February 28, 2015
Jeb Bush (do we really want to run a guy with the same first name as a failed Confederate general?) bused in supporters to try to artificially gin up support at CPAC.
Bush, the extreme right winger who is at least as conservative as Jimmy Carter, felt the need to strut his funky stuff at the Conservative Woodstock held in Washington. He understandably knew that it was going to be a tough crowd (tomatoes were conspicuously absent from the venders around the event) and sought to hear at least the sound of one hand clapping. According to Fire Andrea Mitchell:
" It sounds like Jeb Bush’s supporters are taking CPAC pretty seriously this year. Emails provided to Slate show that backers of the former Florida governor are busing supporters from downtown Washington D.C. to CPAC in National Harbor, Maryland, and organizing to get them day passes into the event.
One of the emails that went out this morning was from Fritz Brogan, a former advance man for then-President George W. Bush who (per the Washington Post) co-hosted a fundraiser for Jeb’s Right to Rise PAC earlier this month. A Bush insider confirmed to Slate that Bush’s Right to Rise PAC is helping organize the transportation.
"We strongly recommend arriving as early as possible to get a seat,” wrote Brogan in an email sent to undisclosed recipients. "Our ‘Early Rise’ team will be there at 7:30am onward helping reserve seats- if you want to join the early team, let me know.”
So Bush was not content to rest on the family jewels, er, laurels had to beg for mercy from his supporters.
Obviously, a number attended, or I should say a number of his supporters paid their cringing employees to attend. But Bush received a standing boovation and a group walkabout (straight out of the auditorium) as the Oracle of Dufus fired up the crowd with calls for amnesty for illegals. Then, like the black knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail, he called it a draw.
Why did Bush even bother to show up where he is not wanted? Why go to the trouble of packing the crowd? The mainstream media is touting his bravery and that attendees of the Conservative shindig applauded him. THIS is why; Bush wanted to create the illusion that there is a divide among conservatives and at the same time show himself as "standing up" to the "radicals" who he thinks hold "his" party hostage. It was something aimed at the wealthy donor class, a way to show he won't be pushed around by the Cons and that, in fact, he can win over some of their support, so they shouldn't give money to another RINO instead.
Remember, Bush said he doesn't need conservatives to win the general election, and he has promoted this fairy tale to the RINO business class. (Ask Mitt Romney how well that worked out; Romney won the "all important" moderates in the last election but lost because conservatives stayed home.)
This is the trouble with CPAC; it has ceased to be a Conservative event but is rather a Republican affair. Bush should never have been invited to speak. We know who Jeb Bush is. Frankly, even were he a good conservative it would be tough to elect another Bush, given the failures of both brother and father. But this guy isn't even Bob Dole.
The time for voting for a guy just to keep from sliding further left is over. The country is facing disaster, total disaster. We have to find a leader who will push back, roll back the Leviathan state. Bush will do nothing but accelerate the collapse. Yes, he will push it forward more slowly, but is it better to die from one mortal wound or a thousand paper cuts? It would almost be a kindness to slay America than watch it suffocate. I've put three cats down; I should know.
They shouldn't just have booed Bush, they should have shaved his whole body, painted him pink, and put him on an amtrac heading back to Florida.
Hat tip; the Gateway PUndit.
Facebook, the flowering narcissism, has decided that two sexes are not enough. In fact, they have decided that there are 58 of them.
According to Pedro Gonzales at American Thinker:
"Facebook used to give people the option to choose male or female for gender but quickly realized it was too limiting, so it created 58 more categories. Then it decided that the 58 categories weren't enough and now, in addition to them, is adding an "other" box, where you can write something in.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/02/facebook_says_58_gender_options_arent_enough.html#ixzz3T3tp4lUD
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook"
And Gonzales goes on to give us some of the more interesting choices, such as Neutrois - no sex - or Bigender - whatever one wants at the moment, or genderfluid (yes, they really call it that!).
Has there ever been a more self-absorbed or willfully rebellious people in human history? Pride goeth before a fall, and we have become so boastful that we have to have more sexes to choose from than there are Heinz sauces. Heck, it's more than the fifty shades of gray. That is hubris, to believe one can specifically tailor one's sex like a suit.
American Thinker has a thought-provocing article about the downside of the internet, specifically about the effects of the internet on personality development. Read it here.
The internet is a very dangerous thing. It is a wonderous achievement; instant information at your fingertips, fast communications with anyone, the ability to put out alternative viewpoints, etc. But there is a price to pay for everything, and the internet is going to have some whoppers. We do not yet know how thorough and damaging those consequennces may be.
First, the internet blurs the distinction between reality and fiction. Other medium have done this in the past, and certainly a good novel is should have that effect, at least temporarily. But it is nowhere as capable of immersing the individual into the fictional narrative as is the internet, which, while it may be read, is also interactive and feeds passively into the mind. Oh, and that it is full of pictures, and even films, makes it all the more powerful. Plus the collective nature of the internet puts enormous peer pressure on the young to accept the viewpoint being offered - and leads to fisking and other acts of cyber-bullying to discipline those who disagree.
In other words, it accelelerates peer pressure to lightspeed. And kids, who dare not unplug, are never really free from it.
If I were to design a tool to brainwash people it would look a lot like the internet. The only more effective way to do it, in my opinion, would be direct neural linkage. Without that (and it's coming too!) the internet is the best option.
And even if one assumes no brainwashing (and certainly the unregulated internet allows for a multiplicity of opinion) does it really serve the needs of the child?
There is a difference between being a man and looking like one. To be a man one must experience things - often hard things - and learn to be responsible. The internet has increasingly taken away the unpleasant experiences of growth. We all joke about the "slackers" who live in their mother's basements, but we never ask WHY they live there. They have been tranquilized wiht a narcotic, an electronic one rather than a chemical. Living inside a machine rather than facing the viccitudes of reality may be more pleasant in some regards, but it makes for a hollow person. Pain and suffering are no fun but they mean growth - moral, spiritual, and intellectual. Maturity cannot come to someone who never had to grow up. And in the end we were not meant to remain babies forever, and this immaturity will lead to a dissatisfaction, a longing, a vague, unspecified anger. Deep down we know it's wrong.
That is why I believe the whole gay marriage issue would not exist were it not for the internet. The internet is a machine designed to feed our wants, and it is unbounded. Pornography is one of the prime purposes to which the internet is put (I remember the first episode of the adult cartoon Futurama; the pizza delivery guy, frozen for hundreds of years, says "computers were mostly used for downloading porn in my time" to which the modern people responded "same now".) So what does this mean? It means that anyone can indulge any perversion at any time. It means that things that societal pressure may have held bound through education and religion can now be set free, because there is some community somewhere on the web and a person who may never even have dreamed of a certain act will now be titillated. And always there are others whispering invitation "come and see" and the intitee to damnation feels comfortable in the privacy of his own home and with the fellowship of those who wish him to partake of the forbidden fruit. And with the internet blurring the distinction between reality and fantasy, anyone who says "this isn't right" will be shouted down, the ultimate killjoy. It is no coincidence that gay marriage was first approved in the 2000 decade.
When any kid can see acts of sodomy with the click of a mouse the forbidden nature disappears. The lust of the eyes, the Bible calls it. Or as Hannibal Lecter said "we covet that which we see everyday".
The internet opens that all up. Now there are attempts to mainstream worse things. Pedophilia is the next big thing coming.
Oh, I know; homosexuals were pushing for acceptance before the internet, and the gay marriage crowd rode the wave. But I think that they would not have gotten anywhere near as far had the internet not existed. There would have been television shows like Will and Grace designed to break down cultural resistance, and they clearly work, but it would not have been anywhere nearly as easy.
I have heard it suggested that the big zombie craze stems from too much internet, and there is definitely something to be said; internet junkies are like zombies, and they DO eat brains, albeit electronically. The vampire craze tied in as welll; 29 year old "kids" living in their mother's basements are rather like vampires, sucking the lifeblood from their poor parents, or drawing money from the public trough in like fashion. These "kids" don't produce anything of value, don't accomplish anything, have no real purpose in their lives. Their lives revolve around computer keyboards, chatrooms, message boards, Twitter, Facebook,and Yahoo News. If television was a vast wasteland, how much more the modern electronic world?
The short-lived television show Jerico (a terrific program that should never have been canceled) was about a terrorist nuclear attack on the United States. As the small town in kansas (for which the show is named) struggled to survive, a teenage character took up with a rather stupid boyfriend. Said boyfriend proudly proclaimed "all we have to do is get the internet up and everything will be alright". When pressed on how people will "get stuff" he pondered for a moment, then said "we'll order it on the internet!" This was intended to illustrate the circular logic of the young who had been immersed in virtual reality too long, and it is right on the money. In the end there have to be people who live in reality for society to function. Virtual realilty is fun, but ultimately it is fantasy, a dream world of humanity. Reality is real, like it or not. As science fiction writer Phillip K. Dick said "reality is that thing which, when you stop believing in it, won't go away". Dick was right. Reality has a nasty habit of not taking no for an answer. Unfortunately, what we are doing now is telling our young people that reality is what they choose it to be.
The Left started this long ago. Frederich Nietzche argued for the Superman, the willed Man who simply chooses the course of reality. This was buttressed by others of his era, such as Sigmund Freud, or Margaret Mead (who claimed cultural mores and sexual differences were mere societal constructs and open to change with changes in human perception.) You then had the success of quantum physics, and the Copenhagen Interpretation which applied the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (which said you cannot know both the position and energy state of a subatomic particle - a measuring issue - at the same time). Copenhagen saw this principle expanded to all of reality, not just measurements at subatomic levels; we cannot truly know reality. This offended Edwin Schrodinger, who postulated his famous "cat in the box" thought experiment. Schrodinger's cat is today used as an illustrtion of quantum physics, but it was intended as an illustration of the absurdity of the Copenhagen Interpretation. Schrodinger argued thus; imagine a cat put in a box with a vial of cyanide. The vial is attached to a mechanism that will break the vial when a material atomically decays at random. Now seal the box, put it where it won't be fooled with (in orbit was his suggestion) and what do you have? The cat is in a state of indeterminacy, both dead and alive. It remains in that state until an observer opens the box and "collapses the wavefront" thus establishing IN OUR UNIVERSE the cats mortal existence.
Quantum physics actually suggests the cat is going to be both alive and dead, and in fact two different universes pop spontaneously into existence - one each for the decision. This is the multiverse, where every possible outcome occurs in one or another. Frankly, I got the shaft; in some universe I'm rich, healthy, good looking, and famous. How I wound up here is beyond me!
This concept was moved into the general public consciousness by liberal philosophy professors, and academia has aggressively promoted moral relativism and the like for decades. Who are we to judge another's reality? We all live in seperate realities, according to this view. So if a boy thinks he's a girl, who are we to stop him from using a girl's bathroom in school, or showering in the girl's locker room? If two men want to marry, who are we to say no?
When you blur the lines of reality enough, you no longer have anything to hold back chaos. Reality doesn't go away, but people's minds do. Irrationalism inevitably leads to the triumph of natural lusts as the mind is the first casualty in the war on objective reality.
Actually, Nietzche predicted this. He argued that eventually Western Civilization would turn against rationality when scientists and philosophers began questioning their fundamental assumptions. What is the most fundamental assumption of science? That things are knowable and work rationally, no matter how complex the system. Reality is real. That is the basis of science, or used to be.
And now it is slipping away. Global Warming theory is an example of that. It is based solely on computer models and eschews an actual, honest examination of the realities on the ground. Psychology (a science created to promote leftist political thought) has always been crawling with this sort of thinking, but now we are seeing it in many other areas as well. Neurobiologist keep trying to destroy the concept of free will, for instance. Haven't succeeded, but are dilligently working toward it. If we are nothing but a biological machine, a series of conditioned responses, then anything goes in the quest to perfect society.
And the internet offers an unprecedented tool to reshape reality, or at least the perception of reality. Many of the more atheistic persuasion understand this and are actively trying to utilize it. But even those who do not intend for it's misuse are walking down the Green Mile of sanity. It becomes too easy to forget what is actually real, and to come to believe a series of electronic on and off commands defines reality.
At what point do we stop believing in reality entirely? And who decides what reality will be? There will come a point where a small cadre will decide what everyone will believe, what basic core of the human mind will contain based on what will be allowed and promoted on the internet. We will become the cave dwellers in Plato's Republic, watching shadow images move across our field of view and not believing in reality even when we see it. I fear America is already sliding down that path.
In the end, God is what is real, and He decides what is real to us. The internet is an attempt to deify Man, to make US the God who decides reality. It, like the Tower of Babel long ago, will ultimately fail. But that failure is going to hurt like a mother... more...
Looks like Congress won't take this lying down!
From Fox News:
"Lawmakers are firing back at a proposal by the Obama administration to ban one of the most common bullets used with the popular AR-15 rifle, with more than 100 members of Congress signing a letter opposing the move on ammo"
February 27, 2015
(See Tim's argument with the same individual here http://tbirdnow.mee.nu/gay_marriage_civil_right_or_anarchic_rebellion)
Recently I had an exchange with a doctrinaire liberal named Asemodeus in the comments section of an American Thinker piece on same sex marriage. Notice how he tried to push the argument to an "inside the box" guilt trip he tried to get me to accept, excluding all well known historical and practical examples that contradict his theoretical argument. And note how I replied. It was both figuratively and literally like a joke punchline setup. Asemodeus never replied to my last line where I turned his own argument against him.
From the comment section of "Same Sex Marriage and Dred Scott:
JackKemp • 2 days ago
In the 19th Century, when two women lived together rather intimately (but not necessarily in a lesbian relationship), it was called "A Boston Marriage." If the Supreme Ct. says the definition of marriage that exists for over 4000 years is no longer The Law of the Land, then someone can marry their dog and avoid inheritance taxes lessening the individual's (estate) funds given to the dog's caretakers after they die. That could be called "A Boston Terrier Marriage."
flyovermark replies to JackKemp • 2 days ago
Coffee all over the keyboard, dammit.
Thanks a lot.
Asemodeus replies to JackKemp • 2 days ago
Another conservative that doesn't understand the meaning of consent. Which is rather scary to say the least.
starknakedtruth replies to Asemodeus • 2 days ago
Another LGBT Nazi that doesn't understand humor, but by all means...Carry on.
JackKemp replies to Asemodeus • 2 days ago
Asemodeus, if politics always held to narrow legal definitions, you would have a point. Property rights were cited in various 19th Century Supreme Ct. and state court rulings upholding slave owners rights, i.e., slavery. A broad definition of Privacy was the basis for the Supreme Ct. ruling in Rowe vs. Wade. And one standard liberal argument in the 1970s for the Equal Rights Amendment was, "It's not as if this would lead to gay marriage." Look it up.
Asemodeus, you also don't understand a good joke when you hear one. And yes, I wrote it myself and am guilty of bragging here.
Asemodeus replies to JackKemp • 2 days ago
I would suggest you look up what consent means before you harm someone.
JackKemp replies to Asemodeus • 2 days ago
Hey, Asemodeus, like the "consent" a fetus gives in order to be aborted because the Supreme Ct. said it was just a privacy issue?
Someone on tv described as a "personality" is a term that means "famous for being famous - often without talent." Examples are the Kardashians, Pia Zadora, Kato Kaelin (O.J. Simpson's house man) and Zsa Zsa Gabor.
Jonah Goldberg writes a great line in his article today, one I wish I had thought up. In talking about the failed show hosts of MSNBC, he says...
"The hope had been that Ronan Farrow, the Prius-dashboard saint of Brooklyn hipsters..."
Tony Messenger, editor of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, launches a political smear campaign against the GOP in Missouri using the still-warm corpse of State Auditor and Gubernatorial candidate Tom Schweich.
Schweich was found dead in his home, and police say it was a result of self-inflicted gun wounds.
Messenger, one of the most dishonest and partisan editors in the media, tried to link the GOP with the radical anti-semite Frazier Glenn Miller Jr., founder of the White People's Party, who stood outside two Jewish senior centers in Overland Park, Kansas and shot 3 people dead.
According to Messenger at the Past Disgrace:
"Had I not ignored his phone call to me at 9:41 Thursday morning — I was doing a thing at my kids’ school district — I might have been the last person to talk to the man who wanted to be governor. It made for a chilling day in which I decided to do something I’ve never done before as a reporter: reveal the contents of off-the-record conversations with a source. That source is now dead. I believe it’s what he would have wanted.
I have no idea why Schweich killed himself. But for the past several days he had been confiding in me that he planned to accuse the chairman of the Missouri Republican Party, John Hancock, with leading a "whisper campaign” among donors that he, Schweich, was Jewish.
He wasn’t, which is to say that he attended an Episcopal church, but that doesn’t mean he wasn’t proud of his Jewish heritage, passed down from his grandfather.
Missouri is the state that gave us Frazier Glenn Miller, the raging racist who last year killed three people at a Jewish community center in Kansas City. It’s the state in which on the day before Schweich died, the Anti-Defamation League reported on a rise of white supremacist prison gangs in the state.
Division over race and creed is real in Missouri Republican politics, particularly in some rural areas. Schweich knew it. It’s why all week long his anger burned.
His grandfather taught him to never give an inch where anti-Semitism was concerned, Schweich told me. His current political consultants — Hancock had been one early in Schweich’s career — told him to let it go. It’s not good politics to pick a fight with the party chairman.
But Schweich was no ordinary politician. He burst onto the scene by writing a scathing critique of U.S. Rep. Roy Blunt, suggesting the Washington insider would be a bad choice for the Republican nomination for U.S. Senate in 2010. Blunt outflanked Schweich, who decided to run for auditor instead. At the time of his death, he had his sights set on another office — governor — that was likely also out of reach."
I totally agree with Schweich about Blunt, by the way.
This is interesting, because we are once again being treated to claims by the Obama Administration that "right wing" terrorism is America's chief worry in 2015. This follows on the heels of numerous other claims that conservatives are the radicals, ready to murder and mayhem.
This follows the Missouri Fusion center report warning of right wing terrorism. It follows the report by the DHS a few years ago, a report they rescinded after public complaint. They have been trying to tar us with this blood libel for a long time. Oh, and it mostly comes from the Southern Poverty Law Center, a well known hate group.
Interestingly enough, the sovereign Citizens Movement is not at all right wing, but rather a neo-fascist, anarchic group with much in common with the "Occupy Wall Street" crowd. But it advances the narrative - and allows the Administration to use the considerable power granted to the government in recent years to combat terrorism - to call this group right wing, and it will empower the Administration to act with shock and awe against it's enemies.
Sovereign Citizen is anti-government in the same way as the Anarchists were; they want to destroy the Rule of Law to replace it with a socialist system.
Not really sure where the Administration comes off thinking these people are a greater threat than ISIS, Al Qaeda, The Muslim Brotherhood, or any of the groups that have openly advocated attacks on U.S. soil - and carried out some of the worst of them.
Be that as it may, the Left is ginning up another run at the "right wing terrorism" meme, and Messenger is right on board with this. That rural Missouri no longer supports Democrats adds fuel to Messenger's hatred, him all the more vitriolic against flyover Missouri.
Liberals disdain and despise Middle America, and it's obvious that Messenger can barely contain his distaste. He also despises conservatives and is happy to help Obama craft the meme of right wing terrorism. Apparently Schweich was a closet liberal, in this filthy article. And I do not believe a word he says.
He is a liar, and always has been.
Hat tip; Gateway Pundit
February 26, 2015
The Islamic State has issued a call to Muslims overseas to join with their Leftist brothers in Jihad against the Vatican and Christianity.
From The Gateway PUndit:
"The Islamist terrorist group ISIS is instructing Muslim sympathizers in Europe (and presumably the United States) to seek out leftist activists to form an "armed combat” alliance.
The armed alliance against European governments will further ISIS’s goal to conquer Rome by 2020.
The call to recruit leftists is in an eBook entitled Black Flags from Rome. The eBook is the subject of a two part report by Bridget Johnson at PJ Media. (Excellent reporting in both part one and part two.)
While Western leftist groups like Obama funder group Code Pink , ANSWER , and ISM have given political support and humanitarian aid to Islamist terrorists, there have been no readily apparent instances of Western leftists joining Islamist terrorist groups in committing terrorist acts in recent years.
Leftist terrorism in the West of late has been largely about the environment and animal rights. There were some attacks planned by leftists allied with the Occupy movement that were mostly ineffective or were disrupted by law enforcement. The anarchist Black Bloc groups have mainly attacked property and mostly used non-lethal weapons in protests.
In the 1970s and 80s, leftist groups including the Weathermen, Symbionese Liberation Army, the Red Brigades and the Red Army Faction (Baader-Meinfoff) waged a terror war in the United States and Europe.
Johnson says the ISIS eBook references the IRA and and a French Islamist group as examples of how to wage war and aid jihad in Europe."
Radical Islam and Leftism have walked the same path for quite some time, and in fact have many historical and cultural similarities. It is no surprise they are trying to form an alliance now.
Sadly, Christianity is in disarray, with the Pope being more worried about social justice than the coordinated assault on the Faith from all sides. The Pope is the man who should be leading the defenses, and yet this guy is awol. Sadly, none of the Protestants have stepped up to the plate, nor have the Orthodox.
Frankly, it's coming down to the Jews. God's chosen People are again being called to their historic role, to stand where all others have fled. Israel is fast becoming a New Jersey-sized Masada, with enemies on all sides. As prophecies in Luke:
The days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment against you and encircle you and hem you in on every side.
and indeed this very situation is fast approaching. Those who should be at work against this iniquity are mired in baseless speculation and pointless debate. Nobody wants to take a stand.
The twin heresies that plague the modern world are on the verge of totally routing us. The ability to turn this around is fast being taken out of our hands.
The New World Order is coming. Too bad so few are fighting it.
America's Muslim population is set to double to 6.2 million by 2030, becoming larger than any European nation except France and Russia.
According to the PEW report:
"Population projections by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life estimate that the number of Muslims in the U.S will more than double over the next two decades, rising from 2.6 million in 2010 to 6.2 million in 2030, and growing as a share from 0.8% of the total population to 1.7%. The growth in population is in large part due to immigration and higher-than-average fertility among Muslims. The estimated growth will put the American Muslim population on par with the Jewish and Episcopalian populations in the U.S today"
Given the troubles we see in Europe right now this is a very disturbing trend. And who do we have to thank for this? Barack Obama has opened the floodgates to all sorts of immigration, and it is his handiwork that has these Muslims pouring in.
According to Investor's Business Daily:
"The threat Muslim immigrants pose to homeland security was not addressed during the White House's three-day summit on terrorism.
Instead, Vice President Joe Biden assured Muslim groups gathered during one session that the "wave" of Muslim immigration is "not going to stop."
Wave? More like a tsunami.
Between 2010 and 2013, the Obama administration imported almost 300,000 new immigrants from Muslim nations — more immigrants than the U.S. let in from Central America and Mexico combined over that period.
This is a sea change in immigration flows, and it threatens national security.
Many of the recent Muslim immigrants are from terrorist hot spots like Iraq, where the Islamic State operates. From 2010-2013, Obama ushered in 41,094 Iraqi nationals from there.
Now the State Department says it will quadruple the number of refugees brought here from Syria, where IS is headquartered."
A couple of months ago there was a townhall meeting held in St. Louis to discuss bringing a large number of refugees from Syria.
If the Obama Administration wants to bring people in from terrrorist hot spots, why don't they sequester them somewhere. Settle them, say, on Kodiak Island, or some other place where they cannot make mischief - at least until we have the time to thoroughly vet these people. Remember, the Tsarnaevs got to not only come here but received citizenship despite warnings from the Russians and others that Tamarlan at least was a terrorist. There is no reason to believe that we can adequately vet refugees pouring out of the heart of darkness.
I am going to say something terrible; I believe Obama and his friends WANT some of these people to be terrorists. They feel we have been too comfortable, too secure for far too long, and Obama promised fundamental change, did he not? How better to change a country than to import enemies into the very heart of that nation. I think Obama believes it would be good for us to have to face "our demons". I believe he thinks some constructive destruction would be good.
And I further believe Obama is, if not a practicing Muslim, at least an associate, a cultural fellow traveller of sorts, like a Nancy Pelosi-type Catholic. He may not follow all the precepts, but he can talk the talk. Actually, I suspect he does more than talk...
Otherwise Obama is simply mad. Nobody in their right mind brings a bunch of people from enemy country and settles them in their own. Imagine if we had taken a bunch of Japanese during WWII and settled them across America! You could not try to lose a war any more effectively. And yet here our government is doing precisely that.
There will be blood from this, and it will be OUR blood, not theirs.
The World Health Organization, a U.N. affiliate, is trying to get a worldwide ban on advertising of sugary treats. According to the Free Beacon:
"The health arm of the United Nations does not want companies advertising cake, ice cream, or ice pops to children.
The World Health Organization (WHO) developed a "European nutrient profile” to be used by countries in order to ban the marketing of desserts. The "Nutrition, Physical Activity and Obesity Programme in the Division of Noncommunicable Diseases and the Lifecourse at the WHO Regional Office for Europe” developed the model.
"This model is designed for use by governments for the purposes of restricting food marketing to children,” the report said. "When determining whether a food product may or may not be marketed to children"
Given the rampant diseases in many Third World countries, the Ebola outbreak, the outbreaks of all sorts of diseases along the U.S. southern border, the fact of malnutrition throughout the Third World, why is the U.N. trying to ban advertising sugary snacks? Don't they have anything better to do with the money we give them?
You know why. Social Justice demands that we all eat alike, and if the poor cannot eat cake then we should not either, in the twisted view of the Leftists at the U.N. This is an old grievance of the liberals, that the West eats better than the Third World. Liberals have always been angry that we devote farmland to raising cattle, to producing milk, meat, eggs, cheese. They want us to grow grain (it takes four pounds of grain to make one pound of beef, for instance) and send the remainder to the poor overseas. The end game is to create a world diet, an international cuisine approved by the elites.
Liberalism is all about reinventing the wheel. They want to change everything about us, from what we eat to how we speak to what we wear and what we do. See, past efforts at world reform largely failed because the reformers were never able to make a clean, thorough break with the past. Customs and traditions die hard. So the past must be completely obliterated, and that means changing EVERYTHING. It is why liberals attack things that are seemingly trivial; they cannot allow us to have any remnants of our past culture. Once it is all gone, once they have a blank slate, they can begin constructing the "better" world they believe in so vehemently. Paradise cannot come but first come armageddon. Out with the old -all the old.
And diet is no small part of that. If we are to be one human family under a single government there must not be any differences between us, and that includes our diet. That is why things like fusion food is so trendy among the Progressive class; it is the anschluss of cuisines they admire.
And so, while people are starving in Africa, the WHO is busy trying to ban birthday cakes in Europe. Europe is not known to have the weight problems of the U.S., so why push it there?
Because they want to test the program where it is more likely to succeed. Europeans have always been more willing to follow the rules set down by the international elites, and once established there it will naturally make it's way here.
But I for one believe in tradition. I further would rather we open the door to true free markets, which would allow these poor nations to produce enough to feed themselves. Free markets always work when they are tried, but there has always been strong resistance to them from the ruling classes because they reduce their power. What aristocrat wants to compete with a Jed Clampett, a hillbilly who made his fortune through some act of God or through some uncouth commercial success? Better to impose economic restrictions, which can be sold as "for the public good" then squeeze out the competition. That is what crony capitalism is all about, and socialism is corporatism's kissing cousin. Both are, in the end, attempts to keep the general public down. And both are quite successful at it.
So the U.N. would rather share the poverty than expand the wealth. This is just one more smarmy attempt at it.
February 25, 2015
Feb 25, 2015, 1:22pm EST -
Hillary Clinton paid $300,000 to explain what ails the middle classByRick Newman 2 hours ago
I thought you might be interested in this articleReport: Defense cuts degrading military, US no longer able to fight 2 wars at same time.
The United States military does not currently have the ability to fight two major wars simultaneously, according to a new report, a significant reduction from the capacity enjoyed by defense officials for decades.
Does a rapist get visitation rights for the child he fathered? No he does not. He does not get anything except, rightly, a prison sentence.
America, and indeed the Western world created by the Progressives, is a strange place. During the 1960's the liberals hosted a "sexual revolution" which served to systematically dismantle the traditional moral values of our society. Anyone who said a young person should wait for marriage was a doddering old fuddy-dud, a geek, a Bible-thumper, or worse. Often it was considered repression to women to make them wait for marriage. Freedom, we were told, necessitated that these old hang-ups be eschewed; modernity meant the freedom to "make love, not war" , to indulge one's sexual desires whenever one wished.
This was actually nothing new. There was the "free love" movement of the early 20th century, and the Progressives of the day all wanted to recreate the world in such a way as to guarantee the quick and efficient removal of feminine garments. Margaret Sanger's husband once complained that his wife's deeply-held convictions all too often were an excuse to screw, and not inside the confines of marriage. Libertinism has been at the core of the Left for a long time.
And yet the most modern incarnation of the Prog/feminist vision for society is all about cutting off the flow of honey. Sex - no matter how consensual - is viewed as an act of violence against women. We see it on college campuses all the time, with dubious claims of rape made against young men foolish enough to indulge in a dalliance with a disturbed or angry womyn.
This has become enshrined in the culture of the feminists. They have what is known as the slutwalk, with their slogan "Whatever we wear, wherever we go, yes means yes and no means no". Which is disingenuous to the core; many college men have been devoured by the Left after the woman agreed initially.
But the unfairness of the "war on women" mantra of the Left is not the point of this post. The point is to make a few simple obvservations about this.
First, one must ask how many incidents of homosexual assault are dealt with on campus. It strikes me as strange that 1 in 5 college women will be sexually assaulted (according to our government) but it is always, always, always a heterosexual male doing the assaulting. If men are the problem then there should be a sizeable homosexual rape culture as well; as sizeable as the number of gay men on campus. If, as is sometimes argued, the gay men are somehow different, perhaps because they are more in tune with their feminine sides, then why aren't the more butch lesbians raping other women? The silence on homosexual rape is deafening.
And 1 in 5 is a ridiculous number anyway, far, far, far above the crime rates for the very worst metropolitan areas. Why? Because they have created the category of "sexual assault" when can be anything up to verbal "she's a slut" to unwanted one-time advances.
Well, I ask; if yes means yes and no means no, why don't Christian businessmen get the same courtesy?
Think about it; Christian businesses forced to participate in homosexual celebrations against their will are the equivalent of sexually assaulted college womyn. They are being forced to participate in a personal action against their will, and against their beliefs. A Christian photographer, or baker, or caterer decides what jobs to take based on their beliefs, as surely as a woman chooses what lovers to take. If a woman has the right to say no at any time in the most oblique and perhaps obscure way, then why is the Christian afforded any less protection? Certainly the Constitution never mentioned anything about dating but it does clearly delineate freedom of religion.
This doesn't happen because it is about homosexuals - the new sacred cow in modernity. The Progressive Left wants to give the same power to homosexuals as it has given to feminists on college campuses - the right to demand complete control at any time. It is actually not a different struggle at all; the same feminists who teach the joys of lesbianism as a means to "womyn empowerment" also demand the right to force their unwanted attention on Christians.
The destruction of Christianity is the endgame here. I give the Soviet constitution of 1936:
ARTICLE 124. In order to ensure to citizens freedom of conscience, the church in the U.S.S.R. is separated from the state, and the school from the church. Freedom of religious worship and freedom of antireligious propaganda is recognized for all citizens.
Sounds good, no? But a closer look should give one pause. First, the "church is separate from the state and the school from the church. What does that mean? Theoretically it is similar to the Establishment Clause in the U.S. Constitution, but it is worlds away. For one, it was used to BAN any form of religious education including Sunday schools. How does a religion survive without being able to teach the faith? The second part "freedom of worship and freedom of antireligious propoganda" is a sneaky tactic designed to force religion into the closet. See, religion isn't given the right to propogandize, but the anti-religious groups are. What that meant was that a Christian could be arrested for any actions promoting religion outside of a licensed worship facility, while atheists could hand out flyers and whatnot on the steps to the church. Equal rights were not granted to all citizens equally.
And this is exactly what the Left is trying to do with gay marriage. Christians are free to believe what they wish but they have to keep it to themselves. Once in the outside world they have no right to say no. It is a type of religious rape, where the Believer cannot say no.
Remember when people said that a woman dressed provocatively "must have wanted it"? That has been condemned pretty much universally, and yet how is forced commerce in violation of religious beliefs different? If a sluttish woman has the right to say no to sex, why doesn't a Christian have the right to say no to forced commerce? In both instances the victim is trying to protect their own virtue, or at least what has been given to them. If a woman owns her body does not that woman also own her soul?
But the overarching plan is to squeeze any vestiges of our old Judeo-Christian heritage out of public life, ultimately with the intent to kill it. Nobody can convert to a religion if they know nothing of it. That is why the Left promotes Islam; it is an alternate religion, one the public will be intimately aware of thanks to public school education. But Christianity must be closeted.
That is what all of this was ultimately aimed at. The Sexual Revolution was just a tool to destroy the Church. That has always been the enemy to the Left.
Why does no mean no where sex is concerned but not religion? By modern definitions of sexual assault religion is being gang raped.
Here's a great smack in the face to Hillary:
29 queries taking 0.0855 seconds, 172 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.