In honor of Festivus I decided to make a list ...
I've got a lot of problems with you people and now you're gonna hear about it!
Don't argue with me. I'm right. If you do these things, I assure you that you are pissing people off and one day you might get punched in the mouth, in which case you would deserve it.
1) Ya know when it's daytime but the sun is covered with a wall of clouds? Overcast. Yeah, during this time about 90 percent of people use headlights, while about 10 percent of you have not only managed to buy a vehicle without daylights but you drive around without putting your lights on. This is absolutely annoying. People cannot see you well and apparently you are shocked when people pull out in front of you. Put your damn lights on, moron. You know damn well people can't see you well and you can see that most everyone else has their lights ON. Just because it's daytime, doesn't mean you don't need your lights. Put them on, a$$clown.
2) You just got done shopping at the grocery store or Walmart and you take your cart outside in order to load your vehicle and then what do you do? Well, if you're a decent person you put the cart back or you can even put the cart in one of the stations that are conveniently located in the damn parking lot.
Of course it never fails whenever I go the super market, some jerk-off always manages to have left their cart in a parking stall prohibiting me from gaining access to that stall. Put the damn cart back, people!
Even worse, after I go to put my cart back, I tend to collect a few on my way, ya know cause I'm a decent person, and some a$$ face decides to put their cart near me because they just expect me to put it back for them. I've even had to snap back at a man doing this, "That doesn't belong there." He somehow looked surprised and finally managed to put his cart in the cart station.
You are not entitled to be a jerk. The world doesn't owe you any favors. Yes, they have people who collect carts but, did you not have a father at home to teach you how to behave appropriately? It's seriously the rudest and laziest type of behavior I witness from week to week. Unload your groceries or whatever and get your fat a$$ moving with the cart and walk the 20 or 30 feet necessary to return the damn cart. It's not that hard. There is NO excuse for your lazy a$$. If you have kids, it's all the more important that you teach them to be decent people, rather then teaching them to be lazy blockheads.
3) If you or anyone you know decide to walk around at night, it would behoove you to wear light colored clothing. I swear to goodness, I do NOT understand how it is people do not know to wear light colored clothing. You are an idiot who deserves to be hit by a car at night. Crossing in the middle of the street, not even at an intersection AND wearing all black at night is akin to putting your tongue on metal pole in the dead of winter. It's plain stupid.
Teach your children to wear light colored clothing at night, especially if they are going to be out wandering around in the street when the sun is not up. It's not that hard. It's called having common sense but amazingly enough too many people lack.
Okay, that's it for now but, I have a feeling I will be adding to this.
Happy Festivus!!!!
2014-12-23
2014-12-21
Lena Dunham Meg Lanker -Obsession With Conservative "Rapists"
Apparently, Lena is a writer for a TV show. I don't know. Honestly, I looked her up, never heard of her, never heard of her show either. I really don't watch TV much so, it's not surprising that I have never heard of her. It seems she is quite loved by many in Hollywood and appears to be revered as some typical leftist/feminist. The very first time I heard about her was over a book she wrote this last year, "Not That Kind of Girl."
The first wave of attention was garnered over some passages in her book that referred to her relationship with her sister. In the book she makes some unusual statements about growing up with her younger sister and exploring her sister's body. Okay, we've all heard of children who sex-play but the stories that are in Dunham's book are unnecessary and creepy.
She claims she would bribe her sister with candy in order to kiss her. She also states that she would lie in bed with her sister while she would sex-play with herself and even goes so far as to describe herself as behaving much like a sexual predator.
The worst of all these jaw-dropping confessions has to be:
One day, as I sat in our driveway in Long Island playing with blocks and buckets, my curiosity got the best of me. Grace was sitting up, babbling and smiling, and I leaned down between her legs and carefully spread open her vagina. She didn’t resist, and when I saw what was inside I shrieked. “My mother came running. “Mama, Mama! Grace has something in there!”
My mother didn’t bother asking why I had opened Grace’s vagina. This was within the spectrum of things that I did. She just got on her knees and looked for herself. It quickly became apparent that Grace had stuffed six or seven pebbles in there. My mother removed them patiently while Grace cackled, thrilled that her prank had been such a success.When Lena was criticized about these passages and their undeniable creepy and bothersome imagery, she lashed out. She took to Twitter and went into what she referred to as a "rage spiral" because apparently this woman has never been criticized for her behavior and even more vexing is the fact that she believes her actions to have been normal.
Let me just tell you what I find terribly alarming. The way Lena writes this passage conjures up images of erotica. "Carefully spread... She didn't resist..." The child is one year old, she is likely accustomed to having her diaper changed. The addition of describing her sister not resisting is superfluous and smutty.
Then she goes on to say her mother didn't even ask her why she was looking at her sister because "This was within the spectrum of things that I did"? Why would a mother accept this as appropriate behavior? What on earth is the matter with her mother? The passage forces us to question this mother since a child of one year is not prone to stuffing things into their private area.
Where does a one-year-old gather pebbles, then later place them inside their vagina, and somehow have the acumen of believing they were playing a prank? Huh? I guess because her mother is apparently a brain-dead idiot, Lena thought her audience would also believe such an insipid story. It's fairly obvious to anyone with a few neurons that either she or her mother were placing objects inside of that poor baby's vagina. So yes, this story should indeed cause one to be alarmed. Why Lena is so shocked by the reaction she received only shows how truly sheltered this woman has been up until now. Of course the other explanation is she just made the whole thing up.
Just as the dust was settling from these passages, more claims from her book about a man raping Lena while she attended college began to be discussed in the news.
As for this story, Lena offers up some pages describing a bad date. A man named Barry who was a ...wait for it.... CONSERVATIVE on her very liberal Oberlin College campus, who wore purple cowboy boots, had a mustache, worked at the school library, and had a voice like Barry White took her out and then had rough sex with her. She later confesses in the book that the sex was not only rough but unwanted.
As it turns out, there was indeed a Barry that went to Oberlin during the time period she describes and he was indeed a prominent conservative on campus. There were no other Barry's at the college during that time and certainly no other conservatives that even remotely fit into her description of who this man was. Breitbart's website did an exclusive story about figuring out who this "Barry" character was. The man they found has no idea who Lena is and he has been fighting to clear his name. For months he tried getting Random House (the publisher), and Dunham to clear his name.
On September 30th, 2014 Lena's book was released. It would be the the first week of October that Barry would contact an attorney about clearing his name. Not until Dec 8th and 9th would Random House and Dunham publicly clear Barry's name. Random House has also offered to pay any legal fees Barry has incurred. Lena writes:
To be very clear, “Barry” is a pseudonym, not the name of the man who assaulted me, and any resemblance to a person with this name is an unfortunate and surreal coincidence. I am sorry about all he has experienced.Her article carries on about her and her views and her ideas. She offers no empathy for the man she very clearly set-up from the beginning. If the man wasn't Barry, then why did you chose that name? Why was this man her target? Is it because she has such a hatred of conservatives she believed it to be funny to ruin an innocent man's life, rather than go after the ACTUAL man that violated her? Or is this just a made up story created to attack her adversaries?
Here's another passage that bothers me:
I have a certain empathy for the journalists who asked me questions like whether I regret how much I drank that night or what my attacker would say if he was asked about me. These ignorant lines of inquiry serve to further flawed narratives about rape, but these people are reacting to the same set of social signals that we all are — signals telling us that preventing assault is a woman’s job,..."Yes, yes, it IS a woman's job to do whatever she can to prevent an assault. I don't understand how feminists can preach to people about empowerment and then drop the ball when it comes to advocating for women to empower themselves by taking care of themselves, protecting themselves. I agree, there are many cases in which a woman will be assaulted no matter what. If a guy is interested in raping a woman, it's likely he will find a way to do it. However, women DO need to take responsibility for their actions and they do need to do whatever they can to prevent themselves from being attacked. Be alert; don't get wasted in public or at a party; don't accept drinks from strangers; don't leave your drink unattended; don't use drugs. Also, be a friend. If you're out with a friend, watch them. Don't ever just drop someone off and drive off - wait for them to enter their home.
No, I'm not saying blame the victim but if you know damn well how certain actions are perceived then don't give anyone the fuel for those harsh assertions to be made in the aftermath. We ALL make mistakes and we ALL do foolish things but, if we can limit these mistakes by learning from them, we can limit the chances of those mistakes turning into life-changing moments.
Interestingly, Lena also made some small headlines by hiring on artists to perform at her tour. Multiple cities and multiple performances for no pay! Mind you, Lena is not hurting in the money department and can easily afford to pay these opening acts yet it wasn't until pressure was applied that she finally submitted and agreed to compensate those artists with money for their performances.
Lena's case is not the only case where a liberal woman makes accusations about a unnamed conservative - meet Meg Lanker.
Earlier in 2014, this young liberal college student thought it would be entertaining to go onto a Facebook page called UW Crushes. This page is for students who attend University of Wyoming and want to post about their crushes. One scathing and alarming post read:
“I want to hate f--- Meg Lanker-Simons so hard. That chick that runs her liberal mouth all the time and doesn’t care who knows it. I think its hot and it makes me angry. One night with me and shes gonna be a good Republican b----” [sic]Well, Meg found out about this post and created her own response:
"Remember, there was a creeper that took the time to think this up and type it..." Yes and that creeper was Meg herself.
Even more disturbing is the fact that Meg has been in trouble before. In 2006, she decided to point a gun at her ex-boss, a man who had previously fired her.
Lanker-Simons “admitted to having (a) gun in (her) purse and pulling it out and waving it around (the) victim,” according to the affidavit.
She pled guilty and received six- years of probation. At the time, Lanker-Simons went by the name Meghan Michelena, according to the Laramie Boomerang.
It's easy to look at these woman and dismiss them as being stupid, fat, man-hating feminists. I'll admit, I have a habit of lobbing insults from time to time. However, this salty language does nothing in a productive sense. So setting the easy insults aside, one must ask - what the hell is going on here?
You would think that Dunham and Lanker would have some cognizance of the fact that false allegations ultimately end up hurting women who are true victims. Is it any wonder that so many people immediately become skeptical the moment someone is accused of rape, when many of the cultural references we have end up being false?
In November of 2014 Rolling Stone published a now-infamous article entitled, A Rape on Campus: A Brutal Assault and Struggle for Justice at UVA. The story is emotionally-packed concerning a young girl named Jackie who attends the University of Virginia. She describes a horrific scene that played out one evening at a frat house party where she was drugged and finally raped by several of the fraternity members.
The story is compelling and easy to believe. Anyone who has attended a frat party can relate to the confusing ambiance that seems to be a universal trait of such parties. Young freshman girls offered hard-liquored drinks disguised as fruity refreshments and being led off to the rooms on a higher floor can been seen as commonplace. The point is, when reading the story, it seemed possible even probable.
Yet, after the story was published the details were called into question. The story that Jackie told Rolling Stone was not the same one offered up to her friends that night. Her friends did not notice any blood on her and they deny ever encouraging her to keep her mouth shut, rather they wanted to take her to the hospital. There are also discrepancies about who she named as her attackers. In any case, you can read more about it elsewhere but, the main issue here is that her story has turned out to be generally false and cannot be confirmed. Again, I have to ask - what the hell is going on here?
Why would any woman feel some benefit for themselves or for others by making false accusations?
Take the recent case of Bill Cosby. None of the accusations have been taken seriously until now and it's only because multiple women have been victims. Without those other women corroborating the stories, I'm afraid that nobody would ever believe these women.
Rape is indeed something very serious and it can only be taken seriously when real victims come forward, not those that seek to be victims in order to catch headlines to further some delusional political agenda. Are these women so spiteful and filled with hate of conservatives and/or men that they felt it would be funny or a positive thing to falsely accuse a conservative of making threats or rape? How did they believe things would play out? Did they really believe they were so slick that they would outsmart everyone and get away with destroying lives over their obsessive hate? Where is the liberal outrage? Why are there not other liberals standing up and demeaning these women for ultimately hurting real victims?
I'm unsure about the Jackie-story. There is no indication that politics had anything to do with the accusation but certainly the fact that the story appears to be a hoax about rape is what makes the story another distraction that ultimately hurts victims and helps perpetrators go untouched.
I can't think of anything more hateful than launching a full-on false accusation campaign against a group of people for the sole purpose of advancing an agenda. I would hope that this is not the type of behavior that most liberals approve of but so far, it seems like many on the left side seem to not have much of a problem with Dunham or Lanker. In fact, some people are actively supporting these two and even congratulating them for their bravery?!
It is a bit odd, isn't it? I would say that both of these women indeed need help and it's clear from Dunham's stories along with her unusual parents that either she was abused or she did engage in abuse. I'm not quite sure. If Lena were a young boy who did exactly the same thing with her sister, would the same people supporting her, claiming she did nothing wrong, be saying the same thing? Or worse if Lena were a Republican saying these same things, would these same people insist she did nothing wrong? "Oh she was just exploring." Would that truly be the answer they would give? I think not.
It seems as if neither of these women have been criticized before. They have led a life that allows them to believe they did nothing wrong. Portraying oneself as a victim of a man is somehow endearing and should be congratulated. Lanker has even been rewarded for her blog, while Lena's book continues to gain attention and praise. They are drama queens who are desperate for attention.
In the end we have to keep things into perspective. We must acknowledge that these woman do not speak for all woman. We must also encourage women to take charge of their own lives, do everything they can do to personally ensure their own safety and to speak up when it's appropriate.
To those women who would falsely accuse someone of such a horrific crime for the sake of politics, for the sake of attention, YOU are the problem and YOU are the ones making life out there for REAL victims painful. You are causing real victims to stay silent while perpetrators are free to attack again. Please stop. Get help because you are doing nobody any favors. The ends do not justify the means.
LINKS and RESOURCES:
Lena Dunham's father is an artist of some kind. If you'd like to view his "work" which resembles something a child would draw, you can click here. Be aware that many of these paintings are quite perverted and are NSFW.
http://ethicsalarms.com/2013/05/03/unethical-quote-of-the-week-meg-lanker-simons-is-innocent-facebook-page/
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2014/12/09/attorney-barry-one-would-like-a-statement-directly-from-lena-dunham
http://www.salon.com/2014/10/17/the_rights_lena_dunham_delusion_anger_misogyny_and_the_dangers_of_business_as_usual/
http://www.buzzfeed.com/lenadunham/lena-dunham-why-i-chose-to-speak-out
http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2014/12/16/surreal-coincidence-7-unnecessary-details-in-lena-dunhams-rape-story-point-to-barry-one/
http://falserapeculture.tumblr.com/post/50735535874/update-on-the-meg-lanker-simons-saga-original
http://gawker.com/lena-dunham-does-not-pay-1640249043
http://twitchy.com/2014/11/01/i-feel-sick-its-not-just-right-wing-disturbed-by-lena-dunhams-story-about-being-a-weird-7-year-old/
http://reason.com/archives/2014/11/11/lena-dunham-sexual-predator-not-so-much
2014-12-18
When All They Can Do Is Call You a Racist Part II
So, my first article was okay but I feel as if perhaps I've left some things out so I will just continue here...
1) I feel this entire Ferguson episode can be looked upon as an opportunity for conservatives to better engage in dialogue with many blacks. We first need to acknowledge, there is a segment of the black population that does indeed feel as though the system is against them. Whether this feeling is justified or not, we must at least acknowledge this.
Putting aside our egos, even our ideology for a moment can give us an opportunity to further investigate the problems and concerns that many black people have. Let's think of honest, sincere ways to inform blacks that we are not racist; we are not against them; we as conservatives are actually quite inclusive of all people. The time has come for us to all learn how to better communicate with those that feel so oppressed.
2) Try to keep the argument focused. Yes, black on black crime does occur in larger numbers but, bringing up this fact seems to be quite unproductive in any conversation. I have stated before in the previous article that this merely appears as if we are trying to move away from the original argument.
The first focus needs to be about asserting the importance of equal treatment for all. In our courts a man is innocent until proven guilty. While our justice system is not perfect, it is one of the best for this reason. Every man deserves to be treated equally under the law.
3) I do believe that racism still exists however, I feel as though people have a right to be stupid. I do not condone the behavior of certain folks who are publishing information about people who's opinions they do not like and view as being racists for the purposes of trying to get these people fired from their jobs.
There is a website that is currently browsing social media - mostly Twitter and Facebook and then taking the time to try and locate where these people live, work, and their phone numbers. Even worse, they are publishing scripted phone calls where a person is encouraged to call the person's place of employment and proceed to try and get them fired. While I agree that most the posts are overtly racist and distasteful, while I was browsing the website it appears as though they have already had to make a correction since one of the accounts they "exposed" was actually hacked by someone else. Not only did the person have to deal with her account being hacked, she was further harassed by this mob on the internet, until they were informed of the hack.
Let's agree, we hate racists. However, there is a danger in going after a man's ability to provide for his family. Putting a man or woman out of job is not going to help them - it's going to hurt us all. Furthermore, if they are already racists, you have permanently assured everyone that they will remain racists because of these actions.
Another problem is that the internet can only give you so much information. The details of a person's address or place of employment could be real, could be fake, could be old and outdated - we just do not know. So, if the information is outdated, a person who has absolutely NOTHING to do with the racist posts via social media could end up being harmed or harassed for doing nothing.
No, I'm sorry. I might hate racists just as much as the next person but, I believe in dealing with people directly or if it's over the internet, just block them and leave them alone. Isolating these people is not only the best for your sanity but, for everyone in general.
3) "Robbing a store doesn't mean he deserved to be murdered!" No, of course robbing a store is not grounds for being killed. Again, I suppose some depraved people out there do feel this way but I can say that for myself and many others, this is not at all what anyone is suggesting.
The point of bringing up the robbery is that is demonstrates a state of mind that Brown possessed that day and perhaps in general. As far as I know, Brown's record - if he has one - has not truly been vetted. It's tough for me to watch that video of him robbing and grabbing the clerk and think, "Oh, this must be his first offense." Call me crazy but that didn't look like a first-timer move. It's clear he did not have much respect for other people, their property, the law, and certainly no respect for authority.
It's clear that Brown and his friend were walking down the middle of the road. It's also been established that the two of them did not comply with the officer's request to get on the sidewalk. We also know from witnesses and from forensics that there was indeed a scuffle in or around the door of Officer Wilson's vehicle and that's Brown's DNA was found all over the interior door of the vehicle, on the door handle, and on the uniform of Officer Wilson.
Excerpt from Witness 44 interview #2, referencing the actions of Brown:
A) Witnesses can only provide a unique and limited perspective. This basically means that one witness on one side of an altercation or event will have a different view, a unique view, when compared to another witness who is positioned in another area. It is because of this that witnesses can often have differing testimony yet, they are describing the same event.
B) All people are prone to having biases. This is always present and biases can even present themselves when there is absolutely no reason or no emotional attachment to the event or situation. Confirmation bias is what occurs when we have an idea in our mind and instead of applying a true-test methodology to falsify our idea, we often end up merely confirming what we believe.
Let me give you an example of how confirmation bias works. Keep in mind that the following is NOT an intelligence test. It is merely to demonstrate bias. Here is a statement I am trying to TEST:
If a card has the letter A on it, than it will have an 8 on the other side.
I have four cards that I place in front of you. You are allowed to chose two of them to test this statement. The cards are as follows:
A J 2 8
Looking at the cards, which two would you use to test the statement given above? You can go ahead and give yourself some time to think but also think about WHY you are choosing the cards.
(scroll down)
What did you guess? If you are like most people, you will chose the card with the letter A and the one with the number 8. We tend to do this because the original statement gave us both the letter A and the number 8. Without realizing it, by choosing these cards, we are confirming our bias. In essence we find ourselves trying to confirm the statement rather than testing it.
In order to test the statement, "If a card has the letter A on it, than it will have an 8 on the other side," we have to try and falsify it, not support it. The statement says, "If A, than 8" ...so choosing A is necessary because it fulfills the qualification of the statement. We would not chose J because even if it did have the number 8 on the other side, the statement never mentioned anything about the letter J, it mentions only A as a necessity.
Now, if we chose 8 and turn the card over and find an A, that only confirms our BIAS. It could be only a mere coincidence that we find an A, and if we find another letter, that leaves us with the same problem we would have if we chose the J card. The statement only says, "If A, than 8..." so again, because the statement does not say anything about another letter, it would prove/disprove nothing.. Instead we must turn over the 2 and only then if we turn over the card and find the letter A could we disprove the statement, or conversely if we found another letter we would prove the statement - hence, a true-test.
So what's the point here? The point is that you have no attachment whatsoever to this problem. In fact, you could care less about these cards or this experiment yet, if you are like most people, you naturally have a bias of some sort. It's just natural. Our brains like to fill in what we think should be there based on other information given to us. Since the information given used the letter A and the number 8, we naturally assumed that those would be the cards we would use to test the statement.
When you have a case that was so emotionally charged from the beginning and stories being told all around about who did what and when and how, it's hard for some witnesses to be truly objective about what they witnessed. They may fill in details in order to satisfy those around them. Nobody wants to be perceived as the "weird one" or the odd person out. People like to conform; it's a part of evolution and survival. Biases are natural and whenever we consider any witness, we must always understand that this does occur. Again, this is yet another reason we find that multiple witnesses can often have great disparities about what they saw.
If a person has a biased opinion of police in general, their minds will have a difficult time with looking objectively at an event. A person might "fill-in" details that confirm their bias about cops. Any action by a police officer can then be interpreted as being something quite negative.
We now understand that bias can happen when we are not even aware, so imagine how hard it is for someone to ignore their bias when a case like this is extremely emotional and political?
The fact that there were indeed African-American witnesses that conclusively support the police officer's version of the story, and are quite similar, makes these witnesses extremely credible.
C) When police investigate, they too may have biases so, they must "test" each of the statements given to them. The investigation in this case shows that the witnesses' statements were indeed helpful but ultimately it would be the forensics that filled in the information, giving a full picture of what occurred.
D) Witnesses are important only to a certain degree. Both the defense and prosecution can use witnesses for support or to debunk claims made by the other side. In the end however, eye witnesses can be notoriously unreliable. It really depends on the case, where it occurred, when it occurred, and the circumstances surrounding the event or crime. This leads to the next point...
5) Our best evidence comes to us through forensics. Objective evidence can be collected and tested in the lab. DNA for example is not bias. Either the DNA matches the suspect or it does not. In this case the autopsy is the most comprehensive objective evidence we have. Now of course interpretations of an autopsy can produce bias and this is why multiple autopsies were performed.
In this case, we do know that Brown was not shot from behind; he was not shot while the officer was standing above him; he was not shot with his hands up. While witnesses can help support this, it is not necessary since the autopsies confirm these facts.
6) Evaluation of objective evidence and witness testimony can determine credibility. There were several problems with witnesses during the investigation. These issues were exposed during interviews and during the Grand Jury procedure. For example, witnesses made statements based on assumptions.
Grand Jury Volume XVI October 27, 2014 Page 77:
This is just ONE example and let me tell you, the further I went along in reading the volumes that were published the more clearer it became just how utterly ridiculous this entire case was from the beginning.
7) There is a sad story that underlines this entire case. The fact is, we have people who were afraid to go to the police for fear of being harmed and we have youth who believe that they should never trust the police nor should they respect the police. These are very real and serious issues that need to be addressed.
It's definitely time to open up a dialogue. I can only hope that there will be enough people interested in actually taking the time to listen, rather than spending their time shouting out catchy phrases about injustice or name-calling.
----------------------------------
Eric Garner, another man who died after being arrested by the police caught the attention of many after that Grand Jury returned a no indictment ruling on the police in that incident.
In that case, Eric was a career criminal selling cigarettes in an illegal manner. He refused to comply with authorities and as such he was placed in a hold and taken down. This action has been blamed as the cause of his death. Medical attention was given and he died en route to the hospital.
It's fairly certain the man would not have died under normal circumstances. Eric was an extremely obese man who suffered from asthma and other health problems. Had he cooperated with authorities, there would have been no need to take him down in the manner that was presumed. It seems to have been his intimidating size that prompted the police to take the actions they did.
One could easily argue Garner should not have been arrested in the first place. That would require a discussion on our current over-reaching laws. However there is no denying that a person really takes their own lives in their hands when they forcibly refuse to be arrested.
It is quite doubtful that race was involved as some motivating factor with the police in either of these cases yet, the racist narrative seems to be the only one considered by many people.
Racism can very well be a factor in some cases where the person being arrested is of a different skin color than the arresting officer. Police brutality can and does occur. However, each case must be looked at objectively and individually. Many actions by police are indeed justified and they are motivated by circumstance, not race.
How can we move forward in our discussions? How can we better acknowledge the full picture and communicate with those who are only seeking to confirm their bias, rather than looking objectively at the facts?
Links and Resources:
http://apps.stlpublicradio.org/ferguson-project/evidence.html
http://neuronbomb.wordpress.com/2014/11/28/the-ferguson-masterpost-how-to-argue-eloquently-back-yourself-up-with-facts/#FakeFacts
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/11/28/IN-FERGUSON-WITNESS-INTIMIDATION-LYING-BY-COMMUNITY-OF-COLOR
http://wreg.com/2014/11/26/some-witnesses-admitted-lying-during-darren-wilson-testimony/
1) I feel this entire Ferguson episode can be looked upon as an opportunity for conservatives to better engage in dialogue with many blacks. We first need to acknowledge, there is a segment of the black population that does indeed feel as though the system is against them. Whether this feeling is justified or not, we must at least acknowledge this.
Putting aside our egos, even our ideology for a moment can give us an opportunity to further investigate the problems and concerns that many black people have. Let's think of honest, sincere ways to inform blacks that we are not racist; we are not against them; we as conservatives are actually quite inclusive of all people. The time has come for us to all learn how to better communicate with those that feel so oppressed.
2) Try to keep the argument focused. Yes, black on black crime does occur in larger numbers but, bringing up this fact seems to be quite unproductive in any conversation. I have stated before in the previous article that this merely appears as if we are trying to move away from the original argument.
The first focus needs to be about asserting the importance of equal treatment for all. In our courts a man is innocent until proven guilty. While our justice system is not perfect, it is one of the best for this reason. Every man deserves to be treated equally under the law.
3) I do believe that racism still exists however, I feel as though people have a right to be stupid. I do not condone the behavior of certain folks who are publishing information about people who's opinions they do not like and view as being racists for the purposes of trying to get these people fired from their jobs.
There is a website that is currently browsing social media - mostly Twitter and Facebook and then taking the time to try and locate where these people live, work, and their phone numbers. Even worse, they are publishing scripted phone calls where a person is encouraged to call the person's place of employment and proceed to try and get them fired. While I agree that most the posts are overtly racist and distasteful, while I was browsing the website it appears as though they have already had to make a correction since one of the accounts they "exposed" was actually hacked by someone else. Not only did the person have to deal with her account being hacked, she was further harassed by this mob on the internet, until they were informed of the hack.
Let's agree, we hate racists. However, there is a danger in going after a man's ability to provide for his family. Putting a man or woman out of job is not going to help them - it's going to hurt us all. Furthermore, if they are already racists, you have permanently assured everyone that they will remain racists because of these actions.
Another problem is that the internet can only give you so much information. The details of a person's address or place of employment could be real, could be fake, could be old and outdated - we just do not know. So, if the information is outdated, a person who has absolutely NOTHING to do with the racist posts via social media could end up being harmed or harassed for doing nothing.
No, I'm sorry. I might hate racists just as much as the next person but, I believe in dealing with people directly or if it's over the internet, just block them and leave them alone. Isolating these people is not only the best for your sanity but, for everyone in general.
3) "Robbing a store doesn't mean he deserved to be murdered!" No, of course robbing a store is not grounds for being killed. Again, I suppose some depraved people out there do feel this way but I can say that for myself and many others, this is not at all what anyone is suggesting.
The point of bringing up the robbery is that is demonstrates a state of mind that Brown possessed that day and perhaps in general. As far as I know, Brown's record - if he has one - has not truly been vetted. It's tough for me to watch that video of him robbing and grabbing the clerk and think, "Oh, this must be his first offense." Call me crazy but that didn't look like a first-timer move. It's clear he did not have much respect for other people, their property, the law, and certainly no respect for authority.
It's clear that Brown and his friend were walking down the middle of the road. It's also been established that the two of them did not comply with the officer's request to get on the sidewalk. We also know from witnesses and from forensics that there was indeed a scuffle in or around the door of Officer Wilson's vehicle and that's Brown's DNA was found all over the interior door of the vehicle, on the door handle, and on the uniform of Officer Wilson.
Excerpt from Witness 44 interview #2, referencing the actions of Brown:
Yeah, like just instantly the car..pulled backwards, he just instantly like ran to the window like he had something to say to him.4) There is more testimony and of course the documents have been released. What is important here is that when we have several different witnesses we must understand a few important points:
A) Witnesses can only provide a unique and limited perspective. This basically means that one witness on one side of an altercation or event will have a different view, a unique view, when compared to another witness who is positioned in another area. It is because of this that witnesses can often have differing testimony yet, they are describing the same event.
B) All people are prone to having biases. This is always present and biases can even present themselves when there is absolutely no reason or no emotional attachment to the event or situation. Confirmation bias is what occurs when we have an idea in our mind and instead of applying a true-test methodology to falsify our idea, we often end up merely confirming what we believe.
Let me give you an example of how confirmation bias works. Keep in mind that the following is NOT an intelligence test. It is merely to demonstrate bias. Here is a statement I am trying to TEST:
If a card has the letter A on it, than it will have an 8 on the other side.
A J 2 8
Looking at the cards, which two would you use to test the statement given above? You can go ahead and give yourself some time to think but also think about WHY you are choosing the cards.
(scroll down)
What did you guess? If you are like most people, you will chose the card with the letter A and the one with the number 8. We tend to do this because the original statement gave us both the letter A and the number 8. Without realizing it, by choosing these cards, we are confirming our bias. In essence we find ourselves trying to confirm the statement rather than testing it.
In order to test the statement, "If a card has the letter A on it, than it will have an 8 on the other side," we have to try and falsify it, not support it. The statement says, "If A, than 8" ...so choosing A is necessary because it fulfills the qualification of the statement. We would not chose J because even if it did have the number 8 on the other side, the statement never mentioned anything about the letter J, it mentions only A as a necessity.
Now, if we chose 8 and turn the card over and find an A, that only confirms our BIAS. It could be only a mere coincidence that we find an A, and if we find another letter, that leaves us with the same problem we would have if we chose the J card. The statement only says, "If A, than 8..." so again, because the statement does not say anything about another letter, it would prove/disprove nothing.. Instead we must turn over the 2 and only then if we turn over the card and find the letter A could we disprove the statement, or conversely if we found another letter we would prove the statement - hence, a true-test.
So what's the point here? The point is that you have no attachment whatsoever to this problem. In fact, you could care less about these cards or this experiment yet, if you are like most people, you naturally have a bias of some sort. It's just natural. Our brains like to fill in what we think should be there based on other information given to us. Since the information given used the letter A and the number 8, we naturally assumed that those would be the cards we would use to test the statement.
When you have a case that was so emotionally charged from the beginning and stories being told all around about who did what and when and how, it's hard for some witnesses to be truly objective about what they witnessed. They may fill in details in order to satisfy those around them. Nobody wants to be perceived as the "weird one" or the odd person out. People like to conform; it's a part of evolution and survival. Biases are natural and whenever we consider any witness, we must always understand that this does occur. Again, this is yet another reason we find that multiple witnesses can often have great disparities about what they saw.
If a person has a biased opinion of police in general, their minds will have a difficult time with looking objectively at an event. A person might "fill-in" details that confirm their bias about cops. Any action by a police officer can then be interpreted as being something quite negative.
We now understand that bias can happen when we are not even aware, so imagine how hard it is for someone to ignore their bias when a case like this is extremely emotional and political?
The fact that there were indeed African-American witnesses that conclusively support the police officer's version of the story, and are quite similar, makes these witnesses extremely credible.
C) When police investigate, they too may have biases so, they must "test" each of the statements given to them. The investigation in this case shows that the witnesses' statements were indeed helpful but ultimately it would be the forensics that filled in the information, giving a full picture of what occurred.
D) Witnesses are important only to a certain degree. Both the defense and prosecution can use witnesses for support or to debunk claims made by the other side. In the end however, eye witnesses can be notoriously unreliable. It really depends on the case, where it occurred, when it occurred, and the circumstances surrounding the event or crime. This leads to the next point...
5) Our best evidence comes to us through forensics. Objective evidence can be collected and tested in the lab. DNA for example is not bias. Either the DNA matches the suspect or it does not. In this case the autopsy is the most comprehensive objective evidence we have. Now of course interpretations of an autopsy can produce bias and this is why multiple autopsies were performed.
In this case, we do know that Brown was not shot from behind; he was not shot while the officer was standing above him; he was not shot with his hands up. While witnesses can help support this, it is not necessary since the autopsies confirm these facts.
6) Evaluation of objective evidence and witness testimony can determine credibility. There were several problems with witnesses during the investigation. These issues were exposed during interviews and during the Grand Jury procedure. For example, witnesses made statements based on assumptions.
Grand Jury Volume XVI October 27, 2014 Page 77:
Q. So it was after you learned that the things that you said you saw couldn't of had happened that way, then you changed your story about what you seen?
A. Yeah, to coincide with what really happened.
This is just ONE example and let me tell you, the further I went along in reading the volumes that were published the more clearer it became just how utterly ridiculous this entire case was from the beginning.
7) There is a sad story that underlines this entire case. The fact is, we have people who were afraid to go to the police for fear of being harmed and we have youth who believe that they should never trust the police nor should they respect the police. These are very real and serious issues that need to be addressed.
It's definitely time to open up a dialogue. I can only hope that there will be enough people interested in actually taking the time to listen, rather than spending their time shouting out catchy phrases about injustice or name-calling.
----------------------------------
Eric Garner, another man who died after being arrested by the police caught the attention of many after that Grand Jury returned a no indictment ruling on the police in that incident.
In that case, Eric was a career criminal selling cigarettes in an illegal manner. He refused to comply with authorities and as such he was placed in a hold and taken down. This action has been blamed as the cause of his death. Medical attention was given and he died en route to the hospital.
It's fairly certain the man would not have died under normal circumstances. Eric was an extremely obese man who suffered from asthma and other health problems. Had he cooperated with authorities, there would have been no need to take him down in the manner that was presumed. It seems to have been his intimidating size that prompted the police to take the actions they did.
One could easily argue Garner should not have been arrested in the first place. That would require a discussion on our current over-reaching laws. However there is no denying that a person really takes their own lives in their hands when they forcibly refuse to be arrested.
It is quite doubtful that race was involved as some motivating factor with the police in either of these cases yet, the racist narrative seems to be the only one considered by many people.
Racism can very well be a factor in some cases where the person being arrested is of a different skin color than the arresting officer. Police brutality can and does occur. However, each case must be looked at objectively and individually. Many actions by police are indeed justified and they are motivated by circumstance, not race.
How can we move forward in our discussions? How can we better acknowledge the full picture and communicate with those who are only seeking to confirm their bias, rather than looking objectively at the facts?
Links and Resources:
http://apps.stlpublicradio.org/ferguson-project/evidence.html
http://neuronbomb.wordpress.com/2014/11/28/the-ferguson-masterpost-how-to-argue-eloquently-back-yourself-up-with-facts/#FakeFacts
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/11/28/IN-FERGUSON-WITNESS-INTIMIDATION-LYING-BY-COMMUNITY-OF-COLOR
http://wreg.com/2014/11/26/some-witnesses-admitted-lying-during-darren-wilson-testimony/
2014-11-30
When All They Can Do Is Call You a Racist
With the recent events that have materialized in Ferguson and throughout the country, it feels as if a great divide has been exposed. You are either a person who accepts the facts of what occurred and believe that the Grand Jury made the correct decision or you are spending your time calling those that support the Grand Jury racists.
2014-11-25
Michael Brown's Mother Reacts to Descison
Of course we expect a mother to be upset in this Ferguson case. Certainly we have all been in situations where we are too close for comfort, it prevents us from understanding the full picture or taking in the reality.
The decision was made not to indict Officer Wilson because this is what the Grand Jury concluded based on the facts, the witnesses, the physical evidence, and other statements. They had the option of inditing him on a wide variety of charges including involuntary manslaughter. There simply was NO case to be made. No probable cause was found.
The decision was made not to indict Officer Wilson because this is what the Grand Jury concluded based on the facts, the witnesses, the physical evidence, and other statements. They had the option of inditing him on a wide variety of charges including involuntary manslaughter. There simply was NO case to be made. No probable cause was found.
Ferguson - Riot Time
I guess I knew it was going to happen. I feel as if no matter what the decision was going to be - indictment or not, Ferguson was going to get rocked tonight by unruly people who are hell bent on destroying their own home town.
Officer Darren Wilson will not be indicted. The grand jury was given the entire facts of the case and have determined that there simply is no case against this man According to various current sources, the federal investigation will produce the same outcome - no case against Wilson.Let's be clear here. Many of the witnesses had changed their stories when confronted with the physical evidence. When people lie, they are not consistent.
The unidentified witness wrote that the 18-year-old Brown “has his arms out with attitude,” while “The cop just stood there.” The witness added, “Dang if that kid didn’t start running right at the cop like a football player head down.”
The witness told of hearing “3 bangs,” but “the big kid wouldn’t stop.”
So you have this young man, walking down the middle of the road, a man who just robbed a store and threw the clerk of that store around like a rag doll, a young man who refuses to listen to the officer who tells him to get out of the street, and this same man strong arming a police officer who he punches in the face. After getting shot, and his DNA magically finds it's way on Officer Wilson's gun, he takes off and then turns around and charges the police officer. Yeah, I would say that justifies being shot.
College-bound-Brown chatting about cigars with local business owner
It's easy for the public to make assumptions about how Officer Wilson should have reacted or could have reacted. It's easy for us to say that Michael Brown was unarmed and posed no real threat. Are you aware of how many people are killed as a result of one-punch homicide? Many people are. It CAN happen.
Again, witnesses testified that Brown attacked Wilson and tried to get his gun, then charged at him. These are the facts and it's a shame that the black community in this country is once again being misled by those "leaders" who like to cherry-pick facts and create what is ultimately fiction.
Does racism occur in this country? I'm sure it does but the stories that are chosen by the media and held up as examples of racism seem to fall flat when the facts are outright presented. You would think that with all the racism that's out there - according to many people, we would be able to find a real good story where racism is obvious rather than being speculative.
Now, as I type Ferguson is up in flames and soon to be a pile of ashes. Businesses have been destroyed. People are being shot and injured. Only after time passes will the final aftermath be tallied and recorded. This night shall go down in history as being yet another riot that produces nothing but rather impedes on the lives of many.
Links
Obama Speaks
Twitter and Ferguson
Officer Wilson
How the Rest of the World Sees Ferguson
Slate
Megyn Kelly
Myths
2014-11-24
Top Obama Supporter and Gay Rights Advocate Terry Bean Arrested - Child Sex Scandal
(Photo: Multnomah County Detention Center)
Terrance Patrick Bean has been arrested on two felony counts of sex with a minor. Terrance Bean is also a huge supporter of Obama and in 2012, he is responsible for raising more than half a million dollars for the re-election campaign.
"Bean has been one of the state's biggest Democratic donors and an influential figure in gay rights circles in the state," reports oregonlive.com. "He helped found two major national political groups, the Human Rights Campaign and the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund and has been a major contributor for several Democratic presidential candidates, including Barack Obama."
Kiah Loy Lawson, 25(Photo: Multnomah County Detention Center)
Kiah Loy Lawson, 25, is the former boyfriend of Bean and he has also been arrested by the Portland Sex Crimes Unit. He is being accused of sexually abusing the same boy Bean abused.
The main stream media has been silent on this scandal. No shocker here!
Source
2014-11-17
Bill Cosby - Oh Boy...Say it Ain't So
Okay, I admit; I like Bill Cosby; I do not want to picture him as a man who would do harm to anyone, let alone rape a woman. With that being said, watch the video on the link...here. .
Here is another interview from Barbara Bowman. In addition, her story - in her words, can be found here.
When the news and allegations first came out about Bill Cosby, they seemed to surface and disappear as quick as they came. This was years ago. I think it's fair to say that the public at large assumed the matter was settled and that the claims were either false or that conceptual sex had taken place instead rather than rape.
Now, years later some comedian Hannibal Buress, calls out Bill Cosby and claims he's a rapist. He tells his audience:
Here is another interview from Barbara Bowman. In addition, her story - in her words, can be found here.
Bowman, sort of a Sharon Stone-looking gal back in the day.
When the news and allegations first came out about Bill Cosby, they seemed to surface and disappear as quick as they came. This was years ago. I think it's fair to say that the public at large assumed the matter was settled and that the claims were either false or that conceptual sex had taken place instead rather than rape.
Now, years later some comedian Hannibal Buress, calls out Bill Cosby and claims he's a rapist. He tells his audience:
When you leave here, Google ‘Bill Cosby rape.’ It’s not funny.
2014-11-15
Jonathan Gruber - "Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage."
It's not that I was not aware of how the democrats in this country feel about the American voter; I am fully aware that they believe Americans are stupid. What shocks me is that there are still people inside this country who haven't figured it out yet.
2014-11-14
Obama, Biden, Democrats, Impeachment
Yes, indeed Obama had a reason for picking his running mate Biden. By doing so, he also assured himself that no attempts on his life would be made either.
Talk of impeachment has been increasing since Obama announced he would be using executive order for the purposes of overhauling our immigration policy.
A senior aide to a House Republican told MailOnline on Friday that 'Avoiding the "I" word' is a case of 'better the devil you know than the devil you don't.'
'Only in this case, we're pretty sure we know both devils. And Biden – he's two floppy shoes short of a complete clown outfit. Let's be honest: He's Obama's insurance policy.'According to the article in The Daily Mail, it seems as though Gowdy is being very honest. He states that the idea of impeaching Obama is simply not a solution and rather it is pundits who are discussing the idea.
He is right. It is because of so many different political pundits and 24 hour news stations these radical ideas are discussed and suggested will occur.
Still the idea of a president ignoring Congress, ignoring the American people in order to change the immigration law does seem to be an impeachable offense however, it would be much better to figure out exactly what it is he is planning on doing and what he actually does. Could the threat alone be enough for Congress to be proactive and perhaps find a way to initiate a compromise? Perhaps that's just wishful thinking.
One thing I do believe, I hope, we can all agree none of us want this man in Obama's place:
2014-11-10
The Faria Murder - The Case, The Twists, The Fraud
Russ is finally FREE! Congratulations to him, his family, and his very supportive friends.
***Some Updates Available Below***
I was contacted by a Facebook friend to check out a murder case that has recently garnered a whole lot of attention - including an episode on Dateline (see below). He is interested in alerting as many people as he can about the details of this case. Ya see, my friend is also friends with the man who is being accused of murdering his wife.
The man is Russ Faria and his wife was Betsy.
***Some Updates Available Below***
I was contacted by a Facebook friend to check out a murder case that has recently garnered a whole lot of attention - including an episode on Dateline (see below). He is interested in alerting as many people as he can about the details of this case. Ya see, my friend is also friends with the man who is being accused of murdering his wife.
2014-11-03
Rula Jebreal and Bill Maher
Bill Maher once again points out the intolerance of the religion of peace.
Rula Jebreal tries her best to go after Maher - accusing him of not being serious, that Bill is a bigot, suggesting that he does not discuss facts, telling Maher he doesn't allow people to come on his show, and she even accuses Maher of not knowing what he's talking about concerning the different groups/sects of Islam.
Rula Jebreal tries her best to go after Maher - accusing him of not being serious, that Bill is a bigot, suggesting that he does not discuss facts, telling Maher he doesn't allow people to come on his show, and she even accuses Maher of not knowing what he's talking about concerning the different groups/sects of Islam.
2014-10-27
Nobody Thought This Was a Bad Idea? Princesses With Foul Mouths
In order to make a commercial or a public service announcement, a lot of time and talent needs to be invested. I know. I've worked on a few commercials myself. First a commercial needs to be developed and funded and talent hired. A location needs to be determined, a cameraman, props, and a whole host of other individuals are also involved - lighting, craft service, director, editor, etc. It's a mini-movie really and it can take a long time to wrap up a simple two-minute commercial. Not all commercials or public service announcements are the same however, but any that require actors and the delivery of lines is going to take some time and many people being involved.
Keeping all this mind, watch this:
This is why I must question, how it is that nobody said anything during the process of making this ad/message? Really? Nobody thought, this might be a bad idea? Nobody thought their voice could be heard without abusing children in the process? Sorry but I do see this as abuse. This can all be filed under, "WRONG."
I have a few other issues with this video. One the whole myth about women's pay has been roundly debunked for years but, somehow hard-core feminists keep missing the memo.
Personally, I'm all for equality and we can and should work together in order to achieve that. For instance, I would like to know why it is when women kill, we are supposed to always show great sympathy and empathy for them but when men kill, we should demand swift punishment?
As many of you know, I have covered the Jodi Arias case at great length. I am appalled that this woman did not receive the death penalty for her crime. Had Jodi been a man, there would have been no hung jury and we would not be sitting here waiting for a new jury to give their sentence for this woman.
Many people remember the Andrea Yates case. This is a woman who purposefully waited for her husband to leave the home, and then she proceeded to methodically murder each one of her five babies. She even chased them around the house and held each one down under water until they were lifeless. Then she called the police to inform them of her murderess deeds. Yet, many people across this entire country feel some sympathy for Andrea. In fact they demand that we accept she has mental issues and some even go so far as to blame the husband fully for what happened, suggesting that he is the one who killed the children indirectly.
Could you imagine if this had been a husband killing his five children in this manner? Do you think for a moment people would feel a shred of sympathy for that man? Or do you think anyone would blame the wife for what happened? Women are perceived as being weaker by the very people who demand equality.
Where are these women groups when it comes to trials like the ones mentioned? Why are they not demanding equal treatment, equal punishment?
Where are the feminists when it comes to the treatment of Muslim women? Why all the silence there?
It seems as though feminism picks and chooses what it likes and rejects what it doesn't like when it comes to equal treatment. Men and women are indeed different. Equality is a good thing and it's positive but, if we want equality than we must demand that under all circumstances, not just the ones we like.
I also take issue with the comment that speaks about women being safe to walk to their car at night. Since when are men more safe in this situation? I do believe it's wise that all adults of any age stay alert and be prepared for danger when doing anything like walking to their car at night. Sure, women need to be on alert more because our reflexes and strength are simply not equal to that of a man's.
The statistics for rape seem to be a bit exaggerated. Some of the studies that show 1 in 5 are including women who had consensual sex but were under the influence of alcohol or drugs at the time. It also included women who had agreed to sex but were not "enthusiastic" about doing so. While I certainly do not want to go around blaming women for being raped, these types of cases where the woman is drunk or under the influence could be easily avoided by exercising some self control. Sure, men need to have self-control as well and I would never say otherwise but, responsibility in these cases is more of a two-way street. Women cannot be seen as equal if they are simultaneously demanding that they take no responsibility for their actions.
Little girls mocking other little girls who wear princess dresses is akin to bullying, is it not? Having these little girls swear repeatedly is also a form of bullying and the message itself is filled with irresponsible fallacies that make homeopathy seem legitimate.
Once again, we see a typical leftist crowd (feminists), using children as a tool to deliver their message. Why? Why would anyone believe using young girls for this purpose would be positive in any way?
As a woman, I should be encouraging my daughter HOW to think for herself and not what to think. It is important that my daughter understand that she is allowed to have opinions that differ from my own. She is allowed to like and dislike things because she is an individual. She will always be my baby and she will always be loved by me but, I am not going to force my opinions on her. I will however tell her how I arrived at forming my opinions. I will ask that she examine why and how she forms her opinions. I want her to THINK, not parrot my beliefs.
Keeping all this mind, watch this:
This is why I must question, how it is that nobody said anything during the process of making this ad/message? Really? Nobody thought, this might be a bad idea? Nobody thought their voice could be heard without abusing children in the process? Sorry but I do see this as abuse. This can all be filed under, "WRONG."
I have a few other issues with this video. One the whole myth about women's pay has been roundly debunked for years but, somehow hard-core feminists keep missing the memo.
Personally, I'm all for equality and we can and should work together in order to achieve that. For instance, I would like to know why it is when women kill, we are supposed to always show great sympathy and empathy for them but when men kill, we should demand swift punishment?
As many of you know, I have covered the Jodi Arias case at great length. I am appalled that this woman did not receive the death penalty for her crime. Had Jodi been a man, there would have been no hung jury and we would not be sitting here waiting for a new jury to give their sentence for this woman.
Many people remember the Andrea Yates case. This is a woman who purposefully waited for her husband to leave the home, and then she proceeded to methodically murder each one of her five babies. She even chased them around the house and held each one down under water until they were lifeless. Then she called the police to inform them of her murderess deeds. Yet, many people across this entire country feel some sympathy for Andrea. In fact they demand that we accept she has mental issues and some even go so far as to blame the husband fully for what happened, suggesting that he is the one who killed the children indirectly.
Could you imagine if this had been a husband killing his five children in this manner? Do you think for a moment people would feel a shred of sympathy for that man? Or do you think anyone would blame the wife for what happened? Women are perceived as being weaker by the very people who demand equality.
Where are these women groups when it comes to trials like the ones mentioned? Why are they not demanding equal treatment, equal punishment?
Where are the feminists when it comes to the treatment of Muslim women? Why all the silence there?
It seems as though feminism picks and chooses what it likes and rejects what it doesn't like when it comes to equal treatment. Men and women are indeed different. Equality is a good thing and it's positive but, if we want equality than we must demand that under all circumstances, not just the ones we like.
I also take issue with the comment that speaks about women being safe to walk to their car at night. Since when are men more safe in this situation? I do believe it's wise that all adults of any age stay alert and be prepared for danger when doing anything like walking to their car at night. Sure, women need to be on alert more because our reflexes and strength are simply not equal to that of a man's.
The statistics for rape seem to be a bit exaggerated. Some of the studies that show 1 in 5 are including women who had consensual sex but were under the influence of alcohol or drugs at the time. It also included women who had agreed to sex but were not "enthusiastic" about doing so. While I certainly do not want to go around blaming women for being raped, these types of cases where the woman is drunk or under the influence could be easily avoided by exercising some self control. Sure, men need to have self-control as well and I would never say otherwise but, responsibility in these cases is more of a two-way street. Women cannot be seen as equal if they are simultaneously demanding that they take no responsibility for their actions.
Little girls mocking other little girls who wear princess dresses is akin to bullying, is it not? Having these little girls swear repeatedly is also a form of bullying and the message itself is filled with irresponsible fallacies that make homeopathy seem legitimate.
Once again, we see a typical leftist crowd (feminists), using children as a tool to deliver their message. Why? Why would anyone believe using young girls for this purpose would be positive in any way?
As a woman, I should be encouraging my daughter HOW to think for herself and not what to think. It is important that my daughter understand that she is allowed to have opinions that differ from my own. She is allowed to like and dislike things because she is an individual. She will always be my baby and she will always be loved by me but, I am not going to force my opinions on her. I will however tell her how I arrived at forming my opinions. I will ask that she examine why and how she forms her opinions. I want her to THINK, not parrot my beliefs.
2014-10-20
Fat Loss - Apply Ice
An article I ran across claims that ice packs might be helpful for weight loss.
The article goes on to suggest that we should lower the temperatures inside our homes in order to encourage fat loss. I find this claim to be rather interesting. We do stay indoors more and more in these modern times and we certainly tend to heat our homes more, especially when we compare our lives to previous generations. Could our obesity problem be rooted in the temperature we keep our homes? It certainly seems too easy/simple to be true but this study is certainly interesting.
Simply strapping an ice-pack to a fatty area like the thighs or stomach for just 30 minutes can burn away hard-to-shift calories.
The cold compress works by triggering the body into turning flabby white fat into calorie burning ‘beige’ fat.
The article goes on to suggest that we should lower the temperatures inside our homes in order to encourage fat loss. I find this claim to be rather interesting. We do stay indoors more and more in these modern times and we certainly tend to heat our homes more, especially when we compare our lives to previous generations. Could our obesity problem be rooted in the temperature we keep our homes? It certainly seems too easy/simple to be true but this study is certainly interesting.
2014-09-26
About That Waitress and Rush Limbaugh
Mad World News
So yesterday I run across a story about Rush Limbaugh and how he tipped this waitress $2000 for service.
Merritt Tierce, who is now an author, refers to the generous tips she received from Limbaugh as “blood money” in her debut novel “Love Me Back.” Tierce said she donated most of the money to the TEA Fund, which is a charity that funds abortions for low-income women.
Teirce states:
“It felt like laundering the money in a good way. He’s such an obvious target for any feminist or sane person. It was really bizarre to me that he gave me $2,000, and he’s evil incarnate in some ways.”I ended up posting this on Facebook and some guy started attacking me.
Name redacted:
Tough for you Tea Party to conservatives to respect values over money isn't it.
So only you the chosen ones worshipping Rush Limbaugh can slam the ones you disagree with.... Sounding very communist in your rules of who can say what. I defended this country so even you can speak your opinions. Who the hell do you think you are condemning someone who disagrees with you? This is the United States of America! Not some Quaker take off. The Republican party shoved you full of pro life broken campaign promises for almost 40 years of NOTHING CHANGED and you vote for the same empty promises. You worship Limbaugh the drug addict who announced ALL drug addicts should be put away. The same man who said if Obama was reelected he'd leave the USA. Bow down and honor those double standards you live by.I only bring this up because I want to make clear that I don't care who or where this woman gave her money to. Rush made a choice to give this woman 2 very generous tips and it became HER money; she was free to do whatever she wanted to do with it.
I have a feeling she donated only about five dollars because she sounds like a nasty woman. I don't understand why she wouldn't donate and leave Rush's name out of it. This woman could have been at least respectful enough to a man who gave her the money to help a cause she believes in. No, instead she had to insult him and act like a horrible nasty pig.
I only wish this woman had some more class. It is quite classless to take money and then turn around and donate it to a cause out of spite. When a person donates it should be done out of love and the mouth should be kept closed.
I don't care what this woman does with HER money. That is certainly HER choice and any woman or man is free to give to whomever they CHOSE. There simply was no reason to go further by invoking Rush's name. Obviously she was looking for attention instead of actually giving to a charity that she believed in. Where should the focus be? On the charity she donated to or the person who gave her generous tips?
So to the man who decided to chew me out on my Facebook wall: I guess if being a classless b*tch is a "value" she did a fine job at acting like one.
2014-09-22
Bill Maher Making Sense
It seems as if the last few times I've heard Bill Maher he has brought some truth to the table. Maybe Bill hasn't strayed as far as I once thought. I used to LOVE Politically Incorrect back in my college days but, for some reason he seemed to have strayed over the years, heading over to la-la-liberal-land.
I digress.
This time, Bill Maher is speaking with Charlie Rose and brings up issues about Islam that need to be heard. The issues with homosexuals being beheaded and women not being treated equal and forced to wear burkas are those that should be a concern for all of us. This is not a benign religion where people have choices.
Sure perhaps Christians are a bunch of hypocrites. I understand but, we do not treat women as second class systematically nor does Christianity advocate women to be tortured or covered up. While I may see Christians leery of supporting homosexual marriage, or supporting the idea that being gay is innate (not learned), I have yet to see one stone a gay man or lesbian to death because of the person's sexuality. If treating women in a respectful manner is important and treating homosexuals with dignity is important, how can the left in this country possibly make any excuses for Islam? How much more of these atrocities must we see before we call a spade a spade?
Thank you, Bill!
2014-09-13
Ward Churchill Tells More Fables on Megyn Kelly's Show
The creepy professor Ward Churchill seems to be hard up for money since he agreed to get grilled by Megyn Kelly on Fox News.
Watch all parts of this interview here.
Here is the full statement that Churchill now claims he only meant to apply toward those who were not the janitors or food service workers:
There is simply no argument to be made that the Pentagon personnel killed on September 11 fill that bill. The building and those inside comprised military targets, pure and simple. As to those in the World Trade Center . . .
Well, really, let's get a grip here, shall we? True enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break. They formed a technocratic corps at the very heart of America's global financial empire - the "mighty engine of profit" to which the military dimension of U.S. policy has always been enslaved - and they did so both willingly and knowingly. Recourse to "ignorance" - a derivative, after all, of the word "ignore" - counts as less than an excuse among this relatively well-educated elite. To the extent that any of them were unaware of the costs and consequences to others of what they were involved in - and in many cases excelling at - it was because of their absolute refusal to see. More likely, it was because they were too busy braying, incessantly and self-importantly, into their cell phones, arranging power lunches and stock transactions, each of which translated, conveniently out of sight, mind and smelling distance, into the starved and rotting flesh of infants. If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I'd really be interested in hearing about it.
April 2004 interview with Satya magazine:
If I defined the state as being the problem, just what happens to the state? I've never fashioned myself to be a revolutionary, but it's part and parcel of what I'm talking about. You can create through consciousness a situation of flux, perhaps, in which something better can replace it. In instability there's potential. That's about as far as I go with revolutionary consciousness. I'm actually a de-evolutionary. I do not want other people in charge of the apparatus of the state as the outcome of a socially transformative process that replicates oppression. I want the state gone: transform the situation to U.S. out of North America. U.S. off the planet. Out of existence altogether.[35]
— Ward Churchill , Dismantling the Politics of Comfort
An interview with Ward Churchill by Marlena Gangi. (Pro-Churchill)
More information about Ward Churchill being a fraud can be found at Pirate Ballerina.
Pirate Ballerina did a chronology of Churchill's life.
Exposing Ward Churchill:
Vietnam - What did he do exactly?
Is he Indian or not?
More about fraud of Ward Churchill
Churchill's claim to Indian ancestry led to his employment with Colorado University. If he indeed is not Indian, were there others who could have been considered for the position that were better qualified? It seems rather odd that Churchill refuses to show proof considering we now have options of sending in our DNA to discover our full ancestry.
Clearly this is a man who hates this county and I have no idea why he chooses to remain here. Like all leftist, his goal is to tear down the system, to tear down others, and to tear down all the very things that allowed him to rise as high as he has.
Watch all parts of this interview here.
Here is the full statement that Churchill now claims he only meant to apply toward those who were not the janitors or food service workers:
There is simply no argument to be made that the Pentagon personnel killed on September 11 fill that bill. The building and those inside comprised military targets, pure and simple. As to those in the World Trade Center . . .
Well, really, let's get a grip here, shall we? True enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break. They formed a technocratic corps at the very heart of America's global financial empire - the "mighty engine of profit" to which the military dimension of U.S. policy has always been enslaved - and they did so both willingly and knowingly. Recourse to "ignorance" - a derivative, after all, of the word "ignore" - counts as less than an excuse among this relatively well-educated elite. To the extent that any of them were unaware of the costs and consequences to others of what they were involved in - and in many cases excelling at - it was because of their absolute refusal to see. More likely, it was because they were too busy braying, incessantly and self-importantly, into their cell phones, arranging power lunches and stock transactions, each of which translated, conveniently out of sight, mind and smelling distance, into the starved and rotting flesh of infants. If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I'd really be interested in hearing about it.
April 2004 interview with Satya magazine:
If I defined the state as being the problem, just what happens to the state? I've never fashioned myself to be a revolutionary, but it's part and parcel of what I'm talking about. You can create through consciousness a situation of flux, perhaps, in which something better can replace it. In instability there's potential. That's about as far as I go with revolutionary consciousness. I'm actually a de-evolutionary. I do not want other people in charge of the apparatus of the state as the outcome of a socially transformative process that replicates oppression. I want the state gone: transform the situation to U.S. out of North America. U.S. off the planet. Out of existence altogether.[35]
— Ward Churchill , Dismantling the Politics of Comfort
An interview with Ward Churchill by Marlena Gangi. (Pro-Churchill)
More information about Ward Churchill being a fraud can be found at Pirate Ballerina.
Pirate Ballerina did a chronology of Churchill's life.
Exposing Ward Churchill:
Vietnam - What did he do exactly?
Is he Indian or not?
More about fraud of Ward Churchill
Churchill's claim to Indian ancestry led to his employment with Colorado University. If he indeed is not Indian, were there others who could have been considered for the position that were better qualified? It seems rather odd that Churchill refuses to show proof considering we now have options of sending in our DNA to discover our full ancestry.
Clearly this is a man who hates this county and I have no idea why he chooses to remain here. Like all leftist, his goal is to tear down the system, to tear down others, and to tear down all the very things that allowed him to rise as high as he has.
2014-09-08
Why the Right Says the Media is Left
I often hear many people on the left mock those of us on the right whenever the topic of the media is brought up. As many of you already know the right, in general, does believe the media is predominately left. This of course is completely dismissed by those on the left and they typically follow up with insulting, snide remarks about Fox News.
For myself, I do believe most of the people who work in mainstream are certainly left of center. We all have a bias and those in the media are no different.
Fox News is but ONE station and they are not as conservative or right as many on the left would like to imagine. In fact, it's quite clear those who criticize Fox never watch the station. I find that quite odd. It's almost impossible to get an explanation from them or an example of how specifically Fox is deceitful. The watchdog sites for Fox are outrageous. They distort a lot of information but, they also seem to ignore that the other stations like CNN, MSNBC, ABC, and NBC all make mistakes as well. We need to remember that initial reports are almost never fully accurate and news stations are looking for ratings; they want to be the first to report. Perhaps this rush to get on is a bit irresponsible but, I do not feel it's intentional.
This blog right here, my very own blog, I have made mistakes. I wish I could say otherwise but, I've rushed to get a story on or I missed something that I didn't notice before. I try to change any of my older articles if I happen to remember but, that's not always the case.
The point is, we all make mistakes and no news station is above doing so but, to suggest that one station is lying while simultaneously suggesting the other stations are above the fray - well that's just naive.
I think I might turn this into a series but, for now I just wanted to pointed out an example of media bias. Please understand that when the right is saying the media is left it is precisely because we continually witness the media distort or hide information from the public. Is this done on purpose or accident? Well, again, I don't know that it's on purpose. I think they just have a bias that seems to impede them from digging further and when you couple that with strong deadlines it's hard to come out with a truly objective story.
This video shows Pelosi sounding like a complete idiot. I want you to note that the mainstream media would never show this type of video to their audience. However, if this were Sarah Palin, this would have been shown repeatedly and of course Saturday Night Live would have had Tina Fey or whoever is playing Sarah Palin these days mocking Palin. Talk shows on MSNBC would cover this for their full-hour programs and we could expect to hear about it from time to time for over a year - maybe even more!
Yet another example of the media clearly playing favorites.
Why does the right say the media is left? Obviously because of the things like this.
Is the media left? You decide and comment below.
For myself, I do believe most of the people who work in mainstream are certainly left of center. We all have a bias and those in the media are no different.
Fox News is but ONE station and they are not as conservative or right as many on the left would like to imagine. In fact, it's quite clear those who criticize Fox never watch the station. I find that quite odd. It's almost impossible to get an explanation from them or an example of how specifically Fox is deceitful. The watchdog sites for Fox are outrageous. They distort a lot of information but, they also seem to ignore that the other stations like CNN, MSNBC, ABC, and NBC all make mistakes as well. We need to remember that initial reports are almost never fully accurate and news stations are looking for ratings; they want to be the first to report. Perhaps this rush to get on is a bit irresponsible but, I do not feel it's intentional.
This blog right here, my very own blog, I have made mistakes. I wish I could say otherwise but, I've rushed to get a story on or I missed something that I didn't notice before. I try to change any of my older articles if I happen to remember but, that's not always the case.
The point is, we all make mistakes and no news station is above doing so but, to suggest that one station is lying while simultaneously suggesting the other stations are above the fray - well that's just naive.
I think I might turn this into a series but, for now I just wanted to pointed out an example of media bias. Please understand that when the right is saying the media is left it is precisely because we continually witness the media distort or hide information from the public. Is this done on purpose or accident? Well, again, I don't know that it's on purpose. I think they just have a bias that seems to impede them from digging further and when you couple that with strong deadlines it's hard to come out with a truly objective story.
This video shows Pelosi sounding like a complete idiot. I want you to note that the mainstream media would never show this type of video to their audience. However, if this were Sarah Palin, this would have been shown repeatedly and of course Saturday Night Live would have had Tina Fey or whoever is playing Sarah Palin these days mocking Palin. Talk shows on MSNBC would cover this for their full-hour programs and we could expect to hear about it from time to time for over a year - maybe even more!
Yet another example of the media clearly playing favorites.
Why does the right say the media is left? Obviously because of the things like this.
Is the media left? You decide and comment below.
2014-09-04
Joan Rivers - Rest In Peace
It is with great sadness that I am writing about Joan Rivers passing on. She will indeed be missed. I remember her well from when I was growing up and her latest show, Fashion Police was absolutely hysterical. Almost everything that came out of her mouth was a classic on-liner.
One of my favorites roles she played was on the movie The Muppets Take Manhattan. Her and Miss Piggy had a classic scene where Rivers gave Miss Piggy a makeover.
"Pigs don't have eyebrows."
"Well this pig is going to!"
No doubt about it, Joan could make anyone's jaw drop with her harsh wit. She was quite a solid character and very devoted to her craft. It's good to see she worked all the way up to the very end! One can only be so lucky to do so.
Politically Joan was a democrat but she was no far lefty. She really seemed to only be a bit left-of-center and her loud support for Israel is what truly made her a class-act among Hollywood celebrities.
Rest in Peace, Joan! You are loved.
Michael Brown - Juvenile Record 2nd Degree Murder?
UPDATED: NBC News is stating that Brown had no top felony convictions but the records remained sealed.
Yes, that's what's being reported. A reporter who claims to be connected with law enforcement is saying definitively that Brown had a juvenile record and one glaring charge involves 2nd degree murder.
"Gentle giant" Michael Brown is being linked to a gang and second degree murder.
The information should indeed be made available to the public and let us not forget this "gentle giant" had previously engaged in a strong armed robbery merely moments before this shooting occurred.
Just listen to Dorian Johnson. This is the person who was with Micheal Brown. Yeah, he's all shook up over the incident, isn't he?
How do I know he's lying? Simple. When someone starts off by saying, "We wasn't causing no harm to no one..." it's usually another way of saying, "The following story is complete bullsh!t." What he describes simply doesn't jive with reality. First he says that the policeman cursed at them - I don't buy it. Everything we know so far says the police officer merely wanted them to get out of the street, which makes sense. I firmly believe this cop wanted nothing more than to get these two out of the road. Cops do not generally go looking for a fight with two punks walking down the road. The police officer had nobody with him either.
Okay, but let's just say for the sake of argument that you believe this cop was a complete idiot and the very first thing he did was tell these two to get the "f@ck on the sidewalk."
Hesitation is also a sign of lying. Johnson first said truck, then car. Interesting that in the video below a witness also says "truck" describing the officer's vehicle. So which is it? Now I'm supposed to believe the cop opened his door and hit both of them? The door ricocheted off of them? How close were they walking together? Did you notice how big Michael was? If the door were thrust open, in order to hit them, it would only have ONE target, the other person would not have felt anything because the end of the door would have been blocked by the first person the door hit.
I made this very novice image in Paint in order to demonstrate this visual:
Okay, it seems to me that according to Dorian, we can conclude that Brown was closest to the officer's truck/car, which would make him the red cross and Johnson the green. Notice how these are right next to one another and if you follow the blue line which depicts the path of the door, it's not going to hit him. This idea that the door hit both of them doesn't make any sense and I highly doubt they were even walking that close to the vehicle. I also have to question - if they truly saw this officer go in reverse, why weren't they up on the sidewalk at this point? Why place yourself so close to this police car? I don't understand. This clearly shows that Michael was not in any fear and placed himself in a dominate-type of position. The idea that this cop just decided to lash out at these two over walking in the street just doesn't make sense to me.
Dorian then goes on to try and explain the struggle. Here again, I'm sensing major deception. He talks about Brown as if he knows when Brown felt he was hit by one of the bullets. There's no way for him to know that. He says he was hiding behind a car but somehow saw Brown hold his hands up? He says Brown was running away but, stopped and turned around? Why would Brown do that?
I'm no expert. I'm not claiming to be but I've been around my fair share of liars and this guy is lying. They weren't doing anyone any harm but, I guess the robbery that happened just prior doesn't count? Or I guess they were done being bad for the day? Seriously?
Whatever happened that day, we still do not know for sure but, some of these details seem to lend credibility to the idea that the officer was indeed in fear of his life and was justified in shooting.
On the other hand, yes it's very possible that maybe the officer was trigger happy and should have handled the situation better. We will have to wait until we have the full story - forensics, witnesses, and the officer's official account of what happened.
The officer does have rights too. He's entitled to a fair shake, just like anyone else. Furthermore, if we expect the police to protect us, shouldn't we in return offer them respect and protect their rights. Call me crazy but, while I do expect police to adhere to high standards of conduct, in return I respect their rights.
While the jury is still technically out for me, I am having a hard time remaining unbiased considering Al "not so" Sharpton and Jesse Jackson have inserted their mugs into this whole fiasco. They have a habit of finding the worst people to stand up for. Surely they can find real racism, some case that is clear-cut, I mean after all, according to them it's everywhere!
That's what this all really boils down to for me. If racism or negative attitudes towards blacks in general is prevalent among police officers then why is it the cases that Sharpton and Jackson gravitate toward are all questionable? There must be some case somewhere that is obviously racist, right?
Your turn - what do you think about this case?
UPDATE: In light of the update for this article it seems odd that this is released but not the full record. In any event, I'm not sure in the end that it matters. Any past actions would likely not be allowed into the court as evidence.
Yes, that's what's being reported. A reporter who claims to be connected with law enforcement is saying definitively that Brown had a juvenile record and one glaring charge involves 2nd degree murder.
"Gentle giant" Michael Brown is being linked to a gang and second degree murder.
The information should indeed be made available to the public and let us not forget this "gentle giant" had previously engaged in a strong armed robbery merely moments before this shooting occurred.
Just listen to Dorian Johnson. This is the person who was with Micheal Brown. Yeah, he's all shook up over the incident, isn't he?
How do I know he's lying? Simple. When someone starts off by saying, "We wasn't causing no harm to no one..." it's usually another way of saying, "The following story is complete bullsh!t." What he describes simply doesn't jive with reality. First he says that the policeman cursed at them - I don't buy it. Everything we know so far says the police officer merely wanted them to get out of the street, which makes sense. I firmly believe this cop wanted nothing more than to get these two out of the road. Cops do not generally go looking for a fight with two punks walking down the road. The police officer had nobody with him either.
Okay, but let's just say for the sake of argument that you believe this cop was a complete idiot and the very first thing he did was tell these two to get the "f@ck on the sidewalk."
Hesitation is also a sign of lying. Johnson first said truck, then car. Interesting that in the video below a witness also says "truck" describing the officer's vehicle. So which is it? Now I'm supposed to believe the cop opened his door and hit both of them? The door ricocheted off of them? How close were they walking together? Did you notice how big Michael was? If the door were thrust open, in order to hit them, it would only have ONE target, the other person would not have felt anything because the end of the door would have been blocked by the first person the door hit.
I made this very novice image in Paint in order to demonstrate this visual:
Dorian then goes on to try and explain the struggle. Here again, I'm sensing major deception. He talks about Brown as if he knows when Brown felt he was hit by one of the bullets. There's no way for him to know that. He says he was hiding behind a car but somehow saw Brown hold his hands up? He says Brown was running away but, stopped and turned around? Why would Brown do that?
I'm no expert. I'm not claiming to be but I've been around my fair share of liars and this guy is lying. They weren't doing anyone any harm but, I guess the robbery that happened just prior doesn't count? Or I guess they were done being bad for the day? Seriously?
Whatever happened that day, we still do not know for sure but, some of these details seem to lend credibility to the idea that the officer was indeed in fear of his life and was justified in shooting.
On the other hand, yes it's very possible that maybe the officer was trigger happy and should have handled the situation better. We will have to wait until we have the full story - forensics, witnesses, and the officer's official account of what happened.
The officer does have rights too. He's entitled to a fair shake, just like anyone else. Furthermore, if we expect the police to protect us, shouldn't we in return offer them respect and protect their rights. Call me crazy but, while I do expect police to adhere to high standards of conduct, in return I respect their rights.
While the jury is still technically out for me, I am having a hard time remaining unbiased considering Al "not so" Sharpton and Jesse Jackson have inserted their mugs into this whole fiasco. They have a habit of finding the worst people to stand up for. Surely they can find real racism, some case that is clear-cut, I mean after all, according to them it's everywhere!
That's what this all really boils down to for me. If racism or negative attitudes towards blacks in general is prevalent among police officers then why is it the cases that Sharpton and Jackson gravitate toward are all questionable? There must be some case somewhere that is obviously racist, right?
Your turn - what do you think about this case?
UPDATE: In light of the update for this article it seems odd that this is released but not the full record. In any event, I'm not sure in the end that it matters. Any past actions would likely not be allowed into the court as evidence.
2014-08-25
The Muse: Depression– Selfish State of Mind
The Muse: Depression– Selfish State of Mind: I have decided to go ahead and write about this topic since my recent comments on social media concerning the suicide of Robin Williams cre...
2014-08-24
Jesse Jackson Not Wanted in St. Louis?
Jesse Jackson was confronted by protesters. The video makes it clear that many are not happy with Jesse's presence, going so far as to accuse him of selling people out, being lazy by not participating in the march, and not being a real leader. Ouch!
More Videos From Western Journalism
More Videos From Western Journalism
2014-08-22
Michael Brown
The recent story concerning the shooting of young Michael Brown in Ferguson, MO has taken off and spun into a weave of stories that contain accusations of racism and police brutality.
I have been around awhile now so when I hear the names Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, I know to keep calm, let the facts come out, and soon we will be exposed to the outrageous lies that surround the case.
I have been around awhile now so when I hear the names Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, I know to keep calm, let the facts come out, and soon we will be exposed to the outrageous lies that surround the case.
2014-07-29
Dershowitz vs. Chomsky
In 2012 a debate took place at Harvard between Alan Dershowitz and Noam Chompsky; the topic was Israel.
Considering the current situation in the Middle East, I am posting this debate for those that have not seen it before or those who would like to see it again.
Considering the current situation in the Middle East, I am posting this debate for those that have not seen it before or those who would like to see it again.
2014-07-28
Loving Joan Rivers!!!
I've always loved Joan and I love her even more after watching this. I could not have said it better myself!
G-d bless you, Joan!!!
G-d bless you, Joan!!!
2014-07-23
Dear Eddie Vedder,
I have been a huge fan of yours for years. The first time I heard you play was at The Peony Park Ballroom in 1991 here in Omaha, NE. Pearl Jam opened for Red Hot Chile Peppers. I, like many of my friends had never heard of your band; we only saw the name of your band on our concert ticket. After that concert, you gained many fans here, including myself and to this day that concert is spoken about in legendary terms.
2014-07-11
Knox and Sollecito - Are They Finally Beginning to Crack?
Recently Raffaele Sollecito held a press conference. He and Amanda Knox have been recently convicted again in Italy for the murder of Meredith Kercher.
This murder case has been carrying on and on since 2007 when the two were originally arrested. Unlike the United States, Italy allows for the state to appeal three (3) times, the same amount of times that a defendant may appeal. Oh how I wish we had this back when this country witnessed Casey Anthony walk off after being tried for killing her precious baby Caylee.
I digress....
This murder case has been carrying on and on since 2007 when the two were originally arrested. Unlike the United States, Italy allows for the state to appeal three (3) times, the same amount of times that a defendant may appeal. Oh how I wish we had this back when this country witnessed Casey Anthony walk off after being tried for killing her precious baby Caylee.
I digress....
2014-07-03
Tuberculosis - Making a Comeback!
A high school in Sacramento, CA is now reporting students infected with tuberculosis.
Meanwhile in a totally unrelated story, the famous Sheriff Joe Arpaio in Maricopa County - Mesa, AZ is asking:
A California high school is at the center of a tuberculosis outbreak linked to an infectious student who tested positive for active TB in February, county health officials said Wednesday.
Four more students at Grant Union High School in Sacramento have contracted active TB.
Three related tuberculosis cases are considered an outbreak, Sacramento County Department of Health and Human Services spokeswoman Laura McCasland said.
Meanwhile in a totally unrelated story, the famous Sheriff Joe Arpaio in Maricopa County - Mesa, AZ is asking:
Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio says he wants to know why the immigrants he turns over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement keep coming back.
“I want an explanation and investigation as to why 3,800 of the people in my jails that are charged with state and local crimes are here illegally,” Arpaio told Newsmax TV. “We turn them over to ICE and they keep coming back over and over again.”
Arpaio stated that he has sent a letter to Homeland Security demanding an answer.
“How come they’re not deported, or if they are, why do they keep coming back across the border?” Arpaio questioned.
Arpaio is putting the blame at Obama's door and even suggesting that he is allowing this influx of immigrants in order to pressure Congress to spend money, rather than deal with the problem in a more realistic manner.
Why are we not using military on the border? Only in the modern day United States do we allow such stupidity as it pertains to immigration policy.
While Mexico is well-known for blasting the US immigration policies, their very own country is so strict and forceful that they simply do not have major problems with illegal immigration.
Mexico will not allow you into their country unless you can prove to be of worth and you have the ability to support yourself and your family.
Why are we not using military on the border? Only in the modern day United States do we allow such stupidity as it pertains to immigration policy.
While Mexico is well-known for blasting the US immigration policies, their very own country is so strict and forceful that they simply do not have major problems with illegal immigration.
Mexico will not allow you into their country unless you can prove to be of worth and you have the ability to support yourself and your family.
Unlike the United States where immigrants from Mexico are offered EBT, Medicaid, education in public schools, and even financial support for college. In many cases, Universities offer resident rates for immigrants, while students who are merely from another state here in the US are required to pay more for being a non-resident.
Yet, we are the ones who are inhumane?!?! Excuse me?
You can read more about this insanity here.
Mexico’s border police have reportedly engaged in rapes, robberies, and beatings of illegal aliens from Central and South America on their way to the U.S. Yet compared with the extensive immigrant-advocacy network in the U.S., few pressure groups exist in Mexico to protest such treatment. If Americans run afoul of Mexico’s border police, watch out. In 1996, the Mexican police beat and shot in the back a teenage American girl who had led them on a high-speed chase in Tijuana. No one in the U.S. or Mexico raised a fuss, at least publicly.
It has not been a secret that this country is suffering from the influx of illegal immigrants. Not only have they brought with them unskilled laborers, criminals, a huge burden on our budget from federal and state funds, but it is also no secret that they are bringing in diseases like tuberculosis. While the entire world has had issues controlling TB, the United States has been extremely successful in keeping our numbers down however, within the last 10 years and even more, the numbers have climbed and will continue to do so.
Our immigration policy in the United States currently is one of failure and while we are criticized, these same countries doing the criticizing have more stricter policies themselves. It is pure insanity!
Our immigration policy in the United States currently is one of failure and while we are criticized, these same countries doing the criticizing have more stricter policies themselves. It is pure insanity!
Make no mistake the people coming here are not interested in being American. They remain loyal to Mexico.
2014-06-29
Jodi Arias Trial Truth: The Herr Speights Sinus Theory Debunked
Jodi Arias Trial Truth: The Herr Speights Sinus Theory Debunked: " The most difficult student to educate is the one who is not willing to admit their ignorance" - anonymous "Herr" S...
2014-06-11
2014-05-18
2014-04-30
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)