Biased Media

The Media Complex and Democratic Rhetoric Helping The GOP

Published by Papa Giorgio

Here are two examples of CNN’s Alisyn Camerota trying to fish out some negativity towards Trump. One with a panel of persons regarding Trump’s Charlottesville response. The other a Goldstar mom after the “call indecent“…

(Above) CNN featured a panel of six Trump supporters (three men, three women) Wednesday morning and despite host Alisyn Camerota’s surprise, they all defended the president and expressed their distrust of the media. (DAILY CALLER)

(Above) That’s the thing about Gold Star families. It’s not about politics to them. They just want their brave relative to be remembered.  They don’t all need a call. They don’t all even care about that. Alisyn Camerota really needs to get it together. This is like the millionth time she has had someone on TV with the goal of bashing Trump and it has backfired. (AMERICAN NEWS)

Here is another example similar to the above that is the reason more-and-more people are going to vote GOP next Presidential election. The Democratic (DNC) Chairman Tom Perez said the following:

  • “We have the most dangerous president in American history and one of the most reactionary Congresses in American history,” (YAHOO NEWS)

All these posts by people from the Left on social media, leaders in the Democrat Party, and the Media Complex, calling into question motives of regular people — as they relegate any disagreement as based in white supremacy, racism, bigotry, or some phobia… all they are doing is chasing people to the GOP.

My suggestion to the media and others is to do what former former NPR CEO Ken Stern did (NEW YORK POST)… get out of the New York, D.C. bubble and know the audience you are speaking of.

Most reporters and editors are liberal — a now dated Pew Research Center poll found that liberals outnumber conservatives in the media by some 5 to 1, and that comports with my own anecdotal experience at National Public Radio. When you are liberal, and everyone else around you is as well, it is easy to fall into groupthink on what stories are important, what sources are legitimate and what the narrative of the day will be.

This may seem like an unusual admission from someone who once ran NPR, but it is borne of recent experience. Spurred by a fear that red and blue America were drifting irrevocably apart, I decided to venture out from my overwhelmingly Democratic neighborhood and engage Republicans where they live, work and pray. For an entire year, I embedded myself with the other side, standing in pit row at a NASCAR race, hanging out at Tea Party meetings and sitting in on Steve Bannon’s radio show. I found an America far different from the one depicted in the press and imagined by presidents (“cling to guns or religion”) and presidential candidates (“basket of deplorables”) alike.

I spent many Sundays in evangelical churches and hung out with 15,000 evangelical youth at the Urbana conference. I wasn’t sure what to expect among thousands of college-age evangelicals, but I certainly didn’t expect the intense discussion of racial equity and refugee issues — how to help them, not how to keep them out — but that is what I got.

At Urbana, I met dozens of people who were dedicating their lives to the mission, spreading the good news of Jesus, of course, but doing so through a life of charity and compassion for others: staffing remote hospitals, building homes for the homeless and, in one case, flying a “powered parachute” over miles of uninhabited jungle in the western Congo to bring a little bit of entertainment, education and relief to some of the remotest villages you could imagine. It was all inspiring — and a little foolhardy, if you ask me about the safety of a powered parachute — but it left me with a very different impression of a community that was previously known to me only through Jerry Falwell and the movie “Footloose.”

Early this year, I drove west from Houston to Gonzales, Texas, to try my hand at pig hunting. It was my first time with a gun, and the noticeably concerned owner of the ranch at first banished me to a solitary spot on the grounds. Here, he said, the pigs would come to me and I could not pose a danger to anyone else. It was a nice spot indeed but did not make for much of a story, so I wandered off into the woods, hopefully protected by my Day-Glo hunting vest.

I eventually joined up with a family from Georgia. The group included the grandfather, Paps, and the father, CJ, but it was young Isaac, all of 8 years old, who took on the task of tutoring me in the ways of the hunt. He did a fine job, but we encountered few pigs (and killed none) in our morning walkabout. In the afternoon, with the Georgians heading home, I linked up with a group of friends from Houston who belied the demographic stereotyping of the hunt; collectively we were the equivalent of a bad bar joke: a Hispanic ex-soldier, a young black family man, a Serbian immigrant and a Jew from DC.

None of my new hunting partners fit the lazy caricature of the angry NRA member. Rather, they saw guns as both a shared sport and as a necessary means to protect their families during uncertain times. In truth, the only one who was even modestly angry was me, and that only had to do with my terrible ineptness as a hunter. In the end though, I did bag a pig, or at least my new friends were willing to award me a kill, so that we could all glory together in the fraternity of the hunt.

I also spent time in depressed areas of Kentucky and Ohio with workers who felt that their concerns had long fallen on deaf ears and were looking for every opportunity to protest a government and political and media establishment that had left them behind. I drank late into the night at the Royal Oaks Bar in Youngstown and met workers who had been out of the mills for almost two decades and had suffered the interlocking plagues of unemployment, opioid addiction and declining health. They mourned the passing of the old days, when factory jobs were plentiful, lucrative and honored and lamented the destruction and decay of their communities, their livelihoods and their families. To a man (and sometimes a woman), they looked at media and saw stories that did not reflect the world that they knew or the fears that they had.

Over the course of this past year, I have tried to consume media as they do and understand it as a partisan player. It is not so hard to do. Take guns. Gun control and gun rights is one of our most divisive issues, and there are legitimate points on both sides. But media is obsessed with the gun-control side and gives only scant, mostly negative, recognition to the gun-rights sides…..

[….]

….None of this justifies the attacks from President Trump, which are terribly inappropriate coming from the head of government. At the same time, the media should acknowledge its own failings in reflecting only their part of America. You can’t cover America from the Acela corridor, and the media need to get out and be part of the conversations that take place in churches and community centers and town halls.

I did that, and loved it, though I REGRET WAITING UNTIL WELL AFTER I LEFT NPR TO DO SO. I am skeptical that many will do so, since the current situation in an odd way works for Trump, who gets to rile his base, and for the media, which has grown an audience on the back of Washington dysfunction. In the end, they are both short-term winners. It is the public that is the long-term loser.

(READ IT ALL)

Probe Into Clinton’s “Uranium Deal” With Russians Opens

Published by Papa Giorgio

NEWSBUSTERS comments on the situation followed by the excellent legal reporting by Greg Jarrett:

…It’s a scandal that the Big Three (ABC, CBS, NBC) network evening shows have gone out of their way to shun, spending only 3 minutes and 1 second on the story in over two years. 

On October 17 The Hill’s John Solomon and Alison Spann reported that “Before the Obama administration had approved a controversial deal in 2010 giving Moscow control of a large swath of American uranium, the FBI had gathered substantial evidence that Russian nuclear industry officials were engaged in bribery, kickbacks, extortion and money laundering designed to grow Vladimir Putin’s atomic energy business inside the United States, according to government documents and interviews.”

Additionally, The Hill reported that the FBI had “obtained an eyewitness account — backed by documents — indicating Russian nuclear officials had routed millions of dollars to the U.S. designed to benefit former President Bill Clinton’s charitable foundation during the time Secretary of State Hillary Clinton served on a government body that provided a favorable decision to Moscow, sources told The Hill.”…

From GATEWAY PUNDIT:

Attorney and FOX News Contributor Gregg Jarrett joined Sean Hannity to discuss the illegal money laundering and bribery of the Clinton Foundation.

It was reported earlier today that the FBI uncovered Russian bribery of the Clintons in 2009 and the Department of Justice and the FBI sat on this for four more years.

Worse yet, from today’s report we discovered the investigation was supervised by then-U.S. Attorney Rod Rosenstein, who is now President Trump’s Deputy Attorney General, and then-Assistant FBI Director Andrew McCabe, who is now the deputy FBI director under Trump.

ROSENSTEIN AND MUELLER ALSO SAT ON THE CFIUS COMMITTEE THAT APPROVED THE SALE OF 20% OF US URANIUM RESERVES TO RUSSIA DESPITE KNOWING RUSSIA HAD BRIBED THE CLINTONS FOR THE ILLICIT SALE.

This further tarnishes this respected organization’s good name….

THE HILL writes about this story:

The Senate Judiciary Committee has launched a probe into a Russian nuclear bribery case, demanding several federal agencies disclose whether they knew the FBI had uncovered the corruption before the Obama administration in 2010 approved a controversial uranium deal with Moscow.

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the committee chairman, gets his first chance to raise the issue in public on Wednesday when he questions Attorney General Jeff Sessions during an oversight hearing. 

Aides said the committee had sent requests for information to 10 federal agencies involved in the Russian uranium approvals.

[….]

The senator also specifically conveyed in the latest letters he no longer accepts the Obama administration’s assurances from 2015 that there was no basis to block the Uranium One deal.

“I am not convinced by these assurances,” Grassley wrote the Homeland Security Department last week. “The sale of Uranium One resulted in a Russian government takeover of a significant portion of U.S. uranium mining capacity. In light of that fact, very serious questions remain about the basis for the finding that this transaction did not threaten to impair U.S. national security.”

[….]

He also questioned whether the documented corruption that was uncovered posed a national security threat that should have voided approval of the uranium deal.

“It has recently come to the Committee’s attention that employees of Rosatom were involved in a criminal enterprise involving a conspiracy to commit extortion and money laundering during the time of the CFIUS transaction,” Grassley wrote in one such letter addressed to Sessions.

“The fact that Rosatom subsidiaries in the United States were under criminal investigation as a result of a U.S. intelligence operation apparently around the time CFIUS approved the Uranium One/Rosatom transaction raises questions about whether that information factored into CFIUS’ decision to approve the transaction,” the chairman added.

Grassley has been one of the few congressional leaders to have consistently raised questions about the uranium deal, and in 2015 agencies told his committee they had no national security reasons to reject the Moscow approval.

Those representations, however, made no mention of the FBI probe or the national security issues uncovered by agents, including the fact that Russian officials had compromised an American trucking firm that transported uranium….

THE DAILY WIRE makes note of the political contributions:

….According to The Hill, there are strong ties between the high-level officials who were involved in the allegedly undisclosed investigation on the Russian bribery scheme and the current investigation into whether Trump campaign officials “colluded” with Russia during the 2016 presidential campaign:

The investigation was ultimately supervised by then-U.S. Attorney Rod Rosenstein, an Obama appointee who now serves as President Trump’s deputy attorney general, and then-Assistant FBI Director Andrew McCabe, now the deputy FBI director under Trump, Justice Department documents show.

Both men now play a key role in the current investigation into possible, but still unproven, collusion between Russia and Donald Trump’s campaign during the 2016 election cycle. McCabe is under congressional and Justice Department inspector general investigation in connection with money his wife’s Virginia state Senate campaign accepted in 2015 from now-Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe at a time when McAuliffe was reportedly under investigation by the FBI.

The connections to the current Russia case are many. The Mikerin probe began in 2009 when Robert Mueller, now the special counsel in charge of the Trump case, was still FBI director. And it ended in late 2015 under the direction of then-FBI Director James Comey, whom Trump fired earlier this year.

Mueller has come under fire after it was revealed that the attorneys on his staff made previous political donations to the Democratic Party, including to presidential candidate Hillary Clinton while making none to then-candidate Donald Trump.

Gun-Control Advocates Bump Up Against Hard-Facts

Published by Papa Giorgio

Funny how “Putting politics aside” means “Advancing the Democrat Left Agenda.”

| GAY PATRIOT |

I would be remiss to NOT add this by BEN SHAPIRO (for the transcript read THE DAILY WIRE):

Some must read articles and stats — the first is an article by GAY PATRIOT, who quotes a WAPO article (which I will include in full, below). Here is GP referencing about the Washington Post article:

In a rare moment of honesty on the left, a left-wing statistician went through the evidence scientifically and without bias and came to the conclusion that none of the left-wing’s favored policies would put a dent in gun deaths.

Before I started researching gun deaths, gun-control policy used to frustrate me. I wished the National Rifle Association would stop blocking common-sense gun-control reforms such as banning assault weapons, restricting silencers, shrinking magazine sizes and all the other measures that could make guns less deadly.

Then, my colleagues and I at FiveThirtyEight spent three months analyzing all 33,000 lives ended by guns each year in the United States, and I wound up frustrated in a whole new way. We looked at what interventions might have saved those people, and the case for the policies I’d lobbied for crumbled when I examined the evidence. The best ideas left standing were narrowly tailored interventions to protect subtypes of potential victims, not broad attempts to limit the lethality of guns.

It’s like us Right-Wing Nut Jobs were saying all along. The policies of the left will fail, and may perhaps even be designed to fail so that their failure will make the case for ever increasing levels of gun control leading ultimately to what the left actually wants: to outlaw the private ownership of firearms.

By the way, the correlation between gun ownership and homicides is actually inverse.

There are actually two policies that would make a difference, but they are politically unpalatable to the Progressive Left.

The majority of gun deaths in the USA are suicides – about two-thirds of all of them….

I want to pause here and break down the suicide numbers a bit… and this is really for all the people that support assisted suicide. Why does it have to be assisted? The biggest demographic that shoots themselves are the geriatric. Many of whom are in the throes or chronic pain or were diagnosed with a life threatening disease with no hope of overcoming. Here are the suicide by gun numbers:

It is sad, but using the Left’s argument FOR suicide… why is this bad? CONTINUING with Gay Patriot…

…The great majority of the gun homicides in the USA are committed by young male criminals in urban areas. The Democrats who run these urban areas are loathe to crack down on this violence for fear of riling “community activists” who claim that stopping young urban males from committing crimes is a conspiracy to re-enact slavery via the “Prison Industrial Complex.”

So, for whatever reason, the only “politically palatable” solutions involve restricting the rights of non-criminal people to possess lawful means of self-defense…..

Mmmm… that brings up a different stat. I wouldn’t know where to look for such a study, but, I bet if one were to quantify those who are Democrat and those who are Republican using guns in homicide activity… I wonder what the comparative percentages would be.

For instance, one can see many more Republicans own guns, but more inner-city gang members use them illegally.

Last I remember from being in jail myself, most minority criminals are Democrats in regard to who they support.

Also, as people buy more guns, the death rate has dropped. If one were to believe the rhetoric of the Left… this should be the exact opposite:

Dennis Prager is right… this and other arguments from the Left are driven by emotions:

Here is the promised article… Leah Libresco is a statistician and former newswriter at FiveThirtyEight, and a Leftist!

I Used To Think Gun Control Was The Answer My Research Told Me Otherwise

Before I started researching gun deaths, gun-control policy used to frustrate me. I wished the National Rifle Association would stop blocking common-sense gun-control reforms such as banning assault weapons, restricting silencers, shrinking magazine sizes and all the other measures that could make guns less deadly.

Then, my colleagues and I at FiveThirtyEight spent three months analyzing all 33,000 lives ended by guns each year in the United States, and I wound up frustrated in a whole new way. We looked at what interventions might have saved those people, and the case for the policies I’d lobbied for crumbled when I examined the evidence. The best ideas left standing were narrowly tailored interventions to protect subtypes of potential victims, not broad attempts to limit the lethality of guns.

I researched the strictly tightened gun laws in Britain and Australia and concluded that they didn’t prove much about what America’s policy should be. Neither nation experienced drops in mass shootings or other gun related-crime that could be attributed to their buybacks and bans. Mass shootings were too rare in Australia for their absence after the buyback program to be clear evidence of progress. And in both Australia and Britain, the gun restrictions had an ambiguous effect on other gun-related crimes or deaths.

When I looked at the other oft-praised policies, I found out that no gun owner walks into the store to buy an “assault weapon.” It’s an invented classification that includes any semi-automatic that has two or more features, such as a bayonet mount, a rocket-propelled grenade-launcher mount, a folding stock or a pistol grip. But guns are modular, and any hobbyist can easily add these features at home, just as if they were snapping together Legos.

As for silencers — they deserve that name only in movies, where they reduce gunfire to a soft puick puick. In real life, silencers limit hearing damage for shooters but don’t make gunfire dangerously quiet. An AR-15 with a silencer is about as loud as a jackhammer. Magazine limits were a little more promising, but a practiced shooter could still change magazines so fast as to make the limit meaningless.

As my co-workers and I kept looking at the data, it seemed less and less clear that one broad gun-control restriction could make a big difference. Two-thirds of gun deaths in the United States every year are suicides. Almost no proposed restriction would make it meaningfully harder for people with guns on hand to use them. I couldn’t even answer my most desperate question: If I had a friend who had guns in his home and a history of suicide attempts, was there anything I could do that would help?

However, the next-largest set of gun deaths — 1 in 5 — were young men aged 15 to 34, killed in homicides. These men were most likely to die at the hands of other young men, often related to gang loyalties or other street violence. And the last notable group of similar deaths was the 1,700 women murdered per year, usually as the result of domestic violence. Far more people were killed in these ways than in mass-shooting incidents, but few of the popularly floated policies were tailored to serve them.

By the time we published our project, I didn’t believe in many of the interventions I’d heard politicians tout. I was still anti-gun, at least from the point of view of most gun owners, and I don’t want a gun in my home, as I think the risk outweighs the benefits. But I can’t endorse policies whose only selling point is that gun owners hate them. Policies that often seem as if they were drafted by people who have encountered guns only as a figure in a briefing book or an image on the news.

Instead, I found the most hope in more narrowly tailored interventions. Potential suicide victims, women menaced by their abusive partners and kids swept up in street vendettas are all in danger from guns, but they each require different protections.

Older men, who make up the largest share of gun suicides, need better access to people who could care for them and get them help. Women endangered by specific men need to be prioritized by police, who can enforce restraining orders prohibiting these men from buying and owning guns. Younger men at risk of violence need to be identified before they take a life or lose theirs and to be connected to mentors who can help them de-escalate conflicts.

Even the most data-driven practices, such as New Orleans’ plan to identify gang members for intervention based on previous arrests and weapons seizures, wind up more personal than most policies floated. The young men at risk can be identified by an algorithm, but they have to be disarmed one by one, personally — not en masse as though they were all interchangeable. A reduction in gun deaths is most likely to come from finding smaller chances for victories and expanding those solutions as much as possible. We save lives by focusing on a range of tactics to protect the different kinds of potential victims and reforming potential killers, not from sweeping bans focused on the guns themselves.

In this meme a point is made that I think is worthy… and that is…. there are already laws on the books to make murder illegal. What law can you pass that will stop a person from really committing this horrible act? If laws like this work, why haven’t they?

More than 64,000 Americans died from drug overdoses in 2016. Over 11,500 deaths by homicide are gun related each year [+/-]. Has the war one drugs and all the regulations and laws (local, county, state, and federal) stopped this? No. The answer is no. NEITHER would any law have helped less people die in Vegas. The next media presentation is prefaced by POLITISTICK:

Democrat Congressman Henry Cuellar from Texas admitted something tonight on FOX News’ Tucker Carlson Tonight that you will rarely — if ever — hear from a modern-day Democrat that has taken a hard-left turn the past eight years under Obama, funded by anti-American globalist billionaire George Soros.

In the aftermath of the Las Vegas massacre in which dozens of people were murdered and hundreds more injured by a madman shooting from a high-rise hotel — at a time when most progressive leftist’s knee-jerk reaction was to blame Second Amendment rights — Henry Cuellar admitted that gun control doesn’t work…..

The following is from an family friend-of-a-friend who was in law enforcement for 35-years:

Here are some very interesting statistics on gun violence, gun deaths, and lots of other causes of death that we deal with every day. Yet no one gets too concerned unless the cause of death is by a firearm. And yes the math is correct. 

There are 30,000 gun related deaths per year by firearms, and this number is not disputed. The U.S. population is 324,059,091 as of June 22, 2016. Do the math: 0.000000925% of the population dies from gun related actions each year. Statistically speaking, this is insignificant! What is never told, however, is a breakdown of those 30,000 deaths, to put them in perspective as compared to other causes of death:

  • 65% of those deaths are by suicide, which would never be prevented by gun laws.
  • 15% are by law enforcement in the line of duty and justified.
  • 17% are through criminal activity, gang and drug related or mentally ill persons – better known as gun violence.
  • 3% are accidental discharge deaths.

So technically, “gun violence” is not 30,000 annually, but drops to 5,100. Still too many? Now lets look at how those deaths spanned across the nation.

  • 480 homicides (9.4%) were in Chicago
  • 344 homicides (6.7%) were in Baltimore
  • 333 homicides (6.5%) were in Detroit
  • 119 homicides (2.3%) were in Washington D.C. (a 54% increase over prior years)

Basically, 25% of all gun crime happens in just 4 cities. All 4 of those cities have strict gun laws, so it is not the lack of law that is the root cause. This leaves 3,825 for the entire rest of the nation, or about 75 deaths per state. That is an average because some States have much higher rates than others. For example, California had 1,169 and Alabama had 1. Now, who has the strictest gun laws by far? California, of course, but understand, it is not guns causing this. It is a crime rate spawned by the number of criminal persons residing in those cities and states. So if all cities and states are not created equal, then there must be something other than the tool causing the gun deaths.

Are 5,100 deaths per year horrific? How about in comparison to other deaths? All death is sad and especially so when it is in the commission of a crime but that is the nature of crime. Robbery, death, rape, assault are all done by criminals. It is ludicrous to think that criminals will obey laws. That is why they are called criminals. But what about other deaths each year?

  • 40,000+ die from a drug overdose–THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR THAT!
  • 36,000 people die per year from the flu, far exceeding the criminal gun deaths
  • 34,000 people die per year in traffic fatalities(exceeding gun deaths even if you include suicide).

Now it gets good:

  • 200,000+ people die each year (and growing) from preventable medical errors. You are safer walking in the worst areas of Chicago than you are when you are in a hospital!
  • 710,000 people die per year from heart disease. It’s time to stop the double cheeseburgers! So what is the point? If the liberal loons and the anti-gun movement focused their attention on heart disease, even a 10% decrease in cardiac deaths would save twice the number of lives annually of all gun-related deaths (including suicide, law enforcement, etc). A 10% reduction in medical errors would be 66% of the total number of gun deaths or 4 times the number of criminal homicides, simple, easily preventable 10% reductions! So you have to ask yourself, in the grand scheme of things, why the focus on guns? It’s pretty simple: Taking away guns gives control to governments. The founders of this nation knew that regardless of the form of government, those in power may become corrupt and seek to rule as the British did by trying to disarm the populace of the colonies. It is not difficult to understand that a disarmed populace is a controlled populace. Thus, the second amendment was proudly and boldly included in the U.S. Constitution. It must be preserved at all costs. So the next time someone tries to tell you that gun control is about saving lives, look at these facts and remember these words from Noah Webster: “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed.”

#FakeNews – Puerto Rico Edition

Published by Papa Giorgio

Friends who are Marco Rubio fans are posting stuff by Democrat politicians (who are rumored to be running for President) like this to make a point:

So not only are these Republicans I know falling for the media Narrative (more on this below), but they are also being hooked by Democrat politicians building a base for a Presidential run. IN OTHER WORDS, the above Tweet was an opportunistic chance to politically score points against Trump…. JUST LIKE the picture of Mayor Cruz “wading in water” was a photo-op, as Jack Posobiec notes via his TWITTER:

But people are like LEMMINGS and swallow this stuff up due to their dislike of Trump (like the gal on the right).

In another Facebook convo, a friend said no one was helping and that people were dying. When a person pointed out the depth of help Puerto Rico was recieving… she was thanked for her “OPINION.” This is part of what she posted:

…Here is what someone on the ground in PR wrote:

“Just want to clear the air. I’m on the ground in Puerto Rico, I’m walking the streets with my wife every day, we are experiencing the pain and devastation that Maria left behind. I’m hearing a lot noise about US not helping the people of PR, THAT IS NOT TRUE, EVERY single Federal agency possible is here on the ground kicking some major ass, there are thousands of Military, Homeland security, FEMA personnel and the list goes on and on. The airport is not letting comercial planes fly because of ALL the military and first responders flights that are CONSTANTLY day in and day out flying in and out. If you have opinions with political agendas I want to tell you is not helping the cause. It’s time to unite, and stop the stupidity but is a right that….”

(Miss Rose)

I expanded a bit:

Having over 10,000[+ and growing] FEMA people on the ground, known numbers of military and growing (The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Defense Logistics Agency, U.S. Transportation Command, U.S. Northern Command, U.S. Coast Guard, Puerto Rico National Guard, Etc-Etc). 

…AS WELL AS…

Executive Orders by Trump as well as the go ahead with Federal Agencies. 

…AS WELL AS…

Private orgs (Teamsters, United for Puerto Rico, UNICEF, International Medical Corps, Catholic Relief Services, Americares, Direct Relief, Save the Children, Etc-Etc)

THOSE are not opinions. Those are sticky things called facts.

One comment from a friend-of-my-friend noted this:

  • Have to disagree about Puerto Rico… Got a ole buddy I served with in Iraq that is on ground working for FEMA. Says its nothing but political drama… (Patrick C.) 

…CONTINUING…

Trump Is Right… It Is #FakeNews

I swear… people say they dislike the mainstream media (MSM), but are all on board when they see the singular San Juan Mayor Carmen Yulin Cruz, Puerto Rico, plastered all over the place saying, “we are dying.”

First in my mind’s eye is her accolades of a terrorist freed by Obama from the Marxist-Leninist bent….

  • Yulin Cruz is a member of Puerto Rico’s Popular Democratic Party that wants the island to remain a U.S. territory. But she sounded more like a member of the island’s Independence Party in a video that surfaced back in January when President Barack Obama commuted the sentence of Rivera Lopez. (DAILY CALLER)

What is FALN (Fuerzas Armadas de Liberación Nacional || English: Armed Forces of National Liberation), the organization that this Obama commuted the sentence of FALN terrorist leader Oscar Lopez Rivera? WIKI notes it’s main driving force succinctly:

  1. Directing the armed and political struggle in accordance with the Marxist-Leninist principle of a broad front including a popular sectors willing to [ join ] the armed struggle right away
  2. Agglutination of all forces based upon the principle of coordination between political work and military work under the leadership of a party composed of combatants assigned to different tasks
  3. Application of the principle of internal ideological debate, a study of Marxist-Leninist ideology and the use of criticism and self-criticism
  4. Implementation of the Stalinist ideological position on the concept of “nation” with regard to American reality
  5. Application of the principle of the priority of the struggle for independence of Puerto Rico over any question of internal solidarity, demanding concrete support for our armed struggle as a priority matter in the international struggle against colonialism

Another eye-brow raiser is that the mayor of Guaynabo (the district just West of San Juan), Angel Perez,  has explained the disconnect San Juan Mayor Carmen Yulin Cruz has with relief efforts and coordination…. NOW…. keep in mind as you read this from a neighboring mayor that Mayor Cruz said this (via THE GUARDIAN): “…if it doesn’t solve the logistics ‘what we we are going to see is something close to a genocide’.”

The mayor of Guaynabo, Puerto Rico cast serious doubt Saturday on the claims made by San Juan Mayor Carmen Yulin Cruz, who has repeatedly attacked President Trump and accused him of abandoning Puerto Rico in the aftermath of Hurricane Maria.

Guaynabo’s mayor, Angel Perez, said in an interview with The Daily Caller that his experience with the federal government has been different from Cruz’s, in part because — unlike Cruz — he has been participating in meetings with officials from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and other federal agencies.

[….]

Mayor Perez told TheDC that the story Cruz is telling the media doesn’t mesh with what he has seen from the federal government.

“My experience is different. I have been participating in different meetings at the headquarters of FEMA and our government and the help is coming in and right now my experience is different from hers. I’m receiving help from the government, we are receiving assistance from FEMA, I got people over here helping us with applications for the people that have damage in their houses. And we have here in Guaynabo, we have thousands of people that lost partially or totally their houses,” said Perez, who is a member of Puerto Rico’s New Progressive Party.

Perez’s comments echoed what FEMA administrator Brock Long said on Saturday. Long defended Trump’s tweets blasting Cruz and indicated that Cruz has failed to connect with the FEMA command center set up on the island to help with the relief effort.

When asked about Cruz’s “genocide” statement, Perez said, “I don’t know why she is saying that. What I can tell you is my experience. She is not participating in any meetings and we had a couple already with the governors and with representation of FEMA and of HUD, of these whole federal agencies that have given us help and she’s not participating in those meetings and some mayors from her political party have been participating, so I don’t know why she is saying that. My experience is very different.”

“Some [mayors] would like the help to be faster but we also know that FEMA is dealing with what happened in Houston and in Florida and now in Puerto Rico,” Perez said…..

(DAILY CALLER || WASHINGTON EXAMINER)

In other words — the only way logistics would fail is if the local government of a district failed to coordinate with their Federal Agencies. Hello? MkFly!

Here is a hugely funny pic of Mayor Cruz standing in front of supplies in her ports sent by America… where Cruz said the following:

  • “So, Mr Trump, I am begging you to take charge and save lives. After all, that is one of the founding principles of the United States…If not, the world will see how we are treated not as second-class citizens but as animals that can be disposed of. Enough is enough.”

  • The mess started after the grandstanding mayor of San Juan, Carmen Yulin Cruz, held a Saturday morning press conference claiming the federal government was doing nothing to help Puerto Ricans. Forget that she was standing in front of pallets loaded with supplies sent from the U.S., she’s a Democrat and she was clearly directed by party leaders to make the situation political. (DAILY WIRE)

In the Mayor’s interview with Anderson Cooper, CNN, it was noted that,

  • She’s even managed to acquire a custom-made t-shirt saying ‘we are dying’ on it with an accompanying ‘SOS’ hat. How she managed to score that in the ravaged country that has o power is a question that has not yet been answered. But the Mayor of Guaynabo Angel Perez said that hasn’t been his experience and that there’s a problem with Cruz’s story. (YOUNG CONSERVATIVES)

Mmmmm – okay.

But, people who profess a middle-ground, say they hate corporate media, and all the other colloquial sayings of people who hate Trump… THEY SURE swallow the MSM narrative >>>> HOOK-LINE-AND-SINKER — all while Leftist media are trying to make this Trump’s “Katrina.”

ANTIFA – Premeditated Violence

Published by Papa Giorgio

What happens when two guys infiltrate Antifa, live amongst them for weeks, and take part in their deeply rooted tactics of disruption and violence?

HOTAIR has this on the above:

Wednesday I wrote about the far left’s plans to disrupt a speech by Ben Shapiro at the University of Utah. What I didn’t know is that YouTube host Steven Crowder and his producer had infiltrated a local Antifa group and captured them on tape discussing plans and handing out weapons.

[….]

The situation with national media is very different. A Nightline producer has time and resources to take a tape like this and verify the facts, talk with police, even interview the people shown in the clip to get their side. So it’s hard to understand why someone like that wouldn’t be interested in this video, except of course that it makes Antifa look pretty bad. Perhaps if there had been some actual Nazis present to help balance the narrative, but as it is the only story here is far left extremists preparing for violence to shut down a conservative speaker. That’s probably a little to clear-cut for Nightline.

 

 

Media Silence On Bob Menendez

Published by Papa Giorgio

Here is a great example of how the media’s bias is expressed through what they do not say. For instance, I doubt many know a sitting U.S. Senator was getting Visa’s for call girls (which is illegal) as well as using tax-payer funds to fly to another country for sex.

  • Prostitution is both legal and widespread in the Dominican Republic, where as many as 100,000 women are part of the industry in a nation that has become a major sex-tourism hotspot of the Caribbean. (AMERICAN SPECTATOR)

And in a recent New York Times 1,200-word story on the upcoming trial of Democratic Sen. Robert Menendez, they neglected to mention Sen. Menendez’s party affiliation. I find it unbelievable that if a Republican was in the same spot, that his party affiliation would go without mention. In fact, I bet people know more about Paul Manafort (at least name recognition) than Bob Menendez. (Even though the court is stacked against Trump)

“ABC and NBC on Wednesday continued their silence on the bribery trial of Democratic Senator Bob Menendez, CBS This Morning allowed a scant 22 seconds” (NEWS BUSTERS). HOWEVER, that silence aside… now NBC is calling Bob Menendez a Republican!

₵Ⱡł₵₭ ฿ɆⱠØ₩ ₣ØⱤ ₮ⱧɆ ₱₳Ɽ₮ł₳Ⱡ ₳Ɽ₮ł₵ⱠɆ

While the bias is expressed in what is not said… here is an example of a bias creeping via the writer who probably thought only Republicans would do such a thing.

FLASHBACK: Are Michele Bachmann Gaffes Really Gaffes?

Published by Papa Giorgio

— Originally posted June 28, 2011 —

Obviously some are (to answer my own question). Who is perfect? What the press and many following them do is make opinions after viewing skewed or twisted fact. This will be a post I will return to and add to as the election cycle continue. Enjoy.

This has been a fun week for me. It allows me to explain to people I like how their opinions are often mislead by not lining up their thinking with the facts. A unfounded trust of media sometimes misleads these persons, or an underlying bias. I will change the names of the people involved to keep their identity (as many are friends) private and the embarrassment level low.

In conversation with a friend the term kook was used in referencing Michele Bachmann. I footnoted that as I was surprised because she is a self-avowed Republican and must know of all the attacks leveled at Reagan, a person whom she admires. However, when I posted the following video for her and mentioned this demeaning term, she wrote:

Here is her first response:

Yes, and I stand by my opinion. She is a ranter and a raver. Ha I think he has a crush on her ;)…one can be a conservative kook. I am. No one said she is not bright, one can be bright and a kook. The left respects us as much as we respect them, not at all, we demonize them they demonize us, around and around we go. It is tiresome and a waste of time when there is so much real work to do in this country.

Another lovely lady added:

  • Michelle Bachmann is an embarrassment to me! And ya don’t get ANY MORE conservative than ME!!!!

I politely continue the conversation:

Okay, for both you ladies. You have stated some things (“[s]he is a ranter and a raver,” and, “Michelle Bachmann is an embarrassment”). Please, since I do not know as much about her as you ladies about her, enlighten me. [A generalization is a good one if it points to reality.] A side note. I would respectfully disagree — also — with the point that demonization is of equal value between Left and Right (How Does the Left View the Right?). Chris Matthews, Michael Moore, and others can walk onto a campus and give a speech and be treated like celebrity’s. Ann Coulter, David Horowitz, have to employ personal body guards and the university has police in large numbers. From gatherings on the Mall in Washington (union/Democratic meetings leave it in shambles — Tea Partiers leave it cleaner than when they found it), to supposed violence/racism at Tea Parties compared to the Left’s gathering [the most recent was the teacher unions joining forces in L.A. with common-and-on (Welcome To Los Angeles). The conservative Republican has a different demeanor than that of their compatriot on the Left. Why, because the largely secular left has as their religion, not the Judeo-Christian ethic, but the “Rousseaulian animal” which they are founded on. Or as Ann Coulter points out, the “mob mentality.” A great quote I just added to my quotes page from a book I am reading is this (see my notes):

There is a Liberal sentiment that it should also punish those who take more than their “fair share.” But what is their fair share? (Shakespeare suggests that each should be treated not according to his deserts, but according to God’s mercy, or none of us would escape whipping.)

The concept of Fairness, for all its attractiveness to sentiment, is a dangerous one (cf. quota hiring and enrollment, and talk of “reparations”). Deviations from the Law, which is to say the Constitution, to accommodate specifically alleged identity-group injustices will all inevitably be expanded, universalized, and exploited until there remains no law, but only constant petition of Government.

We cannot live in peace without Law. And though law cannot be perfect, it may be just if it is written in ignorance of the identity of the claimants and applied equally to all. Then it is a possession not only of the claimants but of the society, which may now base its actions upon a reasonable assumption of the law’s treatment.

But “fairness” is not only a nonlegal but an antilegal process, for it deals not with universally applicable principles and strictures, but with specific cases, responding to the perceived or proclaimed needs of individual claimants, and their desire for extralegal preference. And it could be said to substitute fairness (a determination which must always be subjective) for justice (the application of the legislated will of the electorate), is to enshrine greed—the greed, in this case, not for wealth, but for preference. The socialistic spirit of the Left indicts ambition and the pursuit of wealth as Greed, and appeals, supposedly on behalf of “the people,” to the State for “fairness.”….

….But such fairness can only be the non-Constitutional intervention of the State in the legal, Constitutional process—awarding, as it sees fit, money (reparations), preferment (affirmative action), or entertainment (confiscation)….

….”Don’t you care?” is the admonition implicit in the very visage of the Liberals of my acquaintance on their understanding that I have embraced Conservatism. But the Talmud understood of old that good intentions can lead to evil—vide Busing, Urban Renewal, Affirmative Action, Welfare, et cetera, to name the more immediately apparent, and not to mention the, literally, tens of thousands of Federal and State statutes limiting freedom of trade, which is to say, of the right of the individual to make a living, and, so earn that wealth which would, in its necessary expenditure, allow him to provide a living to others….

…. I recognized that though, as a lifelong Liberal, I endorsed and paid lip service to “social justice,” which is to say, to equality of result, I actually based the important decisions of my life—those in which I was personally going to be affected by the outcome—upon the principle of equality of opportunity; and, further, that so did everyone I knew. Many, I saw, were prepared to pay more taxes, as a form of Charity, which is to say, to hand off to the Government the choice of programs and recipients of their hard-earned money, but no one was prepared to be on the short end of the failed Government pro-grams, however well-intentioned. (For example—one might endorse a program giving to minorities preference in award of government contracts; but, as a business owner, one would fight to get the best possible job under the best possible terms regardless of such a program, and would, in fact, work by all legal and, perhaps by semi- or illegal means to subvert any program that enforced upon the pro-prietor a bad business decision.)*

Further, one, in paying the government to relieve him of a feeling of social responsibility, might not be bothered to question what in fact constituted a minority, and whether, in fact, such minority contracts were actually benefiting the minority so enshrined, or were being subverted to shell corporations and straw men. †

*No one would say of a firefighter, hired under rules reducing the height requirement, and thus unable to carry one’s child to safety, “Nonetheless, I am glad I voted for that ‘more fair’ law.”

† As, indeed, they are, or, in the best case, to those among the applicants claiming eligibility most capable of framing, supporting, or bribing their claims to the front of the line. All claims cannot be met. The politicians and bureaucrats discriminating between claims will necessarily favor those redounding to their individual or party benefit—so the eternal problem of “Fairness,” supposedly solved by Government distribution of funds, becomes, yet again and inevitably, a question of graft.

David Mamet, The Secret Knowledge: On the Dismantling of American Culture (New York, NY: Sentinel Publishing, 2011), 116-117, 122, 151, 154.

(See more Mamet quotes HERE)

Example One

Melissa Etheridge

Then the response:

Here is one for you Sean, I personally think it shameful and not in the spirit of her Christianity that in one old anti-gay speech of hers in ’04 she singles Melissa Etheridge out, she expressed the hope that a breast-cancer-stricken Melissa Etheridge would take advantage of her illness to quit being a lesbian. I have more current faux pas’ but that one sticks with a person.

My response:

….Now on to the Ethridge thing which is one of ten listed of her craziest statements floating about the internet. Note that I am not here to defend lists against her, I doubt she will ultimately be the nominee, but this is a prime example of why one should investigate beyond pop-culture things said of Republicans (or for that matter, Democrats) filtered through the Huffington post or the Daily Kos which ends up digested by mainstream audiences.

Here is the Left’s understanding of her statement:

  • Michele Bachmann hopes Melissa Etheridge’s cancer will teach her to stop being gay

Here is the fuller quote about this 2004 point:

  • “Unfortunately she is now suffering from breast cancer, so keep her in your prayers. This may be an opportunity for her now to be open to some spiritual things, now that she is suffering with that physical disease. She is a lesbian**.”

In that same speech she intimated a bit more about her views saying that, “almost all, if not all, individuals who have gone into the lifestyle have been abused at one time in their life, either by a male or by a female.” Let me post a statement by a lesbian pro-choice pundit on this topic:

◆ … and now all manner of sexual perversion enjoys the protection and support of once what was a legitimate civil-rights effort for decent people. The real slippery slope has been the one leading into the Left’s moral vacuum. It is a singular attitude that prohibits any judgment about obvious moral decay because of the paranoid belief that judgment of any sort would destroy the gay lifestyle, whatever that is…. I believe this grab for children by the sexually confused adults of the Gay Elite represents the most serious problem facing our culture today…. Here come the elephant again: Almost without exception, the gay men I know (and that’s too many to count) have a story of some kind of sexual trauma or abuse in their childhood — molestation by a parent or an authority figure, or seduction as an adolescent at the hands of an adult. The gay community must face the truth and see sexual molestation of an adolescent for the abuse it is, instead of the ‘coming-of-age’ experience many [gays] regard it as being. Until then, the Gay Elite will continue to promote a culture of alcohol and drug abuse, sexual promiscuity, and suicide by AIDS. — Tammy Bruce, The Death of Right and Wrong: Exposing the Left’s Assault on Our Culture and Values (Roseville: Prima, 2003), 90, 99.

Every lesbian that felt close enough to share their thoughts on this issue with my mom during her hippie days to her trailer park days has been abused, usually by a male family member. And the two homosexual men I have been close enough to talk about their positions on same-sex marriage and their past have intimated a sodomistic experience at a very young age; one by a stranger, and the other by a family member. (They are both against same sex-marriage by-the-by, as are many homosexuals… just not the vocal part of that community.) That is not to say this has been the case in all homosexual experiences, as the last caller intimates via the Michael Medved Show (load and listen at the 15-minute mark: Observations About Public Perception of Homosexuality).

I believe Bachmann had this larger thought in mind (as she has most likely read every book by Tammy Bruce) when talking about this topic as well as the hope that one reflects on spiritual things more when sick than when not,

  • “But pain insists upon being attended to. God whispers to us in our pleasures, speaks in our conscience, but shouts in our pains: it is His megaphone to rouse a deaf world” — C.S. Lewis.

Mind you she may not be very well spoken on issues that I have written an entire chapter on (Roman Epicurean’ism – Natural Law and Homosexuality), but she certainly didn’t say or mean what the Left accuses her of. Yeah? Can you see the subject/object distinctions? I am sure that if pressed on the issue by a knowledgeable person she would admit the only real sin is rejecting the finished work on the Cross offered by God through His Son. Which is the hope she intimated — not so clearly — in her speech.

** Just to be clear… I do not think cancer is caused necessarily by sin… we ALL are guaranteed with a 1-to-1 stat in regards to life and death. This will NOT change via a lifestyle choice. There are [though] serious health issues that are often ignored from this lifestyle, more is said on this via a post and under the heading, “Homosexuality and the Public Health”

After some other posts I end with this:

I wanted to wrap this topic of conversation up by showing how many bumper sticker mantras/beliefs enter into what we view as fact and what we base opinions off of. Opinions should always be based on truth, or what we can best understand as truth. The truth of the example given above is ACTUALLY that Bachmann asked her audience to pray for Melissa Etheridge, and tried to encapsulate what any apologist of the faith may try to point out — that God will at times use our toughest trials to evolve our spiritual thinking in leaps and bounds. I would agree that Michele Bachmann may not be able to make the point as eloquent as a “CS Lewis.”

[….]

For those who wish to understand how such thinking — as exemplified herein — becomes mainstream understanding, I will recommend a dated book that is one of the best at explaining this phenomenon:

That is a great read for fellow bibliophiles here. Much, Much thought.

Example Two

Obama’s $2-Million a Day Trip

After some fun I asked this of another friend who posted info on Bachmann’s “gaffes”:

  • …. Tell me, what most bugs you about Bachmann besides your ad hominem attacks.

He responded in large, but I will shorten the response:

Bachman’s ideology bugs me. Her extreme “Christian” values. My first impression of her was her HUGE lie about Obama’s 2 Million dollar a day” trip to India- she lied right to the camera! She’s just a miserable angry bitch to me, and you could only say “Obama Sucks” soooo many times without offering anything of value in return before it gets stale.

I respond:

I don’t think that was a lie Greg? I think people may have said some things based on bad information, this is different than a lie. For example, liberals tend to say Bush lied about WMDs. If he “lied,” then so did the French, German, Russian, Israeli Saudi Arabia, and Jordanian intelligence as well as the CIA. This would also make Madeline Albright, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, John F. Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Al Gore, Robert Byrd, and others liars (for more info, see my PAGE on WMDs). This is one word that is thrown around by libs almost as much as the race card. It would be like me saying Obama lied when he said there were 57 states. There has to be some leeway here on both side, yeah?

So before going further, let’s get this straight, if Michele Bachmann got her info from a source of good standing and repeated it, she would be wrong, and not a liar, right?

So news orgs and financial sites like http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/, and http://www.ndtv.com/, as well as the http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/ basically said the following in some manner:

A top official of the Maharashtra Government privy to the arrangements for the high-profile visit has reckoned that a whopping $200 million (Rs 900 crore approx) per day would be spent by various teams coming from the US in connection with Obama’s two-day stay in the city. “A huge amount of around USD 200 million would be spent on security, stay and other aspects of the Presidential visit,” the official said in Mumbai.

Michele Bachmann then picked this up (maybe a staff member?) and ran with it. She didn’t lie Greg. Stop it. She was mistaken and took some bad information that the Indian press ran with. Right? This is your first main point and we need to reach agreement on this so that I [we] may know this conversation is one that maturely takes facts into consideration and changes our thoughts on the matter to fit the facts. Again, the main issue here is media bias… why would the press run with this and blame Bachmann as they did? Yes she said it, but she was not the author of this info. One of the most recent examples is this thanking by Michelle Obama to the press for leaving her kids alone and mediaites telling Michele Bachmann to her face all of her 23 foster children will be investigated (PJ MEDIA).

So she didn’t lie, right Greg?

He then retorts:

‎”a half truth is a while lie”. The false claim is in the same vein as John Kyl’s “over 90% of what Planned Parenthood does is aortions” – selective information meant as slander, and not for any other purpose other than to spread lies, and just now on the news Michele wouldn’t address her “misstatements” other than she’s a “serious candidate”. You’re just trying to polish a turd with me on the Obama India trip, I’m not buying it.

I stay on topic after he rambles on on a myriad of topics:

(Stay focused.) We are still talking about one of your first points (outside of your use of “extremist” in describing a conservative woman of faith) and haven’t even made it to a second yet. Back up what you say, or, when what you believe doesn’t fit the facts – lay your pride aside and say, “you know, I may have jumped the gun with that.”

Okay, Bachmann didn’t even use a “white lie” when she passed on that information. She sisn’t twist any of it, she didn’t know it was false… she or her handlers ran with it based on the fact that it came from typically reliable sources:

Even as far back as Oct 23 the Economic Times said, “There will be US naval ships, along with Indian vessels, patrolling the sea till about 330-km from the shore. This is to negate the possibility of a missile being fired from a distance,” the officer said. (Economic Times)

ETC., ETC., ETC.

So, are you willing to say on this point you may have jumped the gun? …. (My Facebook video [June 28, 2011] transferred to my YouTube):

Example Three

Believing  Scientists Holding Nobel Prizes

He never answered my direct and clear questions or answered the evidence that challenged his embedded bias. Instead he used a tactic that 16-years of discussions on the www. have taught me… change the subject and bombard the person with many questions or topics… all at once. However, in his posting a “top-ten” list from online, I chose this one and then posted:

  • 7. “There are hundreds and hundreds of scientists, many of them holding Nobel Prizes, who believe in intelligent design.” -Rep. Michele Bachmann, Oct. 2006

I respond:

Okay, since you are dodging my question/statement, I will give an example from your list. I guarantee that more than half of those can be explained away using the same common sense I did in the position above that you seem to not want to engage in, the example I gave of Melissa Ethridge near the beginning, and this one.

Bachmann said…. this: “There are hundreds and hundreds of scientists, many of them holding Nobel Prizes, who believe in intelligent design.”

Okay, Nobel Laureates who believe in I.D. or some form of it:

Here Uncommon Descent has a few listed, please, see their post for more info on each of these gentleman:

  1. Nobel Laureate and Intelligent Design proponent: Dr. Brian Josephson (winner of the Nobel prize for Physics, 1973)
  2. Nobel Laureate and Old Earth creationist: Dr. Richard Smalley (winner of the Nobel prize for Chemistry, 1996)
  3. Abdus Salam (1926-1996), a winner of the 1979 Nobel Prize in Physics
  4. Sir John Eccles (1903-1997), winner of the Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine in 1963.
  5. Nobel Laureate Ernst Boris Chain (1906-1979), winner of the 1945 Nobel Prize in Medicine and Physiology
  6. Wolfgang Pauli (1900-1958), winner of the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1945.
  7. Guglielmo Marconi (1874–1937), winner of the 1909 Nobel Prize in Physics

1) Charles Hard Townes, winner of a Nobel Prize in Physics and a UC Berkeley professor; 2) Nobel Laureate Eugene P. Wigner (1963, physics); 3) I would argue that Einstein accepted a form of I.D.; 4) Richard E Smalley, winner of the 1996 Nobel Prize in chemistry, as asked to present the keynote address at Tuskegee University’s 79th Annual Scholarship Convocation/Parents’ Recognition Program; 5) Max Plank, Nobel Laureate in Physics; 6) Werner Heisenberg, Nobel Laureate in Physics; 7) Erwin Schrödinger, Nobel Laureate in Physics; 8) Robert Millikan, Nobel Laureate in Physics; 9) Arthur Schawlow, Nobel Laureate in Physics; 10) William Phillips, Nobel Laureate in Physics; 11) Sir William H. Bragg, Nobel Laureate in Physics; 12) Guglielmo Marconi, Nobel Laureate in Physics; 13) Arthur Compton, Nobel Laureate in Physics; 14) Arno Penzias, Nobel Laureate in Physics; 15) Alexis Carrel, Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology; 16) Sir John Eccles, Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology; 17) Joseph Murray, Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology; 18) Sir Ernst Chain, Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology; 19) George Wald, Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology; 20) Sir Derek Barton, Nobel Laureate in Chemistry; 21) Christian Anfinsen, Nobel Laureate in Chemistry; 22) Walter Kohn, Nobel Laureate in Chemistry; 23) T. S. Eliot, Nobel Laureate in Literature; 24) Rudyard Kipling, Nobel Laureate in Literature; 25) Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Nobel Laureate in Literature; 26) François Mauriac, Nobel Laureate in Literature; 27) Hermann Hesse, Nobel Laureate in Literature; 28) Sir Winston Churchill, Nobel Laureate in Literature; 29) Jean-Paul Sartre, Nobel Laureate in Literature; 30) Sigrid Undset, Nobel Laureate in Literature; 31) Isaac B. Singer, Nobel Laureate in Literature; 32) Albert Schweitzer, Nobel Laureate for Peace; 33) Theodore Roosevelt, Nobel Laureate for Peace; 34) Woodrow Wilson, Nobel Laureate for Peace; 35) Nelson Mandela, Nobel Laureate for Peace; 36) Kim Dae-Jung, Nobel Laureate for Peace; 37) Dag Hammarskjöld, Nobel Laureate for Peace; 38) Martin Luther King Jr., Nobel Laureate for Peace; 39) John R. Mott, Nobel Laureate for Peace; 40) Nathan Söderblom, Nobel Laureate for Peace.

Of course there are many scientists who were or are leaders in technology/science, literature and the like that are believers in some form of Intelligent Design. The example I give (and have given to you in past discussions is….

1) The guy most credited in getting us to the moon, Wernher von Braun: von Braun began work at the US Army Ordinance Corps testing grounds at White Sands, New Mexico. In 1952 he became technical director of the army’s ballistic-missile program. It was in the 1950’s that he produced rockets for US satellites (the first, Explorer 1, was launched early 1958) and early space flights by astronauts. He held an administrative post at NASA from 1970-1972 as well. We would have never made it to the moon if it were not for von Braun.

2) Dr Raymond V. Damadian is one that’s invention was key in diagnosing me with Multiple Sclerosis. He invented the MRI and his first working model is forever in the Smithsonian Institution‘s Hall of Medical Sciences

The MRI scanner has revolutionized the field of Medical Science. In 1977, Dr. Raymond Damadian invented the MRI scanner. The recipient of the 2001 Lemelson MIT achievement award, and the 1988 National Medal of Technology from President Ronald Regan, his name stands among those of the greatest inventors in the National Inventors Hall of Fame. Join us in this rare personal interview of Dr. Damadian as he describes the invention and comments on multiple scientific controversies related to the origin of life. His answers will surprise you and leave you pondering your own worldview. See amazing Medical MRI images and state of the art animations. Expand your mind.

3) Benjamin S. Carson, M.D., one of the world’s foremost pediatric neurosurgeons, is professor and chief of pediatric neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins University Medical School. Born on September 18, 1951, in Detroit to a single mother in a working class neighborhood, Ben showed promise from a young age. A graduate of Yale and the University of Michigan Medical School, he was rated by a Time issue titled “America’s Best” as a “super surgeon.” Dr. Carson was also selected by CNN and Time as one of the nation’s top 20 physicians and scientists, and by the Library of Congress as one of 89 “living-legends.”

These three men are young earth creationists (YEC) and support their claims by evidence and faith. One last point here are lists found on my blog

You can read more bio’s of professors, scientists, and researchers who are young earth creationists – HERE.

  1. Creation WIKI’s list of current creationist scientists;
  2. Creation WIKI’s historical list of creation sciuentists;
  3. Creation WIKI’s history of science.

A few other examples of current men of science who are young earth creationists:

  • Professor Dr Bernard Brandstater—pioneer in anesthetics. Amongst many other achievements, he pioneered assisted breathing for premature babies with prolonged incubation and developed an improved catheter for epidural anesthesia, both adopted around the world.
  • Prof. Stuart Burgess—a world expert in biomimetics (imitating design in nature). He is Professor of Engineering Design, Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Bristol (UK) and leads the Design Engineering Research Group at the university. Dr Burgess is the author of over 40 papers published in science journals, and another 50 conference proceedings. He has also registered 7 patents and has received various awards, the Wessex Institute Scientific Medal being the most recent.
  • Professor Dr Ben Carson—pioneer pediatric neurosurgeon. He was long-term director of pediatric neurosurgery at the Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions. He was the first surgeon to successfully separate conjoined twins joined at the head and also pioneered surgery to cure epilepsy in young children, and much else. He has been awarded 51 honorary doctorates, including from Yale and Columbia universities in recognition of his outstanding achievements. He is a member of the Alpha Honor Medical Society, the Horatio Alger Society of Distinguished Americans, and sits on numerous business and education boards. In 2001, CNN and Time magazine named Ben Carson as one of the nation’s 20 foremost physicians and scientists. In that same year, the Library of Congress selected him as one of 89 ‘Living Legends’. In February 2008, President Bush awarded Carson the Ford’s Theater Lincoln Medal and the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the USA’s highest civilian honors.
  • Dr Raymond Damadian (see above)—largely responsible for developing medical imaging using magnetic resonance (MRI). He has been honored with the United States’ National Medal of Technology, the Lincoln-Edison Medal, and induction into the National Inventors Hall of Fame alongside Thomas Edison, Alexander Graham Bell and the Wright brothers. In 2001 the Lemelson-MIT program bestowed its lifetime achievement award on Dr Damadian as “the man who invented the MRI scanner”. It is commonly recognized that he was discriminated against in not at least sharing a Nobel Prize for his work (two others shared the award), although Damadian was the discoverer that diseased tissue would have a different signal from healthy.’
  • Dr John Hartnett—developed the world’s most precise atomic clocks, which are used in research and industry around the globe. He is an Australian Research Council (ARC) Discovery Outstanding Researcher Award (DORA) fellow at the University of Adelaide, where he is an Associate Professor. In his relatively short career, he has published more than 200 papers in scientific journals, book chapters, and conference proceedings.
  • Dr Raymond Jones—solved the major problem of the indigestibility of Leucaena (a tropical legume) for grazing cattle in Australia, among other achievements. This research has contributed hundreds of millions of dollars to the Australian beef industry. He was honored with the CSIRO Gold Medal for Research Excellence, and the Urrbrae Award.
  • Dr Felix Konotey-Ahulu—many pioneering contributions, especially in sickle cell disease management. He is Kwegyir Aggrey Distinguished Professor of Human Genetics, University of Cape Coast, Ghana, and Consultant Physician Genetic Counsellor in Sickle Cell and Other Haemoglobinopathies, Phoenix Hospital Group, London, UK. Ironically, sickle cell disease is often incorrectly held up as a ‘proof of evolution’ in science textbooks. Dr Konotey-Ahulu has received many awards in recognition of his work.
  • Dr John Sanford—has been granted over 30 patents arising from his research in plant breeding and genetics. His most significant scientific contributions involve three inventions, the biolistic (`gene gun’) process, pathogen-derived resistance, and genetic immunization. A large fraction of the transgenic crops (in terms of both numbers and area planted) grown in the world today were genetically engineered using the gene gun technology developed by John and his collaborators. Dr Sanford was honoured with the Distinguished Inventor Award by the Central New York Patent Law Association in 1990 and 1995)
  • Dr Wally (Siang Hwa) Tow—groundbreaking research in ‘molar pregnancy’, a poverty-related disease. He was invited to lecture in some fourteen top Obstetrics-Gynaecology departments in America in 1962-3, including leading universities such as Harvard, Johns Hopkins, Columbia, New York, UCLA, Cornell, and Stanford. He was awarded the William Blair Bell Lectureship by the RCOG in recognition of the importance of this work. He served as Professor and Chairman of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, National University of Singapore.

Don Batten, “Creationist Contributions to Science,” Creation 36(4):1 September 2014, 17-18. See also, creation bios.

SPLC Labels Christian Ministry Hate Group… Again

Published by Papa Giorgio

GAY PATRIOT notes the radical attacks from Leftist organizations:

The Southern Poverty Law Center was, perhaps, once a civil rights organization. Then extremists spent its core assets – in this case, SPLC’s good word and reputation – until they were gone. SPLC now routinely mislabels conservative and/or Christian groups as so-called “hate groups”, emptying the term of meaning and making the SPLC a bad joke.

Most famously, SPLC mislabelled the Family Research Council a “hate group” for its stance against gay marriage, and in 2013 that prompted an attempted mass-murder by a gay activist, Floyd Lee Corkins II.

SPLC is still going. Most recently, they mislabelled the D. James Kennedy Ministries:

[…..]

The DJKM plan to fight back with a defamation suit. It will be interesting to see how it goes. I expect it to fail; “that’s our opinion” is a workable defense in many instances, and many in the law profession have a blind spot for the SPLC.

But I didn’t think Trump would win, either…..

(READ IT ALL)

ESPN’s Gettysburg

Published by Papa Giorgio

TWITCHY has fun with General Lee’s doppelganger:

On Tuesday night, ESPN confirmed what people had been assured was not a satirical piece from The Onion, though it would have been a great one — announcer Robert Lee had been pulled from calling a college football game because it just “felt right” at the time, so soon after a woman had been killed while protesting white supremacists in Charlottesville.

In an email to reporters, ESPN said it all came down the simple coincidence of Lee’s name. We know that Merriam-Webster is quick to correct President Trump on Twitter whenever he goofs up, so we hope someone there is paying attention to Reuters’ feed today………