Author: Papa Giorgio

Hillary’s Campaign All “Quacked Up” Over Federal LAw

Published by Papa Giorgio

Brit Hume reported on the “Donald Ducks” Project Veritas Action Video on Fox News.

PROJECT VERITAS:

…In the video, the operatives go on to explain their plot.

“Let me tell you something. I think she [Hillary Clinton] has the right instinct on this. This thing is resonating, but that story is not exactly what you want to hear about how presidential decision-making happened,” said Woodhouse.

However, the originator of the Donald Ducks scheme was supposed to remain secret.

Robert Creamer goes on to add, “I was actually on a plane to go to London last week — Christina Reynolds [Deputy Communications Director for Hillary for America] calls saying, ‘I have good news and bad news. The good news is the candidate would like to have a mascot following around the duck — I mean, Trump.’”

Creamer then says, “If the future president wants ducks, we will put ducks on the ground.”

Hillary Clinton and the DNC wanted the Donald Ducks agitators at Trump and Pence campaign events. The direct involvement of the campaign and the Democratic National Committee with Americans United for Change and activists wearing Donald Duck costumes smacks strongly of illegal coordinated campaign expenditures. 

Federal campaign law experts have told us “the ducks on the ground are likely public communications for purposes of the law.  It’s political activity opposing Trump, paid for by Americans United for Change funds but controlled by Clinton and her campaign.”…

Michael Moore Explains To Us Why Trump Will Win

Published by Papa Giorgio

Michael Moore explains to us why TRUMP will win. Keep in mind Moore is a Hillary guy, but this is his capitulation of sorts — even if to say he predicted it if Trump wins:

I think this is an aspect of what the pollsters aren’t catching. This “steel” and “factory” country of the Midwest. Life-long union members, voting for their best interests. This is why blacks may be voting for Trump in numbers not seen for a Republican candidate since the 1960s — via GATEWAY PUNDIT:

In the past month the number of black voters for Donald Trump has increased significantly.

At the beginning of October 9% of African Americans supported Trump.

Black Likely Voters for TRUMP @Rasmussen_Poll
Oct 3 – 9%
Oct 6 – 12%
Oct 7 – 13%
Oct 10 – 14%
Oct 11 – 19%
Oct 12 – 19%
Oct 13 – 24% !

— Ted Carroll (@mediainvestors) October 13, 2016

The number doubled and has leveled off at 16% support for Donald Trump.

Black Likely Voters for TRUMP @Rasmussen_Poll
Oct 17 – 17%
Oct 18 – 19%
Oct 19 – 18%
Oct 20 – 15%
Oct 21 – 16%
Oct 24 – 15%
Oct 25 – 16%

— Ted Carroll (@mediainvestors) October 25, 2016

This ought to keep Democrats up late at night.

Blacks today make up 22% of the Democratic vote.

November 8th will be a nail biter for sure!

Did The Party’s Switch?

Published by Papa Giorgio

THE SWITCH

Just a quick intro to this video, it was at a Young American’s Foundation sponsored eveny at the University of Wisconsin, and a professor gets up to correct D’Souza on the Dixiecrat’s all becoming Republicans. It didn’t go well for the professor:

From a wonderful article from Freedom’s Journal Institute’s series, URBAN LEGENDS: The Dixiecrats and the GOP…

THE DIXIECRATS

…During the Philadelphia nominating convention of the Democrat Party in 1948 a number of disgruntled southern segregationist democrats stormed out in protest. They were upset about planks in the new platform that supported Civil Rights.[1]

They left to form a new Party called the State’s Rights Democratic Party also known as the Dixiecrats. Segregationist like George Wallace and other loyalists, although upset, did not bolt from the party; but instead supported another candidate against Harry Truman. According to Kari Frederickson, the goal for the Dixiecrats “was to win the 127 electoral-college votes of the southern states, which would prevent either Republican Party nominee Thomas Dewy or Democrat Harry Truman from winning the 266 electoral votes necessary for election. Under this scenario, the contest would be decided by the House of Representatives, where southern states held 11 of the 48 votes, as each state would get only one vote if no candidate received a majority of electors’ ballots. In a House election, Dixiecrats believed that southern Democrats would be able to deadlock the election until one of the parties had agreed to drop its civil rights plank.”[2]

Notably, this stated aim is apparent in the third plank of the Dixiecrat’s platform which states, “We stand for social and economic justice, which, we believe can be guaranteed to all citizens only by a strict adherence to our Constitution and the avoidance of any invasion or destruction of the constitutional rights of the states and individuals. We oppose the totalitarian, centralized bureaucratic government and the police nation called for by the platforms adopted by the Democratic and Republican Conventions.”[3]

What is even more telling, and speaks directly to the incredulous nature of this urban legend, is the fact that the Dixiecrats rejected the Civil rights platforms of not one, but both parties. Republicans had always supported civil rights since their inception (see GOP party platform here). What was new is that the Democrats, led by Harry Truman, were publicly taking a stand for Civil rights (see Democrat Party Platform here). The ‘totalitarian, centralized bureaucratic government”, according to the Dixiecrats, was the federal government’s enforcement of the 14th and 15th amendments to the U.S. Constitution. With both parties, now, standing for Civil rights the segregationist had no party to go too. Thus, they started their own with the idea of causing a stalemate, which they hoped to break, once both parties relinquished their pro-civil rights planks.

Which way did they go?

The strategy of the State’s Rights Democratic Party failed. Truman was elected and civil rights moved forward with support from both Republicans and Democrats. This begs an answer to the question: So where did the Dixiecrats go? Contrary to legend, it makes no sense for them to join with the Republican Party whose history is replete with civil rights achievements. The answer is, they returned to the Democrat party and rejoined others such as George Wallace, Orval Faubus, Lester Maddox, and Ross Barnett. Interestingly, of the 26 known Dixiecrats (5 governors and 21 senators) only three ever became republicans: Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms and Mills E. Godwind, Jr. The segregationists in the Senate, on the other hand, would return to their party and fight against the Civil Rights acts of 1957, 1960 and 1964. Republican President Dwight Eisenhower proffered the first two Acts.

Eventually, politics in the South began to change. The stranglehold that white segregationist democrats once held over the South began to crumble. The “old guard” gave way to a new generation of politicians. The Republican Party saw an opportunity to make in-roads into the southern states appealing to southern voters. However, this southern strategy was not an appeal to segregationists, but to the new political realities emerging in the south.[4]…

[1] See the 1948 Democrat Party Platform.

[2] Encyclopedia of Alabama – Dixiecrat.

[3] Read more at the American Presidency Project.

[4] I will talk more about the Southern Strategy in another article.

Here is another great excerpt from Ann Coulter from her excellent book, Mugged, regarding this “change dealing with Senators:

In 1948, Thurmond did not run as a “Dixiecan,” he ran as a “Dixiecrat.” As the name indicates, the Dixiecrats were an offshoot of the Democratic Party. When he lost, Thurmond went right back to being a Democrat.

All segregationists were Democrats and—contrary to liberal fables—the vast majority of them remained Democrats for the rest of their lives. Many have famous names—commemorated in buildings and statues and tribute speeches by Bill Clinton. But one never hears about their segregationist pasts, or even Klan memberships. Among them are: Supreme Court justice Hugo Black; Governor George Wallace of Alabama; gubernatorial candidate George Mahoney of Maryland; Bull Connor, Commissioner of Public Safety for Birmingham, Alabama; Governor Orval Faubus of Arkansas; and Governor Lester Maddox of Georgia.

But for practical purposes, the most important segregationists were the ones in the U.S. Senate, where civil rights bills went to die. All the segrega­tionists in the Senate were of course, Democrats. All but one remained Democrats for the rest of their lives—and not conservative Democrats. Support for segregation went hand in hand with liberal positions on other issues, too.

The myth of the southern strategy is that southern segregationists were conservatives just waiting for a wink from Nixon to switch parties and join the Reagan revolution. That could not be further from the truth. With the exception of Strom Thurmond—the only one who ever became a Republi-can—they were almost all liberals and remained liberals for the rest of their lives. Of the twelve southern segregationists in the Senate other than Thurmond, only two could conceivably be described as “conservative Democrats.”

The twelve were:

  • Senator Harry Byrd (staunch opponent of anti-communist Senator Joseph McCarthy);
  • Senator Robert Byrd (proabortion, opponent of 1990 Gulf War and 2002 Iraq War, huge pork barrel spender, sending more than $1 bil­lion to his home state during his tenure, supported the Equal Rights Amendment, won a 100 percent rating from NARAL Pro-Choice America and a 71 percent grade from the American Civil Liberties Union in 2007);
  • Senator Allen Ellender of Louisiana (McCarthy opponent, pacifist and opponent of the Vietnam War);
  • Senator Sam Ervin of North Carolina (McCarthy opponent, anti-Vietnam War, major Nixon antagonist as head the Watergate Com­mittee that led to the president’s resignation);
  • Senator Albert Gore Sr. of Tennessee (ferocious McCarthy oppo­nent despite McCarthy’s popularity in Tennessee, anti-Vietnam War);
  • Senator James Eastland of Mississippi (conservative Democrat, though he supported some of FDR’s New Deal, but was a strong anti-communist);
  • Senator J. William Fulbright of Arkansas (staunch McCarthy opponent, anti-Vietnam War, big supporter of the United Nations and taxpayer-funded grants given in his name);
  • Senator Walter F. George of Georgia (supported Social Security Act, Tennessee Valley Authority and many portions of the Great Society);
  • Senator Ernest Hollings (initiated federal food stamp program, sup­ported controls on oil, but later became a conservative Democrat, as evidenced by his support for Clarence Thomas’s nomination to the Supreme Court);
  • Senator Russell Long (Senate floor leader on LBJ’s Great Society pro­grams);
  • Senator Richard Russell (strident McCarthy opponent, calling him a “huckster of hysteria,” supported FDR’s New Deal, defended Truman’s firing of General Douglas MacArthur, mildly opposed to the Vietnam War);
  • Senator John Stennis (won murder convictions against three blacks based solely on their confessions, which were extracted by vicious police floggings, leading to reversal by the Supreme Court; first senator to publicly attack Joe McCarthy on the Senate floor; and, in his later years, opposed Judge Robert Bork’s nomination to the Supreme Court).

The only Democratic segregationist in the Senate to become a Republican—Strom Thurmond—did so eighteen years after he ran for president as a Dixiecrat. He was never a member of the terroristic Ku Klux Klan, as Hugo Black and Robert Byrd had been. You could make a lot of money betting people to name one segregationist U.S. senator other than Thurmond. Only the one who became a Republican is remembered for his dark days as a segregationists Democrat.

As for the remaining dozen segregationists, only two—Hollings and Eastland—were what you’d call conservative Democrats. The rest were dyed-in-the-wool liberals taking the left-wing positions on issues of the day. Segregationist beliefs went hand in hand with opposition to Senator Joe McCarthy, opposition to the Vietnam War, support for New Deal and Great Society programs, support for the United Nations, opposition to Nixon and a 100 percent rating from NARAL. Being against civil rights is now and has always been the liberal position.

OPPOSING CIVIL RIGHTS

Related as well is the recorded votes of which party supported the Civil Rights history regarding persons of color

WHICH PARTY OPPOSED CIVIL RIGHTS?

The voting rolls of the Civil Rights laws speak for themselves. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed the House with 153 out of 244 Democrats voting for it, and 136 out of 171 Republicans. This means that 63 percent of Democrats and 80 percent of Republicans voted “yes.” In the Senate, 46 out of 67 Democrats (69 percent) and 27 out of 33 Republicans (82 percent) supported the measure.

The pattern was similar for the Voting Rights Act of 1965. It passed the House 333-85, with 24 Republicans and 61 Democrats voting “no.” In the Senate, 94 percent of Republicans compared with 73 percent of Democrats supported the legislation.

Here’s a revealing tidbit: had Republicans voted for the Civil Rights laws in the same proportion as Democrats, these laws would not have passed. Republicans, more than Democrats, are responsible for the second civil rights revolution, just as they were solely responsible for the first one. For the second time around, Republicans were mainly the good guys and Democrats were mainly the bad guys.

Here’s further proof: the main opposition to the Civil Rights Movement came from the Dixiecrats. Note that the Dixiecrats were Democrats; as one pundit [Coulter] wryly notes, they were Dixiecrats and not Dixiecans.

The Dixiecrats originated as a breakaway group from the Democratic Party in 1948. For a time, the Dixiecrats attempted to form a separate party and run their own presidential ticket, but this attempt failed and the Dixiecrats reconstituted themselves as a rebel faction within the Democratic Party.

Joined by other Democrats who did not formally ally themselves with this faction, the Dixiecrats organized protests against desegregation rulings by the Supreme Court. Dixiecrat governors refused to enforce those rulings. Dixiecrats in the Senate also mounted filibusters against the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Johnson’s Democratic allies in Congress required Republican votes in order to defeat a Dixiecrat-led filibuster and pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Leading members of the Dixiecrat faction were James Eastland, Democrat from Mississippi; John Stennis, Democrat from Mississippi; Russell Long, Democrat from Louisiana; Strom Thurmond, Democrat from South Carolina; Herman Talmadge, Democrat from Georgia; J. William Fulbright, Democrat from Arkansas; Lester Maddox, Democrat from Georgia; Al Gore Sr., Democrat from Tennessee; and Robert Byrd, Democrat from West Virginia. Of these only Thurmond later joined the Republican Party. The rest of them remained Democrats.

The Dixiecrats weren’t the only racists who opposed civil rights legislation. So did many other Democrats who never joined the Dixiecrat faction. These were racists who preferred to exercise their influence within the Democratic Party, which after all had long been the party of racism, rather than create a new party. Richard Russell of Georgia—who now has a Senate Building named after him—and James Eastland of Mississippi are among the segregationist Democrats who refused to join the Dixiecrat faction.

Now the GOP presidential candidate in 1964, Barry Goldwater, did vote against the Civil Rights Act. But Goldwater was no racist. In fact, he had been a founding member of the Arizona NAACP. He was active in integrating the Phoenix public schools. He had voted for the 1957 Civil Rights Act.

Goldwater opposed the 1964 act because it outlawed private as well as public discrimination, and Goldwater believed the federal government did not have legitimate authority to restrict the private sector in that way. I happen to agree with him on this—a position I argued in The End of Racism. Even so, Goldwater’s position was not shared by a majority of his fellow Republicans.

It was Governor Orval Faubus, Democrat of Arkansas, who ordered the Arkansas National Guard to stop black students from enrolling in Little Rock Central High School—until Republican President Dwight Eisenhower sent troops from the 101st Airborne to enforce desegrega­tion. In retaliation, Faubus shut down all the public high schools in Little Rock for the 1958-59 school year.

It was Governor George Wallace, Democrat of Alabama, who attempted to prevent four black students from enrolling in elementary schools in Huntsville, Alabama, until a federal court in Birmingham intervened. Bull Connor, the infamous southern sheriff who unleashed dogs and hoses on civil rights protesters, was a Democrat.

Progressives who cannot refute this history—facts are stubborn things—nevertheless create the fantasy of a Nixon “Southern strategy” that supposedly explains how Republicans cynically appealed to racism in order to convert southern Democrats into Republicans. In reality Nixon had no such strategy—as we have seen, it was Lyndon Johnson who had a southern strategy to keep blacks from defecting to the Repub­lican Party. Johnson, not Nixon, was the true racist, a fact that progres­sive historiography has gone to great lengths to disguise.

Nixon’s political strategy in the 1968 campaign is laid out in Kevin Phillips’s classic work The Emerging Republican Majority. Phillips writes that the Nixon campaign knew it could never win the presidency through any kind of racist appeal. Such an appeal, even if it won some converts in some parts of the Lower South, would completely ruin Nixon’s pros­pects in the rest of the country. Nixon’s best bet was to appeal to the rising middle classes of the Upper South on the basis of prosperity and economic opportunity. This is exactly what Nixon did.

There are no statements by Nixon that even remotely suggest he appealed to racism in the 1968 or 1972 campaigns. Nixon never dis­played the hateful, condescending view of blacks that Johnson did. The racist vote in 1968 didn’t go to Nixon; it went to George Wallace. A longtime Democratic segregationist, Wallace campaigned that year on an independent ticket. Nixon won the election but Wallace carried the Deep South states of Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Georgia.

Nixon supported expanded civil rights for blacks throughout his career while Johnson was—for the cynical reasons given above—a late convert to the cause. Nixon went far beyond Johnson in this area; in fact, Nixon implemented America’s first affirmative action program which involved the government forcing racist unions in Philadelphia to hire blacks.

To sum up, starting in the 1930s and continuing to the present, progressive Democrats developed a new solution to the problem of what they saw as useless people. In the antebellum era, useless people from the Democratic point of view were mainly employed as slaves. In the postbellum period, southern Democrats repressed, segregated, and subjugated useless people, seeking to prevent them from challenging white suprem­acy or voting Republican. Meanwhile, northern progressives like Mar­garet Sanger sought to prevent useless people from being born. Today’s progressives, building on the legacy of Wilson, FDR, and Johnson, have figured out what to do with useless people: turn them into Democratic voters.

For MANY MORE resources on this topic,

see my page titled, “U.S. RACIAL HISTORY“

Bill Clinton Caught On Tape |Nepotism|

Published by Papa Giorgio

(BREITBART) NEW YORK – Speaking in a series of recorded phone conversations in 1991 with his alleged mistress Gennifer Flowers, Bill Clinton can be heard telling Flowers to deny that he aided her in obtaining a state job.

“If they ever asked if you’d talked to me about it, you can say no,” Clinton can be heard saying in the audio….

 

Kitzmiller v. Dover ~ Explained!

Published by Papa Giorgio

A must buy documentary is “Revolutionary: Michael Behe & The Mystery of Molecular Machines.” (My first Blu-Ray buy… amazing!) In a recent discussion  the Dover Trial was brought up, then, 3-days later I got the documentary in the mail. Here is the comment that started the convo:

  • They took their best shot in Dover, PA and failed so utterly that ID is locked out of the science classroom.in the USA.. They have managed to make a good bit of money saying what you love to hear–but they are keeping ID from ever ever being taken for science. Find a better approach and you can potentially prevail but not with these guys-they are a dead end as far as ID is concerned.

And this excerpt from it is the best explanation of the all the issues surrounding the trial and the complete slamming of Ken Miller’s un-scientific response to Michael Behe’s clear elucidations:

Milo Lectures On “Retarded Culture” and Child Abuse

Published by Papa Giorgio

Child Abuse foisted on society by the progressive Left, via GAY PATRIOT:

So this mom tried to jump on the trendy transgendered band-wagon, claiming her little boy identified as a girl. You get a lot of high-fives and social kudos in left-wing social circles for this.

Then, the court put the little boy back in dad’s custody. You won’t believe what happened next. (See, I can be a master clickbaiter) 

A seven-year-old boy has been removed from his mother’s care by the high court, after he was found to be suffering “significant emotional harm” due to his mother raising him as a girl.

The judge in the case slammed social services who had simply accepted that the boy should be treated as a girl.

The woman had told him that the boy “expressed disdain for his penis”, he said, adding: “I consider that [the mother] has caused significant emotional harm to [her son] in her active determination that he should be a girl.”

“I have been told that [the father] and his partner were shocked when they first saw [the boy] by the extent to which he appeared to be a girl, both in appearance and in mannerism,” said the judge. “However, what is striking is how well [the boy] has settled down.

“I have noted from reports that [the boy] has become interested in Power Rangers, SpongeBob, superheroes and is constantly finding new interests … It is striking that most of [the boy’s] interests are male-oriented.

You gotta feel sorry for kids who become just tokens of their parents desire to embrace social justice culture. I keep thinking of that poor little boy raised by the two man-hating lesbian couple* who, surprise surprise, despises himself and also identifies as transgendered because it’s probably the only way to get his parents to accept him. He’s due for quite a shock later on when he finds out how many lesbians hate trannies. Poor kid….

(read more)

CAUTION – ROUGH SEXUAL AND LANGUAGE THEMES

Here is a partial excerpt from the above via BREITBART:

…Of course many trannies, or those that make up their own new gender, are not actually retarded. But they are deeply mentally damaged, and they are failed by a liberal establishment obsessed with making them feel good about themselves.

Consider how fanatical the liberal establishment, especially on campus, is with pronouns.  My pronouns in case you are curious are “Fag, Faggot, and His Royal Fagness”.  In the minds of the far left, what is important is not that a person be free to believe what they want about themselves, it is that all of us need to believe what they believe…. OR ELSE.

If trans lobby had its way, misgendering them would land you in jail.   How ridiculous is this idea!  Forcing people think a certain way, to make another person comfortable.

A tranny may say I am ugly. They’d be wrong of course. But they are free to say it.

More importantly, I do not base my self esteem on the fact that everyone around me is forced to accept whatever I say about myself.

Trannies need to learn to say “So What” if someone doesn’t accept them.  But they never will.  They are obsessed with being victims and being given special rights.  

Everything they don’t like is transphobic. They’ve even invented a swear word for straight people: “cis”.

And if you won’t sleep with a tranny, you are transphobic. They call it the Cotton Ceiling, which is a stupid name. They should just call it: Biology.

My constant refrain is that we must not tailor our cultural norms to the whims of the mentally ill.

We do not require Americans to speak french to mental patients who believe they are Napoleon Bonaparte.  We also don’t change that poor soul’s birth certificate to say he was born in France centuries ago.  

There is a mental illness in Israel called Jerusalem Syndrome, in which foreigners spontaneously believe they are religious figures from the bible.

Imagine if society had to conform to their lunacy?  You’d not only have to speak aramaic or some other dead tongue to them, you’d have to accept their faith. If you are an atheist and someone identifies as Jesus, will you risk disbelieving them, and being labeled a bigot? I think not!

This isn’t to say I don’t have sympathy with trans “folk”, as we are asked to call them.

I’m not, by the way, remotely the most offensive person on this subject.

Real people with the real disorder, that is, not transtrenders in the media, who are simply gay men dressing up for attention. I hate people like that!

I want you to imagine the struggles of a fellow student.  They feel they don’t belong in their body.  They were born the wrong shape, and when they look into a mirror, they see something alien…. It isn’t them.

This fellow student will go to any lengths to become the person they KNOW they are on the inside.  It may involve drug usage, mutilation, or starvation.

You may think I am describing a transexual, but I’m not- I’m describing a young person with Anorexia Nervosa.

Anorexia Nervosa is a mental disorder.  When detected, the sufferer will receive counseling and other mental health treatment to stop their destructive behaviors and learn to recover both mentally and physically.

Many sufferers of Anorexia end up leading normal and productive lives, and even maintain a healthy weight.

Now imagine if Anorexia was on the LGBT spectrum.

How would treatment differ?  The Anorexia would not be called a mental disorder, but something else, something non-offensive, maybe a condition.

It would be encouraged by parents and mental healthcare providers.  The trans-eating would be praised for their strength and encouraged not to eat.  They might even get surgery to remove some ribs to be even thinner.

It’s sick and disgusting, but that largely describes how gender dysphoria, formerly known as gender identity disorder, is treated today.

Even the DSM-V, the manual which is used to diagnose mental disorders, has bowed to the pressure of the establishment, which insists that trannies are healthy and legitimate. Their 2013 edition made the change from a “disorder” (Gender Identity Disorder) to a “condition” (gender dysphoria).

Some are still brave enough to say the truth, for example Dr. Paul McHugh, the former psychiatrist-in-chief for Johns Hopkins Hospital and its current Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry, who has said that transgenderism is a “mental disorder” that merits treatment, that sex change is “biologically impossible,” and that people who promote sexual reassignment surgery are “collaborating with and promoting a mental disorder.”

He said that and didn’t get droned by the Obama administration. I’m shocked!

Dr. McHugh and colleagues pioneered gender identity disorder studies in the 60’s.  They found no good reason to cut off healthy body parts.

In short, and this is the concept the entire left and LGBT spectrum rejects: reality DOES NOT and CAN NOT conform to delusion.

Trannies can never be women, or men for the small slice of women insane enough to desire to give up female privilege.

Trannies suffer from an astronomically high suicide rate after having their genitals mutilated.  Some theorize that they realize they did not magically turn into women, and cannot handle this truth.  Regardless of the reason, that this treatment continues is a travesty of medicine.

Every study shows the same thing: post-transition depression and suicide rates do not change or get worse.

One study in Sweden, which ran for 30 years, found the suicide rate of post-op trannies is 20 times higher than the normal population. Is that not the definition of medical malpractice? When a doctor’s operation leaves the patient 20 times more likely to die?

The Williams Institute at UCLA also found unbelievably high suicide attempt rates.  More than 40% of trannies attempt suicide, as compared to less than 5% of the general population, and somewhere between 10 and 20% of the gay and lesbian population.

There is a long list of health problems associated with trannies, some mental and some physical.

Researchers at Vanderbilt have documented many of these:

  • Problems caused by hormone therapy like liver damage and blood pressure problems.
  • Cancer in remaining organs- is it transphobic to tell a trans-man to get checked for cancer of the uterus?  
  • Drug abuse just to deal with what they are…. Leading to dangerous sex and increased HIV transmission
  • Higher rates of anxiety and depression, especially among those without social support.
  • Higher risk for heart disease due to hormone use, smoking, and obesity.

No matter how you slice it (pun intended) trannies suffer a tremendous risk of suicide, worsening mental problems, and a massive range of physical issues.

Our medical establishment has taken one of the most vulnerable groups — certainly the most likely to kill themselves — and declared the way to treat their mental illness is to pump them full of estrogen, cut up their genitals, and make everyone call them a woman.

And the LGBT lobby and their friends in the media — the people vulnerable groups in society look to for support — are complicit in this self-mutilation and denial of reality.

These are terribly broken people. They are some of the most damaged amongst us, besides my ex-boyfriends. They need therapy, treatment, and to learn to live with the gender they are.

In my opinion, in future times we are very likely to look back at gender reassignment surgery with abject horror.   We will wonder how the people of the time still known 50 years in the future as “current year”  were able to justify butchering the bodies of mental patients to play along with their cruel delusions.

It will rank up there with electro-shock therapy to cure homosexuality as a barbaric practical with zero efficacy.  

At some point children of both real genders will read about doctors who treated mental illness by surgically building their patients a vagina out of their penis…. A vagina that has to be blocked open for six months lest it heal over.  Does that sound like medical treatment or barbaric medieval torture?

Although I may seem cruel to trannies, I say all of this because i recognize they are vulnerable and at-risk, and are treated as pawns by the liberal establishment eager to use them to push thought control on the rest of us.

I wish I could say these adults struggling with identity disorders were the most vulnerable and at-risk, but they are not.

The vogue thing to do these days in is to declare that your child is a transexual.  We see them on TV and elsewhere, parents parading their tranny kids around.

It reminds me a bit of the little girls dressed up as pageant contestants, but parents pushing transexualism on their kids is worse…. Much worse.

Children have no idea what they are sexually until puberty.  Even the mental health establishment will grudgingly admit that so called “gender non-conforming” children may snap out of it by their teenage years.

I mean, we used to have a word for this: tomboys.

I fear a future in which by the time they snap out of it, mommy and daddy has gotten them a sex change on the taxpayer’s dime.   

Imagine the hell these kids will experience, all so that their parents feel special, and part of the tranny movement themselves.

There is no coming back from having your penis surgically removed.

You may have heard of a peculiar mental illness called munchausen’s syndrome by proxy.  In this mental illness, a caregiver will fabricate, exaggerate, or directly cause illnesses in their child or other dependant so they can feel special and act as a wonderful caregiver.

I think there is a direct parallel to these parents, we could call it tranny by proxy.  They feel special and they feel part of a cultural movement by playing around with the gender identity of their child.

It is sick, just as sick as giving a child a dose of poison so you can rush them to the ER.

Now we’ve been discussing trannies, who are mentally ill and not necessarily retarded.  But there are plenty of retards out there.

Deeply narcissistic young people who have latched onto gender identity as a way to be special.  

I hate to break it to you– but if you identify as one of these, you as closer to a potato than a regular college kid.

Made-up genders don’t make you special, they make you a retard…

Sean Hannity Interviews Clinton Operative Jeff “the Fixer” Rovin

Published by Papa Giorgio

Jeff Rovin was a ghost writer for Tom Clancy, FYI. Sean Hannity full interview with the ” fixer ” Clinton operative Jeff Rovin National Enquirer story. I have a couple reservations about this guy… some of his responses to Hannity seem either guarded for reasons and lies.

  • “(a)  a person who intervenes to enable someone to circumvent the law or obtain a political favor.” 

The United Nations Homogenizes Opinion

Published by Papa Giorgio

Ezra Levant of TheRebel.media on the UN’s blacklisting of Rebel journalists who applied to cover the COP22 climate conference in Morroco. MORE: http://www.LetUsReport.com

Some news via GAYPATRIOT:

…Bowing at the altar of Gaia comes with a significant cost. In Ontario, the province where the Gaia Agenda has been pushed to California-style extremes — energy rates have skyrocketed. And now many Canucks are finding themselves having to choose between having back-bacon in the fridge and heating their homes.

Ontario premiers Dalton McGuinty and Kathleen Wynne, via their 2009 Green Energy Act and other poor decisions, have pushed many of the people they govern into dire financial straits thanks to their activist agendas.

“They live as if it’s Cold War Russia,” Miranda from Toronto told me during a phone conversation about her parent’s energy woes. “They use a pellet stove and propane heating. They put construction-style plastic on the windows and extra insulation.”

“They’re considering using food banks this winter,” she said. “I work in international development in third world countries and I’m starting to see the stuff here that I’m seeing there.”

Not everybody is doing so bad. Canada’s Carbon Tax “Slush Fund” promises to become a big, fat gold mine for politically connected cronies and rent-seekers.

Play Socialist Games, Win Socialist Prizes….