Mischa Popoff’s book is, Is It Organic?
Author: Papa Giorgio
3 Reasons to Build the Keystone XL Pipeline ~ ReasonTV
A Liberal Democrat Governor Of Hawaii Talks Unfunded Liabilities And Democratic Spending Habits ~ ReasonTV
From Video Description:
“When the special interests become too powerful,” warns Ben Cayetano, “the voter only has the collective conscience of the people who are in public office.”
Cayetano was a popular two-term Democratic governor of the state of Hawaii who held office from 1994 to 2002. In 2012, Cayetano became alarmed by what he saw as out-of-control spending and special interests run amok. He came out of retirement and made a failed bid to become the mayor of Honolulu, Hawaii’s largest city.
Cayetano opposed the city’s $5.26 billion rail project, which he says costs too much and will not address Honolulu’s traffic problems. The massive system and inevitable cost overruns, he fears, simply piles more debt on a government already straining under unfunded liabilities for public-sector pensions and benefits. “They are going to end up raising taxes,” Cayetano told Reason TV. “Or the city will go bankrupt.”
In a wide-ranging conversation, the 73-year-old Filipino American discusses the Aloha State’s fiscal mess, the trouble with Hawaii’s one-party government, and why he believes social issues are distracting voters from more pressing economic problems.
`Let Them Eat Cake!` ~ France`s Unions and Competition
h/t, Every Day Reggie (via Ann Coulter)
From the New York Times:
PARIS — “How stupid do you think we are?”
With those choice words, and several more similar in tone, the chief executive of an American tire company touched off a furor in France on Wednesday as he responded to a government plea to take over a Goodyear factory slated for closing in northern France.
“I have visited the factory a couple of times,” Maurice Taylor Jr., the head of Titan International, wrote to the country’s industry minister, Arnaud Montebourg, in a letter published in French newspapers on Wednesday.
“The French work force gets paid high wages but works only three hours. They have one hour for their breaks and lunch, talk for three and work for three.”
“I told this to the French unions to their faces and they told me, ‘That’s the French way!’ ” added Mr. Taylor, a swaggering businessman who is nicknamed “the Grizz” by Wall Street analysts for his abrasive negotiating style.
His decidedly undiplomatic assessment quickly struck a nerve in France, where concerns about declining competitiveness and the divisive tax policies of President François Hollande’s government have led some economists to ask whether the nation is at risk of becoming the next sick man of Europe.
Mr. Montebourg, who is known for lashing out at French corporate bosses without hesitation, initially seemed at a loss for words on how to respond to the American charge.
“I do not want to harm French interests,” he said when asked about Mr. Taylor’s letter. Later, Mr. Montebourg released a letter to Mr. Taylor, calling the executive’s comments “extreme” and “insulting,” adding that they pointed to a “perfect ignorance” about France and its strengths, which continue to attract international investors.
French media outlets minced no words. “Incendiary!” “Insulting!” and “Scathing!” were just a few of the terms replayed on French newspaper Web sites and on the airwaves throughout the day. The French blogosphere lit up with hundreds of remarks condemning the “predatory” American corporate culture that Mr. Taylor seemed to represent; other commentators who ventured to admit that there might be something to Mr. Taylor’s observations were promptly bashed.
And from the Sydney Morning Herald:
….The communist-backed CGT union, France’s largest, strongly opposed a Titan takeover last year. Mr Montebourg had hoped to rekindle the company’s interest but admitted defeat this month.
”Sir, your letter says you want Titan to start a discussion,” Mr Taylor said. ”How stupid do you think we are? Titan is the one with the money and the talent to produce tyres. What does the crazy union have? It has the French government. The French farmer wants cheap tyres. He doesn’t care if those tyres come from China or India or if those tyres are subsidised.
”Titan is going to buy Chinese or Indian tyres, pay less than €1 ($1.30) an hour to workers and export all the tyres that France needs,” he said. ”In five years, Michelin won’t be producing tyres in France. You can keep your so-called workers.”
Golden Rice and Common Sense | Blood on Their Hands
Dennis Prager reads from the Lancet an article written by Bjorn Lomborg about Golden Rice, a genetically modified rice that has increased vitamin A in it (article: PROJECT SYNDICATE). Reason.com also quotes from it but also has a photo of one of the kids talked about for a reference to what is otherwise just talked about (REASON.ORG). Many deaths are on the heads of these eco-fascists, and even well-meaning people who get stuck in a rut of thinking one-way.
From the PROJECT SYNDICATE article:
Three billion people depend on rice as their staple food, with 10% at risk for vitamin A deficiency, which, according to the World Health Organization, causes 250,000-500,000 children to go blind each year. Of these, half die within a year. A study from the British medical journal The Lancet estimates that, in total, vitamin A deficiency kills 668,000 children under the age of five each year.
Yet, despite the cost in human lives, anti-GM campaigners – from Greenpeace to Naomi Klein – have derided efforts to use golden rice to avoid vitamin A deficiency. In India, Vandana Shiva, an environmental activist and adviser to the government, called golden rice “a hoax” that is “creating hunger and malnutrition, not solving it.”…
To be sure, handing out vitamin pills or adding vitamin A to staple products can make a difference. But it is not a sustainable solution to vitamin A deficiency. And, while it is cost-effective, recent published estimates indicate that golden rice is much more so.
Supplementation programs costs $4,300 for every life they save in India, whereas fortification programs cost about $2,700 for each life saved. Both are great deals. But golden rice would cost just $100 for every life saved from vitamin A deficiency…
Now, finally, golden rice will come to the Philippines; after that, it is expected in Bangladesh and Indonesia. But, for eight million kids, the wait was too long.
“If you plan to destroy test fields to prevent responsible testing and development of Golden Rice for humanitarian purposes, you will be accused of contributing to a crime against humanity. Your actions will be carefully registered and you will, hopefully, have the opportunity to defend your illegal and immoral actions in front of an international court.” — Dr. Ingo Potrykus to Greenpeace, February 2001
CLIMATE DEPOT has this:
….According to the World Health Organization between 250,000 to 500,000 children become blind every year due to vitamin A deficiency, half of whom die within a year of becoming blind. Millions of other people suffer from various debilitating conditions due to the lack of this essential nutrient.
Golden Rice is a genetically modified form of rice that, unlike conventional rice, contains beta-Carotene in the rice kernel. Beta-Carotene is converted to vitamin A in humans and is important for eyesight, the immune system, and general good health. Swiss scientist and humanitarian Dr. Ingo Potrykus and his colleagues developed Golden Rice in 1998. It has been demonstrated in numerous studies that golden rice can eliminate vitamin A deficiency.
Greenpeace and its allies have successfully blocked the introduction of golden rice for over a decade, claiming it may have “environmental and health risks” without ever elaborating on what those risks might be. After years of effort the Golden Rice Humanitarian Project, led by Dr. Potrykus, The Rockefeller Foundation and others were unable to break through the political opposition to golden rice that was generated directly by Greenpeace and its followers.
Recently the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has taken a lead role, in collaboration with the International Rice Research Institute in the Philippines, in breaking through these barriers and bringing Golden Rice to market. Field trials are now underway in the Philippines and Bangladesh with the hope of introducing it to the market by 2015. Since the invention of Golden Rice in 1998 between four million and 8 million additional children have become blind, nearly half of whom have already died. Surely this constitutes “great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.” Greenpeace continues to oppose these field trials.
Greenpeace has openly and aggressively spread misinformation about Golden Rice since it was first invented and has continued to do so at every opportunity. They claim that there are better ways to alleviate vitamin A deficiency, such as vitamin pills and “home gardening”. Yet Greenpeace is doing nothing to implement alternative programs for the millions of victims, claiming the cause of vitamin A deficiency is “poverty”. One might ask if purposefully condemning millions of children to blindness and early death perpetuates poverty rather than alleviating it. Academies of Science around the world endorse the use of biotechnology, including genetic modification, to improve the nutrition and productivity of our food crops. There is zero evidence of any possible harm from these improvements….
Massachusetts Public Schools Nix Gender ~ Dennis Prager Discusses
Via Patheos:
In some schools, this would allow boys as old as 14 in public school bathrooms with girls as young as 5. Now I ask you, what could possibly go wrong?
BOSTON, February 19, 2013, (LifeSiteNews.com) – Massachusetts Commissioner of Education Mitchell Chester has issued orders to the state’s K-12 public schools requiring them to permit “transgender” boys and girls to use the opposite sex’s locker rooms, bathrooms, and changing facilities as long as they claim to identify with that gender.
Many elementary schools in smaller Massachusetts towns include children from kindergarten through eighth grade, making it possible for boys as old as 14 to share toilet facilities with girls as young as five.
Under Chester’s leadership, the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) released an 11-page document on Friday outlining this and other new guidelines giving “transgender” students special status and privileges in Massachusetts schools. Some family advocates are calling the document, which was prepared with assistance from homosexual and transgender advocacy groups, “the most thorough, invasive, and radical transgender initiative ever seen on a statewide level.”
The policy does not require a doctor’s note or even parental permission for a child to switch sexes in the eyes of Massachusetts schools. Only the student’s word is needed: If a boy says he’s a girl, as far as the schools are concerned, he’s a girl.
“The responsibility for determining a student’s gender identity rests with the student,” the statement says. “A school should accept a student’s assertion of his or her gender identity when there is … ‘evidence that the gender-related identity is sincerely held as part of a person’s core identity.’” That evidence, according to the document, can be as simple as a statement given by a friend.
That means, according to the newly issued school policies, that boys who say they identify as girls must be addressed by the feminine pronoun and be listed as girls on official transcripts.
They must also be allowed access to girls’ facilities and be allowed to play on girls’ athletic and club teams. The same is true for girls who say they are boys.
Again, I recommend the book, “Paper Genders,” to wit, here is a quote, and remember, Walt (the Author) lived as a woman, Laura, for 8-years!
ONE LAST EXAMPLE
This last example has all the elements: misdiagnosis, suicide attempts and early childhood experiences that twisted this poor boy’s perception of his gender identity into a knot.
The young boy was normal from all accounts until some events begin to alter and reshape his view of who he was. Sometimes when Grandma babysat him alone, she would dress him in female clothing that she made especially for him. His uncle, a troubled teenager, had a favorite sport: making fun of the little boy and yanking down his pants. The uncle turned more aggressive and fondled the boy far too many times over several years, especially while intoxicated.
The young boy started to fantasize about becoming a girl. After years of obsessing, along came Christine Jorgensen in 1955 and the first media reports of a gender change. Then the young boy started to think it was true and he, too, could change genders. The boy in his silence adopted a female name, Cristal West, but only he would know this name and the battleground that was inside him: this silent struggle lasted for years.
Trying to battle against the female trapped inside his body, the boy excelled at all that was male: football, track. cars and yes, girls. All looked normal from the outside, but inside there was pain and confusion about his gender.
As a young teen. the boy attended Eagle Rock Episcopal Church on Chickasaw Avenue. In his teens. the boy sought guidance for his struggle with the internal female from the pastor, Father Carol Barber. At their second meeting, to his shock, Father Barber moved out from behind his desk, unzipped his long black robe to reveal his naked body, and tempted the boy to have homosexual sex. The boy. appalled by the overture, quickly departed and never met with Father Barber again.
In his early twenties, the young man got married, had children and developed skills for high achievement in the business world, first as an aerospace associate design engineer, then by his forties, achieving a national operations position for a major corporation. But his internal struggle with his gender identity never went away and he used alcohol to numb the pain. Alcohol became the pathway to drugs which would bring, his impressive career to an abrupt and tragic end.
In his forties, his marriage failed. His two teenage children suffered a great betrayal when their father turned to hormone therapy in San Francisco. A skinny old doctor named Garfield who asked no questions and took no names provided the hormone injections. Over the course of time, Dr. Paul Walker approved him for surgery and Dr. Biber performed the surgical gender change.
In 1983, the man became Laura with a new birth record that specified gender as female. She had success after a few years —good looks and good jobs, recovery from drugs and alcohol—but living as a female just did not resolve the internal struggles. It was during the time Laura was studying to be a counselor at U.C. Santa Cruz in the late 1980s that she came to understand that as a transgender, she was living a self-imposed exile from her true identity.
As Laura’s intellect and thought processing ability reemerged from the alcohol- and drug-induced fog, a sober Laura could see that being a transgender was not real, but a fantasy forged out of very powerful obsessive thoughts and feelings that took over her life. As a young boy, the expression he had used to express his feelings of hurt and pain was “girl trapped in a male body.” Hiding in a transgender persona was her elaborate way to escape the deep hurt. Acting out was very important to Laura in expressing how she felt, but letting feelings define identity is never a good idea. She later commented that transgender life was like living in a temporary zip code not located near reality. She learned that the transgender feelings would be overwhelming at times, but no matter how strong the feelings are, they can never define her real identity.
Laura was determined to recover on every level, including her male birth gender. She learned in her counseling studies that recovery requires an unwavering persistence with good people supporting her. Recovery was a bit rocky and the path twisted and difficult, but now with 25 years in the rear view mirror, he is restored and has been married to a wonderful lady for 14 years. He made it back.
I know this story all too well, because that was me, the little kid from Glendale. Most of my life I thought I had been born in the wrong body but my traumatic experiences occurred after birth, not in the womb. Regrettably, I learned to dislike the boy who was fondled by an uncle, cross-dressed by a grandmother and propositioned by a homosexual clergyman. I was never a homosexual or felt the desire for men. My rejection of my birth gender was the result of abuse I suffered from several adults.
I learned after surgery that my primary issue was called dissociative identity disorder, which in turn either caused the gender disorder or displayed symptoms that looked like it. The treatment was strenuous psychotherapy to address the primary disorder, not undergoing irreversible surgery to treat a symptom. Comorbidity, the presence of more than one disorder in an individual, is common in transgenders.
So, what made me so different from other transgenders? That is simple—I wanted to recover. Like any recovery, it started with the desire to recover. Without desire, no change is even possible. I did not want to live my life in a masquerade, but in truth. I discovered there was no real medical necessity for the surgery. It was a lie.
Even the doctors who were advocating for me to change genders did not have a clue what it was all about. Psychologist Paul Walker said adaptability is the key to success in changing genders. Surgeon Stanley Biber said success is defined by the ability to physically engage in sex. Psychologist John Money at Johns Hopkins said hormones make the new gender work. Not one, however, said surgery was medical necessary, so it must not be. Dr. Paul McHugh reflects views that more closely align with my personal experience when he said, “It’s a disaster.” Sadly, a gender wreck is not one you bounce back from easily.
In my view the history of psychosurgery demonstrates a lack of accountability and oversight in the medical community that continues today. Activist lawyers and doctors join together to lobby for, and effectively get, more and more laws passed that provide even more protection for reckless, medically unnecessary surgeries. The evidence suggests a need exists for a broader base of nonsurgical therapies, such as psychological interventions, in an effort to improve care.
Now the children have caught the eye of the activist surgeons. Soon young kids will go under the knife and we’ll see television shows like “Twelve Year Old Transgenders in Tiaras.” Who should hold accountable the doctors who are playing with children’s hormones? A 2007 Dutch study says, “Fifty-two percent of the children diagnosed with GID [gender identity disorder] had one or more diagnoses other than GID…Clinicians working with children with GID should be aware of the risk for co-occurring psychiatric problems.'” Treating GID with irreversible surgery, while ignoring co-existing conditions, is a recipe for patient regret and suicide.
Transgenders want more freedom when perhaps they actually need more boundaries. The real life-threatening harm to transgenders is not a consequence of bullying; it results from the transgenders’ own high-risk sexual behaviors, illicit drug use, and alcohol abuse. Transgenders have been shown to be prone to harming themselves. Unfortunately, the activist agenda is directed toward more laws to protect transgenders instead of finding better treatments to reduce the number of suicides and regretters.
The evidence is clear—the surgery is not medically necessary and many problems occur as a result of changing genders. The personal testimonies are further confirmation that changing genders can result in very painful regret. In the next chapter we conclude with an explanation of how effective treatment got derailed by the activists and we explore some possible solutions for reducing the number of transgender regretters and deaths by suicide.
Walt Heyer, Paper Genders: Puling the Mask Off the Transgender Phenomenon (Make Waves Publishing, 2011), 87-91.
George Galloway Shows His Anti-Semitic Colors During Debate
Via The Blaze:
At an Oxford University event, British parliamentary member George Galloway shocked attendees when he abruptly [left] out of the room after finding out that his opponent was an Israeli. After realizing the man’s nationality, the politician immediately [got] out of his seat, announced that he had been misled and told those in attendance that he doesn’t debate with citizens of the Jewish state.
[….]
Adam Freedman ~ The Founders Were Not `Neutral`
THE FOUNDERS WEREN’T NEUTRAL
Nobody in 1791 expected any American government—state or federal—to be neutral as between religion and irreligion. The Founders did not have a take-it-or-leave-it attitude about religion; to the contrary, they generally agreed with John Adams’s admonition, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.” The federal government was expected to promote and encourage religion in general because, as Madison had argued in Federalist No. 51, the security of “religious rights” depends upon a “multiplicity of sects.” A robust diversity of religions would be the best safeguard against the sort of religious oppression that Europe had witnessed. In short, the Founders hoped to encourage sects, but not violence. To say this is not an attempt to guess at the secret intentions of the framers. Their support of religion is reflected in the text itself.
For one thing, the Constitution bars atheists from holding public office. Article VI requires that all legislators, and all executive and judicial officers—on both the federal and state level—take an oath to support the Constitution. But under the law at the time, only those who believed in God and in an afterlife could swear an oath. Atheists could not, for example, serve as witnesses in court—to whom would they swear to tell the truth? As late as 1820, New York’s highest court observed, “It is fully and clearly settled, that infidels who do not believe in God, or if they do, do not think that he will either reward or punish them in the world to come, cannot be witnesses in any case… because an oath cannot possibly be any tie or obligation upon them.
At the North Carolina ratifying convention, lawyer and future Supreme Court justice James Iredell explained that the oath requirement would ensure a basic level of religious belief among officeholders because an oath is a “solemn appeal to the Supreme Being, for the truth of what is said, by a person who believes in the existence of a Supreme Being and in a future state of rewards and punishments.” Madison acknowledged the religious nature of the oath in a letter of October 1787—just one month after the constitutional convention adjourned.
Although the Constitution requires a minimum level of religiosity for all officeholders, it does not favor any particular denomination—Article VI also prohibits any “religious Test” for holding federal office. As a whole, Article IV perfectly illustrates the framers’ vision of the federal government’s role in religion. The government could not, for example, require that all congressmen be Anglicans, or even Christians, but it does require that they be theists. Indeed, the framers were so scrupulous about the ecumenical nature of the oath that they specified that officeholders could “swear or affirm” to uphold the Constitution—affirmation being the method for Quakers and other individuals who objected to “swearing.”
NEVER ON A SUNDAY
The early actions of the federal government also tend to debunk the neutrality canard. The very same Congress that approved the First Amendment also provided for paid chaplains in the House and Senate, and called upon President Washington to proclaim “a day of Public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging, with grateful hearts, the many and signal favors of Almighty God.” That same Congress also reenacted the Northwest Ordinance, which declares the government’s policy that the teaching of “religion, morality and knowledge” shall “forever be encouraged.”
The Court’s liberals respond to all this with a phony brand of originalism that recasts the framers as secular humanists.
Happy to ignore the text of the establishment clause, the neutrality crowd prefers to focus on things that the framers didn’t say. In Marsh v. Chambers, for example, Justice William Brennan found it highly significant that the framers “did not invoke the name of God” in the Constitution. Well, except that they did—in Article VII, which records the date of the document as “the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven” (emphasis added). Who, one wonders, did Justice Brennan imagine “our Lord” to be?
Another provision that would be inexplicable to any proponent of strict neutrality can be found in Article I, Section 7. When Congress passes a bill, that clause gives the president ten days to decide whether to veto it; that is, ten days, “Sundays excepted.” Why exclude Sundays? Wait—don’t tell me—I know this one.
Adam Freedman, The Naked Constitution: What the Founders Said and Why It Still Matters (New York, NY: Broadside Books, 2012), 166-169.
I Didn`t See Violent Reactions Like in Islam ~ But Most Involved Agreed `Too Young to Wed`
Via Creeping Sharia: Note the dhimmitude and fear of offending Muslims.
Some Islamic News ~ West Coast/East Coast
(Mention of possible religious motivation at the 2.00 minute mark in the TV report)
Via Libertarian Republican, “Media hints religious hate crime in grissly NJ murder case, Muslim man kills two Christians, cutting off their heads and hands“
The very latest on the case of Yusuf Ibrahim, from New Jersey 101.5:
An Indiana man accused of fatally shooting two men in a parked car, cutting off their heads and hands and burying them in the woods in southern New Jersey has made his first court appearance in Jersey City.
The Jersey Journal reports that 28-year-old Yusuf Ibrahim, currently of Jersey City, didn’t speak Thursday during his hearing via video link from the Hudson County jail. He is facing two counts each of murder and desecration of human remains.
Bail was set at more than $3 million cash.
The two victims were Coptic Christian men. Interestingly, no motive for the brutal murders are being released by officials.
[….]
Editor’s comment – The political correctness quotient is almost comical: An “Indiana man,” instead of Muslim man? He probably lived a couple years in Indianapolis, fresh off the boat from Cairo, or Ankara, so the media grants him the moniker of “Indiana man.”
Via Libertarian Republican, “Muslim youth goes on shooting spree near L.A.: Kills three, shoots at passing cars at major intersection, wounding another six“
…The liberal media is being cautious not to identify the shootings as an act of terrorism. They are also avoiding any reporting of the man’s obvious ethnic origins, or immigration status.
This morning, chilling details about how he murdered his victims are beginning to come out.
[….]
Details are emerging about the killer. He is described as a loner, who lives with his parents. He was unemployed, and only attended a local community college part-time.
Via “Answering Muslims“
This morning’s killing spree by Ali Syed presents an opportunity to clear up some confusion. Is Syed a Muslim? His name would suggest a Muslim background, but for all we know at this point, he could (possibly) turn out to be a Christian or an atheist. Also, even if Syed was a devout Muslim, he could have had mental health problems, even a psychotic break with reality.
How is this relevant to clearing up confusion? Consider this. When a terrorist like Nidal Malik Hasan, a self-proclaimed “Solder of Allah,” opens fire on unsuspecting victims while shouting “Allahu Akbar,” politicians and the media are quick to remind us that all religions have their radicals, that people of all backgrounds can have mental health problems, and so on.
True. But this response leaves out an important difference between Islam and other ideologies. Muhammad commanded his followers to violently subjugate non-Muslims (Qur’an 9:29), and terrorism is a divinely-ordained response to aggression, criticism, etc., in Islam (Qur’an 5:33, 8:12, etc.). Hence, while it’s possible for someone who happens to be a Muslim to have a psychological break and to go on a killing spree that has nothing to do with his religion (which would be a possibility for adherents of any ideology), it’s also possible for a Muslim to go on a killing spree specifically because his religion advocates killing for the sake of Allah (a possibility that does not exist for Christians and other non-Muslims). Similarly, a Muslim may become extremely angry at his wife and kill her in a fit of rage, a tragedy that could (and does) happen among non-Muslims as well. But a Muslim may also kill his wife because his religion supports honor killings, a practice which is not supported by other religions.
A Conversation with Your Typical Liberal Believer and Watcher of MSNBC
A liberal professor interviewed in Indoctrinate U explains that protecting and teaching from one ideological viewpoint insulates students who are liberal to properly defend and coherently explain their views. This excerpt is taken from two parts, Part 1 (http://tinyurl.com/cdt94vp), and Part 2 (http://tinyurl.com/cvlhlba).
I posted the above video on my FaceBook site, with the following information and the long portion before and after this small excerpt. This video garnered a response from a very left leaning person. Let’s dive in:
J.B. Started:
…now, find anyone who actually thinks conservatives can survive being expose to FACTS
I Respond (SeanG):
What facts do you think conservatives should be exposed to J.B.?
J.B.
that id [is] such a loaded question … i guess we could start with the fact that the tea party and the KKK have the same ideology…
SeanG:
Lets stick with that first sentence J.B., “i guess we could start with the fact that the tea party and the KKK have the same ideology.” It is interesting that you would choose that option as your first example. It was chosen by a previous liberal “mind” that I spoke with. And I responded thusly (remember?):
I just wish to comment here that John (J.B.) waxes long about FACTS, even capitalizing them. But you will notice how I present them and he refers to the concept of them.
J.B.
I chose it for ONE reason ….because it is a FACT you cannot stand .. and try to hide from with ramblings at length about dead people rather than addressing the FACT … the TEA PARTY is a racist organization…and is making the GOP into a racist party ….until you can accept the FACTS of today … you may as well keep living in your little ,nicely protected hole of propaganda form the [the] right
SeanG
How can the “Tea Party” be racist when we know… sorry,…. when we KNOW Obama has racist leanings and surrounds himself — most of his life [literally] — with racist persons and radicals? Wouldn’t, or shouldn’t, your concern be with racist Democrats like the ones that were keynote speakers at the 2012 DNC?
Another note. I have given a real world example, Julián Castro, whom — as I already pointed out to John is a card carrying member of LaRaza Unida,. In fact, his mother founded her cities chapter… it is [if there were an analogy to it, be] like the KKK, just a Mexican version of it.
I continue:
J.B.? shouldn’t you be worried about the highest levels of the Democratic Party choosing a keynote that is a card carrying member of La Raza Unida (his mother being the founder of the chapter in her city — if there were an analogy it would be the religious arm of the KKK) to speak at a presidential event? How is this comparable to the Tea Party?
How can a President of these United States have gone to a church that had a preacher from the Nation of Islam on its church magazine (with 20,000[+] subscriber homes) 3-times and awarded him an IN CHURCH award and honorary day? The same guy that says and teaches the White man was created by a mad scientist over 6,000 years ago on the Island of Cyprus. And was personally connected with the death of police officers (http://www.facebook.com/notes/sean-giordano/the-mosque-and-charlie-rangel/10151150128828193)?
Are there Tea Party comparisons you can think of? Like if “Dubya” went to a church for twenty years where Christian Identity was taught, where a David Duke figure was on its church magazine 3-times (and it went to 20,000 homes, including all members, like “Dubya’s” house), and this David Duke figure — that taught that the Jews and Black came from the sexual intercourse of the serpent (Satan) and Eve, was awarded IN CHURCH where “Dubya” went? I can’t think of an analogy, can you?
After asking others if they can give an analogy, a real world example of something similar in the Republican Party, or Tea Party, no one did. So I try my hand at helping John, after commenting on him drinking the MSNBC jungle juice:
J.B. has obviously drinking from the Kool-Aid at MSNBC’S fount:
Example 1:
I got one! The first motion picture to be shown at the White House by a sitting President that was produced by the KKK! Ha…. oh… er, wait… that was a Democrat President. My bad.
Example 2:
Oh! Maybe a group founded to scare people into voting for one political Party by lynching, threats, and violence, killing white and black persons from the other Party! There you go!
…no…no… wait… those were Democrats as well. Sorry:
… not only that, but the NRA was founded to protect these black Americans from the KKK (Sorry MSNBC: http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/12/sorry-libs-nra-was-there-to-help-blacks-defend-themselves-from-kkk-democrats-not-the-other-way-around/)
Damn. I am trying to help, but am making things worse.
Example 3:
Welfare doesn’t help:
✪ “I’ll have those n*ggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years.” ~ Lyndon B. Johnson
How though? Hmmmm… The left subsidizes failure and broken families, and argues that this is good, which causes more to vote for handouts:
Example 4:
Maybe is we help make family planning decisions. Nope, another racist venture by Democrats:
✪ “We do not want word to get out that we want to exterminate the Negro population.” ~ Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood.
J.B. Responds with an evidence laced screed that would make any geometry teacher happy/ Not. Take note that in order to prove that the Tea Party is racist, he merely includes more organizations without a drop of evidence. The naming of organizations versus a leading Democrat being in a racist group and laying out Obama’s 20-years attendance in another discussion are not facts to John:
J.B.
Sean… since we are in th[e] 21st century and you seem stuck in the late 19th and early 20th century …..not much point in talking to you about FACTS….. the tea party, FOX and , apparently you, can’t stand simple facts like the extreme racism and anti-Americanism of the CURRENT right wing GOP and tea party ,… soo….. back to lurking I go ….you did prove my point however.. the topic was .. should the RIGHT as well as the left be open to looking at other points of view and you have shown your answer is no ….not points or view and not facts…. have a nice fantasy life with your ‘sources’ you will never, ever know what is going on in the real world ..and I do not have the time or energy to try to change that for yo0u . Sorry about your inability to think …and , oh
While not the topic he led off with and the one I tried to pin him down on (defend your first example would be a logical request), he mentions the following, “he objects to the FACT that right wing extremists such as himself cannot stand the idea that they ALSO need to be exposed to other people’s opinions,…”
Conservatives are exposed to the other side, on campuses, force fed by their teachers, tv, even ESPN sports casters push the Left-Wing screed. Me, I have every religious holy text, cult writings, occult texts, books by Democrats, by Libertarians, and the like. My large home library is filled with books that challenge my religious and political worldview. I doubt highly that John has said to himself that he is going to set aside his belief structure and honestly search for answers to the tough questions.
J.B. continues:
btw…. I am now going to try to be done with this thread .. and with any attempt to expose Sean to anything that might shake his fantasy world.
I respond:
J.B. said:
✪ “… you seem stuck in the late 19th and early 20th century …”
While I can literally mention from the time of Andrew Jackson (Democrat) putting on the Supreme Court Democrats who passed Dred Scott, to the segregationists/separatists, to the infamous “Black Codes,” to the founding of the KKK, to all but one of the Dixi-Crats staying Democrat.
BUT John, I mentioned YOUR President and the DNC Keynote Speaker. If I remember correctly, that all happened in the 21st century. Here are some other recent comments as well:
♛ Bill Clinton ~ “A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee,”;
♛ Joe Biden ~ “I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy…. I mean, that’s a storybook, man!”;
♛ Dan Rather ~ “but he couldn’t sell watermelons if it, you gave him the state troopers to flag down the traffic.”;
♛ Harry Reid ~ “He doesn’t have a negro dialect.”
I proved — with facts, quotes, history, that left-wing extremists are the racist ones, as well as prejudiced:
Webster’s says this:
♚ a. belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one’s own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
So we see that Webster’s main definition are based on a belief in a genetic superiority of one ethnicity (falsely called race) over another. A more in-depth definition comes from “Safire’s Political Dictionary,” and reads (in-part):
♚ racism Originally, an assumption that an individual’s abilities and potential were determined by his biological race, and that some races were inherently superior to others; now, a political-diplomatic accusation of harboring or practicing such theories. “This word [racism],” wrote Harvard Professor J. Anton De Haas in November 1938, “has come into use the last six months, both in Europe and this country… Since so much has been said about conflicting isms, it is only natural that a form was chosen which suggested some kind of undesirable character.” In fact, racism came into use two years earlier, in his 1936 book The Coming American Fascism, Lawrence Dennis wrote, “If … it be assumed that one of our values should be a type of racism which excludes certain races from citizenship, then the plan of execution should provide for the annihilation, deportation, or sterilization of the excluded races.” Racism, a shortening of racialism, was at first directed against Jews. In the nineteenth century, anti-Semites who foresaw a secular age in which religion might not be such a popular rallying force against Jews put forward the idea of Jewishness being less a religion than a race. Adolf Hitler, with his “master race” ideology, turned theory into savage practice….
(Taken from my letter to my youngest son’s high school: http://www.scribd.com/doc/115644033/A-Note-From-a-Concerned-Parent-Racism-Invoked-in-the-Classroom)
You can say all you want that “x” are racists. But I have shown (big difference) that not only is “b” racist (a belief in a genetic superiority), but prejudiced as well.
J.B. tactfully responds and decides to give me a fact that is not grounded in personal opinion:
Poor Sean, still does not understand…..and by choice never will….wonder is block willl help keep his ramblings down
This is where the conversation essentially ended, the above did cause one observer of it to note, “As the great military leader General I. Zations once said, ‘You cannot play music on a Stereo type’.”
Pizza Business Offers 15-Percent Discount To Gun Owners In Virginia Beach
h/t, James Hirsen



