The Organic Food Scam

Organic food is a waste of money and a scam

By P.D. Mangan

organic
So-called “organic” food is everywhere now, as the striking success of Whole Foods shows; even major chain supermarkets have organic sections. All the hip people eat organic, and even plenty of not-so-hip people.

But why? Do they know something I don’t know or is it just possible they are the victims of a giant scam? Somehow I’m thinking it’s the latter…

Let’s get one thing out of the way first: “organic”, as science uses the word, means something that is composed mainly of the element carbon, as are virtually all molecules in any living creature. (Exceptions would be minerals such as sodium and potassium.) “Organic”, as Whole Foods and others use it, means free of artificial chemicals such as pesticides or fertilizers.

The idea behind eating organic food seems to be that pesticide residues in food cause harm to health. The idea makes some sort of sense; after all, pesticides are used to kill pests, so they must be toxic. But there are a few problems with this logic.

One is that conventional food doesn’t have enough pesticide residue to be of concern:

Organic fruits and vegetables can be expected to contain fewer agrochemical residues than conventionally grown alternatives; yet, the significance of this difference is questionable, inasmuch as actual levels of contamination in both types of food are generally well below acceptable limits. Also, some leafy, root, and tuber organic vegetables appear to have lower nitrate content compared with conventional ones, but whether or not dietary nitrate indeed constitutes a threat to human health is a matter of debate. On the other hand, no differences can be identified for environmental contaminants (e.g. cadmium and other heavy metals), which are likely to be present in food from both origins.

The average consumer of organic food would, I suppose, say that they’re going to be extra cautious, just in case. If they want to spend their money paying double the price of regular food, and if Whole Foods is willing to take their money, fine by me.

What makes the case against paying more for organic food more damning is the fact that our natural, human diet is loaded with pesticides, natural ones. All those dietary phytochemicals in fruits and vegetables that are so good for us are composed largely of chemicals made by plants to defend themselves from predators. It may be surprising for some to learn that plants do not want to be eaten.

Animals defend themselves either by fight or by flight. Plants cannot flee, literally rooted to the ground as they are, so they fight using the only means possible: chemical warfare. Coffee plants don’t produce caffeine in order to satisfy human consumers; they do it to poison animals and insects that want to eat them. The sulforaphanes in cruciferous vegetables, the solanine in potatoes, the epicatechins in tea: none of those were put there for our benefit. The difference between an edible and an unedible plant lies merely in our ability to tolerate the toxins of an edible plant.

This was spelled out in a classic paper by Bruce Ames, Dietary pesticides (99.99% all natural) (PDF). The abstract:

The toxicological significance of exposures to synthetic chemicals is examined in the context of exposures to naturally occurring chemicals. We calculate that 99.99% (by weight) of the pesticides in the American diet are chemicals that plants produce to defend themselves. Only 52 natural pesticides have been tested [as of 1990] in high-dose animal cancer tests, and about half (27) are rodent carcinogens; these 27 are shown to be present in many common foods. We conclude that natural and synthetic chemicals are equally likely to be positive in animal cancer tests. We also conclude that at the low doses of most human exposures the comparative hazards of synthetic pesticide residues are insignificant

Nearly all of the pesticide chemicals that humans are exposed to are natural, produced by the plants themselves, and the fact that there’s little if any difference between natural and synthetic pesticides can be seen in the fact that half of the natural pesticides tested caused cancer in rodents.

Furthermore, the quantity of natural pesticides that humans ingest daily is many orders of magnitude greater than the amount of synthetic pesticides:

Concentrations of natural pesticides in plants are usually measured in parts per thousand or million rather than parts per billion, the usual concentration of synthetic pesticide residues or of water pollutants. We estimate that humans ingest roughly 5000 to 10,000 different natural pesticides and their breakdown products.

The natural pesticides that are known to cause cancer are present in the most common foods ingested too.

…the 27 natural pesticides that are rodent carcinogens are present in the following foods: anise, apple, apricot, banana, basil, broccoli, brussels sprouts, cabbage, cantaloupe, caraway, carrot, cauliflower, celery, cherries, cinnamon, cloves, cocoa, coffee, collard greens, comfrey herb tea, currants, dill, eggplant, endive, fennel, grapefruit juice, grapes, guava, honey, honeydew melon, horseradish, kale, lentils, lettuce, mango, mushrooms, mustard, nutmeg, orange juice, parsley, parsnip, peach, pear, peas, black pepper, pineapple, plum, potato, radish, raspberries, rosemary, sesame seeds, tarragon, tea, tomato, and turnip. Thus, it is probable that almost every fruit and vegetable in the supermarket contains natural
plant pesticides that are rodent carcinogens. The levels of these 27 rodent carcinogens in the above plants are commonly thousands of times higher than the levels of synthetic pesticides.

Science, real actual science, shows that virtually every plant food we eat contains large amounts of natural pesticides, some of which are known to cause cancer in lab animals.

The conclusion must be that organic food is a waste of money, and to the extent that some people and corporations profit from the ignorance of the public, and even feed that ignorance, a scam.

From Rogue Health and Fitness: http://roguehealthandfitness.com/organic-food-waste-money-scam/

Only Whites Can Be Racists…and Other Bullshit that Liberals Believe

 

 

Nonwhites Can’t Be Racist Cuz My Teacher Told Me So

by Jim Goad

March 09, 2015

Although it was released over three years ago, there were audible sounds of indigestion online recently at the discovery of a textbook called Is Everyone Really Equal?: An Introduction to Key Concepts in Social Justice Education. The book is intended for all students of high school age and above. From a cursory glance of the book’s advertising materials, it appears to be roughly as full of shit as its title would imply.

At issue recently was this specific passage:

There is no such thing as reverse racism or reverse sexism (or the reverse of any form of oppression). While women can be just as prejudiced as men, women cannot be “just as sexist as men” because they do not hold political, economic, and institutional power.

Some would agree that there is indeed no such thing as “reverse racism,” but they’d argue so for different reasons than the authors. They’d say racism is racism no matter who’s practicing it. Unlike the authors of Is Everyone Really Equal?, at least they’re being consistent.

But sensible citizens such as you and I realize that the voodoo term “racism” is purely a social construct and thus has no innate meaning. That’s why different groups are always fighting one another to define it. The ability to define words is the root of cultural power. In my lifetime, the word’s definition has expanded with the ravenousness of a malignant tumor. Nowadays, everything white is racist. Even pointing that out is racist. And it’s racist of me for making fun of the fact that pointing this out is racist. And every word I keep saying from hereon out merely compounds the racism.

“The ability to define words is the root of cultural power.”

Will this tired conga beat never end? “Nonwhites cannot be racist” is a transparently nonsensical statement. It’s a freeze-dried and vacuum-sealed bag of pure bullshit, one of those innately fraudulent Newspeak mantras that bother me more every time I hear them—you know, obvious lies such as “alcoholism is a disease,” “rape has nothing to do with sex,” and “race doesn’t exist, but racism is rampant.” It’s an idea that makes no sense, which may be why its proponents feel compelled to constantly hammer you in the head with it until you finally relent merely because your head hurts.

More importantly, it’s a blatant act of moving the goalposts. It’s an attempt to redefine the term “racism” in a way that effectively silences whites and cripples their ability to address the topic with any level of meaning, honesty, or emotion.

Read it all at Taki Mag:

http://takimag.com/article/nonwhites_cant_be_racist_cuz_my_teacher_told_me_so_jim_goad/print#ixzz3U5KVPyvs

The Cancer of islamic sharia law Explained

ISIS is the Syndrome, Sharia the Real Malignancy

As the US-led kinetic war against ISIS continues with indifferent success and less than certain prospects to date, answering the obvious question of what motivates that murderous organization becomes more pressing by the day. Remarkably, there have been no visible efforts in that direction by either the White House or the Defense Department. Indeed, the much touted Obama Administration-sponsored conference on “countering violent extremism” further obfuscated the issue by its oxymoronic definition of terrorism as “acts of violence” committed “against people of different faiths, by people of different faiths.” Neither did the “Team America” high-level Pentagon-sponsored recent meeting in Kuwait help much with its lapidary conclusion that the US strategy against ISIS is correct.

Against that meager analytical background, a much discussed and praised effort to decipher ISIS ideology by journalist Graeme Wood in the March issue of the Atlantic Magazine deserves close scrutiny, because it is a good example of just how muddled and unrealistic our understanding of radical Islam with respect to ISIS has become.

Titled “What Does ISIS Really Want,” the article’s main contribution is its common sense proposition that ISIS is Islamic, indeed, “very Islamic.” Unfortunately, the rest of it is a largely failed effort to explain what drives ISIS to do what it does with a confused exegesis of its Islamic beliefs and interviews with several sympathizers. Key emphasis is given to its ostensible eschatological predilections as a “key agent of the coming apocalypse” and a “headline player in the imminent end of the world” when the messiah Mahdi will show up on Judgment Day. Mr. Wood also makes much of ISIS’s reported faithfulness to something called the “prophetic methodology of the caliphate” and implies strongly that what they practice is a “distinctive variety” and a “coherent and even learned interpretation of Islam,” which aims “returning civilization to a seventh century legal environment.”

Much of this makes little sense to anybody who’s familiar with the foundational texts of Islam. It is true that the Quran does deal with Judgment Day in Sura 75 (Yawm al-Qiyamah), but much of what it says appears to be borrowed from the Bible and Mahdi, an essentially Shia concept, is not mentioned at all. ‘Prophetic methodology’ is a propaganda term used by ISIS and means nothing, especially in connection with the caliphate, which is not mentioned in either the Quran or the traditions (Sunna) of Muhammad. As far as the “seventh century legal environment” is concerned, it’s worth noting that during Muhammad’s life time and that of his immediate successors, there was no Islamic corpus juris in existence and to the extent that a legal system existed at all, it was mostly the old Arab customary law (urf) and arbitration that were practiced. In fact, the codification of sharia as Islamic law did not begin until the middle of the 8th century and was not completed until the end of the 9th century, or 2nd and 3rd century of Islam.

If ISIS ideology thus has little to do with “prophetic methodology” and eschatological propaganda, it has everything to do with sharia. And the reason for that is very simple, for sharia is the most radical possible interpretation of Islam and a real source of legitimacy for those practicing it among the millions of Islamist sympathizers.

So what exactly is sharia? To radical Islamists, salafis and jihadists of all kinds, sharia is ‘God’s sacred law’ to be obeyed to the letter if a Muslim were to end up in heaven. More than that, it is also the constitution of the Islamic state and the guarantee of the perfect synergy between religion and the state (din wa dawla). To reform-minded Muslims and most non-Muslims it is nothing of the kind. Rather it is a post-Quranic, man-made doctrine designed to legitimate the imperialist policies of the hereditary Muslim empires that followed Muhammad and his successors and the open discrimination against non-Muslims and women widely practiced by them. Moreover, sharia was based for the most part not on the Quran, but on secondary and often unreliable sources such as the hadith (Muhammad’s sayings).

To the extent that sharia is based on the Quran, the cornerstone of its interpretation is the doctrine of abrogation (naskh), which invalidates most of the peaceful and tolerant verses of the earlier Meccan period and replaces them with the later violence-preaching Medinese verses. As a result, sharia is not only radical and intolerant, but is also in direct conflict with many Quranic injunctions. Thus, the punishment for apostasy is death in sharia, but 100 lashes in the Quran. The former makes the establishment of the caliphate and sharia a religious obligation for Muslims, while the latter does not mention either one of them at all. In the Quran, Muslims are enjoined to fight in self-defense, sharia makes offensive jihad for the spread of Islam mandatory among many other examples. If one were to characterize sharia today, which Muslims have been obligated to follow blindly (taqlid) since the 10th century, what comes readily to mind is the Catholic faith at the time of the inquisition.

The discriminatory and violent nature of sharia’s injunctions made it impractical as a law early on in Muslim states that were multi-national and multi-confessional, as most of them were, and though it was regularly paid lip service to, it was seldom practiced, except occasionally as family law. In the early Muslim empires, for instance, justice was administered mostly by courts of grievance (mazalim), police courts (shurta) or market judges (sahib al souk), rather than sharia, while in the historically greatest Muslim state of all, the Ottoman empire, the law of the land was kanun osmanly, an essentially secular law.

In fact, sharia’s political fortunes did not change for the better until the patron saints of contemporary radical Islam, Abul ala Mawdudi and Sayyid Qutb, elevated the imposition of sharia as the sole criterion of whether or not a state is Muslim or apostate in middle of the 20th century. Since then, with the help of huge amounts of Saudi money and the spread of Muslim Brotherhood networks, sharia has become the sine qua non of the radical Islamist idiom that currently dominates the Muslim establishment worldwide. It is simply a fact that from the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) on down to countless mosques, Islamic centers and Muslim organizations, no rule, regulation or bylaw is viewed as legitimate if it contradicts sharia.

What the widespread support for sharia among Muslims means is that President Obama’s repeatedly expressed belief that there is no radical Islam, but just individual terrorists, is widely off the mark. In just a couple of examples relevant to ISIS, a recent open letter signed by 126 prominent Muslims from around the world, including many US Islamists, denouncing ISIS’ tactics, nonetheless endorses sharia. In another example, a radical Wahhabi preacher and passionate sharia supporter named Mohamed al-Arefe, approved of raping kidnapped Yazidi women in a tweet to his 10 million followers, while the prominent Islamist and member of the influential “senior council of clerics” in Saudi Arabia, Saleh al-Fawzan, issued a fatwa arguing that whoever denies the legitimacy of slavery in sharia becomes an infidel.

For jihadist organizations like ISIS, being sharia-compliant in a self-proclaimed caliphate bestows them huge legitimacy in the eyes of the devout. What we view as barbaric practices, including raping and enslaving “infidel” women, crucifixions, killing homosexuals and Muslim apostates, are fully justified in sharia. Undoubtedly, the ISIS cutthroats believe that some of their more recent gruesome innovations, such as chopping off women’s hands for using cell phones or beheading smokers, are also legitimate under sharia.

Muslims are also obligated by sharia to emigrate to the caliphate, which helps explain the huge number of volunteer jihadists who continue to flock to ISIS. The ISIS’ self-anointed “Caliph Ibrahim” enjoys yet another political benefit under sharia, which orders Muslims to obey him even if he is “unjust,” because “a rebellion against a caliph is one of the greatest enormities.”

What is beyond doubt is sharia’s absolute incompatibility with basic human rights, democratic norms and the law of nations and its highly seditious nature in calling for violence against non-Muslims and non-conforming Muslims both. Until the community of nations and the Muslims themselves come to terms with this malignant doctrine and act to delegitimize it, its poisonous offshoots like ISIS will continue to thrive.

Alex Alexiev is a senior fellow with the International Assessment and Strategy Center (IASC) in Wash. D.C. and chairman of the Center for Balkan and Black Sea Studies (cbbss.org) in Sofia, Bulgaria. His latest book on Islamism “The Wages of Extremism: Radical Islam’s Threat to the West and the Muslim World,” is available as a pdf file from the Hudson Institute.

As the US-led kinetic war against ISIS continues with indifferent success and less than certain prospects to date, answering the obvious question of what motivates that murderous organization becomes more pressing by the day. Remarkably, there have been no visible efforts in that direction by either the White House or the Defense Department. Indeed, the much touted Obama Administration-sponsored conference on “countering violent extremism” further obfuscated the issue by its oxymoronic definition of terrorism as “acts of violence” committed “against people of different faiths, by people of different faiths.” Neither did the “Team America” high-level Pentagon-sponsored recent meeting in Kuwait help much with its lapidary conclusion that the US strategy against ISIS is correct.

Against that meager analytical background, a much discussed and praised effort to decipher ISIS ideology by journalist Graeme Wood in the March issue of the Atlantic Magazine deserves close scrutiny, because it is a good example of just how muddled and unrealistic our understanding of radical Islam with respect to ISIS has become.

Titled “What Does ISIS Really Want,” the article’s main contribution is its common sense proposition that ISIS is Islamic, indeed, “very Islamic.” Unfortunately, the rest of it is a largely failed effort to explain what drives ISIS to do what it does with a confused exegesis of its Islamic beliefs and interviews with several sympathizers. Key emphasis is given to its ostensible eschatological predilections as a “key agent of the coming apocalypse” and a “headline player in the imminent end of the world” when the messiah Mahdi will show up on Judgment Day. Mr. Wood also makes much of ISIS’s reported faithfulness to something called the “prophetic methodology of the caliphate” and implies strongly that what they practice is a “distinctive variety” and a “coherent and even learned interpretation of Islam,” which aims “returning civilization to a seventh century legal environment.”

Much of this makes little sense to anybody who’s familiar with the foundational texts of Islam. It is true that the Quran does deal with Judgment Day in Sura 75 (Yawm al-Qiyamah), but much of what it says appears to be borrowed from the Bible and Mahdi, an essentially Shia concept, is not mentioned at all. ‘Prophetic methodology’ is a propaganda term used by ISIS and means nothing, especially in connection with the caliphate, which is not mentioned in either the Quran or the traditions (Sunna) of Muhammad. As far as the “seventh century legal environment” is concerned, it’s worth noting that during Muhammad’s life time and that of his immediate successors, there was no Islamic corpus juris in existence and to the extent that a legal system existed at all, it was mostly the old Arab customary law (urf) and arbitration that were practiced. In fact, the codification of sharia as Islamic law did not begin until the middle of the 8th century and was not completed until the end of the 9th century, or 2nd and 3rd century of Islam.

If ISIS ideology thus has little to do with “prophetic methodology” and eschatological propaganda, it has everything to do with sharia. And the reason for that is very simple, for sharia is the most radical possible interpretation of Islam and a real source of legitimacy for those practicing it among the millions of Islamist sympathizers.

So what exactly is sharia? To radical Islamists, salafis and jihadists of all kinds, sharia is ‘God’s sacred law’ to be obeyed to the letter if a Muslim were to end up in heaven. More than that, it is also the constitution of the Islamic state and the guarantee of the perfect synergy between religion and the state (din wa dawla). To reform-minded Muslims and most non-Muslims it is nothing of the kind. Rather it is a post-Quranic, man-made doctrine designed to legitimate the imperialist policies of the hereditary Muslim empires that followed Muhammad and his successors and the open discrimination against non-Muslims and women widely practiced by them. Moreover, sharia was based for the most part not on the Quran, but on secondary and often unreliable sources such as the hadith (Muhammad’s sayings).

To the extent that sharia is based on the Quran, the cornerstone of its interpretation is the doctrine of abrogation (naskh), which invalidates most of the peaceful and tolerant verses of the earlier Meccan period and replaces them with the later violence-preaching Medinese verses. As a result, sharia is not only radical and intolerant, but is also in direct conflict with many Quranic injunctions. Thus, the punishment for apostasy is death in sharia, but 100 lashes in the Quran. The former makes the establishment of the caliphate and sharia a religious obligation for Muslims, while the latter does not mention either one of them at all. In the Quran, Muslims are enjoined to fight in self-defense, sharia makes offensive jihad for the spread of Islam mandatory among many other examples. If one were to characterize sharia today, which Muslims have been obligated to follow blindly (taqlid) since the 10th century, what comes readily to mind is the Catholic faith at the time of the inquisition.

The discriminatory and violent nature of sharia’s injunctions made it impractical as a law early on in Muslim states that were multi-national and multi-confessional, as most of them were, and though it was regularly paid lip service to, it was seldom practiced, except occasionally as family law. In the early Muslim empires, for instance, justice was administered mostly by courts of grievance (mazalim), police courts (shurta) or market judges (sahib al souk), rather than sharia, while in the historically greatest Muslim state of all, the Ottoman empire, the law of the land was kanun osmanly, an essentially secular law.

In fact, sharia’s political fortunes did not change for the better until the patron saints of contemporary radical Islam, Abul ala Mawdudi and Sayyid Qutb, elevated the imposition of sharia as the sole criterion of whether or not a state is Muslim or apostate in middle of the 20th century. Since then, with the help of huge amounts of Saudi money and the spread of Muslim Brotherhood networks, sharia has become the sine qua non of the radical Islamist idiom that currently dominates the Muslim establishment worldwide. It is simply a fact that from the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) on down to countless mosques, Islamic centers and Muslim organizations, no rule, regulation or bylaw is viewed as legitimate if it contradicts sharia.

What the widespread support for sharia among Muslims means is that President Obama’s repeatedly expressed belief that there is no radical Islam, but just individual terrorists, is widely off the mark. In just a couple of examples relevant to ISIS, a recent open letter signed by 126 prominent Muslims from around the world, including many US Islamists, denouncing ISIS’ tactics, nonetheless endorses sharia. In another example, a radical Wahhabi preacher and passionate sharia supporter named Mohamed al-Arefe, approved of raping kidnapped Yazidi women in a tweet to his 10 million followers, while the prominent Islamist and member of the influential “senior council of clerics” in Saudi Arabia, Saleh al-Fawzan, issued a fatwa arguing that whoever denies the legitimacy of slavery in sharia becomes an infidel.

For jihadist organizations like ISIS, being sharia-compliant in a self-proclaimed caliphate bestows them huge legitimacy in the eyes of the devout. What we view as barbaric practices, including raping and enslaving “infidel” women, crucifixions, killing homosexuals and Muslim apostates, are fully justified in sharia. Undoubtedly, the ISIS cutthroats believe that some of their more recent gruesome innovations, such as chopping off women’s hands for using cell phones or beheading smokers, are also legitimate under sharia.

Muslims are also obligated by sharia to emigrate to the caliphate, which helps explain the huge number of volunteer jihadists who continue to flock to ISIS. The ISIS’ self-anointed “Caliph Ibrahim” enjoys yet another political benefit under sharia, which orders Muslims to obey him even if he is “unjust,” because “a rebellion against a caliph is one of the greatest enormities.”

What is beyond doubt is sharia’s absolute incompatibility with basic human rights, democratic norms and the law of nations and its highly seditious nature in calling for violence against non-Muslims and non-conforming Muslims both. Until the community of nations and the Muslims themselves come to terms with this malignant doctrine and act to delegitimize it, its poisonous offshoots like ISIS will continue to thrive.

Alex Alexiev is a senior fellow with the International Assessment and Strategy Center (IASC) in Wash. D.C. and chairman of the Center for Balkan and Black Sea Studies (cbbss.org) in Sofia, Bulgaria. His latest book on Islamism “The Wages of Extremism: Radical Islam’s Threat to the West and the Muslim World,” is available as a pdf file from the Hudson Institute.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/03/isis_is_the_syndrome_sharia_the_real_malignancy_.html#ixzz3TzNcIEEz

Obama’s Selma Speech. More of the same Marxist Propaganda spewing out of a filthy fountain.

Obama’s Unscrupulous Selma Speech

Under the guise of commemorating justice, on the 50th Anniversary of the Bloody Sunday March in Selma, Alabama, Barack Obama engaged in his usual artful deception by exploiting the event to further his agenda.

While placing the subtext of blame upon the shoulders of racist white men, to make a self-serving point concerning illegal immigration Obama used black Americans as beasts of burden to haul the weight of his reprimand.

For starters, historical revisionist Barack Obama left out the fact that those doing the beating in Selma were members of the Democratic Party. The president dared not reveal that, 50 years later, both he and his political cronies are now politically and economically billy-clubbing the very people he pretends to defend.

Keynote speaker Obama opened the discourse by extolling civil rights leader/Martial Law advocate John Lewis (D-GA). Predictably, before long, Obama’s words started to sound more like he was discussing his own struggles as a ‘fundamental transformer’ than commemorating a half-century old injustice.

Identifying with freedom marchers at Selma, Obama began to compare the struggle for civil rights with the need for unnamed oppressors to accept his “idea of a just… fair… inclusive… generous America.”

At one point, the president went so far as to side with phone-buddy Kanye West by mentioning that white newsman Bill Plante confirmed Kanye’s Beyoncé vs. Beck and Taylor Grammy assertion when he said that on the day of the original Selma march, “white people lowered the quality of the [hymn] singing.”

Then, what came across as a leftist jab to the jaw of those who disagree with his illegal immigration policy, Obama said, “We are well-served to remember that at the time of the marches, many in power condemned rather than praised them.”

“Back then, they were called Communists, half-breeds, outside agitators, sexual and moral degenerates, and worse,” Obama explained, “Their faith was questioned. Their lives were threatened. Their patriotism was challenged.

Then he asked:

What could more profoundly vindicate the idea of America than plain and humble people — the unsung, the downtrodden, the dreamers not of high station, not born to wealth or privilege, not of one religious tradition but many – coming together to shape their country’s course?

Rest assured that when Barack Obama names ‘dreamers… shaping [the] country’s course… [and]… America being not yet finished,’ and when he proposes “closely align[ing] with our highest ideals” what he is really referring to is a nation remade entirely upon progressive principles.

Moreover, know this: when this president speaks of “a more perfect union,” and then says this is “a roadmap for citizenship and an insistence in the capacity of free men and women to shape our own destiny,” the underlying theme is a cry for an America flooded to overflowing with illegal immigrants.

Take for instance his reference to “pick[ing] up torches and crossing the bridge,” which was followed by his hinting at the moral equivalency between coyotes on jet skis smuggling illegals across the Rio Grande and those who legally migrate to America.

By equating illegal immigrants with Iwo Jima and the moonwalk and obscuring insinuation behind commendation, Barack Obama managed to successfully use Selma to denigrate two of America’s greatest accomplishments.

Then, mid-speech, the president justified stirring racial tensions when playing the “race card,” brought up the “long shadow… [of]… this nation’s racial history,” the inequity of black incarceration, and the need for voting rights, something he apparently believes illegals deserve. Subsequently, while skirting his own policy contribution to a situation he stressed was indicative of racial injustice, Obama broached the volatile subject of black poverty.

Quickly returning to illegal immigration, Mr. Obama introduced his own selfish agenda into a moral issue by sharing his skewed view of “American exceptionalism.”

The president seemed to suggest that individuals who cling to the rule of law simply do not understand that those who risk everything to realize the promise of citizenship are the ones who truly love and believe in America.

According to President Obama, American exceptionalism contains the “imperative of citizenship.”

That’s why Obama implied that border jumpers are somehow on par with black Revolutionary era heroes like Crispus Attucks or U.S. refugees such as Holocaust survivors, Soviet defectors, and the Lost Boys of Sudan, and why he believes true Americans “brave the unfamiliar” by doing things like “stowing away on ships.”

Forgetting to state that both freemen and black slaves as well as Scottish stonecutters built the White House, Obama, raised in Indonesia and schooled at Columbia and Harvard, said “We the people” are “slaves who built the White House.”

Then, after likening the plight of MS-13 gang members to Holocaust survivors, Obama related DREAMers in the military to “the Tuskegee Airmen, Navajo code-talkers, and Japanese-Americans who fought for this country even as their own liberty had been denied.”

The black civil-rights crowd, who view equal rights for sexual orientation as vastly different from race, must surely have appreciated the mental imagery Obama concocted when he identified Selma with the LGBT community saying, “We are the gay Americans whose blood ran on the streets of San Francisco and New York, just as blood ran down this bridge.”

When paraphrasing, “You are America… Unencumbered by what is, and ready to seize what ought to be,” America’s first community activist president again paid homage to his late mentor, Saul Alinsky, who often spoke of “the world as it is and the world as it ought to be.”

Before suggesting that “Yes We Can” belonged in the same context as “We the People… [and]… We Shall Overcome,” the Mt. Rushmore hopeful mocked those who revere an iconic American identity when he said that America is “Not stock photos or airbrushed history or feeble attempts to define some of us as more American than others.”

Barack Obama ended his sermon by once again reminding those in attendance that our “union is not perfect,” and by quoting Isaiah 40:31, a Scripture he botched at the National Prayer breakfast in 2013.

Renewed in strength, tireless transformationist Barack Obama said he considers himself among the “we”… who “abhor unfairness, and despise hypocrisy… give voice to the voiceless, and tell truths that need to be told.”

And while that sounds magnificent, underneath all the flowery rhetoric, this president promotes inequity, personifies hypocrisy, funds and supports silencing the voice of the voiceless and, even if his life depended on it, is completely incapable of telling the truth.

Jeannie hosts a blog at www.jeannie-ology.com

Under the guise of commemorating justice, on the 50th Anniversary of the Bloody Sunday March in Selma, Alabama, Barack Obama engaged in his usual artful deception by exploiting the event to further his agenda.

While placing the subtext of blame upon the shoulders of racist white men, to make a self-serving point concerning illegal immigration Obama used black Americans as beasts of burden to haul the weight of his reprimand.

For starters, historical revisionist Barack Obama left out the fact that those doing the beating in Selma were members of the Democratic Party. The president dared not reveal that, 50 years later, both he and his political cronies are now politically and economically billy-clubbing the very people he pretends to defend.

Keynote speaker Obama opened the discourse by extolling civil rights leader/Martial Law advocate John Lewis (D-GA). Predictably, before long, Obama’s words started to sound more like he was discussing his own struggles as a ‘fundamental transformer’ than commemorating a half-century old injustice.

Identifying with freedom marchers at Selma, Obama began to compare the struggle for civil rights with the need for unnamed oppressors to accept his “idea of a just… fair… inclusive… generous America.”

At one point, the president went so far as to side with phone-buddy Kanye West by mentioning that white newsman Bill Plante confirmed Kanye’s Beyoncé vs. Beck and Taylor Grammy assertion when he said that on the day of the original Selma march, “white people lowered the quality of the [hymn] singing.”

Then, what came across as a leftist jab to the jaw of those who disagree with his illegal immigration policy, Obama said, “We are well-served to remember that at the time of the marches, many in power condemned rather than praised them.”

“Back then, they were called Communists, half-breeds, outside agitators, sexual and moral degenerates, and worse,” Obama explained, “Their faith was questioned. Their lives were threatened. Their patriotism was challenged.

Then he asked:

What could more profoundly vindicate the idea of America than plain and humble people — the unsung, the downtrodden, the dreamers not of high station, not born to wealth or privilege, not of one religious tradition but many – coming together to shape their country’s course?

Rest assured that when Barack Obama names ‘dreamers… shaping [the] country’s course… [and]… America being not yet finished,’ and when he proposes “closely align[ing] with our highest ideals” what he is really referring to is a nation remade entirely upon progressive principles.

Moreover, know this: when this president speaks of “a more perfect union,” and then says this is “a roadmap for citizenship and an insistence in the capacity of free men and women to shape our own destiny,” the underlying theme is a cry for an America flooded to overflowing with illegal immigrants.

Take for instance his reference to “pick[ing] up torches and crossing the bridge,” which was followed by his hinting at the moral equivalency between coyotes on jet skis smuggling illegals across the Rio Grande and those who legally migrate to America.

By equating illegal immigrants with Iwo Jima and the moonwalk and obscuring insinuation behind commendation, Barack Obama managed to successfully use Selma to denigrate two of America’s greatest accomplishments.

Then, mid-speech, the president justified stirring racial tensions when playing the “race card,” brought up the “long shadow… [of]… this nation’s racial history,” the inequity of black incarceration, and the need for voting rights, something he apparently believes illegals deserve. Subsequently, while skirting his own policy contribution to a situation he stressed was indicative of racial injustice, Obama broached the volatile subject of black poverty.

Quickly returning to illegal immigration, Mr. Obama introduced his own selfish agenda into a moral issue by sharing his skewed view of “American exceptionalism.”

The president seemed to suggest that individuals who cling to the rule of law simply do not understand that those who risk everything to realize the promise of citizenship are the ones who truly love and believe in America.

According to President Obama, American exceptionalism contains the “imperative of citizenship.”

That’s why Obama implied that border jumpers are somehow on par with black Revolutionary era heroes like Crispus Attucks or U.S. refugees such as Holocaust survivors, Soviet defectors, and the Lost Boys of Sudan, and why he believes true Americans “brave the unfamiliar” by doing things like “stowing away on ships.”

Forgetting to state that both freemen and black slaves as well as Scottish stonecutters built the White House, Obama, raised in Indonesia and schooled at Columbia and Harvard, said “We the people” are “slaves who built the White House.”

Then, after likening the plight of MS-13 gang members to Holocaust survivors, Obama related DREAMers in the military to “the Tuskegee Airmen, Navajo code-talkers, and Japanese-Americans who fought for this country even as their own liberty had been denied.”

The black civil-rights crowd, who view equal rights for sexual orientation as vastly different from race, must surely have appreciated the mental imagery Obama concocted when he identified Selma with the LGBT community saying, “We are the gay Americans whose blood ran on the streets of San Francisco and New York, just as blood ran down this bridge.”

When paraphrasing, “You are America… Unencumbered by what is, and ready to seize what ought to be,” America’s first community activist president again paid homage to his late mentor, Saul Alinsky, who often spoke of “the world as it is and the world as it ought to be.”

Before suggesting that “Yes We Can” belonged in the same context as “We the People… [and]… We Shall Overcome,” the Mt. Rushmore hopeful mocked those who revere an iconic American identity when he said that America is “Not stock photos or airbrushed history or feeble attempts to define some of us as more American than others.”

Barack Obama ended his sermon by once again reminding those in attendance that our “union is not perfect,” and by quoting Isaiah 40:31, a Scripture he botched at the National Prayer breakfast in 2013.

Renewed in strength, tireless transformationist Barack Obama said he considers himself among the “we”… who “abhor unfairness, and despise hypocrisy… give voice to the voiceless, and tell truths that need to be told.”

And while that sounds magnificent, underneath all the flowery rhetoric, this president promotes inequity, personifies hypocrisy, funds and supports silencing the voice of the voiceless and, even if his life depended on it, is completely incapable of telling the truth.

Jeannie hosts a blog at www.jeannie-ology.com

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/03/obamas_unscrupulous_selma_speech.html#ixzz3TzKJXvWj

Enviro-fascism

green_armageddon.jpg

“Green Alarmism does not derive from science. It comes from a religion, the faux pagan worship of Gaia, the earth goddess. She is angry and must be propitiated by the sacrifice of human babies. The white liberals who are votaries of this religion have chosen brown and black babies to be the victims of the rituals of “population control”, “zero population growth” and “reproductive choice”.

“Why has this bizarre cult arisen among what are supposed to be our most intelligent and skeptical class?

“First we must observe the collapse of Christian belief in this class.

“They are all Marxists now, not industrial grade Stalinists, but cultural Marxists theorized by Adorno, and Gramisci, and the French lumpen-philosopes such as Foucault and Derrida. But, even those variants of Marxism demands atheism.

“Also atheism, especially, the nasty anti-intellectual atheism of Dawkins et. al., allows them to indulge their favorite passion — Contempt for the unwashed masses of Americans — the obese bitter clingers who inhabit fly-over country and cling to their guns and religion.

“Having chosen atheism does not mean that they believe nothing. As Umberto Eco wrote:

“G K Chesterton is often credited with observing: “When a man ceases to believe in God, he doesn’t believe in nothing. He believes in anything.” Whoever said it – he was right. We are supposed to live in a sceptical age. In fact, we live in an age of outrageous credulity.

“The “death of God”, or at least the dying of the Christian God, has been accompanied by the birth of a plethora of new idols. They have multiplied like bacteria on the corpse of the Christian Church …”

— Posted by: Fat Man in comments on The Top 40: The Green Left’s Fascist Roots

From AD: http://americandigest.org/

Obama Really Believes He is a god.

A Question of Personality

By Richard Fernandez

Excerpts from this article below.

A charismatic leader derives authority from himself;  from an astounding life story, from attributes possessed by no other man.

Obama’s chosen model for greatness was to become a charismatic leader.

…the Legend is Obama’s Achilles Heel.  It’s Obama’s weakness and it is growing all the time.  The president has been doubling down on his charismatic leadership model. When the president decided to pass Obamacare without a single Republican vote;  by vowing to veto any attempts to amend his ‘signature’ legislation;  by announcing he was going to throw open the borders to illegal aliens by executive action; by suggesting he would conclude an agreement with Iran without necessarily seeking Congressional approval — with each step he was progressively narrowing his basis for governance.  He was isolating himself on the lonely rock that was his life-story…

The authority for his actions is increasingly himself…

 …questions are all off limits even though they are interrogatories of the most ordinary kind.  And they are off limits for a reason.  They undermine the root of the legend…

No republic, especially one as great as the United States, should ever be based on the such a fragile thing as the biography of a single man…

Read more: http://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2015/02/22/a-question-of-personality/#ixzz3Tl9GfBkr

ISIS is islam.

European Colonialism is the Only Thing That Modernized Islam

Islam never became enlightened. It never stopped being ‘medieval’. Whatever enlightenment it received was imposed on it by European colonialism. It’s a second-hand enlightenment that never went under the skin.

ISIS isn’t just seventh century Islam. It’s also much more recent than that. It’s Islam before the French and the English came. It’s what the Muslim world was like before it was forced to have presidents and constitutions, before it was forced to at least pay lip service to the alien notion of equal rights for all.

The media reported the burning of the Jordanian pilot as if it were some horrifying and unprecedented aberration. But Muslim heretics, as well as Jews and Christians accused of blasphemy, were burned alive for their crimes against Islam. Numerous accounts of this remain, not from the seventh century, but from the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Those who weren’t burned, might be beheaded.

These were not the practices of some apocalyptic death cult. They were the Islamic law in the “cosmopolitan” parts of North Africa. The only reason they aren’t the law now is that the French left behind some of their own laws.

Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia that were never truly colonized still behead men and women for “witchcraft and sorcery.” Not in the seventh century or even in the nineteenth century. Last year.

The problem isn’t that ISIS is ‘medieval’. The problem is that Islam is…

Read it all at Sultan Knish:  http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/

Violent muslim Immigrants taking over Minnesota. Obama hopes they will take over the entire country.

As Barack Hussein Obama continues to flood the country with mostly illiterate, unskilled and violent Somali Muslims, Minneapolis will soon become a NO-GO zone for non-Muslims

images-22Growing Somali Muslim mall in Minneapolis now boasts one of the state’s largest mosques. But where are they getting the money since more than half of Somali Muslims in America live on welfare?

Star Tribune Developer Basim Sabri says setting out to build one of Minnesota’s largest mosques at his Karmel Square mall wasn’t a vanity project. Instead, the space — part of a major expansion at Karmel — was meant as a goodwill gesture to the local Somalis who rent and shop at the south Minneapolis mall.

SOMALI MUSLIM immigrants demand more funding for the halal-compliant free food bank in Minneapolis

The expansion has tested Sabri’s famously tense relationships with the city and the mall’s neighbors, who have voiced concerns over parking and traffic issues. Part of the construction collapsed in May, cutting off electricity to the neighborhood and briefly stalling the project.

Read it all at BNI: http://www.barenakedislam.com/

“Swishing Faggotry” and Evil Men. It is too Late Now.

Ann Barnhardt lays it all out in easy to understand terms.

Laboravi clamans…

1.) I start writing, and while I certainly could comment on everything, I simply have no drive to do so. I warned and warned, screamed and screamed. It’s too late now.

I wrote a piece for AmericanThinker.com nearly four years ago titled, “We the Stupid”. And people are STILL convinced, after all of this, that their government is legitimate, and that this can all be undone and fixed peacefully, through elections and the extant paradigm. It can’t. Someone told me just a few weeks ago that “there isn’t going to be any war, and you are crazy to think that there will be.” And you know, he may be right. War involves fighting. At this point, I don’t think there will be any real resistance. And I’m not just saying that as some sort of reverse psychology trick in order to get people riled up. This culture, even the “good” part, is so far gone and so effeminate (more on this below), that it is incapable of even the most mild act of resistance or self-defense.

This is what I wrote four years ago.

Finally, I do not understand how it can possibly be that conservative writers are still addressing Obama as if he is actually trying to help the economy, but his well-intentioned policies are failing.

Obama is the enemy. Obama is a Marxist-Communist usurper and puppet front for a cabal of Marxist-Communists who are actively trying to destroy the United States of America. Everything they have done, are doing, and will do has the single goal of collapsing and destroying the U.S. economy, military, constitutional government and culture. What part of “Marxist Revolution” do you not understand?

The Obama regime is not a failure. The Obama regime is not incompetent. The Obama regime has achieved more in two and a half years than anyone could have possibly foreseen. It has debased the currency by 50% of the GDP and guaranteed that our economy will collapse. It has looted the Treasury for more than the size of a top-ten economy and embezzled that wealth into the hands of their fellow Marxists in preparation for the final collapse of the United States. It has ground the economy of the United States to a screeching halt. It has destabilized the entire Muslim world and ensured that there will be a nuclear war centered around Israel within the decade.

The Obama regime has no interest whatsoever in “stimulus” or “getting folks back to work.” How can you not understand this? How can we possibly win this war if we refuse to come to terms with the fact that we are, in fact, fighting a war?

God save the United States of America, because the people are far too stupid to do it themselves.

2. I want to make a distinction between effeminacy and, for the sake of clarity, “swishing faggotry”. Most men today are still, in fact, heterosexual. But they are extremely effeminate. Whilst being sexually oriented towards heteronormative acts (simply put, they “like girls”), their mode of being, of addressing the world, is almost completely feminized. When confronted with a problem, their method of dealing with it is to first DENY THAT THE PROBLEM EXISTS. Eyes down. Look away. DON’T TALK ABOUT IT. Pretend nothing is wrong, and eventually the problem will either go away, fix itself, or someone else (namely “a man”), will solve the problem for us, out of sight, and then we won’t ever actually have to deal with it. This is how females are generally wired, because women are physically weaker than men, and the best way for a woman to keep from getting raped and murdered is to AVOID combat situations in the first place. This is what today’s post-Christian western man has been trained to do and be since infancy.

The other profoundly feminine mode of avoidance is something I observe on a near-daily basis. It is the strategy that says, “Let’s wait to do anything until it is too late to do anything. Then it won’t be our fault, because it will have been too late to do anything.” This is such transparent cowardice, but oh, so attractive to the effeminized men of today. It is painted not as the abject cowardice and impotence that it is, but rather as “prudence”. It is now believed that the prudent man is not the man who discerns and does the right, but rather the man who does NOTHING.

I am reminded of Bonhoeffer’s quote: “Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.”

No, the hallmark gesture of today’s effeminized man is not the limp wrist and swishing hips of the “faggot”. The hallmark gesture of today’s effeminized post-Christian western man is the SHRUGGING OF THE SHOULDERS. Devoid of virility, devoid of potency, and at its core, devoid of CHARITY, today’s man, when confronted with evil, turns his head away to the side, shrugs his shoulders, and bleats out his twin mottoes:

THERE’S NOTHING I CAN DO ABOUT IT.

I DON’T CARE – IT’S NOT MY PROBLEM.

And so, many people look at the oligarch class, these nefarious characters infecting every corner of society, from the halls of academia, to the corporate boardrooms, to the halls of government, to the halls of the Church, and they see, generally, drooling imbeciles. And they then think that surely these drooling imbeciles will do themselves in – all we need do is wait for them to trip over their own thingamajigs and beat themselves. But that isn’t going to happen. They will continue to roll. They will continue to march down the field, because not only are we not mounting an effective defense – MUCH LESS any sort of counter-offense, WE AREN’T EVEN FIELDING A TEAM.

If two teams are playing, and one team is the “NFL Dream Team of All Time” and the other team is comprised of a blind, mentally retarded three year old, the blind, mentally retarded three year old, ALONE, can beat the NFL Dream Team of All Time IF the Dream Team never comes out of the locker room. The blind, retarded three year old can literally run up and down the gridiron, scoring at will, so long as the Dream Team remains in the locker room, watching the blind, mentally retarded three year old cross the goal line time after time, shrugging their shoulders, declaring, “There’s nothing we can do about it. Whatever. It’s not my problem.”

And what is never shown on camera or discussed is the “coach” (satan) and “assistant coaches” (demons) on the sidelines, coaxing and calling the mentally retarded three year old down the field to uncontested score after uncontested score.

Here, also from Ann is how we should be praying:

Hear us, O Lord, and have mercy, because we have sinned against Thee.

Hear us, O Lord, and have mercy, because we have sinned against Thee.

To Thee, highest King,
Redeemer of all,
do we lift up our eyes
in weeping:
Hear, O Christ, the prayers
of your servants.

Hear us, O Lord, and have mercy, because we have sinned against Thee.

Right hand of the Father,
corner-stone,
way of salvation,
gate of heaven,
wash away our
stains of sin.

Hear us, O Lord, and have mercy, because we have sinned against Thee.

We beseech Thee, God,
in Thy great majesty:
Hear our groans
with Thy holy ears:
calmly forgive
our crimes.

Hear us, O Lord, and have mercy, because we have sinned against Thee.

To Thee we confess
our sins admitted
with a contrite heart
We reveal the things hidden:
By Thy kindness, O Redeemer,
overlook them.

Hear us, O Lord, and have mercy, because we have sinned against Thee.

The Innocent, seized,
not refusing to be led;
condemned by false witnesses
because of impious men
O Christ, keep safe those
whom Thou hast redeemed.

Hear us, O Lord, and have mercy, because we have sinned against Thee.

From Ann Barnhardt: http://www.barnhardt.biz/

We are not as Good as we Think we are

This Just In: Humans Are Bad at Everything That’s Important

A minority of our news stories cover what’s truly new: scientific discoveries, thriving business startups, or groundbreaking legislation. But most of our news stories are about some human being (or group of human beings) failing, in a very familiar way, to be kind, fair, or honest. Politician caught lying! Violence erupts between Group A and Group B! Company misleads customers for profit! Details at 6.

If we sat down to think about what’s really important to us, we might come up with qualities like fairness, kindness, responsibility, loyalty, and mutual respect. It seems like all of the major problems in the world are caused by a small contingent of bad apples, who simply shun these important qualities and ruin it for kind, responsible, honest and fair people like ourselves.

I think this is wishful thinking. The truth is that all of us — even those of us who feel like good people — are almost comically terrible at achieving these qualities, yet we expect them as a matter of course from each other and ourselves. Our incredulous response to scandal and selfishness suggests that we believe any of us could, at any moment, snap out of our self-interest and dysfunction, and make the world the place it should have been all along.

What makes us distinct from other species, more than anything, is that we’re able to move beyond being impulse-driven, self-interested animals, at least a little bit. We can reflect, we can refrain, we can empathize, we can plan. We can feel our impulses while at the same time understanding that they aren’t always leading us to good things.

In the relatively short time we’ve been able to explore this higher territory, we’ve come to really value these lofty qualities, and we’ve become preoccupied with public figures failing to achieve them. After all, we know it is virtues like fairness, honesty, discipline and kindness that are going to make it easier to be human, to deal with suffering and loss and all the stark realities that come with knowing you’re a vulnerable, animated bag of meat. We desperately want to get ourselves (but especially others) to embody these higher human qualities, which promise to save us from cruelty and misery. But as much as we covet them, we forget that these new capacities are in fact skills, and that as a species we’re generally not very good at them.

Essentially, this higher territory is what we call morality, and I think we tend to greatly overestimate how good we are at it. We’re a species who, as I point out frequently, can barely uphold our New Year’s commitments to ourselves, yet we seem to expect everyone else to be more or less upstanding and incorruptible. Why am I so frequently appalled by how thoughtlessly other people park their cars, when I don’t think twice about spending thirty dollars on beer instead of feeding the starving?

You can make up excuses for this kind of behavior — cognitive dissonance, meritocratic economics, drop-in-the-bucket syndrome — but I think all of that is avoiding the truth about human beings, which is that we are pitifully underdeveloped when it comes to morality. We just happen to be living in that awkward and painful stage where we recognize its supreme importance to our well-being, yet we’re so bad at it we can barely stand ourselves.

So what am I suggesting we do about this? Two things:

1) That we recognize how hard it is for human beings to be what they aspire to be.

Why are we so shocked that a politician would lie? That a company puts profits ahead of compassion? That everyday people harbor prejudices? That we have such a hard time saving enough for retirement, or giving enough to charity, or not eating too much?

For one thing, it’s so much easier to identify the right thing to do than to actually do it, and when we’re assessing the behavior of others, we only have to do the former. But even with our own selves, we trivialize the difficulty of living up to our moral standards.

To quit smoking, you only have to do one simple thing: avoid putting cigarettes in your mouth. How hard is that? Somehow, very.

How hard is it to treat others as yourself? So incredibly difficult we are bound to spend our lives failing at it.

I’m not suggesting we downplay or deny the harm that our moral failings cause, but to become more accepting of human failing in general, particularly our own. We are too quick to condemn people for not living up to what are actually extremely lofty standards, at least for a creature whose motivations are still largely reptilian.

You might think, “Well, I know I should give more to charity than I do, but I would never lie to my spouse! Only a monster could do that!” That much may be true; you may have the wherewithal to succeed (so far) at Lofty Moral Standard X, but not at Lofty Moral Standard Y. And perhaps you would argue that the standards you meet are more important than the ones you don’t — but maybe you are just lucky in that regard, and can’t really explain why something is straightforward for you that seems nearly impossible for someone else. We should be grateful for the moral wherewithal we do have, and never lose sight of how easy it is to fall short of Complete Moral Upstandingness, and how often we do so ourselves.

The name for this particular combination of empathy and gratitude is forgiveness, which is itself another lofty aspiration of human beings that we are generally terrible at. One crucial understanding we must come to, as a species that is struggling to transcend its amoral animal past, is that we can’t expect our progress to be evenly distributed across individuals of our species. That means you may know how to do the right thing at times others don’t, and for that you should be grateful instead of vindictive.

Read it all at: Raptitude.Com – http://www.raptitude.com/2015/03/this-just-in-humans-are-bad-at-everything-thats-important/

No Wonder America is Doomed

Panromantic Gray-Asexual

By: Z Man

Kathy Shaidle linked to this today.

It’s Friday afternoon during finals week, and two undergrads at the University of Tennessee in Knoxville are lounging together on a battered couch in the student center, watching cartoons. They’ve only met twice before, but they’re all over each other. Rae, a tiny pixie of a sophomore wearing a newsboy cap, nuzzles up against Sean, a handsome freshman. He’s got his arm draped across her. They giggle and tease each other, and she sprawls into his lap. Their friend Genevieve, perched on the arm of the couch, smiles and rolls her eyes.

It looks like a standard collegiate prelude to a one-night stand. But there will be no kissing, no fondling, and definitely no Saturday morning walk of shame. Sean and Rae do not have the hots for each other—or anyone else, for that matter. In fact, they’re here hanging out at the campus outreach center, a haven for all who question their sexuality and gender identity, because they’re exploring an unconventional idea: life without sex. Or mostly without sex. They’re pioneers of an emerging sexual identity, one with its own nomenclature and subcategories of romance and desire, all revolving around the novel concept that having little to no interest in sex is itself a valid sexual orientation. Rae tells me she’s an aromantic asexual, Sean identifies as a heteroromantic demisexual, and Genevieve sees herself as a panromantic gray-asexual.

Not sure what these terms mean? You’re not alone. The definitions are still in flux, but most people who describe themselves as demisexual say they only rarely feel desire, and only in the context of a close relationship. Gray-­asexuals (or gray-aces) roam the gray area between absolute asexuality and a more typical level of interest. Then there are the host of qualifiers that describe how much romantic attraction you might feel toward other people: Genevieve says she could theoretically develop a nonsexual crush on just about any type of person, so she is “panromantic”; Sean is drawn to women, so he calls himself “heteroromantic.”

The jargon is all nonsense, lifted conceptually from the managerial elite’s fetish for taxonomy, with a healthy dose of the therapeutic culture sprinkled on top. Asexuality is nothing new and it has been with us since forever. Some percentage of humans lack the normal sex drive, just as some people have a hyper-active sex drive.

There’s also the fact that societies in decline have lower fertility rates. This has been understood for a long time. In good times, people have more fun and that results in more babies. In bad times, there’s less fun and fewer babies. It’s not just material good times or bad times either. Periods of material wealth, but spiritual decline can push down fertility rates. Iran is the an interesting example of a society with a very low fertility rate, despite modestly improving material wealth.

Japan is the classic example. It turns out that a people without a unifying purpose, regardless of their material wealth, are just not all that enthusiastic about the procreative acts. David Goldman, in his book How Civilizations Die, notes how fertility rates track church attendance in the West, while the reverse seems to be true in Islam. In America, a transactional, materialistic society is probably not inspiring to young people coming into a world without purpose. In Islam, a world ruled by lunatics who believe in flying carpets and magic inspires little in the way of optimism.

From The Z Man Blog: http://thezman.com/wordpress/

Everything is Corrupt

Perhaps the reason the football deflation scandal resonates,

aside from the usual distraction from more serious matters, is that it reinforces the pervasive sense that this is a totally corrupt moment in our culture, in which everything is corrupt.

EVERYTHING is CORRUPT. Nothing is honest. Politicians lie with impunity. The media lies. Polticians steal and skim and it’s a big deal when someone prosecutes. Schools teach made up versions of history to placate minorities. Publishers change maps to placate clients. Directors change historic reality for a better story. The narrative is more important than the facts. If you don’t like your sex, call yourself the other one, and everyone will pretend it’s the case. So someone took a little air out of a pigskin, to win at a competitive sport…That is the very least of the corruption in which we live. But dismaying because … what’s left?”

Never Yet Melted

From AD:    http://americandigest.org/

Stacy McCain speaks of Rights, Choices, and Equality

The Errors of ‘Democracy’

Posted on | February 1, 2015

We are heirs of a tradition. Each of us is born into circumstances that were created by our parents, by our grandparents, by our ancestors, and by the civilization in which they lived. Human life existed before we born and will continue after our deaths. As children we inherit the past. As parents we create the future. Wisdom requires us to understand ourselves as a single link in an infinite chain of human existence, rather than to imagine ourselves as free-floating atoms unconnected to others.

Popular ideas of “democracy” — the modernistic idolatry that speaks the language of “rights,” “choice” and “equality” — obscure the truth of human existence, trapping us in the present tense, isolating us as rootless individuals removed from the authentic traditions of our inheritance. Children are taught that the past is not merely useless, but actually harmful, because human history is nothing but a catalog of oppression, atrocities and victimhood. Thus, the modern child cannot be allowed to believe that his grandparents were wise or virtuous, that the great achievements of our civilization are worthy of respect.

The great idol of modernity is Progress. Everything that happened prior to today is “old-fashioned” and obsolete, and nothing is more obsolete than yesterday’s ideas. Whatever your parents or grandparents believed in 1980 or 1950 or 1920 is presumed to be wrong. Your ancestors were all racist sexist homophobes enslaved by patriarchal religious bigotry. Never mind that their beliefs enabled your ancestors to survive hardship that would be unimaginable for most Americans in the 21st century. In a remarkable span of six decades, America survived the Great Depression, triumphed in World War II and destroyed the Evil Empire of Soviet tyranny. Yet the American child today is taught to despise the values of the people who accomplished all that. The child cannot cherish his own inherited tradition or respect his own ancestors, and is instead commanded to bow down at the altar of Progress.

“To live for the moment is the prevailing passion — to live for yourself, not for your predecessors or posterity. We are fast losing the sense of historical continuity, the sense of belonging to a succession of generations originating in the past and stretching into the future. . . .
“Narcissism emerges as the typical form of character structure in a society that has lost interest in the future.”
Christopher Lasch, The Culture of Narcissism: American Life in an Age of Diminishing Expectations (1979)

What has resulted from this modernistic idolatry of democratic Progress — the utopian fantasy of an imagined future where we all live in absolute equality, free of “old-fashioned” beliefs — is a sort of social epidemic of bipolar hysteria, in which minds unmoored from cultural tradition constantly shift between utter confusion and radical certainty. Anyone who paid close attention to the “Occupy” protests of 2011 saw evidence of what kind of disordered personalities this progressive epidemic has produced. Young people who were clearly incompetent to manage their own lives nevertheless felt themselves entitled to dictate to the rest of us how “society” must be changed so as to “empower” these mobs of emotional unstable misfits. Refusing to take responsibility for their own failures, the Occupiers believed they were supremely qualified to pass judgment on the “system” that served as an all-purpose scapegoat onto which they could externalize blame for their misfortunes.

Duke: The lights are growing dim Otto. I know a life of crime has led me to this sorry fate, and yet, I blame society. Society made me what I am.
Otto: That’s bullshit. You’re a white suburban punk just like me.
Duke: Yeah, but it still hurts.

Great art speaks great truths and the death of Duke in Repo Man is an under-appreciated highlight of 20th-century cinematic art. Whatever the authorial purpose behind Alex Cox’s 1984 cult classic, that scene speaks eternal truth. Duke and his girlfriend Debbie try to rob a liquor story, and Duke laughs in psychopathic glee as he points his pistol at one of the clerk: “I’m going to kill him! I’m going to kill him! I’m going to kill everybody!” Unfortunately for Duke, there is a thing called karma in the world, and when Duke is momentarily distracted, the store clerk gets his shotgun and fatally wounds Duke. Debbie responds by shooting the clerk dead and it is then that Duke’s death scene plays out. Breathing his last gasps and spitting up blood, Duke speaks his own epitaph, expressing the worldview of every worthless punk who ever lived: “I blame society.”

Irresponsible people always need a scapegoat to blame for their faults and failures. They can never be satisfied to let their own shortcomings or disappointments be blamed on bad luck. Other people may be unlucky — indeed, many millions are far more unfortunate in their circumstances than the punk — but bad luck won’t do for him. No, the punk must always have someone to blame. His own failures and the problems that he has caused for himself? Not his fault. Blame society.

A punk’s entire life is basically one long quest for revenge, an attempt to even the score with “society,” to get back at the people he blames for whatever it is that has made him unhappy or unsuccessful.

The Cult of Progress has spawned a Punk Generation of people with no system of values except intellectual abstractions — “democracy,” “rights,” “equality” and so forth. They have learned nothing of sturdy virtue, nothing of classic Stoicism, nothing of the Calvinist ethos of enduring life’s hardships with a spirit of reverent gratitude.

We are told that democracy is synonymous with freedom, but we see how a false belief in “equality” between the wise and foolish, between the evil and the good, must ultimately enslave us all.

“Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.”
Romans 1:22 (KJV)

From:     http://theothermccain.com/

The Elite. They are Not Us.

The Cloud People

By: The Z Man

The global elites are the cloud people. They float above us, detached from language, culture and history. They have no loyalty to a country or the people and traditions of a country. It’s like the British Raj. The people in charge are fine with the rest of us engaging in our quaint customs, as long as it does not interfere with their looting of the resources. When the ground people cause trouble, then the cloud people step in to remedy it.

The modern global elites are formless and their dealings are entirely transactional. The rich and powerful of the Industrial Age used their wealth and power to build the cultural and political institutions of their country. They could look around them and see the envy and admiration of their tribe, they people, their country. Today’s elites hang out at Davos comparing Rolex watches and eating $50 hot dogs.

The class identity that our elites have realized is really an anti-identity. They hold the rest of us in contempt. That’s why the BBC looks for ways to poke the common Brit in the eye. It is why the NYTimes roots for whoever is fighting against the American service man, wherever he is sent to fight. It’s why elite academies keep retrograde companies like Chick-fil-A off their campus. They are who they are because they are not us.

Read it all at: http://thezman.com/wordpress/

Speaking the Truth Not Allowed in America

TENNESSEE: The Op Ed by a Vanderbilt University professor that is causing Muslim students and their leftist allies to lose their minds

0What would it take to make us admit we were wrong about Islam? What horrendous attack would finally convince us that Islam is not like other religions in the United States, that it poses an absolute danger to us and our children unless it is monitored better than it has been under the Obama administration?

Not surprisingly, Prof. Swain is no fan of Obama

Charlie Hebdo attacks prove critics were right about Islam.

By Carol M Swain

Tennessean  Over the past few years, we have had a man in Middle Tennessee who, like the founders of our nation, has risked his life, fortune and reputation to sound an alarm. After many years of his fighting alone in the wilderness, Andrew Miller Jr. and his Tennessee Freedom Coalition continue to be vindicated by current world events.

Dismissed by some as a kook, a hater and a bitter man, Miller, in my eye, has revealed himself to be a deeply committed man who sounded an alarm about Islam long before comedian Bill Maher and others were finally willing to admit that Islam is positively dangerous to our society.

Vanderbilt Students protesting Dr. Swain's views on Islam

More and more members of the PC crowd now acknowledge that Islam has absolutely nothing in common with Christianity, nor is it a worthy part of the brotherhood of man I long felt was characteristic of the Abrahamic religions. A younger, more naive version of myself once believed in a world where the people of the Book could and would get along because they all claimed Abraham as their father. No more!

I met Miller a few years ago and heard his story of how he worked on Wall Street and survived the deaths of more than 200 friends in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Those attacks transformed him into a crusader who has risked his life and reputation to warn us about the dangers of radical Islam. He and the coalition have paid a price by being labeled as haters for engaging in activities designed to educate and awaken a sleeping public.

IMG_8675_2-vi

It is fascinating today to watch how world events have vindicated Miller in his warnings about the dangers of radical Islam. It becomes clearer every day that Islam is not just another religion to be accorded the respect given to Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Baha’i and other world religions. The Jan. 7 terrorist attack resulting in 12 deaths at the Paris offices of Charlie Hebdo, a satirical magazine that committed the apparently unpardonable sin of lampooning the Prophet Muhammad, once again illustrates that Islam is a dangerous set of beliefs totally incompatible with Western beliefs concerning freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and freedom of association.

As Miller has so often stated, Islam has a problem with the West. Islam will never understand the freedoms that we live and die to preserve. If America is to be safe, it must remove the foxes from the henhouses and institute serious monitoring of Islamic organizations.

IMG_8678_2-vi

Civic education and other indicators of assimilation should be a prerequisite for remaining and advancing in this nation. We must be willing to recognize the dangers of the burka (head-to-toe garb worn by women in some Islamic sects), which allows individuals to completely conceal their identities.

If Muslims are to thrive in America, and if we are to be safe, then we must have ground rules that protect the people from those who disdain the freedoms that most of the world covets.

Carol M. Swain, professor of political science and law at Vanderbilt University, is the creator and host of Be the People TV. www.bethepeopletv.com and www.carolmswain.net

1508050_1052520991440258_8231484074299171283_n

RELATED STORIES/VIDEOS:

vanderbilt-muslims-flip-a-script-after-conservative-professor-carol-swain-criticizes-islam

former-saturday-night-live-actress-victoria-jackson-gets-smeared-by-muslims-at-vanderbilt-university-for-telling-the-truth-about-islam

C.S. Lewis on The Evils of Statism

For decades, some Christians, both “conservative” and “liberal,” have unfortunately embraced an ill-conceived “progressive” (i.e., authoritarian) vision to wield intrusive government powersas an unquestionable and even sanctified calling for both domestic and international matters, abandoning the Christian, natural-law tradition in moral ethics and economics. In contrast, the Oxford/Cambridge scholar and best-selling author C. S. Lewis did not suffer such delusions, despite the gigantic and deeply disturbing advances and conflicts of total war, the total state, and genocides that developed during his lifetime.

Read the article at The Independent Institute:  http://blog.independent.org/2010/08/15/c-s-lewis-on-mere-liberty-and-the-evils-of-statism-part-1/

Found this at WRSA: https://westernrifleshooters.wordpress.com/

The Z man Looks at Liberal Kali Holloway

The Moronoverse (Universe for morons)

From Z man

For most of human history, the folks on the left side of the bell curve were ignored, as far as their opinions about community issues. This makes sense, obviously, as we don’t want to take advice from the stupid, the insane or the malicious. Human societies have had a variety of ways to handle it, mostly by keeping these people off the stage. Today, we give these people a megaphone and encourage them to fill the public space with their bellowing and hooting. Turn on any of the news channels and you get a full blast of stupid.

Mass communications has made it easy for all segments of society to “make their voices heard.” Most of these voices are just noise. They offer nothing of value. Twitter and Facebook make it easy for blockheads to reach out and “share” the ideas buzzing around in their heads. It’s why I call social media the “moronverse.”

Here is an excerpt from an Alternet article by Kali Holloway republished by Salon. See if anything about the GDP figures jumps out at you.

Read it all at Z blog:    http://thezman.com/wordpress/