Crazy Liberals

Inject Disinfectant? Really?

Published by Papa Giorgio

I added a conversation to this post that was started due to my posting this on my sites FACEBOOK. I have a VERY LONG introduction to the actual conversation. So if you plan to read it be ready to “dig-in.” 

...GO TO...

You can jump to the sections:

It really worries me that people think that Trump mentioned ingesting or injecting in any way or form — over the counter disinfectants. But this is the state of affairs in our country, unfortunately. Granted, Trump is not the best orator, but CONTEXT IS KING. I understand that due-diligence is required to discover Trump’s context, but, too many people wait for far-Left comedians to do it for them (or far-Left pundits). Invariably, these sources hide the context to make their far-Left audience laugh in order to make the corporations they are paid by, money.

The information below is married to my Facebook video (a 1-minute and 50-seconds long video – I will post my YouTube video below)… it is important because this is the part where Trump mentioned patients getting medical expertise for any such procedure, as well as the *UV light cleaning the lungs (part of the CONTEXT missing from late-night comedians and MSNBC, CNN, NPR, the New York Times, The Washington Post, etc):

The HEALIGHT (which has been banned from the internet because “Orange Man Bad” — NOQ REPORT) was mentioned by President Trump… You see, the President and his people probably got inundated with companies contacting them with technology they have been working on to combat such viruses. If you take this into account, the portion where Trump said Dr. Birx and others would look into that — makes more sense in context. The President’s people have probably been brainstorming on all this stuff.

Here are two posts of mine discussing these issues:

MORE CONTEXT

Moments after the President mentioned disinfectants, ABC News’ Jonathan Karl asked Bryan, “The president mentioned the idea of a cleaner, bleach and isopropyl alcohol emerging. There’s no scenario where that could be injected into a person, is there?”

He responded: “No, I’m here to talk about the finds that we had in the study. We don’t do that within that lab at our labs.”

The president then added:

“It wouldn’t be through injections,

you’re talking about almost a

cleaning and sterilization of an area.

Maybe it works,

maybe it doesn’t work,

but it certainly has a big effect

if it’s on a stationary object.”

QUESTION: Have you seen ANY mainstream media company or late-night comedian mention this portion of the same speech?

People prefer to be told what to think… I am convinced of this more and more everyday.

One of my favorite cousins (by marriage) opined well about his frustrations regarding the whole issue – after posting the earlier version of this on my site’s FACEBOOK:

Oh man, I have had to give some variation of your exact explanation to people who were over reacting to this. Ultimately I left all of those conversations with an ultimatum. Either you are severely lacking in critical thinking skills, which if you went through the public education system is no fault of your own, OR you are doing something to emotionally make yourself feel better at the expense of your intellectual honesty… which is it?

Yep . . . .

POISON CONTROL

Not only this, but the media even spread another malicious lie about a spike of calls to Poison Control because of Trump’s remarks. No. I have been trying to find Clorox, Lysol, Handi Wipes, and other disinfectants in the store for almost 2-months. They have been completely out (I am sure most Americans share my frustration). And since this so-called “spike” happened before Trump’s remarks, it just makes sense that because of increased usage comes increased fears of misuse. Dumb. But people believed it (or still do). Here are two articles/posts on the issue I recommend to the brain dead:

  • The media is lying about increased emergency calls about drinking bleach in order to blame Trump (RIGHT SCOOP)
  • No, Poison Control Calls Aren’t Suddenly Spiking After Trump’s Disinfectant Comments: Calls to U.S. poison control centers are up. They have been since March (REASON.COM)

I will end with Larry Elder spending almost 14-minutes playing related audio and discussing the issue.

INTRODUCTION TO CONVO

The below is a conversation at the Facebook version of the above. It is with a guy I love and dig very much. But as you can see, he allows — maybe… just maybe — a visceral dislike for Trump to guide his thinking. You will see that I note that it takes digging to at times to see what Trump is saying, but to just say he is saying “a” [accusing someone] when in fact he said “b” is not the best road for him, or anyone. I sympathize with how Trump may be thinking one thing and then put to words a less than full picture of what he has in his mind. Any married couple can sympathize with this disease. And I wish we had a good communicator in office… but we don’t. And this has allowed those who dislike him have an easy time with taking him out of context and using this for political hit jobs. The Leftist media, the Leftist voter, the #NeverTrumper.

BTW, a lot of people may not know but up until a month-and-a-half before the 2016 election, I was a #NeverTrump guy. I was — at the time — hoping David French would hop in. I wrote two pieces regarding Trump and my decision to vote for him, and close down my “anti-Trump” site: The Constitutional Federalists of America (CFA). One was this:

I start out thus:

An open letter to friends and those I respect… depravity vs. permanence.

I feel I have to write this as an open letter to my Christian friends who do not want to vote for Trump based on a sense of loyalty to their Christian convictions. I wish to thank a friend (Shane H.) for aligning this last piece of the puzzle for me. I wish to thank as well Dennis Prager for challenging my position on this as well.

We have – essentially – a choice between two candidates. I would have considered voting for the Libertarian party if their candidate was not wanting to use the state to jail and fine people for not baking cakes or taking photographs of same-sex weddings. He even said on stage that he would use the power of the state to force a Jewish baker to bake a cake for a Nazi type celebration. He is an open borders guy – just publicly, not secretly like Hillary, and he has more in common with Bernie Sanders than any of the other candidates. In other words, an anti-Libertarian is leading the Libertarian Party to a record win for them in this election. Nightmare!

Hindsight of-course is 20/20. No other candidate could have won the “Rust-Belt,” nor taken the heat from the Left which has been solidifying the media since Goldwater; nor would we have judges of the caliber we have had put into offices across this nation.

My second post reminded me of all the attacks against “Dubya” and Cheney: war for oil, racist, liar, evil, making profits for old companies, drunk, AWOL, murderer, etc., etc.

So, because I can tell the difference between dumb and evil, I can succinctly distinguish between a politicians ego claim (biggest inaugural crowd in the history of our country) and an evil compliance (“Iran might have been given as much as $33.6 billion in cash, gold, and other valuable metals,” Mark Dubowitz, the executive director for the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, testified before Congress according to the Free Beacon – AMERICAN LIBERTY REPORT). The lies given to the American public leading to the fallacious Iran deal pales-in-comparison to Trump’s classical political fairy tales that most politicians tell. And so I deal with what were the three biggest hurdles people mentioned were their reasoning for rejecting Trump as a bigot, racist, xenophobe, and the like.

The three are:

  1. Is Mexico Allowing Rapists Across the Border?
  2. Did Donald Trump Mock a Disabled Man?
  3. Are Racists Voting for Republicans?

Here is the introduction to that post. Sorry, I chose to include the entire opener — it is long:

Okay, we are a few days AFTER this contentious election for ALL involved… both sides went with horrible choices for their nominee and caused not only contentious attitudes with the opposing nominee but an internal struggle as well. That is, the Democrat base did not like Hillary Clinton, and the Republican base did not like Donald Trump. In fact, in the hopes this will give me some credibility for at least what is to follow, I even started a website to defeat Trump and his rise to be the GOP nominee. Trump is not a conservative? He is a Blue-Dog Democrat.

In conversation with a person I respect highly, he said [partially in jest], that, “You can still love Trump. It’s okay with me….” Not realizing that I do not love Trump and started a site to defeat him. I even made it clear out of the 16-other candidates, Trump was my 18th choice. (Get it?)

…Continuing

So, we are a few days after the election and I read posts like:

  • I’m in mourning, again. I’m sad and disgusted that sexism and racism are still alive and kicking in this country. Color, not qualifications were voted into the White House last night.
  • I could sit here and sob about how devastating and pathetic this is. I’m just too pissed. Disappointed. Shocked. Fucking livid. Years of progress diminished in one night. This is not the country I thought I lived in.
  • Everyone better order their tamales now. There won’t be any by Christmas.
    • … another person asked this person: Are you making them?
    • … here is the response: Nope. I’m afraid if I do I will be deported.
    • … the humorous comeback was: Nobody is getting deported till January 20 2017, Christmas tamales are safe.
  • Another person I know posted the graphic to the right:

These are just a few of examples of raw emotion that should be sympathized with. But like in many-a-Facebook post this idea that if people do not agree with my position, they are one of the SIXHIRBs: sexist, intolerant, xenophobic, homophobic, Islamophobic, racist, bigoted.

One of the best turnarounds I saw from a family member is this:

  • So in class today I finally cried. This presidential unveiling has caused such a stir of emotions for the past 48 hours and it has all been bottled up until this point. We keep playing the blame game and it’s time to stop. Right now I blame myself because I was ignorant to the rest of the country. I didn’t think that everyone didn’t think like me. I lived in a bubble and now I feel like the different one. Because of this huge division right now the last thing we need to do divide it even further….

Wow! What a mature statement. THAT made my heart glad. She even went on to state she wished she had expressed this as clearly in an earlier class as she did on her FB. I agreed, hindsight is 20/20 and we all have said stuff that upon further reflection we could have said better.

All of us. (Especially Bush, and now Trump… NIGHTMARE!)

So, how do I explain some positions my friends and family probably think about a man they seem to fear, and I heard one psychotherapist yesterday say that the reaction of many millennials is like that of a loved one dying. In other words, this is deeply emotional to some. And while I love posting videos of people sobbing like the next dude, this gets us nowhere. So I decided to discuss three main points about Trump and this election to get people to think about what they say. Because it can be misunderstood as calling a friend or family one of those SIXHIRB labels, wounding both our Republic (because who would want to learn or discuss political matters with a racist?), as well as causing misunderstandings between friends.

It makes our political life too easy. A healthy Republic should be tough. Those labels are a cop-out for doing heavy liftin’. One very progressive leaning professor makes the same point about how this thinking harms his students:

Here, for example, is my sister noting her election day experience… and take note, she will never make her vote public:

  • In my 32 years as a registered voter, I have never left the polls feeling so disgusted and embarrassed by my choice. Not that my other option would have made me feel ANY different. I need a shower!

The point here is that people are more complicated than these few labels society has chosen to use. Another example (a few years back) of a dear friends mom smearing people like me is in a post discussing Judge Judy. I know, it’s a pop-culture Baby Boomer thing. Here is what she said with my response:

(She said) “Black people and white people weren’t allowed get married years ago either… if small minded, bigoted people had their way it would still be that way. Gay marriage Is NO different…. religious folks who believe and support same sex marriage ?? They must not be real religious people.”

(I Responded) In other words, a discussion to you is calling me and other readers here “bigots,” and impugning the character of religious gays by creating straw-man arguments of what I (we) say/mean? And when I politely point this out by not pointing out how you name call and use “cards” (sexist, intolerant, xenophobic, homophobic, Islamophobic, racist, bigoted ~ S.I.X.H.I.R.B.)….

People need to understand what they are saying. I make mistakes all the time. It’s in our nature. You apologize, grow, learn, and move on trying to keep friendships and family close to you. The friend’s mom unfriended me. So in response to my family member I noted something we all do, and it is this:

This election has brought to mind the now famous quote by elite Manhattanite and New Yorker columnist Pauline Kael after Richard Nixon’s sweeping presidential victory in 1972:

  • “I don’t know how Richard Nixon could have won. I don’t know anybody who voted for him.”

There is a tendency to build sound rooms around one’s belief and where they choose to get their information from. WE ARE ALL susceptible to this.

So, part of our journey is allowing in other sources of information…

The conservative has no choice but to encounter leftist ideals. For instance, out of the top twenty most influential sources of news in our country, only two lean right (Fox News and the Washington Times). All the others lean left in their journalism and view of the world. In fact, Rachel Maddow noted her politics are to the left of Mao Zedong. She is more of a commentator though, and the study I am referring to only included straight news sources.

…Continuing.

So if a person is surprised at the outcome, maybe they should engage friends or family and ask questions. The key to doing this is the following, if it is not face-to-face,.and this is something I will at times start out a conversation with:

“By-the-by, for those reading this I will explain what is missing in this type of discussion due to the media used. Genuflecting, care, concern, one being upset (does not entail being “mad”), etc… are all not viewable because we are missing each other’s tone, facial expressions, and the like. I afford the other person I am dialoguing with the best of intentions and read his/her comments as if we were out having a talk over a beer at a bar or meeting a friend at Starbucks. (I say this because there seems to be a phenomenon of etiquette thrown out when talking through email or Face Book, lots more public cussing and gratuitous responses.) You will see that often times I USE CAPS — which in www lingo for YELLING. I am not using it this way, I use it to merely emphasize and often times say as much: *not said in yelling tone, but merely to emphasize*. So in all my discussions I afford the best of thought to the other person as I expect he or she would to me… even if dealing with tough subjects as the above. I have had more practice at this than most, and with half-hour pizza, one hour photo and email vs. ‘snail mail,’ know that important discussions take time to meditate on, inculcate, and to process. So be prepared for a good thought provoking discussion if you so choose one with me.”

Again, we all put into other people’s typed words our own emotional state at that time. The trick is to step away from this tendency… and this can be hard.

I shared what others wrote on election day, can I share mine? I went and cast my ballot for Trump and wrote this afterwords:beer

I voted. It was really hard to overcome my original emotions of dislike for Trump with reason (mind). But this IS the essence of being human… To think and reason beyond our emotive states…

Again, people are complicated and to label them as sexist or racist without really knowing is a travesty to our Republic.

OKAY… I will now post three responses to items of discussion that my guess is those who are very distraught over Trump’s win and view either him or a large segment of the population who voted for him as racist or bigoted, or mean to disabled persons, is more complicated than these labels.

Wow, so with that set-up and how I came to slowly evolve into a defender of Trump (as I was for Dubya against the lies of the Left), here is the conversation I had with my friend/family member. And keep in mind my ability to go back and comment on the conversation and add media to expand my context may seem unfair… but I am not trying to make the person I dig look bad. And I will note what I correct or add.

FACEBOOK CONVO

TS, my friend, linked an article from the The Chicago Tribune that made my point that I had already laid out, which was,

  • Have you seen ANY mainstream media company or late-night comedian mention this portion of the same speech?

I have already noted Trump does not communicate well, and his response to a challenge is just another example of this, nor is the proper context from the original FULL briefing considered. In fact, when you come across sites that say full transcript/video of Trump, it is only the minute clip of Trump. Not the real, FULL briefing that has William Bryan’s full remarks so people can hear the words he used and that Trump took to sound like he knew what he was talking about.

Again, I do not fully endorse President Trump’s demeanor at times, but all in context… his saying people should inject themselves was based off of the guy who just preceded him.

OKAY, right after the article was posted this was said, and I will post the back-n-forth::

  • TS
    So let’s be clear, you are suggesting that his context meant that we should research injecting UV light into our lungs?

ME

TS, his team has seen companies from Colorado, Santa Barbara, and others, who think they have the magic bullet to help defeat The Rona. I document some of what Trump must have seen on my site, but this is one example (which I do not think works as well as the others I mention after this process):

More via RPT

But after you realize this and what his Coronavirus team members have probably brainstormed over, his comments here:

Which now makes perfect “Trump sense”

The [Chicago Tribune] article doesn’t give the full context (Trumps own words before and after the excerpt) — in other words TS, you are making my point. The only person mentioning injecting this stuff was Jonathan Karl — “The president mentioned the idea of a cleaner, bleach and isopropyl alcohol emerging. There’s no scenario where that could be injected into a person, is there?”

Keep in mind the speeches earlier by the experts they used MULTIPLE times”injecting UV light” into the controlled specimens of Covid-19. TO WIT

  • TS
    So then yes you are saying we should agree with him that researching putting UV light inside the body is a good idea. Below the largest organ of the body that is there to protect our insides from those UV rays. I’m definitely not a scientist or a doctor and am a product of the public school system, but that sounds just as dumb as putting a man made chemical like bleach into my veins.

ME

What did the President say right after that?

Also, in my post on my site and elsewhere around FACEBOOK, I note this:

…AGAIN, just because I am posting this does not mean I am endorsing this… AND, in fact, I include a warning.

[….]

Here is the WARNING about the above:

  • The idea of using UV light to treat infections started with a Nobel Prize – using UV light to treat tuberculosis infection of the skin. This, of course, is an external use. Using UV light to treat the blood had its heyday in the 1950s, but fell out of favor without leaving much of a paper trail behind….. UV light can cause tissue damage, as anyone who has suffered a sunburn can attest. What damage is being done with the UV light from this device, and can it have any clinically significant effect on infections at a dose that is safe for the tissue? These are unanswered questions. (SCIENCE BASED MEDICINE)

(“Disinfecting the Media’s Narrative With Light!“)

I continue on with a challenge of sorts, keeping my thoughts organized and TS on track.

So I asked a question above. [And] I set the record straight regarding your wondering if I endorse such things… I also have a 2nd question for you:

I also play video/audio (“Larry Elder Sanitizes The Left” – YOUTUBE) of Trump saying he isn’t a doctor and recommends medical advice. So like your context, Trump also said the same thing.

  • TS
    The context of every one of his “speeches” that I’ve heard is to iterate one idea multiple times, then say maybe it wont/it’s not a good idea/I’m not a doctor or some antithesis of what he just said, but right after that he reiterates it again to emphasize that it is what he thinks. So he doesn’t really have a good context. It would be like me saying there will be an earthquake tomorrow for sure… definitely an earthquake tomorrow…I guarantee [an] earthquake tomorrow…we’ll see the earth shake tomorrow… but who know I’m not a seismologist so it might not shake tomorrow… but I’m pretty sure it will. How do you contextualize what I just said? Those that choose to believe in what he says and knows it’s not a good idea sees that he said he’s not a doctor but hey maybe there’s a good idea in there somewhere. Those that don’t hang on his every word hear let’s research injecting UV light into our lungs, why because that is what he was reiterating over and over. In any form of learning or conveying a message if you reiterate something that is the main point that is trying to get across, not the disclaimer. His poor attempts at back-peddling by putting in his tiny disclaimer isn’t a free pass to say stupid things.

ME

WHAT IS THE CONTEXT?

…through the skin or …ahh… in some other way – and I think you said you were going to test that out…
…injection inside, or, or, almost a cleaning – as you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs, it will be interesting to check that….
…you are going to have to use medical doctors, but it sounds interesting to me…
…but the whole concept of the light the way it kills in one minute…

…suppose we did this…
…supposing we hit the body with a tremendous … ultraviolet light…
…hasn’t been checked, you said you would test it…
…is there a way to do something like that….
…gotta use medical doctors…

[….]

…I would like you to speak to the medical doctors to see if there is any way you can apply light and heat to cure…
…maybe you can, maybe you can’t, again, I say, maybe you can, maybe you can’t, I’m not a doctor…
…you ever heard of the heat or the light…

TWO UPLOADS OF MINE via YOUTUBE:

  • TS
    The context is that he has no idea what he is saying, but it sure looks and sounds like he just said we need to research UV light into the lungs because light outside the body kills bad things. This is where the divide is between those that hear what he says and those that interpret what he says. There is no common ground, because neither side will admit that they are wrong. So there will always be this he said/he said. This also translates to most political/religious/ethical/emotional/intellectual ideas. There will always be at least two sides and neither the two shall meet.

ME

Which is why he said, LIKE YOU,

“…maybe you can, maybe you can’t, again, I say, maybe you can, maybe you can’t, I’m not a doctor…“

Do you not understand that? ?

  • TS
    Why would someone say that?

ME

“I’m definitely not a scientist or a doctor and am a product of the public school system…”

Because they are an Architect or a Business Project Manager.

  • TS
    No not why would he say he’s not a doctor. Why would he say maybe you can, maybe you can’t.
  • ME
    Because they have looked at all the new possibilities many companies are probably contacting his Coronavirus team with.
  • TS
    I’m not a doctor is a disclaimer, his waffling is what I’m asking about. Why do you think he waffles back and forth? So if I was able to get a scientist…maybe even a holistic healer to contact his team and say inhaling sage into the lungs has been proven to help cure viruses, then maybe he’ll say that on TV. Is that what being well informed is all about?

ME

He is not an eloquent purveyor of his ideas in conversation. And? In no way did he tell people to inject themselves with “Lysol” type products. I understand that people who dislike him for whatever reason find it easy to malign him (due to how poorly he expresses himself), but in almost all the attacks against him I have come across, I have come to the conclusion people are misapplying to him their own bad motives.

I wrote a long post a month before the 2016 election deciding I would vote for him three such attacks that upon reflection (a closer look) do not hold water: “Some Trump Sized Mantras“

This is the same.

He wasn’t spitballing ideas out of the blue. Him and his team were being made aware of this very recently. Which is why, TS, Trump spoke in a past tense: “…and I think you said you were going to test that out…“

  • TS
    I agree he didn’t specifically say inject bleach into your veins, but his overlying context is that maybe we should look into getting things that shouldn’t be under our skins, under our skins.
  • ME
    Right, UV light. Remember, he had just heard William Bryan speak about injecting light as a disinfectant of sorts. He was trying to sound smart while expressing ideas about what his team was probably already discussing.
  • TS
    Exactly. I don’t want that under my skin. Heck I hardly want on my skin. You went the correct way of getting rid of UV damage on your skin by using the cream, I don’t think the UV light treatment I got was a good idea.

ME

Take note that the Colorado company working with Cedars-Sinai to disinfect the lungs (with light) is separating the waves to just “A” I believe.

But I may be wrong, I am not a doctor or scientist, or engineer.

So, TS, could I be so bold as to say maybe you would — if Joe Biden said this to you like he did in his Tweet — you might politely correct him?

TS

ME

Hahaha, Biden wins!

[….]

And BTW TS, thank you for engaging. It keeps me on top of my game, and allows others to see how polite conversation is done. While we know each other well, I want others to take my idea that I often share with people I engage with that I do not know all that well — the following:

“By-the-by, for those reading this I will explain what is missing in this type of discussion due to the media used. Genuflecting, care, concern, one being upset (does not entail being “mad”), etc… are all not viewable because we are missing each other’s tone, facial expressions, and the like. I afford the other person I am dialoguing with the best of intentions and read his/her comments as if we were out having a talk over a beer at a bar or meeting a friend at Starbucks. (I say this because there seems to be a phenomenon of etiquette thrown out when talking through email or Face Book, lots more public cussing and gratuitous responses.) You will see that often times I USE CAPS — which in www lingo for YELLING. I am not using it this way, I use it to merely emphasize and often times say as much: *not said in yelling tone, but merely to emphasize*. So in all my discussions I afford the best of thought to the other person as I expect he or she would to me… even if dealing with tough subjects as the above. I have had more practice at this than most, and with half-hour pizza, one hour photo and email vs. ‘snail mail,’ know that important discussions take time to meditate on, inculcate, and to process. So be prepared for a good thought provoking discussion if you so choose one with me.”

Prop 47 Destroying Inner Cities (Theft Rings)

Published by Papa Giorgio

CBSN has info before we get to the real newsworthy comments/news sources:

ROCKLIN (CBS/AP) — Perry Lutz says his struggle to survive as a small businessman became a lot harder after California voters reduced theft penalties 1 1/2 years ago.

About a half-dozen times this year, shoplifters have stolen expensive drones or another of the remote-controlled toys he sells in HobbyTown USA, a small shop in Rocklin, northeast of Sacramento. “It’s just pretty much open season,” Lutz said. “They’ll pick the $800 unit and just grab it and run out the door.”

Anything below $950 keeps the crime a misdemeanor — and likely means the thieves face no pursuit and no punishment, say retailers and law enforcement officials. Large retailers including Safeway, Target, Rite Aid and CVS pharmacies say shoplifting increased at least 15 percent, and in some cases, doubled since voters approved Proposition 47 and ended the possibility of charging shoplifting as a felony with the potential for a prison sentence….


The video was found because of TEXAGS, so a shout-out to that site. NATIONAL REVIEW has a good comment on this:

…The underlying premise of Proposition 47 was to free up funds so the state could focus on violent and serious offenders. Savings would be diverted to school-based prevention and support programs, victim services, and mental-health and drug treatment. Therefore petty thieves, who might be drug addicts, would avoid costly and ultimately detrimental incarceration. The referendum had the support of California Democratic party and the American Civil Liberties Union, and the state’s voters passed it into law in 2014.

What could possibly go wrong?

That question is best asked of the people in California who are robbed and call the police for help. Overall, they’re blindsided by the slow (or non-) response. The surprise and anger they feel is tremendous. Nearly a thousand dollars in stolen property is hardly minor, especially to those who have little to lose. It’s not just the loss of personal possessions they’ll probably never see again that is so distressing, but the ruined trust in the system that they assumed was designed to protect the innocent.

For law enforcement, however, there is little incentive to chase down low-level criminals. Even if the person is escorted to the station, odds are great he’ll be back on the street in an hour or so.

Outrage in these circumstances is apolitical. A liberal Berkeley student studying in a café whose laptop is swiped from a table feels just as violated as the right-leaning visitor to Los Angeles whose luggage is stolen. A struggling small-business owner wonders how long he can withstand the damage done by constant pilfering.

“Every bicycle in our building has been stolen,” says Karen Burns, president of a San Francisco condo association. “I’ve caught so many people stealing packages. They don’t care. They know nothing will happen to them. It’s crazy. It’s horrible. I feel like these people need to go to jail.”

Proposition 47 didn’t stop with theft. The personal use of illegal drugs was also reclassified to a misdemeanor. Although the intent may have been kind (it’s cruel to punish people for having an addiction) and practical (they’ll emerge from prison hardened, and a felony on their record makes it more difficult to reintegrate into society), the downstream impact on the community at large has been disastrous. In San Fransisco, for example, shooting up in public is commonplace, whether it’s on the steps of City Hall, in front of a supermarket, or at the entrance to a children’s playground.

Residents who are experiencing an uptick in so-called low-level crimes in their neighborhoods are baffled by studies indicating otherwise. For example, a December 2017 Center on Criminal and Juvenile Justice report shows property crimes down by an average of 18.1 percent across the state. Those numbers are false, says Michael Rushford, president of the Sacramento-based Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, a nonprofit public-interest law organization: “More, not fewer, of these crimes are being committed, but people aren’t reporting them. In most cases they have to do it online, and they end up not doing it. They don’t believe anything will happen, so don’t see the point. And they’re right.”

In fact, Magnus Lofstrom, a researcher at the Public Policy Institute of California, pointed to a 12 percent jump in larceny-theft (essentially, unlawfully taking someone’s property) in the state immediately after Proposition 47 took effect. “Crime rates always fluctuate, and the data isn’t always accurate,” says Lofstrom.

CertainlySan Franciscans aren’t debating whether or not crime is up. They know it is. In January, Police Chief William Scott acknowledged a 24 percent jump in property crimes from 2016 to 2017. Auto break-ins have soared in every district, and the arrest rate for them is an astonishing 1.6 percent….

(FLASHBACK to Feb, 2017) John and Ken interview Michael Rushford of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, a nonprofit, public interest law organization dedicated to improving the administration of criminal justice. Through the failures of California AB 109, prop 47 and prop 57 we all knew would happen but Jerry “MOONBEAM” Brown did not, quite a few violent crimes and the killing of our first defense has happened. (A previous similar upload). But hey, let’s spend billions on a train… effe the police and women.

A Lesbian VLOGGER Leaves the Left

Published by Papa Giorgio

The LGBT community is eating it’s own. It’s now filled with entitled, children who believe in cancel culture, moral superiority point scoring and oppression points. (MOONBATTERY hat-tip)

Responding To Political Hatred (Medal of Freedom Edition)

Published by Papa Giorgio

A friend has been noting a couple times that people should stop with the political hate. Posting this:

You see, a lot of people treat their Facebook like another version (private version) of themselves… with no regard to others who may be friends, family, co-workers, or the like.  As I often do, I wonder if they are talking about me… but I post pretty mainstream stuff — nothing from crazy conspiracy sites like Alex Jones, or the like. And when I do post something from Mark Dice or Paul Joseph Watson, I ALWAYS include the following:

  • While I like their rants (Paul Watson, Mark Dice, and others) and these commentaries hold much truth in them, I do wish to caution you… he is part of Info Wars/Prison Planet network of yahoos, a crazy conspiracy arm of Alex Jones shite. Also, I bet if I talked to him he would reveal some pretty-crazy conspiratorial beliefs that would naturally undermine and be at-odds-with some of his rants. Just to be clear, I do not endorse these people or orgs.

But, I do not typically post on others walls unless family or friends start posting incessantly about the following… calling [essentially] me for my vote, one of the following (or any combination thereof): sexist, intolerant, xenophobic, homophobic, Islamophobic, racist, bigoted (S.I.X.H.I.R.B.)

HILLARY’S version:

“You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic—you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up.”

When I disagree, I try to keep it civil… like I was talking to someone in a line at the local grocery store, with others (kids) present. As one can see from my CONVERSATION SERIES, I keep it full of facts, evidence, and a modicum of civility. So I realized that the call to civility on a friends Facebook was not about me, as I have never (beyond maybe a birthday wish) really interacted with said “old-school acquaintance/friend.”

And I also know in our current political melee “political hate” is in the eye of the beholder. For instance, I realize that some of the time I am dealing with a person in the following category:

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 59% of Likely U.S. Voters disagree with the following statement – “Vote for Donald Trump, and you are a racist.”  Twenty-nine percent (29%) agree with the statement, while 12% are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

But a closer look finds that 49% of Democrats think Trump voters are racist, compared to 13% of Republicans and 23% of voters not affiliated with either major party.

(RASMUSSEN)

So often times, someone who virulently believes multiple categories about me as a person as exemplified in the “SIXHIRB” above, is someone who I cannot have a reasonable conversation with. And when I do, it is because a friend invited me to respond or I am showing a reasonable/logical response from an opposing party to help change the minds of others watching said conversation.

But NOW I was curious as a cat. So I read the replies and found one that said: “I post a lot of animal stuff too… so I’m not gonna unfriend you… Because I LOVE YOU!”

To me it sounded like an admission… so I clicked over to this persons wall. NOT that this person was the culprit… but I was merely curious. This is the kinda stuff I found:

All I can say is that the above is one of the reasons why winning in 2020 will be easier than in 2016. People are visiting this person’s wall and saying to themselves, “wow, if this is the state of the party I belong to… I don’t feel like voting.” The up-and-come front runner for the Democrat Party said this of me:

  • “Is it racist to vote for Trump?” CNN’s Jake Tapper asked the South Bend., Ind., mayor [Pete Buttigieg] on Sunday. “Well, at best, it means looking the other way on racism.”

I realize many people BELIEVE this crap. But in a good c-o-n-v-e-r-s-a-t-i-o-n, it doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. I mean, Rush’s producer, “Bo Snerdly” (pictured to the right) founded an org to (as he put it): “…promises to ‘make Black Americans Republican again'” (WASHINGTON TIMES). So I don’t even wish to respond to the very demeaning and not true KKK meme.

So, I merely wish to post my response to the Scotts Bluff County Democratic Party “Meme” about the Tuskegee Airman. And this is why winning a conversation with the Left is easy.

FIRST, the Medal of Freedom is not one often given to war heroes… it is given to people — who unfortunately — donate to the campaigns of those in office. Or have really made an impact on culture. FOR INSTANCE, Oprah Winfrey created an audience of 20-million viewers and kept it at that number until she retired. So to has Rush Limbaugh done the same, to this day. These are the only people in media to do this. This is an amazing accomplishment. And what Rush has done for the base of the conservative movement and media is summed up well in Hugh Hewitt’s commentary:

SECOND, President Trump DID AWARD a more prestigious award to this Tuskegee Airman. For instance, the U.S. AIRFORCE notes:

Celebrating a 100th birthday is monumental in itself, but for retired Col. Charles E. McGee, shortly after this celebration he would reach yet another milestone in his successful career.

On Feb. 4, he found himself in the Oval Office at the White House being promoted to brigadier general by President Donald Trump.

“At first I would say ‘wow,’ but looking back, it would have been nice to have had that during active duty, but it didn’t happen that way,” McGee said. “But still, the recognition of what was accomplished, certainly, I am pleased and proud to receive that recognition and hopefully it will help me carry on as we try to motivate our youth in aviation and space career opportunities.”

Why give him the lowly regarded “Medal of Freedom” when you can give a more substantive award?

THIRDLY, here are some examples of Obama’s Medal of Freedom recipients — sorry for the LONG excerpt from PJ-MEDIA’S post:

…The Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest honor a president can bestow on a civilian, was instituted by President John F. Kennedy. Obama awarded the most such medals of any president, giving out 123. Many of Obama’s recipients arguably deserved the award, including Bill and Melinda Gates, John Glenn, Stephen Hawking, Sandra Day O’Connor, and Sidney Poitier. Obama also gave the award to Republicans like former President George H.W. Bush.

Yet a surprisingly large number of Obama’s Presidential Medal of Freedom recipients turned out to be campaign donors for both Obama and his hand-picked successor, Hillary Clinton. At least 17 of his donors received the honor, including tennis star Billie Jean King, author Toni Morrison, former President Bill Clinton, Oprah Winfrey, actress Meryl Streep, musician Stevie Wonder, actress Barbara Streisand, director Stephen Spielberg, singer/songwriter James Taylor, actor Tom Hanks, basketball legend Michael Jordan, actor Robert De Niro, singer/singwriter Bruce Springsteen, the aforementioned Gateses, talk show host Ellen DeGeneres, Saturday Night Live creator Lorne Michaels, and architect Frank Gehry.

The former president seems to have had a penchant for awarding celebrities. In addition to those previously mentioned, he awarded Robert Redford, Vin Scully, Gloria Estefan, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, and more.

Obama also awarded Harvey Milk, the first openly gay elected leader in America — and a man credibly accused of statutory rape against a 16-year-old boy when he was in his 30s, as Matt Margolis has pointed out, both here on PJ Media and in his book The Scandalous Presidency of Barack Obama.

Obama awarded America’s highest civilian honor to German Chancellor Angela Merkel in 2010, five years after her election. Was this just a friendly gesture, or did Obama receive something in return?

It also seems particularly rich for Joe Biden to complain about Limbaugh’s medal when the former vice president received one himself.

Yes, America’s first black president also awarded the honor to his vice president, Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr. — mere days before Trump’s inauguration! Only one president had previously given the medal to his sitting vice president: Gerald Ford gave it to Nelson Rockefeller after Rockefeller agreed to serve as vice president after Richard Nixon resigned in disgrace following the devastating Watergate scandal.

If Obama gave the Presidential Medal of Freedom to Robert De Niro, Trump can give it to the “oh so offensive” Rush Limbaugh. De Niro has launched into many profanity-laced tirades against Trump, most recently saying he wants to “see a bag of sh*t” in the president’s face. He has called Trump a “white supremacist” and said the president tends toward fascism. His attacks on Trump date back at least as far as 2011, and in 2012 he received a rebuke from Michelle Obama’s staff for a racially-charged joke at a fundraiser, four years before receiving the medal.

Rush Limbaugh is no mere conservative pundit. The trailblazing AM radio personality has influenced talk radio and conservatism for a generation, and millions are indebted to him — even liberal radio hosts who may hate his guts.

Limbaugh also made Trump palatable when conservatives like yours truly stubbornly refused to get on board. As my colleague, Jim Treacher, puts it, “as a RINO cuck traitor who probably wanted Hillary to win,” I was most unhappy with Rush backing the blustering New York billionaire. I am very happy to admit I was wrong — although I had good reasons to distrust Trump until he started fulfilling his promises as president.

Contrary to much liberal gnashing of teeth, Trump did not sully the Presidential Medal of Freedom by awarding it to Rush Limbaugh. As with so many supposed Trump scandals, Obama actually did the thing Trump is accused of doing, and far worse than what Trump did.

Limbaugh is a giant, and his accomplishments deserve to be rewarded. If Obama can use it to reward his donors, his European allies, and his vice president (on one of his last days in office), Trump can use it to honor the radio giant Rush Limbaugh….

Here some other early morning radio peeps talking about Rush:

  • Rush Limbaugh is no doubt, the godfather of talk radio and has been at the top of the pile for decades and decades. So it only makes sense when someone like him drops some major news, he makes the top of the headlines for days. He is conservative broadcasting and single-handedly saved the am band and invented modern talk radio. Watch this clip to hear the gang recall their favorite Rush moments and what he’s meant to their careers.

The Betsy Ross Flag vs Michael Eric Dyson

Published by Papa Giorgio

Prior to the 4th, Michael Medved recaps with his “Golden Turkey Award” the insane positions taken by the Left regarding the Betsy Ross flag and our Nation’s Founding.

3 Ignorant Myths About The Betsy Ross Flag, Dispelled (THE FEDERALIST):

….Men, women, rich, poor, black and white—all fought and made sacrifices for the principles and aspirations that this flag represents. After the last major battle of the American Revolution, Congress deepened the flag’s meaning by defining red, white and blue.

“White signifies purity and innocence. Red hardiness and valor and Blue … signifies vigilance perseverance and justice,” the Journal of the Continental Congress recorded on June 20, 1782.

Why didn’t Congress define the colors when they first adopted the flag in 1777? They didn’t really know what the colors meant at the start of the United States. By the end of the revolution, they knew what those colors meant because they understood the cost of freedom.

They knew that a free African-American named Peter Salem lived for the red stripe of valor when he risked his life at Bunker Hill to take out the British major responsible for the first British shots of the war. Because of Salem’s story, more Africans were freed and fought. Salem fought for four years and Africans made up about four percent of the Continental Army.

They knew that the flag’s maker, Betsy Ross, was an antislavery Quaker. Her second husband, Joseph Ashburn, was thrown into a British prison for “piracy, treason and rebellion against His Majesty on the high seas.” Representing the white stripe’s pure motive of loyalty, he died because he pledged allegiance to the flag of unity that his wife first sewed.

They knew that a slave named James Armistead represented the color blue because his vigilance as a spy led to America’s victory in the final battle at Yorktown in 1781. Without Armistead’s intelligence as a servant to British General Cornwallis, General Lafayette would not have been able to notify Washington that seizing Yorktown was possible. When Amistead became a free man, he changed his name to James Lafayette.

Yes, it’s unfortunately true that slavery existed when America was founded. It’s unfortunately true that freedom was not equally applied after the American Revolution, with only states in the North abolishing slavery over our nation’s initial years and first decades. It is unfortunately true that the quest for freedom and civil rights for all has been a long, hard-fought battle.

It’s also true that America did not change the design of its flag after slavery was abolished. Why? The nation’s leaders after the Civil War did not see a need to alter the flag’s appearance because they outlawed slavery under it. The American flag—the Union flag—was the victor in the Civil War. Except for adding stars each time a state enters the Union, our flag has not changed since the Betsy Ross flag.

The flag’s meaning of unity has not changed. The values of the colors—valor, hardiness, purity, innocence, justice, perseverance, and vigilance—have not changed. The flag has been enhanced and made more brilliant as we have expanded and deepened the meaning of unity and freedom. That is something to celebrate, not denigrate like Nike by refusing to sell a shoe featuring the first flag of the United States of America.

WND has a good overview of a BlaveTV appearance of David Barton regarding Thomas Jefferson and slavery:

…Jefferson continued his abolitionist efforts all through his career.

“When he enters the Continental Congress, he introduces a law to ban slavery in all the colonies,” Barton said. “Every one of them. It failed by one vote.”

He said Jefferson regretted that failure until the end of his life.

Beck noted George Washington freed his slaves upon his death and asked Barton why Jefferson did not follow Washington’s example. Barton explained the American Revolution and the egalitarian ideals led to changes in the law, which made it easier to emancipate slaves. However, Thomas Jefferson had another problem – debt.

“They also had a law that said if you’re in debt you can’t free any slaves,” Barton said. “Jefferson, by today’s standards about two and a half million dollars in debt, is not able to free his slaves, and they changed the laws. He said this: ‘The laws will not allow me to turn them loose.’”

Still, Beck observed that while Jefferson cannot be excused for owning slaves, he not only tried to end slavery in the U.S. but worked to end the institution in other nations, including France. Barton also noted Jefferson paid his slaves, which he didn’t have to do.

Despite Jefferson owning slaves, he was remembered until recently as one of the great anti-slavery crusaders by men such as Frederick Douglass. Barton also recounted the tributes paid to Jefferson by John Quincy Adams, who was called the “hellhound of abolition.” A speech by Adams “praised Jefferson for the lead role he took in trying to end slavery,” Barton said…..

 

Everything the Left Touches is Harmed (Military Standards)

Published by Papa Giorgio

(Originally Posted December 2013)

This UPDATE comes by way of MOONBATTERY, and is followed by the an excerpt from the larger piece:

By necessity if not design, political correctness corrodes standards of value. That’s why its first victim is excellence. Those who draw attention to the corrosion are punished as thought criminals.

Progressives are in the process of reducing the military to a social engineering laboratory. It provides an example:

Two Army Green Berets are fighting for their military careers after being associated with an anonymous email that accused their commanders of lowering standards to enable more soldiers — particularly female — to graduate from its prestigious Q-course.

The anonymous email, signed, “A concerned Green Beret,” accused the leaders of the school of “moral cowardice” for lowering the standards…

The author of the email has already been punished. Now the Army is rooting out people who seem likely to agree with it….

Here is more information via BREITBART:, one can understand some of the disciplin, IN THAT, it became widely public. Here is a bit from the email that could have been more constructive… maybe?

  • “[The school] has devolved into a cesspool of toxic, exploitive, biased and self-serving senior officers who are bolstered by submissive, sycophantic, and just-as-culpable enlisted leaders,” the email said. “They have doggedly succeeded in two things; furthering their careers, and ensuring that Special Forces [are] more prolific but dangerously less capable than ever before.”

However TRUE it may be… someone’s macheezmo was butt hurt. Here is more on the other two Green Barretes:

Now, the two additional Green Beret instructors, Sergeant First Class Micah J. Robertson, 33, and Sergeant First Class Michael Squires, 31, say they are being punished by association.

Robertson said in an interview that after the email was sent out, commanders put together a list of about seven suspects, including them. He said he believes they were suspected because they had previously brought up concerns during town halls with leaders that were held to solicit their feedback.

Both have been instructors since 2016, before Sonntag took command in June 2017, and say they have witnessed the changes.

“Although Micah and I had nothing to do with it, it spoke true to what’s happening in the regiment. This guy Sonntag, who’s basically the one who’s trying to screw us over — he’s trying to make his career about putting a female through the course,” Squires said. He added that he did not oppose women in Special Forces, but opposed lowering the standards.

“Not only doing that, he’s changed it to where the guys who are coming through the Q-course are not even the same quality of guys we had back in the day. Guys who should have been kicked out for several different things … As instructors, they took our power away.”

Both Robertson and Squires were also served with Article 15s related to the email, as well as to an online app they started building in September 2017 named Kayu, aimed at helping travelers and veterans with similar interests connect.

The Article 15 accused both men of using their positions as instructors “for the purposes of personal gain” by “sourcing information from students that had no relevance to training,” or having their students sign up for the app. Robertson called that “hogwash.”

[….]

Former Green Beret and Ultimate Fighting Champion superstar Tim Kennedy said Army recruitment challenges hit the Green Beret force especially hard.

“[For] Special Forces specifically, we are gonna have the biggest deficit of eligible… population, to select from,” he said on The Joe Rogan Experience on May 17. “You have to have a certain level of intelligence, a certain level of physicality, just to be eligible for Special Forces to pick you… that pool is the smallest that has ever been in history.”

Sonntag himself acknowledged those challenges shortly after taking command. He said at a symposium in November 2017 that all three of the Army Special Operations regiments are facing serious challenges in “force structure changes, pipeline production, and recruiting.”

“We are currently not meeting our production numbers. The restructuring of the 85th [Civil Affairs] Brigade has created an imbalanced CA force structure. And our recruitment is down. If something doesn’t change soon, we will short the operational force drastically over the next five years,” he said.

Robertson said lowering standards in order to produce more Green Berets goes against a fundamental SOF truth that every Green Beret is taught….

I wanted to post some commentary on this issue, the first comes from a Marine posting some open thoughts on this “social engineering” grab by the Marines… joining the other branches in making it less safe on our front-lines in the name of Political-Correctness:

Didn’t see this coming Female Marines have received ample time (over a year) to prepare for this test which, oh by the way, still isn’t to the same standard that it is for males. Sure, they have to get the same bare minimum of 3 that males get. However, their max is 8 whereas mine is 20. So, on a maximum 300 point physical fitness test (PFT) where each of the 3 events (pull ups, crunches, 3 mile run) has the potential to give you 100 points, a female Marine only has to do 40% of the work I have to in order to get 100 points for her pull ups on her PFT. I call bogus. That enables her to be as competitive for promotion as me without having to do the work that I do. Not to mention that she can run her 3 miles in 21 minutes to receive 100 points for that while I have to run it in 18 minutes. If you’ve ever run a 5K, 3 minutes is an eternity between two runners.

Some of you will say “Well, that score is only part of what is looked at when considering promotion.” I will submit this to you. Every promotion board for E-6, E-7, and E-8/E-9 (this board is conducted jointly) in the Marine Corps has an after action review written for it. In every one of those after action reviews, the board members are asked “What is the first tie breaker between two Marines if there is one spot left in their MOS field to promote?” The answer is ALWAYS “Their PFT score.”

Now, some on this site will say that I am butt hurt because 3 females passed our infantry course. That is mentioned in the article. Not the case. When I know that 16 females began the course and only 3 passed, I’m not worried. Of the 16, 9 failed due to performance reasons. That leaves 7. Of those 7, 4 broke due to hip and knee problems. Those are the classic female breaking points that I’ve seen in most female injuries. Those occur very frequently at Parris Island as well. So, we have the 3 left. Now, for males, approximately 79% make it through infantry training. 10% of them are dropped for medical reasons. That leaves approximately 11% for performance/legal issues. For those of you who are Marines, it’s the classic, always spoken of, 10% that fail. Also of note, the females were required to carry each other during casualty evacuation, movement courses, etc. So, a female weighing 110lbs-140lbs is carrying around her equivalent weight while the males are slinging whichever casualty they see over their shoulder.

Again, I call bogus. I’m not a big fan of this social engineering crap. DADT was another issue. I wasn’t a supporter of that. It wasn’t performance based. A gay guy can fireman’s carry a casualty just as effectively (though the casualty may be uncomfortable) as a straight guy. But the vast majority of females cannot do the same. This is a performance thing for me. It is a logistical thing. It is a morale thing. Our military is the best in the world yet we want to mess with the very core of its competence. The members of it. I’m not a big fan.

…read more…

Technicalities of Gender Differences in Injuries

The above graph comes from a 1998 journal article in The Royal Society of Medicine (you may enlarge the graph by clicking it). The below is from Runners Connect:

[color-box]

The risk of running injuries in women

From looking at the scientific literature, we can see that women indeed do, on the whole, get injured more often than men do.  But the difference is not quite as drastic as popular wisdom might hold—a 2002 study of around two thousand patients at a Vancouver, Canada sports injury clinic found that women represented 54% of injuries, with men taking up the other 46%.  But among some specific injuries, women are at significantly higher risk.

In particular, the following injuries are 50% more common in women than men:

The LEFT loves to try and change, yes, even what nature has wrought!

[/color-box]

Libertarian Republican opines on the topic as well:

…About 55 percent of female recruits tested at the end of boot camp were doing fewer than three pullups; only 1 percent of male recruits failed the test. Upper body strength critical for combat

Continuing:

The Marine Corps has been using it to test upper body strength for men for more than 40 years. And that upper body strength, they say, is necessary to serve in ground combat: to pull yourself out of a canal in Afghanistan, to climb over a mud wall, to carry an ammunition box.

Exit question – So, how many male Marines have to die in combat in order to satisfy the liberal PC affirmative action crazies before women in combat is repealed?

To which I respond, a maximum amount can never satisfy the Left, look at the MILLIONS killed by the progressive Left’s attack on the black African’s lives via the non-existent DDT scare!

As I do in these cases, I always like to post David Mamet’s depth on this topic. I say depth because as a lifelong liberal… he finally applied common sense to his views and you have the following:

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….

Another legislative act talked about in the shop after this conversation about polygamy took place, are politicians listening to environmental activists and legislating the regular light-bulb illegal. In January it will be officially against the law to sell most forms of the standard — incandescent — light-bulb (Breitbart).  The idea is that if we use higher efficiency bulbs we will “save the planet” from those evil* fossil fuel emissions. (*I picture ‘blood’ dripping from the word as well as evil laughter off in the distance somewhere)

The problem? In every bulb that researchers tested they found that the protective coating around the light creating ‘phosphor’ was cracked, allowing dangerous ultraviolet rays to escape (RPT). You got it… through legislation, the power of government has made many people, in their own homes mind you, at a far greater risk for skin-cancer. A risk that this Irish-man knows all too well. What sounded good and altruistic, “saving the planet,” ironically has deadly consequences.

(RPT post on Polygamy)

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 pro­grams, 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 pro­prietor 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.

You see… the left loves to feel good. In doing so they ruin the quality of what they touch. From the lives of those who have contact with our first responders, to even composers looked at as the best in history:

Further poisoning musical judgment is the Left-wing value of diversity. In 2011, Anthony Tommasini, music critic of the New York Times, published his list of the ten greatest composers who ever lived. Absent from the list was Haydn, who Tommasini acknowledged was the father of the symphony, father of the string quartet, and father of the piano sonata. Indeed, one of the avant-garde’s most celebrated modern composers (and a justly celebrated conductor), Pierre Boulez, “thinks Haydn a greater composer than Mozart,” and one of the greatest pianists who ever lived, Glenn Gould, thought Haydn’s piano sonatas were superior to Mozart’s. So, why did the New York Times music critic omit Haydn? Because, he wrote, “If such a list is to be at all diverse and comprehensive, how could 4 of the 10 slots go to composers—Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven and Schubert—who worked in Vienna during, say, the 75 years from 1750 to 1825?” Diversity, not greatness, helped determine the New York Times list of the greatest ten composers. That is why Bartok, Debussy, and Stravinsky made the list but Haydn (and Handel) didn’t.

Dennis Prager, Still the Best Hope: Why the World Needs American Values to Triumph (New York, NY: Broadside Books, 2012), 52-53

Professor Sommers & the Tyranny of Niceness

“The ideal of liberty and freely speaking your mind is so quintessentially American.”

FIRE Board of Advisors member Christina Hoff Sommers is no stranger to speaking her mind. As the author of books such as The War Against Boys and One Nation Under Therapy, Sommers has taken firm stances on many hot button issues.

But in FIRE’s latest video, Sommers argues that today’s students are afraid to express their own potentially controversial viewpoints. She believes students are enveloped within a cultural phenomenon she calls “the tyranny of niceness.” So concerned with not offending their peers’ beliefs, students are hesitant to take a stand for what they believe in.

“What [students] are supposed to be doing is developing ideas and challenging them, learning how to debate,” says Sommers. “We have a generation of kids who can’t argue. They think that will create tension or there’s something wrong with it. Well, if you can’t argue, you can’t think.”

F.I.R.E. has a FaceBook (https://www.facebook.com/thefireorg), a YouTube account, as well as a Twitter account.

Education is the same… the dumbing down of children in the pursuit of “fairness” and “equality” is one of these examples that harms our children’s future. First a commentary about high-school, with a video as an example of the harm done to higher education by the PC crowd ruining education:

It has been no secret that we are having an educational crisis in the United States.  Public schools are doing worse and worse, unable to compete with private schools, homeschooled children, and for that matter the rest of the world. Some suggest that this is on purpose. By dumbing down our children we are preparing the future generations for more easily accepting authoritarian control by leftist systems of governance.

We are raising young people in our public schools that are illiterate. We are cramming them with bad information from experimental teaching techniques, political correctness, and liberal philosophies so that they will be good, obedient citizens. Informed voters think for themselves, and seek freedom. A dumbed down population is always eager to depend on the government overlords. Mind-numbed followers don’t ask questions.

History is our students’ worst subject. They can’t even answer the simplest questions about history in regards to the Revolutionary War, World War II, or the Korean War. The fault partly lies in the fact that history textbooks are poorly written, and partly because they are not being taught the information in the first place. I remember when my nephew came to me upset because in his History Class they skipped the chapter about the U.S. Constitution. When he inquired why, the teacher explained to him that the class was limited in time and had to skip unnecessary lessons.

In addition to skipping over important parts of history, new history uses political correctness, and caters to pop culture and particular groups in an effort to appease the same groups the leftist political wing-nuts are also trying to appease. As a result, the generations of students that come out of our schools don’t know our past, and as the old dictum goes, he who forgets the past is doomed to repeat it.

Educational malpractice in the public schools is not only a problem presented by liberal democrats and Marxists that have infiltrated our educational system, but is also the fault of bone-headed, and unconstitutional, legislation like the “No Child Left Behind” Act. The law that was Bush 43’s baby, despite its good intentions, worsened our education system, took the emphasis away from knowing our history, and of course was unconstitutional just like the Education Department. The federal government has no authority over education in this country. That is a local issue, and for good reason.

The problem is, the local systems have been so influenced by federal dictate that they have also become a part of the madness that is dumbing down America. An example revealed itself recently in Florida schools where, because only 27% of the students were able to pass a fourth grade state written exam, the Florida Department of Education lowered the performance level standard. The decision was made by a four-three vote, reasoning that the kids did so poorly because the test was too hard.

Yes, I just defended that our schools belong in local hands, and here we are with a state board doing stupid things too. Understand, though, that is because of the federal, and hard left, influence.

…read more…

See also FIRE’s list of “10 Worst Colleges for Free Speech: 2013”

Der Spiegel’s Broken Mirror | The Atlantic

Published by Papa Giorgio

Dennis Prager reads from THE ATLANTIC’S article entitled, “Germany’s Leading Magazine Published Falsehoods About American Life” This well written piece should be a nail in the biased coffin of the MSM. Here are some key points that stuck out to me (and Dennis) — EXCEPT I will change the sentence a bit (capitalized):

  • …THE AMERICAN LEFT repeated the hoary “Blood for Oil” charge as the rationale for the Iraq War, and, in the run-up to George W. Bush’s reelection campaign, asked, “Will America Be Democratic Again?”
  • CNN, I submit, was able to get away with his con for so long because THEY (MSNBC, ABC, CBS, ETC.) confirmed the preconceived notions of people who fashion themselves worldly yet are as parochial as the red-state hicks of their imagination.
  • The… MSM SOUND exactly like what you would expect a snotty, effete, self-righteous, morally superior, latte-sipping DEMOCRAT to say about America. Pardon the stereotype.

Here is the Atlantic article in part:

The word spiegel means “mirror” in German,…

[….]

…Der Spiegel has cracked, and revealed ugliness within the publication as well as German society more broadly.

On December 19, the magazine announced that the star reporter Claas Relotius had fabricated information “on a grand scale” in more than a dozen articles. Relotius has been portrayed as a sort of Teutonic Stephen Glass, the 1990s New Republic fabulist. “I’m sick and I need to get help,” Relotius told his editor. While that may very well be the case, his downfall is about more than just one writer with a mental-health problem.

A motif of Relotius’s work is America’s supposed brutality. In one story, he told the macabre tale of a woman who travels across the country volunteering to witness executions. In another, he related the tragic experience of a Yemeni man wrongly imprisoned by the United States military at Guantánamo Bay, where he was held in solitary confinement and tortured for 14 years. (The song that American soldiers turned on full blast and pumped into the poor soul’s cell? Bruce Springsteen’s “Born in the U.S.A.”) Both stories were complete fabrications.

And they should have been easily invalidated. According to the Columbia Journalism Review, Der Spiegel’s fact-checking department is the largest in the world, besting that of the vaunted New Yorker. (In 2013, I spent several months on a fellowship working for a now-defunct English-language unit at Der Spiegel). A diligent checker would have at least contacted the purported death-row roadie to confirm her existence. And the U.S. government keeps scrupulous records about the inmates imprisoned at Guantánamo. Yet Relotius’s inventions escaped the scrutiny of his colleagues.

Der Spiegel is conducting an internal review to explain what went wrong. But it seems to me that the blame lies not only with Relotius or a few careless checkers or even the publication’s research methods, but with the mentality of its editors and readers. Relotius told them what they wanted—what they expected—to hear about America; this is a case of motivated reasoning if I’ve ever seen one.

Consider the story Relotius published in March 2017, “Where They Pray for Trump on Sundays.” In 7,300 words, the German correspondent described the town of Fergus Falls, Minnesota, in the manner of an explorer recounting his visit to a remote island tribe untouched by civilization. Some of the “facts” Relotius reported, like his claim that the city voted 70.4 percent for President Donald Trump when the actual figure was 62.6 percent, could have been exposed as false with a few minutes’ research. The same goes for other, too-good-to-be-true details, like the sign warning “Mexicans Keep Out” and a throwaway line about a resident who had “never seen the ocean.” Most of the story was, according to a devastating analysis written by the Fergus Falls residents Michele Anderson and Jake Krohn, “uninhibited fiction.”

An open-minded editor would have doubted this astonishing tale about a town so jingoistic that its only cinema continues to sell out screenings of American Sniper years after the film’s release (another easily disproven lie). The fact that these blatant deceptions were not exposed until nearly two years after publication speaks to the ignorance about America that characterizes a wide swath of elite German society. Relotius, I submit, was able to get away with his con for so long because he confirmed the preconceived notions of people who fashion themselves worldly yet are as parochial as the red-state hicks of their imagination.

Though it is respected abroad as an authoritative news source, Der Spiegel has long peddled crude and sensational anti-Americanism, usually grounded in its brand of knee-jerk German pacifism. Covers over the years have impugned the United States as “The Conceited World Power” (with an image of the White House bestriding the globe), repeated the hoary “Blood for Oil” charge as the rationale for the Iraq War, and, in the run-up to George W. Bush’s reelection campaign, asked, “Will America Be Democratic Again?” When Edward Snowden leaked information detailing U.S. surveillance practices several years ago, Der Spiegel went on a crusade unlike anything in its recent history, railing about U.S. intelligence cooperation with Germany and demanding that Berlin grant Snowden asylum. (The magazine demonstrated none of the same outrage when, two years later, Russia hacked the German parliamentary computer network). Last year, Der Spiegel notoriously featured a cartoon of Trump beheading the Statue of Liberty on its cover. And this May, one of its columnists misappropriated the memory of those who struggled against Nazism by calling for “resistance against America,” quite a demand for a magazine from the country that started World War II.

[….]

When Trump was elected president, it seemed to confirm every negative impression Europeans hold about Americans. Here, in the shape of our reality-TV leader, was the ur-American: vulgar, crass, ignorant, bellicose. Trump may be all those things, but to depict his supporters with such a broad brush is akin to writing off half of Germany as a bunch of goose-stepping, would-be fascists. The wildly popular work of Relotius reads exactly like what you would expect a snotty, effete, self-righteous, morally superior, latte-sipping European to say about America. Pardon the stereotype.

(READ IT ALL)

If Gender Is Not “Fixed,” Why Age?

Published by Papa Giorgio

A man lives as a child at home (sorry for the video quality, this is probably the only way this YouTube channel can keep the video up, by proving that it was filmed in their own home):

DENNIS PRAGER catches us up on the latest “equality” battle from across the globe:

Emile Ratelband, a 69-year-old motivational speaker in the Netherlands, has petitioned a Dutch court for permission to change his legal age by altering his birth certificate to show he was born 20 years later than he really was — to legally make him 49 rather 69 years old.

Ratelband told the Washington Post: “We can make our own decisions if we want to change our name, or if we want to change our gender. So I want to change my age. My feeling about my body and about my mind is that I’m about 40 or 45.”

As The Telegraph reported: “Mr Ratelband was born on 11th March 1949, but says he feels at least 20 years younger and wants to change his birth date to 11th March 1969.

[….]

It is the transgender movement that inspired Ratelband. “Transgenders can now have their gender changed on their birth certificate,” he argues, “and in the same spirit there should be room for an age change.”

Now, what exactly is wrong with Ratelband’s argument? If sex doesn’t objectively exist, why does age? If feelings determine sex, why don’t feelings determine age? If we are to regard sex as “assigned” at birth, why don’t we regard age as “assigned” at birth?

Of course, the left would argue that age is fixed while “gender is fluid.” But “gender is fluid” is a meaningless statement. All the left has done is substitute the word “gender” for “sex” and then make up a rule: Gender is fluid, meaning sex is fluid.

Few deny there are people with gender dysphoria — people who do not identify with their biological sex. These people deserve our care, sympathy and the respect due every person as the child of God he or she is.

But sympathy for the minuscule percentage of people who do not identify with their sex doesn’t mean sex (or gender) doesn’t objectively exist. It just means some people don’t identify with their objective sexual identity.

We are living in a time of intellectual and moral chaos. The political movement known as leftism or progressivism (not liberalism) is first and foremost a chaotic force. And nowhere is that chaos more evident than in the left’s attempt to end the reality that the human being is created either male or female. That is “binary” nonsense, according to the left.

Thus, a New York Times headline last month read “Anatomy Does Not Determine Gender, Experts Say.”…

Democrats say it is cruel to define gender by nature… why does this “cruelty” not spread to age?

(YT Video Description) Ben Shapiro brilliantly destroys SJW who defends transgender movement. You cannot change your sex the same way you cannot change your age. Sex it´s not in the mind. You are not what you think you are.

A crazy story from GAY PATRIOT! (At the bottom you will see that taxpayers fund this shite):ageism

A 52 year old man is insisting that he identifies as a six-year-old girl, and everybody is required to indulge his mental illness.

In an interview with the gay news site The Daily Xtra, Stefonknee (formerly Paul) Wolscht details his struggles with being a male-to-female transgender person.

The Daily Xtra video, however, glosses over a tiny bit of important information about Wolscht: he thinks he is actually a six year-old girl—not just a woman, but a six year-old girl…

Just remember, to the Social Left, “Stefonknee” is normal. It’s Christian people living in the suburbs, holding down a job, who maybe own a gun or two, who are the worst threat to society evers.

The new norm on the Left… but NEVER in my mind: 52 Year Old Transgender Man Becomes 6 Year Old Girl?!

MRCTV’S BLOG:

…At age 46, Wolscht deserted his wife and his seven children to live his “true” life.

“There’s days I forget my past,” Wolscht says. “I can actually go a week without even thinking about what was before.”

“I can’t deny I was married. I can’t deny I have children,” Wolscht admits. “But I’ve moved forward now and I’ve gone back to being a child. I don’t want to be an adult right now and I just live my life like I couldn’t when I was in school.”

Wolscht is not speaking in an abstract sense. He actually wants to be a child.

He explains, “Well, I have a mummy and a daddy. [An] adopted mummy and daddy who are totally comfortable with me being a little girl. And their children, and their grandchildren, are totally supportive. In fact, her youngest granddaughter… When I was eight. A year ago, I was eight, and she was seven. And she said to me, ‘I want you to be the little sister, so I’ll be nine.’ I said, ‘Well, I don’t mind going to six.’ So I’ve been six ever since.”…

One site judiciously asks, “Where are the limits to self-definition?”

What is humorous is that Peter Griffin looks a bit like Paul in his “gender change”:

This now “adds” to my “Trans” topics. And I thought I was all “trannied out”! The “official” name for this “malady” is: paraphilic infantilism (dumb!):

This is with thanks to a comment (by TnnsNe1) on Gay Patriots story, via ABC:

Adult Baby’ Cleared of Fraud, Still Getting Social Security Checks

The California man who lives his life as an “adult baby,” complete with adult diapers, bottles, a crib and a mother-figure caregiver, says he has been cleared from suspicion of Social Security fraud and will continue to receive his disability checks.

Stanley Thornton, Jr. has a condition called paraphilic infantilism that involves role-playing as an infant. Though paraphilic infantilism is a sexual fetish for some, Thornton explains on his website that he pretends to be a baby because it makes him feel “safe” and helps him cope with the post traumatic stress he suffers from physical and sexual abuse he suffered as a child.

After Thornton’s lifestyle was showcased on National Geographic’s television show “Taboo,” Sen.  Tom Coburn, R-Okla., accused him of defrauding Social Security  because the episode shows him exhibiting work skills such as building a high chair and operating his website.

John Hart, a spokesman for Coburn, told the Washington Times that the senator, also a doctor, questioned how  “a grown man who is able to design and build adult-sized baby furniture is eligible for disability benefits.”

Faced with the possibility of losing his source of income, Thornton threatened suicide when questioned on the matter by the Times.

In August, however, Thornton reported on his website that his disability had been cleared and the Social Security administration confirmed that his disabilities are “continuing.” He will continue to receive the $860 monthly checks from the agency that he lives on….

More Gay Patriot COMMENTS:

  • “As a 6yo girl he has to watch out for moslems. Moohamad had a small enough Willey he married a 6yo.” ~ Comment by Steve
  • “Fetishes are apparently becoming the new “minority.” Waiting for the state to start sanctioning consensual slave contracts in the BDSM communities.” ~ Comment by melle1228

And then there is this (DAILY MAIL):

LOOKING at Jess’s collection of dummies and sippy cups, you’d be forgiven for thinking the pretty 21-year-old from Florida had a baby of her own to care for. But Jess’s collection of babygrows aren’t sized for a newborn – they are designed with her 5ft 5in frame in mind. As an ‘adult baby’, Jess likes to wear nappies, drink from bottles and ‘regress’ back to her infancy. A sexual abuse survivor, Jess, who lives in Lakeland, Florida with her 24-year-old boyfriend, David, says that regressing has helped her make peace with her troubled childhood. Now a confident and happy young woman, Jess says wearing diapers, babygrows and drinking from bottles has done more for her self-esteem than years of traditional therapy and medication.

And yes, much like many cases of dysphoria… sexual abuse is often a root cause:

  • A sexual abuse survivor, Jess, who lives in Lakeland, Florida with her 24-year-old boyfriend, David, says that regressing has helped her make peace with her troubled childhood. Jess was sexually abused when she was just two years old and the trauma of her early years lead to depression and anxiety. (IRISH SUN)

FPIW visited the campus of the University of Washington to see if students would affirm or reject Joseph Backholm’s new chosen identity: a 6’5″ Chinese woman.

 

More Evidence the Left Has Lost It

Published by Papa Giorgio

Two MUST READ stories:

  • Malicious Attack on Zina Bash Shows How Deranged #Stopkavanaugh Has Become | Social Media Mob Goes After Half-Mexican, Half-Polish Jewish Grandchild of Holocaust Survivors for Supposedly Flashing A White Power Hand Sign. (LEGAL INSURRECTION)

…We’ve already covered today the antics of Democrat Senators trying to abort the hearings by repeatedly interrupting, the disruptions by Linda Sarsour and crew, and the stage and phony claim that Kavanaugh refused to shake the hand of the father of a Parkland school shooting victim.

All those things were stupid political theater.

But there is an evil attack on a former Kavanaugh law clerk, Zina Bash, which shows how malicious #StopKavanaugh has become….

HOT AIR notes the response from Zina Bash’s husband, U.S. Attorney John Bash:

  • The Craziest Liberal Freakout Of All Time (POWERLINE)

…I had no idea this dog-whistle racist symbol was so widespread. Like most grand conspiracies, it is everywhere…

Critics Of “Death of a Nation” Prove D’Souza Right

Published by Papa Giorgio

Ben Davies of The Rebel.Media reports: Dinesh D’Souza’s new film, Death of a Nation, examines the recurring cycles of history and the re-writing and omission of it as he seeks answers to our current turbulent political climate. But nothing he could have said proves his point more clearly than what the critics had to say about his film.

Dear Ex-Friends… by Julie Kelly

Published by Papa Giorgio

(This comes from a post on another group I am in on Facebook, and is not my writing, but I agree with it and posted it on my RPT Facebook Page. Text below the linked graphic.)

Dear Ex-Friends… by Julie Kelly
5/30/2018

I think the last civil conversations we had occurred just days before November 8, 2016. You were supremely confident Hillary Clinton would win the presidential election; you voted for her with glee. As a lifelong Republican, I bit down hard and cast my vote for Donald Trump. Then the unimaginable happened. He won.And you lost your freaking minds.

I knew you would take the loss hard—and personally—since all of you were super jacked-up to elect the first woman president. But I did not imagine you would become totally deranged, attacking anyone who voted for Trump or supported his presidency as a racist, sexist, misogynistic, homophobic Nazi-sympathizer.

The weirdness started on social media late on Election Night, as it became clear Hillary was going to lose. A few of you actually admitted that you were cradling your sleeping children, weeping, wondering what to tell your kindergartner the next morning about Trump’s victory. It continued over the next several days. Some of you seriously expressed fear about modern-day concentration camps. Despite living a privileged lifestyle, you were suddenly a casualty of the white patriarchy. Your daughters were future victims; your sons were predators-in-waiting. You threatened to leave Facebook because you could no longer enjoy the family photos or vacation posts from people who, once friends, became Literal Hitlers to you on November 8 because they voted for Donald Trump.

I admit I was a little hurt at first. The attacks against us Trump voters were so personal and so vicious that I did not think it could be sustained. I thought maybe you would regain your sanity after some turkey and egg nog.

But you did not. You got worse. And I went from sad to angry to where I am today: Amused.

As the whole charade you have been suckered into over the last 18 months starts to fall apart—that Trump would not survive his presidency; he would be betrayed by his own staff, family, and/or political party; he would destroy the Republican Party; he would be declared mentally ill and removed from office; he would be handcuffed and dragged out of the White House by Robert Mueller for “colluding” with Russia—let me remind you what complete fools you have made of yourselves. Not to mention how you’ve been fooled by the media, the Democratic Party, and your new heroes on the NeverTrump Right.

On November 9, you awoke from a self-induced, eight-year-long political coma to find that White House press secretaries shade the truth and top presidential advisors run political cover for their boss. You were shocked to discover that presidents exaggerate, even lie, on occasion. You became interested for the first time about the travel accommodations, office expenses, and lobbyist pals of administration officials. You started counting how many rounds of golf the president played. You suddenly thought it was fine to mock the first lady now that she wasn’t Michelle Obama. Once you removed your pussy hat after attending the Women’s March, you made fun of Kellyanne Conway’s hair, Sarah Sanders’ weight, Melania Trump’s shoes, Hope Hicks’ death stare; you helped fuel a rumor started by a bottom-feeding author that U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley slept with Donald Trump. You thought it was A-OK that Betsy DeVos was nearly physically assaulted and routinely heckled. You glorified a woman who has sex on camera for a paycheck.

You have learned all kinds of new things that those of us who didn’t willfully ignore politics for the past eight years already knew. For example, we already knew that illegal immigrants were being deported and families were being separated.

We already knew about misconduct at the Environmental Protection Agency. We already knew that politicians gerrymander congressional districts for favorable election outcomes. We already knew that citizens from certain countries had restricted access here.

But American politics became a whole new thing for you.

Some of your behavior has been kinda cute. It was endearing to watch you become experts on the Logan Act, the Hatch Act, the Second Amendment, the 25th Amendment, and the Emoluments Clause. You developed a new crush on Mitt Romney after calling him a “sexist” for having “binders full of women.” You longed for a redux of the presidency of George W. Bush, a man you once wanted imprisoned for war crimes. Ditto for John McCain. You embraced people like Bill Kristol and David Frum without knowing anything about their histories of shotgunning the Iraq War.

Classified emails shared by Hillary Clinton? Who cares! Devin Nunes wanting to declassify crucial information of the public interest? Traitor!

But your newfound admiration and fealty to law enforcement really has been a fascinating transformation. Wasn’t it just last fall that I saw you loudly supporting professional athletes who were protesting police brutality by kneeling during the national anthem? Remember how you fanboyed a mediocre quarterback for wearing socks that depicted cops as pigs?

But now you sound like paid spokesmen for the Fraternal Order of Police. You insist that any legitimate criticism of the misconduct and possibile criminality that occurred at the Justice Department and FBI is an “attack on law enforcement.” While you once opposed the Patriot Act because it might have allowed the federal government to spy on terrorists who were using the local library to learn how to make suitcase bombs, you now fully support the unchecked power of a secret court to look into the phone calls, text messages and emails of an American citizen because he volunteered for the Trump campaign for a few months.

Spying on terrorists, circa 2002: Bad. Spying on Carter Page, circa 2017: The highest form of patriotism.

And that white, male patriarchy that you were convinced would strip away basic rights and silence any opposition after Trump won? That fear has apparently been washed away as you hang on every word uttered by James Comey, John Brennan, and James Clapper. This triumvirate is exhibit “A” of the old-boy network, and represents how the insularity, arrogance, and cover-your-tracks mentality of the white-male power structure still prevails. Yet, instead of rising up against it, you are buying their books, retweeting their Twitter rants and blasting anyone who dares to question their testicular authority. Your pussy hat must be very sad.

But your daily meltdowns about Trump-Russia election collusion have been the most entertaining to observe. After Robert Mueller was appointed as Special Counsel, you were absolutely convinced it would result in Trump’s arrest and/or impeachment. Some of you insisted that Trump wouldn’t last beyond 2017. You quickly swallowed any chum tossed at you by the Trump-hating media on MSNBC, the New York Times and the Washington Post about who was going down next, or who would flip on the president.

For the past year, I have watched you obsess over a rotating cast of characters: Paul Manafort, Donald Trump, Jr., Jared Kushner, Carter Page, Reince Priebus, Jeff Sessions, Michael Flynn, Steve Bannon, Sam Nunberg, and Hope Hicks are just a few of the people you thought would turn on Trump or hasten his political demise. But when those fantasies didn’t come true, you turned to Michael Avenatti and Stormy Daniels for hope and inspiration. It will always be your low point.

Well, I think it will be. Each time I believe you’ve hit bottom, you come up with a new baseline. Perhaps defending the unprecedented use of federal power to spy on political foes then lie about it will the next nail in your credibility coffin.

The next several weeks will be tough for you. I think Americans will learn some very hard truths about what happened in the previous administration and how we purposely have been misled by powerful leaders and the news media. I wish I could see you as a victim here, but you are not. I know you are smart; you chose to support this insurgency with your eyes wide open.

Now, I shall sit back and enjoy your pain.

Your Ex-Friend, Julie

Follow-Up Questions for the “Nanometer Deep Brainwashed”

Published by Papa Giorgio
  • “The one piece of good news: their brainwashing is a nanometer deep.” — Sebastian Gorka

The below video is with a h-t to GAY PATRIOT… it takes a sec to load. Here are a couple comments via GP while the Twitter video loads::

  • Honestly? Do these people not realize how stupid they are? Really? They believe it because they want to believe it. When they are asked questions or given facts they say, “I just want to enjoy my day.”” or, “I see what this is.” Or they just keep rambling on nonsense in the hope that eventually the person with the mic will stop listening. Nothing they are saying is backed by evidence. And look at their eyes…there is a lot of mental illness in our country.
  • Candidate Trump told Jenner he (he still had his twit and berries at the time) could use any restroom in Trump tower, which Jenner did. Unless I’m not aware of something he said or did in the past, this “Trump hates non-cis, non-heterosexuals” meme is a study in wildly successful, wholly made-up propaganda. When I asked my lesbian sister-in-law why the QWERTY Qrowd was so afraid of him, all she could muster was that they didn’t know what he would do (and he might do bad things).
  • Moronic children given far too many gold stars for just still breathing and taking up space.
  • The sad part of that video is most of those kids are in college. They will graduate and pollute the ranks of industry and academies. FLAMING METEOR 2020!