connected to the energy that exists in all things and through breathing,” Castello says. 

“For three years, Akahi and I didn’t eat anything at all and now we only eat occasionally like if we’re in a social situation or if I simply want to taste a fruit…

JASMUHEEN (Founder)

Of course… a cult based around a “diet.” Twenty-one days is also the time in the TV series, Naked and Afraid. Here is some information via APOLOGETICS INDEX:

Breatharianism is a concept which promotes living on light and almost entirely without food and liquids. Jasmuheen, its most prominent promoter, has been exposed as a fraud, but not before several followers of her philosophy died. 

Her book, “Living on Light,” is also titled “Pranic Nourishment,” referring to the Hindu concept of PRANA [see below] – Sanskrit for “breath” or “life-force.”

[….]

New Age guru Jasmuheen, 42, formerly Australian businesswoman Ellen Greve, claims to have 5,000 devotees to her “breatharian” programme. 

She stood by her diet regime yesterday despite the death of disciple Verity Linn.

[….]

“I can go for months and months without having anything at all other than a cup of tea,” she said. “My body runs on a different kind of nourishment.” She said that some people have gone for up to six years without eating or drinking.

[….]

Breatharians believe they are sustained by Pranic light, an ancient spiritual belief in the light of God which is found across the universe and inside everyone. But the organisation has been dogged by scandal. 

In 1983, most of the leadership of the cult in California resigned when Wiley Brooks, its 47-year-old leader, who claimed not to have eaten for 19 years, was caught sneaking into a hotel and ordering a chicken pie. 

The cult originated in China and the Far East. Last year a monk in Bangalore claimed to have fasted for a 365 days, drinking only one cup of hot water after sunrise and another before sunset. During this time he lost more than five stone. Western doctors who monitored his condition said it was astonishing.

(See also: CULT EDUCATION INSTITUTE; and, SNOPES)

PRANA

Sanskrit for “breath” or “life-force.” 

Prana is believed to be universal divine energy residing behind the material world (akasa). Prana is said to have five forms, and all energy is thought to be a manifestation of it. Swami Nikhilananada describes it in his Vivekananda – The Yogas and Other Works as “the infinite, omnipresent manifesting power of this universe” (979:592). Perfect control of prana makes one God. One can have “infinite knowledge, infinite power, now”

(APOLOGETICS INDEX)

A death in 1999 was this one recounted by THE INDEPENDENT:

  • The most recent death was that of Verity Linn, an Australian woman whose emaciated body was found on amountain in north-west Scotland in July. Among her possessions were a copy of Jasmuheen’s book, Living On Light, and a diary revealing that she was taking part in a 21-day fast. Jasmuheen’s books and Internet sites may also have contributed to the fatal fasts of a Melbourne woman, Lani Morris, last summer, and of a German kindergarten teacher, Timo Degen, in 1997.

HOLLYWOOD

There is — of course — a Hollywood connection:

Hollywood seems to be susceptible to the cults, at a higher rate than the general public. One cult that has less influence in Hollywood than say, Scientology, is “Breatharianism.” Michelle Pfeiffer shared recently that she was involved many years ago in the cult when she first came to Hollywood and was very impressionable (Breitbart). She talked about how her first husband, who worked on a movie about the Moonies, helped her see the cult like aspect of this group:

Ellen Greve (AKA, Jasmuheen)

Ellen Greve, the cults leader/”guru”, herself claims to have eaten nothing since 1993, surviving only on air and light.

[Editors note: Bul-l-l-l-shit]

“They worked with weights and put people on diets. Their thing was vegetarianism,” Pfeiffer said. “They were very controlling. I wasn’t living with them but I was there a lot and they were always telling me I needed to come more. I had to pay for all the time I was there, so it was financially very draining.”

“They believed that people in their highest state were breatharian,” the actress added.

According to Pfeiffer, she did not realize she was a member of a cult until she married former husband and fellow actor Peter Horton, who at the time was researching for a role in a movie about the Unification Church, founded by Sun Myung Moon. Members of the Unification Church have traditionally been referred to by the term ‘Moonies,’ though it is today regarded as a pejorative by the current leaders of the church.

“We were talking with an ex-Moonie and he was describing the psychological manipulation and I just clicked,” Pfeiffer told Stella magazine. “I was in one.”

(NEWSMAX)

I am glad she got out, but with many in Hollywood, the New Age is the biggest draw, then Scientology. The French have been vigilant in keeping an eye on the group:

French authorities have put a retreat organised by Australian self-styled guru Ellen Greve [pictured to the right] under surveillance, the Le Parisien newspaper reports.

The newspaper says the authorities are worried that it is a dangerous cult that has had a role in the deaths of three people around the world.

Jean-Michel Roulet, the head of the French Government’s anti-sect unit Miviludes, has told the newspaper that the prolonged fasting preached by Ms Greve is “aberrant”.

Mr Roulet says Ms Greve’s group has used “a veritable attack on an individual’s freedom by way of mental manipulation”.

A seminar in the south-eastern village of Devesset headed by Ms Greve, who calls herself ‘Jasmuheen’, is under “high surveillance”.

However, officials say those attending are all adults and that, barring a mishap during the gathering, there are no grounds for police to break it up.

Ms Greve, 48, teaches that people can live almost entirely without food or water under an approach she calls ‘breatharianism“.

(RELIGION NEWS BLOG)

Democratic Strategist Starts Twitter Hashtag: #HuntRepublicans

Published by Papa Giorgio

While the story from BREITBART below notes James Devine apologized… he is actually doubling down on his #HuntRepublicans hashtag via his TWITTER:


BTW, that first Tweet (above) of his is easily disproved, here are a few places to go:

  • No Evidence Sarah Palin’S Pac Incited Shooting Of Rep. Gabby Giffords (POLITIFACT)

According to news reports, Loughner became fixated on Giffords several years before his Jan. 8, 2011, shooting rampage that killed six and injured 14, including the Arizona congresswoman…. According to the Washington Post, there is no evidence Loughner was aware of Palin’s maps. And according to an interview with one of Loughner’s high school friends, the gunman did not watch the news. His rampage was akin to “shooting at the world,” said Loughner’s friend Zach Osler.

Despite the facts which have come out showing that Jared Loughner was not a political person and was motivated by his own delusions rather than politics…. Remember, there is not a shred of evidence that Jared Loughner ever saw the map.  As discussed here numerous times, the connection of the map to the shooting was a complete fiction concocted moments after the shooting by certain left-wing bloggers who spread the connection into the mainstream media.

  • The New York Times Runs The Worst Editorial In Human History, Blames SARAH PALIN For Giffords Shooting AGAIN (DAILY WIRE)

Jared Lee Loughner wasn’t a conservative. He wasn’t a Republican. He wasn’t sane. There is no evidence whatsoever that he ever saw the infamous Palin targeted district map. None. The rumor was discredited within hours of the shooting. But six years later, The Times is still repeating the lie as true — and not just as true, but as the ultimate example of political rhetoric prompting violence.

See more at NEWSBUSTERS and LOUDER WITH CROWDER! Oh, and there are some people late to the Party!

(Via BREITBART) A New Jersey Democratic strategist is capitalizing on the shooting of Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA) by launching the hashtags #HuntRepublicans and #HuntRepublicanCongressmen, and he is showing no signs of backing down, claiming “the chickens are coming home to roost.”

James Devine, a longtime political strategist in the Garden State, tweeted in the wake of the shooting at a Republican baseball practice in Alexandria on Wednesday that “we are in a war with selfish, foolish & narcissistic rich people”…

[….]

He also accused Republicans of starting a “class war.”

“If you want to invite a class war,” he said, “then you have to expect people to fight back at some point.”

On his website, Devine claims to have served in multiple roles in the state, including as the Democratic State Committee political director between 1992-3, where he “authored the coordinated campaign plan that helped Bill Clinton become the first Democratic presidential candidate to win New Jersey since 1964.”

Here is his information and self aggrandizement:

James J. Devine is a masterful Democratic Party campaign strategist, a crusading journalist and an accomplished leader with extensive experience managing large organizations.

Over the past 35 years, Devine accumulated experience in every facet of politics (running campaigns for local school board, city council and mayor to state legislature, governor, congress and the presidency) and government (as a top level legislative staff member and manager of a federal agency with 1,150 employees under his command).

Contact Jim Devine at 908-458-6397 or devine@usa.net

(ABOUT ME)

Democrats [Vitriolic] Civility

Published by Papa Giorgio

Larry elder CONTINUES to show the depravity of civility on the Left. All the quotes herein can be found in Larry’s articles, here:

✦ The “Left” Does NOT want to hear thoughtful disagreement says New Your Times Executive Director
✦ Where Is the “Hillary Lied, People Died” Crowd?
✦ Democrats and the Nazi Card
✦ The Shameless Sean Spicer Hitler Hypocrisy

The previous two uploads by Elder on this topic are here:

➤ Why Are Bernie Bros So Angry?
➤ We Call Them Snowflakes, They Call Us NAZIs

The WASHINGTON EXAMINER lays out the issue of the Democrats wanting us to apologize for civility… when almost the TOTALITY OF VIOLENCE COMES FROM THE LEFT!

….Hodgkinson was a Bernie Sanders supporter who hated Trump, as his comments on social media showed.

But in the face of all evidence that Hodgkinson was a Democrat animated to go on a shooting rampage by his own political frustrations, New York Times political reporter Glenn Thrush looked to Trump.

“Any debate about civility in politics begins with Trump,” he said Thursday on Twitter. “No one has degraded discourse more, while embracing the fringe.”

Whatever “fringe” Trump appealed to, none of them have picked up an assault rifle to gun down a congressman.

That was a Bernie Bro.

In an effort to even the score between the GOP and Democrats, The New York Times editorial board chocked the incident up to “vicious American politics” and repeated the false claim that “the link to political incitement was clear” between 2008 GOP vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin and the 2011 shooting of then-Democratic Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.

The paper later removed that part from its editorial, admitting that there was “no such link.”

Hodgkinson’s Facebook page showed that he belonged to the groups “Terminate the Republican Party” and “The Road to Hell is Paved with Republicans.” One note on his Facebook said, “It’s Time to Destroy Trump & Co.”

But a bemused editorial in the Washington Post asked, “Who knows what mixture of madness and circumstance causes someone to pick up a gun and go on a rampage?”

The Washington Post then helped spread responsibility for the tragedy among everyone, saying that it should “cause a gut check about what passes for political discourse in this country.”

Hodgkinson was a partisan Democrat. Before his shooting spree, he asked Reps. Ron DeSantis and Jeff Duncan as they left the field early whether it was Republicans or Democrats practicing.

But a willfully-clueless Scott Pelley of the CBS “Evening News” ended his Thursday night program decrying unspecified “leaders and political commentators who set an example” for having “led us into an abyss of violent rhetoric.”

When an outspoken Democratic voter opens fire on a group of Republicans practicing baseball, the media blame everyone. Or just Trump.

It’s the same thing they did during the 2016 campaign.

In May last year, anti-Trump protesters shut down a campaign rally in Albuquerque, N.M. Rioters lit the city ablaze, vandalized property, and threw rocks at cops.

But the New York Times said two months prior to the riot that it’s Trump who “gives license to violence” for saying he’d like to “punch” a protester. The liberal Mother Jones said the same month that Trump is “basically encouraging violence now,” and a headline at the website Vox declared that “the problem with violence at Trump rallies starts with Trump himself.”

Why isn’t any of the violence coming from the people who support the guy who’s supposedly fueling it?….

Mollie Hemingway Discusses #NeverTrumpers and James Comey

Published by Papa Giorgio

Dennis Prager interviews Federalist contributor, Mollie Hemingway. She discusses her life in a liberal neighborhood, the conservatives who hate Trump, and their hypocrisy in not acknowledge all the good Trump has thus far achieved. Here is her article:

➤ “James Comey Has A Long History Of Questionable Obstruction Cases“

Molly’s articles can be found HERE.

We Call Them Snowflakes, They Call Us NAZIs

Published by Papa Giorgio

That sums up the rhetoric of the Left/Right distinction in dialogue. Two segments from Larry Elder, the “Prince of Pico-Union,” about the rhetoric of the Left when they say — “yes, the tone in politics is out of control… BOTH sides are to blame.” Not. In “Sage” fashion Larry points out the gap in civil dialogue. (See this earlier upload as well.) The “thumbnail” art piece is Norman Rockwell’s Saturday Evening Post cover art entitled, “Breakfast Table Political Argument,” or, “Dewey Vs Truman.”

Shame, Shame On The New York Times

Published by Papa Giorgio

David French over at the NATIONAL REVIEW has an excellent article on this topic, and is the one Prager is reading from:

The New York Times published its editorial in response to yesterday’s vicious, violent, and explicitly political attack on Congressional Republicans — an attack that wounded four and left Representative Steve Scalise in critical condition in a Washington-area hospital — and it is abhorrent. It is extraordinarily cruel, vicious, and — above all — dishonest. The editorial doesn’t just twist the truth to advance the board’s preferred narratives; it may even be libelous, a term I choose carefully.

Yesterday’s shooter, James Hodgkinson, left little doubt as to his political leanings and his political motivations. He was a vocal Bernie Sanders supporter, belonged to Facebook groups with names such as “Terminate the Republican Party” and “The Road to Hell is paved with Republicans,” and he was constantly sharing angry anti-GOP messages and memes. Before opening fire, he reportedly asked whether the players on the baseball field were Democrats or Republicans. In other words, all available signs point to an act of lone-wolf progressive political terror.

How does the Times deal with this evil act? The editorial begins innocently enough, describing the shooting and even forthrightly outlining Hodgkinson’s politics. But then, the board says this — and it’s worth quoting at length:

Was this attack evidence of how vicious American politics has become? Probably. In 2011, when Jared Lee Loughner opened fire in a supermarket parking lot, grievously wounding Representative Gabby Giffords and killing six people, including a 9-year-old girl, the link to political incitement was clear. Before the shooting, Sarah Palin’s political action committee circulated a map of targeted electoral districts that put Ms. Giffords and 19 other Democrats under stylized cross hairs.

Conservatives and right-wing media were quick on Wednesday to demand forceful condemnation of hate speech and crimes by anti-Trump liberals. They’re right. Though there’s no sign of incitement as direct as in the Giffords attack, liberals should of course hold themselves to the same standard of decency that they ask of the right. (Emphasis added.)

Let’s be blunt. In its zeal to create moral equivalencies and maintain a particular narrative about the past, the Times flat-out lied. There is simply no “link to political incitement” in Loughner’s murderous acts. The man was a paranoid schizophrenic who first got angry at Gabby Giffords years before Palin published her map….

(READ IT ALL)

Robert Mueller Needs to Disqualify Himself from Special Counsel

Published by Papa Giorgio

Gregg Jarrett: If you look at the special counsel statute it says you cannot serve as special counsel if you have a personal relationship with someone who is central to the case. If this Washington Post story is true, it’s now Trump against Comey. Comey is now the star witness, the key witness against Trump. Well, guess what? Comey and Mueller are longtime close personal friends, partners, allies. They were joined at the hip at the DOJ and FBI. It’s a mentor-protege relationship. How is this fair to Donald Trump because Mueller is now going to decide whether to believe his good friend or the man who fired his good friend…This is the kind of stuff over which lawyers get disbarred. (GATEWAY PUNDIT)