Justice St. Rain Worried About Long List of Liberal Fears

I found this fascinating! Gay Patriot found a guy who parrots the left in a way Dennis Prager says, warps judgment — may I add, profoundly. So, I decided to dissect this post a bit to show how non-issues are conflated to the Left’s mind while important aspects of fighting a war on terror while not allowing a trampling of things like the 4th and 12th Amendments on our own body-politic (en masse).

So lets read and access the post by Justice St Rain

Really, This Is A List of Things NOT to Worry About

Things I’m more worried about than my phone being tapped:

Global warming. The richest 1% controlling more wealth than the bottom 50%. Homelessness. Gutting the food stamp program. The rich hiding several Trillion untaxed dollars. Secretaries paying more in taxes than billionaires. Politicians being bought and sold. Malaria and starvation. More people per capita in prison than any other country. The “war” on drugs. More black men in prison than in college. Rising cost of education and health care. The rise of extremism. The continued oppression of women. The general lack of compassion in the world. The degree to which we all blame our problems on others and close our eyes to our own irrationality. That more people are outraged by a small loss of privacy than any of these other issues.

Lets unpack Global Warming a bit. Almost every point, literally every point, that anthropogenic warming extremists have put forward over the past decade[+] has fallen apart due to evidence.

1. A biologist who claimed that polar bears were drowning because of melting ice has been suspended and is being investigated for scientific misconduct following his “veracity” in emotionalizing a debunked topic.  Get ready for Polarbeargate.

2. Today, new NASA data blows a gaping hole in global warming alarmism: “NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth’s atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing.” [See the paper — it was pulled]

3. CERN physicists conducted a cosmic ray climate experiment that is said to directly contradict the climate change debate in the political arena.  Apparently, so much so that the scientists have been gagged from discussing their findings reportedly proving that cosmic (space-based) energy has a far greater effect on the climate than previously believed.

4.  A recent study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science found evidence that coal burning plants may actually be cooling the planet. The findings have been accepted to the point of suggesting using sulfur to combat global warming; “Sulfur’s ability to cool things down has led some to suggest using it in a geo-engineering feat to cool the planet.”  If anything, this study proves that the science behind the anthropogenic global warming theory is unproven.

(Activist Post, I update a couple of the dead links)

Three posts I highly recommend exemplifying major failures in the predictive powers in the pro-man-caused (AGW) side are here:

✁ CO2 Nears 400 ppm – Relax! It’s Not Global Warming ‘End Times’ — But Only A ‘Big Yawn’ — Climate Depot Special Report;

New Report: ‘Extreme Weather Report 2012′: ‘Latest peer-reviewed studies, data & analyses undermine claims that current weather is ‘unprecedented’ or a ‘new normal’;

John Kerry vs. `The Warming[?] World`

From fraud in newspapers, to misunderstandings by reporters (put in their place by scientists), to CO2 not being the driver of warming — but rather a more cosmic driver (as well as a CFC correlation, maybe?), to hockey sticks evaporating and fraught with fraud, to thee most important prediction in the IPCC model failingentirely, to activists going to the Antarctic to make a point but getting frost bite and cancelling the trip, to even “experts” saying that snow will be only a memory with children in this decade, to less tornadoes and hurricanes rather than more, and that “warming” [not man-caused] would decrease them, to even the Economist Magazine changing their position on the matter, as well as other AGW acolytes like Germany’s Max Planck Institute for Meteorology saying that the “prognoses confirm model forecasts…” warming postponed “hundreds of years,” or James Lovelock — creator of the GAIA theory — now rejecting man-cased global warming ~ the “consensus” is in free-fall, in other words, to people like Bill Nye being destroyed with facts, Hillary Clinton, as well as Al Gore. All leading to the idea that the Left is more religious in their political endeavors than the most fiery preacher, even having their own eschatology! (I say more, because while a Christian may have beliefs about how the world will end, they are not legislating taxes [confiscating labor] based on it.)

Every point that is parroted in that small statement by St. Rain’s is a bust, and shows how the left uses causes to minimize freedom. They latch onto these things to increase legislative control and thus put in place more progressive control… which leads us into the “rich” and the poor mentioned. With the stupid statement about the 1%, I would be concerned if the bottom 50% payed the lions hare of taxes AND controlled less than the 1%.

So if we were to “even the playing field,” I presume through forced redistribution, all those pet-programs that have put more people, than the entire population of Spain, on some sort of welfare that St. Rain surely supports, would disappear. No more safety net in other words. In fact, the food stamp program is not gutted? It is at an all-time-high? Is St. Rain saying that we cannot cut programs like this at all? We are at our most minimum RIGHT NOW? The rich would bring back this money if our tax system were fair, and not criminal. The Laffer Curve for instance, explained so well by UCLA Economics professor, Tim Groseclose, shows when the government starts to lose money through its tax policy. Which makes me want to show just how bad St. Rain’s thinking is and how he digests and parrots falsehoods in order to embolden his feelings on issues. When he says, “Secretaries paying more in taxes than billionaires”, you know he has sold his soul to the devil.

St Rain’s confusion about capital gains tax and income tax is astounding to me. Buffett’s secretary likely makes about $200,000 a year, and pays a high tax bracket on her INCOME. Buffett and Romeny already payed this high tax bracket on their earnings, invested that taxed money, increased it, and now pay 15% (minus any donations — which Romney did A LOT! getting his tax bracket down to about 13% — damn greedy conservative!). Some of the problem I see here is that St. Rain views wealth as a “zero-sum game,” that is, he thinks that when one person gets richer, another person gets poorer. But when a “Bill Gates” becomes uber rich, he provides jobs, charities, trusts, etc, that lift multiple thousands of lives out of a lower income bracket into a higher. Justice St. Rain’s also — I believe — falsely characterizes “income inequality myth”:

Income Inequality Rose Most Under President Clinton

…But it turns out that the rich actually got poorer under President Bush, and the income gap has been climbing under Obama.

What’s more, the biggest increase in income inequality over the past three decades took place when Democrat Bill Clinton was in the White House.

The wealthiest 5% of U.S. households saw incomes fall 7% after inflation in Bush’s eight years in office, according to an IBD analysis of Census Bureau data. A widely used household income inequality measure, the Gini index, was essentially flat over that span. Another inequality gauge, the Theil index, showed a decline.

In contrast, the Gini index rose — slightly — in Obama’s first two years. Another Census measure of inequality shows it’s climbed 5.7% since he took office.

Meanwhile, during Clinton’s eight years, the wealthiest 5% of American households saw their incomes jump 45% vs. 26% under Reagan. The Gini index shot up 6.7% under Clinton, more than any other president since 1980…

[….]

As University of Michigan economist Mark Perry notes, while the income gap has grown since 1979, almost the entire increase occurred before the mid-1990s: “There is absolutely no statistical support for the commonly held view that income inequality has been rising recently.”

A similar analysis found that income inequality has fallen among individuals since the early 1990s, but risen among households due to factors such as more marriages of people with similar education levels and earnings potential.

Others argue that income mobility matters more than equality.

One study found that more than half of the families who started in the lowest income bracket in 1996 had moved to a higher one by 2005. At the other end of the spectrum, more than 57% of families fell out of the top 1%.

…read more…

He also misunderstands the idea that the Republican party is the party of the rich and greedy. I doubt Rain’s even understands how greed can be good and create the most wealth for everyone.

Some Insights from Prager

In fact, the richest 8-of-10 counties voted for Obama… and consistently when the states are separated by red-and-blue, the most charitable states are red, the most stingy (greedy) are blue states. And the richest Congressmen are typically Democrats.

I don’t have all-day, but another blatantly false statistic Rain’s puts forward when he says, “More black men in prison than in college.” Larry Elder deals with this as one of five mantras/myths on racism and blacks:

5) More blacks are in jail than in college.

Not true. “More blacks (are) in jail than college, in every state,” said Jesse Jackson in 2007. That same year, presidential candidate Sen. Obama, echoed: “More young black men languish in prison than attend colleges and universities across America.”

If Jackson and Obama refer to black men of the usual college-age years, their claim is not even remotely true. The Washington Post “Fact Checker” wrote: “According to 2005 Census Bureau statistics, the male African-American population of the United States aged between 18 and 24 numbered 1,896,000. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 106,000 African-Americans in this age group were in federal or state prisons at the end of 2005. … If you add the numbers in local jail (measured in mid-2006), you arrive at a grand total of 193,000 incarcerated young black males, or slightly over 10 percent.

“According to the same census data, 530,000 of these African-American males, or 28 percent, were enrolled in colleges or universities … in 2005. That is five times the number of young black men in federal and state prisons and two and a half times the total number incarcerated. If you expanded the age group to include African-American males up to 30 or 35, the college attendees would still outnumber the prisoners.”

Racism against blacks exists, but it is no longer a meaningful obstacle to success. People are not angels. Some people are rotten. Humans make mistakes — and always will. But the facts do not show a “racist criminal justice system.”

There may be votes in teaching people to think like victicrats. But the problem of the high rates of black imprisonment will not be solved by falsely screaming racism.

…read more…

While there is a lot to unpack in Justice’s short paragraph, I will end with this look into worldviews, which I doubt is a topic of in-depth study by Justice. When he says, “The general lack of compassion in the world,” I liken this to a decrease in the Christian faith in the West. For instance, when dealing with issues of, say, rape, differing worldviews view this in completely different ways:

theism: evil, wrong at all times and places in the universe — absolutely;
atheism: taboo, it was used in our species in the past for the survival of the fittest, and is thus a vestige of evolutionary progress… and so may once again become a tool for survival — it is in every corner of nature;
pantheism: illusion, all morals and ethical actions and positions are actually an illusion (Hinduism – maya; Buddhism – sunyata). In order to reach some state of Nirvana one must retract from this world in their thinking on moral matters, such as love and hate, good and bad.

So Christian theism produces people like Mother Theresa who goes into a foreign land and sacrifices her whole life to care for people who are rejected by their society. A well funded (rich) church makes this possible. To end I will expand on my thinking from an excerpt from my book:


…That being said, we can begin to understand the “flocking” of children around westerners.  In India and Tibet and other areas that hold to reincarnation as the predominate philosophy, one is in his or her predicament, so-to-speak, because of the choices (actions) made in previous lives.  The Dalai Lama and other “holy men” believe that to help these poor unfortunates is to tamper with their karma,[1] when doing otherwise they are living “outside” their worldview.  These afore-mentioned personalities will literally walk right past the poor, invalid, maimed, un-educated, starving, and mentally ill people completely ignoring their pleas for help and assistance, all because of the effects of their karmic past!  An example is warranted:

Consider my marriage to my wife, now consider that I beat her mercilessly, treating her like the dirt on my shoes, etc.  I would be storing up some pretty bad karma.  When I come around for my next human life I would come back as the woman being beat. 

This is karma’s answer to evil, which is really no answer at all.  In fact, it perpetuates evil.  How so?  It necessitates a beatee, which mandates a beater.  It creates, then, a seemingly never-ending circle of violence or evil.  In addition, it states emphatically that we choose our current destiny (or events) in this life due to past life experiences and choices.  Another illustration with some personal dialogue between some aid workers will help explain this concept some more:

While speaking in Thailand, Ron Carlson was invited to visit some refugee camps along the Cambodian border.  Over 300,000 refugees were caught in a no-man’s-land along the border.  This resulted from the Cambodian massacre under Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge in the mid-70’s (which is known as the “killing fields”) and then subsequently by the invasion of the Vietnamese at the end of the 70’s.  One of the most fascinating things about these refugee camps was the realization of who was caring for the refugees.  Here, in this Buddhist country of Thailand, with Buddhist refugees coming from Cambodia and Laos, there were no Buddhists taking care of their Buddhist brothers.  There were also no Atheists, Hindus, or Muslims taking care of those people.  The only people there, taking care of these 300,000[+] people, were Christians from Christian mission organizations and Christian relief organizations.  One of the men Ron was with had lived in Thailand for over twenty-years and was heading up a major portion of the relief effort for one of these organizations. Ron asked him: “Why, in a Buddhist country, with Buddhist refugees, are there no Buddhists here taking care of their Buddhist brothers?” Ron will never forget his answer:

“Ron, have you ever seen what Buddhism does to a nation or a people? Buddha taught that each man is an island unto himself. Buddha said, ‘if someone is suffering, that is his karma.’ You are not to interfere with another person’s karma because he is purging himself through suffering and reincarnation! Buddha said, ‘You are to be an island unto yourself.’” –  “Ron, the only people that have a reason to be here today taking care of these 300,000 refugees are Christians. It is only Christianity that people have a basis for human value that people are important enough to educate and to care for.  For Christians, these people are of ultimate value, created in the image of God, so valuable that Jesus Christ died for each and every one of them.  You find that value in no other religion, in no other philosophy, but in Jesus Christ.”[2]

Do you get it now?  It takes a “Mother Teresa” to go into these embattled countries with a Judeo-Christian worldview and bathe, feed, educate, care for these people – who otherwise are ignored due to harmful religious beliefs.  Another example, albeit more poignant, is that of a mock conversation between a Buddhist named Zen, and a Christian named Chris:

Chris:  What if in my reality, my “island,” it is wrong for people to own things, and so when you’re not looking, I elect to play “Robin Hood” by relieving you of your new two-thousand-dollar-crystal and giving it to someone else?

Zen: Well, uh, I guess I’d have to conclude that my Higher Self wanted me to learn a lesson about material things [as Buddhism teaches and New Age thought teaches].

Chris:  Okay, if stealing is not a sin, let’s take it further.  Now let’s pretend I’m a “pedophile” – it’s part of my reality to “love” children in every way possible.  So, while you’re at work I’m going to invite your children into my home to play a “game” that I’ve made up.  Is that all right with you?

Zen:  It most certainly is not!  It would be part of my reality to report you to the police.

Chris:  Why?  After all, it’s the reality I’ve sovereignly chosen to create for myself.  What gives you the right to interfere in the reality of another god? [Which are what Eastern religions teach, coming to the realization that you are one with the Brahmin.]

Zen:  Simple.  Your reality is infringing on my children’s reality.

Chris:  But according to your belief system, before your child incarnated she chose you [by past actions] as her parent and she also chose whatever happens to them, including my act, and you’ve no right to interfere. 

[Ravi Zacharias makes the point that one doesn’t even know ultimately if it was something in your previous life or something in the parents previous life or the child’s previous life (or others involved) that dictated this karmic outcome![3]

Zen:  I do too… in this case.

Chris:  Can you see my point now?  You are naturally and rightly outraged at the very suggestion of such an act.  Something within you knows that it is wrong in and of itself!  This reality is in direct contrast to what you should believe if your Buddhist philosophy holds true.

Zen:  You are right.

Chris:  But that can only be so if there are absolute rights and wrongs independent of our personal reality [which Eastern religions don’t teach].  Yet, try as you may, you will not find a ground for such moral absolutes and human value in your worldview.  Your God is impersonal and amoral, “beyond good and evil,” so you can’t appeal to It [as “It” is impersonal].  In addition, since in your view [Buddhism or Hinduism] we are all equally gods, my truth about any subject is as good as your truth.  So you see, Eastern beliefs fail the test of human experience – it cannot be consistently lived out.[4]


[1] Dean Halverson, The Illustrated Guide to World Religions, 56-57, 98.

[2] Ron Carlson & Ed Decker, Fast Facts on False Teachings (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 1994), 28-29.

[3] Ravi Zacharias, The Lotus and the Cross: Jesus Talks with Buddha (Sisters, OR: Multnomah, 2001), 23-24.

[4] Elliot Miller, A Crash Course on the New Age Movement, 209-210.

…Read More…

Creepy ~ Melissa Harris-Perry: `All Your Kids Are Belong to Us`

One sign of an over oppressive movement is illustrated in The Animal Farm, by George Orwell. Napoleon, one of the main characters, concerns himself with the education of the young, and forcefully takes two litters of puppies away as soon as they’re weaned, saying he’ll educate them. In effect the “State” are the ones who are charged with educating and rearing them. Now compare this to a statement made by feminist Mary Jo Bane, assistant professor of education at Wellesley College and associate director of the school’s Center for Research on Woman, and the lesson taught in Animal Farm:

“In order to raise children with equality, we must take them away from families and communally raise them.”

Here is the full quote from FATHER CARR’S ARTICLE:

“Mary Jo Bane, formerly of the Clinton Administration Department of Health and Human Services one of the major voices in the Boston Globe against the average Catholic’s right to freedom of religion. Bane’s most famous quote is ‘We really don’t know how to raise children. If we want to talk about equality of opportunity for children, then the fact that children are raised in families means there’s no equality. … In order to raise children with equality, we must take them away from families and communally raise them.’”

Bing vs Google On Easter ~ One Celebrates the Holiday, the Other?

VS.

In posting this today, I have found that Cesar Chavez was not a radical’s radical. But much like history, the left warps people and event to fit their ideology. Obviously, however, he is not a match for the Holiday today. For instance, he agreed that the La Raza movement was racist and spoke out against it:

… while reading a memoir/history of the immigration-reform movement by retired historian Otis Graham… I find out that even Cesar Chavez rejected the “la raza” idea as inherently racist. Graham quoted a 1969 New Yorker profile by Peter Matthiessen:

“I hear more and more Mexicans talking about la raza—to build up their pride, you know,” Chavez told me. “Some people don’t look at it as racism, but when you say ’la raza,’ you are saying an anti-gringo thing, and it won’t stop there. Today it’s anti-gringo, tomorrow it will be anti-Negro, and the day after it will be anti-Filipino, anti-Puerto Rican. And then it will be anti-poor-Mexican, and anti-darker-skinned Mexican. … La raza is a very dangerous concept. I speak very strongly against it among the chicanos.”

And in Sal Si Puedes: Cesar Chavez and the New American Revolution, his 1970 biography, Matthiessen talked to Chavez deputy Leroy Chatfield:

“That’s one of the reasons he is so upset about la raza. The same Mexicans that ten years ago were talking about themselves as Spaniards are coming on real strong these days as Mexicans. Everyone should be proud of what they are, of course, but race is only skin-deep. It’s phony and it comes out of frustration; the la raza people are not secure. They look upon Cesar as their ‘dumb Mexican’ leader; he’s become their saint. But he doesn’t want any part of it. He said to me just the other day, ‘Can’t they understand that that’s just the way Hitler started?’ A few months ago the Ford Foundation funded a la raza group and Cesar really told them off. The foundation liked the outfit’s sense of pride or something, and Cesar tried to explain to them what the origin of the word was, that it’s related to Hitler’s concept.”

(National Review Online)

In other words, Cesar Chavez would have agreed that the Democrats keynote speaker (2012 DNC), Julian Castros, was a racist and would — I assume — speak out against this! FrontPage Magazine as well talks about Chavez’s faith and his views that were opposite of modern liberalism/the Democrat Party:

…. But Chavez’s faith, more than his ethnicity or his labor affiliations, informed his activism. Inspired by Christ’s example, Chavez became famous through fasting (and through boycotts of grapes). He held religious masses at the California state capitol in Sacramento. He even once used his union connections to keep a plane grounded so that he could make his flight to see the pope. Chavez told his biographer in the mid 1970s that “my need for religion has deepened. Today I don’t think that I could base my will to struggle on cold economics or on some political doctrine. I don’t think there would be enough to sustain me. For me the base must be faith.”

Fittingly, UFW’s headquarters bears a religious name. The president referred to Chavez’s Central Valley sanctuary as “La Paz.” Its full name is Nuestra Señora Reina de La Paz—Our Lady Queen of Peace. In making a national monument of a religious retreat named in honor of Jesus’s mother, the president risks irritating one constituency as he courts another. Surely the American Civil Liberties Union can’t be thrilled with a mystical Catholic, and his outpost named for Mary, receiving official recognition from the U.S. government.

Alas, there is an election to win. Disrupting the president’s fragile coalition over principles normally fiercely fought for on matters as unobtrusive as nondenominational graduation prayers and Christmastime nativity scenes just won’t do when it comes to nationalizing a religious leader’s religious retreat named for a religious saint. Here, activists, normally incapable of looking the other way, mute their objections.

“Cesar feels that liberals are liberal right up to the steps of the Catholic church,” explained Dorothy Huerta, co-founder of the UFW, during Chavez’s ’70s heyday. “Guys can be liberal about homosexuality, about dope, about capital punishment, about everything but the Catholic church. There the liberalism ends.”

However, I doubt Google knows this about Chavez, and buys into the Huffington Post or modern liberal interpretation of Chavez, like they do the Vietnam War (the Cold War), Reagan’s time in office, and the like.

H.G. Wells
“I am an historian, I am not a believer, but I must confess as a historian that this penniless preacher from Nazareth is irrevocably the very center of history. Jesus Christ is easily the most dominant figure in all history.”

In order to understand the differing views between Google and Bing, one has to realize that because religion is less practiced on the left, something has to take its place:

You cannot understand the left until you understand “leftism is a religion.”

You cannot understand the Left if you do not understand that leftism is a religion. It is not God-based (some left-wing Christians’ and Jews’ claims notwithstanding), but otherwise it has every characteristic of a religion. The most blatant of those characteristics is dogma. People who believe in leftism have as many dogmas as the most fundamentalist Christian.

One of them is material equality as the preeminent moral goal. Another is the villainy of corporations. The bigger the corporation, the greater the villainy. Thus, instead of the devil, the Left has Big Pharma, Big Tobacco, Big Oil, the “military-industrial complex,” and the like. Meanwhile, Big Labor, Big Trial Lawyers, and — of course — Big Government are left-wing angels.

And why is that? Why, to be specific, does the Left fear big corporations but not big government?

The answer is dogma — a belief system that transcends reason. No rational person can deny that big governments have caused almost all the great evils of the last century, arguably the bloodiest in history. Who killed the 20 to 30 million Soviet citizens in the Gulag Archipelago — big government or big business? Hint: There were no private businesses in the Soviet Union. Who deliberately caused 75 million Chinese to starve to death — big government or big business? Hint: See previous hint. Did Coca-Cola kill 5 million Ukrainians? Did Big Oil slaughter a quarter of the Cambodian population? Would there have been a Holocaust without the huge Nazi state?

Whatever bad things big corporations have done is dwarfed by the monstrous crimes — the mass enslavement of people, the deprivation of the most basic human rights, not to mention the mass murder and torture and genocide — committed by big governments.

How can anyone who thinks rationally believe that big corporations rather than big governments pose the greatest threat to humanity? The answer is that it takes a mind distorted by leftist dogma. If there is another explanation, I do not know what it is.

~Dennis Prager

See more ~

http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/166225/

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/03/google-gets-religion-honors-cesar-chavez-on-easter/

Marked for Being White! Federally Funded History Repeating Itself

Via Libertarian Republican:

Ethnically European High school kids encouraged to wear special symbols of identification in public schools

From EAGNews.org, “Wis. education officials want students to wear ‘white privilege’ wristbands”:

an Americorps operation called VISTA (Volunteers in Service to America) – may go a bit overboard by encouraging white students to wear a white wristband “as a reminder about your (white) privilege.”

Geared towards high school students, the program “seeks to build capacity in schools and districts serving low-income families to develop an effective, sustainable, research-based program of family-school-community partnerships,” according to its Facebook page. The webpage also offers a series of suggestions for high schools students to become more racially sensitive. They include:

Wear a white wristband as a reminder about your privilege, and as a personal commitment to explain why you wear the wristband. 

Gateway Pundit points out some more craziness involved in this program:

The website also offers a series of suggestions for high schools students to become more racially sensitive including the suggestion that white students wear white wristbands to remind them of their white privilege.

Another CRAZY thing I noticed on the Wisconsin Department of Education where the program has its genesis, is this quote by Gloria Steinem:

Lets look at some other “insights” by Gloria:

…Well-known feminist author and co-founder/editor of Ms. magazine, Gloria Steinem, said the following about feminisms end game: “Overthrowing capitalism is too small for us. We must overthrow the whole #@*! patriarch!”

[….]

Alternatively, Gloria Steinem declared: “By the year 2000 we will, I hope, raise our children to believe in human potential, not God.”

[….]

Marilyn French, feminist author calls all men rapists: “All men are rapists and that’s all they are. They rape us with their eyes, their laws, and their codes.” 

Let us allow Gloria Steinen, feminist extraordinaire, to set the stage with the following praises about her contemporary, Andrea Dworkin, “In every century, there are a handful of writers who help the human race to evolve. Andrea is one of them.” Why preface Andrea Dworkin?  Because she has this to say about men in general: “Heterosexual intercourse is the pure, formalized expression of contempt for women’s bodies.”

(source)

Which is why feminist Tammy Bruce says that what “Gloria Steinem, Molly Yard, Patricia Ireland and all the rest have presented to you over the last [30-years] years has not been feminist theory.” I might add that what they have offered is radicalism in freedoms clothing.

Golden Rice and Common Sense | Blood on Their Hands

Vitamin A Deficiency

Look at it … look at it! Ideas have consequences.

From video description:

Dennis Prager reads from the Lancet an article written by Bjorn Lomborg about Golden Rice, a genetically modified rice that has increased vitamin A in it (article: PROJECT SYNDICATE). Reason.com also quotes from it but also has a photo of one of the kids talked about for a reference to what is otherwise just talked about (REASON.ORG). Many deaths are on the heads of these eco-fascists, and even well-meaning people who get stuck in a rut of thinking one-way. 

From the PROJECT SYNDICATE article:

Three billion people depend on rice as their staple food, with 10% at risk for vitamin A deficiency, which, according to the World Health Organization, causes 250,000-500,000 children to go blind each year. Of these, half die within a year. A study from the British medical journal The Lancet estimates that, in total, vitamin A deficiency kills 668,000 children under the age of five each year.

Yet, despite the cost in human lives, anti-GM campaigners – from Greenpeace to Naomi Klein – have derided efforts to use golden rice to avoid vitamin A deficiency. In India, Vandana Shiva, an environmental activist and adviser to the government, called golden rice “a hoax” that is “creating hunger and malnutrition, not solving it.”…

To be sure, handing out vitamin pills or adding vitamin A to staple products can make a difference. But it is not a sustainable solution to vitamin A deficiency. And, while it is cost-effective, recent published estimates indicate that golden rice is much more so.

Supplementation programs costs $4,300 for every life they save in India, whereas fortification programs cost about $2,700 for each life saved. Both are great deals. But golden rice would cost just $100 for every life saved from vitamin A deficiency…

Now, finally, golden rice will come to the Philippines; after that, it is expected in Bangladesh and Indonesia. But, for eight million kids, the wait was too long.

“If you plan to destroy test fields to prevent responsible testing and development of Golden Rice for humanitarian purposes, you will be accused of contributing to a crime against humanity. Your actions will be carefully registered and you will, hopefully, have the opportunity to defend your illegal and immoral actions in front of an international court.” — Dr. Ingo Potrykus to Greenpeace, February 2001

CLIMATE DEPOT has this:

….According to the World Health Organization between 250,000 to 500,000 children become blind every year due to vitamin A deficiency, half of whom die within a year of becoming blind. Millions of other people suffer from various debilitating conditions due to the lack of this essential nutrient.

Golden Rice is a genetically modified form of rice that, unlike conventional rice, contains beta-Carotene in the rice kernel. Beta-Carotene is converted to vitamin A in humans and is important for eyesight, the immune system, and general good health. Swiss scientist and humanitarian Dr. Ingo Potrykus and his colleagues developed Golden Rice in 1998. It has been demonstrated in numerous studies that golden rice can eliminate vitamin A deficiency.

Greenpeace and its allies have successfully blocked the introduction of golden rice for over a decade, claiming it may have “environmental and health risks” without ever elaborating on what those risks might be. After years of effort the Golden Rice Humanitarian Project, led by Dr. Potrykus, The Rockefeller Foundation and others were unable to break through the political opposition to golden rice that was generated directly by Greenpeace and its followers.

Recently the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has taken a lead role, in collaboration with the International Rice Research Institute in the Philippines, in breaking through these barriers and bringing Golden Rice to market. Field trials are now underway in the Philippines and Bangladesh with the hope of introducing it to the market by 2015. Since the invention of Golden Rice in 1998 between four million and 8 million additional children have become blind, nearly half of whom have already died. Surely this constitutes “great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.” Greenpeace continues to oppose these field trials.

Greenpeace has openly and aggressively spread misinformation about Golden Rice since it was first invented and has continued to do so at every opportunity. They claim that there are better ways to alleviate vitamin A deficiency, such as vitamin pills and “home gardening”. Yet Greenpeace is doing nothing to implement alternative programs for the millions of victims, claiming the cause of vitamin A deficiency is “poverty”. One might ask if purposefully condemning millions of children to blindness and early death perpetuates poverty rather than alleviating it. Academies of Science around the world endorse the use of biotechnology, including genetic modification, to improve the nutrition and productivity of our food crops. There is zero evidence of any possible harm from these improvements….

…READ MORE…

 

 

Newspaper Publishes Gun Owners ~ In Response, Reporters Addresses Published (Updated: Former NYPD Commissioner John Miller Interviewed) #grapesodaandcheetos (Updated w/ Ann Coulter)

Updated via The Blaze:

Coulter explains her line of thinking and brought up women who have had abortions:

Why can’t we get a record of women who have had abortions? They get money from Planned Parenthood, they get money from Medicare, from Medicaid. Much of this is…they’re tax subsidies. I think, you know, mothers might want to know what other women on their street might be willing to murder a child.

I do not know what the purpose of publishing gun ownership was? But, I do know that a robber may want to add this info to his “casing” of a neighborhood. In other words, this paper may have endangered the lives of the non-gun owners in this area. Dumb. Via Gateway Pundit:

On Sunday, liberal New York newspaper The Journal News published the names and addresses of legal permit holders in two counties online and in print. (Full Map HERE):

In response Talk of the Sound website posted the names and addresses of the Journal News reporters in the same area. (Full map HERE):

NewsBusters has this update:

Both NBC and CBS covered the outrage Thursday morning over a New York newspaper publishing the names and addresses of gun permit holders in two counties. ABC made no mention of the controversy, however.

“A suburban New York City newspaper is in the middle of a big controversy this morning after it put up online the names and addresses of everyone with a gun permit,” reported CBS This Morning co-host Jeff Glor. “Call it a battle between the First and Second Amendments,” said NBC News correspondent Katy Tur on the Today show.

Both the Today show and CBS This Morning aired full segments on the controversy. CBS even interviewed a Syracuse University journalism professor and a former NYPD deputy commissioner about the story, and both frowned upon the paper’s decision to publish the details.

“In this case, I think that the newspaper has gone a little bit too far in terms of publishing information that actually stigmatizes people,” Syracuse professor Hub Brown told CBS. “I think it’s a bit disingenuous of the Journal News to say that they were just giving information out here. They were taking a position on guns.”

Former NYPD Commissioner John Miller offered the law enforcement perspective. “Well the police chiefs look at this and say, look, 40 percent of the people who are holding these gun permits are either active or retired law enforcement. And these are people who have put people in jail for a long time, these are people who could be targets,” he said.

Can someone say LAWSUITS!?

Huffington Post has this excellent blurb about another aspect these “journolists” (activists) actions may have caused:

Blogger Christopher Fountain retaliated against a New York newspaper, which recently published the addresses of local gun owners, by publishing the addresses and phone numbers of the newspaper’s staff.

The Journal News published the names and addresses of legal gun owners in Westchester and Rockland counties. The paper has been criticized for allegedly putting people in danger.

On Monday, Fountain began publishing the names, addresses and contact information of the newspaper’s publisher and editor, and staff members who worked on the gun owners’ map. Readers came up with information for other staff members, and Fountain listed those employees as well.

The blogger explained why he did it, speaking on CNN Thursday. “Somehow, [The Journal News was] conflating legal gun owners with some crazed, tormented devil up in Newtown and putting the two together,” he alleged. “And I was offended by that and I wondered how they’d like it if their addresses were published.”

Journal News publisher Janet Hanson has defended the newspaper’s gun map, saying that the information was “important” in the aftermath of the Newtown shooting.

Fountain disagreed on Thursday, and argued that she could have published the number of gun permits in the counties instead. “But the fact that they put the addresses — I’ve received emails from abused women who were under protective order and in hiding, and they’re terribly afraid that now their names and addresses are all over the Internet and accessible through that map,” he said.

…read more…

Dennis Prager Responds to the Cooper/Griffin “Affair” on New Years

From Video Description:

Reading from the Baltimore Sun’s article, “Anderson Cooper, Kathy Griffin double down debasing CNN brand two nights straight,” by their movie critic, David Zurawik, Prager shows that Fox News once again keeps its head high as CNN contributes to societal decline. (Posted by: Religio-Political Talk)

For more clear thinking like this from Dennis Prager… I invite you to visit: http://www.dennisprager.com/

A Jesuit University (Fordham) Dumped Ann Coulter as `Hateful,` but Pro-Infanticide/Pro-Bestiality Peter Singer Okay (UPDATED)


Woe to those who call evil good and good evil,
who put darkness for light and light for darkness,
who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!
(Isaiah 5:20)

The Daily Caller note the upside-down world of the left

After effectively barring conservative columnist Ann Coulter from speaking on campus last week, the Jesuit college Fordham University welcomed infanticide and bestiality advocate Peter Singer for a panel discussion on Friday.

According to Fordham’s media relations website, Singer, a tenured Princeton bioethics professor, spoke from 4 to 6 p.m. in a panel the university promised “will provoke Christians to think about other animals in new ways.”

Singer has long lamented the societal stigma against having sex with animals.

“Not so long ago,” Singer wrote in one essay, “any form of sexuality not leading to the conception of children was seen as, at best, wanton lust, or worse, a perversion. One by one, the taboos have fallen. But … not every taboo has crumbled.”

In the essay, titled “Heavy Petting,” Singer concluded that “sex across the species barrier,” while not normal, “ceases to be an offence [sic] to our status and dignity as human beings.”

“Occasionally mutually satisfying activities may develop” when humans have sex with their pets, he claimed.

In addition to supporting bestiality and immediately granting equal legal rights to animals, Singer has also advocated euthanizing the mentally ill and aborting disabled infants on utilitarian grounds.

In his 1993 essay “Taking Life,” Singer, in a section called “Justifying Infanticide and Non-Voluntary Euthanasia,” wrote that “killing a disabled infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person.”

“Very often it is not wrong at all,” he added, noting that newborns should not be considered people until approximately a month after their birth.

…read more….

A Conservative Radio Host vs. a Gay-Left Wing Radio Host Handling Gay Callers

Via Gay Patriot:

Contrast how a gay-left wing radio host handles a gay conservative caller (http://tinyurl.com/afprd9a) with how Rush Limbaugh responds to a similar type of caller.

Rush doesn’t lambaste this man even as he says he supports gay marriage.

And the conservative talker concludes the conversation, saying, “I’m glad you called.”