RSS

Tag Archives: lies

The Young Turks Banned Me: The Violent Nature of TYT Army

As I previously wrote, the Young Turks have now banned me from chat on two occasions. Some of you may say this is TYT’s network and they are free to ban anyone they choose. That would be fine if TYT did not define themselves as ardent champions of free speech, expression and democracy who welcome all dissidence, except that promoting illegal or violent activity, on their network (see this video for example). This is a lie which I will expose!  TYT and their “army” freely defame, personally attack, threaten and promote violence against ideological and political outsiders  while dissenters, no matter how well articulated, respectful or justified, are banned.

I never promote or partake in cussing, crime, hate, personal attacks, rudeness, trolling or violence. I am an unrelenting intellectual diligently, logically and fastidiously  investigating, studying and testing the issues, claims and propositions before me so I may assess, discuss and debate them in an erudite manner, supporting or opposing them as available, objective evidence dictates. This evidence, as it stands today, thoroughly debunks and destroys the claims and creed of my liberal, progressive and predominantly atheist opponents.

Being ideologues militantly hostile against anything and anyone that is not congruent with their gospel, my adversaries, unable to intellectually rebut said evidence, merely reject or ignore it by default, and also delusively, fallaciously, personally and even physically attack, oppress, persecute, censor and eliminate not only those who uphold and bring it to the fore but anyone posing a challenge or not blindly yielding to their dogma and agenda.  People like me are feared by those like TYT. They know it is dangerous to allow us to freely speak for we would drown everything for which they stand and struggle in a vat of veracity, forcing them to either join our conservative ranks or soldier on dishonestly, hypocritically and speciously holding and fighting for exposed falsehoods. TYT is content with the latter and thus have banned me from the live chats. I’m not setting up new accounts just to get into chat, especially only to be blocked again the moment I dissent.

Like most of their liberal, progressive and atheist comrades, these individuals emblematize the thin-skinned, anti-intellectual, anti-science, dogmatic, violent fanaticism they vilify and deprecate their ideological opponents for allegedly possessing, vocalizing and actualizing. TYT and their “army,” be it in their videos, posts, tweets, so forth, regularly, with total impunity and without rebuke from their brethren or moderators, assault those with whom they disagree, like me, with vitriolic personal attacks,  lies, sexual innuendos, bloodthirsty fantasies, threats, and also wishes and celebrations of misfortune, tragedy, illness and death befalling them, their families, friends, colleagues, and so forth. For some examples, look at their glee over the deaths of Andrew Breitbart, Antonin Scalia or Nancy Reagan. So cruel, crude, profane, revolting, scatological, violent and vulgar are these utterances, thoughts and festivities that the psychological and emotional well-being of those making, thinking, allowing or partaking in them is brought into question. Perhaps these people suffer from some undiagnosed mental illness, like a psychopathy or psychosis, that require them to be on psychiatric medication, in psychotherapy or in a mental institution.

These screen grabs are examples of the type of filth and violence spewed and endorsed by TYT and its army. None of these users were banned or rebuked by other TYT supporters or moderators.

These come from TYT chat.The first 3 were taken from the chat room itself while the last 2 were taken from the TYT live stream archives that used to be on YouTube.

2012 threats of rape

sexist

2012 threats of rape

2012 user insults oreilly2012 kimani insults chaffetz (This refers to Jason Chaffetz and was posted by the same moderator and community ambassador who banned me for challenging TYT’s voter suppression conspiracy, Kimani Wallace David.)

These are a couple of responses I received to a comment I made on a TYT upload.

violence to me re comment on vid

Several violent comments have been left on my YouTube channel as well, including this threat:

violence to me re chan comment
This is not just idle talk or satire on their part but rather exemplifies their real world aspirations. TYT advocate for nothing short of a dictatorship, founded and defended through violence and death if necessary. They unequivocally champion, for example, firing or protesting people, their places of employment, businesses and other organizations with which they affiliate for holding, defending or supporting candidates, propositions or beliefs they oppose, boycotting or suing businesses for not servicing certain events, banning certain political and informational websites, like Drug Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.), and, perhaps most disturbingly, bringing forth the change they desire through violent revolution, using upheaval in France as their inspiration. TYT deleted the video of them endorsing such violence, but it has been uploaded by another Youtuber here, and this video is further analysis of it by HowTheWorldWorks.

It is thus imperative to expose and oppose these vile, violent liars and hypocrites not merely for what they say and do online but more so because of their real-world ambitions and influence. TYT has even set up their own superpac, Wolfpac, and have won the ear of major political figures like Bernie Sanders. TYT and their army bill themselves as a mass political movement  aiming to reshape the real world in their liberal, progressive, mostly atheist, image, which is clearly one cleansed of nonconformists. Despite their contrary claims, with those like TYT, there is no room for freedom, democracy, free thought or dissent but a dictatorship in which group-think, or, at most, democratic centralism, is enforced and dissenters who cannot be “re-educated” are marginalized, dehumanized, silenced, and if necessary, likely physically eliminated. Yes, I am talking genocide. TYT are, after all, inspired by French-style revolution.  Just as TYT peddle democracy, liberty, human/civil rights and free speech so too did the original French revolutionaries talk of “liberty, equality, fraternity;” once the latter took power, they filled the streets with the blood of dissenters and other undesirables. It is also very telling that during their chat, Cenk Uygur never held Sam Harris accountable for the latter’s ongoing advocacy for murdering people based on their beliefs. Then again you should expect nothing more from a company named, despite Mr. Uygur‘s denials, after one of the most evil, violent, genocidal movements in history.

 
 

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

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: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Beckie Francis Fired for Pushing Religion/Christianity? Probably Not.

Oakland University fired its women’s basketball coach, Beckie Francis, for allegedly abusing her players emotionally and mentally, obsessing over their weights and eating habits, with some players supposedly developing eating problems, and “pushing” Christianity upon them. Forget the first two reasons, it is the latter one which has raised the ire of liberals and atheists, and is the focal point of their “news” sources, like the Huffington Post and The Young Turks. This is also why these people are usually silent over alleged nonreligious abuses by coaches, like the serial physical and verbal abuse of Bobby Knight; they only care about “abuse” when it is linked with religion. Of course these liberals and atheists are so paranoid, sensitive and zealous that their claims of religion being “pushed” are meaningless.  To them, “pushing” religion can mean simply being Christian, wearing a crucifix or encouraging reading a wide range of material that includes religious texts, or perceived/alleged religious texts.

However, nothing in this case has yet been substantiated. We do not know exactly why Francis was fired. She was coach for over 13 years, never having received a negative comment, discipline or warning. If she had done any of this, especially bringing religion in the classroom, it is more likely than not that she would have at least been brought before a university disciplinary hearing and subsequently reprimanded. Oakland University apparently fears giving Francis & her legal team a confidential version of her termination report that is not redacted, claiming it would allow the complainants to be identified. Nonsense! If this is true, then the system is corrupt because it could allow for any unsubstantiated or manufactured claim  to become the basis for termination, with those terminated never having the opportunity to properly defend themselves or challenge their firing in court. The University is hiding something, & may actually be in contravention of the Bullard-Plawecki Employee Right-to-Know Act.

Regarding that alleged “pushing” of religion on her players, apparently she insisted they “attend church services on trips, showed “Christian-based videos on bus rides” and posted religiously-inspired tweets. Thus, “insisting” now becomes “pushing.” Whom was she “insisting?” Was it all players, or her Christian players, which probably comprise the vast majority of her team.

What are “Christian-based videos?” Movies? Televangelist programs? Sermons? What were the purposes of said videos? Entertainment? Proselytizing? “Christian-based videos” is not the same as “pushing” religion; for example, “It’s a Wonderful Life” is a Christian-based movie but its wider, inspirational message about family, hope, life, overcoming struggles are not limited to religion. Had she shown atheist anti-religious videos, this would not be an issue. You may attack religion, but not defend it. This double standard liberals and atheists believe is enshrined in the First Amendment.

Francis allegedly posted religious tweets, including Isaiah 40:31. How this constitutes “pushing” religion or how this can be a basis for termination are unknown. I am unaware that quoting Scripture outside school on the internet is “pushing” religion or violating the First Amendment. “Pushing,” as used in this case, used to mean “forcing” or “coercion;” in other words, you would have no other choice but to adopt Christianity. Nobody in this case is being forced to believe anything and no law is being enacted by Congress establishing a religion or prohibiting the free expression of any religion. The latter, however, is stealthy being done atheists and activist judges corrupting and applying the First Amendment in their own, unconstitutional image.

Read the rest of this entry »

 
2 Comments

Posted by on November 14, 2013 in Uncategorized

 

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

Atheists Exploit Maria Kislo for Their Anti-Religious Crusade

With unbridled and overwhelming lasciviousness that quickly exploded into an atheist necro-orgy, Godless militants rejoiced in the tragic October 25, 2013 news of the suicide of Maria Kislo, a 12 year old  Christian girl from Poland not solely because it means the world is left with one less theist, which is enough to make many of these zealots climax, but also her suicide was allegedly prompted by her longing for reunion, in Heaven, with her father, who passed away in 2009. Do not be fooled by their crocodilian tears, these atheists care not about Maria’s death but only in exploiting it to satisfy their anti-religious yearnings, fetishes and jihad.

These atheists self righteously rant ad nauseum that only what is scientifically supported is to be trusted, believed and accepted as true. Accordingly, there is no scientifically valid reason for atheists to oppose, prevent or mourn suicide. If we are to believe what the atheists tell us is scientifically true, after all, there is only the amoral natural world ruled by a blindly indifferent survival of the fittest. If this is scientifically true, we should welcome and celebrate suicide as a means to rid the world of the weak and riff raff, thereby strengthening the human species. As Godless militant James Randi says, those who self-murder are obviously not fit enough to survive, so they deserve death, they would simply “mature into grown-up idiots, and Darwin would be appalled that his lessons were ignored;” their continued existence dilutes the gene pool, but their death contributes to its purification and thus to the strengthening of the human species. Because such crudeness emanates from the atheist camp with virtually no rebuke from atheists, thus suggesting it is normal and acceptable, it is reasonable, and probably correct, to believe this is how they truly feel about Maria’s death.

Militant atheists, however, regularly betray the scientific standard they proselytize and by which they claim to abide, especially in gratifying their atheistic sense of superiority and anti-religious lusts and zealotry; in these cases, evidence and facts do not matter, anything and anyone can be exploited and the end justifies the means. To this end, to these Godless, sadistic sociopaths, Maria’s death is nothing more than a manipulatable and exploitable opportunity. These fiends, then, bolstered by reports of her alleged faith-inspired suicide, gang rape this child, her suffering, death and soul, howling with orgasmic delight, as they splatter blood-soaked hogwash unequivocally affirming religion not only caused Maria’s death but that it worsens depression, grief and generally “poisons everything.” Every one of their assertions, however, are proven false scientifically and theologically. There is no basis upon which to suggest or conclude Maria’s suicide would have been averted had she not been religious or not believed in Heaven. To believe otherwise is gross ignorance, to claim otherwise is mere propaganda.

Scientifically, a proportional relationship between religiosity and mental health has been proven; as religiosity increases so does mental health, and as the former decreases so does the latter, and this is true worldwide, not only in the US. (see my other posts here, here, and here). Unsurprisingly, then, depression and suicide rates are significantly higher among the irreligious than the religious.  This evidence highlights atheism’s dangers, raising uneasy questions about its potential mental health hazards and the emotional/psychological status of atheists for it proves atheism, not religion, is deleterious to mental health. Despite it being a great tragedy, any direct or indirect link that may exist between Maria’s suicide and her faith, indeed the failure of the latter to prevent the former, is an exception to the rule.

Theologically, most religions, especially the Abrahamic traditions, either prohibit suicide or portray it negatively. Christianity, for example, is a life-affirming faith with outright condemnation of self murder. As St. Augustine states, “God’s command ‘Thou shalt not kill,’ is to be taken as forbidding self-destruction, especially as it does not add ‘thy neighbor’, as it does when it forbids false witness…” (Augustine, book I, chapter 20). Simply put, suicide is a sin. Normally, a sinner who, in life, assuredly repents for his sins and accepts Christ may be forgiven by God and enter Heaven (1 John 1:7). This repentance is obviously impossible for those who self-murder. Accordingly, their ascension into Heaven, over which God has final judgement, is not guaranteed. All I will say here on the matter is that it comes down to what is truly in your heart; if you really repent and accept Christ, you may enter Heaven, but if you are merely paying lip service, then you will certainly be excluded. Ultimately, this will be God’s judgement, and He knows what is truly in your heart (Luke 16:15). However, suicide, in and of itself, will not exclude a true believer from Heaven. Nonetheless, suicide is not what God wants for it cuts short the good works He wants us to fulfill (Ephesians 2:10), and indeed He gives us hope and reason to struggle through our darkest times, from which we will emerge stronger and be able to help others in a similar position (Romans 5:2-5). This was not understood by Maria, if she truly, directly or indirectly, based her decision on her religion.

If this was the case, it is, at most, a warning against misunderstanding, misinterpreting and misapplying religion, and not an argument against religion, itself. It is evidence that we need more, but properly appreciated, religion, not less or none, especially since science shows a positive relationship between mental health and religiosity. All that may be most certainly concluded, then, is although the religious are not immune to it, self-murder is generally mitigated against by religion and cannot be justified on religious grounds, particularly as it concerns Christianity.

We cannot definitively say, however, that if Maria based her decision on her understanding of Christianity then she would not have committed suicide had she properly understood and applied her faith; neither can it be said the suffering and longing she endured, as revealed in her suicide note, was made worse by her faith. While militant atheists, for obvious ideological reasons, focus on the “Heaven” aspect of Maria’s suicide note as proof that her religion made things worse and caused her suicide, they ignore or lessen her desire for reunion with her father, who passed away about 4 years earlier. Had her religious beliefs inspired Maria’s suicide, she probably would have done it earlier to be with her father sooner. Actually, if we go by the scientific evidence, it is plausible to believe religion’s absence probably would have made her pain worse and self-murder sooner; perhaps she struggled between the hopeful, life-affirming, anti-suicide message of her faith and her increasingly devastating pain and suffering, and this is what kept her going until the latter became too much and she committed suicide.

Regardless, that her suicide took place so long after his passing suggests Maria was emotionally and/or mentally damaged not by religion but by her loss, which she was unable to accept, with which she was unable to cope, which caused her to suffer extreme, perpetual, evermore depressing bereavement and grief and which finally prompted her suicide. According to her family, Maria displayed no signs of such internal turmoil; such signs are indeed not always evident, especially if you do not know for which to look and/or if they remain hidden within the individual. There is no indication her family would not have sought the proper medical help for her had they known anything was wrong. Perhaps had she properly understood and lived her religion and/or obtained the appropriate medical treatment, especially one that incorporated her faith, Maria would not have self-murdered. Under these same conditions but minus the religious dynamic, had Maria been atheist or agnostic, there is no plausible reason to suggest or believe that the outcome would not have been the same. Her religious beliefs were incidental to her pain, suffering and suicide, and contrary claims are just empty, agenda-oriented assertions made by callous, opportunistic militant atheists.

While I am no medical professional, it is likely this child suffered prolonged grief disorder (PGD), an extreme, often debilitating, form of grief, which, if left untreated, can have any number of dire consequences, including suicide. In the US, PGD annually affects over a million people, or about 15% of those suffering bereavement. With the currently available evidence, though, all that can be adequately surmised is that extreme, depressing bereavement and grief, possibly PGD, induced by her father’s death, caused Maria’s suicide. If any positivity is to be gleaned from this tragedy, it must begin with more awareness being raised about this kind of tribulation, especially when it is suffered by those most vulnerable.

If atheists really care about Maria’s fate, they would, at the very least, involve themselves in raising this awareness, leaving their anti religious zealotry aside; ideally, they would accept the science proving not only the benefits of religion on mental health but also of treatment programs that  incorporate one’s faith. Instead, these militants are only interested in her tragedy in order to manipulate and exploit it for anti religious purposes. If suicide was really an issue for which these atheists cared, they would not limit their concern to supposedly religion-inspired self-murder; they would be burdened by suicide generally, and especially by its prevalence among those who share their own beliefs. However, when it cannot serve their agenda, these zealots meet news of suicide with an indifferent sigh, silence, a heartless “meh” or a Darwin award, as they would have done with Maria’s death had it not been ideologically viable. Indeed, without the religious reference, her death likely would not have made the news, especially outside Poland. It is the rarity and the controversy that can be spun from this tragedy which makes it international news.

You atheist monsters, cannibals, necro-rapists, blood lust fiends only care to exploit Maria’s suffering and death to further your irrational, dishonest, pseudo intellectual, non scientific campaign against religion and anyone else not holding to your anti religious prejudice and zealotry. The only thing proven by your faux outrage and crocodilian tears is that you are callous, heartless, lying, manipulative and hypocritical opportunists pleasuring your lecherous, fanatical anti-religious crusade.

Read the rest of this entry »

 
 

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

Political Exploitation of the Arizona Shooting Tragedy by liberals and Other Leftists

Holier than thou Leftists, and I include liberals and Democrats in this general category, assure themselves and anyone that will listen that only they are blessed with a social conscious and care about the well being of “the people” while the other side (conservatives, Republicans, or, more generally, the Right), only care about “its” politically and economically elite base. Do not be fooled! For most, though certainly not all, Leftists, the goal is political ascension and its accompanying benefits (wealth and power), and anything they do and say is just a means to this end. This includes making their fellow man into nothing more than their personal stepping stone. Any sympathy and empathy most Leftists may claim to have for their fellow man is false, and any tears they may shed for him being those of crocodiles. This is a certainty crystallized in cataclysmic times, which the most astute on the Left are ever ready to exploit for their own agenda.

In fact, it seems many of these individuals have a sadistic, ruthless, anthropophagus hunger for catastrophes that present them a smorgasbord of human victims to satisfy their Machiavellian political hunger. One example is Democratic strategist Mark Penn who told Chris Matthews in November 2010 that President Obama needs an Oklahoma City bombing-style event to allow him to reconnect with voters and fight Republican political resurgence. Like cannibals steeping in and gorging on the blood and flesh of their prey, many Leftists dine upon the casualties of calamity to nourish their lust for political prominence. Hence, the apparently automatic reaction to Jared Lee Loughner’s shooting rampage in Tucson, Arizona by many Leftists who, like Penn, see in tragedy the perfect platform from which to provoke opposition against their hated Right-wing, especially conservative, foes, paving the way for electoral victory. In a desperate attempt to rid themselves of the bitterness of their intellectual and political poverty and failure and feed their void for political relevance and power, these Leftists thus immediately began feasting on the barely fallen victims of Loughner’s fury, exploiting and politicizing their deaths by pinning the blame for it on the Right.

More specifically, Leftists have blamed the latter’s rhetoric and imagery, particularly that of prominent conservative talk show hosts, the Tea Party and specific conservatives, like Sarah Palin, defining it as divisive, hateful, extremist and inciting, and thus leading to real, violence against Leftists, especially Democrats, and therefore those who produce it are responsible for any violence against those whom it is directed. This is not only desperate palaver from perfunctory people but also question begging. On one hand, the benchmark by which this communication is defined as such is not set by any objective, universally realized consensus but rather by the Leftists making these allegations, subject to their political motivations, and therefore is not something on which we can base objective truth. These Leftists then, with few exceptions, only hold accountable and chastise their ideological and political opponents for employing this speech and imagery while their use by fellow Leftist comrades receives no such reprimand and may even be at least tacitly or silently endorsed by them. If these Leftists truly care to end such tragedies then they would universally and unequivocally rebuke the use of rhetoric and imagery they believe encourages and/or leads to them; that they do not do this proves their response to such events is a matter of political opportunism rather than genuine concern for the victims and their families and friends and desire to prevent similar catastrophes in the future. On the other hand, and most importantly, not one violent act has ever been successfully attributed, directly or indirectly, to the language or imagery used by anyone on the Right. This link, rather, is simply the fallacious and unproven allegation of those on the Left who then try passing it off as an objective, empirical truth to further their political agenda.

This agenda is rather straight forwards. These Leftists cannot progress their old, tired, failed and rejected political vision through intelligent, intellectual and rational means and thus desperately engage in cold, callous, calculating, cannibalistic, manipulative exploitation of tragedy, including the use of lies, fear mongering, blood libeling, well poisoning and character assassination, to foment and further irrational opposition against those holding contesting beliefs and ideologies. An opposition that, if we follow liberal logic, will only manufacture the same type of violent activity they claim to abhor, condemn and want to end. There are reports now that death threats against Palin has reached unprecedented levels. Perhaps we should blame liberals for their demonization, lies and quote mining of Palin, particularly after the Tucson shooting.

 

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: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,