College: The Great Liberal Lie

Hello Children,

I declare if’n sometimes even I ain’t almost suckered into the LIBERAL MAINSTREAM MEDIA’S narrative of America’s “suffering” middle class.

You know, like the LIE of how more Americans are living paycheck-to-paycheck {Here}? Or how American salaries ain’t improved since the 1970’s when factored for inflation {Here}?

Well there ain’t no worse LIE than the one that says college is too expensive {Here}:

Dan In the United States, some economists are now suggesting that too many young people are being encouraged to go to college or university, where many of them fail or leave with poor degrees and big debts.

Instead, more should be encouraged to take vocational courses and get to work as soon as possible.

Professor of Economics at Ohio University, Richard Vedder, told us not everyone was suitable for a university education but that had become the standard. Professor Miriam David from the University of London said whatever job people ended up with, the mind broadening impact of university degree was valuable for all.

Did you do a degree that you now think was pointless and just delayed your opportunity to develop a career and a healthy bank account? Or do you agree that whatever the degree, the study is good for you?

And be honest about those long nights in the student bar!

Too expensive for whom?

Not for me, it ain’t! *

And not for other REAL (i.e. wealthy) Americans, either!

As is pointed out {Here}, ain’t nobody should go to college what can’t afford to pay for all four years upfront:



Oh, boo-hoo-hoo! Cry me a river, WELFARE QUEENS! Carrying lifelong, back-breaking debt builds character…for the poor, anyhow!

That’s something all you Liberals out there just will never understand! Instead, you’ll whine and complain that America ought adopt a European model of AFFORDABLE higher education {Here}:

More education means better jobs, higher income, a stronger economy and fewer crimes. Today, almost all jobs that pay more than $30,000 per year require at least a bachelor’s degree. Without a bachelor’s degree, you’re more likely to belong in the low-income bracket, less likely to retire, and more likely to die before 75. In an increasingly competitive world, the high school diploma alone doesn’t cut it anymore, even if you want to become an NFL or NBA player.

Feeling the increasing pressure to succeed in the workforce, most students would try anything to afford college tuition, including getting a college loan and credit cards, working multiple jobs at minimum wage, joining the military (and sometimes ending up in wars abroad), and even selling weed (sometimes ending up in trouble with the law). After graduation, most students have more than $20,000 in college debt, and find it very difficult to find a job that can pay it off in less than a decade or sometimes two. In fact, most students just pay the monthly minimum forever, which is the loan’s interest rate that makes it harder for them to pay off their debt. That’s why many students now find no choice but to go back to school for a master’s degree, increasing their knowledge— as well as their debt.

In France and most of Western Europe, college tuition, used textbooks and tutoring are free. In fact, they are the right of every citizen. As a result, parents are never worried about college savings, and students are never worried about college debts. Affordability is never a factor in deciding to attend college. In the U.S., that sounds like a very distant dream, not the “American dream.”

Let’s compare American and European college students: One worries about tuition, enrollment and debt; the other one doesn’t. One prioritizes minimum wage jobs over school schedule in order to eat and pay bills; the other one works in a degree-related job to gain experience, improve the resume and afford weekly entertainment. Which one do you think has a better chance of graduation? Which one do you think will have better skills after graduation?

The numbers are not a secret. The college dropout rates are much higher in America than in Europe, even though the European curriculum is harder. The truth is the American college education system discriminates against the poor, because in America, college education (like health care) is a privilege, not a human right. Furthermore, since math, finance, science and engineering scores are higher in Europe and Asia, a smaller percentage of Americans choose these fields, which are the backbone of every economy. Although the dollar is still the world’s main currency, America is no longer the same leader in global competition. The post-WWII honeymoon (when most of Europe was destroyed) is over. However, most of the best Ph.D. programs remain in America.

When you combine the strengths of the American and European college education systems, shouldn’t America join Europe in making college tuition free, at least until earning a master’s degree? Over half a century ago, we decided that K-12 education should be free for the benefit of society. Then why not increase it to K-16 (first 4 years of college at least)? Today, college degrees (not high school diplomas) are becoming the new bar for prosperity and the new standard that most American employers expect when hiring, so thanks Obama for this crucial higher education reform.

Thanks anyway, KARL MARX, but I think we’ll keep our FREE MARKET IS NEVER WRONG system of debt-burdened young people!

It’s what Jesus would want!

-Norma Jean

* Not that I think ANYBODY ought attend college (i.e. INDOCTRINATION CENTERS) yet, at least not until we go back to the old days when college was reserved for the study of the Bible!

Quickies: The Price of a Human Life: When is it Too Much?/Atheism Among the Negro: Libs Newest Plot to Destroy Christianity

Hello Children,

When did this country suddenly become a COMMUNIST utopia?!

Oh that’s right, it was when ACORN done got Barack HUSSEIN Obama “elected” president! {shakes fist}

Just in case y’all ain’t up to speed, the FBI (a.k.a. jackbooted THUGS!) has been questioning everybody around the area for clues to the innocent little “prank” played on our newest neighbors {Here}:

They’ll be dropping by anytime now, and my seeing as my lawyer ain’t yet finished coaching me, all I got time for is a couple Thursday afternoon Quickies:

The Price of a Human Life: When is it Too Much?

I tell you, children, BP needs to find themselves some better number-crunchers {Here}:

A document obtained by The Daily Beast shows that BP, in a previous fatal disaster, increased worker risk to save money. Are there parallels with the Gulf explosion?

This is a story about the Three Little Pigs. A lot of dead oil workers. And British Petroleum.

From the minute the Deepwater Horizon offshore rig exploded, BP has hewed to a party line: it did everything it could to prevent the April 20 accident that killed 11 men and has been spewing millions of gallons of crude oil into the Gulf of Mexico ever since. Some critics have questioned the veracity of that position.

Now The Daily Beast has obtained a document—displayed below—that goes to the heart of BP procedures, demonstrating that before the company’s previous major disaster—at a moment when the oil giant could choose between cost-savings and greater safety—it selected cost-savings. And BP chose to illustrate that choice, without irony, by invoking the classic Three Little Pigs fairy tale.

EXCLUSIVE: This internal BP document shows how the company took deadly risks to save money by opting to build cheaper facilities for workers. The company estimated the value of a worker's life at $10 million.

TEN-MILLION DOLLARS EACH?!

Are these folks well-connected? Are they wealthy?

Cause if not, then that there number is much too HIGH!

Absent either of them two factors, I just don’t cotton to any company paying out ANY significant cash for employee deaths!

You ask me, the FREE MARKET ought to be the ONLY arbiter of the worth of human life! *

Consider: if’n a company is irresponsible and folks keep dying on the job with insufficient payout to their families, eventually said company won’t be able to attract enough skilled labor to keep it competitive in the marketplace.

So maybe you lose a few employees to accidents here and there for a while; eventually the worth of human life will reach a happy equilibrium with the free market!

What’s important is that the GOVERNMENT keeps its dadlbame claws out of free enterprise!

Atheism & the Negro: Libs Newest Plot to Destroy Christianity

I ain’t been able to locate no audio yet, but I heard some of the most distressing news in weeks whilst monitoring the Russ Parr Morning Show yesterday! **

Apparently, there’s a scourge working its horrors among America’s Negro community; a plague so destructive and debilitating that I hesitate to even mention its name:

Atheism!

Y’all can find the horribly distressing report {Here}:

Standing before a room full of fellow African-Americans, Jamila Bey took a deep breath and announced she's come out of the closet.

Her soul-bearing declaration is nearly taboo, she says.

"It's the A-word," said Bey, 33, feigning a whisper. "You commit social suicide as a black person when you say you're an atheist."

Bey and other black atheists, agnostics and secularists are struggling to openly affirm their secular viewpoints in a community that's historically heralded as one of America's most religious.

At the first African Americans for Humanism conference recently hosted by the non-profit Center for Inquiry, about 50 people gathered to discuss the ins and outs of navigating their dual identities as blacks and followers of the non-religious philosophy known as humanism.

"We need black non-theists to gather in one place and say, `Look at her or look at him: he looks like me and they're atheists. And that's OK,"' said Norm Allen, a former Baptist and now the executive director of African Americans for Humanism.

A 2009 study by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life found that African-Americans were more religious on a variety of measures than the U.S. population as a whole, with 87 percent of African-Americans describing themselves as belonging to one religious group or another.

Nearly eight in 10 African-Americans said religion is very important in their lives, compared with 56 percent of the general U.S. adult population.

"You renounce your blackness," said Bey. "You almost denigrate your heritage and history of the people if you claim atheism."

The 2008 American Religious Identification Survey found that those who claimed "no religion" -- popularly known as the "nones" -- were the only demographic group that grew in every state within the last 18 years, according to researchers at Trinity College.

Between 1990 and 2008, the number of nonreligious Americans nearly doubled, from 8 percent to 15 percent, according to the ARIS study.

Among African-Americans, the increase was also nearly double, from 6 percent to 11 percent.
[...]

Will the carriers of this horrible disease never be sated in their thirst for human souls?!

-Norma Jean

* Life outside the womb, of course! The life of the unborn is priceLESS, but depreciates in value following birth.
** Keeping up on the culture of the Hip Hop is just another of my duties as one of the Almighty’s guardians on the intertubes!

Bobby Jindal: Just Another RINO?

Hello Children,

All this coverage of the BP oil spill has done got ol’ Norma Jean hurting on the inside like nobody’s business!

Y’all might recollect I done “bloggered” about it {Here} and {Here} already, but the hurting just don’t stop!

First off, I thought it was all just a plot by the LIBERAL MAINSTREAM MEDIA to instill doubt into good Christian hearts of the supremacy of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

As if mankind was capable of destroying entire ecosystems! That’s just a whole mess of hooey {Here}:

On December 9, nationally syndicated radio host Rush Limbaugh falsely claimed that "[t]here is no evidence that we could destroy ecosystems." Limbaugh made his comments after a caller asked him for help in "combat[ing] the myth of global warming" that, the caller claimed, had been "spoon-fed" to his son. Limbaugh purported to debunk the "myth" that "humanity is causing" global warming -- a process that, according to Limbaugh, "relies on the theory that we are destroying ecosystems."

The Pew Center on Global Climate Change defines "ecosystem" as "[a] community of organisms and its physical environment." While it may not be possible to demonstrate that all of a given community's organisms, as well as the entirety of their physical environment, have been destroyed by human activities, there is ample evidence that humans can -- and do -- devastate ecosystems.

Libs, you and MISS Maddow just been schooled again!

Of course, that won’t shut up “scientists” and “researchers” who just drone on and on and on that us humans are to blame for every major disaster on the planet:



Uh excuse me, LibTURDS, but how do we know that’s natural methane coming up through the ice?

For all we know, there’s another “scientist” under water with a tank of methane just waiting around for a credulous LIBERAL camera crew (is there any other type? LOL!) to show up and shed a tear for ol’ mother earth!

I call HOAX!

But this here oil spill is just the latest MANUFACTURED outrage, drummed up by the LIBERAL MAINSTREAM MEDIA in an attempt to convince REAL Americans that there’s something wrong with the tax incentives the oil companies get for operating in America:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Oh, boo-hoo-hoo! The panty-waist LIBERAL ELITISTS is all broken up and angry that them mean ol’ oil companies got the temerity to actually MAKE A PROFIT!

Gasp! Quick! Somebody call Karl Marx!

Seriously though, y’all, I wasn’t upset none till today when I seen this {Here}:

As thick oil flows into the sensitive marshes of the Louisiana coast, Gov. Bobby Jindal called on the White House and BP today to either stop the oil spill or get out of his way.
Gov. Bobby Jindal warns BP and the White House to help or get out of his way.

Jindal is still waiting for the federal government to provide millions of feet in boom and to approve an emergency permit for a state plan to dredge and build new barrier islands to keep the oil from reaching the marshes and wetlands.

Jindal is so desperate for the islands, he's said he'll build them even if it sends him to jail.

"We've been frustrated with the disjointed effort to date that has too often meant too little, too late for the oil hitting our coast," Jindal said.
[...]

WHAT’S HAPPENING TO CONSERVATIVES?!

Is this the same feller who only last year was mocking the massive and wasteful FEDERAL spending of “President” Barack HUSSEIN Obama {Here}:

[...]
The Governor offered criticism for anything other than tax cuts and ridiculed government spending for items that are either widely supported -- "$8 billion for high-speed rail" -- or seemingly essential -- "$140 million for something called 'volcano monitoring'"
[...]

And now he’s demanding HELP from the federal government?!

Bobby, how can you do this to me?!

Well, I’m afeard Satan done sunk his claws into another RINO!

I sure enough hope you enjoy BURNING IN HELL, Bobby Jindal! You’ll be in good company I reckon with all your pagan-worshiping HINDU family!


-Norma Jean

Quickies: Rand Paul Is Not a Hypocrite; It's Just That He Holds Others to a Different Standard Is All!/Isadore Rosenfeld - Ph.D in EVIL

Hello Children,

I swanny, but ain’t they no banks no more that are more discerning when it comes to WHO they allow to borrow money?!

Shitfire, y’all! I’m looking out my northwest guard tower right this moment, and you just will not believe who I see moving into the property next door!

Negroes!

Can you believe it?!

How in Sam Hill can a family of coloreds afford to buy a 10-million dollar estate?!

Everybody knows (everybody with a brain anyhow, which excludes Liberals ) that Negroes just ain’t got the work ethic us REAL Americans (i.e. WASPs) got. *

QED, they shouldn’t never leave the inner cities!

Now y’all know I ain’t got a racist bone in my body (that’s what LibTURDS are for {Here}), but you know what happens when THEY move into the neighborhood!

Stereotypes exist for a reason, you know!

Anyhow, I’m going to be a mite busy getting together the “welcoming committee” so as to leave our new neighbors a “gift” in their front yard tonight.

So here are a couple of Monday afternoon Quickies:

Rand Paul Is Not a Hypocrite; It's Just That He Holds Others to a Different Standard Is All!

Of course y’all are aware of my ongoing feud with noted ATHEIST, my arch nemesis Ed Brayton.

Well he's decided to wage an all out war on REAL American Rand Paul:

Rand Paul, tea party favorite and scourge of socialism, gets half his business from Medicare and opposes any cut in Medicare funding that might interrupt the flow of public money to his bank account:

But on Thursday evening, the ophthalmologist from Bowling Green said there was one thing he would not cut: Medicare physician payments.

In fact, Paul -- who says 50% of his patients are on Medicare -- wants to end cuts to physician payments under a program now in place called the sustained growth rate, or SGR. "Physicians should be allowed to make a comfortable living," he told a gathering of neighbors in the back yard of Chris and Linda Wakild, just behind the 10th hole of a golf course.

I happen to agree that the SGR rules need to be scrapped. If we're going to have a Medicare program, the worst thing we can do is underfund it and cut reimbursement rates and therefore limit the number of doctors who accept it. And Medicaid is in even worse shape in terms of reimbursement rates.

But this is certainly inconsistent with his stance on government-paid health care. Medicare is a single payer system that provides medical care for most of America's senior citizens. That's far more socialized a system than what was just passed as health care reform, yet Rand Paul not only benefits from it but opposes any cuts in the flow of tax dollars into his bank account. How convenient for him.

So ol’ Ed decided to SMEAR the good name of Dr. Paul!

And in other news, the sky is blue!

But the HEINOUS attack on Dr. Paul ain’t the worst part of this here article!

If’n you can believe it, it gets worse! This time from one of the comments:

The best counter to Rand Paul is not the knee-jerk liberal response that the Civil Rights Bill is good statutory law because it protects good people from racist business owners. That was the bulk of the response I heard last evening on the TV news and liberal talk radio shows and I find it helps Rand Paul with non-liberals since it compares their bleeding heart preferences to a falsely described liberty-friendly position that insinuates that our founding principles and the Constitution is on the side of Rand Paul and his ilk.

I would argue it's instead far more effective for liberals to make a libertarian argument consistent with the Constitution that challenges and I think convincingly discredits Mr. Paul's position. The prior argument sings only to the choir; the latter intrigues non-liberal thinkers and shuts-up Paul's defenders or causes them to mindlessly and impotently repeat their points as if the counter didn't exist (this worked for me in the Rachel Maddow forums when I made the libertarian argument against Paul's position when some Paulites showed up).

In the case of the Civil Rights bill, the libertarian argument contra-Paul goes like this:

For 75 years after the Civil War the government used its powers to defend the rights of bigoted business owners to prohibit goods and services from some people based strictly on those people's skin color or race in a manner that denied other Americans their right to equally access goods and services.

After passage of the Civil Rights Act the federal government now uses its powers to defend the rights of consumers to secure equal access to goods and services regardless of their skin color or race.

The latter action is an example of the U.S. further 'perfecting the union'. The Civil Rights Act accomplishes this by doing a better job of defending the vastly superior individual rights of people against the vastly inferior rights of some bigoted business owners. Either way government was defending the exercise of some people's rights at the cost of others' rights, now the group with the far superior claim that also better promotes the 'general welfare' noted in the Preamble of the Constitution is being protected. Such proper protection of individual rights is critical if the administration of the Constitution is to competently maintain its fealty to the Declaration of Independence's argument that constitutional legitimacy is possible only if the italicized portions of the DofI are honored:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends [Heath - like government helping one group prohibit another group from exercising their rights because the bigoted group thinks they're unequal], it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. [emphasis added - MH]

The left needs to do a better job of adding the flag and apple pie to their arguments if they want to dominate arguments where their opponents are clearly wrong while also falsely claiming fealty to flag and Constitution. The reluctance to rely on the Constitution is perhaps the political left's greatest rhetorical weakness, even Sarah Palin is currently kicking their ass on this matter and she wouldn't understand a Constitutional clause if her paycheck depended on it (which was actually validated several times in the '08 campaign).

Posted by: Michael Heath | May 21, 2010 1:49 PM

Now it’s one thing to call Dr. Paul a HYPOCRITE, but it’s just downright DIRTY to use Libertarian arguments AGAINST Libertarian principles!

Well I got one thing to say to YOU, Michael Heath: God loves us Conservatives (and to a lesser extent, Libertarians)!

For you Libs, though, He looks forward to the day He can at last throw you into the Lake of Eternal Fire!

Dr. Rand is one of God's chosen, while YOU are going to burn in HELL forever and ever with the rest of your LIBERAL vermin brethren!

No other argument is needed!

Isadore Rosenfeld - Ph.D in EVIL

Where did Fox News find this QUACK:



"DOCTOR" Isadore Rosenfeld; figures a damned JEW would push for the destruction of the WHITE race by encouraging use of the HPV vaccine, thus ensuring that young women everywhere feel free to have consequence-free SEX!

Fortunately, parents in the great state of Texas know better than to fall for that nonsense {Here}!

-Norma Jean

* Now I ain’t talking about one of them GOOD Negroes like Michael Steele. These here are of the uppity THUG variety, as evidenced by the “Obama” sticker I seen on the back of their Jaguar!

West Virginia: Hunt Homos! Burn Fags, not Flags!

It is the Lord's Day, and I sure love to listen to some good old fashioned country preaching!

Shenandoah Baptist Church's Pastor Jeff Owens: BURN AND SHOOT FAGS! from Joe Jervis on Vimeo.

(from here)

Among the highlights of this "lovely sermon" is the following:

"We need to stop burning flags and start burning fags. We need hunt-a-homo week. We need to take 'em all out and shoot 'em with a scatter shotgun"

Now a video of Owens's sermon was featured on youtube. Naturally it was taken down after its message became public. But thanks to Joe Jervis of Joe.My.God, this sermon will not be forgotten.

Ohhh, I almost swooned when I heard this! There are some REAL MEN out there! I am so grateful to the almighty that there are he-men such as these (example one, example two, example three) who are ready to take on the homosexuals thereby protecting all of us!

BP: The Gulf Oil Spill's TRUE Victims

Hello Children,

I swanny, if’n the Libs out there ain’t got their priorities all out of whack {Here}:

First Sea Turtle Rescued from the Gulf Oil Spill...And It's a Baby!

by David DeFranza on 05.20.10

Travel & Nature

Buzz up!

A baby sea turtle was the first animal rescued from the Gulf oil spill. Image credit: Meghan Calhoun, Audubon Nature Institute

The first animal to be rescued from the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is recuperating in New Orleans; and it's an adorable baby sea turtle. The Kemp's ridley turtle was thought to be less than a year old.

Image credit: Meghan Calhoun, Audubon Nature Institute

The turtle was found by a biologist scanning the slick for oiled animals. It was then taken to the Audubon Aquarium, where it was bathed repeatedly from head to tail. The seven-inch-long turtle—which is still small for the species—will receive many more baths, a spokesperson said, before it is ready for release.

SLIDESHOW: Wondrous Sea Turtles

So far, more than 150 turtles have washed up on shores across the Gulf. However, since no oil has been found on or inside those turtles, their exact cause of death remains unknown.

LA oil spill-Olay sea turtle clean-up. Find clips of Rush saying animals are stupid or something else as reprehensible. NJ will say let them suffer.

Now I reckon by now some of you LibTARDS out there are wondering how ol’ Norma Jean can possibly object to the cleaning of some cute little turtle.

It’s cause it violates GOD’S WILL!

If’n the good Lord had meant for that turtle to live, He would have directed him out of harm’s way!

But Godless Lib ENVIRO-WHACKOS - besides ensuring a one-way trip to HELL by thwarting the wishes of the Almighty - waste precious time and money in the EVIL pursuit of “compassion!”

What them mess of hippy tree-huggers ought do is donate resources to remedying the REAL catastrophe here: all that oil is just GOING TO WASTE!

If’n they was REAL Americans, they’d be out there with their buckets and start scooping up all that oil to give back to its rightful owner: BP!

But them ENVIRO-WHACKOS ain’t REAL Americans, as the good Dr. Rand Paul points out:



Is that clear enough for you LibTURDS?! It’s dadblame un-American to talk smack about them poor folks over at British Petroleum, Inc.!

I dare say you’re committing treason by denigrating such a fine American institution as British Petroleum!


-Norma Jean

Rand Paul: Lover of Freedom, Protector of Liberty

Hello Children,

Well, how nice of you big city LIBERAL ELITISTS to take notice of us here in little ol’ Kentucky:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Alright, children; much as I hate to, I reckon an apology is in order. I reckon I might have jumped the gun a mite {Here} when I said all Libertarians are going to hell.

This here Rand Paul sure enough sounds like somebody us southern Republicans can rally behind!

Good Mr. Rand is right on the money when he says it shouldn’t be NONE of the government’s business who I let patronize my various car dealerships and who I don’t!

Is it really such an inconvenience for Mei Ling and Jorge if’n I tell them I don’t serve their kind here?

I mean, shitfire, they can just go on down the road a few miles (or across town, or maybe into Tennessee or Ohio; wherever.) til they find a dealership willing to work with them!

After all, I ain’t so put out if’n THEIR minority-owned restaurant chooses not to serve me; I’ll just head next door to their competitor.

It’s called the FREE MARKET LibTURDS! Maybe you ought read up on it someday, cause it ain’t EVER wrong!

And good Mr. Paul is also spot on when he points out the steps individual citizens can take to effect social justice; if’n a group of people is living horrible, poverty-riddled lives it’s up to THEM to address the problem!

What business is it of mine if’n scores of coloreds are dying in the streets cause no doctor or hospital will see them?

Maybe they ought send some of their group to college to become doctors!

That is, if’n they can find a college to accept them.

But then they could just start their own college!

FREE MARKET WINS AGAIN!

I just don’t understand why Mr. Paul keeps dancing around the question of whether he would support a businesses’ right to discriminate based on race or gender?

It’s almost like he’s trying to appeal to middle-of-the-road voters by not sounding ultra-Conservative.

Don’t he realize that us Teabaggers don’t give no flying flip about them types of voters?! We’ll throw even MORE support behind if’n he just flat out tells folks he would fully support a businesses’ right of “targeted ethnic patronage?” (“Racist” don’t exactly sound so good, so I reckon we need a new, less loaded term)

Vote Rand Paul in November!


-Norma Jean

What's So Bad About Slavery? Rush Limbaugh Defends Vaunted (But Maligned) Institution, There Is Much Liberal Bellyaching, Wailing & Gnashing of Teeth

Hello Children,

I will never, ever, EVER understand what goes on inside the heads of you liberals.

[Actually, I doubt there’s much going on at all! ]

Case in point, via the COMMUNIST ISLAMO-FASCIST SYMPATHIZERS over at Media Matters {Here}:



Now if’n you’re a fellow REAL American (i.e. Christian-Republican), you’re likely wondering how ANYBODY can get their dander up over something that’s plain as the nose on your face!

Ain’t it been proved time and again that what ol’ Rush said here is God’s Honest Truth?

Shitfire, LibTURDS, I’d have reckoned even YOU could understand that!

Looks like ol’ Norma Jean will have to school you again:

First off, you Libs have got to get over this here notion you got that all humans is created equal!

Where in the Bible (the ONLY arbiter of TRUTH on the planet!) is that written? I been reading the Good Book ought near 95 years, and I sure enough don’t recall EVER seeing that particular phrasing NOWHERE!

And never you mind all that tired old “DATA” that “SCIENCE” done puts out year after year (for example {Here} or {Here}) that there’s little to no true differences among the different races!

No differences, huh?

Well then, how do you explain THIS {Here}:

The New York Times and the white supremacist group Storm Front share a belief that there are significant and fundamental "racial" differences between color and linguistic groups based upon and residing in their genetic heritage.

Today, for example, Ian Urbana of the Times publishes an article entitled, "After Trial, Tensions Simmer Over Race" (emphasis added). In the article, Urbina says:

And while many white residents said there were no racial tensions locally except those being sparked by news coverage and claims from out-of-town civil rights groups, Latinos offered a different view.
( . . . )
“I was skeptical of the claim that there were racial tensions in town,” he said, “but then the details started coming out and people started speaking up. I was shocked by what they were saying.”

In the context of the article, it is clear that the writer, by the use of the word "racial", is subscribing to the very beliefs about skin color that are fundamental to David Duke's and Storm Front's white supremacist ideation.
If you consult the Storm Front white supremacist group's website, you will discover that, in spite of the findings to the contrary of the Human Genome Project, Storm Front still believes in the theory of "race" -- that you can discern meaningful and fundamental genetic differences between people with white skin, brown and Black skin by making reference to their skin color, facial characteristics and the languages they speak.
One writer at Storm Front, reviewing the white supremacist David Duke's "My Awakening", says, for example:

It’s the question to which Carleton Putnam’s Race and Reason led David Duke. “I asked myself,” writes David Duke, “What if the things [Carleton Putnam] writes are true? What if the distinctions, quality and composition of races are the primary factors in the vitality of civilizations (My Awakening, 37) …”It alarmed me to think of the implications of race having a cardinal role in the creation and maintenance of culture and civilization. If true, then replacement of the White race through immigration and race-mixing could conceivably destroy Western Civilization itself.” (43)

In a paper David Duke wrote early in his career, he summarized Putnam’s thesis: “It is his belief that a civilization is the product of the particular racial group that created it and that demographic replacement of the founding race, through race-mixing, immigration, and differential birthrates, will diminish and ultimately destroy the vitality of the culture and civilization.” (43) http://www.davidduke.com/race-information-library/racial-differences/intelligence-heredity-vs-environment/the-question-of-civilization_477.html

Evidently, David Duke's "awakening" is based on the premise that "races" exist in the first place, and that is a premise that is, every day of the week, supported in New York Times articles that discuss skin color, even though the premise has been conclusively disproved by the Human Genome Project, which has said:

DNA studies do not indicate that separate classifiable subspecies (races) exist within modern humans. While different genes for physical traits such as skin and hair color can be identified between individuals, no consistent patterns of genes across the human genome exist to distinguish one race from another. There also is no genetic basis for divisions of human ethnicity. People who have lived in the same geographic region for many generations may have some alleles in common, but no allele will be found in all members of one population and in no members of any other. U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science, Office of Biological and Environmental Research, Human Genome Program.

In other words, the Human Genome Project's empirical study of human DNA has proven that, as a matter of scientific fact, that which we call "race" does not exist as a matter of biology, and so all references to "race" are references to a fallacy. And yet the above New York Times article makes TWO references to that "racial" theory fallacy as if the fallacy were an undisputed fact. That's racialist propaganda which is little different from "The Birth of a Nation", since the NYT propagates the extreme racialist ideas of its time.
Both the New York Times and Storm Front believe that you can look at someone's skin color, national origin and language and thereby distinguish what "race" they belong to. For so long as the New York Times promotes this theory of "race", it will be significantly harder to isolate those at Storm Front who share the same theory.
One would have hoped that the relatively new empirical science of the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science, Office of Biological and Environmental Research, Human Genome Program, which shows that people are more likely to have genetic similarities across color groups than among them, was information that the New York Times would have absorbed and integrated into their articles about disputes over skin color, language and national origin. The fact that "race" does not exist is not something that the Government has hidden from the American people.
For so long as writers such as Ian Urbana and newspapers like the New York Times continue insisting that the science of Storm Front exists and the Human Genome Project does not, it will be difficult if not impossible to make significant strides against the hate and fear aroused violence of groups like Storm Front and individuals who share their ideology without formally joining the group.
The New York Times story, that focuses on the killing of a Latino man because of his heritage may have been intended to highlight "racial" difference. And that's precisely what it does. It highlights differences in sociology that scientific study has shown not to exist in biology. The article, therefore, perpetuates "racial" beliefs that serve as the ideological basis of those who victimize others based on their skin color.

LOL! Sorry LibTARDS, but you just been PWND!

[Just you ignore the LIBERAL SLANT of the main article though, else you’ll draw the wrong conclusion!]

That there PROVES beyond a shadow of a doubt that Negroes are intellectually incapable of matching wits with proper (i.e. WHITE) folks.

They NEED us to subjugate them! They NEED us to dictate every moment of their lives, for their own GOOD! They NEED us to give them direction in life!

That ain’t being racist; that’s being pragmatic!

All us REAL Americans (i.e. Christian-Republicans) want is for OUR country to return to a simpler, more God-fearing time!

A time when THUGS wasn’t so emboldened by the “ELECTION” of one of their own as president that they assault their BETTERS {Here}:



Oh, Lord Almighty! Will I ever again see the day when it wasn’t WHITE children what needed to fear beatings at the hands of another race?!

And just when a REAL American starts talking sense, to bring back order, here come the LIBERAL MAINSTREAM MEDIA to blow things all out of proportion {Here}:

NASHVILLE — The closest thing to a controversy at the National Tea Party Convention has been the opening speech by former congressman Tom Tancredo, in which he complained that “we do not have a civics, literacy test before people can vote in this country.” That remark led to the expected backlash, with plenty of people pointing out the history of literacy tests. And as Tancredo walked around the small convention area today, he talked into recorder after camera after notebook.

“I don’t want anybody to be refused the right to vote if, maybe, they have to mark [the ballot] with an X,” said Tancredo in a short interview with John Avlon of the Daily Beast. “I do think they should have to know something about how the government works.” He suggested using the citizenship test that immigrants take — maybe, he said, voters could take it “verbally.”

How did Tea Party organizers respond to the questions? Judson Phillips basically agreed with Tom Tancredo and called it a “fantastic speech.”

Why are you LibTURDS always so quick to jump up and compare literacy tests to Jim Crow laws?

Like that’s a BAD thing?!

We all know it’s the Liberal elitists what are the real racists in America:

For example, Rush lampoons Libs right good {Here}:

On the March 19 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, host Rush Limbaugh highlighted a March 19 Los Angeles Times op-ed that described Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) as "running for an equally important unelected office, in the province of the popular imagination -- the 'Magic Negro'" -- a term used by critics of pop culture to describe certain benevolent African-American characters. Limbaugh stated: "The term 'Magic Negro' has been thrown into the political presidential race in the mix for 2008. And the term 'Magic Negro,' as applied to Barack Obama has been done by an L.A. Times columnist, David Ehrenstein." Limbaugh later asserted: "I'm going to keep referring to him as that because I want to make a bet that by the end of this week I will own that term," adding, "If I refer to Obama the rest of the day as the 'Magic Negro,' there will be a number of people in the drive-by media and on left-wing blogs who will credit me for coming up with it and ignore the L.A. Times did it, simply because they can't be critical of the L.A. Times, but they can, obviously, be critical of talk radio." Limbaugh continued to refer to Obama as the "Magic Negro" throughout the broadcast -- 27 times, to be exact -- and at one point sang "Barack, the Magic Negro" to the tune of "Puff, the Magic Dragon." Limbaugh defended his use of the song, stating, "Well, that's what we always do here. We do parodies and satires on the idiocy and phoniness of the left."
[...]

You know, it’s mighty sad that them folks over at Media Matters is all such MAOIST TROTSKYITE ISLAMO-FASCIST STALINISTS, cause they is capable of performing an important service!

For example, they was able to document the unblinkering of Chris Matthews as his mental illness (a.k.a. LIBERALISM) temporarily made him sane (a.k.a. LESS EGALITARIAN).

For instance, {Here}:

[...]
As Media Matters for America has noted, Matthews -- who on his June 24 program said that he "love[s] gender politics" -- has frequently focused on gender issues when discussing Clinton. He has said that "some men" say Clinton's voice sounds like "fingernails on a blackboard," and wondered if Clinton is "a convincing mom." Matthews also claimed men "are afraid" to criticize Clinton and that "men don't knock Hillary," and he previously invoked John Wayne to suggest that Americans -- and specifically Republicans -- "want a strong, tough, sometimes a pushy, offensive leader."
[...]

But now that is all gone now, cause Chris Matthews has done lost his ever-loving mind:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Cause us REAL Americans know who the Nazis in this country are:

LIBERALS!


-Norma Jean

We don't need a "Lesbionic" Supreme Court Justice

Our friends at Republican Faith Chat are onto something here:

Ladies Softball: Proof Positive that Elena Kagan is Lesbionic

Posted by Brother Yancy, USN Ret. on May 12, 2010

Offensive New York Jewess Lesbian Lawyer Elena Kagan Playing Lesbian Softball.

Dear Friends in Christ,

I post in haste this week, as I am off to help prepare the Foot Washing Baptist Boys Camporama camp site. However, I did want to comment on our so-called president’s nomination of lesbian rug-muncher Jewess Elena Kagan.

I have investigated this matter and I find that our illegal alien Socialist Muslin Kenyan Statist pretend president does in fact intend to saddle us with a lesbionic Justice of the Supreme Court. Witness, Exhibit A – Diesel Dyke Elena Kagen playing SOFTBALL!

Now, any Christian, or even a less-developed, or even retarded person, with at least two neurons to rub together knows that only lesbians play softball. I mean, Good Lord, even poor, wretched June Gordon, at her most drunken, could recognize this.

Also, several blogger-type people on the internets report that she smokes CIGARS! Case Closed. No cigar-smoking lesbian jew dyke is fit to serve on God’s Supreme Court!

We should heed this warning; "Lesbionicism" just isn't natural!

Sure, the libs will lampoon us and raise ridiculous points such as this:

Now that the sex lives of Supreme Court justices have become grist for commentators, we are finally free to discuss a question formerly only whispered about in the shadows: Why does Justice Antonin Scalia, by common consent the leading intellectual force on the Court, have nine children? Is this normal? Or should I say "normal," as some people choose to define it? Can he represent the views of ordinary Americans when he practices such a minority lifestyle? After all, having nine children is far more unusual in this country than, say, being a lesbian.

Let me be clear: the issue is not the fact that Scalia has chosen to have nine children. That is his personal business. The question is whether he is an extremist advocate of the so-called "Nine Children Agenda." Can he deal open-mindedly with children’s issues when he has so many himself? Can he persuade his children to recuse themselves when appropriate (or, in the vernacular, "Just shut up, will you? I’m trying to write an opinion here. Sweetheart, could you please come and take him…stop climbing up my leg…watch it with that glass of water, buddy…no, that’s some condemned prisoner’s brief that daddy has to reject, so don’t …would somebody please take this kid…LOOK OUT for the… Jesus H. Christ, how am I supposed to get any work done"?).

Speculation is already rampant about why Scalia chose nine children over a more conventional lifestyle. Is he a sex maniac?

Come on libs! Face facts: The Almighty wants fat right wing geniuses to have lots of kids. The Bible says "Be Fruitful and Multiply" (of course the Almighty is saying that to God Fearing Conservative Christian Republicans)

But "lesbionicism" is a threat to our society.

1. These evil temptresses can lure Good Christian Republican Ladies into sin. I think of that every time I watch that evil temptress Rachel Maddow.

2. "Lesbionics" confuse the natural order of things. Example: you are a Good Christian Republican lady wishing to draw attention from a Good Christian Republican man. So you wear your tightest dress and find a reason to bend over and stick out your Good Christian Republican Lady Rear End.

You get the slap and, of course, you defend your honor by slapping the Christian man who got fresh with you. But if "lesbionics" are around...it isn't so simple:



It just ain't right!

“No Escape”: Germination of a Paradigm Shift

Hello Children,

I declare if’n I ain’t sometimes pleasantly surprised by what I find over ol’ Ed Brayton’s intertubes site, which includes this {Here}:

Donald Hughes is running for governor of California. And he has some whacky ideas -- like sending all the state's pedophiles to an island off the coast, where they can create their own self-sustaining society. Seriously.

Santa Rosa Island is the island that will be used as a "Pedophile Island". Santa Rosa Island is part of the Channel Islands off the coast of California. Santa Rosa Island was a cattle ranch until 1994. As pedophile "Island "it will be used for farming and ranching to sustain its occupants. Santa Rosa Island is the second farthest out of the Channel Islands. It currently is deserted and used as a state and federal park. The maintenance of Santa Rosa Island is a waste of taxpayer's money. Most of the visitors who go there are Park Rangers or environmentalists, not the general public. So using it as a pedophile island will not cost the taxpayers any additional money. Millions of dollars will be saved by the elimination of the current prison and probation system in place for pedophiles.

And he's really thought this all through:

The first of pedophiles to go to the island would be a lead team for "their society" such as police, fire personnel, judges, fish and game agents, forest rangers, ranchers, farmers, building contractors, surveyors, and the like to establish the "Island" community. This lead team will be responsible for creating a master plan for the "Island. The "Island's" master plan will include the construction of city hall, a medical facility, water department, police and fire departments, as well as provide for the farm, ranch and housing areas. All construction will be completed by the pedophiles assigned to the "Island". The first order of business will be to establish temporary housing, the farm, and the ranch. The "Island" pedophiles will write their own "Island" constitution. The constitution will be reviewed for any improvements by a State of California department to be formed to oversee the "Island". This will all occur until enough pedophiles have moved to the "Island" making the "Island" community self-sufficient. This "Island" will represent a way of life that has long since been forgotten: one in which our forefathers came to this land with a wagon, some animals, seed, and tools, looking for water and land to build their lives around. These men will be provided these things so that they may keep themselves busy and build their own lives while staying out of trouble. Life on the "Island" will include certain restrictions such as they may never leave the "Island", and they may never bring children to the "Island". If they don't want to live this way they should have left the state. However, once they choose the island that will be their home for the duration of their life. I don't want them on California's mainland! And Mom's and Dads' don't want them here either!

And Roman Polanski can film a documentary about it!

This guy doesn't seem to have more than a tenuous grasp on reality. Here's his take on homelessness:

The homeless is divided into 3 categories. One-third are mentally ill, and half of them could be doing tasks that will keep them busy. Another one-third are alcoholics and/or addicted to drugs. The remaining one-third, sadly, because it is a free easy life.

Oh yeah, what could be more free and easy than being homeless?

And then there's this:

A family without the foundation of marriage is without the foundation of marriage.

He's got an astonishing grasp of the obvious, you gotta hand him that.

Well of course Ed, being the LiberTURDIAN that he is, decides to disparage the very well-reasoned idea of stranding convicted criminals on some desert island.

But not even my arch nemesis’ bitter narration could darken my mood once I seen that “No Escape” can now be a reality!

And it’s possible thanks to – of all people – the SUPREME COURT {Here}:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court ruled Monday that federal officials can indefinitely hold inmates considered ''sexually dangerous'' after their prison terms are complete.

The high court in a 7-2 judgment reversed a lower court decision that said Congress overstepped its authority in allowing indefinite detentions of considered ''sexually dangerous.''

''The statute is a 'necessary and proper' means of exercising the federal authority that permits Congress to create federal criminal laws, to punish their violation, to imprison violators, to provide appropriately for those imprisoned and to maintain the security of those who are not imprisoned but who may be affected by the federal imprisonment of others,'' said Justice Stephen Breyer, writing the majority opinion.

President George W. Bush in 2006 signed the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, which authorized the civil commitment of sexually dangerous federal inmates.

The act, named after the son of ''America's Most Wanted'' television host John Walsh, was challenged by four men who served prison terms ranging from three to eight years for possession of child pornography or sexual abuse of a minor. Their confinement was supposed to end more than two years ago, but prison officials said there would be a risk of sexually violent conduct or child molestation if they were released.

A fifth man who also was part of the legal challenge was charged with child sex abuse but declared incompetent to stand trial.

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., ruled last year that Congress overstepped its authority when it enacted a law allowing the government to hold indefinitely people who are considered ''sexually dangerous.''

But ''we conclude that the Constitution grants Congress legislative power sufficient to enact'' this law, Breyer said.

Solicitor General Elena Kagan successfully argued the government's case in front of the Supreme Court. Kagan has now been nominated to replace the retiring Justice John Paul Stevens.

Kagan in January compared the government's power to commit sexual predators to its power to quarantine federal inmates whose sentences have expired but have a highly contagious and deadly disease.

''Would anybody say that the federal government would not have Article I power to effect that kind of public safety measure? And the exact same thing is true here. This is exactly what Congress is doing here,'' she said.

Justice Clarence Thomas dissented from the court's judgment, saying Congress can only pass laws that deal with the federal powers listed in the Constitution.

Nothing in the Constitution ''expressly delegates to Congress the power to enact a civil commitment regime for sexually dangerous persons, nor does any other provision in the Constitution vest Congress or the other branches of the federal government with such a power,'' Thomas said.

Thomas was joined in part on his dissent by Justice Antonin Scalia.

Chief Justice John Roberts last year granted an administration request to block the release of up to 77 inmates at a federal prison in North Carolina. These were people whose prison terms for sex offenses were ending. The justice's order was designed to allow time for the high court to consider the administration's appeal.

The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act also establishes a national sex offender registry, increases punishments for some federal crimes against children and strengthens child pornography protections. Those provisions are not being challenged.

State laws allowing civil commitments of sex offenders also are unaffected.

The case is U.S. v. Comstock, 08-1224.

Wait, what?!

The Supreme Court handed down a GOOD decision? Well, you know what they say about a stopped clock!

Praise Jesus!

After all, if’n we can detain sex offenders in perpetuity cause of they risk they pose to the community, why can’t we do the same for lesser crimes like bank robbery, drug dealing, shoplifting or bad check writing?

Or even something as minor as traffic violations?

I mean, is it really such a leap to imagine that running a yellow light AIN’T merely a precursor to more violent and deviant behavior?

The only sure way to protect ourselves and our loved ones is by locking up ANYBODY what breaks ANY law, no matter how insignificant!

Sweet merciful heavens, we could clean up the streets right good!

I for one will be rushing to visit my Senator (good ol’Mitch “No Lips” McConnell) to see how soon a bill like this could be proposed!

Well, rushing under the speed limit, anyhow!

-Norma Jean