Originally posted on Conservative Critic's Blog:

Thursday, July 4th, 2013,(WASHINGTON) — A “hot mic” has apparently picked up some very unflattering 

words from President Obama this Fourth of July, and may plunge him deeper into some very hot water.

“Hot” or “open mics” frequently catch public figures unknowingly expressing their true feelings, usually with colorful language (prime example: in 2000, then presidential candidate George W. Bush was caught complaining to vice-presidential candidate Dick Cheney that a reporter covering their campaign was a “major league asshole”).  However Obama’s “slip” while exiting the balcony of the White House after his fifth Independence Day address may well exceed the average “hot mic faux pas.”

The smaller of Obama’s two microphones, which was clipped inches below Obama’s shirt collar, was supposed to have been turned off immediately after his closing remarks to guests and reporters on the White House lawn.  But the microphone remained “hot,” catching the…

View original 970 more words

Posted by: conservativecritic | July 6, 2014

Reparitive Therapy for Homosexuals – does it work or not?

According to the American Psychiatric Association(APA), until 1974 homosexuality was a mental illness. Freud had alluded to homosexuality numerous times in his writings, and had concluded that paranoia and homosexuality were inseparable. Other psychiatrists wrote copiously on the subject, and homosexuality was “treated” on a wide basis. There was little or no suggestion within the psychiatric community that homosexuality might be conceptualized as anything other than a mental illness that needed to be treated. And, of course, homosexuality was listed as a mental illness in DSM-II.

Then in 1970 gay activists protested against the APA convention in San Francisco. These scenes were repeated in 1971, and as people came out of the “closet” and felt empowered politically and socially, the APA directorate became increasingly uncomfortable with their stance. In 1973 the APA’s nomenclature task force recommended that homosexuality be declared normal. The trustees were not prepared to go that far, but they did vote to remove homosexuality from the list of mental illnesses by a vote of 13 to 0, with 2 abstentions. This decision was confirmed by a vote of the APA membership, and homosexuality was no longer listed in the seventh edition of DSM-II, which was issued in 1974.

What’s noteworthy about this is that the removal of homosexuality from the list of mental illnesses was not triggered by some scientific breakthrough. There was no new fact or set of facts that stimulated this major change. Rather, it was the simple reality that gay people started to kick up a fuss. They gained a voice and began to make themselves heard. And the APA reacted with truly astonishing speed. And with good reason. They realized intuitively that a protracted battle would have drawn increasing attention to the spurious nature of their entire taxonomy. So they quickly “cut loose” the gay community and forestalled any radical scrutiny of the DSM system generally.

The APA claimed that they made the change because new research showed that most homosexual people were content with their sexual orientation, and that as a group, they appeared to be as well-adjusted as heterosexual people. I suggest, however, that these research findings were simply the APA’s face-saver. For centuries, perhaps millennia, homosexual people had clung to their sexual orientation despite the most severe persecution and vilification, including imprisonment and death. Wouldn’t this suggest that they were happy with their orientation? Do we need research to confirm this? And if we do, shouldn’t we also need research to confirm that heterosexual people are happy with their orientation? And if poor adjustment is critical to a diagnosis of mental illness, where was the evidence of this that justified making homosexuality a mental illness in the first place?

Also noteworthy is the fact that the vote of the membership was by no means unanimous. Only about 55% of the members who voted favored the change.

Of course, the APA put the best spin they could on these events. The fact is that they altered their taxonomy because of intense pressure from the gay community, but they claimed that the change was prompted by research findings.

So all the people who had this terrible “mental illness” were “cured” overnight – by a vote! I remember as a boy reading of the United Nations World Health Organization’s decision to eradicate smallpox. This was in 1967, and by 1977, after a truly staggering amount of work, the disease was a thing of the past. Why didn’t they just take a vote? Because smallpox is a real illness. The human problems listed in DSM are not. It’s that simple. You can say that geese are swans – but in reality they’re still geese.

The overall point being that the APA’s taxonomy is nothing more than self-serving nonsense. Real illnesses are not banished by voting or by fiat, but by valid science and hard work. There are no mental illnesses. Rather, there are people. We have problems; we have orientations; we have habits; we have perspectives. Sometimes we do well, other times we make a mess of things. We are complicated. Our feelings fluctuate with our circumstances, from the depths of despondency to the pinnacles of bliss.

And perhaps, most of all, we are individuals. DSM’s facile and self-serving attempt to medicalize human problems is an institutionalized insult to human dignity. The homosexual community has managed to liberate themselves from psychiatric oppression. But there are millions of people worldwide who are still being damaged, stigmatized, and disempowered by this pernicious system to this day.

Once again, to review…forty-five years ago APA leaders, in the glare of a national media spotlight, took the controversial step of deleting homosexuality from the Association’s compendium of psychiatric disorders. That action launched APA on a near half century of efforts to end discrimination against homosexuals and coincided with the increasing willingness of gay and lesbian psychiatrists to insist openly that APA must listen to them.

A panel of psychiatrists who played crucial roles in the fight to end the stigma attached to homosexuality both within and outside the mental health field came together at the APA annual meeting recently to provide insiders’ perspectives on that initiative and more recent efforts to alter how psychiatry views gays and lesbians and their sexual orientation.

Melvin Sabshin, M.D., a member of the APA Board of Trustees in the early 1970s and chair of the Scientific Program Committee at that time, described how the alienation gay psychiatrists felt from their APA colleagues led in 1970 to the start of a concerted push for APA to include them in decision making and address their concerns and those of gay patients. “Alienation?”

If there was an official kickoff for APA’s newly energized gay psychiatrists, it was the 1970 annual meeting in San Francisco, Sabshin suggested, where Gay Liberation Front activists along with political protesters in support of other social and political causes disrupted the meeting. “It was guerilla theater” at that meeting and the one held in Washington, D.C., the next year, he said.

The onset in 1970 of a decline in psycho-analysis’s dominance of the field also contributed to the change of mood in psychiatry about pathologizing homosexuality, he noted.

In 1972, for the first time, the annual meeting featured exhibits and discussions spotlighting positive aspects of the lives of gay individuals. Also during that year well-known psychiatrists such as Richard Green, M.D., Judd Marmor, M.D., and John Spiegel, M.D., began openly challenging psychiatrists’ attitudes toward and treatment of homosexual patients, Sabshin observed. Marmor, a psychoanalyst who would soon be elected APA president, played a particularly significant role in trying to bridge the chasm that existed between his psychoanalytic colleagues and psychiatrists who were convinced that homosexuality was not an illness.

While many APA members welcomed the new openness and opportunities to reassess their thinking, the stubborn polarization and factionalism that dogged this issue did not suddenly retreat into a quiet corner.

Sabshin credited the chair of APA’s Committee on Nomenclature in the early 1970s, Robert Spitzer, M.D., with playing a pivotal role in propelling the evolution of APA’s position on homosexuality. That committee was charged with revising the initial version of DSM, and Spitzer-armed with research showing there were no valid data to link homosexuality and mental illness-advocated forcefully for the strategy of deleting homosexuality from the disorders list and replacing it with a new one called “sexual orientation disturbance.”

In a key vote in December 1973, the Board of Trustees overwhelmingly endorsed Spitzer’s recommendation. Opponents of the decision attempted to overturn it with a referendum of the APA membership in early 1974-just as Sabshin was beginning his 23-year tenure as APA medical director. The Board’s decision to delete homosexuality from the diagnostic manual was supported by 58 percent of the membership.

At the same time the debates over sexual orientation and psychopathology were occurring, a small group of gay psychiatrists was holding informal meetings to explore forming an organization that would heighten their visibility and that of gay patients. This event, unthinkable two or three years earlier, explained Robert Cabaj, M.D., to the overflow audience, culminated in 1978 in the establishment of the organization that eventually became the Association of Gay and Lesbian Psychiatrists (AGLP), which now has more than 600 members.

Also in 1973 APA passed a position paper calling on psychiatrists to advocate for full civil rights for gays and lesbians and to work to end the discrimination they endure, noted Cabaj, who is medical director of the San Mateo County Mental Health System and coauthor of a textbook on homosexuality and mental health. He hailed that paper as “the cornerstone of everything that has happened since” in APA’s relationship to homosexuality.

Gay Psychiatrists More Visible

Through the rest of that decade, while issues affecting gay and lesbian psychiatrists and patients continued to achieve greater visibility in clinical and scientific forums, the voices of openly gay and lesbian psychiatrists were still rarely heard in APA policy discussions. That changed in 1982 when the APA Assembly granted a formal vote to gay and lesbian psychiatrists as a minority/underrepresented group, a status similar to that already achieved by other minority groups.

In the mid 1980s APA formed a task force on homosexuality issues, and by that time, Cabaj emphasized, it was able to focus not on the psychopathology battle but on homophobia, discrimination, and stereotyping. The task force was eventually elevated to a permanent component, the Committee on Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Issues. One of its earliest chairs was San Francisco psychiatrist James Krajeski, M.D., who this month became editor of Psychiatric News.

One of that committee’s earliest endeavors was to remedy once again a defect that gay psychiatrists and many others perceived in the way in which the latest version of the DSM labeled some homosexuals. With the introduction of DSM-III in 1980 the diagnosis of sexual orientation disturbance had been changed to ego-dystonic homosexuality, which applied to people persistently distressed by their sexual orientation and desperate to change it. With another revision under way in 1986, committee members focused their efforts on successfully convincing the DSM task force to remove any such designation that linked sexual orientation with psychopathology.

Next 35 Years

The next several years will likely be a time of “consolidation of gains as psychiatrists who are more comfortable and open about homosexuality come up through the ranks,” predicted Howard Rubin, M.D. A “gay-affirmative psychiatry” that has emerged over the last few years will become more commonplace “as long as we don’t become complacent,” he said.

While gay psychiatrists “now have a place at the table,” APA and psychiatry in general will still have to address several troubling issues related to homosexuality, said Rubin, a research fellow at UCLA and member of the APA Committee on Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Issues. Prominent on this list is the large number of psychiatry residency programs where nothing is taught about homosexuality or where the program is “gay for a day,” that is, where a few hours are devoted to this topic often via a guest speaker. In addition, psychiatrists will be called upon to take a leadership role in discussions of the relative influence of biological factors on the development of sexual orientation, he said.

With psychiatry having depathologized homosexuality, he said, the field’s next task is to acknowledge that there are real mental health consequences of being gay, but to address them as individual responses to homophobia and social prejudice.

Carolyn Robinowitz, M.D., who became dean of Georgetown University’s medical school and is a former senior deputy medical director of APA, has long been an advocate and ally on the many of the issues discussed by the other panelists.

“Let’s hope,” she emphasized, “that we have learned valuable lessons about the harm that comes from imposing a blanket of psychopathology over any group.”

Robinowitz added, “While the DSM action was but one of many changes in the past 45 years, and while many people still view homosexuality in value-laden and not always rational ways, the decision had a major impact on other health professionals and the general public.

Posted by: conservativecritic | July 4, 2014

THE EMPEROR HAS NEW CLOTHES

Originally posted on Conservative Critic's Blog:

Most everyone in industry or private business has at one time or another interviewed a candidate for a job. Important information such as education, background experience and in many cases, the candidate employee’s official citizenship is required in order to access classified information in the new job.

All of this is of course common sense – but it has always bothered me why we have a new president who has refused to supply necessary and sufficient background information for the most important position in the world. Lacking this essential data, one wonders if there are other reasons why Obama was given a carte blanche pass on these items and other factors indeed were persuasive to the 60 percent of the voters who placed him in office.

I received the following, recent Wall Street Journal editorial from my friend NBA Hall of Fame sports personality Rick Barry.  It struck a cord…

View original 1,357 more words

Posted by: conservativecritic | July 4, 2014

Obama answers primary school children’s questions…

Originally posted on Conservative Critic's Blog:

Obama goes to a primary school to talk to the kids.
After his talk he offers question time.

One little boy puts up his hand, and Obama asks him
his name.

“Walter,” responds the little boy.
“And what is your question, Walter?”

“I have four questions:
First, why did the USA bomb Libya without the support
of the Congress?

Second, why do you keep saying you fixed the economy
when it’s actually gotten worse?

Third, why did you say that Jeremiah Wright was your
mentor, then said that you knew nothing about his
preaching and beliefs?

Fourth, why are we lending money to Brazil to drill
for oil, but America is not allowed to drill for oil?”

Just then, the bell rings for recess. Obama informs
the kiddies that they will continue after recess.

When they resume, Obama says, “OK, where were we? Oh,
that’s right: question time. Who has…

View original 49 more words

pope

The news item below illustrates the extreme efforts President Obama, John Kerry and Hillary Clinton are expending in promoting homosexuality on a global basis…one wonders just how long God will tolerate such abominable behavior and its promotion before unleashing some catastrophic event on the USA.

President Obama got the ball rolling by declaring an end to the “don’t ask, don’t tell” military policy regarding homosexual behavior in the armed services…he followed it up with an endorsement of same sex marriage and the curtailing of aid to countries such as Uganda which ban such abominable activities.

Even Russian President Putin, notwithstanding his and his countries many faults, recognizes the damage that homosexual behavior and its open promotion can do on young people.

It is common knowledge that President Obama had an extensive homosexual experience during his senate activities in Illinois…with promotion by his  infamous pastor in the Chicago church he and his family attended for some  years.

When you read the following article, imagine the rapidity with which these abominable activities are encompassing the global community and damaging both young and old with promiscuous sexual activities and the damaging health effects that such activities produce…surely God will punish those who have promoted this activity and the country(the USA) which has stood silent while its leaders wave the banner of homosexual behavior in embassies around the world.

US takes gay rights global, despite unsure welcome

June 28, 2014 1:13 PM EST

WARSAW, Poland (AP) — President Barack Obama has taken the U.S. gay rights revolution global, using American embassies across the world to promote a cause that still divides his own country.

Sometimes U.S. advice and encouragement is condemned as unacceptable meddling. And sometimes it can seem to backfire, increasing the pressure on those it is meant to help.

With gay pride parades taking place in many cities across the world this weekend, the U.S. role will be more visible than ever. Diplomats will take part in parades and some embassies will fly the rainbow flag along with the Stars and Stripes.

The United States sent five openly gay ambassadors abroad last year, with a sixth nominee, to Vietnam, now awaiting Senate confirmation. American diplomats are working to support gay rights in countries such as Poland, where prejudice remains deep, and to oppose violence and other abuse in countries like Nigeria and Russia, where gays face life-threatening risks.

“It is incredible. I am amazed by what the U.S. is doing to help us,” said Mariusz Kurc, the editor of a Polish gay advocacy magazine, Replika, which has received some U.S. funding and other help. “We are used to struggling and not finding any support.”

Former President George W. Bush supported AIDS prevention efforts globally, but it was the Obama administration that launched the push to make lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights an international issue. The watershed moment came in December 2011, when then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton went to the United Nations in Geneva and proclaimed LGBT rights “one of the remaining human rights challenges of our time.”

Since then, embassies have been opening their doors to gay rights activists, hosting events and supporting local advocacy work. The State Department has since spent $12 million on the efforts in over 50 countries through the Global Equality Fund, an initiative launched to fund the new work.

Just weeks after the Supreme Court struck down parts of the Defense of Marriage Act last June, consular posts also began issuing immigrant visas to the same-sex spouses of gay Americans.

One beneficiary was Jake Lees, a 27-year-old Englishman who had been forced to spend long periods apart from his American partner, Austin Armacost, since they met six years ago. In May Lees was issued a fiance visa at the U.S. Embassy in London. The couple married two weeks ago and are now starting a new life together in Franklin, Indiana, as they wait for Lees’ green card.

“I felt like the officers at the embassy treated us the way they would treat a heterosexual couple,” said Armacost, a 26-year-old fitness and nutrition instructor. “It’s a mind-boggling change after gay couples were treated like legal strangers for the first three centuries of our country’s history.”

Some conservative American groups are outraged by the policy. Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage, calls it “a slap in the face to the majority of Americans,” given that American voters have rejected same-sex marriage in a number of state referendums.

“This is taking a flawed view of what it means to be a human being — male and female — and trying to impose that on countries throughout the world,” Brown said. “The administration would like people to believe that this is simply ‘live and let live.’ No, this is coercion in its worst possible form.”

The American efforts are tailored to local conditions, said Scott Busby, the deputy assistant secretary for the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor at the State Department. Ambassadors can decide individually whether to hoist the rainbow flag, as embassies in Tel Aviv, London and Prague have done, or show support in other ways.

While some gay rights activists say support from the U.S. and other Western countries adds moral legitimacy to their cause, it can also cause a backlash.

Rauda Morcos, a prominent Palestinian lesbian activist, said local communities, particularly in the Middle East, have to find their own ways of asserting themselves. She criticized the U.S. and Western efforts in general to help gay communities elsewhere as patronizing.

“It is a colonial approach,” she said. “In cases where it was tried, it didn’t help local communities and maybe made things even worse.”

An extreme case has been Uganda, which in February passed a law making gay sex punishable by a life sentence. In enacting the bill, President Yoweri Museveni said he wanted to deter the West from “promoting” gay rights in Africa, a continent where homosexuals face severe discrimination and even attacks. In response, the U.S. imposed sanctions and Secretary of State John Kerry compared the policies to the anti-Semitic laws in Nazi Germany and apartheid in South Africa.

In Russia, President Vladimir Putin has waged an assault on what he considers the encroachment of decadent Western values and the government last year banned “propaganda of nontraditional sexual relations among minors,” making it a crime to hold gay rights rallies or to openly discuss homosexuality in content accessible to children. Afraid for their security, some Russian gay advocates try to keep their contacts with Western officials quiet.

The official U.S. delegation to the recent Winter Olympics in Russia included three openly gay athletes. Soon after that the U.S. Embassy in Moscow opened its basketball court for the Open Games, an LGBT sporting event which had been denied access to many of the venues it had counted on. The U.S. Embassy also operates a website where Russian gay and lesbians can publish their personal stories.

Jessica Stern, executive director of the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission, praised the U.S. policy but said there have been missteps along the way, citing a 2011 U.S. embassy gathering in Pakistan that prompted a group of religious and political leaders to accuse the U.S. of “cultural terrorism.”

And in Senegal a year ago, President Macky Sall bluntly rebuked the visiting Obama for urging African leaders to end discrimination against gays. Sall said his country was neither homophobic nor ready to legalize homosexuality, and in an apparent jab at the U.S., he noted Senegal abolished capital punishment years ago.

“The response in the local press was voluminous praise of the Senegalese president, maybe not actually for his stance on LGBT rights, but for effectively asserting Senegal’s sovereignty, yet the two became intertwined,” Stern said.

Busby, the State Department official, denied that increased harassment by governments is ever the consequence of U.S. advocacy, instead describing it as “a cynical reaction taken by leaders to advance their own political standing.”

In some countries, like Poland, the U.S. efforts are a catalyst for change.

The embassy there financed a 2012 visit to Warsaw by Dennis and Judy Shepard, the parents of Matthew Shepard, a gay Wyoming college student who was tortured and murdered in 1998.

A group of parents who heard their story were so shaken by the Shepards’ tragedy that they founded a parental advocacy group, Akceptacja, which is fighting homophobia. The parents are now reaching out to their lawmakers personally, in what advocates say is the conscious adoption of an American strategy of families of gays and lesbians appealing to the hearts of officials.

“The killing of Matthew Shepard represents the fear I have that my son could be hurt for being gay,” said Tamara Uliasz, 60, one of the group’s founders. “I realized that what happened in Wyoming could happen here.”

_____

Associated Press writers Ezequiel Abiu Lopez in Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic; Rodney Muhumuza in Kampala, Uganda; and Jan M. Olsen in Copenhagen, Denmark, contributed to this report.

Copyright 2014 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

© 2014 EarthLink, Inc. All rights reserved.

Members and visitors to the EarthLink Web site agree to abide by our Policies and Agreements, including the Acceptable Use Policy.

EarthLink Privacy Policy

Submit your Feedback

DETROIT, MI – The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) overwhelmingly rejected a motion suggesting the church publicly condemn the killing of babies born alive after botched abortions.

The proposal, offered by the Presbytery of South Alabama at the denomination’s 222st General Assembly in Detroit last week, also suggested the PCUSA take two years to reconsider its support for abortion-on-demand.

Fully 78 percent of delegates at the of the 1.8 million–member PCUSA voted against a “two year season of reflection on the plight of unwanted children,” which called on church leaders to “issue statements that denounce the practice of killing babies born live following an abortion procedure, such as was revealed in the Dr. Kermit Gosnell clinic in Philadelphia.”

The church would also have been called on to “appoint a Special Committee on Abortion Review” and “[c]onduct a thorough assessment” of multiple forms of “support that the PC(USA) provides to organizations such as Planned Parenthood, Presbyterians Affirming Reproductive Options, Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, and other abortion providers or pro-choice organizations.”

The PCUSA should “[r]eview existing policies and, if needed, propose new policies that will more accurately represent the PC(USA) in its breadth of conviction about abortion, taking into account our churches’ desire to worship God in purest form,” the rejected resolution said. “Any new policies shall incorporate more fully the voices of pro-life Presbyterians, who have to this point largely been kept silent in denominational advocacy.”

The proposed measure was defeated 465 to 133 after the “Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy” (ACSWP) wrote a memorandum recommending its rejection.

While the committee conceded that “the case of Dr. Gosnell is abhorrent to all” and that “statements in opposition to Dr. Gosnell’s actions would accurately reflect church policy,” they explained that “the Moderator and Stated Clerk do not typically comment on criminal cases.”

The committee also said the resolution “contains basic misunderstandings of the church’s policies and actions related to problem pregnancies and abortion. At its core, the church’s policy affirms that, in face of the ‘complicated and insolvable circumstances’ surrounding problem pregnancies, it has ‘neither the wisdom nor the authority to address or decide each situation’ for women.”

Instead, the church upholds “the ability and responsibility of women, guided by the Scriptures and the Holy Spirit, to make good moral choices in regard to problem pregnancies.”

“The position of the church is not pro-abortion,” the committee wrote. “However, the PC(USA) recognizes that there are circumstances when abortion may be a responsible choice within a Christian ethical framework.”

The memorandum specified abortion as a final option in case of contraceptive failure.

“To support women’s reproductive choices, the church advocates for women’s access to family planning services, including fertility aid, contraception and, as a last resort, abortion,” the memo said.

Allowing women to have an abortion, the committee asserted, is “consistent with longstanding Presbyterian affirmations of freedom of conscience informed by the Holy Spirit.”

The decision to affirm the church’s support for legal abortion came on the same day that the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) voted strongly to redefine marriage and allow its pastors to perform same-sex “marriages” in locations where they are legal and changing the church constitution to recognize marriage as a union between “two people” as opposed to “one man and one woman.”

The order permitting pastors to perform gay “weddings” is presently in effect. The changes to the constitution must be ratified by a majority of the denomination’s 172 presbyteries over the next 12 months.

In 2011 the PCUSA, the nation’s largest Presbyterian denomination, voted to allow the ordination of non-celibate homosexual pastors of either sex.

The PCUSA is not the only church to have recently changed its views on homosexual ordination and same-sex unions. On Monday, the Moravian Church’s Northern Province approved the ordination of gays and lesbians, and ordered the creation of a religious commitment ceremony for same-sex couples.

Originally posted on Conservative Critic's Blog:

NOTE:  TODAY(5/9/12) OBAMA OPENLY STATED THAT HE AND HIS WIFE SUPPORT HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE.  Some people will do anything to get votes…remember that next time you go to the voting booth…

Two important things happened this weekend; first, Vice President Joe Biden came out to support homosexual marriage – immediately, in order to not throw another contentious issue into the election campaign, Obama’s spokesperson said that Obama does not support same sex marriage…

It is interesting to note that Biden is one heartbeat away from the Presidency – and even though Obama (disingenuosly) claims not to, this administration is poised to move same sex marriage ahead.

Secondly, the adulterous John F. Kennedy Profile in Courage award went to three Iowa  judges who were removed from office by public dictate for voting for same sex marriage.

Homosexuality has made inroads at the highest level of our government – and while Obama and…

View original 138 more words

Posted by: conservativecritic | June 21, 2014

CAPITALISM AND RACISM EXPLAINED

A black kid asks his mother, “Mama what’s Capitalism and what is Racism?”

“Well son, Capitalism is when white folks work every day so President Obama can get us all
our benefits, you know like free cell phones for each family member, rent
subsidy, food stamps, EMC, free healthcare, utility subsidy, free computers
and internet connection, free food, free clothing, free gifts at Christmas,
& on & on, you knows? That’s Capitalism.”

“But mama, don’t the white people get pissed off about that?”

“Sure they do son, that’s called Racism!”

(Never more simply explained. . . )

Posted by: conservativecritic | June 20, 2014

94 year old prophecy is fulfilled…

 

H.L. Mencken (born 1880 – died 1956) was a journalist, satirist, critic, and a registered Democrat.

He wrote the editorial below while working for the Baltimore Evening Sun, which appeared in the July 26,1920 edition.

“As democracy is perfected, the office of the President represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day, the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last and the White House will be occupied by a downright fool and complete narcissistic moron.”

– H.L. Mencken, the Baltimore Evening Sun, July 26, 1920

So it was written, and so it has come to pass…

Older Posts »

Categories

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.