Author: Papa Giorgio

Democrats Creating a Health Crisis (Tuberculosis, H1N1, Chicken Pox)

Published by Papa Giorgio

An illegal immigrant infected a Maryland class of kids who were forced to get TB shots.

This from Gateway Pundit:

Dr. Elaina George, an ear, nose, throat and chest specialist from Atlanta, told Charles Payne on FOX News today that the US could be facing a health crisis as the thousands of newly illegal children enter the classrooms this fall.

“There’s an example in Maryland, where parents got a letter from the school that there children had been exposed to an illegal child who had TB who was one of their classmates. So this fall it is potentially possible that these children entering the school systems could be carrying all sorts of things, diseases that are not on the radar.” 

ABC News likewise notes the issue. I do take notice with their claim this will have no impact on the greater population… as they fly these illegals all over the country on confined — air recycled — planes.

The federal government is so overwhelmed by the current tide of migrants crossing the border it can’t provide basic medical screening to all of the children before transporting them – often by air – to longer-term holding facilities across the country, ABC News has learned.

[….]

Inside the government, officials are sounding alarms, fearing that they and their teams who come in contact with the sick children face potential exposure to infectious diseases from chicken pox to influenza, including rare cases of H1N1, more commonly called swine flu.

Two unaccompanied children were flown from Nogales to California despite having 101-degree fevers and flu-like symptoms, according to the Department of Defense memo. Those children had to be hospitalized.

The memo said pointedly that officials in charge of moving the immigrants from Border Patrol processing centers to Health and Human Services facilities are “putting sick [fevers and coughing] unaccompanied children on airplanes inbound for [Naval Base Ventura County] in addition to the chicken pox and coxsackie virus cases.”

And this note from Lonely Conservative:

This can’t be repeated enough. The illegal immigrants surging across the southern border are not being properly screened for diseases. While they wait to be processed and sent to communities all around the country they live in extremely unsanitary conditions, making the problem even worse. This is a public health threat that could affect every citizen and legal immigrant living in the United States.

[….]

…Border Patrol agents in Murrieta, Calif., have tested positive for tuberculosis. Hand and foot disease and Chagas disease, a tropical parasitic illness, both previously eradicated from the area, are on the rise.

The possibility also exists in these conditions for diseases such as dengue fever to hit the U.S.

“We had one get bacterial pneumonia a couple days ago,” Border Patrol union vice president Chris Cabrera told host Martha MacCallum on Fox News Channel’s America’s Newsroom Monday. “A lot of our guys are coming down with scabies or lice.”

Read the whole thing. This is scary. 

..read it all…

VICE News Footage of MH17 Aftermath: Russian Roulette (GRAPHIC)

Published by Papa Giorgio

On Thursday, July 17, 2014, a Malaysia Airlines passenger jet carrying 298 people was shot down over eastern Ukraine — allegedly by pro-Russia separatists. Residents in the area described bodies falling from the sky and landing in their own backyards.

VICE News travels to the still-gruesome scene of the crash and speaks to residents who witnessed firsthand a tragedy that promises to dramatically alter the terms of the conflict.

Sarah Palin Talk with Two “Boisterous” Ladies At A Bar (Mantras)

Published by Papa Giorgio

“I can see Russia from my porch!”

 FYI, people travel to this spot to see Russia from Alaska.

Some ladies were very boisterous and making grandiose claims about many thing. one being that [and they even quoted the exact phrase that Snopes quotes below] that SNL soo popularized. When I finally had enough, I turned around, gave an example of the loss of insurance in my own work place: two people losing their insurance… one being able to pay more money (the business owner), and a young man who has lost his insurance because he cannot afford to pay for the higher costs under Obama-Care.

These women were previously going on about all sorts of things, people being entitled to social programs, them willing to pay more in taxes, etc. (overwhelming the young Republican gal with them surely). But I chose my battles well, with a personal story (noted above), and correcting them on a phrase attributed to Sarah Palin.

The phrase?

Yep, that one.

I politely corrected the phrase attributed to Sarah Palin (“I can see Russia from my house”) as not being said by Sarah Palin but by Tina Fey via SNL… but I actually got the Snopes response, which is: “I saw it in a debate.”

Snopes? You ask.

Yeah, that site you got to when friends (conservative or liberal) send you those “pass along” [forwarded] emails that make claims about politicians. Here is the Snopes claim:

  • Claim: During the 2008 presidential campaign, Sarah Palin said: “I can see Russia from my house.”False

Snopes then rates this as FALSE! Which really goes to show how many a persons make important decisions based on political [or religious for that matter — see bottom] misunderstandings by forgoing any serious introspection. The “bumper sticker mentality” is what I call it. But as Ex-Liberal’s Blog notes, even The Times misquoted the substance of the quote, that is how powerful pop-culture is.

I was honestly trying to help the women not announce their ignorance to the whole bar (although I doubt many know that SNL gave birth to the phrase, exclusively). Again, this woman told me — and I believe she believed it — that she heard it in a debate… to my face.

Here is a very recent example of this myth via PETA’s pop-culture followers:

Palin

Wild!

I didn’t press the issue too much, I just encouraged them to Google it. I then proceeded to hand my card over to the Republican gal at the table, whom, I hope becomes a fan of the blog.

Here is the real quote [BELOW], and she is both a) literally correct, as the photo at the top notes; as well as making b) a metaphorical/figurative statement basically saying (truthfully), “we are close.” But the left see’s things in black-and-white, and makes no room for small talk from their politicians… well… politicians from the side that disagrees with them.

One commentator on the YouTube account of the video below that goes well with the one directly above noted the CONTEXT in which Sarah Palin was talking about the close proximity of the U.S. to Russia:

…Palin was being interviewed and was discussing America’s Alaska based missile defense system, she was speaking of Russia and their proximity to Alaska. As an aside she stated that you van actually see Russia from parts of Alaska…which is true. Saturday Night Live then did a skit, using Tina Fey as Sarah Palin, and stating that she could see Alaska from her front porch. Because of that skit, which was intended to belittle Palin, many uninformed idiots believed that Palin did say that. (Emphasis added)

See a previous post where Palin is spot on on issues the “legacy” media and Democratic politicians railed her for: Democrats Now Admit Sarah Palin Was Right ~ Death Panels

I was trying to stop people in a public place from being LOUDLY “uninformed idiots.” But we all do this, we do not define meanings often times to words we use to refute ideas/ideals. For instance, defining properly the word “hypocrite” when stating “there are hypocrite’s in the church” when people give reasons why they reject “religion” (i.e., Christianity). Or rarely do they ferret out the opposite or logical conclusions of a statement, like, “I do not like organized religion.” The very next question to them should be, do you like disorganized religion? And if yes, which one?” History is rarely accessed to check up on one’s position. Another example of this would be that “the Bible has been changed throughout the years because it has been copied and copied over-and-over again (like the game of telephone).” As one can see from the first 11-and-a-quarter pages of my refutation of a professor at CSUN, and a chapter in my book, this is another false argument made ad-infinitum when I talk to people.

You see, people do not afford themselves the respect and dignity to know “that which they reject.” Instead, they cackle proudly about untruths in a public place creating straw-men arguments to be easily torn down by their own hands which just erected this untruth. This allows them to feel superior that they do not believe in such “dumb” people or ideas… all the while making fools of themselves. It is really sad.

What Real vs Faux Leadership Looks Like (UPDATED)

Published by Papa Giorgio

If you were President, would you not inform your State Department — at least! — to take this a bit more seriously??? What does a real President do during such an event? Lets see (Via HotAir):

What did our great and illustrious Obama do? Obama gives crash 40 seconds before telling jokes…

…At approximately 12:50 pm, the motorcade stopped at the Charcoal Pit, a popular, established restaurant just north of Wilmington, Del. Known for its burgers and sundaes. Obama shook hands and mingled with many of the diners, stopping at one point to pick up seven-month old Jaidyn Oates, and pose for a photo.

…He invoked Vice Presiident Biden’s name a few names, noting to some diners, “Me and Joe, we share shakes all the time,” and to others, “Biden told me the burgers are pretty good.”

….Just before hugging another young girl, whose mother lifted her across the booth to hug the president, Obama asked, “Do you give good hugs?”

….At 1:01 pm Obama declared, “I’m starving!” He sat down to eat with Tanei Benjamin, who wrote the president a year ago. The president ordered a 4-ounce “Pit special,” which is burger with fries. He asked for it to be done medium well, and to have lettuce and tomato. He also asked for a water with lemon.

(HotAir)

Even the State Department was soo feckless that even Shep Smith got frustrated:

HotAir noted the last Tweet from the State Dept. to end this eventful day:

For years, tweets from @BarackObama have popped up in my Twitter feed so often so very detached from the actual events of the day as to feel like some kind of non sequitur performance art. This outdoes all of them.

This tweet is from the official State Department account, from Jen Psaki, at 9:26 p.m.*, hours after two huge international stories have broken. Now, the administration perhaps can’t be expected to react to the actual events at issue seriously. Too much to ask. But what they do sometimes react to seriously is a p.r. issue, and they’ve had many hours to realize everyone thinks they’re muffing this. Would it be so much to ask to keep it relatively sober tonight?

And yet. And yet.

 

The Blaze has some great follow up Tweets on the above:

By the time of publication on Friday morning, Psaki sent out one more tweet, but it was about John Kerry’s trip to Afghanistan last weekend.

(H/T: Weasel Zippers)

McCain weighs in:

The “HAMMER” weighs in as well:

Bans Against Polygamy Unconstitutional (Updated w/Incest)

Published by Papa Giorgio

Greased Up Slide down Slope

…If Christianity and the Christian moral and societal framework is no longer viewed as normative in laws governing sexual practice, then the slippery slope to legalizing polygamy is here. We already know from the Lawrence ruling that the state may not regulate private consensual sexual conduct; if the principle that privileging Christian marital norms* is impermissible is accepted, by what standard do we prevent polygamy? I suppose you could say it harms society in some way, but this judge rejected that argument. Scalia’s Lawrence dissent was correct. We’re just seeing the logic of the majority opinion play out in the courts. That, and the collapse of Christianity as the basis for Western society. (The American Conservative)

* Actually, the argument for fidelity to one person of the opposite sex pre-dates Christianity as well [not just Judaism either]… see my “Point #3“

Incest!?

HotAir will catch us up on the “haps” in our court system, and then we will let GP comment on the situation as these guys [only] can:

Jonathan Turley set quite a few tongues to wagging yesterday when he published an article with the provocative title, “Federal Court Strikes Down Criminalization of Polygamy in Utah.” It involves the case of Brown v Buhman, where Turley himself is one of the lawyers involved. The introduction to his announcement certainly fanned the flames of those who follow this subject closely.

It is with a great pleasure this evening to announce that decision of United States District Court judge Clark Waddoups striking down key portions of the Utah polygamy law as unconstitutional. The Brown family and counsel have spent years in both the criminal phase of this case and then our challenge to the law itself in federal court. Despite the public statements of professors and experts that we could not prevail in this case, the court has shown that it is the rule of law that governs in this country.

If the name Brown when related to the subject of polygamy is ringing a bell for some of you, that’s because the family in question is one and the same as the stars of the TLC series Sister Wives. This differs significantly from HBO’s highly successful, but completely fictional series Big Love, in that Sister Wives is a reality TV show based on the lives of actual polygamists.

A I mentioned above, this announcement set some people off immediately, including Professor Bainbridge.

  • Next stop on the slippery slope express, I assume, will be consensual adult incest marriages.

He followed that up with a tweet saying, “Robert Bork was right. We are Slouching Towards Gomorrah.”

…read more…

Indeed! Part of Utah`s Admittance

One of the comments in the GP post that makes TOTAL sense in its conclusions:

Well we went from “Does the sex of the partner really matter?” to “Does the number of partners really matter?”, so my money is on “Do the ages of the partners really matter?”, followed by “Does the genetic proximity of the partners really matter?”, followed by “Does the species of the partners really matter?”, but I think we have a good 50 to 100 years on that last one.

How long do you think it will be before we’re hearing about a 30-something single dad and his teenaged identical twin sons having a three-way wedding?

Another commentator on FreeRepublic notes well that “…wasn’t outlawing polygamy a condition of Utah’s statehood?”

Here is Gay Patriot layin’ down the intelligent commentary on the progressive left in our country being at the center of this rot, not exclusively gays, but gay leftists and hetero leftists:

“Don’t be ridiculous,” they said. “No way does same sex marriage lead to legalized polygamy. The slippery slope argument is a complete fallacy, because enactment of one liberal social policy has never, ever led to the subsequent enactment of the logical extension of that liberal social policy. Ever!”

Well, they may have been wrong about the coefficient of friction on that particular incline. Commenter Richard Bell notes the following: Judge Cites Same-Sex Marriage in Declaring Polygamy Ban Unconstitutional.

Interestingly, the judge’s 91-page opinion cites a series of legal precedents that have gradually redefined marriage, and limited the ability of the state to define it. Almost as though there had been some kind of negative gradient, and the law had been gravitationally drawn to the lower end of the gradient as a result of the lack of adhesion on that gradient.

Since marriage is no longer about creating a stable environment for children, and has become (and this mainly the fault of heterosexual liberals) about personal fulfillment, validation, and access to social benefits, there literally is no constraint on how much more broadly it can be redefined.

(emphasis added)

Ouch! So on the money! Liberalism in political philosophy, scientific paradigms, theology, and the like, all have the same outcome from the affect. Dilution to the point of relativised thinking, to wit Tammy Bruce cogently says — and for those that do not know, she is a lesbian:

★ 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, The Death of Right and Wrong: Exposing the Left’s Assault on Our Culture and Values, 35.) [read more]

The same arguments in the case SCOTUS decided (Brown v. Buhman) will be used in an incest case here in the states (See the NY Times, as well as Time Magazine). With the fertilization choices, the fact that it takes multiple generations for “webbed feet,” and the idea that a sister-and-sister, or brother-and-brother cannot have children, leave the incest case open, as the Brown case has already been used to argue against polygamy.Incest Star Wars SMALL

Here is the last paragraph of the Time Magazine article that notes the players in the “incest” battle:

The ACLU has filed suit in several states to challenge the few remaining statutes that prohibit unmarried couples from living together. This is the sort of case that may have a better chance of expanding Lawrence’s reach, said Katine.

Here is Scalia, as quoted via U.S. News and World Report:

In his dissent of that ruling, Justice Antonin Scalia angrily warned that if the court was willing to strike down sodomy laws, other state laws on moral choices could soon be lifted, among them gay marriage. He wrote:

State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity … every single one of these laws is called into question by today’s decision.

He further argued:

If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is ‘no legitimate state interest’ for purposes of proscribing that conduct … what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising ‘[t]he liberty protected by the Constitution?’

INDEED!

Alan Dershowitz Slams J-Street’s History and Founding

Published by Papa Giorgio

Except for the Jews for Jesus quip (typical)… everything is kosher. This is a bitching quote: “Always believe the threats of your enemy more than the promises of your friends.”

“I once wrote that history has taught us to trust the threats of our enemies more than the promises of our friends. Our enemies are making serious threats. It is time to take them seriously. It is time for our friends to keep their promises.” ~ Elie Wiesel

Saba Ahmed Not So Moderate After-All ~ Fire & Ice

Published by Papa Giorgio

Libertarian Republican updates an older story on RPT about Saba Ahmed, the Muslim woman at the Heritage event:

A few weeks ago, a Muslim woman, Saba Ahmed, gained some attention by defending “peaceful Muslims” at a Heritage Foundation panel on holding our government responsible for the attack on our Ambassador in Libya. There are one point something billion Muslims, she said, the majority of whom are peaceful. So, westerners must be careful to distinguish particular Muslims who break the law from the majority of Muslims. 

Well, now comes a photo of this person – at the time, uneventful – leaving the courtroom with Mohamed Osman Mohamud who was charged with attempting to set off a car bomb at a Christmas Tree lighting ceremony in Portland, Oregon. Having been found guilty of the offense in a court of law, we can suppose that Mohamud is guilty of other offenses of which he has been suspected but not formally charged, such as raping a woman at Oregon State University. So what that there was probable cause to believe this man was a rapist and an attempted murderer, says Saba Ahmed, what is important is to show solidarity with a fellow Muslim.

[….]

Saba, I accuse you of denying the One True God and putting your co-religionists ahead of His laws and – even! – of claiming to represent Him when you defend rapists and murderers.

 Uncle Sam’s Misguided Children notes some of the recent political activity of Saba:

According to Erick Erickson of RedState.com,

“Saba Ahmed has been arrested for stalking and her family claims she was diagnosed with a mental disorder. She’s also been active at Occupy rallies denouncing American war efforts. She has made opposition to the American war against terrorism a key part of what she does.” 

Oregon Live wrote that she is running for a Congressional seat in Oregon. She switched parties in 2012 after a primary defeat for an Oregon senate seat, and ran as a “conservative Republican.” With a hijab of course…

In that post, USMC simply asks after noting that Saba Ahmed is a friend of a man who tried to bomb Portland, Oregon… if she is TRULY a Moderate Muslim? 54° 40′ Or Fight has this on the “mental” disorder thingy:

Ahmed has a documented history of mental illness and a habit of stalking conservative and Republican web pages and meetings.  After Osama Bin Laden’s death in May, Ahmed claimed she had to cancel a fictitious rally in Pioneer Courthouse Square (which she never advertised or got a permit for), falsely asserting that she had received threats on the Oregon Tea Party Facebook page.

A cursory search of the internet shows that Saba Ahmed has been arrested several times, and has had at least one visit to a psychiatric hospital.

HotAir notes Saba’s background as well: “She is same Saba Ahmed that tried to win the Democratic nomination to the US House of Representatives in the 2012 cycle, only to change party affiliation to the GOP after drawing less than one percent of the Democratic vote…”

Read Erick Erickson’s story, “What Dana Milbank Does Not Tell You,” on this topic to finish off the knowledge base on this.

Megyn Kelly DESTROYS Jon Stewart & Lib Cranks

Published by Papa Giorgio

(Via Gateway Pundit) The Blaze wrote about the left’s many lies on the Hobby Lobby decision.

The Washington Post faulted several Democratic lawmakers for less-than-truthful assertions about the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Hobby Lobby case, most of which implied that employers could prevent employees from buying contraception.

The 5-4 court majority actually ruled that closely held companies cannot be forced to pay for select types of contraceptives for employees.

Since some Democrats – including party leaders Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada and Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California – confessed to misspeaking, and others stated they were expressing an opinion, the Post’s Fact Checker said it would not count the comments as outright lies.

“But this collection of rhetoric suggests that Democrats need to be more careful in their language about the ruling,” the Post noted. “All too often, lawmakers leap to conclusions that are not warranted by the facts at hand. Simply put, the court ruling does not outlaw contraceptives, does not allow bosses to prevent women from seeking birth control and does not take away a person’s religious freedom.”

The Post cited eight Democrats for making misleading comments.