RSS

Tag Archives: liberal media

Pro-Abortion Militants Lie About Homeless Man and Kansas Terrorist Plot to Vilify Pro-Lifers (Featuring Pseudo-Intellectual Diarrhea from The Young Turks and MoveOn)

The absence of a terrorist conspiracy to bomb or attack staff at the South Wind Women’s Center, an abortion mill in Wichita, Kansas, has been exploited by liberal, pro-abortion and anti-religion militants to push their political cause and denounce conservatives, pro-lifers and religious adherents.

Moises Trevizo, varyingly described by the media as either 19 or 20 years of age, entered the mill on August 17, 2015 carrying a rucksack that was discovered to contain, among other items, knives and a pill bottle-sized, homemade firework, which was mistaken for a small bomb. The subsequent thorough, impartial police investigation determined that Trevizo supports abortion and only intended to apply for employment with the mill. Having just become homeless, however, he was left without a secure place to store his belongings, and thus simply carried everything he owned around with him at all times, including the aforementioned items. “It was just him having all his personal items,” explained Wichita police spokesman Lt. James Espinoza. As for the firework in question, which most irresponsible news and propaganda sites alike have continued describing as a bomb or improvised explosive device (IED), Trevizo and his friends had, how ever unwisely, manufactured it at a friend’s house, intending to blow it up at a later time just for fun.

For all logical, rational, objectively-minded individuals, this explanation would suffice and end the case, so naturally this excludes liberal, pro-abortion and anti-religion zealots by whom the official conclusion is unacceptable for no other reason than it denies them the opportunity to further their program of defaming and vilifying conservatives, pro-lifers and religious believers, pushing the war on women lie and demanding access to abortion mills be secured and protected, at Constitutional and taxpayer expense, from violent, murderous, female-hating pro-lifers. Basically, these fanatics are exploiting a poor, homeless man forced to schlep his worldly belongings with him as he sought employment and a better life, which ended up causing a minor misunderstanding, to fling their old, predictable, stenchy pseudo-intellectual diarrhea around and forward their own agenda. The most egregious mainstream examples of this come from The Young Turks and MoveOn.

TYT, in their typical contempt for truth and political, ideological rivals, unequivocally and repeatedly claim  this was an attempted bombing by a pro-life Christian terrorist, that the firework is really a powerful bomb that could cause damages equivalent to 9/11 and that the media has ignored this conspiracy (see this and this TYT video).  All of these lies are readily debunked. Trevizo supports abortion, his religious views, or lack thereof, are publicly unknown and irrelevant, the “bomb” was a firework and the media has extensively covered this incident, including every mainstream news sources like ABC, Associated Press, CBS, CNN, and Newsweek. Truth is obviously of no consequence to TYT in their anti-pro-life, anti-religious crusade.

Uber liberal organization MoveOn goes even further, titling Trevizo a domestic terrorist and creating a petition demanding he be officially prosecuted for attempted terrorism. Oh please! These extremists are essentially willing to throw one of their own, remember Trevizo is pro-abortion, under the bus in order to further their dishonest political agenda. The Site also dismisses the official police conclusion as laughably unbelievable and libels the police chief and his department with accusations of professional misconduct.

Liberal feminist site Dame Magazine, in a similar vein, is using this incident to politic for abortion mills to be put on par with other secure sites that prohibit civilians from carrying any weapons, regardless of intentions, motivations and permits, with violators automatically charged and prosecuted. This is unnecessary; it wastes time, money, legal resources and criminalizes law-abiding individuals. Then again, Dame supports “buffer zones” around abortion mills, effectively limiting and criminalizing dissent, free speech and expression in crucial public areas, defaming pro-lifers as violent, aggressive women-haters, in the process.

For her part, the mill’s owner, abortionist Julie Burkhart, also baselessly, slanderously and contradictorily claims that even if Trevizo “didn’t intend to harm us…the sheer fact that he had an explosive device means that his intentions certainly weren’t pure.” How do you know this, Dr. Burkhart? Are you telepathic and so able to discern his true, impure intentions embedded in his mind?

Nothing these liberal, pro-abortion and anti-religion extremists propagandize is mistakenly false and subject to correction once the facts are known. It is, rather, disinformation and propaganda purposely crafted and disseminated to benefit themselves and damage their rivals. In essence, these people abide by the dictum “never let the facts (or anything or anyone) get in the way of a good story,” or your beliefs, ideology or agenda; this obviously includes sacrificing even the disenfranchised, defenseless and those who share your politics. An innocent, homeless, poor, powerless, vulnerable man whose only “crime” was seeking employment while carrying his personal belongings with him because he had no other choice is thus now being callously and dishonestly exploited by utterly disgusting, brutal, pathetic, socially Darwinistic, compassionless, loveless, inhumane and soulless liberal, pro-abortion and anti-religion extremists, demagogues and ideologues intent on advancing their agenda at all and anyone’s costs.

 
1 Comment

Posted by on August 26, 2015 in abortion

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Liberal Media’s Anti-Mike Huckabee Smear Campaign Distorts Past Alleged Endorsements of Cancer and Diabetes Cure

The liberal media machine has nothing politically relevant or important to exploit and spin to demonize Mike Huckabee, following his announced intentions to seek the GOP nomination for the 2016 United States presidential race, that it has attempted to accomplish the same feat by using his ties to alleged cures for cancer and diabetes. As usual, liberals have distorted the facts.

The liberal media actually first used these connections in January, 2015, when it widely claimed Huckabee was selling a Biblically-based cancer cure, the Matthew 4 Protocol. This has always been simply a tall tale because he never sold or had anything directly to do with the selling of any such “cure;” rather has been Brian Chambers and Dr. Mark Stengler hawking the supposed cancer cure to addresses on Huckabee’s email list, to which they acquired access from the presidential hopeful’s practice of leasing it out to third parties, who use it to pitch their products, sometimes even using Huckabee’s letter head. To put it simple, neither Huckabee nor his company are affiliated with or endorse, directly or indirectly, Chambers, Stengler or their product. Huckabee recently defended this practice, in an interview with Jake Tapper on CNN, saying he does not directly rent his list out but delegates that responsibility to employees running that aspect of his company and that it may be leased to individuals or companies whose products he or his business do not endorse, much like CNN likely sells advertisement space for products it or its employees may not use or support, pointing to examples of “catheters or adult diapers.” Tapper accused Huckabee of making a “false equivalence” by comparing legitimate “medical devices” to what “a lot of people would consider to be hucksterism in terms of Bible verses curing cancer.” Of course the Biblical cancer cure is a scam but I do agree with Huckabee on the two latter points he makes. He is an equal opportunity business man renting his email list to anyone willing to pay his price and he is not responsible for what these third parties do with it, much like, say, a car rental company is not responsible for what customers do with their vehicles. I also do not believe he is manufacturing a “false equivalence.” While what is going on in these emails may be “hucksterism,” it is no different than what most advertisers do daily, including those promoting legitimate medical devices or medication that you see on any mainstream network. Many studies, like in the New England Journal of Medicine, for example, warn of the dangers of direct-to-consumer (DTC) advertisements of pharmaceuticals and medical devices because the information they provide often misleading and confuses the viewer but simultaneously stimulate demand for those products. This is not to defend the emails but to point out that attacks on him for allowing them are unfair and hypocritical.

To hold Huckabee accountable for what these third parties unaffiliated with him promote is, then, wrong and pointless. The real problem that should be addressed is that private information is being leased out in the first place, but unfortunately it has mostly escaped the media’s radar.  Although not illegal, it is unethical, and I agree with both conservatives and liberals who have condemned this practice; but let us be frank, the sole reason most liberals have castigated him on this latter issue is because he is a member of the Opposition, and this is proven every time they defend or fail to call out their comrades for doing the exact same things for which they hold others to account. For example, Democrat  Andrew Cuomo “rented” his email list out to HarperCollins to promote his book and Obama allowed access to his email list, containing 13-million addresses, to Organizing for America, who then used it to advertise merchandise, like Obama coffee mugs and scarves; both of these incidents went virtually unnoticed by the liberal media, Democrats and their supporters.

Liberals are now furthering this assault by targeting Huckabee’s endorsement of a supposed dubious, ineffective, pseudo-scientific $20 “cure” for diabetes called “Diabetes Reversed” (aka Diabetes Solution Kit). While it is true that he has commended this product, it is false to say it is touted as a cure. Rather, it prescribes a wholesale lifestyle and dietary change, or as Huckabee calls them “(t)echniques,” that can “significantly reduce your diabetes symptoms,” including “substituting healthy foods to replace unhealthy foods, or healthy lifestyle habits to replace unhealthy habits.” In other words, it focuses on ways to take better care of yourself, which Huckabee freely admits is how he lost 100 pounds. Such recommendations are not pseudo-scientific; proper changes to lifestyle and diet have been proven effective in preventing, managing and even reversing diabetes, and are among the first steps patients are advised to undertake to deal with their diabetic or pre-diabetic conditions by responsible, competent physicians and relevant organizations.

It appears, however, that the main issue with Huckabee attackers regarding this product is its endorsement of dietary supplements to manage diabetes, like cinnamon and chromium picolinate, which certain medical organizations, including the American Diabetes Association, do not believe work and thus do not recommend. It should be noted that it is only because these supplements have not been “conclusively demonstrated” effective that they are not sanctioned by organizations like the ADA. Numerous studies show certain supplements, including cinnamon (for example, 1, 2, 3) and chromium picolinate (for example, 1, 2, 3, 4) may be beneficial for certain diabetic conditions. Simply because these results are not conclusive does not mean they should not be tried, perhaps as a first step, particularly for less serious diabetic cases and conditions, and integrated as part of a wider treatment program that includes conventional medication, dietary and lifestyle changes. In fact, Huckabee admits, “dietary supplements” are only “(o)ne of the elements of the plan…(b)ut it’s not the fundamental thing.” These supplements have few to no side effects so if they work then they are much safer alternatives to traditional medications for diabetes, many of which have been shown to have a number of potentially life-threatening side effects. For example, rosiglitazone (Avandia), has been “associated with a significant increase in the risk of myocardial infarction and with an increase in the risk of death from cardiovascular causes that had borderline significance.” Even artificial sweeteners commonly used by diabetics have been shown to potentially have negative side effects, including, ironically, contributing to type II diabetes. However, organizations like the ADA have no issue with prescribing such medications and sweeteners.

Ultimately, this is a smear campaign by liberals misrepresenting, distorting and fabricating details of alleged past product pitches and endorsements that are completely irrelevant to Huckabee’s political platform or his ability as president. It is a desperate attempt by liberals, who were humiliated in the 2014 midterms, to discredit  someone they realize is a serious contender for the  2016 presidential race.

 
1 Comment

Posted by on May 13, 2015 in Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Florida Couple Face 15 Years in Prison for Sex on the Beach…or Maybe Not

The Young Turks recently claimed that Jose Caballero, 40, and Elissa Alvarez, 20 have been sentenced to 15 years in prison following their Monday May 4, 2015 convictions on two counts each of lewd and lascivious acts for having sex on a public beach in Bradenton Beach, Florida on July 20, 2014. The TYT “army,” comprised mostly of group-thinking militant liberals and atheists, predictably turned this case into a platform from which to propagandize their paranoid anti-conservative, anti-religion demagoguery and lies. According to them, the penalty is excessive, and it is so because of the domination of Christian-conservative fundamentalism in Florida’s political and legal systems; a fundamentalism so puritanically anti-sex even the most innocuous public exhibitions of sex and sexuality are harshly and unreasonably punished. So extreme is the paranoia, demagoguery and lies exhibited by some of these liberals and atheists that they compare the punishment, and, for some, even the making of public sex illegal itself, to the ideology of terrorist organizations, like the Taliban and Al Qaeda, and fundamentalist, Middle Eastern countries. One TYT fan called the southeastern State, for example, “Saudi Florida.” No justification is provided for these analogies, and there is none that can be offered; they are faulty comparisons merely made either for their emotional appeal or because their originators are delusional and hysterical enough to believe them. If Florida was even remotely close to what they allege, the disgusting public displays of sexual depravity exhibited in the State during events like Spring Break and Gay Pride would not be allowed and transgressors would be severely punished. Notice too that it is only religious terrorists and theocracies that atheists and liberals use as the standard for these juxtapositions, not atheist terrorists, like the Tamil Tigers, or state atheist “utopias,” like China and North Korea, where punishments for the same or lesser offenses are just as harsh or worse. Of course not! To them it is only religion that “poisons everything” and is “the root of all evil” whereas atheism is the realization of Shangri-la. Well one such atheist Promised Land is North Korea, which punishes lewd behavior with a trip to a labor camp with intense work requirements, daily beatings, physical punishments, harsh living conditions, usually “with 300 to 400 people sleeping crowded into one room,” and such a lack of food that inmates feed off such things as rats and grass. At first, however, I too believed the potential punishment for this couple to be excessive for what appears to be a victimless, nonviolent offense that could be handled under public nuisance laws carrying a much lighter sentence, often simply a fine, and thus I began to investigate why they were tried under a stricter statute. As I became aware of the context of the charges, I began to endorse the punishment.

As usual, the Young Turks got their facts wrong, and a quick fact check proved that the couple have not yet been sentenced but that 15 years is only the maximum penalty for these individuals’ indiscretion under the statute under which they were prosecuted. The couple are not facing this punishment because of some ideological or religious domination in Floridian law but because their sex act was witnessed by a 3 year old girl thus making them subject to statute 800.04, which governs the prosecution and punishment of a number of “(l)ewd or lascivious offenses committed upon or in the presence of persons less than 16 years of age,” including sexual assault and battery, sexual coercion, sexual molestation and statutory rape. In other words, their offense is covered by a law aiming to protect children, and punish a host of minor and serious sex crimes against or in the presence of them. Perhaps those complaining about the alleged “severity” of the potential penalties are unaware that this is why the maximum sentences are what they are, or maybe they still do not believe such sexual violations and corruption of minors are serious crimes, or crimes at all. Unless, of course, it is committed by religious people and religious authorities. Then they become great crimes to these people; not out of concern for the children, mind you, but because such violations can be exploited to attack religion, religious people and religious institutions. If these liberals and atheists truly want to protect children from sexual crimes, corruption and exploitation then they will want all such malfeasance punished regardless of who or what the culprit is, and they will see this law for what it is – ideologically and religiously neutral. They do not have to support the maximum penalty in this particular case but they must accept that it is being applied solely because it is the applicable statute and not for any ideological or religious motive. It is that simple!

Had a child not been present, these individuals would likely have been tried under a statute carrying lighter penalties, like 877.03, which deals with disorderly conduct and carries a maximum of  “60 days in jail or 6 months of probation, and a $500.00 fine.” Because 800.04 includes such serious transgressions, though, the maximum sentences must be strong enough to punish, and hopefully deter, them effectively. Thus, for those who are convicted but under 18 years of age, the sentence is a minimum prison sentence of 24.5 months and, at the judge’s discretion, a maximum of 5 years in prison, 5 years of sex offender probation and or $5,000 in fines. For those over 18, the maximum punishment is 15 years in prison, 15 years of sex offender probation and/or $10,000 in fines. Unless certain criteria for exemption is met, those convicted must also register as a sex offender. Remember these are maximum penalties that not all crimes will receive. The punishment is to be proportional to the crime. Two consenting adults having sex in public is certainly not as detrimental and serious as other crimes covered by this law, and nobody involved has claimed it to be, and thus violators would normally probably receive a lighter sentence. State Attorney Ed Brodsky explicitly says “It was never our intention to seek 15 years for either of them…That’s not a reasonable sentence.”

In fact, Florida never wanted to prosecute this case and instead offered the defendants plea deals sentencing Caballero’s to prison for 2.5 years and Alvarez to jail for 90 days, and excluding them from the sex offenders registry. Both these deals were rejected by the defendants. Some in the media say that even under these  deals the punishment is worse than that meted out in some fundamentalist Middle Eastern countries. Buzzfeed, for example, argues that Caballero’s deal was “notably more severe than the maximum two-year prison sentence for a similar offense in the United Arab Emirates, where a British couple were sentenced to three months in prison (though deported before serving any time) for indecent behavior on a beach in 2008.” Notice the lack of context in that statement as it doesn’t state that Caballero would have received a longer sentence not because of his sexual indiscretions but because this is his second felony in less than 3 years after being released from prison,  where he had spent 8 years for cocaine trafficking. For this same reason, the State is allegedly now pushing for Caballero to receive the maximum 15 years in prison (although some reports say it not pursuing this sentence); a lesser punishment for Alvarez is being pursued, which may or may not involve jail time. Both will be registered as sex offenders. Funny how these details are ignored by those whining that the couple is being “harshly” punished merely for having public sex because of Florida’s alleged theocracy. The mainstream media has not helped the matter because it has preferred sensationalizing the prospective sentence while omitting or glossing over the context of the case, as I have in this blog.

Public sex is detrimental enough to contribute to the corruption of public morals, to “outrage the sense of public decency” and to “affect the peace and quiet of persons,” all of which are dealt with under statute 877.03. Had a child not witnessed this act, a lesser charge likely would have been pursued by the State. As it is, a child was present and thus prosecution under 800.04 is right! Having rejected the plea deals, which I believe were fair, I fully endorse Caballero receiving the maximum punishment, because he is a repeat offender, and Alvarez receiving jail time and perhaps a fine. These 2 have made their bed and must now lie in it.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on May 13, 2015 in Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Navy Vet, Dad Craig Scarberry Lost Custody of Kids for Being Agnostic? Probably Not.

Craig Scarberry, 29, of Indiana maintains he lost joint custody of his 3 children because of his agnosticism. As evidence, he cites statements alluding to his irreligious views written by presiding Judge George Pancol which state Scarberry “did not participate in the same religious training as the mother…the father was agnostic…when the father considered himself a Christian, the parties were able to communicate relatively effectively.” Following Scarberry, liberals, atheists and agnostics have quote mined Pancol’s comments, spinning them for their political and what can be seen as nothing short of a fear mongering agenda, insisting not only this man lost custody due to his agnosticism but that this represents religion encroaching upon the fundamental rights and freedoms as established by the First Amendment. These people have used Pancol’s words, in a sense, as a call to arms for all irreligious to unite to fight this supposed encroachment before we become a full-blown theocracy. This is perfectly exemplified by the reaction of the The Young Turks.

Pancol’s statements, however, merely relay the fact of how the couple’s relationship operated cohesively when both shared the same religious perspective. Scarberry claims he and his lawyer have gone through the decision, concluding it was based on religious considerations. Of course his irreligious brethren agree. No where in Pancol’s comments does it state, or even imply, religious considerations are a part of the court’s ruling, and Pancol maintains his decision is based on the children’s best interests. Unless irrefutable contrary evidence surfaces, it is irrational and illogical to assume otherwise.

What those who are assume otherwise, and the irresponsible media which is refusing to clarify the matter, are ignoring is the evidence presented in court pointing to the more probable reason his joint custody has been revoked. As reported by the Herald Bulletin, this evidence, which was used by Judge Pancol in his decision, shows Scarberry to have anger management issues, used “profanity in front of the children” and harassed his ex wife with excessive amounts of text messages. Further, in April, 2010, his ex wife had gotten a restraining order against Scarberry for trying to beset and frighten her at her workplace “with abusive language and profanity” and random and unexpected stops by her home “at different hours of the day and night.” Scarberry claims that evidence has been presented in court which purport to refute these latter allegations; as far as I know, as of now, no evidence of such refutation is available to the public and thus I do not know if his claims are true.

Theoretically, though, even if religious considerations had played a part in this decision, it must be determined whether or not they were the sole or dominant criteria on which the decision is based. So long as they do not dominate the decision making process, religious considerations are allowed in custody cases where contesting parties have competing religious interests, and are a normal part of such cases. If Scarberry had been denied custody due to his agnosticism, the judge would have certainly further denied him the right to teach or expose his children to other religious or irreligious perspectives, as happened in MacLagan v. Klein in North Carolina in 1996. In that case, the father, Klein, a Jew, was awarded full religious authority over the couple’s daughter. The court reasoned that since the child had been raised Jewish from the time she was born, it would cause her harm if she was to be introduced into another religion, that being her mother’s Methodism. Scarberry, though, has no such limitations and is free to teach and expose his children to other religions or philosophies, like agnosticism.

Thus, there is more to the court’s decision than these atheists, agnostics, liberals and the media are admitting, considering, investigating or of which they are even aware; it seems these people are motivated by demagoguery and/or paranoid delusions of encroaching theocracy and thus are solely able to focus on the judge’s comments about Scarberry’s irreligious views, spinning them to fit these motivations by ignoring or rewriting the reality and wider context behind the court’s decision. They are further side stepping the reality of custody battles in America where, for perfectly legitimate reasons, it is normal for religious considerations to be a part of a court’s decision.

 
6 Comments

Posted by on December 7, 2010 in Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,