Rick Perry

Don Lemon Proved Trump’s Point

Published by Papa Giorgio

While the entire segment[s] regarding this topic of President Trump calling Don Lemon “stupid” was excellent… Prager’s response to this caller was an excellent way to respond to such attacks. NOT TO mention it backfired on Don Lemon and those who make similar arguments, in one sense, PROVING the Presidents point. Not to mention Lemon reacted to the media bait the “Don” likes to throw in the water like chum for the ravenous sharks.

Here is an excellent dealing with the obvious backfire by the WASHINGTON EXAMINER:

Over the weekend, liberal New York Times columnist Charles Blow said there was “definitely” a “racial underpinning” to Trump’s latest insults.

The Washington Post’s Max Boot tweeted Friday, “I’m sure it’s just a coincidence that Trump thinks African-Americans are dumb.”

Former CBS newsman Dan Rather called Trump’s remark, which he made on Twitter, a “disgrace” and “racist.”

Trump is, however, well known for taking aim at just about anyone who criticizes him in public, and there’s no evidence he considers race or gender before he fires back. Here are seven examples of when Trump insulted the intelligence of white, conservative men:

….James Comey…. Rick Perry…. Mitt Romney…. Jeb Bush…. George Will…. Glenn Beck….

CLICK TO ENLARGE

Don Lemon’s defense? You are only racist if you call people of color stupid, not when you call white people stupid. (And another thought, would Democrats disagree with Trump’s assessment of these Republicans?)

The WaPo story can be found HERE  (I have noticed if you google this article you often times get the unlock version):

Is There “Mass Incarceration” of Blacks?

Published by Papa Giorgio

Video Description:

IS THERE Mass Incarceration?! Michael Medved reads from a scholar on the issue, Barry Latzer, who wrote a piece for the Wall Street Journal entitled, “The Myth of Mass Incarceration” (http://tinyurl.com/jkvm5pr). In the article we find some damning statistic… at least damning to the left, and some from the right.

People like Marissa Jenae Johnson, co-founder of Black Lives Matter, who recently said that saying “all lives matter” is a racial slur (http://tinyurl.com/jt9cffz), and Bernie Sander’s and Hillary Clinton are the one’s using this misinformation to get votes.

There are 4-calls that I included as well:

☎ The 1st call is a challenge of sorts to the stats ~ 13:52
➤ A Fox News break comparing Democrats and Republicans scale of freedom ~ 17:18
☎ The 2nd call is about legalizing all drugs (the straight libertarian argument) ~ 19:18
☎ The 3rd call is about prescription drugs and marijuana ~ 23:03
☎ The 4th call is just from a crazy person using a non-sequitur ~ 25:00

For more clear thinking like this from Michael Medved… I invite you to visit: http://www.michaelmedved.com/

Here is a portion of the Latzer article via the Wall Street Journal:

It has become a boogeyman in public discourse: “mass incarceration.” Both left and right, from Hillary Clinton to Rand Paul, agree that it must be ended. But a close examination of the data shows that U.S. imprisonment has been driven largely by violent crime—and thus significantly reducing incarceration may be impossible.

Less than one-half of 1% of the U.S. population is incarcerated, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), so “mass” is a bit of hyperbole. The proportion of African-Americans in prison, 1.2%, is high compared with whites (0.25%), but not in absolute terms.

There’s a lot of historical amnesia about the cause of prison expansion, a mistaken sense that it was all about drugs or race and had very little to do with serious crime. This ignores the facts. Between 1960 and 1990, the rate of violent crime in the U.S. surged by over 350%, according to FBI data, the biggest sustained buildup in the country’s history.

One major reason was that as crime rose the criminal-justice system caved. Prison commitments fell, as did time served per conviction. For every 1,000 arrests for serious crimes in 1970, 170 defendants went to prison, compared with 261 defendants five years earlier. Murderers released in 1960 had served a median 4.3 years, which wasn’t long to begin with. By 1970 that figure had dropped to 3.5 years.

Unquestionably, in the last decades of the 20th century more defendants than ever were sentenced to prison. But this was a direct result of changes in policy to cope with the escalation in violent crime. In the 1980s, after well over a decade of soaring crime, state incarceration rates jumped 107%.

When crime began to drop in the mid-1990s, so did the rise in incarceration rates. From 2000 to 2010, they increased a negligible 0.65%, and since 2005 they have been declining steadily, except for a slight uptick in 2013. The estimated 1.5 million prisoners at year-end 2014 is the smallest total prison population in the U.S. since 2005.

Those who talk of “mass incarceration” often blame the stiff drug sentences enacted during the crack-cocaine era, the late 1980s and early ’90s. But what pushed up incarceration rates, beginning in the mid-1970s, was primarily violent crime, not drug offenses.

The percentage of state prisoners in for drug violations peaked at only 22% in 1990. Further, drug convictions “explain only about 20% of prison growth since 1980,” according to a 2012 article by Fordham law professor John Pfaff, published in the Harvard Journal on Legislation….

(read it all)

Some Commentary on the Debate via The American Spectator

Published by Papa Giorgio

Some points out of ten posted by The American Spectator: “Ten Things You Need to Know From Last Night’s GOP Debate”

1. Carly Fiorina won. And by “won,” I mean “both debates.” She wasted everyone on stage at the “Happy Hour” kids’ table debate, managed to goad the DNC into creating her very own sexist meme, shut down Chris Matthews, and basically Ronda Rousey’ed the whole night. She punched yesterday in the face. Not a single man in the following debate seemed even remotely capable of delivering her knockout performance, and that’s something to be proud of. With a field of sixteen (eighteen? twenty? eighty?), the initial, Fox News debate — on friendly territory — was essential to solidifying your position among the front runners. Fiorina did that without hesitation. Others, in this case perpetual disappointment Rick Perry, spent the time he should have spent preparing for the debate using his surrogates to manage expectations, and made Bobby Jindal look charismatic by comparison, and Bobby Jindal is the human equivalent of notebook paper.

4. Megyn Kelly asked hardball questions of the prime time debaters, which earned her a spate of terrible Facebook fan page commentary and the honor of being called a “bimbo,” a sentiment which Donald Trump immediately endorsed. Which is convenient for Donald Trump, since he made it through the entire debate without endorsing a single policy, except, perhaps, a national program to relocate Rosie O’Donnell to an inaccessible private island. On that, he is likely to earn widespread support. But while the Donald spent the greatest amount of time yammering, among the candidates, he actually said very little. Except that you should be concerned that he intends to run third party. Which is fine. We always need more candidates to confuse elderly Floridian voters.

6. For the first time in history, observation linked Ted Cruz to Mike Huckabee, which is an intriguing development. Post-debate Luntz polling revealed that those souring on Trump were moving “back” to Cruz and Huckabee, neither of whom made a spectacular showing last night, but definitely share some of Trump’s “anti-establishment” credentials (if there is a such thing). It may turn out that the primary impetus behind Trump’s popularity was simply that neither Cruz or Huckabee had yet hit the trail — certainly Cruz seems to consider Trump his stalking horse — but if neither Cruz nor Huckabee can capitalize on the eventual Trump disengagement, the connections will sink all three. Personally, I see this as no loss. You may differ. In which case, feel free to call me a closeted liberal in the comments section as usual.

9. Marco Rubio “won” the debate itself, which is great for Marco Rubio because it’s high time he’s taken seriously as a candidate. He’s good looking, he’s got a great background story, he’s nuanced on policy and the media already hates him so much they pay for people to scour through hours of footage of Miami Zoning Commission hearings. And now he seems like  he could take on the so-called “heavy hitters” he was supposed to be crushed by. Frankly, it would be fun to see him take on Carly in a one-on-one. We’d all be better for it, too.

Mark Levin and Michael Medved Deal with Media Painting Rick Perry as a Racist (Updated with Jon Stewart Bit)

Published by Papa Giorgio

This from What’s Up With That?

So I drove around just a bit in Guthrie, until I spotted somebody I could ask. It was like a ghost town, but I finally found someone (actually they found me because parked and waited and he rode by on a bike) and I flagged the guy down and asked where I might find some gas. He thought a moment and said “There’s no gas here, nearest is either Ralls or Crosbyton”. I asked where those towns were and he said: “on 82 (pointing west) out past the niggerheads, and then past Dickens”. I said “What? Niggerhead? Is that a town? and he looked at me like I was from another planet (I didn’t tell him I was from California) and he said “no that’s the hills, you’ll see em, and then ya go through Dickens, and Crosbyton, and then Ralls. One of ‘em should have gas.”

I did find gas in Crosbyton, after driving west on 82 through the hills the man described which you can see here in Google maps.

The term “niggerheads” was puzzling and odd, but I figured it was just some local colloquialism, and I didn’t give it another thought…until today.

So after being bombarded with all the news stories about how offensive this term is, and noting that some of the same people doing reporting lambasting Perry over the name of a ranch called “niggerhead” have absolutely no trouble at all calling people like me and the readers of WUWT “deniers” (Think Progress, Rachel Maddow on MSNBC, among others) which is also an ugly and offensive term due to the connection to “holocaust deniers”.

So, I thought I’d see what I could find on it. I figured if it was some sort of local colloquial term when I heard it in Texas last spring, I’d find it in older books and maps.

So in my first Google search, amongst all the news stories about Perry, I found my first clue as to why I heard the term,  in Wikipedia:

The term was once widely used for all sorts of things, including products such as soap and chewing tobacco, but most often for geographic features such as hills and rocks.[citation needed] In the U.S., more than hundred “Niggerheads” and other place names now considered racially offensive were changed in 1962 by the U.S. Board on Geographic Names, but many local names remained unchanged.[1]

So that explained why the fellow I asked directions from used the term for the hills I’d drive through. The NYT article I cited above also mentions this.

I can understand how it is offensive, and I can certainly see removing it. But I think removing it is going to be a much bigger job than the bloodhounds in the mainstream media thinks. Just look at all the references to the word in science and engineering and geography:

You should read all the places and things named this… very interesting!

================================================

“Ask Him Why He Doesn’t Believe in Science” Using Children in Proxy Wars

Published by Papa Giorgio

I thought this a fitting import in the “all is fair in ‘love’ and ‘POLITICS'” aspect of the above video.

How to Use Your Children to Annoy a Liberal

One of the best ways to use your children to annoy liberals is to have a lot of them.

….One of the best ways to use your children in this regard is to have a lot of them.  Liberals, being generally misinformed and detached from reality, don’t know that the Western world faces a population implosion, and the exercise of fecundity isn’t a choice they appreciate.  You know, if they see a gaggle of boys and girls following someone mother-goose style, they think carbon footprints, Malthusian nightmares and about how the “wrong” people are breeding. 

And think about the fun you could have.  For example, a nice touch would be to sport a bumper sticker saying, “My seven kids can beat up your one Ritalin-addled C-student.”  Also, when the size of your family is raised in conversation, you can casually mention how the Bible instructs us to be fruitful and multiply.  Judeo-Christian references move a liberal like nothing else.

How you raise your children matters, too.  Make sure they not only play with toy guns but that they do it publicly.  And it helps if they audibly say things such as “Bang, bang, you’re dead!”  Liberals view this the way a normal person would view the exposure of a child to pornography.  This is especially effective with the subspecies of liberals known as the suburban soccer mom. 

You see, liberals hate guns.  They feel guns are scary.  They feel that guns “teach violence” (that violence has to be taught is a notion I debunked irrefutably, undeniably and completely here).  They just plain feel.  They seem to worry that letting their son play with guns will turn him into a murderer even though they never wonder if allowing him to play with trains will turn him into a conductor.

To ensure this technique has maximum impact, you must choose the correct toy guns.  Vintage is the word, because the guns you find in stores today look like they were designed by Michael Jackson’s effeminate twin.  They sometimes come in Barbie doll colors and, at best, have at least a little red piece at the end of the barrel.  This toy-land abomination arose because undisciplined liberal children started pointing realistic-looking toy guns at police officers.  Somehow liberals don’t view this as Darwinian natural selection.

As an example of this technique, I’ll relate a story involving someone I know.  This father had given his sons some truly cool-looking toy guns from his youth, and one day he and his family ventured down to the community pool bearing these arms.  When all the liberals’ non-sex stereotyped, wearing-a-feminine-straightjacket sons saw these symbols of authentic boyhood, their eyes got wide; exclamations such as “wow” could be heard.  This also has the very positive effect of confirming in deprived liberal children’s minds that their parents really are dorks.  Oh, and you don’t have to worry about further alienating them from their (probably divorced, perhaps same-sex) parents/guardians.  Unless liberal children can be reformed, they will push the old folks into a nursing home first chance they get no matter what you do.

I also should mention that you needn’t fear liberals’ self-righteous, didactic proclamations.  Should they choose to say something to you, it only provides you the opportunity to put the icing on the cake.  If, for instance, they say, “I’m really surprised you give your son toy guns to play with” just respond, “Well, let’s be realistic.  He’s still a bit too young to have a real one.”  This upsets liberals intensely.

….

Yet liberals don’t like such things.  They bristle at the idea of treating children “like animals” even though they believe we’re just highly-evolved apes.  Letting your child run around someone else’s establishment like an animal is okay, though.

Lastly, if a liberal asks you why you have so many kids, you can just explain how survival of the fittest ensures that the right members of a species breed and inherit the Earth.  And be sure to follow up with, “Besides, every time I have another child, there’s one more person in this world to pray for you.”

Now, some may wonder why anyone would suggest using children to annoy liberals.  Well, we must properly train the young in the way they should go.  Just as importantly, we should always deal with people on their own level.

 

 

Half-Yes,Half of all jobs created in America the last few years were by Texas!

Published by Papa Giorgio

From Libertarian Republican:

….According to USA Today – Economy “Texas bucks national unemployment trend” July 28:

From June 2009 to June 2011 the state added 262,000 jobs, or half the USA’s 524,000 payroll gains, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas and the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Even by a more conservative estimate that omits states with net job losses, Texas’ advances make up 30% of the 1 million additions in the 34 states with net growth.

Paul Davidson at USA Today adds this:

The stunning showing could play a role in the presidential race. Texas Gov. Rick Perry is signaling he may run for the Republican nomination. If he does, he’s likely to ground his campaign in his state’s outsized job growth.

Editor’s comment – Y’all come on down. But don’t bring those Yankee (and California) style regulations and high taxes with ya.

…(read more)…