THIS IS WHAT IDIOTS ACTUALLY BELIEVE
Showing posts with label 2012. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2012. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 3, 2013
Saturday, July 20, 2013
Trayvon Unmasked
At 7 PM on the night of 26 February 2012 in Sanford Florida, two men had an altercation in the rain that left one of them dead.
The people involved were 17 year old Trayvon Martin, black, and 29 year old George Zimmerman, Hispanic. They are the only two who know exactly what happened that night, and, unfortunately, Mr. Martin is dead so we can never have the complete story. What we do know is that someone started a fight that Mr. Zimmerman ended with a single gunshot.
The event ballooned into a media circus that lasted a year and a half until, 13 July 2013, George Zimmerman was found not guilty of second degree murder after what was very nearly a hung jury. Threats of violence, and some actual violence, erupted following the verdict. Protests were staged around the country. The President made two comments, one good, one bad. This is pretty much the most objective account of what has happened.
Now here's the part sprinkled with my analysis.
First, Sanford is a lower-middle class community with a crime problem. 18.5% of the population is below the poverty line. In 2011 the people of Sanford formed a neighborhood watch program to deal with the crime, with Zimmerman being appointed as the coordinator. George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin's father's fiancee (where he was living at the time) were renting homes in the town.
Trayvon Martin was not a kid, as many portray him. Neither was he innocent. He was not the ten year old seen in the pictures. He was a grown man, he portrayed himself as a thug on the Internet, and he was a petty criminal, having been suspended from school many times for painting graffiti and stealing jewelry. His parents were divorced. His mother sent him to live with his father because he was too much trouble for her. The night of the shooting he goes out in the rain to a 7-Eleven and call his friend Rachel Jeantel (who lacks all common sense and tact). After 18 minutes on the phone the call abruptly ends for unknown reasons. Martin was not most likely not buying candy at the 7-Eleven, he was buying ingredients for a drug popular in the hip hop gangster culture that he talked about frequently on the Internet. The drug, known as "purple drank," "lean," or "syrup" is made with cough syrup containing codeine or dextromethorphan (such as in Robitussin DM, which Martin was talking about with some friends on Facebook). He most likely was planning on mixing the Skittles and Arizona watermellon drink that he had purchased with the Robitussin to create "some fire ass lean," as one friend called it. Extended use of the cough syrup based drug is linked to liver damage and psychotic episodes.*
Next, George Zimmerman is often portrayed as "lily white", a "white-Hispanic", or as "mixed-race" by people trying to spin the case. Unsurprisingly, NONE of these same people call the President "mixed-race", "white-black", or "white" when both he and Zimmerman have one white parent. The President is 100% black and Zimmerman is white above any other races, if not entirely white. This is not because of his complexion or features. Zimmerman has dark skin and his eyes and other facial features clearly belong to someone who is not white.
According to the other wiki, "during the 18 months preceding the February 26 shooting, Zimmerman called the non-emergency police line seven times. On five of those calls, Zimmerman reported suspicious looking men in the area, but never offered the men's race without first being asked by the dispatcher." Zimmerman takes his job very seriously. I would argue too seriously. He was driving around with a gun, safety off, looking for suspicious men. 26 February he finds his sixth suspicious looking man, and this time it does not end well.
Zimmerman calls the police from his truck saying he has found yet another suspicious looking man. After four minutes he gets out of his truck to follow Martin because, as the tape indicates, Martin started running at this point. The dispatcher advises Zimmerman not to pursue Martin but he doesn't listen. Martin calls Rachel Jeantel back but his call gets disconnected again, for unknown reasosn.
Someone started the fight. When it was over Zimmerman was bleeding from his nose and the back of his head, Martin was shot in the chest and lie dead in the grass with bloody knuckles.
There were eight witnesses, of whom only two saw part of the altercation. They reported (from wiki):
A witness to the confrontation just prior to the shooting stated that Martin was on top of Zimmerman and punching him, while Zimmerman was yelling for help. This witness, who identified himself as "John", stated that "the guy on the bottom, who had a red sweater on, was yelling to me, 'Help! Help!' and I told him to stop, and I was calling 911". He went on to say that when he got upstairs and looked down, "the guy who was on the top beating up the other guy, was the one laying in the grass, and I believe he was dead at that point."
One eye-witness statement given the night of the shooting describes "a black male, wearing a dark colored 'hoodie' on top of a white or Hispanic male who was yelling for help." The witness said that the black male was throwing punches "MMA [mixed martial arts] style." After hearing a "pop," he saw the black male "laid out on the grass." When the witness was subsequently interviewed weeks later by a different agency, the witness said he thought that the black male was either punching or pinning the lighter skinned male underneath him. He was no longer certain who was calling for help, having not seen their mouths in the dark. He was still certain that the black male had been on top of the lighter-skinned male.
The eighth witness, Jeantel, heard part of the altercation from the phone: "She then heard Martin say, "What are you following me for?" followed by a man's voice responding, "What are you doing around here?"" The phone then went silent.
What happened after that we can only speculate. Zimmerman asked Martin what he was doing out at night, then someone started the fight. Trayvon Martin was either the instigator or else he got the upper hand and had Zimmerman pinned to the ground and was whaling on him, or as Jeantel calls it "whoop ass." An audience member's mouth falls open at the revelation that Jeantel basically admitted it was Trayvon who started the fight. Foreign national Piers Morgan tried to pull her fat out of the fire by asking "if Trayvon was being attacked, would he have 'whooped ass' as you call it?" She immediately corrects him, saying that "whoop ass" cannot be conjugated to form "whooped ass". He nudged her a second time and she finally gave the answer he wanted, that yes, Trayvon was defending himself, because Android phones can't be turned off if you're the one on top in a fight.
There is a difference between beating someone to death and "whoop ass". "Whoop ass" is all fun and games, even if it leads to concussion and paralysis or death. It's the intent behind "whoop ass" that counts, and the intent is, well I don't know. Jeantel is about as clear as mud. I've understood dogs and cats better than I understand her. I don't know what the difference between "whoop ass" and a savage beating is, and according to Jeantel that misunderstanding is why Zimmerman killed Trayvon.
Tracy Martin, Trayvon's father, listening to 9-1-1 recordings, testified that the person crying for help was not his son, although he later changed his story after the case. Sybrina, Trayvon's mother, testified that it was her son. A neighbor testified that it was Zimmerman. The FBI analysed the recordings and said the quality was too poor to determine whose voice it was.
As the autopsy reveals, Martin was on top of Zimmerman when he got shot. It also revealed that Martin had extensive liver damage well beyond what would be expected in a 17-year-old, further evidence that he was on a drug run the night he got shot. (*I'm not condemning recreational drug use, I'm merely illustrating that Trayvon Martin was not an innocent little boy who got shot because he was a black kid out buying candy. Also, if this drug - and potentially others - had caused this much damage to his liver it probably also caused damage to his brain, and he was likely not thinking clearly the night he went out and started a fight when he could have easily outrun Zimmerman home and called the police if he was really worried. Yet in spite of what all rational people would know is a bad idea, Martin likely started a fight with a man in the middle of the night and ended up dead.)
There is no evidence that Zimmerman was racially profiling Martin. Zimmerman has black relatives, he has worked with the black community in Sanford to get them more active in the neighborhood watch program, and he was "one of the few to take any action to protest the 2010 beating of Sherman Ware, a black homeless man, by the son of a Sanford police officer."
What do I think happened? George Zimmerman went out looking for trouble. Trayvon Martin went out possibly looking for something to burgle, if his past is any indication, and no doubt open to the possibility of a fight. Rachel Jeantel goaded Martin into starting a fight with an armed man in the middle of the night. It was Jeantel who sewed the seeds of fear or rage or whatever in Martin while they talked on the phone. "Some creepy ass cracker is following me." "He can't do that! You better whoop ass so he gets the message!" The gang culture Martin and Jeantel idolise combined with confusion and testosterone took over rational judgment and Martin and when Zimmerman asked "what are you doing here?" Martin started beating him. Zimmerman greatly underestimated Martin and, fearing for his life, took his gun and shot Martin, happening to hit him fatally.
In President Obama's first address regarding the verdict, he acted like a leader and said basically "it's a tragedy that a family lost their son but the justice system is based on evidence and, let's face it, there's no evidence to convict Zimmerman, so we should accept the verdict of 'not guilty' as a victory for our justice system, as it is better to let ten guilty men go free than to put one innocent man in prison. Now, in respect for the family let's all put this behind us."
In his second address he said (exact quote) "you know, when Trayvon Martin was first shot, I said that this could have been my son. Another way of saying that is Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago. And when you think about why, in the African-American community at least, there's a lot of pain around what happened here, I think it's important to recognize that the African-American community is looking at this issue through a set of experiences and a history that -- that doesn't go away." He then went on to say "there are very few African-American men who haven’t had the experience of walking across the street and hearing the locks click on the doors of cars. That happens to me, at least before I was a senator. There are very few African-Americans who haven’t had the experience of getting on an elevator and a woman clutching her purse nervously and holding her breath until she had a chance to get off."
Yes, I know what it's like to get nervous looks out of people as I walk by. I know what it's like for people to turn their porch lights on as I walk past their houses at night. Trayvon Martin probably couldn't have been me. I don't live in a high crime area, but I do like to go for walks at crazy hours of the night and I do often make people uncomfortable by my looks and mannerisms. No one where I live will probably shoot me, and I doubt anyone would have shot Obama either during his carefree childhood in Hawaii, or his time spent in Indonesia with his step father who owned a lot of exotic animals. I'm not saying he's lying, but he is definitely not telling the truth either when he says "Trayvon could have been me 35 years ago." Maybe during his time in Chicago, that cesspool of crime and human suffering, but not when he was 17. Obama did not move to the mainland until he was 18.
From the wiki page on Obama: "Of his early childhood, Obama recalled, 'That my father looked nothing like the people around me—that he was black as pitch, my mother white as milk—barely registered in my mind.'
He started to think about black nationalism and anger toward whites in spite of the colourblindness of his peers. Fellow student Mark Hebing recalls "we didn't think about his blackness." From the same LA Times article, we have more accounts of Obama's time in Hawaii:
"His reflections about the race issue surprised all of us," said Kellie Furushima, who knew him well. "He gave no indication of feeling uncomfortable in school, and I never witnessed or heard anyone being unkind to him.
"Being in Hawaii, we had a lot of different races," classmate Vernette Ferreira Shaffer said. "People would tell ethnic jokes, but it was more about making fun of stereotypes than trying to do a cool thing."
Hanging out and working with many black people, I know they make just as many jokes (maybe more) about black stereotypes as any other group. Comedian Chris Rock in Bring the Pain even jokes about the difference between "black people" and "niggers," whom normal black people hate more than white people.
Inside all of this is the anger Obama alludes to. Black people are angry about the way they were treated during the time of slavery and Jim Crow. He says "that doesn't go away." I ask why? Yes, it's true that the slave trade was one of the worst acts of inhumanity in history, but let us not forget it was started in Africa by black people selling other black people to at first Muslims and then to white people. There is still racial tension in Africa between Negroes and Pygmies, two distinct black groups who view the other as nonhuman and have fought wars to wipe the other out. It was also whites who eventually ended slavery, beginning with groups such as the Quakers and taking off when the Methodists got behind the abolition movement, finally culminating in the deaths of over 600,000 men to put a stop to the barbarism once and for all. Immediately after the Civil War many of the Southern states, with majority black populations, elected blacks to federal office. It was not until Reconstruction ended and the white Democrats took power once again that blacks were rendered slaves in all but name until the 1950s. President Eisenhower, Republican, wanted to solve the problem by passing a host of civil rights laws, and he did go very far but was checked by Senate leader Lyndon Johnson, Democrat, who was one of the biggest racists of the time. It was only after Johnson lost face for killing kids in Vietnam that he finished what Eisenhower started, and wrongly took credit for being a civil rights leader when he wanted nothing more than to reinstitute slavery. 50 years of indoctrination in public schools have led millions to believe that the Republicans, who fought and died by the thousands for the rights of black people, are evil while the Democrats, who fought and died to keep blacks enslaved and started the KKK, are good. Truly a cosmic irony.
Why does the racial hurt never go away? When my ancestors came to America a century ago we weren't even second-class citizens and we certainly weren't white (although I'd probably be considered white today I do not self-identify as white). We had hardships, we were mistreated, and we really still aren't viewed in that good a light, and still I have no racial anger toward anyone. I don't think to myself "my ancestors were treated like shit so I'm gonna hate white people forever!" It makes no sense to hold on to anger, to give that kind of power to other people who did nothing to me, and ruin my own life in the process by destroying my own mental health. Anger causes far more harm than good, especially to one's self.
Yes, blacks suffered more than probably any other group in history except the Jews, but just about more effort was put into fixing the injustices done to blacks than to any other group. Wars were not fought and countries were not destroyed to fix other race relations or bring other people out of bondage. I would appreciate one tenth the effort done for my people.
Why does racial hurt never go away? I argue because it is useful. The power elite keep blacks as victims through soft racism such as affirmative action and race baiters such as Al Sharpton. Blacks are not good enough to compete on their own, they argue, so big daddy government must give them a hand up and take care of them just as big daddy massa did. "Massa don't want to hear that slave shit, sing him something different!"
If you take a look at just about every problem society faces today you can trace it back to people with power wanting more power, disenfranchising one group to play off another, keeping us all separated so we can't unite and defeat them. Racism has always existed and probably will always exist, but the idea of permanent racial victims exists only as a device by the elite to divide people.
Now, here's where I'm gonna get really racist, as one person has insinuated, by citing statistics. According to the FBI, 2,720 black people were murdered in 2010, 2,459 of them at the hands of another black person. Another study, conducted by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, between 1976 and 2011, discovered that 94% of all black murder victims were killed by other black people.
One black violent thug was shot by an Hispanic idiot wannabe hero who's painted as "lily white" by race baiters and all of a sudden there's a huge outcry and the beginnings of race riots. The nearly 3,000 other black people killed by other black people every year - not a peep. If Zimmerman was black it has been demonstrably proven over the past three decades that the event wouldn't make the news. About 13,000 people are murdered in total every year. How many of them do we ever hear about on the news? How many of them get a "Justice for Jane Doe" campaign, or two televised speeches by the President, or mass demonstrations in the streets of major cities? How many millions of black babies are killed in abortion mills every year (Planned Parenthood was founded with the specific intent of exterminating black people)? How much harm is the government and racist leaders like Al Sharpton doing to the black community? How much harm is the black community doing to itself? And in spite of all of this we barely hear anything. Whites who speak out are labeled racist and blacks who speak out are labeled Uncle Tom.
Somehow is it more real when an Hispanic (or even a white) man kills a black man than when a black man kills another black man? Is that because the power elite in the media told you so? I don't think so. I don't think it's more real when OJ got off on the death of his wife because there was reasonable doubt because OJ was a black man killing a white woman. I don't think black people should consider it more real that George Zimmerman got off on the death of Trayvon Martin because there was reasonable doubt because Zimmerman was whatever the hell race you want to call him killing a black man. Can we not look past the colour of peoples' skins and see into the content of their characters as a great man once said before he himself was murdered by a racist? Must we divide ourselves among races, playing into the elite's hands, weakening our own power, enslaving ourselves? How does any of that make sense?
It is a tragedy when anyone has to die, but it is an even bigger tragedy when we let those deaths needlessly divide us further. Al Sharpton doesn't care about Trayvon Martin, neither does President Obama, and neither do any of the people on TV who are making money by hyping the incident. Obama will never have to bury his children because of a fight with an armed man, thankfully he has Secret Service to protect them. However, he is stuck seeing things through the lens of race as the elite of his day indoctrinated him, and now that he has all the power in the world he is using it to indoctrinate others. In his ignorance he is part of the problem, a problem that uses race to divide the one human race as evil always does to secure power for itself.
I might be veering off into even more alien ground here, but here is how I see the endgame play out. Evil has no power of its own. All power comes from God, even the power that evil misuses. Just as a solar powered machine cannot be used to destroy the sun, there is nothing evil can do to to defeat God.
All the super evil people in history have eventually outstretched their limits and were murdered by their own people. Stalin, Timur, Attila, Mao, all the tyrants, however powerful, however many millions they terrorised or killed, they were eventually killed by a guard or someone who saw the opportunity to strike and put an end to someone whom everyone hated. Evil loses because it isolates itself. In alienating all possible allies and ruling entirely through fear, evil leaves itself open to that one person who inevitably arises who has nothing to lose and the perfect opening to get at the tyrant one on one. Once they are free, the people, who have been living in secret, watching every step they take against the seemingly omnipotent authorities, immediately resume their lives where they last left off as best they can.
Although the New World Order has a lot of power on the Earth, all the power they have comes from God. No matter how powerful they get they can never win. They will lose; the only question is how much damage will they cause before they are taken down? How long will it take for the world to recover? It took India a century to recover from Timur's destruction, but it recovered. Stalin did his best to destroy the Russian church, but it sprang back once it was free to do so. The unconquerable spirit of free people will be restored as soon as the peoples' burden is lifted. How badly will they destroy the world? I don't know. Ultimately, it doesn't matter, because they cannot destroy our freedom, only we can surrender it. They can never destroy love. As A Course in Miracles says:
Nothing real can be threatened.
Nothing unreal exists.
Herein lies the peace of God.
That is why no matter how powerful they get, they can never be more powerful than you are. They have already lost. All else is just spectacle.
We should use this tragedy as a chance to unite against the evils of racism, not to add more fuel to the fire. With that I close my analysis of the Trayvon Martin case.
The people involved were 17 year old Trayvon Martin, black, and 29 year old George Zimmerman, Hispanic. They are the only two who know exactly what happened that night, and, unfortunately, Mr. Martin is dead so we can never have the complete story. What we do know is that someone started a fight that Mr. Zimmerman ended with a single gunshot.
The event ballooned into a media circus that lasted a year and a half until, 13 July 2013, George Zimmerman was found not guilty of second degree murder after what was very nearly a hung jury. Threats of violence, and some actual violence, erupted following the verdict. Protests were staged around the country. The President made two comments, one good, one bad. This is pretty much the most objective account of what has happened.
Now here's the part sprinkled with my analysis.
First, Sanford is a lower-middle class community with a crime problem. 18.5% of the population is below the poverty line. In 2011 the people of Sanford formed a neighborhood watch program to deal with the crime, with Zimmerman being appointed as the coordinator. George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin's father's fiancee (where he was living at the time) were renting homes in the town.
Trayvon Martin was not a kid, as many portray him. Neither was he innocent. He was not the ten year old seen in the pictures. He was a grown man, he portrayed himself as a thug on the Internet, and he was a petty criminal, having been suspended from school many times for painting graffiti and stealing jewelry. His parents were divorced. His mother sent him to live with his father because he was too much trouble for her. The night of the shooting he goes out in the rain to a 7-Eleven and call his friend Rachel Jeantel (who lacks all common sense and tact). After 18 minutes on the phone the call abruptly ends for unknown reasons. Martin was not most likely not buying candy at the 7-Eleven, he was buying ingredients for a drug popular in the hip hop gangster culture that he talked about frequently on the Internet. The drug, known as "purple drank," "lean," or "syrup" is made with cough syrup containing codeine or dextromethorphan (such as in Robitussin DM, which Martin was talking about with some friends on Facebook). He most likely was planning on mixing the Skittles and Arizona watermellon drink that he had purchased with the Robitussin to create "some fire ass lean," as one friend called it. Extended use of the cough syrup based drug is linked to liver damage and psychotic episodes.*
Next, George Zimmerman is often portrayed as "lily white", a "white-Hispanic", or as "mixed-race" by people trying to spin the case. Unsurprisingly, NONE of these same people call the President "mixed-race", "white-black", or "white" when both he and Zimmerman have one white parent. The President is 100% black and Zimmerman is white above any other races, if not entirely white. This is not because of his complexion or features. Zimmerman has dark skin and his eyes and other facial features clearly belong to someone who is not white.
According to the other wiki, "during the 18 months preceding the February 26 shooting, Zimmerman called the non-emergency police line seven times. On five of those calls, Zimmerman reported suspicious looking men in the area, but never offered the men's race without first being asked by the dispatcher." Zimmerman takes his job very seriously. I would argue too seriously. He was driving around with a gun, safety off, looking for suspicious men. 26 February he finds his sixth suspicious looking man, and this time it does not end well.
Zimmerman calls the police from his truck saying he has found yet another suspicious looking man. After four minutes he gets out of his truck to follow Martin because, as the tape indicates, Martin started running at this point. The dispatcher advises Zimmerman not to pursue Martin but he doesn't listen. Martin calls Rachel Jeantel back but his call gets disconnected again, for unknown reasosn.
Someone started the fight. When it was over Zimmerman was bleeding from his nose and the back of his head, Martin was shot in the chest and lie dead in the grass with bloody knuckles.
There were eight witnesses, of whom only two saw part of the altercation. They reported (from wiki):
A witness to the confrontation just prior to the shooting stated that Martin was on top of Zimmerman and punching him, while Zimmerman was yelling for help. This witness, who identified himself as "John", stated that "the guy on the bottom, who had a red sweater on, was yelling to me, 'Help! Help!' and I told him to stop, and I was calling 911". He went on to say that when he got upstairs and looked down, "the guy who was on the top beating up the other guy, was the one laying in the grass, and I believe he was dead at that point."
One eye-witness statement given the night of the shooting describes "a black male, wearing a dark colored 'hoodie' on top of a white or Hispanic male who was yelling for help." The witness said that the black male was throwing punches "MMA [mixed martial arts] style." After hearing a "pop," he saw the black male "laid out on the grass." When the witness was subsequently interviewed weeks later by a different agency, the witness said he thought that the black male was either punching or pinning the lighter skinned male underneath him. He was no longer certain who was calling for help, having not seen their mouths in the dark. He was still certain that the black male had been on top of the lighter-skinned male.
The eighth witness, Jeantel, heard part of the altercation from the phone: "She then heard Martin say, "What are you following me for?" followed by a man's voice responding, "What are you doing around here?"" The phone then went silent.
What happened after that we can only speculate. Zimmerman asked Martin what he was doing out at night, then someone started the fight. Trayvon Martin was either the instigator or else he got the upper hand and had Zimmerman pinned to the ground and was whaling on him, or as Jeantel calls it "whoop ass." An audience member's mouth falls open at the revelation that Jeantel basically admitted it was Trayvon who started the fight. Foreign national Piers Morgan tried to pull her fat out of the fire by asking "if Trayvon was being attacked, would he have 'whooped ass' as you call it?" She immediately corrects him, saying that "whoop ass" cannot be conjugated to form "whooped ass". He nudged her a second time and she finally gave the answer he wanted, that yes, Trayvon was defending himself, because Android phones can't be turned off if you're the one on top in a fight.
There is a difference between beating someone to death and "whoop ass". "Whoop ass" is all fun and games, even if it leads to concussion and paralysis or death. It's the intent behind "whoop ass" that counts, and the intent is, well I don't know. Jeantel is about as clear as mud. I've understood dogs and cats better than I understand her. I don't know what the difference between "whoop ass" and a savage beating is, and according to Jeantel that misunderstanding is why Zimmerman killed Trayvon.
Tracy Martin, Trayvon's father, listening to 9-1-1 recordings, testified that the person crying for help was not his son, although he later changed his story after the case. Sybrina, Trayvon's mother, testified that it was her son. A neighbor testified that it was Zimmerman. The FBI analysed the recordings and said the quality was too poor to determine whose voice it was.
As the autopsy reveals, Martin was on top of Zimmerman when he got shot. It also revealed that Martin had extensive liver damage well beyond what would be expected in a 17-year-old, further evidence that he was on a drug run the night he got shot. (*I'm not condemning recreational drug use, I'm merely illustrating that Trayvon Martin was not an innocent little boy who got shot because he was a black kid out buying candy. Also, if this drug - and potentially others - had caused this much damage to his liver it probably also caused damage to his brain, and he was likely not thinking clearly the night he went out and started a fight when he could have easily outrun Zimmerman home and called the police if he was really worried. Yet in spite of what all rational people would know is a bad idea, Martin likely started a fight with a man in the middle of the night and ended up dead.)
There is no evidence that Zimmerman was racially profiling Martin. Zimmerman has black relatives, he has worked with the black community in Sanford to get them more active in the neighborhood watch program, and he was "one of the few to take any action to protest the 2010 beating of Sherman Ware, a black homeless man, by the son of a Sanford police officer."
What do I think happened? George Zimmerman went out looking for trouble. Trayvon Martin went out possibly looking for something to burgle, if his past is any indication, and no doubt open to the possibility of a fight. Rachel Jeantel goaded Martin into starting a fight with an armed man in the middle of the night. It was Jeantel who sewed the seeds of fear or rage or whatever in Martin while they talked on the phone. "Some creepy ass cracker is following me." "He can't do that! You better whoop ass so he gets the message!" The gang culture Martin and Jeantel idolise combined with confusion and testosterone took over rational judgment and Martin and when Zimmerman asked "what are you doing here?" Martin started beating him. Zimmerman greatly underestimated Martin and, fearing for his life, took his gun and shot Martin, happening to hit him fatally.
In President Obama's first address regarding the verdict, he acted like a leader and said basically "it's a tragedy that a family lost their son but the justice system is based on evidence and, let's face it, there's no evidence to convict Zimmerman, so we should accept the verdict of 'not guilty' as a victory for our justice system, as it is better to let ten guilty men go free than to put one innocent man in prison. Now, in respect for the family let's all put this behind us."
In his second address he said (exact quote) "you know, when Trayvon Martin was first shot, I said that this could have been my son. Another way of saying that is Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago. And when you think about why, in the African-American community at least, there's a lot of pain around what happened here, I think it's important to recognize that the African-American community is looking at this issue through a set of experiences and a history that -- that doesn't go away." He then went on to say "there are very few African-American men who haven’t had the experience of walking across the street and hearing the locks click on the doors of cars. That happens to me, at least before I was a senator. There are very few African-Americans who haven’t had the experience of getting on an elevator and a woman clutching her purse nervously and holding her breath until she had a chance to get off."
Yes, I know what it's like to get nervous looks out of people as I walk by. I know what it's like for people to turn their porch lights on as I walk past their houses at night. Trayvon Martin probably couldn't have been me. I don't live in a high crime area, but I do like to go for walks at crazy hours of the night and I do often make people uncomfortable by my looks and mannerisms. No one where I live will probably shoot me, and I doubt anyone would have shot Obama either during his carefree childhood in Hawaii, or his time spent in Indonesia with his step father who owned a lot of exotic animals. I'm not saying he's lying, but he is definitely not telling the truth either when he says "Trayvon could have been me 35 years ago." Maybe during his time in Chicago, that cesspool of crime and human suffering, but not when he was 17. Obama did not move to the mainland until he was 18.
From the wiki page on Obama: "Of his early childhood, Obama recalled, 'That my father looked nothing like the people around me—that he was black as pitch, my mother white as milk—barely registered in my mind.'
He started to think about black nationalism and anger toward whites in spite of the colourblindness of his peers. Fellow student Mark Hebing recalls "we didn't think about his blackness." From the same LA Times article, we have more accounts of Obama's time in Hawaii:
"His reflections about the race issue surprised all of us," said Kellie Furushima, who knew him well. "He gave no indication of feeling uncomfortable in school, and I never witnessed or heard anyone being unkind to him.
"Being in Hawaii, we had a lot of different races," classmate Vernette Ferreira Shaffer said. "People would tell ethnic jokes, but it was more about making fun of stereotypes than trying to do a cool thing."
Hanging out and working with many black people, I know they make just as many jokes (maybe more) about black stereotypes as any other group. Comedian Chris Rock in Bring the Pain even jokes about the difference between "black people" and "niggers," whom normal black people hate more than white people.
Inside all of this is the anger Obama alludes to. Black people are angry about the way they were treated during the time of slavery and Jim Crow. He says "that doesn't go away." I ask why? Yes, it's true that the slave trade was one of the worst acts of inhumanity in history, but let us not forget it was started in Africa by black people selling other black people to at first Muslims and then to white people. There is still racial tension in Africa between Negroes and Pygmies, two distinct black groups who view the other as nonhuman and have fought wars to wipe the other out. It was also whites who eventually ended slavery, beginning with groups such as the Quakers and taking off when the Methodists got behind the abolition movement, finally culminating in the deaths of over 600,000 men to put a stop to the barbarism once and for all. Immediately after the Civil War many of the Southern states, with majority black populations, elected blacks to federal office. It was not until Reconstruction ended and the white Democrats took power once again that blacks were rendered slaves in all but name until the 1950s. President Eisenhower, Republican, wanted to solve the problem by passing a host of civil rights laws, and he did go very far but was checked by Senate leader Lyndon Johnson, Democrat, who was one of the biggest racists of the time. It was only after Johnson lost face for killing kids in Vietnam that he finished what Eisenhower started, and wrongly took credit for being a civil rights leader when he wanted nothing more than to reinstitute slavery. 50 years of indoctrination in public schools have led millions to believe that the Republicans, who fought and died by the thousands for the rights of black people, are evil while the Democrats, who fought and died to keep blacks enslaved and started the KKK, are good. Truly a cosmic irony.
Why does the racial hurt never go away? When my ancestors came to America a century ago we weren't even second-class citizens and we certainly weren't white (although I'd probably be considered white today I do not self-identify as white). We had hardships, we were mistreated, and we really still aren't viewed in that good a light, and still I have no racial anger toward anyone. I don't think to myself "my ancestors were treated like shit so I'm gonna hate white people forever!" It makes no sense to hold on to anger, to give that kind of power to other people who did nothing to me, and ruin my own life in the process by destroying my own mental health. Anger causes far more harm than good, especially to one's self.
Yes, blacks suffered more than probably any other group in history except the Jews, but just about more effort was put into fixing the injustices done to blacks than to any other group. Wars were not fought and countries were not destroyed to fix other race relations or bring other people out of bondage. I would appreciate one tenth the effort done for my people.
Why does racial hurt never go away? I argue because it is useful. The power elite keep blacks as victims through soft racism such as affirmative action and race baiters such as Al Sharpton. Blacks are not good enough to compete on their own, they argue, so big daddy government must give them a hand up and take care of them just as big daddy massa did. "Massa don't want to hear that slave shit, sing him something different!"
If you take a look at just about every problem society faces today you can trace it back to people with power wanting more power, disenfranchising one group to play off another, keeping us all separated so we can't unite and defeat them. Racism has always existed and probably will always exist, but the idea of permanent racial victims exists only as a device by the elite to divide people.
Now, here's where I'm gonna get really racist, as one person has insinuated, by citing statistics. According to the FBI, 2,720 black people were murdered in 2010, 2,459 of them at the hands of another black person. Another study, conducted by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, between 1976 and 2011, discovered that 94% of all black murder victims were killed by other black people.
One black violent thug was shot by an Hispanic idiot wannabe hero who's painted as "lily white" by race baiters and all of a sudden there's a huge outcry and the beginnings of race riots. The nearly 3,000 other black people killed by other black people every year - not a peep. If Zimmerman was black it has been demonstrably proven over the past three decades that the event wouldn't make the news. About 13,000 people are murdered in total every year. How many of them do we ever hear about on the news? How many of them get a "Justice for Jane Doe" campaign, or two televised speeches by the President, or mass demonstrations in the streets of major cities? How many millions of black babies are killed in abortion mills every year (Planned Parenthood was founded with the specific intent of exterminating black people)? How much harm is the government and racist leaders like Al Sharpton doing to the black community? How much harm is the black community doing to itself? And in spite of all of this we barely hear anything. Whites who speak out are labeled racist and blacks who speak out are labeled Uncle Tom.
Somehow is it more real when an Hispanic (or even a white) man kills a black man than when a black man kills another black man? Is that because the power elite in the media told you so? I don't think so. I don't think it's more real when OJ got off on the death of his wife because there was reasonable doubt because OJ was a black man killing a white woman. I don't think black people should consider it more real that George Zimmerman got off on the death of Trayvon Martin because there was reasonable doubt because Zimmerman was whatever the hell race you want to call him killing a black man. Can we not look past the colour of peoples' skins and see into the content of their characters as a great man once said before he himself was murdered by a racist? Must we divide ourselves among races, playing into the elite's hands, weakening our own power, enslaving ourselves? How does any of that make sense?
It is a tragedy when anyone has to die, but it is an even bigger tragedy when we let those deaths needlessly divide us further. Al Sharpton doesn't care about Trayvon Martin, neither does President Obama, and neither do any of the people on TV who are making money by hyping the incident. Obama will never have to bury his children because of a fight with an armed man, thankfully he has Secret Service to protect them. However, he is stuck seeing things through the lens of race as the elite of his day indoctrinated him, and now that he has all the power in the world he is using it to indoctrinate others. In his ignorance he is part of the problem, a problem that uses race to divide the one human race as evil always does to secure power for itself.
I might be veering off into even more alien ground here, but here is how I see the endgame play out. Evil has no power of its own. All power comes from God, even the power that evil misuses. Just as a solar powered machine cannot be used to destroy the sun, there is nothing evil can do to to defeat God.
All the super evil people in history have eventually outstretched their limits and were murdered by their own people. Stalin, Timur, Attila, Mao, all the tyrants, however powerful, however many millions they terrorised or killed, they were eventually killed by a guard or someone who saw the opportunity to strike and put an end to someone whom everyone hated. Evil loses because it isolates itself. In alienating all possible allies and ruling entirely through fear, evil leaves itself open to that one person who inevitably arises who has nothing to lose and the perfect opening to get at the tyrant one on one. Once they are free, the people, who have been living in secret, watching every step they take against the seemingly omnipotent authorities, immediately resume their lives where they last left off as best they can.
Although the New World Order has a lot of power on the Earth, all the power they have comes from God. No matter how powerful they get they can never win. They will lose; the only question is how much damage will they cause before they are taken down? How long will it take for the world to recover? It took India a century to recover from Timur's destruction, but it recovered. Stalin did his best to destroy the Russian church, but it sprang back once it was free to do so. The unconquerable spirit of free people will be restored as soon as the peoples' burden is lifted. How badly will they destroy the world? I don't know. Ultimately, it doesn't matter, because they cannot destroy our freedom, only we can surrender it. They can never destroy love. As A Course in Miracles says:
Nothing real can be threatened.
Nothing unreal exists.
Herein lies the peace of God.
That is why no matter how powerful they get, they can never be more powerful than you are. They have already lost. All else is just spectacle.
We should use this tragedy as a chance to unite against the evils of racism, not to add more fuel to the fire. With that I close my analysis of the Trayvon Martin case.
Tuesday, May 14, 2013
The End of Obama
Benghazi. A CIA gunrunning scheme that went bad and led to the deaths of four Americans. A stand down order that had to come from the president himself. A major lie about the nature of the attack, blaming it on a video, the creator of which has been disappeared by the government, because the First Amendment means nothing when Muhammad is involved. Treason, by definition of the Constitution. The single worst thing any president has ever done, ever, by a lot.
The IRS being used as a weapon against conservative and small government political groups in 2010.
Even the far left MSNBC agrees, the government does not tread on political speech. As Joe Scarborough says "political speech is sacrosanct." It doesn't matter where on the political spectrum you are, this is a gross violation of federal authority and heads must roll.
To top it all off, the Justice Department has been illegally spying on the Associated Press. The records from more than 20 separate phone lines used by over 100 AP journalists and editors were seized by the DOJ.
Any one of these is enough to warrent impeachment. Obama has all three. IF he survives this, it will mean he is a de facto absolutist dictator. No one will do anything to stop him from running for a third or fourth or life-time term as ruler of the country. IF he survives this, there is no justice.
The IRS being used as a weapon against conservative and small government political groups in 2010.
Even the far left MSNBC agrees, the government does not tread on political speech. As Joe Scarborough says "political speech is sacrosanct." It doesn't matter where on the political spectrum you are, this is a gross violation of federal authority and heads must roll.
To top it all off, the Justice Department has been illegally spying on the Associated Press. The records from more than 20 separate phone lines used by over 100 AP journalists and editors were seized by the DOJ.
Any one of these is enough to warrent impeachment. Obama has all three. IF he survives this, it will mean he is a de facto absolutist dictator. No one will do anything to stop him from running for a third or fourth or life-time term as ruler of the country. IF he survives this, there is no justice.
Wednesday, May 1, 2013
Government Takeover
"The decision to scale back security at the Benghazi outpost went up all the way to then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton."
New revelations in the Benghazi attack. At the very least now we can say Clinton, as well as other elements within the State Department, knew about the attack and let it happen. She is, by definition, guilty of treason, the only crime defined by the Constitution (Article III Section 3), giving aid to an enemy of the United States (removing security when there were numerous pleas from the ambassador himself for increased security because he had strong cause for concern that an attack was imminent).
At the same time DHS is buying ammunition (two billion rounds) to price it out of the range where law abiding citizens can get it and practice their Second Ammendment rights. Sure, the government will let us keep our guns, but bullets are another matter. We can have all the guns we want, but without ammunition those guns are useless. This is a staged takeover of the country.
New revelations in the Benghazi attack. At the very least now we can say Clinton, as well as other elements within the State Department, knew about the attack and let it happen. She is, by definition, guilty of treason, the only crime defined by the Constitution (Article III Section 3), giving aid to an enemy of the United States (removing security when there were numerous pleas from the ambassador himself for increased security because he had strong cause for concern that an attack was imminent).
At the same time DHS is buying ammunition (two billion rounds) to price it out of the range where law abiding citizens can get it and practice their Second Ammendment rights. Sure, the government will let us keep our guns, but bullets are another matter. We can have all the guns we want, but without ammunition those guns are useless. This is a staged takeover of the country.
Tuesday, February 12, 2013
Petrus Romanus
Pope Benedict XVI, age 85, has announced that his health is too poor to faithfully fulfill his duties as Pope, and he will step down on 28 February, being the first Pope to step down in 598 years. He is a very courageous man and I applaude his decision.
Pope Benedict is also a theologin, and well aware (as is everyone in the Vatican) of the prophecy of Saint Malachy. The prophecy, which was hidden in Vatican archives for nearly five centuries, reveals a highly accurate list of 112 future Popes, following Innocent II, until the end of days (starring Richard Harris). Pope Benedict XVI, who took his name from Saint Benedict, founder of the Benedictine Order, the symbol of which is an olive branch, was the 111th Pope on the list.
There is one Pope left. The final part of the prophecy (according to wiki translation) reads: "In the extreme persecution of the Holy Roman Church, there will sit Peter the Roman, who will pasture his sheep in many tribulations:
and when these things are finished, the city of seven hills will be destroyed,
and the terrible judge will judge his people.
The End.
If the prophecy is correct, and it has been scary accurate so far, the next Pope, who is expected to be selected before Easter, will preside over the Church during the end of days. Just when the end of days will begin no one can say, but there are supposed to be seven years of tribulations ultimately culminating in the creation of the new Heaven and new Earth; the final defeat of sin and death, and the glorious reign of the Lord forever.
Now, the official position of the Catholic Church and fundamaterialist archskep-dicks is that the prophecy is a 17th century forgery, which is probably the only thing both groups agree on. Supposedly, since the prophecy is "too accurate" it must have been fabricated to take into account the past Popes, and that, supposedly, all the predictions after the document was released to the public have to be fudged to fit. Unfortunately for both that's not true, as anyone can see that the later predictions have indeed been eerily accurate. Here are just a few:
* Benedict XV (1914-1922) was prophecised as "religion destroyed." He reigned during the rapid rise of Communism, which saw hundreds of millions of people forced into atheism, attempts by the Soviet Union to destroy the Russian Orthodox Church, and the First World War that led to widespread disillusionment with religion among the peoples of Europe.
* Pius XI (1922-1939) was prophecised as "intrepid faith." He stared down fascist dictator Benito Mussolini to establish the Vatican as an independent state, freeing it from decades of oppression by the Italian government.
* Pius XII (1939-1958) was the "angelic shepherd" who first sheltered the Roman Jews during the Holocaust, and later made pleas to the Hungarian government to protect the Jewish population of their country as well.
* John XXIII (1958-1963) "Shepherd and sailor." He was Patriarch of Venice, the spiritual leader of probably the world's most famous maritime city.
* Paul VI (1963-1978) "Flower of flowers." His coat of arms contains three fleur de lis.
* John Paul I (1978) "From the midst of the moon." His reign began during a half moon, and lasted one month.
* John Paul II (1978-2005) "From the labour of the sun." He was born during a solar eclipse and later entombed during another solar eclipse.
The past seven Popes have been predicted with stunning accuracy. If the document were a forgery how could a forger have gotten such a remarkable string of hits three hundred years after the document was supposedly written for political purposes? Even if you don't believe the prophecy to be genuine (I do), this is still a highly significant time historically. We are living during the last days of a prediction made 900 or 300 years ago, depending upon which side you take, which may or may not have had a significant influence on the past several centuries of Church history. Either way, we are living in interesting times.
Always love.
Sunday, December 30, 2012
Scrying
For those few who may remember, the title and topic of my first ever post on The Urban Mystic, in February 2006, was on scrying, a term used to describe a variety of divination methods involving staring at reflective surfaces. Today, I experimented again, gazing into a mirror which reflected a featureless white surface in a dimly lit room. I gazed until no more light remained (about thirty minutes), at which time an image did begin to appear, but it vanished very quickly, and with it all visible light, ending the experiment. I liked the results, and will, in the future, continue this practice. As always, I will keep you updated.
Thursday, December 20, 2012
The End of the World
In the great film Alexander, Hephaestion, Alexander's life long companion, asks Alexander "What would you do if you ever reached the end of the world?" At the other end of the world, near the International Date Line it is already 2 PM on Friday. Friday, 21 December 2012, the end of the world. According to some people, tomorrow (or today in some places that are already tomorrow) will be the last day ever, or something. To be fair, I had my own story "The L", which I began writing in 2006, have the end of the world begin tomorrow, when The Pinnacle Research Group initiated a global disaster from Bouvet Island. In my story the 21st is only the beginning of the end of the world, with the world not ending completely until fifteen years later after great tribulations have claimed five billion lives and ravaged the surface of the Earth.
It has been six years since I began my mystical career in January 2006, and started writing The Urban Mystic in February that same year (on AOL, which no longer exits, so you cannot access past archives which I have saved). It has been five years since I had my first taste of radical Freedom, One Taste, in January 2007, when the world was on the inside and my eyes were on the outside and my self was blasted across the face of the Kosmos. It has been four years since Christmas 2008 when I had a dream about the end of the world, 21 December 2012, where balls of light came to Earth and began erasing everything they touched. It has been nearly two years since I discovered My Little Pony, something that has really touched me and helped affect my life for the better. I have made predictions: the "Arab Spring", genetically modified viruses that mimic psychotropic drugs, the "Great Winter of 2010", among others. These past six years have been full of ups and downs, but I wouldn't trade them for the life I lived before.
Now, it seems like it is the end of the world. This year I was told that I need to make sacrifices to enter the next phase of my mystical career. The choice is mine, but it is a choice between being a mystic and living a normal life, and it is the greatest choice of my life, and the most difficult. A mirror reflects everything that falls on it, without altering the thing it is reflecting or becoming attached to it. A mirror mind, the mind of enlightenment, is the same. Cutting the fetters of attachment is necessary for enlightenment, and there are a few that seem too well entrenched in my psyche to be cut loose. If I go down this path farther I must deal with the death of the small self and all the little things it has accumulated over the years. What's really interesting is, I was told this would happen in the beginning! I was told in 2006 I would have these choices to make in 2012. I was told what to expect and when to expect it, and I failed to notice until most of the signs already passed and it was too late to prepare, just yesterday. Regardless of what happens in the external world tomorrow, it may well be the end of the world for my little self.
Come what may, it will be for the best. It has been a wonderful time, dear couple of readers (actually about 20 a day). I love you all.
Always Love.
It has been six years since I began my mystical career in January 2006, and started writing The Urban Mystic in February that same year (on AOL, which no longer exits, so you cannot access past archives which I have saved). It has been five years since I had my first taste of radical Freedom, One Taste, in January 2007, when the world was on the inside and my eyes were on the outside and my self was blasted across the face of the Kosmos. It has been four years since Christmas 2008 when I had a dream about the end of the world, 21 December 2012, where balls of light came to Earth and began erasing everything they touched. It has been nearly two years since I discovered My Little Pony, something that has really touched me and helped affect my life for the better. I have made predictions: the "Arab Spring", genetically modified viruses that mimic psychotropic drugs, the "Great Winter of 2010", among others. These past six years have been full of ups and downs, but I wouldn't trade them for the life I lived before.
Now, it seems like it is the end of the world. This year I was told that I need to make sacrifices to enter the next phase of my mystical career. The choice is mine, but it is a choice between being a mystic and living a normal life, and it is the greatest choice of my life, and the most difficult. A mirror reflects everything that falls on it, without altering the thing it is reflecting or becoming attached to it. A mirror mind, the mind of enlightenment, is the same. Cutting the fetters of attachment is necessary for enlightenment, and there are a few that seem too well entrenched in my psyche to be cut loose. If I go down this path farther I must deal with the death of the small self and all the little things it has accumulated over the years. What's really interesting is, I was told this would happen in the beginning! I was told in 2006 I would have these choices to make in 2012. I was told what to expect and when to expect it, and I failed to notice until most of the signs already passed and it was too late to prepare, just yesterday. Regardless of what happens in the external world tomorrow, it may well be the end of the world for my little self.
Come what may, it will be for the best. It has been a wonderful time, dear couple of readers (actually about 20 a day). I love you all.
Always Love.
Tuesday, November 27, 2012
Why Grover Norquist Is Right
Yes, the title is a double entendre, by design.
I read a piece on page 14 of The Star Ledger today, that dying albatross of a New Jersey newspaper, hearkening back to halcyon times when the big name media told us what to think. A nameless opinion writer opined "slowly, yet sanely, some Republicans are snapping out of their mass hypnosis. One-by-one, they're renouncing allegianc to Grover Norquits and his paralyzing no-tax hike pledge." (emphasis added)
Whomever this writer is, he or she is clearly not living in reality. You see, there's the real world and then there's Filburt's world, and you don't have to be a rocket surgeon to know which is which. The author, hearafter dubbed Steve, talks about "Mitt Romney's eye-opening defeat." Eye-opening? Romney lost by 3% of the popular vote, which is well within the margin of error for all major polls. This was as close as the 2004 election, which no one said Bush won by a landslide, or that Bush shellacked Kerry, or that the Democrats need to seriously rethink their strategy.
Steve goes on to say "In a Rasmussen poll last week, 72 percent of Americans said they want tax hikes in the formula for reducing the nation's debt." Yeah, and about half of Americans pay no federal income tax, so they have no stake in the game and therefore their opinion's do not count. To put it another way, if 72 percent of Americans said they wanted to reintroduce slavery would that mean we should reintroduce slavery or that slavery was morally right?
"They realize 'compromise' isn't a dirty word." Compromise with insanity is, and increasing taxes in the middle of the worst economy since the Great Depression is insane. It all boils down to something called the Laffer Curve. When you raise taxes above a certain point (most economists agree that that point is about 33 percent) the amount of revenue the government takes in from taxes decreases because there is less incentive for people to work if they see all their hard earned money going out the crapper. Kennedy increased tax revenue by cutting tax rates, Reagan increased tax revenue by cutting tax rates, and Obama will send us into a new depression if he raises taxes.
Let's face it, most people have no understanding of basic economics, which is why they vote for things like birth control and food stamps. Young adults take student loans they can never pay off because society tells them they need a worthless degree to get a job they that does not exist so they can dream about living like millionaire playboys. Millions of people took home loans on houses they did not need and could not afford because society told them that home ownership was the "American dream," leading to the subprime mortgage crisis of 2007 that nearly collapsed the world economy.
The government is spending more money than any amount of tax hikes could solve. At the current rate of spending, even if 100 percent of all the assets of everyone who makes over $60,000 a year were confiscated it would only last a few weeks and permanently destroy the world economy. Federal debt is 114 percent of GDP with over $90 trillion in unfunded liabilities. World GDP is only $70 trillion, so even all the money in the entire world is not enough to solve this problem. Spending MUST be cut, drastically, or it really will be the end of the world. Only AFTER the Democrats agree to something like $600 billion in spending cuts, minimum, will it be morally acceptable for Republicans to agree to compromise to tax increases. If those spending cuts do not come FIRST you can raise taxes all you want and it will not make one iota of difference.
I read a piece on page 14 of The Star Ledger today, that dying albatross of a New Jersey newspaper, hearkening back to halcyon times when the big name media told us what to think. A nameless opinion writer opined "slowly, yet sanely, some Republicans are snapping out of their mass hypnosis. One-by-one, they're renouncing allegianc to Grover Norquits and his paralyzing no-tax hike pledge." (emphasis added)
Whomever this writer is, he or she is clearly not living in reality. You see, there's the real world and then there's Filburt's world, and you don't have to be a rocket surgeon to know which is which. The author, hearafter dubbed Steve, talks about "Mitt Romney's eye-opening defeat." Eye-opening? Romney lost by 3% of the popular vote, which is well within the margin of error for all major polls. This was as close as the 2004 election, which no one said Bush won by a landslide, or that Bush shellacked Kerry, or that the Democrats need to seriously rethink their strategy.
Steve goes on to say "In a Rasmussen poll last week, 72 percent of Americans said they want tax hikes in the formula for reducing the nation's debt." Yeah, and about half of Americans pay no federal income tax, so they have no stake in the game and therefore their opinion's do not count. To put it another way, if 72 percent of Americans said they wanted to reintroduce slavery would that mean we should reintroduce slavery or that slavery was morally right?
"They realize 'compromise' isn't a dirty word." Compromise with insanity is, and increasing taxes in the middle of the worst economy since the Great Depression is insane. It all boils down to something called the Laffer Curve. When you raise taxes above a certain point (most economists agree that that point is about 33 percent) the amount of revenue the government takes in from taxes decreases because there is less incentive for people to work if they see all their hard earned money going out the crapper. Kennedy increased tax revenue by cutting tax rates, Reagan increased tax revenue by cutting tax rates, and Obama will send us into a new depression if he raises taxes.
Let's face it, most people have no understanding of basic economics, which is why they vote for things like birth control and food stamps. Young adults take student loans they can never pay off because society tells them they need a worthless degree to get a job they that does not exist so they can dream about living like millionaire playboys. Millions of people took home loans on houses they did not need and could not afford because society told them that home ownership was the "American dream," leading to the subprime mortgage crisis of 2007 that nearly collapsed the world economy.
The government is spending more money than any amount of tax hikes could solve. At the current rate of spending, even if 100 percent of all the assets of everyone who makes over $60,000 a year were confiscated it would only last a few weeks and permanently destroy the world economy. Federal debt is 114 percent of GDP with over $90 trillion in unfunded liabilities. World GDP is only $70 trillion, so even all the money in the entire world is not enough to solve this problem. Spending MUST be cut, drastically, or it really will be the end of the world. Only AFTER the Democrats agree to something like $600 billion in spending cuts, minimum, will it be morally acceptable for Republicans to agree to compromise to tax increases. If those spending cuts do not come FIRST you can raise taxes all you want and it will not make one iota of difference.
Saturday, November 17, 2012
Veterans Day 2012
Hurricane Sandy made me late.
Here is the famous scene of the flag raising on Iwo Jima in black and white.
Here is the famous scene of the flag raising on Iwo Jima in black and white.
Saturday, November 10, 2012
Benghazi Was An Inside Job
In 2010 I made a series of predictions while writing a worst case scenario fictional novel called 7 Days about the New World Order. I had to stop writing when in 2011 the Arab Spring happened and fulfilled the first of my predictions, that a contagious madness would spread around the Mediterranean. I spent the entire year following the events of the Arab Spring, a series of events I called The World Gone Mad. I made a few other predictions, including the enactment of the NDAA and NDRP, which allow Obama to detain Americans indefinitely or execute them without due process and declair martial law for any reason. By 10 September 2012, I had two (or three, depending on how you look at them) predictions left unfulfilled, and they were very scary. The next day, the eleventh anniversary of 9/11, the US consulate in Benghazi, Libya, was attacked by al-Qaeda, and one of those two predictions came true. It wasn't until Hurricane Sandy took out my power for nine days (which is why I didn't update the Constitution series) that I realised that Benghazi fulfilled my prediction.
I had said there would be a false flag terror attack on US soil. I discounted the Benghazi attack because I thought it was Libya, but listening to the radio one night it hit me, a US consulate IS US soil!
Okay, so a terror attack happened on US soil, that doesn't mean I was right, does it? It wasn't false flag, right? Actually, it is not that simple.
The US armed and funded al-Qaeda in Libya to decapitate Qaddaffi*. Three of the four Americans killed on 9/11/12 were CIA operatives who were trying to recover guns that were given to al-Qaeda. By the way, providing aid and comfort to an enemy in a time of war is the legal definition of treason, the nation's most serious crime, and it carries a death sentence. Someone, or many people, in the US government are traitors and should be hanged.
Internal documents leaked by someone inside the Department of State reveal that ambassador Stevens was deeply concerned over security in Benghazi, and had pleaded for more security. A FLASH** message was received by president Obama three hours prior to the attack, stating that an attack was immanent. The nearest US military installation was 40 minutes away by air. The attack could have been prevented, the president knew it was going to happen and watched it happen live via an overhead drone. At the very best president Obama let the Benghazi attack happen; at worst he, and other elements in the US government including the CIA, made it happen through weapons and aid given to the people who perpetrated the attacks. Benghazi was an inside job, and my prediction has come to pass, Q.E.D.
The only thing I got wrong was the date. I had predicted the attack would happen in December 2012, and it happened in September. Things are unfolding faster than I anticipated.
Furthermore, I predicted the purpose of the attack would be to get people to demand expansion of government and a decrease of personal liberty. For weeks the official story was that a movie by a convicted meth dealer that 100 people saw in July that demeans the prophet Muhammad in an amateurish attempt at emulating Monty Python's Life of Brian, was the cause of the attacks. The meth dealer was disappeared without due process and is being held in a black site somewhere. Calls were made by top government officials, including president Obama and secretary of state Clinton, to limit free speech by making insulting Islam illegal. The hope was that people would buy this story and demand "yes, let's make insulting Islam illegal!" That has not happened. I am left to conclude that not only was I right about the attack happening, I was right as to the reason it took place as well.
There is one prediction left (or two, if you break it into two parts). I said this would happen in February 2013, but it may happen sooner. First, there will be massive civil unrest in the United States, and then the military will find out about the government's involvement in the terror attack, and tired from liberty being stolen and endless wars overseas, the military will turn on the government. They may stage a full coup d'eta, or they may just walk off and refuse to fight any more. I have been right on every single issue except this one so far. Pray I am wrong this time.
*Someone calculated all the possible spellings of his name, and came to the conclusion that there are at least 40 legitimate spellings.
**FLASH is the highest priority message sent by the military. All lower priority messages are interrupted, and the receipt of the message requires acknowledgement.
I had said there would be a false flag terror attack on US soil. I discounted the Benghazi attack because I thought it was Libya, but listening to the radio one night it hit me, a US consulate IS US soil!
Okay, so a terror attack happened on US soil, that doesn't mean I was right, does it? It wasn't false flag, right? Actually, it is not that simple.
The US armed and funded al-Qaeda in Libya to decapitate Qaddaffi*. Three of the four Americans killed on 9/11/12 were CIA operatives who were trying to recover guns that were given to al-Qaeda. By the way, providing aid and comfort to an enemy in a time of war is the legal definition of treason, the nation's most serious crime, and it carries a death sentence. Someone, or many people, in the US government are traitors and should be hanged.
Internal documents leaked by someone inside the Department of State reveal that ambassador Stevens was deeply concerned over security in Benghazi, and had pleaded for more security. A FLASH** message was received by president Obama three hours prior to the attack, stating that an attack was immanent. The nearest US military installation was 40 minutes away by air. The attack could have been prevented, the president knew it was going to happen and watched it happen live via an overhead drone. At the very best president Obama let the Benghazi attack happen; at worst he, and other elements in the US government including the CIA, made it happen through weapons and aid given to the people who perpetrated the attacks. Benghazi was an inside job, and my prediction has come to pass, Q.E.D.
The only thing I got wrong was the date. I had predicted the attack would happen in December 2012, and it happened in September. Things are unfolding faster than I anticipated.
Furthermore, I predicted the purpose of the attack would be to get people to demand expansion of government and a decrease of personal liberty. For weeks the official story was that a movie by a convicted meth dealer that 100 people saw in July that demeans the prophet Muhammad in an amateurish attempt at emulating Monty Python's Life of Brian, was the cause of the attacks. The meth dealer was disappeared without due process and is being held in a black site somewhere. Calls were made by top government officials, including president Obama and secretary of state Clinton, to limit free speech by making insulting Islam illegal. The hope was that people would buy this story and demand "yes, let's make insulting Islam illegal!" That has not happened. I am left to conclude that not only was I right about the attack happening, I was right as to the reason it took place as well.
There is one prediction left (or two, if you break it into two parts). I said this would happen in February 2013, but it may happen sooner. First, there will be massive civil unrest in the United States, and then the military will find out about the government's involvement in the terror attack, and tired from liberty being stolen and endless wars overseas, the military will turn on the government. They may stage a full coup d'eta, or they may just walk off and refuse to fight any more. I have been right on every single issue except this one so far. Pray I am wrong this time.
*Someone calculated all the possible spellings of his name, and came to the conclusion that there are at least 40 legitimate spellings.
**FLASH is the highest priority message sent by the military. All lower priority messages are interrupted, and the receipt of the message requires acknowledgement.
Friday, October 26, 2012
Obama Lied About Benghazi and People Really Died
The president knew about the situation in Benghazi as it was happening, and he did nothing. He knew there would be trouble days before, and he did nothing. The slain ambassador begged for more protection, and the president did nothing. Weapons were given to the Muslim Brotherhood and they were then charged with protecting Americans in Libya, and they were the killers. For weeks Obama told the world it was a video. The man who made the video has been disappeared. Obama told the world a bold face lie and Americans died, and none of them had to.
Friday, September 28, 2012
What Real Heroes Look Like
Afghanistan: A soldier rushes out into the open to draw fire away from his brothers in arms. From the cameraman:
" I got a hit a total of 4 times. My helmet cam died and i made it down the mountain on my own. I was also hit in the side of my helmet and my eye pro was shot off of my face. We were doing overwatch on the village to recon and gather intel. I was point heading down the face of the hill with the LT. when we got hit. the rest of the squad was pinned down by machine gun fire. I didn't start the video until a few mins into the firefight for obvious reasons. I came out into the open to draw fire so my squad could get to safety."
"A round struck the tube by my hand of the 203 grenade launcher which knocked it out of my hands. When I picked the rifle back up it was still functional but the grenade launcher tube had a nice sized 7.62 cal bullet hole in it and was rendered useless. "
" I got a hit a total of 4 times. My helmet cam died and i made it down the mountain on my own. I was also hit in the side of my helmet and my eye pro was shot off of my face. We were doing overwatch on the village to recon and gather intel. I was point heading down the face of the hill with the LT. when we got hit. the rest of the squad was pinned down by machine gun fire. I didn't start the video until a few mins into the firefight for obvious reasons. I came out into the open to draw fire so my squad could get to safety."
"A round struck the tube by my hand of the 203 grenade launcher which knocked it out of my hands. When I picked the rifle back up it was still functional but the grenade launcher tube had a nice sized 7.62 cal bullet hole in it and was rendered useless. "
Wednesday, September 26, 2012
F-22s Scramble Over Central Jersey
Stock Image
Between 10:55 and 11:20 AM two F-22s had to intercept two aircraft that violated restricted airspace in New York during the UN General Assembly meeting. The planes were redirected to Central Jersey Regional Airport (a tiny little place with a single runway). The pilots may have been having radio trouble. The FAA is looking whether to prosecute them or not. (from the AP)
Here is 18 seconds of poor quality video I got of one of the jets:
Thursday, September 13, 2012
Muslim Brotherhood/ Al Qaeda Takeover
The attacks on sovereign US soil in Egypt, Libya, and Yemen from the coordinated attack by Islamists was not incited by a fourteen minute Youtube video made by a convicted meth dealer in California. These attacks are part of a plan initiated in 2005 to make criticism of Islam illegal all over the world. The video (uploaded in July) was used as a convenient excuse for an attack on the eleventh anniversary of 9/11.
Sovereign US soil was attacked (an act of war). Four Americans were killed including one of only six US ambassadors ever killed. We cannot surrender the US Constitution and replace it with sharia law. We cannot sit idle while our freedom is slaughtered on the alter of appeasement.
Representative Louie Gohmert (R. Texas) respondes (23 minutes):
Sovereign US soil was attacked (an act of war). Four Americans were killed including one of only six US ambassadors ever killed. We cannot surrender the US Constitution and replace it with sharia law. We cannot sit idle while our freedom is slaughtered on the alter of appeasement.
Representative Louie Gohmert (R. Texas) respondes (23 minutes):
Monday, September 10, 2012
The Future
Why does the future matter?
I got an email from one of the Integral operations that seems to be becoming more cult-like (including the creation of an "Integral community", which seems very tribal, almost like a regression to first tier, and an article and video "why Integral people should vote for Obama"). The question asked "why does the future matter?" I was going to write on it yesterday, but I was tired so I saved it for today.
As Ken says “The way you approach the present isn’t just determined by the way you approach the past, but by the way you approach the future. The richer conception of the future you have, the richer your life in the present becomes.” There is also audio that goes with the quote where Ken talks about different schools of futurism. What's really interesting is toward the end, after talking about how quickly technology is advancing, Ken asks the question "what problems do we want to solve first?" Do we want to advance technologically really fast and solve problems with world hunger and environmental degradation, or do we want to advance interiors first? Seeing as how most people's interiors are seriously lagging behind do we really want to have someone at level two or three (communist China or some two-bit dictator) acquiring technology to make nuclear weapons look like toys? Perhaps the imperative is to get the majority of people to a stage that recognises human rights before we develop computers that can enslave humanity or superplagues that can wipe us all out.
I don't know if Ken (or the Integral "community") would agree, but this seems like a clarion call to me. It rings out like a night watchman "don't let Iran get the bomb!" We are talking about a group of people who believe that the messiah won't come until they kill all the Jews; a group of people who believe dying in the cause of global domination is a one way ticket to a paradise filled with hookers. This is a group of people who tore down neighborhoods inside Tehran to make processional boulivards so when the messiah comes in their lifetimes his multitude of chariots could have enough room. The Iranian people have come on hands and knees three times begging US aid and support to overthrow the Mullahs and three times the US flipped them off while hundreds were murdered in the streets. These are dangerous, evil people and we cannot let them have control of the future. It is better to decapitate their regime now than wait for the Third World War after they get nukes.
At the same time I am reminded to seek guidance from A Course in Miracles. These are two passages from the urtext*:
Your instability and his weakness have resulted from bad karmic choices, and your relationship NOW is crucial for the future. (36)
[Edgar Cayce] did not realize that it is only what [the mind] is building NOW the really creates the future. The past, in itself, does not have the ability to do this. Whenever we move from one instant to the next, the previous one no longer exists. (78)
What we do now, our thoughts and actions, is what creates the future. As the original email asked "what future we are imagining for ourselves, for the integral movement, and for the impact of the integral vision on our shared future?" The future we imagine is the future we will act upon. The future is a reflection of the choices we make now, and we will not be able to escape the consequences of those choices.
So, what future are we imagining for ourselves and the integral movement? Anyone who is familiar with The Urban Mystic knows what I foresee for the future. I predicted the "Arab Spring," the NDAA and NDRP, and the behavioural modification viruses. So far all the predictions I made in 7 Days have come true, and there are only two left:
1. False flag terror attack on US soil. The Department of Homeland Security infects small government activists with the brain eating virus at the New Year's celebration in NYC to make them look like terrorists. The idea is to get the public to demand the government to crack down on small government people so it can take over all of our liberties. This event has not happened yet. ETA: 31 December 2012.
2. US military stages coup d'eta. The word gets out that the attack in NYC was staged by DHS, not a terror group, and in response factions in the US military loyal to their oath to uphold the Constitution and defend the United States from all enemies foreign and domestic attempt to decapitate the US government to root out the corruption once and for all. This event has not happened yet. ETA: February 2013.
I'm not happy that viruses that mimic the effects of antipsychotic drugs are really being considered (or already exist), or that the President has given himself the authority to execute any American citizen without due process simply by saying that person is a "terrorist." I don't want a military coup, but unfortunately that is the future I am invisioning. Let's face it, the world has really gone downhill fast since 9/11 (the eleventh anniversary is tomorrow) and I can't see a way out unless drastic measures are taken right away. We have to get the statists out of office and restore the authority of the Constitution as invisioned by the founders. If past is prelude, the future ain't looking too bright.
What am I foreseeing regarding Integral? Well, it's leaders are already pretty far left and they are largely endorsing the biggest statist in US history for president (someone whom I said in 2008 would be like four more terms of Bush when people cried McCain would be four more years of Bush. I was right.). Will more people reach second tier in the year ahead? Possibly. There's already been major forces stirring in the American psyche with the big successes of the Tea Party in 2010 and the less specacular results of the Occupy Wallstreet folks (I said they should have occupied Washington instead), as well as the huge groundswell in Ron Paul supporters, with even Mitt Romney saying he wants to audit the Fed due to overwhelming pressure from the Dr. Paul crowd. Things could start looking up in 2013, if we do what is needed to get America on track (by first not reelecting Obama, then forcing Romney to act more like Ron Paul), we could help the Iranian people (who are overwhelmingly pro-US and pro-West) get out from the yoke of their oppressive medieval leaders with a truly democratic Iranian Spring in 2013 (unlike the Arab Spring, that saw the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, and now Syria).
What am I foreseeing for myself? That is none of your business.
Always love.
*The unedited, original version of A Course in Miracles as released on the Internet. The Circle of Atonement says ""A Course in Miracles Urtext Manuscripts" is a printed version of the Urtext, the original typescript that was typed by Bill Thetford from Helen Schucman dictating her notes to him. It includes approximately 50,000 words that are not included in the familiar FIP version. The Urtext includes extensive discussions of the Bible, sex, possession, Freud and other topics which were edited out of other editions. There are over 2,400 footnotes to Bible references and variant ACIM readings."
I got an email from one of the Integral operations that seems to be becoming more cult-like (including the creation of an "Integral community", which seems very tribal, almost like a regression to first tier, and an article and video "why Integral people should vote for Obama"). The question asked "why does the future matter?" I was going to write on it yesterday, but I was tired so I saved it for today.
As Ken says “The way you approach the present isn’t just determined by the way you approach the past, but by the way you approach the future. The richer conception of the future you have, the richer your life in the present becomes.” There is also audio that goes with the quote where Ken talks about different schools of futurism. What's really interesting is toward the end, after talking about how quickly technology is advancing, Ken asks the question "what problems do we want to solve first?" Do we want to advance technologically really fast and solve problems with world hunger and environmental degradation, or do we want to advance interiors first? Seeing as how most people's interiors are seriously lagging behind do we really want to have someone at level two or three (communist China or some two-bit dictator) acquiring technology to make nuclear weapons look like toys? Perhaps the imperative is to get the majority of people to a stage that recognises human rights before we develop computers that can enslave humanity or superplagues that can wipe us all out.
I don't know if Ken (or the Integral "community") would agree, but this seems like a clarion call to me. It rings out like a night watchman "don't let Iran get the bomb!" We are talking about a group of people who believe that the messiah won't come until they kill all the Jews; a group of people who believe dying in the cause of global domination is a one way ticket to a paradise filled with hookers. This is a group of people who tore down neighborhoods inside Tehran to make processional boulivards so when the messiah comes in their lifetimes his multitude of chariots could have enough room. The Iranian people have come on hands and knees three times begging US aid and support to overthrow the Mullahs and three times the US flipped them off while hundreds were murdered in the streets. These are dangerous, evil people and we cannot let them have control of the future. It is better to decapitate their regime now than wait for the Third World War after they get nukes.
At the same time I am reminded to seek guidance from A Course in Miracles. These are two passages from the urtext*:
Your instability and his weakness have resulted from bad karmic choices, and your relationship NOW is crucial for the future. (36)
[Edgar Cayce] did not realize that it is only what [the mind] is building NOW the really creates the future. The past, in itself, does not have the ability to do this. Whenever we move from one instant to the next, the previous one no longer exists. (78)
What we do now, our thoughts and actions, is what creates the future. As the original email asked "what future we are imagining for ourselves, for the integral movement, and for the impact of the integral vision on our shared future?" The future we imagine is the future we will act upon. The future is a reflection of the choices we make now, and we will not be able to escape the consequences of those choices.
So, what future are we imagining for ourselves and the integral movement? Anyone who is familiar with The Urban Mystic knows what I foresee for the future. I predicted the "Arab Spring," the NDAA and NDRP, and the behavioural modification viruses. So far all the predictions I made in 7 Days have come true, and there are only two left:
1. False flag terror attack on US soil. The Department of Homeland Security infects small government activists with the brain eating virus at the New Year's celebration in NYC to make them look like terrorists. The idea is to get the public to demand the government to crack down on small government people so it can take over all of our liberties. This event has not happened yet. ETA: 31 December 2012.
2. US military stages coup d'eta. The word gets out that the attack in NYC was staged by DHS, not a terror group, and in response factions in the US military loyal to their oath to uphold the Constitution and defend the United States from all enemies foreign and domestic attempt to decapitate the US government to root out the corruption once and for all. This event has not happened yet. ETA: February 2013.
I'm not happy that viruses that mimic the effects of antipsychotic drugs are really being considered (or already exist), or that the President has given himself the authority to execute any American citizen without due process simply by saying that person is a "terrorist." I don't want a military coup, but unfortunately that is the future I am invisioning. Let's face it, the world has really gone downhill fast since 9/11 (the eleventh anniversary is tomorrow) and I can't see a way out unless drastic measures are taken right away. We have to get the statists out of office and restore the authority of the Constitution as invisioned by the founders. If past is prelude, the future ain't looking too bright.
What am I foreseeing regarding Integral? Well, it's leaders are already pretty far left and they are largely endorsing the biggest statist in US history for president (someone whom I said in 2008 would be like four more terms of Bush when people cried McCain would be four more years of Bush. I was right.). Will more people reach second tier in the year ahead? Possibly. There's already been major forces stirring in the American psyche with the big successes of the Tea Party in 2010 and the less specacular results of the Occupy Wallstreet folks (I said they should have occupied Washington instead), as well as the huge groundswell in Ron Paul supporters, with even Mitt Romney saying he wants to audit the Fed due to overwhelming pressure from the Dr. Paul crowd. Things could start looking up in 2013, if we do what is needed to get America on track (by first not reelecting Obama, then forcing Romney to act more like Ron Paul), we could help the Iranian people (who are overwhelmingly pro-US and pro-West) get out from the yoke of their oppressive medieval leaders with a truly democratic Iranian Spring in 2013 (unlike the Arab Spring, that saw the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, and now Syria).
What am I foreseeing for myself? That is none of your business.
Always love.
*The unedited, original version of A Course in Miracles as released on the Internet. The Circle of Atonement says ""A Course in Miracles Urtext Manuscripts" is a printed version of the Urtext, the original typescript that was typed by Bill Thetford from Helen Schucman dictating her notes to him. It includes approximately 50,000 words that are not included in the familiar FIP version. The Urtext includes extensive discussions of the Bible, sex, possession, Freud and other topics which were edited out of other editions. There are over 2,400 footnotes to Bible references and variant ACIM readings."
Sunday, August 26, 2012
Neil Armstrong In Memoriam
Neil Armstrong, Korean War veteran, test pilot, first man to walk on the Moon, has died from complications due to heart surgery. He was 82.
As the first of only twelve men to step foot on the Moon, Armstrong is a member of the most prestigeous group of humans in history. He lived his post-Apollo years semi-retired from public life, rarely granting interviews.
One of our greatest heroes, Neil Armstrong will dearly be missed.
Video of that one small step
CNN Biography of Armstrong
Saturday, May 19, 2012
Nigel Farage Was Right!
Nigel Farage, UK MEP, predicted a lot of things in 2010 and 2011, about the bailouts, about the collapse of Greece and Portugal, about the end of the European Union and the rise of nationalism in member states who are fed up with the debt crisis. He was right. The political party that shows the fastest growth in Greece is the ultra far right nationalist party the Golden Dawn (the website is in Greek). Didn't we see this happen before, 80 years ago? People are pushed to the breaking point by a golbal debt crisis and demand new leadership to rise from within their own people. History is repeating itself, again, all because people are too stupid, to naive, or too lazy to actually learn from the mistakes their ancestors made.
THIS is why you should study history (that project I was working on that was lost with my old computer). You should study history so you can see what is coming in the future if you keep doing the same things and expecting different outcomes. You should study history to avoid the collapse of civilisations and the deaths of millions in unnecessary wars brought on by failed policies.
Watch 14 minutes of Nigel Farage demonstrait why you should study history.
THIS is why you should study history (that project I was working on that was lost with my old computer). You should study history so you can see what is coming in the future if you keep doing the same things and expecting different outcomes. You should study history to avoid the collapse of civilisations and the deaths of millions in unnecessary wars brought on by failed policies.
Watch 14 minutes of Nigel Farage demonstrait why you should study history.
Tuesday, May 15, 2012
Arizona Law Does Not Harm Women
HuffPo is about as anti-choice as one can get!
Vous may have heard of a new law in Arizona that liberal racists hate (they tend to hate everything from Arizona because they don't actually have to live there), called HB 2036. The title of a Huff the Magic Dragon article reads "Arizona Passes Abortion Law That Says Pregnancy Begins Before A Child Has Been Conceived," and claims that this is "another blow to reproductive rights in the US" (when was the first blow? - that's what she said). It goes on to say:
"Aside from banning all abortions after 20 weeks, defined from the date of the woman's last period instead of conception except in the case of medical emergency, it will force women considering abortion because of fetal abnormalities to have counselling, and for women having an abortion to have an ultrasound.
"It also says the age of a foetus is "is calculated from the first day of the last [woman's] menstrual period.""
I did something HuffPo didn't do, and actually read the text of HB 2036. Here's what it says regarding the beginning of pregnancy:
""Pregnant" or "pregnancy" means a female reproductive condition of having a developing unborn child in the body and that begins with conception.
Abortion does not include birth control devices, oral contraceptives used to inhibit or prevent ovulation, conception or the implantation of a fertilized ovum in the uterus or the use of any means to i̶n̶c̶r̶e̶a̶s̶e̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶p̶r̶o̶b̶a̶b̶i̶l̶i̶t̶y̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶a̶ ̶l̶i̶v̶e̶ ̶b̶i̶r̶t̶h̶ save the life or preserve the health of the unborn child, to preserve the life or health of the child after a live birth, to terminate an ectopic pregnancy or to remove a dead fetus" (from the final, ammended version, strikethrough and emphasis included).
Right in the title the HuffPo article is lying, and it's not just lying out of ignorance or neglecting to mention something, it's a blatant lie. The text actually says pregnancy begins at conception, not before.
One thing HuffPo got right is how gestational age is calculated, as the actual text reads: "the age of the unborn child as calculated from the first day of the last menstrual period of the pregnant woman." However, there's nothing controversial about that at all. According to the National Institutes of Health: "In human obstetrics, gestational age is often defined as the time
elapsed since 14 days prior to fertilization. This is approximately the
duration since the woman's last menstrual period (LMP) began." The Arizona law is using the national standard system for calculating the age of the unborn child, not making up some draconian anti-women rule. Everyone's calculations are done that way; there is absolutely nothing controversial about that.
What about restricting (not banning) abortions after 20 weeks? Well, according to the CDC only 1.3% of all abortions in America and 0.8% of all abortions in Arizona happen after 20 weeks anyway. HuffPo is arguing over less than one percent of abortions in the state, and many of them (all 105 in 2004) probably had either maternal or fetal health factor in in some way (the later in term an abortion is the greater the risk to the mother, so getting an abortion halfway through the second trimester isn't nearly as safe as earlier on), so there's no saying that this number will be affected in any way at all.
What about the other provisions? What's wrong with giving women considering getting an abortion counseling? It's a huge decision, one not to be taken lightly. One does not simply wake up one morning and says "hey, I'll get an abortion, then I'll get cake and celebrate!" This is something that requires a lot of thought, does carry health risks (there are some studies suggesting an abortion-breast cancer link; I don't know, I haven't read them), and has psychological repercussions (a lot of women have to deal with post-abortion depression, not unlike postpartum depression). This isn't the same thing as buying a hat, this isn't even the same as buying a car, this is something not to be decided upon brashly. By all means, let women considering an abortion talk it out with someone in a calm, adult fashion.
And what of ultrasounds? What's wrong with that? The bigger the decision the more information you should have before you make it. You wouldn't buy a car by going to a dealership and picking one at random? Doesn't "pro-choice" mean just that, pro-CHOICE? Shouldn't the woman considering an abortion be given information from BOTH sides so she can make an informed CHOICE, and not just pro-abortion propaganda? How is it possible to make a choice if one is given a single option? Arizona's new law actually promotes genuine choice, and actually empowers women (is it not said that "knowledge is power"?). But HuffPo wouldn't know that - I doubt they read the actual text of the law - and they certainly don't want their readers to know that because they never linked to the actual law itself! They expect their readers to take their word for it and not do their own research and make up their own minds! HuffPo is about as anti-choice as one can get!
Vous may have heard of a new law in Arizona that liberal racists hate (they tend to hate everything from Arizona because they don't actually have to live there), called HB 2036. The title of a Huff the Magic Dragon article reads "Arizona Passes Abortion Law That Says Pregnancy Begins Before A Child Has Been Conceived," and claims that this is "another blow to reproductive rights in the US" (when was the first blow? - that's what she said). It goes on to say:
"Aside from banning all abortions after 20 weeks, defined from the date of the woman's last period instead of conception except in the case of medical emergency, it will force women considering abortion because of fetal abnormalities to have counselling, and for women having an abortion to have an ultrasound.
"It also says the age of a foetus is "is calculated from the first day of the last [woman's] menstrual period.""
I did something HuffPo didn't do, and actually read the text of HB 2036. Here's what it says regarding the beginning of pregnancy:
""Pregnant" or "pregnancy" means a female reproductive condition of having a developing unborn child in the body and that begins with conception.
Abortion does not include birth control devices, oral contraceptives used to inhibit or prevent ovulation, conception or the implantation of a fertilized ovum in the uterus or the use of any means to i̶n̶c̶r̶e̶a̶s̶e̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶p̶r̶o̶b̶a̶b̶i̶l̶i̶t̶y̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶a̶ ̶l̶i̶v̶e̶ ̶b̶i̶r̶t̶h̶ save the life or preserve the health of the unborn child, to preserve the life or health of the child after a live birth, to terminate an ectopic pregnancy or to remove a dead fetus" (from the final, ammended version, strikethrough and emphasis included).
Right in the title the HuffPo article is lying, and it's not just lying out of ignorance or neglecting to mention something, it's a blatant lie. The text actually says pregnancy begins at conception, not before.
One thing HuffPo got right is how gestational age is calculated, as the actual text reads: "the age of the unborn child as calculated from the first day of the last menstrual period of the pregnant woman." However, there's nothing controversial about that at all. According to the National Institutes of Health: "In human obstetrics, gestational age is often defined as the time
elapsed since 14 days prior to fertilization. This is approximately the
duration since the woman's last menstrual period (LMP) began." The Arizona law is using the national standard system for calculating the age of the unborn child, not making up some draconian anti-women rule. Everyone's calculations are done that way; there is absolutely nothing controversial about that.
What about restricting (not banning) abortions after 20 weeks? Well, according to the CDC only 1.3% of all abortions in America and 0.8% of all abortions in Arizona happen after 20 weeks anyway. HuffPo is arguing over less than one percent of abortions in the state, and many of them (all 105 in 2004) probably had either maternal or fetal health factor in in some way (the later in term an abortion is the greater the risk to the mother, so getting an abortion halfway through the second trimester isn't nearly as safe as earlier on), so there's no saying that this number will be affected in any way at all.
What about the other provisions? What's wrong with giving women considering getting an abortion counseling? It's a huge decision, one not to be taken lightly. One does not simply wake up one morning and says "hey, I'll get an abortion, then I'll get cake and celebrate!" This is something that requires a lot of thought, does carry health risks (there are some studies suggesting an abortion-breast cancer link; I don't know, I haven't read them), and has psychological repercussions (a lot of women have to deal with post-abortion depression, not unlike postpartum depression). This isn't the same thing as buying a hat, this isn't even the same as buying a car, this is something not to be decided upon brashly. By all means, let women considering an abortion talk it out with someone in a calm, adult fashion.
And what of ultrasounds? What's wrong with that? The bigger the decision the more information you should have before you make it. You wouldn't buy a car by going to a dealership and picking one at random? Doesn't "pro-choice" mean just that, pro-CHOICE? Shouldn't the woman considering an abortion be given information from BOTH sides so she can make an informed CHOICE, and not just pro-abortion propaganda? How is it possible to make a choice if one is given a single option? Arizona's new law actually promotes genuine choice, and actually empowers women (is it not said that "knowledge is power"?). But HuffPo wouldn't know that - I doubt they read the actual text of the law - and they certainly don't want their readers to know that because they never linked to the actual law itself! They expect their readers to take their word for it and not do their own research and make up their own minds! HuffPo is about as anti-choice as one can get!
Thursday, April 26, 2012
House Passes CISPA
According to Politico, the US House of Representatives just passed CISPA (the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act). If you recall, SOPA and PIPA are like boyscouts compared to the elite SAS that is CISPA. The bill passed 248 to 168 with 42 Dems voting for it and 28 Pubs voting against it, across party lines.
The New World Order is using fictitious "cyber terrorism" from North Korea to justify taking all of our rights away.
John Boner. Look at him. That smug son of a bitch. He disgusts me as much as a man can be disgusted by another man.
Speaker John Boner (and it is Boner, I don't care if he pronounces it Bayner, that's not how it's spelled) says "Slave, you will learn to submit!" While an unnamed person in the White House replied "CISPA would trample the privacy and consumer rights of our citizens while leaving our critical infrastructure vulnerable. We need Congress to address this critical national and economic security challenge [sic.] while respecting the values of freedom, privacy, openness and innovation so fundamental to our nation."
With proper activism we can kill this in the Senate. Don't give up just because you're tired. Don't give up just because defeating SOPA and PIPA have left you complacent. Keep fighting to protect our freedom.
The New World Order is using fictitious "cyber terrorism" from North Korea to justify taking all of our rights away.
John Boner. Look at him. That smug son of a bitch. He disgusts me as much as a man can be disgusted by another man.
Speaker John Boner (and it is Boner, I don't care if he pronounces it Bayner, that's not how it's spelled) says "Slave, you will learn to submit!" While an unnamed person in the White House replied "CISPA would trample the privacy and consumer rights of our citizens while leaving our critical infrastructure vulnerable. We need Congress to address this critical national and economic security challenge [sic.] while respecting the values of freedom, privacy, openness and innovation so fundamental to our nation."
With proper activism we can kill this in the Senate. Don't give up just because you're tired. Don't give up just because defeating SOPA and PIPA have left you complacent. Keep fighting to protect our freedom.
Sunday, March 18, 2012
Dictator Obama
The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
March 16, 2012
Executive Order -- National Defense Resources Preparedness
Obama has altered the 1950 Defense Production Act, which allowed the President to institute martial law incase of a direct attack from the Soviet Union, to include any emergency. Need I remind you that the United States has been in a state of emergency since 24 January 1995 when Clinton signed an executive order, then Bush continued it, and Obama continued it after him. The US has been in a perpetual state of emergency for 17 years now. Since we are officially in a state of emergency Obama can now, with this new executive order, declair martial law whenever he wants. He has just written himself permission to become dictator of the United States just like Julius Caesar did in Rome 2000 years ago.
Unless we do something this is the end of the United States.
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
March 16, 2012
Executive Order -- National Defense Resources Preparedness
Obama has altered the 1950 Defense Production Act, which allowed the President to institute martial law incase of a direct attack from the Soviet Union, to include any emergency. Need I remind you that the United States has been in a state of emergency since 24 January 1995 when Clinton signed an executive order, then Bush continued it, and Obama continued it after him. The US has been in a perpetual state of emergency for 17 years now. Since we are officially in a state of emergency Obama can now, with this new executive order, declair martial law whenever he wants. He has just written himself permission to become dictator of the United States just like Julius Caesar did in Rome 2000 years ago.
Unless we do something this is the end of the United States.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
