Scientists at Stanford conducted a study that shows men who regularly eat grits are 70% more likely to have gay children..
http://dailycurrant.com/2014/05/05/study-links-homosexuality-to-eating-grits/
Friday, May 30, 2014
Thursday, May 29, 2014
Equality
Liberal supremacists, under the guise
of humanitarianism, have wasted uncountable amounts of money and
resources in the futile attempt of equalizing the American Negro.
Much like the war on drugs, hopelessness must at some time render
into the verdict of a possible surrender. Despite decades of valiant
efforts, street drugs are just as common as the unequal American
Negro. By “unequal” I'm not referring to granted state rights or
their validity as a human, rather the measured standard of the status
quo.
Should contributors (ie taxpayers) not
question the allocation of their money? Logic says, invest in that
which will provide return.. some return.. any return! American
Negros are still massively disproportionally represented in crime
statistics, welfare programs, low income areas, and score terribly
academically. When Americans hear the term “bad neighborhood” or
“crime-infested area,” they know what that means (just as you the
reader know without my translation).
Has the time arose to quit blaming
“whitey's” institutional racism for the failures of the American
Negro? Has the 60 year debacle not been convincing enough? Perhaps
waving the white flag in defeat, and reformulating the distribution
of social funds to those which are not only deserved, but will
provide a return. In today's technological age, an investment in
tomorrow's elite minds will produce miraculous returns. It's time to
stop over-funding failure and under-funding greatness. The question
is as basic as such: Invest in the pupils that will cure cancer, or
donate to a perpetual statistical cancer?
Liberal supremacists have looked down
upon the American Negro for the past 60 years and told us that Negros
are unequal and unable to self-teach themselves at a level comparable
to whites (due to “whitey's” institutional racism). Their
solution was to funnel taxpayer money into urban, predominately Negro
areas, with this ingenious concept that equal playing fields create
equal results. Yet, with the liberal supremacists holding the
American Negro's hand and walking them through detailed step-by-step,
inequality still statistically exists. How? It was once said that
you can take a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. Perhaps
the Negro just doesn't want to drink.
A valid question remains: Would the
American Negro be better off without “whitey's” welfare? In
areas populated with bears, there are signs that read, “Don't feed
the bears.” Those signs aren't posted just to test the literacy of
humans, they have a purpose. Feeding bears sets off a chain of
ecological disruption. Bears quickly associate humans with a food
source, thus eliminating instinctual fear of humans. The easy meal
evolves into an expected meal, and ultimately bears become dependent
upon humans for food. Why would bears hunt (work) when they can rely
on humans for sustenance? What begins as compassionate nurture
(feeding the hungry bears) results in dire consequences for both
bears and humans. The analogy is comparable to the liberal
supremacists coddling of the American Negro; difference being laws of
nature vs political correctness (park rangers don't post signs in the
ghettos that read, “Don't feed the Negros”). So, as with bears,
Negros become dependent upon “whitey's” welfare, and not unlike
the bears, it breeds laziness and dependence that ultimately is
detrimental. So, would the American Negro be better off without
“whitey's” welfare? As Holmes said, “elementary, my dear
Watson.”
America's test scores remain stagnant
as other countries continue to advance and surpass American students.
Does the American Negro factor into this equation? If you eliminate
the results of the American Negro's perpetually poor test scores, is
the U.S. on par with the planet's elite? With proper funding, could
the aforementioned elites unveil a solution for the American Negro's
dilemma as opposed to repeating the same thing over and over again
and expecting a different result (ie insanity)?
Nobody questions why gazillions of
dollars aren't spent leveling the playing field of competitive
athletics. Some traits are just inherently genetic. In hypothetical
summation, suppose the same amount of money spent on attaining
educational equality for the American Negro were spent on non-Negro
physical fitness programs in hopes of procuring an equal playing
field in organized athletics, particularly the Olympic 100 meter
dash. Non-Negro charter schools, which would be funded by tax
dollars, equipped with the most advanced training facilities, and
would recruit hopeful non-Negro athletes with the goal of eliminating
racial inequality that persists in the Olympic 100 meter sprint –
thus ultimately placing gold around the neck of a non-Negro sprinter
(particularly considering that those of African decent have
biological advantages that spotlights the legitimacy of inequality):
Per Wikipedia: It is
believed that biological factors may be largely responsible for the
notable success in sprinting events enjoyed by athletes of West
African descent. Chief among these is a preponderance of natural fast
twitch muscle fibers, which aid to obtain higher power, thus
higher acceleration and speed. Scientists have concluded that
elite-level sprinting is virtually impossible in the absence of
the ACTN3 protein, a "speed gene" most common
among persons of West African descent that renders fast twitch muscle
fibers fast. African American 200 meter and 400 meter world
champion Michael Johnson has suggested that the presence of
ACTN3 is at the root of the success of these athletes in sprinting
events. Top sprinters of differing ancestry, such as Christophe
Lemaitre, are believed to be exceptions in that they too likely have
the genes favourable for sprinting.
Now understanding
that certain physical characteristics are biologically recognized
(and advantageous), how does that differentiate innate or
intellectual differences, such as mentioned in books like the Bell
Curve, which statistically examines differences associated with
IQ and race? Liberal supremacists (humanitarians) would clap and
cheer as their favorite Negro sprinter crossed the finish line ahead
of their non-Negro competitor, although the non-Negro was at a
genetic disadvantage. Yet, the same “humanitarian” would scoff
and slander any and all who didn't give the Negro an equal playing
field socially or academically. Equality, you say?
In conclusion, what
is equality? Is it just a buzz word like “racist”? Is it an
excuse for failure? Is it synonymous for hypocrisy? Perhaps
equality is only relevant in mathematics? Actually, the answer is E)
all the above. Equality is a buzz word, which enables failure, that
like hypocrisy always has an agenda -Yet, in reality, is only
relevant in mathematics.
“Equality
may perhaps be a right, but no power on earth can ever turn it into a
fact.” ~ Honore de Balzac
Wednesday, May 28, 2014
Coming to America
Three-quarters of homes in Japan have "smart toilets" (app-packed commodes that come with built in speakers, lids that lift automatically, seats that heat up and some even sync with users' smartphones via Bluetooth).
The Japanese producers plan to introduce and promote the toilets in America this year...
The Japanese producers plan to introduce and promote the toilets in America this year...
Sunday, May 18, 2014
Friday, May 16, 2014
Big Pharm is Big $$$
* Fifteen cancer drugs introduced in the last five years cost more than $10,000 per month
* A cholesterol-lowering treatment for those with certain rare genetic disorders costs $311,000 per year
* A cystic fibrosis medicine costs $300,000 per year (development partially funded by charity)
* In 2012, Americans spent $263 billion on prescription drugs
* Generic drugs now make up 86% of all medicines used in the U.S.
* The $19.3 billion lost to patent expirations in 2012 was offset by a $20 billion increase in prescription drug prices
Source - Bloomberg Businessweek
* A cholesterol-lowering treatment for those with certain rare genetic disorders costs $311,000 per year
* A cystic fibrosis medicine costs $300,000 per year (development partially funded by charity)
* In 2012, Americans spent $263 billion on prescription drugs
* Generic drugs now make up 86% of all medicines used in the U.S.
* The $19.3 billion lost to patent expirations in 2012 was offset by a $20 billion increase in prescription drug prices
Source - Bloomberg Businessweek
Wednesday, May 14, 2014
Thursday, May 8, 2014
Panama:
* Has a 2.7% unemployment rate (2012)
* Has a 10.4% average GDP (2006-2008)
* Has eased residency requirements for immigrants from more than 40 nations (including U.S.)
* Immigrants can start a business by opening a $5,000 local bank account
* 10% white
* 8% speak English as first language (although most speak English)
* 93% of Panamanians are Christian
* Crime is moderate, but becoming less frequent
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama
* Has a 10.4% average GDP (2006-2008)
* Has eased residency requirements for immigrants from more than 40 nations (including U.S.)
* Immigrants can start a business by opening a $5,000 local bank account
* 10% white
* 8% speak English as first language (although most speak English)
* 93% of Panamanians are Christian
* Crime is moderate, but becoming less frequent
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)