Friday, October 2, 2015
Rumors of John Kerry and a Noble Peace Prize
 |
| Earl of Ketchup -The Duke of Heinz |
WFB - Growing speculation that John Kerry will receive a Nobel Peace Prize for finalizing the Iranian nuclear deal is generating renewed criticism of his close relationship with the Iranian foreign minister, Javad Zarif, a key public face for the theocratic regime who is rumored to be a probable co-recipient with Kerry.
Rumors have been circulating for months that Kerry and Zarif will be co-selected for the prize. The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, a leading Swedish think-tank, recommended in July that the two be selected for the Nobel in 2016.
Lawmakers and Washington insiders who have worked for years on the Iran portfolio have reacted with shock to the rumors, telling the Washington Free Beacon in multiple interviews that both Kerry and Zarif are unfit to receive the prize:
“We have seen Nobel Prizes that appeared to be awarded to people who have acted staunchly to the detriment of Israel’s existence, and if that is their inclination this time, I think Secretary Kerry should be first runner up for the Nobel Prize, right behind the Ayatollah,” said Rep. Louie Gohmert (R., Texas)....."
A Noble Prize would be the 'Cream de la cream' of Kerry's tenure in office, who over the difficult period of negotiations sustained 4 different serious wounds, including a broken leg, and awarded (to himself) a record number of Purple Heart Medals for wounds sustained in service to his country.
Thursday, October 1, 2015
OBAMA: “This is something we should politicize.”
Fails to mention "Campus Security" were Unarmed.
Wednesday, September 30, 2015
PC Wingnuts Attempt to Outdo Themselves...
Liberal Group Wants Mothers Called ‘Birthing Individuals’ to Avoid Offending TRANSGENDERED PEOPLE
Yes, you read that right. Reminds me of the old Marie Muldaur Song "Dig a Hole, Dig a Hole". Keep it up people, keep it up. The backlash is a comin'.
The politically correct speech police are at it again and this time it involves the progressive idea that using the term “women” when relating it to motherhood is offensive.
Nope. “Women” is out. Now, liberals want everyone use other terms instead:
The Midwives Alliance of North America (MANA) conducted a politically correct purge of their guidelines, removing any reference to fact that mothers are women, for fear of offending the transgendered. But now, an alliance of midwifes, mothers and experts have began to fight back, insisting that it is “dangerous” and “harmful” to deny the “biological reality” of motherhood.
In 2014, with little consultation, MANA decided that being a woman was not a necessary or relevant factor for being a mother. They edited their core competencies document, and in effect ordered practitioners to stop referring to clients as “women” and “mothers” demanding they say “pregnant people” and “birthing individuals” instead.
Sure, deny the fact that only women can be mothers or give birth to children. But conservatives are the “science-deniers.”
{SNIP}Come to think of it, this could open up a whole new category of greeting card for Mom's and Dads Day. Just image the possibilities for "Happy Birthing Individual Day" and for Dads, "Happy Birthing Individual's Sex Partner Day"!
Tuesday, September 29, 2015
He Must Enjoy Sounding like a Clown in Front of the Entire World......
Tweeted from Barack Obama's UN Speech:
"Violent extremism is not unique to any one faith, so no one should ever be profiled or targeted simply because of their faith." —@POTUS
— The White House (@WhiteHouse) September 29, 2015
So we need not be vigilante of Christians that blow up churches, of Buddhist who blow up buses full of innocents, of Hindus that push gays from the top of buildings, of Mormons who rape children and Hare Krishnas that stone to death women.
"Ideologies are not defeated with guns, they’re defeated by better ideas—a more attractive, compelling vision." —@POTUS on fighting ISIL
— The White House (@WhiteHouse) September 29, 2015
Yes, my friends, we all know Hitler blew his brains out, and Tojo disembowel himself because they both realized they were wrong thinking......
The Left's Next Target: Mainstreaming of Pedophilia
BORN THAT WAY
Every time the topic of pedophilia and related sickness comes up, at least some of the people there get this jaded look on their face like you're talking about the earth being flat or moon landings being faked. There they go again, warning about the slippery slope and predicting horrors just because we're nice to homosexuals.
Its long been a chorus over the years that cultural conservatives have heard. No-fault divorce will not cause a breakdown in marriage and family, you heartless jerk! Relaxing sexual mores will not result in increased teen pregnancy and social decline, you cold-hearted monster! The responses are remarkably consistent from the same groups of people: any resistance to moving away from proven and trustworthy social morals is a terrible, restrictive, and even fascist thing.
Repeatedly over the years I've noted that the trend is toward normalizing pedophilia and related evils in western culture. Each step has predictable and unpredictable results, and leads naturally and logically to the next slouch toward Gomorrah. The problem is that the sophist, emotionally-driven arguments for these changes always appeal not to the good of society and reason, but to feelings and how nice people are. And, of course, personal attacks, accusations of terrible motives, and insults.
For a few decades now, film, literature, and portions of art and other communities have been leaning toward normalizing underage sexuality. Since the 70s, Roman Polanski's rape of a drug addled girl of 13 years has been defended by those who think his art transcends morality and propriety. But its getting more pervasive and common these days.
Being born lusting toward someone you ought not is bad for you, and a struggle - we all have those struggles in some way or another whether it be jealousy about wealth, gluttony, gossiping, excessive rebellion, and so on... or something sexual in nature. Fighting that evil inside us is a noble cause. But at no point does it become justification or permission for behavior. Being born a certain way is simply a statement of fact, not allowance to act upon it.
The problem here, of course, is one of morality. There is no moral character to one's ethnic background any more than being left handed, blue-eyed, or short. Its just a physical description. Moral character comes from what we do with what we are. Some behaviors are evil and awful and should be oppose, period, no matter how much someone is born that way.READ MORE
The same American Psychological Association, that in the late 20th century became populated with homosexuals, and with the help of their intellectual sympathizers within the Association, redefined their deviance as being normal. Today they are now leaning towards redefining it even further to include pedophilia, from a mental disturbance to just another sexual proclivity.
Monday, September 28, 2015
Clintons Enlisted Steven Spielberg to Help Remake Hillary Into Someone Likeable
Clinton supporters remain remarkably confused as to why their chosen candidate is having such a difficult time relating to the common people, even though she's clearly been communing with the proletariat on a regular basis since this candidacy took flight. To the public, of course, Hillary's lack of appeal is self-evident; her prickly, false demeanor speaks volumes about her ambition and her desire to lead. She'd make an excellent President - if only the job didn't involve actual Americans.
According to a new book, Bill Clinton recognized Hillary's disconnect early on and tried to hire master filmmaker Steven Spielberg to mold Clinton's image. The effort, though, turned out less like the director's remarkable crafting of an extraterrestrial into a friendly sidekick in E.T. and more like the crafting of an angry, reanimated Elsa Lanchester.
Hillary Clinton enlisted the help of Steven Spielberg in an attempt to maker her seem more likeable, a new book claims.
The front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination was urged to seek help by her husband Bill Clinton - and he told her: 'Let’s ask Steven for help,' according to the book, which is called "Unlikeable".
So their friend Spielberg provided acting coaches to help Hillary prepare for speeches. But the sessions came to an abrupt end after Hillary took her frustrations out on a camera and knocked it off its tripod, according to an excerpt of the book published in the New York Post.
Hillary. Angry. Hillary. SMASH.
Apparently, she didn't like the suggestion that she "pretend" to like her audiences. After all, according to Hillary, she got paid a quarter million to deliver her speeches to salivating audiences across the globe - what advice did she really need professional actors? She's clearly fantastic at the art.
Since Spielberg has since bowed out of the process - at least according to reports - Clinton is taking on a different tactic in ingratiating herself to a willing public, aligning with comedian Amy Schumer and whatever-she-is Lena Dunham to chat about things Americans really care about, like Wall Street bankers and Lenny Kravitz's undercarriage.
Unfortunately, Lena Dunham is a softball interview, so even as Clinton lies directly to her face - she's not going to take on a single big bank, as she's already gotten millions from hedge fund bankers and financial sector PACs, and as we've seen her level of experience with technology, it's difficult to believe she could find a viral video on YouTube - so we're still left wondering whether Clinton really even lives in the same world the rest of us do. The interview even makes Kanye West look thoughtful by comparison.
Why Politically Correct Social Sciences and Social Scientists are Pitiful, Laughable and Absurd
Hi-jacking Anthropology for the Pleasure of Race-baiters,
Radical Feminist and Global Warming Hoaxers
by Robert Lindsay
It seems cruel to say that most social sciences are jokes and most social scientists are clowns, but that’s really the sad and painful, even heartbreaking, truth.
Generally speaking, most social scientists are not even practicing science anyway. They just say they are. I do not know what they are practicing. Maybe politics, ideology or propaganda. Most social scientists are ideologues of some sort or another. It’s pretty hard to find a rational. And what is stunning about these social scientist retards is that they are always going on and on about:
“Our science has proved this! Our science has proved that! You’re anti-scientific!”
The social scientists then yell that the man on the street knows nothing compared to the anointed scientists of the field. Social science often appropriates the real sciences, usually for political and emotional reasons. If any man on the street rejects whatever the latest stupid PC paradigm is, the social scientists will appropriate real science and argue, for instance, that no way does the man on the street know more about astronomy than astronomers.
But we aren’t talking about real sciences. We are talking about the PC fake sciences called social sciences. So you can see that social scientists throw themselves in with the real scientists and marry their field to the real scientists’ one whenever it is convenient for them. Nevertheless, social scientists spend a good amount of time engaging in sheer nihilism.
Emotions run wild in the social sciences. While scientists are supposed to be emotionally constrained at least in their published statements, social scientists seem to be a lot less controlled, and language in debates is often excessively harsh for proper scientific debate, but as no one is practicing science anyway, who really cares what they think!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)