* Looks like the actor starring in the new Mummy film as the Priest Imohotep (pic on front-page).
Author: Papa Giorgio
Rush Explains Gov. Scott Walker’s Blueprint for Conservatives
Rabbi Daniel Lapin Discusses the Attack on Christianity
“T” is NOT for Twinkie! Hint: rub the lotion on its skin
“T” is for Transgender Defense.”
I don’t know whether to thank Gay Patriot for this, or walk away? ;)
A male-to-female transgender person in Washington state claims s/he cannot be held responsible for a series of murders s/he committed prior to undergoing gender-reassignment surgery because they were committed by the man he was, not the woman he is.
Douglas Perry, 63, who now goes by “Donna,” was arrested late last year after DNA evidence linked him to the murders of prostitutes Yolanda Sapp, Kathleen Brisbois and Nickie Lowe, whose bodies were all found unclothed in the Spokane River in 1990 with fatal gunshot wounds. He is being held in Spokane County Jail under $1 million bond on three counts of first degree murder.
[….]
But Perry insists that as “Donna,” he’s never killed anyone, and that his new status as a woman means the alleged murderer no longer exists.
Whether he killed the women after instructing them to “rub the lotion on its skin” is unknown at this time.
GP thinks this defense won’t fly, but I am sure a lighter sentence may be PC’ed in, so-to-speak. Need I remind people of the Twinkie Defense? (Which I only mention tongue-in-cheek)
Another Example of Progressive Ideals Ending in Disaster!
An interesting post (@HotAir) caught my attention in regards to birth-control, and the dangers associated with them. Again, the Left has a vision which it thinks will increase choices made in the utopian dreams envisioned of a perfect society. But what leftism fails to do which conservatism does is ask three questions:
1) compared to what?
2) at what cost?
3) what hard-evidence do you have?
Here is the article:
…First it was former Winter Olympics hopeful and former Townhall.com intern Megan Henry — sidelined due to use of the intrauterine device NuVaRing — whose joining of a class-action lawsuit against NuVaRing parent company Merck Pharmaceuticals made news across the country.
Then there was a 10,000-word essay from Vanity Fair, which asked “why, despite evidence of serious risk, a potentially lethal contraceptive remains on the market.” And Ricki Lake’s documentary on hormonal contraception and “the unexposed side effects of these powerful medications” is getting backlash from writers at Jezebel.com and Slate.
Registered nurse and pro-life activist Jill Stanek told me this exposure is no surprise, delayed though it is:
“In 2005, the World Health Organization classified the morning-after pill as a Class 1 carcinogen — as dangerous as cigarette smoke and asbestos,” Stanek said. “With all of the studies showing links between oral contraception and greater chances of glaucoma, heart risk and breast-cancer risk, it’s amazing any women use them. And the NuvaRing lawsuit shows how dangerous hormonal contraception is.”
“The American people are belatedly finding out from the mainstream media just how far we’ve gone off the path of proper care of the bodies of women,” stated Stanek. She said media attention to the issue, as well prominent political attention to issues like the HHS contraception mandate, has created “a perfect storm for greater knowledge by women about why they should use better wisdom and responsibility in their sexual practices.”
[….]
Obviously, women won’t stop using birth control overnight — and their male sex partners aren’t likely to ask them to stop — but it’s important that young women receive all of the facts surrounding the use of contraception. This is especially true as the HHS mandate forces coverage of products with literally deadly potential.
“Masculinity Is Not An Act” (Plus: It’s Not About the Nail)
Gay Patriot made my night! Just heading to bed and I got a laugh-and-a-half from the video! PLUS, I have been a fan of doc-Sommers for some time.
…Christina Hoff Summers, writing on Time.com… shatters the assumptions about manhood and masculinity that form the foundation of contemporary feminist thought. To summarize the main points briefly:
Masculinity is not a mask, it’s how men are.
Despite feminist desires to the contrary, it’s unnatural for men to act like women.
Masculine behavior in boys is not a mental disorder; again, contrary to what feminism teaches.
Men don’t need to express emotions to each other empathetically in order to be psychologically health.
The video [above], linked by a commenter a few months back, illustrates the point quite well.
Below is a Prager University video that is perfect for the topic at hand. Albeit a bit too “naturalistic” with its perceived history (time-table) of man, it is still chalked full of truth:
ATF Illegally Pressuring Gun-Store Owners to Hand Over Names of Customers
Read all about it at The Blaze:
Lesbian Police Chiefs, Code Pink, and Homeland Security = The Left
Yes, The Left Confuses Me Too!
There’s nothing like a lesbian feminist authority figure who boasts of being the first female police chief in Minneapolis donning a symbol of male ownership in a patriarchal tribal society to express the deep schizophrenia of the left in its enthusiastic enabling of Islamists. (Frontpage)
A young girl at the Minnisota “hijab” press event”
(Gay Patriot) Janee Harteau is the Minneapolis police chief who “married” one of her female sergeants. (Try doing that in Teheran or Riyadh.) Now, she’s one of several city officials in Minneapolis who wore Islamic Hijabs to show their Solidarity with the people who perform clitorectomies and stone gay people to death.
Another piece of relevant news via Gateway Pundit is the recent meeting of our Secretary of Homeland Security (Jeh Johnson) meeting with the leaders of Code Pink:
It’s an Obama world.
As the United States faces a Cold War showdown over Russia annexing Crimea and an international passenger jet having seemingly disappeared, Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson met with leaders of the terrorist support group Code Pink at Homeland Security headquarters in Washington, D.C. on Monday.
It is another feather in the cap of a group that has a history of working with terrorists and state sponsors of terrorism against the United States, Israel and free Iraq while simultaneously operating at the top levels of the United States government and Democratic Party. Code Pink’s allies since the group’s founding in 2002 have included Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood, Hezbollah, the Taliban, al Qaeda (various branches) and members of the Weather Underground. Code Pink has also allied itself with the terrorist governments of Saddam Hussein, Fidel Castro and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Code Pink is also allied with the Obama administration. Members of Code Pink’s leadership have fundraised and campaigned for Obama’s elections. They have also acted as a messenger between terrorists and President Barack Obama. Code Pink leaders have also served on the advisory board of the Progressive Democrats of America alongside Rep. John Conyers (MI) among others.
Frontpage expands on craziness of Code Pink:
…In late 2004 Code Pink delivered $600,000 in cash and aid to what Benjamin called the families of “the other side” in Fallujah, Iraq as U.S. Marines, British and free Iraqi forces fought to liberate the city from al Qaeda….
UPDATED with this CRAZY story! Via The Daily Mail:
A Kuwaiti woman who once ran for parliament has called for sex slavery to be legalised – and suggested that non-Muslim prisoners from war-torn countries would make suitable concubines.
Salwa al Mutairi argued buying a sex-slave would protect decent, devout and ‘virile’ Kuwaiti men from adultery because buying an imported sex partner would be tantamount to marriage.
And she even had an idea of where to ‘purchase’ these sex-salves – browsing through female prisoners of war in other countries.
The political activist and TV host even suggested that it would be a better life for women in warring countries as the might die of starvation.
Mutairi claimed: ‘There was no shame in it and it is not haram’ (forbidden) under Islamic Sharia law.’…
ABC’s Nightline Defines “News” Differently Than I Do
(Via NewsBusters) How do the journalists at Nightline define news? On Monday night, co-host Dan Harris and reporter Mariana van Zeller spent an astonishing nine minutes and 33 seconds on the salacious, gossipy phenomenon of “bootleg butt injections.” Yet, it’s been 123 days, 17 and a half weeks, since the show’s hosts have focused on ObamaCare and the problems with the law’s implementation.
Guardians of the Galaxy Trailer (w/ Rocket Raccoon Art)
A Scared Future Mom Asks a Question about Down Syndrome
Do You Deny Anthropogenic Warming? Off With Your Head!
This comes way of WUWT, and highlights the tendency of the Left towards totalitarian thinking in order to make their vision “work.
Scientists who don’t believe in catastrophic man-made global warming should be put in prison, a US philosophy professor argues on a website funded by the UK government.
Lawrence Torcello – assistant professor of philosophy at Rochester Institute of Technology, NY, writes in an essay at The Conversation that climate scientists who fail to communicate the correct message about “global warming” should face trial for “criminal negligence”. (H/T Bishop Hill)
What are we to make of those behind the well documented corporate funding of global warming denial? Those who purposefully strive to make sure “inexact, incomplete and contradictory information” is given to the public? I believe we understand them correctly when we know them to be not only corrupt and deceitful, but criminally negligent in their willful disregard for human life. It is time for modern societies to interpret and update their legal systems accordingly.
More @ Breitbart
What next, numbers tattooed on our arms because we hold an opinion different from Torcello?
Reason.org ends with a great commentary on this freedom restricting idea of the above lunatic:
In 2012, in a proceeding straight out of the Inquisition, an Italian court convicted six scientists for providing “inexact, incomplete and contradictory information” in the lead-up to the earthquake. Now, a philosophy professor says that case may provide a worthwhile example for the treatment of scientific dissenters—specifically, “climate deniers who receive funding as part of a sustained campaign to undermine the public’s understanding of scientific consensus.”…
…He ultimately allows that he wouldn’t actually criminalize poor scientific communication—just anybody who might support dissenting scientists, or receive such support.
If those with a financial or political interest in inaction had funded an organised campaign to discredit the consensus findings of seismology, and for that reason no preparations were made, then many of us would agree that the financiers of the denialist campaign were criminally responsible for the consequences of that campaign. I submit that this is just what is happening with the current, well documented funding of global warming denialism….
We have good reason to consider the funding of climate denial to be criminally and morally negligent. The charge of criminal and moral negligence ought to extend to all activities of the climate deniers who receive funding as part of a sustained campaign to undermine the public’s understanding of scientific consensus.
If you’re trying to figure out how that doesn’t threaten the free exercise of speech, Torcello assures us, “We must make the critical distinction between the protected voicing of one’s unpopular beliefs, and the funding of a strategically organized campaign to undermine the public’s ability to develop and voice informed opinions.”
So…You can voice a dissenting opinion, so long as you don’t benefit from it or help dissenters benefit in any way?
By the way, according to RIT, Torcello researches “the moral implications of global warming denialism, as well as other forms of science denialism.” Presumably, his job is a paid one. But this is OK, because…the majority of scientists agree with his views on the issue?
Let’s allow that they do—and that a majority of scientists agree about man-made climate change and a host of other issues. Just when does the Tribunal of the Holy Office of the Inquisition meet to decide what is still subject to debate, and what is now holy writ? And is an effort to “undermine the public’s understanding of scientific consensus” always criminally negligent?…
More @ Reason
Its funny how the left HATES profit.