The WHO Renames Monkeypox

 

The World Health Organization is planning to rename the monkeypox virus to "MPOX" in an effort to avoid racist stigma surrounding the old name. The WHO reportedly made this decision after a group of scientists expressed concerns about potential discrimination connected to the virus's African origins. The scientists argued that "continued reference to, and nomenclature of this virus being African” would be “discriminatory and stigmatizing."

A formal announcement regarding the new name is expected at any time, according to a report by Politico. It has been several months since the virus first gained a foothold in Europe, the United States, and numerous other nations.

The WHO said this past June that it would begin the renaming process because “monkeypox” did not adhere to its current guidelines discouraging the use of geographic regions or animals in the naming of viruses. The organization has already renamed two variants of the virus emanating from the Congo Basin clade and West African clade to the more generic “Clade I” and “Clade II,” respectively. (For those of you who don’t know what clade means, as I didn’t until about 20 minutes ago, here is the Merriam-Webster definition: a group of biological taxa (such as species) that includes all descendants of one common ancestor.)

The monkeypox virus was first named in 1958 at a time when virus names were typically related to the regions where the diseases appeared to first proliferate. (See also the West Nile Virus, German Measles, and Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever.)

By contrast, WHO now states: "Current best practice is that newly-identified viruses, related disease, and virus variants should be given names with the aim to avoid causing offense to any cultural, social, national, regional, professional, or ethnic groups, and minimize any negative impact on trade, travel, tourism or animal welfare.” Okay, that essentially leaves us with “Virus 1,” “Virus 2,” “Virus 3,” etc., which doesn’t really tell us much, but WHO am I to opine?

 “MPOX” is much more hip and modern, and is in keeping with the trend to shorten monikers. (Other than the acronym LGBTQIA+ which seems to grow by another letter or symbol every year.)

“X-box,” “C-SPAN,” “J-lo,” “KFC”…”MPOX.” Why not?

Will the WHO soon announce that “chickenpox” has been rebranded as “CPOX?” If not, why? Is it somehow okay to offend domesticated fowl and/or humans who lack courage?

It would be nice if the WHO, an offshoot of the UN that claims to be responsible for “international public health,” spent more time addressing legitimate health concerns and less on woke monkey-business. (Sorry, “MBIZ.”)

 

 

 

We Must Wake Up From Wokeness

 

The radically woke, those who want to savage and cancel everyone else, are ignorant and evil. They purport to believe that they would have known better than people in the distant past, though there is no way they can be sure of this. If humanity survives their idiocy, people and historians in the future will likely look back at these wildly intolerant, cock-sure, virtue signaling, anti-historians and be appalled at their intolerance, close mindedness, and ignorance.

For example, the Holocaust they visited on the unborn for decades on end may be seen in a much harsher light, and not glibly and euphemistically be given the label “women’s healthcare” or the oxymoronic “reproductive care.”

If humans are around when the next ice age arrives, the global warming evangelists will look pretty silly. (See the cartoon towards the bottom of this page/site.)

If, at some point in the future, a majority of humans are lesbian, gay, or trans, the damage this will cause to society will be impossible to ignore. The same could be said about an America that is no longer majority Christian.

And, if the U.S. continues its descent into Marxism, the tragically woke—and virtually everyone else—will become poorer, less healthy, and less free.

Unfortunately, the joke wouldn’t just be on the woke. It would be on all of us.

And that’s not funny.

 

 

University Takes Down Painting Because Of One Complaint

 

A painting of old white men smoking cigars by acclaimed contemporary Dutch painter Rein Dool has been taken down at Leiden University in the Netherlands, reportedly the result of a complaint by a single female grad student.

Dutch News reported that the painting, which depicts university board members from the mid-1970s, “was taken off the wall following a remark by political scientist Elina Zorina on Twitter,” in which she suggested the painting “needed an ‘ironic or critical’ explanatory note.” Zorina is a PhD candidate at the school’s Institute of Political Science, according to the university’s website.

 

The now 90-year-old artist is still proud of the painting, made in the mid-1970s, which he says is “one of his best works.” The picture shows the then board of Leiden University as Dool observed them at the time, including Dolf Cohen, a former rector who survived World War II by going into hiding.

 

Dool thinks the removal of the canvas “incredibly narrow-minded” and finds it “very strange” that no one from the university has contacted him. 

A Leiden University spokesperson claims that no decision has yet been made about what will happen to the painting going forward. The university claims that there have been several comments and complaints about the painting going back to 2011, and notes that complainants feel “unrepresented” by the work depicting six white men. (And…egads!...cigars.)

Works of art are getting cancelled now because one person—or an immeasurably tiny minority at most—objects to them?

Artist Rein Dool’s painting wouldn’t have irked “political scientist” Elina Zorina if it depicted six Black people smoking pot…or six transgender drag queens ingesting magic mushrooms. Though that could have made me feel “unrepresented” and marginalized. (Okay, not really, but you get my point.)

By this standard, every painting would have to include every race, gender, religion, vice, etc., etc., or it could a priori offend someone or some group. And of course, doing so is impossible. Although, in the hyper-woke environment in which we now live, perhaps a painting of transgender Marxists hosting a drag queen story hour at an abortion clinic might be acceptable.

              Or not.

If we keep going down this road, the writing will be on the wall…but paintings won’t be.

 

 

 

Vermont Voters Enshrine Right To Kill Babies

 

The constitution of Vermont now enshrines the right to kill unborn babies, as Green Mountain State  citizens recently voted—overwhelmingly-- in favor of a ballot measure affording them that “choice.”

The ghoulish amendment euphemistically read, “An individual’s right to personal reproductive autonomy is central to the liberty and dignity to determine one’s own life course and shall not be denied or infringed unless justified by a compelling State interest achieved by the least restrictive means.”

Everyone has the right to personal reproductive autonomy. That is inarguable. Period. Full stop. Because everyone can decide whether or not to have sexual intercourse. Period. Full stop. And everyone can decide whether or not to use protection. Period. Full stop. The government can’t (yet) force anyone to have sexual intercourse. Neither can it forcibly prevent anyone from employing the “rhythm method,” prophylactics, or contraception. That’s two full and separate areas in which we all have personal reproductive autonomy. Period. Full stop.

We do not have the “right” to decide to have unprotected intercourse resulting in a baby in a womb…only to kill that baby for our convenience. It may be convenient for us to have sex, and convenient for us not to use protection. But convenient for us to dispense with the consequences of those convenient decisions with no thought about the morality of doing so? That is not a “right,” inalienable or otherwise. It is a wrong. Period. Full stop.

Why? Because we had at least two choices before bringing that baby into the womb, whereas the baby in the womb had no choice whatsoever. We would have denied the baby exactly what we claim to have been seeking: the “liberty and dignity to determine one’s own life course.”

The amendment’s caveat that “an individual’s right” shall not be denied or infringed “unless justified by a compelling State interest” is also disturbing. The United States was founded on the belief that individuals’ rights are inalienable and granted by their Creator, expressly to protect individuals from governments’ attempt to deny or infringe upon them.

Sadly, according to still unofficial results from the Secretary of State’s office, roughly 133,000 Vermonters voted in favor of the measure, while only 42,000 voted against it. And this when abortion was already legal in the state. The approved ballot measure further alters the state’s constitution so that, effectively, no piece of future legislation could restrict abortion up until the moment of birth.

It is interesting, if repulsive, that “progressives” typically don’t believe in the absolute right to free speech, assembly, or religion-- or the right to defend oneself-- despite the existence of the First and Second Amendments to the Constitution. Yet they do fervently believe in a mythical right to extinguish the life they themselves have created through unprincipled lust and carelessness.

So, why didn’t the founders enshrine the right to abortion in the Bill of Rights? Was it an oversight? They probably meant to but fell short on time, right?

For that matter, and inexplicably, none of God’s Ten Commandments mandates the wholesale slaughter of the unborn. Was this a simple oversight by the Big Guy Person? Instead, there is the prohibition against murder, commandment number six.

Maybe God meant to give Moses an Eleventh Commandment, but just got too busy and distracted.

For whatever reason, “Though Shalt Exterminate Your Unborn Baby Anytime It pleases You” just didn’t make the cut.

 

 

Pfizer And Moderna To Launch Study To Determine Long-Term Effects Of COVID-19 Vaccines

 

The Daily Mail has reported that Pfizer and Moderna have launched trials to determine whether there are long-term negative health impacts associated with the use of their Covid vaccines. The studies will involve monitoring Americans who have already suffered significant side effects after receiving the shots over the past two years. The Food and Drug Administration requires both companies to carry out this research as a condition of its earlier approval of the vaccines.

 

Okay, says the FDA, we know that serious issues surfaced during initial testing of these “vaccines,” and it is abundantly clear that there have been hundreds of thousands—or more—adverse reactions to them since we granted Pfizer and Moderna emergency use authorization to employ them, so let’s now embark on a program to see what kind of long-term effects they may have on the roughly 263,000,000 that have been injected with them.

 

Ready! Fire! Aim!

 

In an improbable but related development, a recent analysis by the Washington Post found that more vaccinated people are now dying from COVID-19 than unvaccinated people. In fact, 58 percent of the Americans who died from the coronavirus this past August had been vaccinated and boosted. For the first time since the onset of the pandemic, the majority of Americans dying from Covid were vaccinated, according to this analysis of federal and state data.

 

This did not stop Dr. Anthony Fauci, outgoing White House Chief Medical Adviser, from emphasizing the safety and efficacy of the vaccines, or encouraging people to get vaccinated and boosted with all due haste. Fauci did admit that coronavirus vaccine effectiveness wanes over time-- but proclaimed that the disease shouldn't be compared to other vaccine-treatable illnesses due to its numerous variants.

 

Fauci stated, "My message, and my final message, maybe the final message I give you from this podium, is that please, for your own safety, for that of your family, get your updated Covid-19 shot as soon as you're eligible-- to protect yourself, your family and your community.”

 

He did not add, “My reputation—and pocketbook—will thank you.”

 

These so-called vaccines don’t stop a person from getting—or transmitting—the virus. Or even from dying from it. Had other, real, vaccines-- like, say, those for the measles, mumps, or polio—not prevented one from getting or transmitting these diseases, or even from dying from them, they certainly wouldn’t have been so popular. In fact, they wouldn’t have been called “vaccines.”

But, hey, nearly everything is being redefined in this brave new world the impeccably woke have created. “Males” and “females?” No! There are an infinite number of genders! And, like snowflakes, no two genders are exactly alike.

“Criminals?” “Convicted felons?” Pshaw! We say “justice-involved individuals.”

“Truth?” What do you mean? Like, “my truth,” or “your truth?” Or maybe “Xir’s truth” or “they’s truth?”

In truth, the actual kind, COVID-19 vaccines are problematic at best. They do not prevent one from getting or transmitting the disease, nor do they even prevent one from dying from it. And there have been millions of documented adverse reactions to coronavirus vaccinations worldwide. The number of unexplained “excess deaths” have never been greater. Apparently healthy young athletes are dropping dead around the world. Miscarriages and birth defects are on the rise. Etc, etc.

My message to Fauci would be: “It’s about damn time you left your job as Chief Medical Advisor to us all. Please, for the safety of our families and to protect our communities, retire…preferably to Botswana, Albania, or such like.  

Leave us here to assess the long-term negative health impacts of your Reign of Error.

 

 

Identity Theft 2.0

 

There is another kind of identity theft. We humans are slowly but inexorably-- and apparently inevitably-- allowing artificial intelligence to steal our humanity. In fact, we are, oddly, encouraging it. But, unlike the kind of identity theft of which we are all too aware, this one won’t be just a major inconvenience. There will be no coming back from this usurpation. As artificial intelligence grows ever more prevalent and ever more capable, we allow it—rely on it—to perform ever more of the functions that heretofore only humans could do. In many cases, this has caused us to lose the ability to perform those functions. We are becoming increasingly helpless—and dependent on A.I.

The singularity looms. At some point, A.I. may far surpass our capabilities—and decide we are not “essential.” Or worse.

Intelligence is not something that should ever be ceded to anyone…or anything…else.

If we become dumb as a post while we allow the unchecked advancement of artificial intelligence, we will have lost our humanity.

And our future.

Virginia High School To Host Satanic Temple "Family Movie Night"

 

A Virginia school board recently responded to community outrage over its decision to let The Satanic Temple use a high school auditorium for an event by claiming that current Supreme Court precedent forces them to be utterly neutral as to which groups are allowed to access their facilities.

Lynchburg’s WSET-TV recently reported that The Satanic Temple, a far-left secular advocacy group/religion, has, through its “After School Satan Club,” rented the Jefferson Forest High School auditorium for a “Family Movie Night” this coming February, during which it plans to screen the 1992 children’s animated film Fern Gully: The Last Rainforest, and subsequently discuss how the film relates to The Satanic Temple’s tenets. Say what? Nothing says family movie night more than The Satanic Temple!

              What a sham. What movie will TST “screen” next? The Sound of Music? Toy Story 2? How do these films relate to Satan? Talk about “grooming” kids! Wouldn’t it be more authentic if The Satanic Temple screened, say, “The Exorcist?”

The Virginia school board claims it has “no choice” in the matter? Here’s where I would normally say “what’s next?” and offer a humorous analogy, but I’m having a devil of a time trying to think of anything that would top Satanic Temple Family Movie Night.

 

 

 

Destruction, Existentialism, Nihilism, Nothingness Are All Related...And Anathema To Society

 

Many on the left want to destroy anything old, historic or traditional, including statues, buildings, governments and morality. They revel in tearing down people, standards and ideas yet are incapable of building anything or governing themselves…let alone anyone else. On occasion they will seek to replace what they erase, substituting Baphomet or Beelzebub for Jesus Christ for example.

These modern anarchists, though anything but philosophers, ironically piggyback on the past work of white men such as Søren Kierkegaard, Fyodor Dostoevsky, Jean-Paul Sartre, Friedrich Nietzsche, and other existentialists.

Sartre cleverly suggested that people are not like things (such as rocks or can-openers), which is why he used the term “no-thing-ness” to refer to the kind of being that people are. Unlike things, he said, humans do not have an intrinsic essence. A can-opener, for example, has an essence that was ascribed to it before it even existed. A designer created that object for the sake of opening cans. In this way, we can say that its essence preceded its existence. But according to Sartre, we are not designed by a God, therefore we are unlike things. Hence “no-thing-ness.”

And, since there is no designer, there is no intrinsic essence of human life, no “human nature,” nothing that we are supposed to be. Therefore, states Sartre, we must invent our own purpose, or “essence.” Whereas a can-opener’s essence precedes its existence, the opposite is true for us. We exist first and then we must create our essence later. This “fact” led Sartre to proclaim that we are “condemned to be free.” This freedom in turn means that we are responsible for our lives, causing us to experience feelings of anxiety or despair. 

Nietzsche graced us with his uplifting “God is dead” message and his fixation with nihilism-- a philosophy, literally, of Nothing. (Nihilism can be defined as the sign of “Nothing;” pure Nothingness.)

Rather than tremble before Nietzsche’s nothingness, let’s think this through. Is the concept of nothing itself not actually something? Are these words nothing? If so, how are you reading them, interpreting them? How can everything be nothing?

How can allegedly brilliant philosophers come up with ideas such as this?

Is a bull moose nothing? Punch one in the face and see if “nothing” happens.

Some progressives believe that nothing can be certain, correct or true. Yet, if that statement were to be true, that statement would have to be false. Think about it. If nothing can be correct or true or certain, then that statement itself cannot be, either. It is a logical fallacy. It refutes itself. Which is a hallmark of progressivism.

Intelligent and prudent people don’t reflexively denigrate and dismiss the acquired knowledge to be gleaned from all of human history. We call these folks conservatives. Those that think they can deny, negate, or override wisdom and truth, or reinvent them to suit their agenda, we call progressives.

But destruction is not a legitimate political philosophy. And “Nothing matters…and what if it did?!” is not a particularly good recipe for human achievement and contentment.

 

 

Coloradans Vote To Legalize "Magic Mushrooms"

 

Voters in Colorado approved a ballot measure legalizing “magic mushrooms” during the recent midterm elections. Proposition 122 allows for legal access to—and growth of-- psilocybin mushrooms, a hallucinogenic substance. Yet they voted down not one, not two, but three different ballot measures that would have expanded access to alcohol. Propositions 124, 125, and 126 would have increased the number of liquor licenses one individual could have, legalized the sale of wine in supermarkets, and allowed for alcohol delivery services, respectively. All were shot down.

So one can legally grow and imbibe magic mushrooms but can’t purchase a bottle of wine at a grocery store? What the hell? Are Colorado voters high? Oh yeah, they are high. Recreational pot use is legal in the Centennial State, too. Soon they will be both stoned and tripping. There’s more than one reason Denver is called the “Mile High City.”

Want to sip a glass of red wine with the spaghetti dinner you made from ingredients you purchased at your local grocery store? Nah, right out!

Want to smoke a doobie and pop some ‘shrooms? Absolutely, dude!

This just might explain the whole bleeping election. Colorado, a red state in the recent past, is now not only blue, but green with cannabis and the cash it brings in. And, if I’m not hallucinating, soon to be awash in psychedelic colors, too.

 

 

 

White House Considering Blocking The Sun's Light

 

The White House recently announced that it was funding a five-year research plan for a controversial proposal to fight climate change by geoengineering, i.e. technologies and processes that can be used to artificially modify the Earth’s climate.

This research would be dedicated specifically to a form of geoengineering known as “solar radiation management,” which involves spraying fine aerosols into the atmosphere to reflect sunlight away from the Earth. The hope is that, once the sunlight is reflected, less heat will be generated and ergo temperatures will go down. Presto, actual anthropogenic climate change! A global SPF 100, as it were!

The research reportedly will attempt to model how solar radiation management might impact the atmosphere, as well as assess its viability as a potential technique to be employed to “manage near-term climate risk.” 

They’re hoping to fight the scourge of climate change by blindly trying to change the climate? What is it with Democrats? They’re also fighting racism with racial quotas and making race the primary consideration in, well, everything. That’s working well, isn’t it! Next, they’ll propose fighting drug abuse by giving out free needles and crack pipes. Oh wait, they’re already doing that. Why haven’t they yet suggested we combat STDs by having indiscriminate, unprotected sex with as many other people as possible?

Now they’re going to “cancel” the sun, without which life on Earth would be impossible? What could go wrong?!

And would this be a unilateral decision? “Hope the rest of you guys don’t mind, but we’re blocking the sun! Oops, we didn’t expect that! Our bad. Sorry, might be a bit chillier than we’d like for a while!”

 What the hell?!

And yet a U.S. regulatory agency now tells us that large swaths of North America may face blackouts and other energy emergencies during bouts of extreme cold this winter, due to coal and natural gas shortages.

Thanks, guys! Anything else you want to do to for us while you’re at it? Better get started with your sun block!

 A suggestion for the Bite-me Biden administration: maybe we could just throw a giant thermal-reflective blanket over the sun and see what that does.

“There’s nothing new under the sun” is an old cliché. If this “plan” goes through, there might not be anything old, either.

They can put this plan “where the sun don’t shine.” Which, in a few years, might be everywhere.

 

Hammers And Knives The New Firearms

 

Kiernan Brown, 30, was recently charged with the hammer killings of two women after he showed cellphone photos of their beaten bodies to sheriff’s deputies during a traffic stop. He was arrested on Interstate 69, about 108 miles northwest of Detroit, after an ex-girlfriend reported that he had been violating a personal protection order by banging on her door and sending disturbing texts. Brown pled guilty-- but mentally ill-- to second-degree murder in the deaths of 26-year-old Kaylee Ann Brock and 32-year-old Julie Ann Mooney in May 2019.

 

Paul Pelosi—the husband of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi-- was recently attacked by a man with a hammer at the couple’s home in San Francisco. Pelosi required emergency surgery and his full recovery is apparently still not guaranteed.

Deashe Calhoun, 20, recently attacked Hubert Meulens, 82, with a machete in lower Manhattan. She had previously been arrested seven times in roughly the past seven months for infractions involving knives and subsequently the machete.

There have been a staggering number of knife attacks in recent years, both in the United States and abroad. In fact, stabbings account for well over 1,000 homicides each year in the U.S. alone.

Knife violence in places like Britain are even more prevalent and shocking. In Britain in 2020, a knife crime was reported every 11 minutes, with the bulk of them occurring in London.

I am sick and tired of innocent people being stabbed by all forms of cutlery from Swiss Army Knives to machetes. (Pocket knives are obviously a gateway weapon to swords and machetes.) And I am sick and tired of innocent people being hammered to death.

What can be done about the scourge of non-gun violence? To paraphrase progressives: “Do not blame the perp! Blame the implement!”

Therefore, it is obvious we need commonsense knife and hammer control!

We must demand that the manufacture, sale, and possession of all knives, cutlery, hammers-- and other blunt instruments-- be banned immediately.

It matters not that progressive policies create envy, hate and despair. Or that they make crime a low-risk, high reward activity to those with no moral compass. The fact that criminals, even violent ones, are being booked and almost immediately released, time after time, with little or no (cashless!) bail has nothing to do with the problem. Nor, obviously, does our society’s descent into hyper-secular amorality.

No, it is the fault of the tools that seemingly once served us so well.

And, speaking of tools, remember to vote Democrat. All the time. In every election. Early and often. Our democracy depends on it!

 

 

 

 

WEF Leaders Want To Halve World's Population By 2050

 

The United Nations predicts that by 2050 there will be 9.6 billion people on the planet. That prediction is highly doubtful based on current events…and the fact that the U.N. itself is in cahoots with the World Economic Forum in exploring ways to dramatically reduce the number of humans on Earth, as part of the Great Reset.

Numerous WEF leaders and contributors, such as Bill Gates, Klaus Schwab, Yuval Noah Harari, and “Sadhguru,” have long and openly advocated for depopulation and are currently attempting to generate increased public support for quickly reducing the world’s population.

Sadhguru, a “yogi, mystic, visionary and bestselling author” according to the WEF website, recently tweeted: “The elephant in the room is human population because we cannot control human aspirations; we can only control human population. For this, we are instituting an award to honour men and women who consciously choose not to procreate.” But what if human aspirations are to procreate? How do we “control human population” then, Sad H. Guru?

The mysterious, all-knowing seer, sage and soothsayer from the East says: “It’s time human beings function consciously…that just coming to zero percent growth is not good enough. We have to go into a minus. Instead of projecting by 2050 we’ll be 9.6, why can’t we determine that by 2050 we’ll be 3.5 or 4 billion people?” Well, for starters, and noting that we are at 8 billion now, what did we do to the other 4.5 or 4 billion people? The lockdowns and vaccine mandates that have apparently led to an unprecedented number of excess deaths were a hell of a good start for you guys, admittedly, but eliminating half the people currently on this troubled orb seems a bit aggressive.

It is apparent that Sadhguru does not hold homo sapiens, including himself, in high esteem. In an article published by the WEF, Sadhguru said, “I think worms and insects know more about themselves than human beings. In that context, you can say, I’m a worm on the planet.” Yes, I’m sure that worms and insects are more self-aware and reflective than we silly humans. Surely it is nought more than coincidence that Plato wrote the “Republic” and not an earthworm. Or that, say, a dung beetle didn’t pen “Hamlet” before Shakespeare got around to doing so.

According to The Gateway Pundit, there are those, such as WEF advisor Yuval Noah Harari, that consider humans to be “useless eaters.” If true, I’m guessing Yuval isn’t a devout Christian. In a recent interview with the head of TED, Chris Anderson, Harari reportedly stated: “We just don’t need the vast majority of the population. The future is about developing more and more sophisticated technology, like artificial intelligence [and] bioengineering. Most people don’t contribute anything to that, except perhaps for their data, and whatever people are still doing which is useful, these technologies increasingly will make redundant and will make it possible to replace the people.”

He seems nice, right? And sane. What could lead to a better future than replacing ourselves? Yay! Maybe worms and insects will COEXIST with AI better than we humans would. Still, I would ask who gets to determine which humans are expendable, unneeded. Harari’s heartless comment brings to mind a chapter title from the late, great P.J. O’Rourke’s book “All The Trouble In The World: The Lighter Side of Overpopulation, Famine, Ecological Disaster, Ethnic Hatred, Plague, and Poverty.” The chapter title? “Just Enough of Me, Way Too much of You.”

But back to Sadhguru, who asks us, “What is this compulsion about having a child?” before adding that “Having a child is not a pleasant experience. If you don’t believe me ask somebody who’s delivered a child.”

Yes, Sad H. Guru, what is this weird human compulsion to reproduce, to propagate the species? From whence does such a strange desire to avoid extinction hail? Why would anyone want to see their genes into the future, strive for immortality? More simply, why would anyone want to tuck their little girl into bed at night, or throw a ball with their young son? (Or vice-versa for that matter.) Certainly is a puzzler.

I am not advocating for “overpopulation.” But neither am I advocating for pathetic, anti-human elitists to run the world.

 

 

San Francisco To Give Up To $1,200 A Month To Low-Income Transgender Residents

 

“There’s no such thing as a free lunch” was a common phrase in days of yore, and quite true. That’s no longer the case, at least for low-income transgender residents of San Francisco.   

London Breed, the ironically named mayor of the City by the Bay, has put forth a new program that will pay “low-income transgender residents up to $1,200 each month for up to 18 months.” Breed says of her bailouts of transfranciscans (a term I first came across in a PJ Media article by Victoria Taft): “[W]e know that our trans communities experience much higher rates of poverty and discrimination, so this program will target support to lift individuals in this community up.”

Maybe. By making San Francisco’s already put-upon taxpayers foot the potentially $21,600 bill for each qualifying transgender in Breed’s proposal.

But there’s more. KTVU reported: “In addition to guaranteed income, participants will be provided with gender-affirming medical and mental health care, case management and specialty care services.” And that’s not all, lower-income transgender folks in the Golden City will also receive “financial coaching” on how to spend their newly-gotten gains.

At present, the only other program that hands out special allotments of taxpayer money to City Hall-selected groups of people is the “Abundant Birth Project,” which offers “basic income for Black and Pacific Islander mothers and pregnant people.”

“Pregnant people,” because, you know, pregnancy is not just for females anymore! As those like “Breed” believe.

To sum up: if you are a taxpayer in the Bay Area you are screwed. However, if you happen to be a pregnant, trans, Black person or Pacific Islander, you are almost literally golden!

 

Qatar FIFA World Cup Restrictions Making Soccer Even Less Attractive

 

If you are planning to attend the 2022 FIFA World Cup in Qatar starting next week, you may find that you enjoy the games…but not much else. An official memo on the U.K. government’s Foreign Travel Advice website is warning fans traveling to watch the global soccer championship not to bring with them certain items that are banned in the predominantly Muslim country, lest they end up in prison. The memo states: “Importing drugs, alcohol, pornography, pork products and religious books and material into Qatar is illegal.”

The memo also notes that “Swearing and making rude gestures are considered obscene acts and offenders can be jailed and/or deported,” and adds, “Take particular care when dealing with the police and other officials.”

But that’s not all. The memo cautions potential World Cup attendees that "Any intimacy in public between men and women (including between teenagers) can lead to arrest."

But even that’s not all. The Foreign Travel Advice website warns: "You should dress modestly when in public, including while driving. Women must cover their shoulders and avoid wearing short skirts. Both men and women are advised not to wear shorts or sleeveless tops when going to government buildings, health care facilities, or malls."    

No alcohol, pornography, or pork? Are you kidding me? How could you make the event any less attractive? Alcohol, pornography, and pork (APP) should be a restaurant or convenience-store if not a government department. If I were president, I would eliminate both NEAs, the DHS, and the FBI if it meant making room for the APP.

To put things in the proper perspective, while you can’t bring booze or sexy things into Qatar, you are free to chant “Death to Israel” and make grossly disparaging remarks about Jews. Or to stone a homosexual.

What if the tables were turned? What if a Western nation, when next hosting the World Cup, were to ban fans from bringing keffiyehs, hijabs and falafels with them? What if, say, the Netherlands demanded that those attending soccer’s biggest event drink Heineken and take in a peepshow in the Red-Light District?  

I guess the likes of England, France and Brazil won’t be bringing home the bacon, regardless of how well they play.

Oh well, f**ck it…and pass the vodka.

To paraphrase what Winston Churchill once said of British Labor politician Stafford Cripps, “Qatar has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire.”             

 

Iranian Authorities Cracking Down On Protests

 

                Protests have erupted throughout Iran recently after police arrested Mahsa Amini, a 22-year-old woman, for allegedly failing to comply with the country’s stringent women's dress regulations surrounding head coverings. Amini died while in custody, and critics accused the police of beating her while she was detained.

 In response, Iran’s parliament voted to punish the protesters with the death penalty after more than 14,000 of its citizens were arrested while protesting that nation’s government. Iranian “lawmakers” voted overwhelmingly to press the judiciary to impose the ultimate punishment on those openly opposing the government.

          These reports immediately prompted top Democrats to applaud the ruling mullah’s “progressiveness in acting to save their nation’s democracy.”

          One top Democrat stated: “Refusing to obey the government’s mandate to wear a certain piece of clothing, especially one covering one’s head, is precisely akin to the extreme MAGA types’ reluctance to wear face masks during the pandemic-- and their refusal to stop flying early American banners such as the Gadsden or Betsy Ross flags.”  

          Another noted, “Our treatment of the January 6 protesters, holding them without charge, some tortured, some in solitary confinement, shows we are almost as advanced as the Iranians when it comes to protecting democracy.”

         Still another noted: “Violently crushing all dissent is the hallmark of a free society…and the only way we can save our precious democracy.”

                                             *************************

          (Particularly observant readers will realize that paragraphs 3-6 are an example of a writer's embellishment that we in the business call "satire," though said paragraphs almost certainly accurately reflect the feelings of many in today's Democratic Party.)

 

"Colonizers" Bad, Undocumented Immigrants Good?

 

Colonizers. Usurpers.

That’s us. That is how The Left looks at those who settled in the United States. At least the paler ones.

Though we are told the Vikings made it to America first, they apparently inexplicably forgot to terrorize and enslave the indigenous peoples before leaving…almost without a trace. (We do have the Kensington Runestone!)

Then Columbus “discovered” America and things quickly went to hell in the proverbial handbasket. Soon colonists would demand things like representative government, the right to freedom of assembly, religion, and speech, equal justice under the law, and protection from unwarranted searches and seizures.

The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in a free market, capitalist system and a limited government, of, by, and for the people soon begat a long sequence of racist products of the white, Christian, patriarchal society. Such soul—and Earth—destroying inventions such as electricity, the light bulb, telephone, radio, the computer, and eventually the internet, joined with space exploration and rapid medical advances in essentially colluding to oppress peoples of color and other minorities.

So, say leftists and progressives, it would have been better for everybody if those damn Europeans had stayed in Europe where they belong! Although, I guess they originally came from somewhere else, too, which probably upset the established locals/indigenous Europeans. Will they never stop colonizing, enslaving, and oppressing?

Come to think of it, though, the so-called “Native Americans” also came from elsewhere, whether across the Bering Land Bridge from Siberia or from some other direction, possibly displacing the then natives.

Moreover, if civilization actually did originate in the Fertile Crescent, and people spread out from there, could the first group to get to any given place then claim that others deigning to move there were naught but wannabe evil colonizers who should stay where they were for eternity?

And how come “progressives” and other leftist whackos believe that Europeans migrating to a vast, nearly unpopulated wilderness rife with natural resources many years ago was an inexcusable “original sin,” and yet simultaneously believe that the millions of illegal/undocumented immigrants currently pouring over the border into a now heavily settled nation rife with numerous social problems should be welcomed with open arms?

How is it that progressives consider those who came to America and built the freest and most prosperous nation on Earth between 1492 and, say, the mid 1900s, the only “bad” immigrants? Particularly while simultaneously deeming “Native Americans” to be exemplary humans, as they do those currently yearning to come to this systemically racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic nation.

Why do they afford “tolerance, acceptance, and inclusivity” only to certain groups? By definition that isn’t tolerance, acceptance, and inclusivity…it’s discrimination.

I’m sure it’s only coincidence that those happen to be the groups they believe will help them attain/retain power in the future. Right?