UFC 278
Kamaru Usman vs. Leon Edwards
Paulo Costa vs. Luke Rockhold
José Aldo vs. Merab Dvalishvili
Lucie Pudilová vs. Yanan Wu
Tyson Pedro vs. Harry Hunsucker
Marcin Tybura vs. Alexandr Romanov
Jared Gordon vs. Leonardo Santos
Sean Woodson vs. Luis Saldaña
AJ Fletcher vs. Ange Loosa
Amir Albazi vs. F. Figueiredo
Aoriqileng vs. Jay Perrin
Victor Altamirano vs. Daniel da Silva
Picks highlighted and underlined (I don't watch women fights, so didn't pick that one)
You might have some preconceived notions about Mensa. Maybe you think it’s full of super-geniuses and/or hopeless nerds and/or elitists who haven’t earned that status. Perhaps you were put off by the group after listening to comedian Jamie Loftus’s podcast about her year as a Mensa member, in which she delved into the organization’s right-wing undercurrent and the online harassment she faced while writing about it.
“There is no overstating what community can do for someone who, as many members described to me, feel like misfits in their everyday lives and want to belong somewhere,” Loftus said on the podcast, My Year in Mensa. “A society with murky goals whose selling point is superiority is not a healthy place to find it.”
Mensa does have a nasty origin story. It was co-founded by Roland Berrill in England in 1946, an Australian who was a proponent of phrenology (as well as astrology, palmistry, and dianetics). The organization’s other founder, Lancelot Ware, thought intelligence tests were a better way of measuring brain power, and, per the Irish Times, was “influenced by the work of Sir Cyril Burt, who had concluded that intelligence might have a racial basis.”
The leadership of the organization today does not appear to maintain the same racist ideas about intelligence as Berrill and Ware. Mensa International’s website contends, “Mensa is a round-table society where ethnicity, color, creed, national origin, age, politics, educational and social background are all completely irrelevant … Mensa takes no stand on politics, religion or social issues.”
What if the smartest people in the world were predominately white racists? Then "smart" would be deconstructed into an inferior concept. In fact, it already has. Smart people can't be racist, because racists are stupid.
Everyone (including Scientians) knows that "intelligence has a racial basis." It's just explained with excuses and rhetoric.
"MENSA is a round-table society," that doesn't discriminate on the basis of race. So what are the demographics of MENSA? Glad you asked:
American Mensa Ltd. Demographics
64.4% male, 35.4% female (0.2% won't say)
54% between 30-49 years of age, 14% under 29, 0.32% over 80
31.2% in first marriage, 29.82% never married, 13.32% divorced once, 9.53% in second marriage after a divorce
Just over half have no children, 12.4% have one child, 18.66% have 2, 9.95% have 3, 4.37% have 4, 1.29% have 9+
about 30% earn $20-40,000, 10% earn $50-75,000, 9% earn $40-50,000 and about 0.5% earn more than $250,000.
17.93% Master's degree or equivalent, 17.56% four year graduates, one in 11 are Ph.D.s.
41% work in private industry, 13% in government, 13% self employed.
88% European ancestry.
49% Christian, 3% Unitarian, 9% Jewish, 7% agnostic, 3.6% atheist, 9% no religion
14% only children, 19+% older of two, 12.5% younger of two, 11.5% oldest of three, 6.8% middle of three, 5.8% youngest of three, 9.7% oldest of more than three, 10.8% middle of four or more, 4.4% youngest of four or more
Computer-related occupations 10%, 3.75% own their own business, Electrical Engineers are 2.6%, 7.5% are in education, 3% lawyers, 0.11% judges, 0.02% are in astronomy.
Sometimes we (conformists) don't like the truth. But that doesn't make it not true. No matter how hard anti-whites try to eliminate white male superiority, they fail.
Women aren't as smart as men (per Science!), and non-whites aren't as smart as whites (per Science!).
The real question is why that bothers people so much. Why is there a collective surge of anti-whiteness? Nobody makes a big deal about black people holding all the world records in sprinting. It only happens with white men.
I know the reason, and so do you.
People are haters. People hate that white men are superior in most things, so they make being white and superior a bad thing. It's classic jealousy rooted in envy.
| I'll hire more black people so white people will trust me. |
https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/17/health/cdc-announces-sweeping-changes/index.html
Big changes are coming to the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which recently celebrated its 75th anniversary as the nation's lead public health agency.
CDC director Dr. Rochelle Walensky met with senior leadership at the agency this morning to lay out her plans for overhauling how the agency works. She plans to remake the culture to help the agency move faster when it responds to a public health crisis. She also wants to make it easier for other parts of the government to work with the CDC, and wants to simplify and streamline the website to get rid of overlapping and contradictory public health guidance.
Staff will be notified of the change by email. More than 12,000 people work at the agency, which is headquartered in Atlanta.
The changes will be aimed at improving the culture and restoring public trust after the agency's acknowledged missteps in its response to the Covid-19 pandemic.
Walensky will bring in former HHS Deputy Secretary Mary Wakefield to the CDC to oversee the reorganization.
Key organizational changes announced today include:
• The Division Laboratory Sciences and the Office of Science will now report directly to the CDC director, a move aimed at improving accountability of the delivery of timely information
• A new office of intergovernmental affairs—a hub where states health departments and other federal agencies with interact with CDC
• A new executive council—reporting to the Director—will determine agency priorities, track progress, and align budget decisions, with a focus on public health impact
• A new equity office, which will increase diversity both in CDC's workforce and add that lens to its public health activities
Additional actions announced today include:
• The CDC is going to create a new online mechanism for the pre-publication delivery of science
I'm just going to go out on a limb and say that hiring more black people isn't going to restore trust in the CDC. But, who knows, maybe I'm just racist and when Americans see that a Jewish woman is hiring more black people to deliver "science" they will be like, "OK, cool. I trust the CDC now."
Typically in these types of situations -where people are held accountable for mistakes- it's a top down kinda thing. So changes would be made at the top. I'm just not quite sure how decreasing the number of white men who work for the CDC is going to change anything within the public's eye. Like, how would they even know?
The lack of trust is based on the information and the messenger, not on the demographics of interns and secretaries in Atlanta.
I'd be willing to bet that the demographics of the CDC employees in Atlanta are at minimum representative of population demographics.
Interestingly enough, the CDC's YouTube channel has an I am CDC tab, in which employees introduce themselves, and give a brief job description. Scroll down the list and count how many white men you see. Is their goal to have zero white men?
Here is the showcase video from the CDC's website.
What it seems like to me, is that Walensky is scapegoating white men for American's lack of trust in the CDC. In other words, she is blaming her mistakes on too many white men working for the CDC. So she is going to attempt to regain that trust by decreasing the percentage of white men employed at the CDC, and "add that to the public lens."
Maybe it will work. Time will tell. But it's hard to think anyone with any common sense would ever trust an organization that lied so many times, even if you support anti-white racism.
And they're still doing it with the new monkeypox thing. Putting political correctness ahead of the facts.
I'll tell you what won't happen though: you won't see any media pundits accusing Walensky of being anti-white for scapegoating white men for the lack of trust in the CDC. Why is that?
We thank you, O God!
We give thanks because you are near.
People everywhere tell of your mighty miracles.
God says, "At the time I have planned,
I will bring justice against the wicked.
When the earth quakes and its people live in turmoil,
I am the one who keeps its foundations firm.
I warned the proud, 'Stop your boasting!'
I told the wicked, 'Don't raise your fists!
Don't lift your fists in defiance at the heavens
or speak with rebellious arrogance.'"
For no one on earth - from east or west,
or even from the wilderness -
can raise another person up.
It is God alone who judges;
he decides who will rise and who will fall.
For the LORD holds a cup in his hand;
it is full of foaming wine mixed with spices.
He pours the wine out in judgement,
and all the wicked must drink it,
draining it to the dregs.
But as for me, I will always proclaim what God has done;
I will sing praises to the God of Jacob.
For God says, "I will cut off the strength of the wicked,
but I will increase the power of the godly."
https://www.yahoo.com/news/scientific-reason-why-americans-dont-145431580.html
Some Americans are rooting against Brittney Griner's return home to the United States.
The WNBA superstar was arrested in February after customs agents at Moscow's Sheremetyevo Airport said they found vape cartridges containing hashish oil in her luggage. She was found guilty of drug smuggling in early August and sentenced to nine years in a Russian prison.
Given the timing of her detainment, the nature of her alleged offense, and the reputation of Russian courts, Griner is widely considered to be a political pawn that Moscow is using as leverage against the United States. As such, the State Department classified Griner as wrongfully detained in May.
Even despite the "strong signal that the US government does not believe that there is a legitimate case against her," as an expert previously told Insider, many of the two-time Olympic gold medalist's compatriots are opposed to the Biden administration's efforts to secure her freedom through negotiating a prisoner exchange with the Kremlin.
And there could be a scientific explanation to why they've sided with a foreign adversary instead of supporting their fellow American.
Dani Gilbert, an expert on hostage taking and recovery and a Rosenwald Fellow in US Foreign Policy and International Security at Dartmouth College's John Sloan Dickey Center for International Understanding, told Insider that her research suggests that "how someone came to be in need of assistance affects whether or not the public thinks that person should receive it."
This phenomenon, she said, is called the "deservingness heuristic."
Gilbert further explained that personal characteristics could have an effect on the way the public regards Griner's situation: Though "gender tends to be less influential in how the American public and how the media care about, sympathize with, pay attention to Americans who are held hostage abroad" than some other factors, "race is a huge deal here."
This concept is aptly called "the missing white woman syndrome," Gilbert said.
"A white girl or a white woman who is taken captive or arrested or something like that elicits tons of sympathy from the American public in a way that women and girls of color do not," she explained. Gilbert believed that the fact that Griner is Black "could be a huge part of the lack of attention to her case."
"And then there are other demographic characteristics, including the fact that she is openly gay, that she is gender nonconforming, not traditionally feminine — all of these work against public sympathy for someone in her position," Gilbert added.
Science! really is something, isn't it?
And Scientians wonder why so many people don't believe in their dogma.
While the above "scientific explanation" is just typical anti-white rhetoric, lets analyze it rationally.
This idea that Russians "said" they found drugs is absolutely silly. It was on video. From what I know, she didn't even deny it, she just claimed that she had a medical card. Most people understand that if you try to smuggle illegal contraband into a foreign country, that there are consequences. There are people of all nationalities all over the world who are sitting in jails for the same reason. Why aren't they "wrongfully detained"?
Griner has been openly racist (anti-white) and publicly expressed anti-American sentiments. Most normal Americans don't like racists and people who hate America. That's pretty self-explanatory. Scientians call that "deservingness heuristic," normal people call it "common sense."
And, of course, the Scientians can't have a theory without somehow expressing their anti-white hatred. So, when a black person gets caught doing something, it's not because they don't have any agency. It's because white people used black people to pick cotton in the 1700s. But if they want to play the, "ohhhh, if it was a white person who got caught smuggling drugs she would already be home" card, consider this: how many Americans that have been convicted of smuggling drugs into foreign countries are white? Furthermore, what if Griner was a white supremacist? Would anyone want to bring her home, or would she be considered "wrongfully detained?" What if she was a diehard MAGA supporter? Would we even be having this conversation?
The fact of the matter is that she broke the law and got caught. It takes a pretty dumb person to smuggle drugs into a foreign country. Most people recognize that and just don't have much sympathy for it. Not too mention that one of the primary tenets of Scientians is #gayblackprivilege, which normal Americans don't believe in.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/rejecting-christian-nationalism-jesus-083840366.html
In 1915, the Ku Klux Klan found revival at Stone Mountain in Georgia in a ceremony that included a U.S. flag and a Holy Bible placed on an altar before a burning cross.
More than a century later, today’s generation of white supremacists are following in their political ancestors’ footsteps, explicitly and proudly embracing the label of “Christian nationalist.” Some are even going so far as to sell merch, with Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Georgia) hawking “exclusive” shirts emblazoned with “Proud Christian Nationalist.”
Even before she began advertising the shirts on Instagram with the call to stand against the “Godless Left,” Greene told an interviewer that the Republican Party needs “ to be the party of nationalism and I’m a Christian, and I say it proudly, we should be Christian nationalists.”
It’s not the first time she has embraced the label. And it’s a dangerous turn of events that requires active, loud opposition from all of us, especially from American Christians, for whom Greene and her allies claim to speak.
As a pastor, if there’s one thing I understand, it’s that Christian nationalism is unchristian and unpatriotic. Academic researchers define the authoritarian ideology as a political worldview—not a religion—that unconstitutionally and unbiblically merges Christian and American identities, declaring that democracy does not matter because America is a “Christian nation” where only conservative Christians count as true Americans.
If there’s any doubt that this is the heart of Christian nationalism, consider these two examples. First, last fall former Trump aide Michael Flynn stood in a Texas megachurch known for its antisemitic pastor and told a crowd chanting “Let’s Go Brandon” that America should have only “one religion.” Then only last month, America First Legal—whose board includes top Trump allies Stephen Miller and Mark Meadows—issued a statement asking the Supreme Court to let the 50 states create official state churches and “establish religion within their borders,” claiming that the First Amendment only applies to the federal government.
The clear goal of Christian nationalism is to seize power only for its mostly white evangelical and conservative Catholic followers, no matter who else gets hurt or how many elections have to be overturned. This is the unholy force that incited the failed coup of Jan. 6, 2021, brought us the recent spate of theocratic Supreme Court opinions, and has inspired multiple wave upon wave of dangerous misinformation about elections, climate change, and COVID-19—all in direct contrast to Jesus’ teachings of love, truth, and the common good.
Whether they speak from the halls of power or the front of a sanctuary, Rep. Greene and her ilk know exactly what they are doing when they so proudly embrace the label of Christian nationalist. Each explicit declaration of Christian nationalism is a blatant attempt to pull the wool over people’s eyes and make the anti-democracy extremist ideology seem safe and more palatable, distracting us from the right’s project of seizing power to remake America into a theocracy in their image—a nation where the LGBTQ community, people of color, and non-Christians all lose rights while evangelicals and conservative Catholics are put permanently in charge.
Keep in mind that this is a Christian pastor that is writing this. He would much rather see a country ran by the "Godless Left" than one by white Christians. Is that weird to you?
This "pastor" is more worried about the "rights" of gays, atheists and blacks than he is about white Christians. How does that make any sense?
What about the "rights" of white Christians? Why don't they matter?
A Christian pastor rejecting the concept of a Christian nation would be like homosexuals taking flamboyant pride in their voluntary elimination of the gene pool.
Yahoo is essentially an anti-white tabloid, so the fact that they are running this pastor's critiques of Christian Nationalism (2nd article they have posted of his in the last week) shouldn't be surprising. But the language he uses in his critiques made me suspect that he wasn't the average Christian pastor. I assumed he was homosexual, or perhaps Jewish. Thus, I decided to look him up:
The Rev. Nathan Empsall is a justice-focused Christian organizer, the executive director of Faithful America, the founding editor of Episcopal Climate News, a priest associate at an Episcopal parish in New Haven, CT, and a member of the Episcopal Church’s Task Force on Care of Creation and Environmental Racism.
Rev. Nathan’s motto is “God loves you. Accept it, and spread it!” For Rev. Nathan, “spreading love” means focusing his ministry on social, environmental, economic, and racial justice. We love the victims of oppression and discrimination as Jesus loves them by doing everything we can to lift up and echo their voices, end that oppression and discrimination, and create space for healing. As the Mother of Christ sang, God “has brought down the powerful from their thrones, and lifted up the lowly; he has filled the hungry with good things, and sent the rich away empty.”
Rev. Nathan affirms the equality and God-given dignity of all LGBTQ persons, and believes that no one can truthfully say all lives matter until we have achieved a society where Black lives matter.
Apparently, the pastor loves everyone.... except white Christians who advocate for a Christian society. Or those who reject climate change, diversity, homosexuality, BLM, feminism, abortion and/or the godless left.
It doesn't surprise me that he is Episcopalian. I attended an Episcopal church once. The pastor was reading scripture from the new testament. He was reading the very words of Jesus. In those words Jesus was critical of Jews, so the pastor censored that part.
It's not up to me judge people's souls. But I find it hard to believe that Jesus would leave us his word and want it censored by those who claim to represent him. The term used to describe that is blasphemy.
Nathan Empsall isn't just an anti-white hypocrite; he's a blasphemer, too.
Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
Professor Camilo Mora feels the impacts of climate change in his knees.
During a 2014 visit to his native Colombia, heavy rains caused the worst flooding his hometown had seen in decades and boosted the mosquito population. A mosquito bit Mora, transferring the chikungunya virus and making him a patient during an unprecedented outbreak in the region.
His joints ache still today. He blames a warming world.
In a study published Monday, Mora and his colleagues at the University of Hawaii canvassed tens of thousands of studies to analyze the global impacts of climate change on infectious diseases that affect humans. They determined that nearly 220 infectious diseases — 58% of the total studied — had become bigger threats because of climate hazards.
“Systems have been evolving for millions of years and now humans have come along and changed things,” Mora said. “We are punching nature, but nature is punching us back.”
“It’s only in the recent past of infectious disease research that we really focus in on climate change as a driver of infectious disease,” said Jessica Leibler, an environmental epidemiologist at the Boston University School of Public Health who wasn't involved in the research.
Fifty-eight percent “seems like a really high number,” she said, “but it reflects the reality that infectious diseases are driven by what’s going on in our environment.”
The research is not without limitations. Scientists often have a hard time quantifying how much climate change is contributing to disease outbreaks, since it’s an indirect process.
Climate hazards also diminished some impacts of infectious disease. For 16% of diseases, these hazards reduced the ailments’ impact or produced mixed results.
Planetary Saviorism is a by-product of white supremacy.
After white people went into Africa and gave Africans injections and clean water to drink, the natural progression was saving the planet.
White supremacy in action just means making everyone act white. So while Africans were evolved to live in the jungles and act like primitive people, white supremacists wanted to bypass evolution and teach black people how to be white. So they inject them with serums, give them shoes and teach them how to drink water that animals don't shit in.
The odd thing about white supremacy is that white supremacists always denounce racism and/or white supremacy. They think teaching black people how to be white is actually saving them from being black. I know it sounds weird, but they're incapable of objective reasoning, so they do weird stuff. Like getting sick from a mosquito bite and blaming black people for throwing garbage into the ocean. Btw, there wouldn't be any plastic in the ocean if it weren't for white supremacy, either.
So now that all of the black people have been saved, the next evolution of white supremacy is planetary saviorism (i.e., saving the planet). So they manufacture a crisis (like they did with skinny black people in Africa), and declare themselves the saviors of world.
They theorize that humanity is making the temperature hotter. Even though the weather has fluctuated since the beginning of time. They assume this fluctuation is from various forms of pollution. They make weird claims that nobody believes. Ultimately they are depopulationists.
The odd thing about it is that the only people concerned with the climate are white people (specifically, single white women). Yet, white people only make up about 10% of the earth's population. So if you were to calculate the effect on the climate demographically, you would find that white people have the least impact on the climate per capita. In other words, the innovations of white people that have been implemented in the black and brown world are much more problematic in terms of pollution than they are in white countries.
So the strategy of the planetary saviorists is to tell a small group of people who produce a very small percentage of pollution to eat bugs and walk everywhere, while ignoring the 90% that produce the majority of pollution, because that would be racist.
If planetary saviorists were successful in their manufactured crises, that would mean that 10% of the population quits producing pollution. Even though there isn't any way to prove that pollution is actually increasing the temperature of the earth.
See how silly this is?
If planetary saviorists were serious about their mission they would quit forcing white supremacy (democracy, capitalism, Science!, plastic, consumerism, etc) down the throats of non-white people. That would eliminate about 80% of the world's pollution.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/love-them-god-says-why-144354328.html
Recently I wrote a column about what it might look like if those who profess their Christian faith spent less time harrumphing about it and more time attempting to imitate the Jesus they claim to follow.
Having spent the past 40-plus years preaching and writing about the good news as it’s put forth in the New Testament — our faith’s foundational text — I’ve concluded Christianity’s overriding message is: “Love them all.”
Jesus said God’s commandments were: love God with all your heart, and love other people as much as yourself. That’s it.
He, St. Paul and the other New Testament writers repeatedly reinforced this principle.
St. Paul: Even if I’m a prophet who knows all mysteries, even if I can move mountains with my faith, but I’m not consumed by love, then I’m just a noisy, clanging gong.
St. John: The one who doesn’t walk in love doesn’t know God, because God is love.
If you read the New Testament, you can’t miss this principle, unless you’re trying to miss it.
Which raises obvious questions: Why do Christians so routinely miss it? Why do we—and by “we,” I mean nearly all of us—fail to obey the gospel’s very foundation?
That answer is simple: we are all sinners!
The author of this post surmises that, "oh, if you were really a Christian why wouldn't you act like one? God is clear on his message, and it's such an easy thing to do."
Well... if it were so easy, then God wouldn't have made it his principle message, now would he?
The implication of Christianity isn't the equivalent of selling ice to Eskimos in the arctic.
Why has there only been one perfect person in the history of humanity? Have you ever noticed that nobody even claims to be perfect? Even the most devout atheist doesn't claim perfection.
The fall of man (when Eve was seduced by Satan in the garden of Eden) is responsible for our sinful nature. In fact, our sinful nature is the essence of the human condition. It literally is what we are.
The answer to why Christians can't just love everyone as they are commanded by God is so simple it's silly: we are sinners. Christians recognize their sinful nature, and feel shame for it. But this is why God sent his only Son into the world: To die on the cross for the shame of your sins.
Christians desire to be better. To do better. They feel bad about their nature. They seek forgiveness. But, they know they will always succumb to what they are: sinners.
The question shouldn't be, "Why are Christians sinners?" The question should be, "Why aren't sinners Christians?" Those who don't feel shame for their sinful nature is much more intriguing than why Christians are sinners.
To be Christian is to have shame for what you are. To acknowledge your nature. To try to be better. We will all fall short in the eyes of God. But he knows our hearts.
Luke 16:15 Then he said to them, "You like to look good in public, but God knows your evil hearts.
Today, American citizen Brittney Griner received a prison sentence that is one more reminder of what the world already knew: Russia is wrongfully detaining Brittney. It’s unacceptable, and I call on Russia to release her immediately so she can be with her wife, loved ones, friends, and teammates. My administration will continue to work tirelessly and pursue every possible avenue to bring Brittney and Paul Whelan home safely as soon as possible.
This is the leader of the free world (or someone that represents him) saying that someone who entered a country with illegal drugs is being "wrongfully detained."
I mean, there have been a lot (and I mean A LOT) of idiotic comments made by the current administration, but this is just beyond the pale of absurdity. Basically this just opens the door to say that every prisoner in the world is being "wrongfully detained."
The level of hypocrisy is stunning.
How many Americans are being "wrongfully detained" in the USA for getting caught with illegal drugs?
How many foreigners are being "wrongfully detained" in American prisons for entering the USA with illegal drugs?
Have any leaders of foreign countries ever publicly accused America of "wrongfully detaining" someone caught breaking an American law?
Furthermore, anyone entering a foreign country knows that if you try to smuggle drugs into the country that you're taking a huge risk. How many people all over the world are sitting in prisons for entering a country with illegals drugs? I bet that number is easily in the thousands, if not tens-of-thousands. Are they being "wrongfully detained," or is this just anti-Russian propaganda?
People who fall for this type of rhetoric are really low IQ morons. Imagine being someone who is like, "Yea, that tall gay black sportsball player who got caught on camera trying to smuggle pot into Russia is being 'wrongfully detained,' because even though she was caught red-headed breaking Russian law, Russia is 'wrongfully detaining' her because she is gay and black."
I would speculate there are several thousand Russians in American prisons. I would also speculate there are several Americans in Russian prisons. Why do we only hear about the gay, black ballplayer? Is it because she is too stupid to know that it's illegal to smuggle drugs into other countries? Or is because she has #gayblackprivilege and gay-black people are above the law?
That's probably what is meant by "wrongfully detained." She is gay and black and in America that gives you a free pass to do anything you want without repercussion. So she didn't realize that when she went to Russia with illegal drugs that should couldn't just say, "ey yo, I'm gay and black. You can't arrest me or I'll accuse you of homophobic racism, and then we loot!"
To add more to the irony, Griner also hates America, which is the only place that recognizes her #gayblackprivilege.
Sometimes truth is stranger than fiction
https://www.kansascity.com/opinion/editorials/article264116816.html
The nation now knows, and the world: Kansas remains a free state.
In a stunning display of common sense, Kansas voters Tuesday overwhelmingly rejected a constitutional amendment that would have put abortion policy completely in the hands of the Legislature, and the governor.
It was a victory on several fronts. First, and most important, it was a victory for women. Kansans said in a loud, unmistakable voice that women can and should be trusted with the most intimate questions of their own health and safety.
It was also a victory for voters, who defied predictions of a low turnout and cast ballots in churches, gyms, city halls and community centers. Many voted early. Voters were able to dissect puzzling ballot language, purposely designed to confuse and intimidate.
They rejected false nonsense from anti-abortion groups, including several ludicrous attempts to link the vote to so-called critical race theory, or defunding police. A last-minute text message, apparently authorized by a group run by former U.S. Rep. Tim Huelskamp, was quickly disregarded as a bald-faced lie.
There are two trains of thought regarding abortion:
1. Why bring unwanted children into the world?
2. Legalizing murder
The "my body, my choice" is just silly propaganda that dingbat women latch onto as if it actually means something.
I've written about the social implications of of abortion (from a cause and effect POV), which is that pure feminism can't exist without the complete sexual liberation of women.
The idea that women who can't make the right choices about their sexual behavior should be able to make the right choice about the existence of their children is preposterous. They can't seem to make the correct choice to refrain from having unprotected sex for just 3 days out of the month, but they can be expected to make the right choice when it comes to ending the life of their unborn child. Makes sense, right?
While I personally agree that women like this probably shouldn't be reproducing in the first place, they shouldn't just get free passes to kill their sex trophies. Murder should come with some form of consequence. Most notably, sterilization. If a woman wants to kill her child, she shouldn't be able to have children. How does that not make sense? She obviously wants to have sex, but doesn't want to partake in the responsibility that comes with sex.
Most people forget the purpose of sex. It's like sex has become a sport or something. Sex exists for one reason: reproduction. Why do women who don't want children have the desires to have sex?
Before you say, "yea, but what about men?" let me remind you that men aren't the ones having abortions. And if they are complicit in an abortion, they should be sterilized, too.
Child murder (aka abortion) should be signed off by BOTH parents. A woman shouldn't be able to kill a man's child without his permission. Can we at least agree on that? And if the father consents to the death of his child, then he should be sterilized, too.
You need to take better care of your heart. No, we’re not judging—it’s just a statistical reality. A new study published Monday in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology found that rates of cardiovascular disease in the U.S. over the next four decades are on track to spike like your blood pressure after a triple cheeseburger.
The new projections are based on data from the 2020 U.S. Census Bureau combined with heart disease and risk factors data from the U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Among the general population in the U.S., cardiovascular risk factors such as diabetes, hypertension, and obesity are expected to increase dramatically between 2025 and 2060.
Roughly 55 million more Americans are projected to suffer from diabetes and 126 million more Americans are expected to be obsese by 2060. The researchers also predict that rates of stroke and heart failure will rise by more than 33 percent each—impacting a combined 28 million Americans.
What’s worse is that this rise is expected to disproportionately impact all minority groups—with Black and Hispanic populations bearing the biggest brunt of these increases in cardiovascular risks while rates decrease overall for white people. For example, the study found the number of Black adults suffering from diabetes will jump from 13 percent currently to 20 percent by 2060; and nearly 60 percent will have hypertension, a jump from 55 percent now.
This is especially damning considering the fact that advances in medicine should prevent such increases. But according to the study’s authors, the issue is systemic: Minority groups are frequently overlooked and neglected when it comes to health policy. Factors such as food deserts, lack of medical access, and income inequality in Black and Brown communities all contribute to a widening disparity in public health. This is further backed by past research that found that chronic lack of access to healthy food results in higher rates of diabetes, obesity, and cardiovascular illness. The researchers say that the findings outline clear disparities in the U.S. healthcare system and are a call to action to fix them.
“Our analysis projects that the prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors and diseases will continue to rise with worrisome trends,” James L. Januzzi Jr. a cardiologist at Massachusetts General Hospital and co-author of the study, said in a press release. “These striking projections will disproportionately affect racial and ethnic minority populations in the U.S. Understanding these results will hopefully inform future public health policy efforts and allow us to implement prevention and treatment measures in an equitable manner.”
Do you ever read between the lines on this stuff?
"What's worse" is that it's black and brown people that are getting sick, and not white people. WTF?!
So who is suppose to teach black and brown people that eating fast food 3 times a day causes obesity? Is that the "equitable" duty of white people? Should white people take black and brown people by the hand and show them how to eat, and punish them when they don't eat as they've been told? I feel like punishing a black or brown person for eating fried chicken or chimichangas would be racist. Don't you?
If white people have to teach black and brown people how to manage their behavior, how is that not white supremacy in action? Seriously. Who is suppose to teach black and brown people how to eat and exercise?
It's as if the doctors are implying that black and brown people are children and need to be coddled by the same system of people that oppresses them. Like part of being black and brown is not having any agency.
If I was black or brown I would be so offended by the stuff that these white supremacists assert. I would say, "Hey! Hold up there, buddy. Maybe I want to eat fried chicken and sit on the couch and watch sportsball. That doesn't mean I'm too stupid to know that one day it might make me unhealthy. I don't need white folks telling me how to eat. Keep your racism to yourself."
The entire concept of "racism" as a social pariah is dumb for several reasons. When black and brown people act like black and brown people, then the system of white superiority is to blame. That's rather obvious, on merit. It's one thing to expect white people to act like white people, but when society expects black and brown people to act like white people, there's going to be an obvious problem.
When we hear the terms "systemic racism" and "racial equity," what that means is that black and brown people aren't acting like white people, therefore the collective system of white people needs to try harder to make black and brown people more white.
If I were to summarize this "study" in a non-PC manner, it would read: Evidence from recent study shows that black and brown people aren't white.
It took them about 50 years to figure out that equality is bullshit, but at least they figured it out. But if you noticed how they did it, even that is racist. They replaced the slogan of "equality" with "equity" with the idea that black and brown people wouldn't know the difference between the two.
I wonder if "they" were white people.
Sad.
A faith-based organization has amassed more than 12,000 signatures rejecting Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene's embrace of Christian nationalism, calling the idea "unchristian and unpatriotic."
Faithful America, an online Christian community that works towards promoting progressive ideas and social justice, launched an online petition on Thursday condemning Greene's perspective of faith and politics.
"Christian nationalism is unchristian and unpatriotic," the petition, which had reached 12,00 signatures as of Sunday, says. "It is defined not as a religion but as a political ideology that unconstitutionally and unbiblically merges Christian and American identities, declaring that democracy does not matter because only conservative Christians are true Americans."
Last week, Greene advocated for the Republican party to be one of Christian nationalism.
"We need to be the party of nationalism and I'm a Christian, and I say it proudly, we should be Christian nationalists," Greene said in a recent interview.
Christian nationalism is defined as "the belief that the American nation is defined by Christianity, and that the government should take active steps to keep it that way," according to Christianity Today.
Isn't it ironic how Faithful America's "progressive ideas and social justice" are Christian and patriotic, yet Christian nationalism is the opposite?
Imagine being a Christian and being anti-Christian at the same time. Does that remind you of any other oxymoron? How about being white and anti-white at the same time?
The argument of those who espouse oxymoronic views are always low-hanging fruit. So the Christians who are anti-Christian would say, "How can I be anti-Christian when I'm a Christian?" The same way that a white anti-white would say, "I'm white, how can I be anti-white?"
Everyone reading this has seen a white anti-white. They're as common as vultures at roadkill.
The assumption that someone can't be the antithesis of what they are is silly. Being something doesn't automatically equivocate into a positive representation of that something.
Traitors have always existed throughout history. Traitors don't typically view themselves as traitors. They think they are doing something good, or they're just traitors without any sense of loyalty to what it is that they are betraying.
The religion of liberal Christians isn't Christianity; it's liberalism. Liberalism is the god of the godless. Or, egalitarianism without God.
The church was always designed to act as a buffer against the state. To hold the line, if you will. The modern church (e.g., Faithful America) is a direct manifestation of the state. They are the state. They are fully supportive of every liberal idea that has been inserted into the sphere of culture in the last 50 years.
Liberal Christians support: homosexuality, divorce, diversity, transgenderism, open borders, feminism, usury, Judeo-Christianity (another oxymoron), etc, etc.
The Bible isn't a breathing document. In other words, it doesn't evolve. It's stagnant, and it's stagnant for a reason.
We are all sinners. But God sent his only son to die on the cross for our sins. God lays the blueprint in the Word that he left us. He will forgive those who seek forgiveness.
If you're a Christian, then be a Christian. If you're a secular liberal, then be a secular liberal. But you can't be both.
Repent!
Psalm 65:3 Though our hearts are filled with sins, you forgive them all.
