Author: Papa Giorgio
“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.
Sheriffs Visiting Oklahoma State Capitol Building Ordered to Disarm
Read more at The Blaze
Democratic Money Grubbing Hypocrites Kowtowing to Billionaires
This bugs me to no end, I will post at the end of this a oft posted comparison to progressive billionaires versus more conservative billionaires and the impact this money has for-or-against our freedoms.
Michael Medved shows how Democrats and rational libertarians (the Koch Brothers) diverge on the issues most important to voters. Not to mention the hypocrisy of the left in all this. So much so that Washington Post’s Dana Milbank said:
✂ “Democrats’ climate-change filibuster is nothing but a lot of hot air”…. “This may be the first time in history that a group of senators filibustered themselves.”
The Washington Examiner’s Zack Colman points out some of the hypocrisy when he writes,
✂ “While Reid has grown more boisterous when it comes to the Koch brothers, Republicans have shot back that Democratic-aligned outsiders are starting to play the big money game as well. They have pointed to Tom Steyer, the billionaire former hedge fund manager, who has pledged to spend $100 million through his NextGen Climate PAC on climate and environmental issues ahead of the 2014 midterm elections.”
Powerline goes on to explain the reason behind a bunch of old, outdated politicians doing an all-nighter:
…Tom Steyer, a billionaire who has made a great deal of money on government-subsidized “green” energy projects, has become one of the Democratic Party’s most important donors. On February 18, he hosted a fundraiser at his home that netted $400,000. Harry Reid and six other Senators attended, along with Al Gore and a number of rich environmentalists. At that meeting, plans for last night’s talk-a-thon were already being laid.
The connection is simple: Steyer has pledged to contribute $50 million and raise another $50 million to help Democrats in the 2014 elections. The catch is that they have to emphasize global warming as an issue:
✦ Steyer’s advocacy group, NextGen Political Action, plans to spend at least $50 million of the former hedge-fund manager’s money, plus another $50 million raised from other donors. The group will refuse to spend money on behalf of Democrats who oppose climate regulation, but will not spend money against them either, according to Chris Lehane, a Steyer consultant.
So the Democrats are trying to walk a narrow line. They need to make noise about global warming to keep the cash flowing from Tom Steyer and other deep-pocketed environmental activists (some of whom, of course, are also “green” energy cronies)….
Plus, the comparison to these leftist radicals shrinking human freedom (growing government) versus allowing the proverbial us to make more choices in the individual sense (smaller government) is legend:
…First, the government needs to issue a mandate that all households must own at least one firearm. We will need a federal agency to ensure that people aren’t just buying cheap BB guns or .22 pistols, even though that may be all they need or want. It has to be 9mm or above, with .44 magnums getting a one-time tax credit on their own. Let’s pick an agency known for its aptitude on firearms and home protection to issue required annual certifications each year, without which the government will have to levy hefty fines. Which agency would do the best job? Hmmmm … I know! How about TSA? With their track record of excellence, we should have no problems implementing this mandate.
Don’t want to own a gun? Hey, no worries. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts says citizens have the right to refuse to comply with mandates. The government will just seize some of your cash in fines, that’s all. Isn’t choice great? Those fines will go toward federal credits that will fund firearm purchases for the less well off, so that they can protect their homes as adequately as those who can afford guns on their own. Since they generally live in neighborhoods where police response is appreciably worse than their higher-earning fellow Americans, they need them more anyway. Besides — gun ownership is actually mentioned in the Constitution, unlike health care, which isn’t. Obviously, that means that the federal government should be funding gun ownership….
This is why people fear government, to answer John’s question.
Back to the excellent NewsBusters response to “Krystal Ball” on MSNBC:
Honestly, how does this woman have a job in a news division?
Oh. That’s right. MSNBC isn’t a news organization. How could I have forgotten?
Saying Republicans don’t want young people to buy health insurance is preposterous.
What conservatives don’t want is the government to force young people to purchase something that morbidity tables show will likely have absolutely no benefit for them until the distant future so that others who likely will benefit much sooner can get it either for free or far more cheaply.
Irrespective of what Supreme Court chief justice John Roberts foolishly ruled last year, this is neither Constitutional nor ethical.
As for these young people dying if ObamaCare is not enacted, that asininely assumes that people won’t have the money to pay for their care if they get sick or won’t purchase health insurance when they reach an age when they believe they need it.
For example, Ball mentioned prenatal care and tetanus shots. As a person that owns an insurance agency, I certainly would be telling a client looking to have children to purchase health insurance.
As for Pap smears, the Mayo Clinic recommends women over 21 do them every two to three years.
The cost varies state by state. In New York City, you can get one for as little as $150.
As such, a woman in that city doing it even once every two years would save thousands of dollars paying for it herself rather than buying health insurance.
As for cholesterol tests, these are now available online for as little as $40.
This great, short, update comes via The Lonely Conservative:
The short answer to the question posed above is “Not even close.” It’s not the Koch Brothers or ALEC. Nope. The biggest spender in the dark money game is the Tides Foundation. Oh and by the way, Tides is a big liberal group.
Whenever “ALEC” and “dark money” are mentioned in the media, however, there ought to be a third name given at least equal attention – the Tides Foundation. That’s because Tides, the San Francisco-based funder of virtually every liberal activist group in existence since the mid-1970s, pioneered the concept of providing a cut-out for donors who don’t wish to be associated in public with a particular cause. It is instructive to compare the funding totals for Tides and ALEC.
A search of non-profit grant databases reveals 139 grants worth a total of $5.6 million to ALEC since 1998. By comparison, Tides is the Mega-Goliath of dark money cash flows. Tides received 1,976 grants worth a total of $451 million during the same period, or nearly 100 times as much money as ALEC. But even that’s not the whole story with Tides, which unlike ALEC, has divided and multiplied over the years. Add to the Tides Foundation total the directly linked Tides Center’s 465 grants with a combined worth of $62 million, and the total is well over half a billion dollars. (Read More)
So there.