► Show Top 10 Hot Links

Archive for the ‘Democratic Party’ Category

Realpolitik and The Racial Hire

by coldwarrior ( 60 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, History, Open thread, Politics at September 30th, 2015 - 7:00 am

While the rest of the world plays Realpolitik America wallows in with it’s HR-izational, least qualified man in the room, racial hire the rest of the world is eating out lunch. YAY! We ticked the African-American Box! We are soooo virtuous!

Back in the day, when real qualified men ran the joint, we would have propped up Assad versus ISIS and done other things that are in our national interest. However, our racial hire is bringing down our organization. It’s funny, I watched the same thing happen at a former management job I had years ago. Budgets go out the window, debt is pilled up and the organization becomes weaker vis-a-vis the competition…but the Racial Hire box got ticked!


Taking the podium as the morning’s second speaker (after Brazilian president Dilma Roussef), Barack Obama described a turbulent world, balanced precariously between stability and chaos. At this critical juncture, the nations of the world had a choice to make. Would they rededicate themselves to the principles upon which the United Nations was founded seventy years ago, seeking shared security, prosperity, and human dignity through international cooperation? Or would they follow the siren song of those who still believe that “might makes right,” both at home and abroad? Implicitly referring to Russia and China, the President Obama castigated oppressive regimes that seek the illusory order of tyranny, the “strongmen” who refuse to trust their people, who seek vainly to strangle the idea of freedom, and by their actions simply spark the “revolutions of tomorrow.” Abroad, those same governments too often abandon the international rule of law for the law of the jungle, ignoring that power politics inevitably backfires in an “integrated world.” Consider, for example, Russia’s aggression in Ukraine, which had brought such economic pain (in the form of sanctions) to Russia itself. How much better would Russia have fared, the president asked, had it simply pursued its goals through diplomatic means? Not for the first time, Obama seemed genuinely perplexed that Putin-or any other world leader-would regard realpolitik as a legitimate form of statecraft, rather than an atavism no longer appropriate in a world of shared transnational threats like climate change, Ebola, and uncontrolled migration.

The problem, of course, is that Putin never got the memo that power politics is obsolete. In recent days the Obama administration has repeatedly warned that Russia’s use of the UN Security Council (UNSC) veto in Syria threatens the credibility of that body. In his own speech from the UN podium, Putin reminded listeners that the postwar international order agreed at Yalta was founded explicitly on big power privilege. Each of the five permanent members (the P5) was endowed with a veto precisely to prevent a subset of the P5 from using the UNSC’s enforcement power contrary to the will of one of its members. Putin also suggested that the United Nations should think long and hard before undermining or infringing upon state sovereignty through military interventions or the “export” of democratic revolutions. As evidence, one need look no further than the Middle East and North Africa. According to Putin, “instead of the triumph of democracy and progress we got violence, poverty and a social disaster,” as outside interventions in Iraq, Libya and Syria had created “power vacuums” filled by “extremists and terrorists,” most notably the Islamic State. Implicitly addressing the West, he asked: “Those who have caused this situation: Do you realize now what you have done?” Rather than continuing down this path, the time had come for the international community to form “a broad international coalition against terrorism,” akin to the one that defeated Hitler seventy years ago. The government of Syria, he insisted, must be part of this coalition against the Islamic State.

Putin’s realpolitik was also on display in his discussion of the Ukraine conflict (a topic that caused the Ukrainian delegation to the UN to walk out). It was NATO’s expansion into the post-Soviet space, he claimed, had created a “logic of confrontation” between “West” and “East.” Indeed, he implied, the West had engineered the coup against Yanukovich that set off Ukraine’s turmoil, seeking to force its exclusive alignment with the West. This was clearly too much for Moscow. As he made clear in his 60 minutes interview with Charlie Rose on Sunday evening, Putin is determined to protect the rights of the twenty-five million Russian compatriots that the collapse of the Soviet Union left outside of Russia’s borders. In sum, Russia will insist upon some degree of sphere of influence over its “near abroad.”

Debt and destroyed power is the legacy of this racial hire President.

Dr Carson Is Right

by coldwarrior ( 184 Comments › )
Filed under Leftist-Islamic Alliance, Open thread, Political Correctness, Politics, Progressives at September 23rd, 2015 - 7:23 am

Dr Carson’s recent comments on muslims are absolutely correct. I don’t think he went far enough but it is good to see a push-back happen against the anti-American left and muslims.  See, in my world, we treat muslims the same way Christians are treated in Saudi Arabia and the like.


The Empty Outrage About Ben Carson

His critics have religious tests of their own.

Fresh from the Kim Davis controversy, during which liberals took the position that traditional Christians should no longer hold the government office of marriage clerk, liberals are denouncing Ben Carson for “bigotry” against Muslims. They piously quote the Constitution’s line from Article VI that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” Of course, Carson never denied that Muslim Americans are eligible to run for office. He simply said that he wouldn’t vote for one who supported Sharia law. America’s founding fathers would have agreed.

They didn’t confuse eligibility with fitness for office. They had no problem voting against atheists and other adherents to beliefs that they deemed dangerous. The Left is pushing an idea that the founders regarded as mindless and destructive, namely, that the people are somehow constitutionally obligated to treat the religious beliefs of all candidates as equally valid, that it is somehow “un-American” for a voter to prefer a Christian candidate to a non-Christian one.

According to the contemporary definition of bigotry, which forbids any criticism of religion unless it is Christian, most of the founders were bigots. They certainly didn’t view Christianity and Islam as philosophically equal. Thomas Jefferson, who had to deal with the Barbary pirates, famously purchased a Koran not out of respect for Islam but out of wariness of it. He saw the Koran as a manual for war and sought to understand the tactics and motivations of the enemy. It is absurd to think that the founding fathers would have thought it a good idea for a historically and culturally Christian country to entrust its most powerful office to a devotee of a book that authorizes jihad against Christianity.

Contrary to the media’s extreme construction of his view, Carson isn’t taking the sweeping position that anybody who happens to be born into Islam is intrinsically unfit for the presidency. By “Muslim,” he means an adherent to Islamic orthodoxy. “Now, if someone has a Muslim background and they’re willing to reject those tenets and to accept the way of life that we have, and clearly will swear to place our Constitution above their religion, then, of course, they will be considered infidels and heretics, but at least I would then be quite willing to support them,” he told Sean Hannity.

In other words, Carson could support a bad Muslim for the presidency but not a good one—a position that shocks liberals even as they take an identical one with respect to Christians. What is the purpose of all of their propaganda against Christianity in the public square if not to scrub it clean of good Christians, leaving only heretical nominal Christians to serve in government offices? Liberals constantly lecture Americans on the dangers of voting for “evangelical” Christians, orthodox Catholics, and other members of the dreaded “religious right.”

Somehow the religious right by the Left’s estimate doesn’t include Islam, even as its extremist eruptions make even the most tenacious sects of Christianity look tame by comparison. Liberals would sooner vote for the officers of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, which is a front group for Islamic terrorists, than Ben Carson, who has been declared by that sham PR outfit, with help from a deferential media, “unfit” for the presidency.

One wonders how long members of the chattering class, so outraged at Ben Carson for suggesting the undesirability of a Muslim presidency in America, would last under a Muslim president in the Middle East. If they turned up on a talk show in one of those countries and made equivalent remarks about the importance of a majority-Muslim population electing a Christian president, they would quickly find themselves in jail.

The more illiberal and non-Western a religion, the more liberals defend it. Browbeating Carson, they insist that the values of Islam are the values of America. Meanwhile, they define something as blameless as Christian opposition to gay marriage as “un-American,” to quote the actor Tom Hanks.


Please Read the Rest Here

Labour Goes Socialist

by coldwarrior ( 62 Comments › )
Filed under Elections, Open thread, Politics, Socialism, UK at September 14th, 2015 - 8:27 am

The Labour Party in England has decided to move very far left by electing the socialist Jeremy Corbyn to its top slot. Why on earth would they put this unelectable commie in the leadership role? The following is an interesting article on what happened.

Does anyone see a comparison to Bernie Sanders and the Democrats?

5 takeaways on the Labour voteBe careful what you wish for.

By Mary Ann Sieghart

9/12/15, 1:38 PM CET

Updated 9/14/15, 10:36 AM CET

Over the past year or so, British politics has detonated bombshell after bombshell, laying waste to pollsters and pundits alike. There was the Scottish National Party landslide north of the border, the extraordinary victory by the U.K. Independence Party at the European elections, and then, of course, the wholly unexpected Conservative overall majority at the general election.

But nothing, nothing compares with this.

Not even Jeremy Corbyn himself would have dreamed six months ago that he would be leader of the Labour Party. There’s almost always a far-left candidate in these races, who is resigned to limping in last. Not for more than 35 years has he sprinted in first. So what can we take away from this contest? What does it tell us about the state of British politics and the future of the Labour Party?

1. For a time it looked as if Britain were relatively immune to the political convulsions that have occurred in Continental Europe since the financial crisis. No new parties, such as Greece’s Syriza or Spain’s Podemos, emerged. Even UKIP was nowhere near as successful as the National Front in France. There was an anti-Establishment, insurgent mood, but nowhere beyond UKIP for it to go. Now, it has been channeled into one of the mainstream parties, with unforeseeable consequences.

2. The mainstream candidates in this race were not just uninspiring — though they were — but bad at mobilizing too. Admittedly Corbyn had the help of the big trade unions, but he was also savvier at harnessing the new enthusiasm he aroused. He was the only one of the four leadership candidates to embed on his website the link that allowed people to sign up for £3 as registered supporters of the party and vote. Simple, really, but a sign that the other three were as poor at the mechanics of politics as they were at the message.

The moderate mainstream had better watch out now. The Left has always been more adept at machine politics: packing committees and changing party rules to suit their ends. In the 1980s, they did it with candidate selection, to get more left-wing members into Parliament. They also introduced mandatory re-selection of sitting MPs, allowing them to be chucked out by their own activists between elections if they didn’t toe the line. There’s been chatter that this might be brought back. If it is, the Labour Party will no longer represent voters on the center-Left and will become unelectable for a generation – an outcome that will dismay MPs, but not the people who voted for Corbyn and prefer principle to power.

3. Unlike in 1980, when the equally left-wing Michael Foot became Labour leader through a vote of his MPs, Corbyn has been elected against the wishes of his parliamentary party. He has only about 15 whole-hearted supporters in Parliament, which means that more than 90 percent of his MPs oppose him. He needs to appoint a Shadow Cabinet of 26 MPs, and about 70 more shadow ministers. Where will he find them? What will they say when they are asked on TV whether they think he will make a good prime minister? And will the 200 or so MPs who oppose him feel obliged to obey the party whip when they are led by a man who has until now been the most disloyal MP on their benches? This is likely to become an unleadable party, led by an unelectable leader.

4. The party is committed to putting power in the hands of the many not the few, but it is now in danger of mistaking the ardor of a few for the enthusiasm of the many. Only 0.5 percent of the British electorate voted for Corbyn. Yes, those who were motivated to sign up for this election were energized by his message, but the vast majority of voters, who only think about politics once every five years, are way to the Right of him. Yet another poll came out this week showing that Labour lost the last election because people didn’t trust it to borrow and spend responsibly. You can multiply those doubts a thousandfold now. As a result, a gap has opened up in the center of British politics. Once it was filled by Tony Blair, then by the Liberal Democrats. Now it is the Conservatives’ for the asking. The Tories have already recognized this and are touting themselves as the party of the workers. Expect them to occupy this ground very happily — and to scoop up the millions of voters camped there.

5. When Ed Miliband introduced these rules for the leadership election, he had a vision of a new politics that engaged the disenchanted, led to a new era of political participation, enthused the young and brought idealism and passion back to Westminster. He has achieved all that and more — but to what end? In politics, as in many other walks of life, you have to be very careful what you wish for.

Captain America to The Rescue!

by coldwarrior ( 78 Comments › )
Filed under immigration, Islam, Islamic Terrorism, Multiculturalism, Open thread, Political Correctness, Terrorism at August 26th, 2015 - 7:00 am

An interesting commentary from our British Cousins:

Allison Pearson: We can’t always rely on Captain America to get us out of trouble

After hero tourists prevented a massacre on a French train, Allison Pearson says: are we really going to sit on our hands and wait for some Islamist maniac to get lucky and commit another massacre in our country?

Skarlato spent 10 days in Germany before meeting up in Amsterdam with a friend earlier this week before they boarded the train to France on Friday

Alek Skarlatos’s father said of his son’s bravery: ‘It’s better to die like a lion than be slaughtered like sheep. And this terrorist coward deserved what he got’ Photo: Nick Razzell

There is something thrilling about that unhesitating call to action, and the way in which the three young Americans, aided by British IT consultant Chris Norman, did what had to be done without, as the citation would say, any regard for their personal safety. In so doing, they undoubtedly saved the lives of many of the 550 helpless people on that train. Stone, who had his thumb almost severed by a box cutter, even found time to staunch the profusely bleeding throat wound of another passenger, earning himself the nickname “Captain America”.

The stirring simplicity of “Let’s go, go!” recalls the final words of Todd Beamer. A software salesman who was on United Flight 93 on 9/11 when the plane was hijacked, Beamer realised that the terrorists planned to fly the aircraft into a target. With several fellow passengers, he decided to storm the cockpit. After reciting the 23rd Psalm, Beamer can be heard on a recording quite clearly addressing his impromptu band of brothers: “Are you ready? Okay. Let’s roll.”

Not everyone who finds themselves in the valley of the shadow of death can summon such can-do courage. French actor Jean-Hugues Anglade, who was with his girlfriend and two children on the Paris train, reports that Thalys train staff barricaded themselves inside a work car after fleeing from the gunman. “As screaming passengers pounded on the locked doors, nobody replied,” Anglade said, adding that “it was terrible and unbearable. For us it was inhuman.”

Chris NormanChris Norman  Photo: Reuters

Until quite recently, if you typed “French military victories” into Google, up would come the question: “Do you mean French military defeats?”

Like most good jokes, it contains a grain of truth. As if to draw a veil over the train staff’s cowardice and over the embarrassing fact that French police had been warned that the gunman, Ayoub El-Khazzani, was a possible threat, President Hollande was quick to award the Legion d’Honneur to the four foreign heroes. The whole thing felt hurried through, as though the heroism of their actions should be kept to the fore, allowing more troubling aspects of the story – what the hell was a suspected jihadist doing wandering around? – to be pushed conveniently to one side

“You have shown us,” said Hollande, “that, faced with terror, we have the power to resist. You have given us a lesson in courage, in will, and therefore in hope.”

Fine words – but how evasive and hollow they sounded. The brutal fact remains that an appalling massacre on European soil was only averted last Friday thanks to the intervention of three random American tourists – the trio very nearly didn’t take that train – and one British grandfather who thought he was going to be killed and would rather die “doing something”.

Europe has no answer to the metastasising cancer of Islamist terror, and we can hardly rely on Captain America to show up every time a fanatic decides to turn his weapons on us. Just imagine how many health and safety forms in triplicate a British railway employee would need to fill in before apprehending a bare-chested Moroccan gentleman with an AK47. Indeed, any desperate lunge to disarm the guy might well have been viewed as Islamophobic.

This is deadly serious. Counterterrorism officers in Spain warned on Monday that about 800 Islamist extremists, who have returned from Syria or Iraq after being recruited by Islamic State, are preparing to launch attacks on the Continent. At least 350 Britons have returned from fighting in the region, and our own security services acknowledge that some are plotting attacks in the UK.

U.S. serviceman Spencer Stone departs the Clinique Lille Sud, which specializes in hand injuries, in Lesquin, France‘Stone, who had his thumb almost severed by a box cutter, even found time to staunch the profusely bleeding throat wound of another passenger, earning himself the nickname Captain America’  Photo: Reuters

Are we really going to sit on our hands and wait for some Islamist maniac to get lucky and commit another massacre like 7/7 in our country? Or are our leaders going to finally grow a pair and start internment of suspected jihadists returning from Syria and Iraq?

Listen to the words of Emanuel Skarlatos, the father of National Guardsman Alek Skarlatos. Reflecting on his son’s bravery, Skarlatos told MSNBC: “It’s better to die like a lion than be slaughtered like sheep. And this terrorist coward deserved what he got, and the PC crowd needs to recognise terrorism for what it is.”

I reckon the British people are with Skarlatos senior and junior on this. There would be huge popular support for internment of individuals who have declared war on our way of life or for their passports to be cancelled, preventing their return to these islands. Their numbers are simply too great for the security services to monitor them properly. The threat to civil liberties is outweighed by the threat to innocent people.

What Has Been Seen OOT

by Macker ( 1 Comment › )
Filed under Democratic Party, Humor, OOT at August 14th, 2015 - 10:00 pm

…cannot be Unseen, even on The Overnight Open Thread!

P.S.: This is NOT my photoshop…I found this on Facebook!

Iranian defector claims that John Kerry is a lobbyist for Iran and its government

by 1389AD ( 140 Comments › )
Filed under Iran, John Kerry, Nuclear Weapons at August 2nd, 2015 - 7:00 am

Front Page Magazine: AGENTS OF THE ENEMY – Is John Kerry representing America or Iran?

By Kenneth R. Timmerman

If any further evidence was needed to show that the nuclear talks with Iran were a tragic farce, choreographed and orchestrated by Iran, the startling revelations from a former top aide to Iranian President Hassan Rouhani ought to do the trick.

“The US negotiating team are mainly [in Lausanne] to speak on Iran’s behalf with other members of the 5+1 countries and convince them of a deal,” he told an opposition television network in London.

Amir Hossein Motaghi was Rouhani’s image-maker during the 2013 presidential elections, the man in charge of promoting Rouhani to the nation’s youth through a vigorous social media campaign. Thanks in large part to his efforts, Rouhani captured an overwhelming majority of the youth vote and beat his nearest opponent by more than 30 points.

A journalist by trade, Motaghi says he traveled to Lausanne to cover the nuclear talks for the Iranian Student Correspondents Association (ISCA), but then quit his job and applied for political asylum.

That makes him the most recent defector from the upper reaches of Iran’s political establishment to flee the regime and seek refuge in the West.
But his revelation about U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and his negotiating team is the real shocker. It should wipe away any shred of credibility left to a process that has aimed from the start at helping Iran to slip the deadly noose of the international economic and financial sanctions that have crippled its economy and exacerbated social unrest.

Essentially, what Motaghi said is that Secretary Kerry is working as an agent of Iran and has been arm-twisting reluctant allies, such as the French, into accepting what they know is a bad deal.

French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius, for example, has long been insisting that Iran come clean on its previous military activities, something we are now told that the American delegation, led by Secretary Kerry, wants to leave out of the negotiation. Why? Because the Iranians have said they will not come clean.

That was too much even for the normally pro-Democrat Washington Post, which wrote in a column attributed to its Editorial Board last Friday that the deal was “a reward for Iran’s noncompliance.”

Some Iranian-Americans believe that Secretary Kerry should have recused himself from the negotiations at the very outset because of his long-standing relationship to his Iranian counter-part, Mohammad Javad Zarif.

The two first met over a decade ago at a dinner party hosted by George Soros at his Manhattan penthouse, according to a 2012 book by Hooman Majd, who frequently translates for Iranian officials.

Iranian-American sources in Los Angeles tell me that Javad Zarif’s son was the best man at the 2009 wedding between Kerry’s daughter Vanessa and Behrouz Vala Nahed, an Iranian-American medical doctor.

The newlyweds went to Iran shortly after their wedding to met Nahed’s family. Kerry ultimately revealed his daughter’s marriage to an Iranian-American once he had taken over as Secretary of State. But the subject never came up in his Senate confirmation hearing, either because Kerry never disclosed it, or because his former colleagues were too polite to bring it up.
Continue reading…

1389 Blog attempted to draw attention to Mr. Timmerman’s justifiable concerns about Kerry’s Iranian association back in 2013, but of course nothing came of it. No matter which party holds the majority, the US Senate has been nothing more than Obama’s rubber stamp.

Organic Food Hoax

by coldwarrior ( 162 Comments › )
Filed under Food and Drink, Open thread, Progressives at July 30th, 2015 - 7:00 am

Here is an excellent article about the ‘Organic Food’ scam. I don’t often go to Wholepaycheckfoods. Mrs Coldwarrior does and that is for some undrinkable Russian dairy product that she misses from home. I do like some of their selection tho. When I go I get a great laugh at the customers. ‘Affluent Narcissists’ indeed!


Organic Food for me made me laugh the first time I heard the term. Doesn’t all of our food have Carbon? Turns out, the term means grown in animal poo (lotsa E. Coli there) whilst using far more water and land to get the same yield as best practice farming (not ‘environmental at all). And don’t get me started on GMO. We have been GMO’ing since we first settled down to grow wheat, and that is for another thread.

Enjoy yinz’s Thursday!


Is Organic Agriculture ‘Affluent Narcissism?’

By Henry I. Miller and Richard Cornett

As can be seen from the popularity of rip-off artists like Whole Foods markets, organic foods are popular. The U.S. market for organic produce alone was $12.4 billion last year.

Some of the devotion from consumers attains almost cult-like status, which is why a recent article by Stanford University researchers that was dismissive of health or nutritional benefits of organic foods created such a furor.

The study, by researchers in the university’s Center for Health Policy and published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, was a meta-analysis in which results from the scientific literature were combined but no new, original laboratory work was conducted. Data from 237 studies were aggregated and analyzed to determine whether organic foods are safer or healthier than non-organic foods. They concluded that fruits and vegetables that met the criteria for “organic” were on average no more nutritious than their far cheaper conventional counterparts, nor were those foods less likely to be contaminated by pathogenic bacteria like E. coli or Salmonella.

The investigators themselves were surprised by the result. “When we began this project, we thought that there would likely be some findings that would support the superiority of organics over conventional food,” according to physician Dr. Dena Bravata.

Many devotees of organic foods purchase them in order to avoid exposure to harmful levels of pesticides. But that’s a poor rationale: Although non-organic fruits and vegetables do have more pesticide residue, more than 99 percent of the time the levels are below the permissible, very conservative safety limits set by regulators – limits that are established by the Environmental Protection Agency and enforced by the Food and Drug Administration.

Ironically, the designation “organic” is itself a synthetic construct of bureaucrats that makes little sense. It prohibits the use of synthetic chemical pesticides – although there is a lengthy list of exceptions listed in the Organic Foods Production Act – but permits most “natural” ones (and also allows the application of pathogen-laden animal excreta as fertilizer).

These permitted pesticides can be toxic. As evolutionary biologist Christie Wilcox explained in a September 2012 Scientific American article (“Are lower pesticide residues a good reason to buy organic? Probably not.”): “Organic pesticides pose the same health risks as non-organic ones. No matter what anyone tells you, organic pesticides don’t just disappear. Rotenone is notorious for its lack of degradation, and copper sticks around for a long, long time. Studies have shown that copper sulfate, pyrethrins, and rotenone all can be detected on plants after harvest—for copper sulfate and rotenone, those levels exceeded safe limits. One study found such significant rotenone residues in olives and olive oil to warrant ‘serious doubts…about the safety and healthiness of oils extracted from [fruits] treated with rotenone.’” (There is a well-known association between rotenone exposure and Parkinson’s Disease.)

There is another important but unobvious point about humans’ ingestion of pesticides: The vast majority of pesticidal substances that we consume occur in our diets “naturally,” and they are present in organic foods as well as conventional ones. In a landmark research article published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, University of California, Berkeley, biochemist Bruce Ames and his colleagues found that “99.99 percent (by weight) of the pesticides in the American diet are chemicals that plants produce to defend themselves. Only 52 natural pesticides have been tested in high-dose animal cancer tests, and about half (27) are rodent carcinogens; these 27 are shown to be present in many common foods.”

The bottom line of Ames’ experiments: “Natural and synthetic chemicals are equally likely to be positive in animal cancer tests. We also conclude that at the low doses of most human exposures the comparative hazards of synthetic pesticide residues are insignificant.”

In other words, consumers who buy overpriced organic foods in order to avoid pesticide exposure are focusing their attention on 0.01% of the pesticides they consume.

There seems to be confusion about these issues even at the American Association of Pediatrics (AAP), which in October released a report that appeared to endorse organic produce because of its lower levels of pesticide residues, while at the same time admitting, “in the long term, there is currently no direct evidence that consuming an organic diet leads to improved health or lower risk of disease.”

Perhaps the most illogical tenet of organic farming is the exclusion of “genetically engineered” plants – but only if they were modified with the newest, best, most precise and predictable techniques. Except for wild berries and wild mushrooms, virtually all the fruits, vegetables and grains in our diet have been genetically improved by one technique or another – often as a result of seeds being irradiated or genes being moved from one species or genus to another in ways that do not occur in nature. But because genetic engineering is more precise and predictable, the technology is at least as safe as – and often safer than – the modification of food products in cruder, “conventional” ways that can qualify as organic.

There are examples of new varieties of plants, including two varieties each of potatoes and squash and one of celery, that have sickened or killed consumers, but all of these were the result of conventional genetic modification – which would qualify for organic farming.

The organic community remains unswayed by either biology or history, however, and modern genetic engineering remains prohibited from organic agriculture. This bias against genetic engineering in organic agriculture makes recommendations such as those of the American Association of Pediatrics especially dubious because as genetically engineered “biofortified” foods with enhanced levels of vitamins, antioxidants and so on appear, none of them will be available to organophiles.

Another rationale for buying organic is that it’s supposedly better for the natural environment. But the low yields of organic agriculture – typically 20-50 percent lower than conventional agriculture – impose various stresses on farmland and especially on water consumption. A British meta-analysis published in September of this year in the Journal of Environmental Management identified some of the environmental stresses that were higher in organic, as opposed to conventional, agriculture: “ammonia emissions, nitrogen leaching and nitrous oxide emissions per product unit were higher from organic systems,” as was “land use, eutrophication potential and acidification potential per product unit.”

An anomaly of the way that “organic” is defined is that it is not focused on the composition, quality or safety of the actual food; it is essentially a set of acceptable practices and procedures that a farmer intends to use. So, for example, chemical pesticide or pollen from genetically engineered plants wafting onto an organic crop from an adjacent field does not cause the harvest to lose its organic status.

In an article entitled “The Organic Fable,” New York Times columnist Roger Cohen had some pithy observations stimulated by the Stanford study. “Organic has long since become an ideology, the romantic back-to-nature obsession of an upper middle class able to afford it and oblivious, in their affluent narcissism, to the challenge of feeding a planet whose population will surge to 9 billion before the middle of the century and whose poor will get a lot more nutrients from the two regular carrots they can buy for the price of one organic carrot.”

Finally, many who are seduced by the romance of organic farming ignore the human toll it exacts. Missouri farmer Blake Hurst offers this reminder: “In the many places around the world where organic farming is the norm, a large proportion of the population is involved in farming. Not because they choose to do so, but because they must. Weeds continue to grow, even in polycultures with holistic farming methods, and without pesticides, hand weeding is the only way to protect a crop.” He might have added that in many places, the back-breaking drudgery of hand-weeding falls largely to women and children.

Save your money. It’s more cost-effective, environmentally responsible and humane to buy conventional food than the high-priced organic stuff.

Henry I. Miller, a physician and molecular biologist, is the Robert Wesson Fellow in Scientific Philosophy and Public Policy at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution; he was the founding director of the FDA’s Office of Biotechnology. Richard Cornett is the communications director for the Western Plant Health Association, a nonprofit agricultural trade group based in Sacramento, Calif.

Car full of jeering black men killed black Confederate supporter after flag rally

by 1389AD ( 290 Comments › )
Filed under Bigotry, Crime, Free Speech, Liberal Fascism, Political Correctness at July 21st, 2015 - 9:38 pm

BizPacReview: Car full of jeering black men force black Confederate supporter off road to his death after flag rally

Not supposed to fly this Dixie flag - That's why I fly it!

The description of a fatal accident hearkens back to the height of Jim Crow in the Deep South, with a black man being chased down the highway because of who he is.

Only his tormentors were said to be fellow African-Americans.

Anthony Hervey, a fixture in his community and supporter of the Confederate Flag, was killed on Sunday when the car he was driving ran off the road and flipped, The Clarion-Ledger reported.

Hervey, 49, and passenger Arlene Barnum, were on their way back to Oxford, Miss., after attending the “Monumental Dixie” rally in Birmingham, Ala., in support of the Confederate flag.

Barnum told the Associated Press that Hervey swerved and crashed after another car filled with four or five young black men began chasing them — she said Hervey was driving her SUV, which was not displaying any Confederate flags or stickers.

The Clarion-Ledger reported:

Reportedly, Hervey was driving and feared they were being chased. Hervey told Barnham he noticed a silver car speeding to catch up to them, and then it swerved into their passenger side.

Barnham told the News-Capital even when Hervey sped up to get away, the car continued to pursue them. At some point, that’s what she said caused the crash.

Barnum, who attracted some media attention at Sunday’s rally when she lit her NAACP membership card on fire, posted photos of the rally on Facebook, and in the immediate aftermath of the crash, posted these horrifying messages…

More here…

Trump-a-palooza In Phoenix!

by The Osprey ( 84 Comments › )
Filed under Business, Elections 2016, Free Speech, immigration, Immigration, Media, Patriotism, Politics, Racism, Republican Party, RINOcracy at July 12th, 2015 - 3:39 pm

In the wake of his controversial, some say “RAAAAACIST™” comments decrying illegal immigration, Donald Trump has become a lightening rod in the Republican Party, who has RINOS everywhere scurrying for cover. Nowhere was that more apparent than here in Arizona, where the staunchly conservative Maricopa County Republican Committee, against the wishes of the RINOfied State GOP leadership, invited Trump to speak. The usual suspect RINOs such as John “My Friends” McCain rushed to disavow any connection with Trump, while the popular and controversial Sheriff Joe Arpaio made clear his support for Trump’s opposition to illegal immigration, although he has not endorsed him as a candidate.

I got a text from PHXGirl on Friday that Trump was coming to AZ, and as of noon on Saturday, when he was due to appear in the Phoenix Convention Center at 2:00PM, over 9000 invites had been given out via EventBrite. Due to some personal commitments I got to the convention center late, at around 2:21, but the line of people waiting to get in to hear “The Donald” speak stretched around the south, east and north side of the Phoenix Convention Center North complex.

And of course, the opposition was there as well, on the Southwest corner of the building there was a small knot of Anglo Leftist hipster teenagers and LaRazanistas, including an odd looking hipster chick who was selling “Joe Arpaio Voodoo Dolls”. At that point I was figuring out how to get into the event so I hurriedly transited through the south end of the building to the southeast corner outside patio, and missed the opportunity to snap a pic of hipster chick.

As the line of people moved along the east side of the building, a security guard with a walkie-talkie informed us that the ballroom where Trump was speaking was full, that the fire marshall and decided not to allow any more people in for safety reasons. As we turned the corner to the north side of the building, there were the largest group of the protestors, again a mixed crew of Anglo Leftists and LaRaza types. The protestors were on the North side of Monroe street, making a racket with the typical stale old Lefty “hey hey, ho ho, (fill in the blank here – in this case Trump and Arpaio) has got to go!” chant and blasting noisy freon horns. A police street barricade fence was down the middle on the closed street, and on the south side of Monroe in the shade of the portico of the building were those of us who were still trying to get in to the event and a line of Phoenix PD with riot gear at the ready. The crowd of protestors was small compared to the amount of people wanting to hear Trump, maybe a few hundred at the most but they were noisy and aggressive. Several people from the Trump side tried to engage in polite dialog with them but were shouted down.

The pro-Trump crowd was predominantly White and middle-class looking, but there were at least as many non-Whites mixed in among the pro-Trump crowd as there were protestors, but they were more varied. There were Hispanics, Blacks and Asians among the pro-Trump crowd, while the protestors were exclusively Anglo and Hispanic.

As it became clear to me that I was not going to be able to get into the event, I decided to “Zombie” style, take pics of the “rojos”, as I had not seen this many Leftists out on the streets of Phoenix since the AB1070 protests a few years ago.

This fellow says Trump is a “Tyrannical Racist Unscrupulous Monster Pig!” and a Confederate Flag fan to boot! OMG! And here I thought he was a damnyankee from New York City!

Trump confed

These two vatos locos in the bandanas were screaming obscenities at the pro-Trump crowd…”Trump you can suck my…” well, you get the picture. Curious about the red and blue bandanas…Sureños y Norteños unidad contra “El Donald”?

Vatos 1

Vatos 2

Mexico? It’s about 200 miles south, sweetie.

Mexican flag

Hipsters against Trump!


Phoenix’s finest keep a watchful eye on los rojos.


Trump owns Dell Computers now?


The ginger-haired guy with the glasses in the blue shirt with his back to the camera was trying to dialogue with the protestor blond haired woman in front of him. He was so soft-spoken I could not hear what he was saying, I’m guessing it had something to do with the military since the woman kept shouting that she was Mexican and her son was in the USMC. And your point is? If you are here legally and your son is serving in the Marines, then you are not the problem Trump is talking about!

ginger guy

Trump supporters hoping to get in and Phoenix PD
trump supporters and phx pd

Devo fans for Trump!


Donald Trump: Bringing more cowbell to the GOP!


Walmart makes ISIS flag cake, refused Confederate flag cake.

by 1389AD ( 178 Comments › )
Filed under Censorship, Free Speech, History, Iraq, Jihad, Political Correctness, Syria at June 28th, 2015 - 5:00 pm

On YouTube:

(h/t: BlueSky)

Published on Jun 26, 2015 by Chuck Netzhammer
On 06/25/15 I attempted to get an Edible image cake printed with the confederate flag image on it at Walmart. It was denied. The next day I had them do the same for the ISIS battle flag image I brought to them. They cheerfully did it. and sold me my ISIS cake. WTF Walmart! ISIS is beheading Christians, selling little girls into slavery, and is currently a terrorist org at war with the United States……..but you can’t buy the General Lee toy car at Walmart? It’s a damn shame.

Mr. Netzhammer commented further:

Sent this to Walmart’s ethics department. I’m a loyal customer who requested an edible printed cake with the image of an Confederate flag. It was refused, but I was able to to get the ISIS battle flag image printed on my cake at a different store.

I am highly offended, distraught, and in tears over the fact you pull American history off your shelves, but allow the offensive battle flag of terrorists, sex slavers, be-headers of Christians, burners of gays to be made in your store.

You also allow offensive Rap music which sings about cop killing, degrading women, drive-by murder, drug use, selling drugs, prostitution and repeatably uses the highly offensive word “nigger”.

But you can’t buy a beloved children’s toy car with an Confederate flag on the roof?