text:
Posts Tagged 'fatherhood'
Roseanne Barr Entirely Correct In Her Thesis Against Liberalism: 'I'm still the same. You all moved! You all went so f–king far out…'
So Roseanne Barr is back, and appeared on Jimmy Kimmel to promote the return of her show after 20 years off the air. That first episode was watched by more than 18 million people, simply giant ratings numbers. Frankly, if the mainstream media networks had any honesty or integrity or virtue whatsoever, they would be promoting programs like this. Instead, they in Stalinist style destroy such programs, the way they did when they killed Tim Allen's Last Man Standing in spite of the fact that the show was a solid performer with superior ratings over programs the network kept – including leftist political programs such as "Black-ish."
Anyway, when Barr appeared on leftist-whackjobber Jimmy Kimmel's show, this exchange took place:
"I am shocked because I know you are a socially liberal person in general," Kimmel said.
"I'm still the same! You all moved," she said.
"We did?" Kimmel asked.
"You all went so fucking far out you lost everybody," Barr said.
"You're probably right, by the way," Kimmel reacted.
"Seriously, a lot of your audience, and including me — I just want to say this, a lot of this, no matter who we voted for we don't want to see our president fail, you know?" she said to tepid applause.
"You want Pence for the freakin' president?" she asked Kimmel
"Well then zip that fucking lip," she told him.
That is exactly right, and it is what is most disastrously and dangerously wrong with liberalism and with the Democratic Party that is now owned lock, stock and barrel by the most radical ideologues. Stop and think about Roseanne Barr's last obviously true point: if you get rid of Trump, do you know who you'll be calling "Mister President"???? The arch-conservative Mike Pence, that's who. But the left is so animalistic, if not bug-like, in it's roach-hate that it is incapable of any manner of introspection whatsoever, and so, in wild, rabid contradiction to their own interests, they are trying to do everything imaginable to impeach and boot the non-ideological Donald Trump as president and thereby install Mike Pence who would not only be able to carry Trump voters, but get the mainstream conservatives behind him as well and guarantee a Republican victory in 2020. Or, in other words, no thinking liberal would want Mike Pence as president; but the only problem is that there is no such THING as a "thinking liberal." Such creatures went extinct quite a while ago, as I can continue to prove and document.
Hey, for instance, remember just a couple presidents back, when Bill Clinton's central message that won him the White House was "It's the economy stupid"? Remember that??? I mean, jobless claims have fallen to the lowest level since January 27, 1973. African-American unemployment under Trump has hit the lowest rate in American history. Consumer confidence under Trump is at a 17-year high, meaning that Barack Obama never saw such great numbers. It gets even worse for Obama, because consumer confidence throughout Obama's entire presidency was NEGATIVE: Americans' confidence in the economy soared 16 points during Trump's first year in office, reaching positive territory for the first time since Gallup began tracking it in 2008. We can go on and on with positive economic numbers. Keep in mind, the left predicted ECONOMIC DOOM when Trump was elected; the very fact that Obama is whining to receive credit for Trump's astonishing success is itself fantastic proof that Trump has been an awesome force for the US economy. But Democrats not only rabidly and dishonestly refuse to give Trump credit, they don't even give a flying damn about the awesome economy. As Roseanne Barr points out; they want Trump to fail and they literally want America under Trump's presidency to fail.
Here's another example, just from the last couple days:
Forget MAGA: Trump Made America's Oldest Gun Company Go Bankrupt
By John Bonazzo • 03/26/18 12:11pm
MAGA may actually mean Making America Gun-Free Again.
Remington was once among the nation's largest gun and ammunition makers – it was founded in 1816, when there were only 19 U.S. states. But due to sliding sales and mounting debt, the company announced over the weekend that it was filing for bankruptcy. […]
One of the main reasons for the sales downturn was ironically the election of President Donald Trump. During his campaign, Trump claimed that "Hillary Clinton wants to take your guns away and she wants to abolish the Second Amendment."
As such, gun enthusiasts began stockpiling rifles in fear of a Clinton victory. But after Trump won, sales cooled—consumers likely thought a president who was endorsed by the National Rifle Association wouldn't infringe on their rights.
So Remington, expecting a Hillary win because that's what everybody from the damn fake news mainstream media assured us was going to happen, gambled huge on a Clinton gun-grabber win and massively ramped up production so panicked citizens could buy guns while America was still America and we still had a viable Constitution and people still had rights in this country. But instead Donald Trump – contrary to all the egghead liberals who were wrong and have been wrong every damn since – won. And comforted people relaxed and didn't buy all the guns Remington expected them to buy. And now they had all this inventory on hand that they suddenly couldn't sell. Because it turns out that most Americans don't necessarily want to have a gun; they just want to be able to buy one if they believe they need it. And that the last thing they want is a fascist gun-grabber who does what ALL fascist totalitarians have done throughout history and strips the people of their right to defend themselves from tyranny so of course tyranny can reign supreme.
It is simply a fact that no rational intellect can dispute: Barack Hussein Obama did more for gun sales than any American president in the entire history of the republic.
Let's consider something called "reality":
President Barack Obama has glibly been awarded the title of the World's Greatest Guns Salesman during his seven years in office, and it appears that his eighth and final year will be his most successful ever.
According to the FBI, the NICS background check system, which serves as a proxy for gun sales, reported 1,870,000 background checks in the month of May, the highest in recorded history and enough to re-equip the entire United States military. That is 290,000 more background checks than last May, 440,000 more than May of 2014, and 850,000 less than Obama's first May in office in 2009.
Americans Have Bought Over 100 Million Guns During Obama's Presidency (as of December 9, 2015). Obama grew the gun industry by more than 158% as of April 2016. In other words, if there existed a liberal or a Democrat who was not pathologically insane, no one who actually wanted fewer guns in America would have voted for Obama.
Again, the problem is that there is no such thing as a liberal or Democrat who is not pathologically insane. They all went extinct, killed off by their own rabid, hysterical batpoop craziness.
Liberals went too far. WAY too far. And because they rabidly abandoned the Imago Dei, the image of God, they became mindless roaches and mindlessly created the exact opposite state of affairs that they would have wanted if they just had functioning humanity within them.
What's truly hilarious is that, even as Obama tried to erode and destroy the American people's right to keep and bear arms, this fascist rat-bastard hypocrite roach was brokering more arms deals than ANY president since World War II. Because this fascist fool was FINE with Muslims having weapons; just not Americans. The fact of the matter is that Obama was such a wicked arms dealer that his arms sales actually MORE THAN DOUBLED the hated George W. Bush's.
Which is to say that there is going to be a very special place at the very bottom of hell for Barack Obama. This piece of filth was truly a monster – especially by the left's own rhetoric.
And the left would truly despise this hypocrite fascist: IF there existed such a thing as a liberal capable of moral consistency, that is. But the last liberal capable of moral consistency faded away into extinction long ago and it is highly unlikely that the magic force of unicorn fairy-dust evolution will be able to produce another such creature ever again.
Liberal, Democrat-appointed Supreme Court Justice (retired) John Paul Stevens just publicly came out demanding a repeal of the 2nd Amendment and I demand a litmus test for any candidate for president swear that they will never appoint such a Justice. But as I'm going to show you below, to be a Democrat is to be a lying swindling hypocrite who plays word-games with reality and with the truth and who cannot be trusted in anything whatsoever. So these lying weasels will smugly declared, "Oh, I'm not in favor of doing the thing that I actually am totally in favor of doing." They'll play the imbecilic game that the 2nd Amendment was written at a time when all we had were muskets, and so all we're allowed is muskets. Okay, fine, you hypocrite Luddite frauds, we're also not allowed telephones or televisions or automobiles or computers or phones or damn near anything else we didn't have back in 1787. And to make it even crazier, the Constitution doesn't guarantee the right to ANY of the things but it DOES guarantee "the right of the people to keep and bear arms."
I must point out a previous article I wrote and it's title:
The Legacy Of Barack Obama And The Democrat Party Can Be Summed Up In Four Words: 'President Donald John Trump'
And way, way back in May of 2012 I predicted that there would be a giant backlash due to Barack Obama's rabidly fascist policies that no liberal saw as anything other than mainstream and wonderful because they are such deluded, pathologically fascist narcissists:
Obama's strategy is to set aside and flatly ignore the law for his own political benefit. Every American who is not deeply troubled by that – troubled enough to not vote for this fascist – is UN-American.
What Obama has done is provide an example of out-and-out lawlessness on the part of the president of the United States. And when we get a hard-core right wing president the way Obama has been a hard-core left wing president, Obama and the Democrat Party and all of those who voted for Obama and the Democrat Party will be entirely to blame for that president and his extremist actions. You mark my words. Because what goes around comes around, and if a Democrat can set aside the law the way Obama has now repeatedly done, well, guess who's going to be stomping on your necks under your own president's prior justification??? Conservatives are rising up in a spirit of righteous outrage. You have repeatedly slapped us in the face through your messiah Obama, and the time is coming when we're going to punch you hard in the nose and then keep on punching. And when that day comes, liberals, look to yourselves for blame. — My words on June 18, 2012
Obama gave us Trump. Now the left wants to take Trump back and give us Pence instead. So they can go even more rabid with frothing hate while demonically and hypocritically calling themselves the party of "tolerance." What the hell kind of "tolerance" do these whackjob hypocrites have???? We can literally win a national election and STILL be dismissed in terms of the most stupid, most deluded, most absurd strawman in the leftist arsenal. If my point of view isn't valid after a national election victory, then please explain to me why I ought to even remotely consider ANY point of view that you clowns offer.
I suppose I simply could have said what Roseanne Barr said to Jimmy Kimmel: the left went too damn far. So damn far it was beyond UNREAL.
It is an amazing thing to view the sheer number of policies that the left now screams are the most evil things in existence that they themselves were declaring just a few years ago: whether it was on abortion, or on illegal immigration, or on homosexuality and marriage.
Consider that in 2008 BOTH political parties agreed on a moral fact of human existence:
Barack Obama in 2008:
REV. WARREN: Define marriage.
SEN. OBAMA: I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. (Applause.) Now, for me as a Christian, it's also a sacred union. You know, God's in the mix. (Applause.)
But one political party was pathologically dishonest and lied and reneged on what it claimed so it could "fundamentally transform" what it had previously claim was the truth.
Barack Obama claimed that marriage was between one man and one woman and that he wasn't for gay marriage "as a Christian." As a Christian, the Democratic Party will burn in hell forever and ever and ever according to these words that they falsely claimed they believed. Because to be a Democrat is to be a demon-possessed lying hypocrite pathologically incapable of honesty or integrity or decency or virtue or any other good thing.
Or go back down memory lane to when the Democratic Party gave Democratic President Bill Clinton a standing ovation for these words:
PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON: "All Americans, not only in the States most heavily affected but in every place in this country, are rightly disturbed by the large numbers of illegal aliens entering our country.
The jobs they hold might otherwise be held by citizens or legal immigrants. The public service they use impose burdens on our taxpayers.
That's why our administration has moved aggressively to secure our borders more by hiring a record number of new border guards, by deporting twice as many criminal aliens as ever before, by cracking down on illegal hiring, by barring welfare benefits to illegal aliens.
In the budget I will present to you, we will try to do more to speed the deportation of illegal aliens who are arrested for crimes, to better identify illegal aliens in the workplace…
We are a nation of immigrants. But we are also a nation of laws. It is wrong and ultimately self-defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our immigration laws we have seen in recent years, and we must do more to stop it." (Bill Clinton, Remarks At State Of The Union, Washington, D.C., 1/24/95)
There is simply no question whatsoever that the Democratic Party of today stands condemned as the most vile kind of traitorous vermin as rightly judged by the Democratic Party of 1995. Working class Americans realized Obama and the Democrats were literally at WAR with them, literally intentionally giving illegal immigrants their jobs and devaluing their work if they did have jobs because of the millions of people Democrats had artificially added to the labor force competition through illegal immigration. But Democrats don't give a flying damn about working class Americans; they need voters. And they're fine illegally importing foreigners to cynically get what they cynically want.
I could go on and on about all the stuff that Democrats used to acknowledge as simply true facts but now rabidly despises as worse than the Nazis. It's remarkable how these fools' heads don't explode from trying to contain all the contradictions. I mean, we have the new "Me Too" movement and oh, are they ever trying to give Trump hell about alleged affairs that the so-called "victims" themselves claim were entirely consensual. Let's forget about the legitimate allegations of rape, of overt sexual harassment, that Bill Clinton was guilty of.
George Stephanopoulos is the honored, esteemed anchor of ABC News. Let's go back down memory lane of George overtly threatening a journalist – oh, and a female journalist at that – who had uncovered numerous women who were claiming that not only had they had sex with Bill Clinton, but in some cases he'd even fathered their babies. Let's watch this living emobiement of the fact that to be a liberal is to be a pathological hypocrite in every imaginable way possible:
Why are you hypocrite fools so self-righteously coming out against Donald Trump's lawyer for doing anything to contain any allegations of ANYTHING or allegedly making any kind of a threat to anyone to stop reporting anything? When there's this giant log named George Stephanopoulos and basically the entire Democratic Party of just a few years ago blocking your damn view of the speck in Donald Trump's eye???
We can talk about Russia. Remember how Obama told the Russian president that "After my election I have more flexibility"???? Obama bent over so Putin could sodomize this country. It was during OBAMA's wicked presidency that Russia played whatever election games it played while a weak, passive, cowardly fool Obama did NOTHING. Remember when Obama arrogantly lectured Mitt Romney that "The 1980s are calling and they want their foreign policy back"??? Remember that??? And now hysterical Democrats in screaming about Russia are implicitly acknowledging what a demon-possessed moron Barack Obama was throughout his failed presidency. The actual fact is that Russians DID collude massively; but they colluded with DEMOCRATS. And Democrats' very hypocritical act of screaming about Trump has itself been a massive gift of collusion with Russia and Putin.
With that said, let's talk about Hillary. Let's first point out that Hillary Clinton, in all of her damn demagoguery over the so-called supposed "pay gap" between men and women actually HERSELF paid her female staffers less than she paid her male staffers. And if that isn't enough, the Clinton Foundation itself had a massive pay gap. So the last person you'd want representing women on this statistic alone would be Hillary Clinton. Just saying.
Keep in mind, this election was a bipolar choice between Hillary or Donald Trump. People chose. And married women, and in particular white married women, chose for Donald Trump over Hillary. Why did they do that???
Hillary Clinton told the world this:
"[Democrats] do not do well with white men and we don't do well with married, white women," Clinton explained. "And part of that is an identification with the Republican Party, and a sort of ongoing pressure to vote the way that your husband, your boss, your son, whoever, believes you should."
Which is to say that women are strong, tough and decisive. But of course, simultaneously, they are weak, pathetic and think whatever thought they are allowed to think if and only if their husbands give them permission. Now, proceeding from Hillary's rationale (as a white woman), she would had she been elected president only done what her husband told her to do. But her husband is a rapist and serial sexual predator.
I hope you see the sheer ridiculousness of this idiocy. But Hillary Clinton in mutual contradiction ran her campaign carpetbagging simultaneously on her husband's coattails and on the mantras of feminism both at the same time. And also in mutual contradiction, she was this strong, tough, decisive woman whenever it suited her; but every time she was criticized she instantaneously transformed into a helpless victim. And that is exactly how feminism itself works: they are mutual exclusively self-referentially contradictory things at the same time.
This capacity to say things and believe things that simply fly in the face of any and all credibility should help inform you to try to comprehend how anyone could believe what follows:
When it comes to the craziest example of whackjob, pathological liberal moral insanity, I saved the very best for last. I had to create a transcript of Tucker Carlson's interview with University of Toronto psychology professor, Jordan Peterson. He offered this in response to the now at least 71 different "gender options" we supposedly now have:
The radical left insists that gender is a social construct and that's just simply not true. So the scientific data on that are absolutely crystal clear. No reasonable scientist disagrees. And so they're all foaming at the mouth because I'm poking holes in their cherished notions. And they like to think that people are completely malleable because that means that people can be made over in their ideological image.
Peterson points out that his views are "more common than you think," stating that "My views on gender are shared widely in the personality community. Anyone who understands personality and is a credible scientist knows the difference between men and women in personality should be contributed primarily to biological factors. This isn't contentious. The only people its' contentious around are gender ideologues. They've already lost the scientific battle, so they're taking it to the legislative front to enforce their views. So, they're really not contentious viewpoints, they're mainstream science. And we're criticized all the time for spouting pseudo-science. It's not pseudo-science; it's mainstream science. And people who know the literature aren't disputing this: it's been known at least since the 1990s.
The Canadian government built a social-constructivist view of gender into the law. And that's just incorrect. The idea that biological sex, gender expression, gender identity and sexual preference have no relationship to one another, that they vary independently, there's almost nothing you can claim that's more false than that. But now it's being written into the law. It's just patently absurd. It's actually a telling commentary on the state of political discourse across the West, that something like that can actually happen. But I think that it's equality of outcome that's the real pathological desire. That's the bad one.
Well then, Tucker asked, why are people whose views are not rooted in science, but instead in emotion and superstition, dominating our public conversation, and punishing anyone who doesn't disagree? How did they get so much power?
Look, I actually think there's a technical reason for that. It's obvious that things can go too far on the right and they can go too far on the left. And it's kind of easy to put a box around people who go too far on the right: you can just look at claim's of racial superiority. But it's not so easy to put a box around people who go too far on the left. There's not a single thing you can point to that they do that has the same sort of red flag nature as claims of racial superiority. So it's hard for people who are left-leaning, say I'm concerned with inequality and that sort of thing, to dissociate themselves from those who have clearly gone too far. And the problem is we really don't know where the red flags are in leftist territory. Now for me it's equality of outcome that is a good so-called equity. That's a red flag. But it doesn't seem as immediately pathological as claims of racial superiority. So it's harder for people on the left to dissociate themselves from the people who, well, would do everyone in, essentially.
This in contrast to the college professor, the moderator to all the "tolerance" that the left preaches it is so good at, for trying to humiliate and ultimately rabidly "intolerating" the student who raised the question that hey, maybe there were only TWO genders, the way actual scientific biology says there are. This crap happens all the time with ZERO consequences for these rabid ideologue professors; contrast that with the living hell Laura Ingraham is being put through for going after David Hogg ("How COULD you??? He's just a CHILD!!!"). Liberals are the worst hypocrites on earth. And there is no one on earth, including ISIS terrorists, more extremist and totalitarian and Stalinist in their views than the liberal progressive. You will agree with them or they will bury you, destroy you, and utilize raw official power to do so. Liberal progressives are now the most self-righteous, the most Pharisaical, beings in all existence. And when the entirety of all human history opposes them (they imposed by rabid fiat within the last few years what had never previously existed in any civilization in all history), when any kind of legitimate science opposes them (when they find the 69 other chromosomes besides "X" and "Y" maybe they'll begin to have some kind of legitimate case), they follow the same mentality as the IED-wearing terrorist and simply go batpoop until whoever their target for hate is is publicly destroyed by a demonic cultural process.
Peterson's assessment was so brilliant simply because it is so obviously true. Consider the bald, naked FACT that communists murdered more than 100 million of their own people just during peacetime alone. Chairman Mao was responsible for as many as EIGHTY MILLION DEATHS during his "Great Leap Forward." Understand that this mass-murdering psycho was actually lionized by top Obama administration officials!!!!
What makes this guy so right is the fact that Obama told America that The War on Inequality Is the New War on Poverty. And the 20th century actually proved that this is THE most evil idea in the entire history of the human race.
This "equality of outcome" has ALWAYS been THE most cherished goal of the most wicked ideology in the entire history of the human race. We're all going to be so "equal" that we'll all be equal in that we'll all be JUST AS DEAD AS EVERYONE ELSE.
Pause in horror to consider the hell on earth Mao unleashed as he sought to impose the liberal dream and socialist goal of "equality of outcome" so everyone would be the same:
Chairman Mao:
"The atom bomb is nothing to be afraid of," Mao told Nehru, "China has many people. . . . The deaths of ten or twenty million people is nothing to be afraid of." A witness said Nehru showed shock. Later, speaking in Moscow, Mao displayed yet more generosity: he boasted that he was willing to lose 300 million people, half of China's population."
LEE EDWARDS, CHAIRMAN, VICTIMS OF COMMUNISM MEMORIAL FOUNDATION: In 1959 to 1961 was the so-called "great leap forward" which was actually a gigantic leap backwards in which he tried to collectivize and communize agriculture.
And they came to him after the first year and they said, "Chairman, five million people have died of famine." He said, "No matter, keep going." In the second year, they came back and they said, "Ten million Chinese have died." He said, "No matter, continue." The third year, 20 million Chinese have died. And he said finally, "Well, perhaps this is not the best idea that I've ever had."
CHANG: When he was told that, you know, his people were dying of starvation, Mao said, "Educate the peasants to eat less. Thus they can benefit – they can fertilize the land."
Frankly, the fact of the matter is that Nazism itself came from the left: "NAZI" stood for "National Socialist German Workers Party." You tell me if there was a "Socialist American Workers Party," which side of the political spectrum it would be on? The fact of the matter is that the Nazis were a "rightwing" party ONLY in the sense that they were the "far right" of the whackjob hard core radical LEFT. Hitler and his Nazis were avowed Darwinists and just like Marx and the communists, the Nazis got their doctrines of hate from Darwinism. Hitler stated in the beginning of his rise to power that, "A stronger race will drive out the weaker ones, for the vital urge in its ultimate form will break down the absurd barriers of the so called humanity of individuals to make way for the humanity of nature which destroys the weak to give their place to the strong." Pure Darwinism. Hitler stated as his Darwinian-survival-of-the-fittest-based Nazi regime was coming crashing down that, "If the German Volk is not strong enough and is not sufficiently prepared to offer its own blood for its existence, it should cease to exist and be destroyed by a stronger power." As the disastrous war based on Darwinism came to a vicious end, Hitler issued what has infamously become known as his "Nero Decree," saying, "There is no […] need to worry about saving what is necessary for the German people to survive. … On the contrary, it is much better that we ourselves destroy everything. […] Our people has shown that it is the weakest; the future belongs exclusively to the people of the east, which is the strongest." All of these statements are Darwinian to the core. Just as was the garbage about purifying the race so that the German Arian would be the strongest and most dominant race. Hearken to Darwin's less-famous subtitle for his "Origin of the Species:" "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life."
The principle rationale for the Holocaust was that the Jews were biologically inferior, and interfered with the Nazi scientists' efforts to aid evolution by creating a master race.
Listen to these words and tell me who wrote them:
"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla."
It was none other than Charles Darwin himself (Darwin, C.R., "The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex," [1871], John Murray: London, 1874, Second Edition, 1922, reprint, pp.241-242). Charles Darwin literally predicted that someone would come along and extend his Darwinism to its logical conclusion – and thus literally predicted both the Holocaust AND the motivations FOR the Holocaust. Charles Darwin spake as a prophet, and Adolf Hitler was the messiah who fulfilled the demonic prophecy. But it wasn't just the Jew that Hitler was willing to exterminate as being "biologically inferior." Adolf Hitler – who had made the Holocaust of the "biologically unfit" and "sub human" Jew the centerpiece of his campaign to create a "Master" Aryan race – ultimately made his "master race" the victim of his hateful Darwinian views. The simple fadt of the matter is that Adolf Hitler thought in entirely Darwinian terms and his total war was an example of Darwinian survival of the fittest in action. He decreed the Jew had failed the test of Darwinism, and ultimately believed that if the German people could not prevail in his war that THEY TOO should be exterminated and replaced by a more fit race just as Darwinism taught.
And this atheist and Darwinist crap is all pumped out of the vile soul of the ideological LEFT. The left has followed the same script that the communists gave them: identify what people realize is evil and demonize their ideological opponents for it – even though they practice the very identical same evil themselves; and even in fact when they are the ONLY ONES who practice that evil. So the left says the Nazis were "right wing" because they were militaristic, demonically ignoring the fact that the largest militaries ever assembled were assembled by COMMUNISTS. Think of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. whose military dwarfed our own; think the People's Republic of China; think of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. No one other than a fool or a liar would claim that "militarism" is "right wing." Similarly, they claim that "nationalism" makes a regime right wing, again demonically ignoring the fact that throughout his fight against Hitler, Stalin miraculously transformed his communism into nationalism, urging his people to fight for "Mother Russia" again and again and again. And today for that matter, the communist People's Republic of China is FIERCELY nationalistic and is economically employing a model far more similar to socialist fascism that pure communism. Or they will with straight faces lecture us that the Nazis were "right wing" because they were "racist." Again, the model of demonizing whatever is most evil as belonging exclusively to their ideological enemies. The U.S.S.R. murdered tens of millions of non-Russian people; today the Chinese still persecute non-Chinese ethnic peoples such as the Tibetans. Our own "progressive left" in the United States has frequently employed hard core racism, and I still remember a leftist SEIU union head telling his very own union workers as "so fucking rabidly racist." In my very own family, one of the few rabid Democrats in 2008 refused to vote for Barack Obama. Why? Because he said, "I won't vote for that fucking nigger." When I would have happily voted for Herman Cain, or later for Ben Carson.
I still remember a true ideological coward named Barack Hussein Obama dishonestly, vindictively and hypocritically attacking the Republicans as being "social Darwinists." When he himself is the true Darwinist. Social Darwinism is logically and morally ENTAILED if Darwinism is true because the weak die out and the most fit survive. And if that is true in the whole cosmos, then without any logical or moral question it would necessarily be true of any society that correctly followed this universal law of the universe. Evolution and Darwinism logically and consistently applied would apply as an axiom the policy that the weak need to perish so the stronger can better survive, end of story. But to be a Democrat is to be the worst and the most despicable kind of moral coward. They constantly play the rhetorical game of deceiving people that they don't believe what they clearly believe. And so Democrats believe in evolution while simultaneously implicitly recognizing that theirs is an utterly evil ideology. Stalin murdered at least forty million of his own people and Mao murdered as many as eighty million of his own people: but neither did so until they had total power over their people and until they had that total control abetted by leftist gun seizure laws that left the people weaponless and defenseless they constantly talked about how they cared about the people.
So to bring the point home, Democrats aren't honest. Like Obama with marriage, Democrats refuse to tell you what they truly believe. They hide behind a world of slandering lies and fake outrage rhetoric. Democrats used to actually believe in God, but they are now the official party of rabid secular humanist atheism. Just like the communists who alone actually DO have "separation of church and state" in their Constitution. Article 124 of the Soviet Constitution reads, "In order to ensure to citizens freedom of conscience, the church in the U.S.S.R. is separated from the state, and the school from the church." A better name for "communism" is "official state atheism," since every single communist regime has in fact been officially atheist. That's the REAL premise upon which the evil regime is truly based. Just like the Darwinan Nazis whose true war crime was actually believing the evil otherwise known as Darwinian evolution. And just like the godless communist and the Darwinist Nazis, Democrats likewise want to strip the people of their right to resist their totalitarian power that they are seeking.
But not even the most ardently ideological, the most whackjob Nazi, Maoist or Stalinist, ever dared to dream that we could screw around with the very nature of gender and sexual identity. That required a level of shocking human depravity that dwarfed even the most wild imaginings of even these most wicked bugs.
As of today, Democrats are directly responsible for the mass murder of SIXTY MILLION of THE most innocent human beings in their abortion mills. Democrats will one day stand before God condemned as being ten times more evil than the damn Nazis; and every single Democrat will scream in the agony of the lowest pit of hell for a trillion times a trillion millennia for every single NANOSECOND that they callously ripped from these 60 million babies employing the same damned-by-God "logic" that the Nazis employed arguing that Jews weren't fully human and therefore could be exterminated.
Abortion is a war of extermination not just against babies, but more directly against FATHERHOOD. If that baby in the womb isn't a baby, isn't a human being, then what the hell IS a "father"??? What the hell did he "father"??? A lifeless lump of goop, Democrats assure us. A thing that can be exterminated without thought or consequences, they assure us. If that is in any way true, then any father can simply walk away from his kid without any thought or any consequence just as easily as any mother can murder the innocent human life growing in her womb as a result of what she and that father participated in creating.
Again, even the Nazis weren't this damn depraved. Heinrich Himmler told his SS who were carrying out the Final Solution that they had to be strong, that they were simply doing what had to be done, what was necessary, in his own version of the "make abortion safe, legal and rare" rationale. Just like everything else, the Democratic Party has also become so warped it even now betrays the warped ideology it used to hold such that there is now a rabid, militant approval of what used to be something that was deemed sad, but necessary. Which would be the moral equivalent of Himmler boasting in the Final Solution, exulting in it. You could be a Nazi and not even know about, let alone believe in, the Final Solution of the Jewish race. But now you can't be a Democrat and not believe in abortion as the final solution for millions upon millions of babies who are selected for extermination.
The Democrat Party has made war on fathers and on fatherhood for a generation now. And it is amazing how sick and toxic a place they have "fundamentally transformed" our society into as a direct result of their war on fatherhood, their war on children, their hell on earth policies that every single one of them will one day have to stand before God Almighty and give an account for.
And if you're going to go to total, Hitler-style war-of-extermination-style wars on fatherhood and fathers and children, well, in bowling-analogy terms you've simply got to try to pick up the spare and similarly declare total war on so-called "toxic masculinity" and on boys.
It is frankly a truly amazing thing that has the left screeches about the crisis of "toxic masculinity," in actual scientific fact men's sperm counts have quite literally PLUMMETED. "Sperm counts dropped by more than half over nearly four decades," a massive scientific study recently found. Which is to say to whatever extent there IS a crisis of "toxic masculinity," it is quite literally the very OPPOSITE of what the left falsely claims it is. What is in actual scientific fact "toxic" is that males AREN'T getting more masculine; they are getting less and less and LESS so. Here's the ACTUAL crisis of toxic masculinity:
The assessment, one of the largest ever undertaken, brings together the results of 185 studies between 1973 and 2011.
Dr Levine, an epidemiologist, told the BBC that if the trend continued humans would become extinct.
Liberalism is a mindless phenomenon, just as a colony of roaches is a mindless phenomenon. These bugs will just do what they do. They will not quit. They have been programmed to mindlessly advance much the way Mao's communist army mindlessly charged the U.S. military at the Chosin Reservoir in Korea in 1950. And if these leftist ideologues fail to charge screaming machine-gun toting commissars will gun them down from behind. Because the left only wants to seize guns from the people, not from the commissar-class who gets to control the people. The left will not stop until males are extinct and the last feminist triumphantly dances on the last male's grave, freed from the God-given burden of bringing the last baby into the world. THAT is the assured result of liberalism, the cherished goal, the dream.
As the REAL toxic crap from leftist ideologues calling themselves "educators" persecuted boys and demonized maleness and manhood and basically indoctrinated a culture of boys being ashamed to be what they were biologically – even as the same rabid fools dismissed the very notion of "biology" itself in their Stalinist rather than scientific assessment that gender is a social construct – boys have simply been first falling behind, then dropping behind, then dropping out. The left is literally targeting and attacking as unacceptable even the very words "man" and "male," let alone being a man or being encouraged or even allowed to ACT like one. As an example, the widely-used online writing and grammar resource by Purdue University encourages college students to avoid 'generic use of MAN and other words with masculine markers.'
Men are becoming less male because that is the only choice the screaming, rabid, leftist culture that simultaneously depicts itself as "the tolerant ones" will allow. And the decline of men simply logically follows the extinction-path generated by the left, by liberals, by the Democratic Party, of fathers and fatherhood. THIS has been the longest war in American history, the war on men. And men have surrendered but the feminist left won't stop with mere victory. Fewer and fewer men are working; and the men who are working are working fewer hours than ever before. Millions of prime age men are simply missing from the economy as the ravages of liberal policy have ripped their dreadful toll into our culture. As a result of these simple facts that liberals simply mindlessly deny as much as Hitler denied he was losing the war, fewer and fewer men are getting married because they don't have the economic resources to get married. Which means fewer and fewer women are getting married because they no longer view men as viable partners.
And as a result of this war, the very group that denies the reality of biology has created a species-threatening biological reality. We have diminished sperm counts. That is NOT a sign of masculinity, but rather the exact freaking OPPOSITE. But that's just reality, and liberalism is a rabid denial of reality.
And yes, the sad, assured result of these liberal policies which have utterly destroyed the American middle class primarily by destroying men, young men are increasingly becoming bitter, resentful, angry. And they are increasingly acting out. And that means more and more violence. Because males have been treated like animals and what the hell do you expect animals to do???
Yeah. The left went too far. WAY too far.
The only problem is that the time to stop them was nearly forty years ago. Because everything that has followed since Roe v. Wade in 1973 was the equivalent of a snowball running downhill until it became an avalanche.
And now it may very well be too late for our species.
Tags:abortion, equality of outcomes, fatherhood, fathers, guns, toxic masculinity
Posted in Conservative Issues, Politics | 1 Comment »
Liberals Are The Racists And Misogynists. They're Also Hypocritical Demagogues Who Project Their Own 'Values' On Their Opponents.
I'm watching a Democrat strategist give his post-mortem on the November 4 elections in which Democrats got their heads handed to them (not that Obama has a clue as he plans his next fascist executive order power-grab between golf rounds. All we know is that Obama doesn't feel "repudiated" no matter how much of a toxic pariah he's become even to his own party). Why do Democrats tend to fare so badly in midterms, the strategist is asked. And he says, "We've got to do a better job reaching out to white voters."
This is PRECISELY what Democrat strategists are saying.
You are not a human being to Democrats. Human beings are created in the image of God and Democrats piss on both God and His image. No, you are a black voter, or a Hispanic voter, or an Asian voter. Or you are an enemy who has to be tricked into voting for the party that wants to give the good races all the stuff your family worked so hard to earn because you belong to the wrong race.
Of course, that is racial politics from the PARTY of race politics. If you want to divide people up by race and play the game of divide and conquer – and to hell with the increasingly incredibly polarizing results you are guaranteed to get as a result – you are a Democrat, pure and simple.
All you have to do is blame your racism and the climate of anger and polarization your racist engineering engenders on the other side. And your media propaganda will duly report that "fact."
Republicans are the party of ideas and the party of Americans. Democrats are the party of racism and the party of bitterness against America.
It's just the way it is. And it's just the way it has been since Democrats realized that if you can't beat them, join them and then subvert them to the same plantation agenda they've always had. Before you were useful as slave labor; now you're useful as slave voters. To wit: if you want your welfare check, you vote for the master party.
All the other party will offer you is the opportunity to get a job because they're trying to make it easier for employers to build businesses and to learn because they're trying to provide poor children of ALL races with vouchers for private schools to end the blue line union monopoly over "edyookashun."
But of course it's easier to sit at home and blame whitey – or blame whoever the convenient target to be blamed is – than it is to work. And that's just human nature.
Which party is the party of racism? The party that hates Clarence Thomas, the party that hates Allen West, the party that hates Condoleezza Rice, the party that hates Dr. Benjamin Carson, that's who.
I still remember the racist hate that Clarence Thomas received from the party that presents itself as oh-so-uber-un-racist.
In this election cycle, racist politicking was out full force as Democrats pulled out every trick to fearmonger the black community into getting out and voting against Republicans. And no lie was too outrageous.
And of course there was the War on Women that Democrats just never got tired of playing.
Misogynists are Republican and Republicans are misogynists. That's what we've been told for the last how many years now from Democrats?
So I run across this story in the Los Angeles Times. And it's written by an uber-liberal named Meghan Daum:
The other thing the catcalling video shows: Our detachment issues
If for some unfathomable reason you're not among the more than 30 million people who've already seen the "catcalling video" that started ricocheting through the zeitgeist last week, I'll give you a brief rundown.
10 Hours of Walking in NYC as a Woman
An actress named Shoshana Roberts, unremarkably dressed, is videotaped with a hidden camera as she walks around a variety of New York City neighborhoods. Over 10 hours, men vied for her attention, asking, "What's up, beautiful?" and demanding to know why she won't talk to them. Some seem pretty innocuous. Others, like the one who walks next to Roberts silently for five minutes straight, are downright creepy.
What began as feminist activism from an anti-street harassment organization called Hollaback expanded into a referendum on race, because Roberts is white and the vast majority of the men on the video are black or Latino. For all the video tells us about race, men and the discomfort women can experience on the street, it also tells us something about a different — and relatively new — kind of cultural discomfort: our awkwardness in negotiating public spaces.
When I watch the video, I see not just a woman being objectified by men but also a woman who, presumably at the behest of her director, is totally unwilling to engage in the world around her. She makes no eye contact, responds to no greeting, registers no interest in the people in her midst. I also see in it a filmmaker who hasn't bothered to parse the difference between a "good morning" and a "hey, baby." And in reading women's reactions, I sense a perception that any of these guys could have pulled Roberts into an alley and assaulted her at any time.
Hollaback, which is committed to the message that a "hello" can easily and quickly escalate into violence, certainly seems to share that perception. But in the context of this video at least, it's a little tone deaf. As she walked, Roberts was surrounded by hundreds of people, many of whom would surely have intervened if she'd needed help. As odd as the creepy companion walker was, does it fit Hollaback founder Emily May's description of "a terrifying, terrifying experience"?
Obviously only Roberts can say how she felt about any given interaction. Nonetheless, here's the thing about life in the big city, especially cities whose identities are rooted in the energy of the street: You can't live in a vacuum. In fact, most residents don't want to live in a vacuum. They have boundaries, but they still want to share a nod or knowing glance with a stranger on the bus or subway. They want to weave their individual, day-to-day experiences into the larger tapestry. And nothing about Robert's disconnected, almost zombie-like comportment in the video reflects that spirit.
We all have our zombie-like days, of course. But I suspect that in real life Roberts handles men who talk to her on the street the same way most women eventually learn to: by saying "thank you" or saying something The Times won't print, or waving a hand in a way that could be taken as either friendly or dismissive. Hollaback might consider these concessions are themselves symptoms of patriarchal oppression — and that is a fair, if not exactly new, point. I would say what's missing from the video is that making concessions to strangers, sometimes acknowledging their existence, is part of what it means to share the world with other people — at least the real-life, three-dimensional world.
Of course, that world increasingly takes a back seat to the digital sphere, where ignoring unwanted communications is standard protocol, where many, if not most, conversations take place via text or email. Dating and sexual conquest belong largely to the realm of online dating sites and Tinder feeds. Moreover, most people when they do find themselves in public spaces, spend more time looking at their phones than looking at what's around them. Little by little, we're losing our instinct for joining the larger tapestry.
And maybe that's the ultimate lesson of the catcalling video. It's not just that men can be boorish or that race and class issues can be thorny but that walking down the street can be more complicated than hanging out online. Not to mention a lot more interesting.
And I couldn't help but wonder: is this the tone this leftie would have decided to take if the woman victim had been a racial minority and the creepy catcallers had been white men???
Daum makes this point early on:
What began as feminist activism from an anti-street harassment organization called Hollaback expanded into a referendum on race, because Roberts is white and the vast majority of the men on the video are black or Latino.
And then proceeds to drop that point entirely as if it were a radioactively hot potato. You never see the racial angle mentioned again. It's almost like she waved her hand at it, and that's more than enough. From that moment on, her article actually became a DEFENSE of the black and Latino men – i.e. the core members of the Democrat Party racial constituency – who sexually harassed the white woman for ten hours.
Now, I must confess that there have been a couple of times that Meghan Daum – who in the past was just so over-the-top lefty-moonbeam that she maxed out the measurement apparatus – has surprised me of late. It's possible that she actually is able to realize that the identity politics game the left keeps playing is as dangerous as it is toxic.
You know, the way Bill Clinton just did:
"I believe that in ways large and small, peaceful and sometimes violent, that the biggest threat to the future of our children and grandchildren is the poison of identity politics that preaches that our differences are far more important than our common humanity," he told the crowd of activists, celebrities, and lawmakers.
But no matter: the REST of the Democrat universe plays it as their first card, their second card, their third card, their fourth card and their fifth card in every political game of five-card poker.
And it was, as usual, the central card played in this election.
We had the FIRST female elected to the United States Senate from blue state Iowa in American history. And not only did this Republican woman have to suffer getting sexually trivialized over how attractive she was (you know, for a bimbo) by a career sexist Democrat male senator, but she had to suffer the booooooring whine of three-term Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieu as she complained that she won't get re-elected to a fourth term because she's a woman and Louisianans are conservatives who hate women and hate blacks:
"And number two: I'll be very, very honest with you. The south has not always been the friendliest place for African-Americans. It's been a difficult time for the president to present himself in a very positive light as a leader," she said.
"It's not always been a good place for women to present ourselves," Ms. Landrieu continued. "It's more of a conservative place. So we've had to work a little harder on that. But the people trust me, I believe — really they do … trust me to do the right thing for the state."
Ms. Landrieu's comments come as some Democrats are making direct, often visceral appeals to black voters, notably in southern states like Georgia, in hopes of energizing the party base ahead of Tuesday's election.
A woman who has been elected to the Senate by her state three times blames her state's hostility to her on her gender and on racism.
You see, there's one way to play this game: the Democrat way. If you try to play it in a way that doesn't politically help the political exigencies of the Democrat Party, it's because you're a racist, or you're a misogynist, or you're a racist misogynist.
It's NEVER fascists when Democrats do it. It's ALWAYS fascist when Republicans do it. Every time. No matter how much of a pretzel you've got to twist your brain into to believe the liberal line.
War veteran Joni Ernst is tired of the "war on women" meme the Democrats constantly play (her male Democrat challenger actually had the complete lack of balls to play it on her):
She didn't want to hear opponent Bruce Braley's campaign claims anymore that she wages war on women with her positions because, the war veteran said, "I've been to war; this is not a war."
Of course, it IS a war, because it is a vicious attack strategy from the party of hate and division, from the party that pits race against race, income-level against income level, gender against gender, etc.
It's a war for the soul of America. And even Bill Clinton admits that the Democrat Party machine is on the side of Satan in the war.
Abortion isn't a "woman's issue." It's a CHILDREN'S issue. If abortion is only a woman's issue, then men are to be excluded from having anything to do with children and whether they should live or die. If abortion is a "woman's issue" as Democrats believe, and if a man and a woman don't produce a child at the moment of conception, as Democrats believe, then ANY responsibility men have ought to end the nanosecond they roll off of that woman and go to sleep. Because he DID NOT FATHER A CHILD according to the left and according to the left he has nothing whatsoever to do with the most critical choice involving the "woman's choice" involving this non-child.
What Democrats want and what they have largely already achieved is the end of fatherhood. Fathers are not "fathers" any more; they do NOT procreate a child and they are therefore not to be allowed ANY choice or ANY responsibility whatsoever in the MOST important decision involving a child that somehow mysteriously develops at some later time.
And of course homosexual sodomy marriage is nothing more than an extension of liberal thought: marriage is an institution for families; but the party of militant hatred for fatherhood necessarily becomes the party of militant hatred for the family of which fathers are a necessary component.
So Democrats have this twisted, perverted, hateful view toward any woman who loves her family and loves her children and values families and children.
And so your Sarah Palins and any woman who is pro-marriage and pro-family have to be rabidly attacked in the most hateful way. It's FINE for Democrats to call Republican women "whores." Just try being a Republican white male who calls a minority female governor a whore and see what happens to your career as the media feeding frenzy goes into beyond-rabid mode.
But like what we see somehow happen in Meghan Daum's piece with black men and Latino men – in other words with Democrats – the left just strips the narrative of the elements they don't like and then retells the story according to their ideology. Just as in Daum's piece what could have – and WOULD have had the sleazeballs been white men howling over a minority woman – been a piece about the racist and misogynistic attitudes about minorities toward women becomes a piece about the snooty way a woman carries herself which of course apparently invites abuse with aforementioned abuse being no big deal. In any and every story involving the nastiest and most despicable racist and misogynistic behavior of liberals gets explained away by some "narrative" had the political party or the race or the gender of the person or people engaging in the despicable conduct been the politically incorrect sort (i.e. white men).
I'll grant Meghan Daum credit for taking on the perennially offended feminist left over what they perceive as such a hostile climate that a man who says "good morning!" is tantamount to a rapist. Believe it or not, she has courage to take on that group of rabid harpies given the instant media access that band of vermin has. But we'll know Meghan is truly courageous when it is WHITE REPUBLICAN MEN who act the way these black and Hispanic men acted that she defends.
Doubt very much that it will ever happen.
Tags:Allen West, Ben Carson, catcalling video, catcalls, Clarence Thomas, double-standard, fatherhood, feminism, Hollaback, hypocrisy, Joni Ernst, Meghan Daum, misogynist, misogyny, Nikki Haley, racism, Shoshana Roberts
Posted in abortion, Conservative Issues, Democrats, gay marriage, Media, Politics | 2 Comments »
Why Barack Obama Will Never Solve the Problem of Black Fathers
More 'Just Words' From Obama
Barack Obama spent part of his Father's Day "by calling on black fathers, who he said are "missing from too many lives and too many homes," to become active in raising their children."
"They have abandoned their responsibilities, acting like boys instead of men. And the foundations of our families are weaker because of it," the Democratic presidential candidate said Sunday at a largely black church in his hometown.
"We can't simply write these problems off to past injustices," Obama said to applause Sunday. "Those injustices are real. There's a reason our families are in disrepair, and some of it has to do with a tragic history, but we can't keep using that as an excuse."
"Any fool can have a child. That doesn't make you a father," he said. "It's the courage to raise a child that makes you a father."
Obama is being hailed in certain liberal quarters, and assailed in other liberal quarters (for "singling out" black men and "blaming the victim" just like the racist white establishment wants him to).
I don't disagree with a single word Obama said (as applied to the specific statements quoted above). There is a crisis in the black family that has been taking place for decades. And at the very core of that crisis is the absence of black fathers from the homes of their children. The question is whether we can take any positive steps toward ending the destruction of the black family through liberal approaches.
Let me begin with one of Obama's "solutions" and play devil's advocate for a little while.
The AP article states that "Obama often speaks about the importance of parental involvement. In Washington, he's sponsoring legislation to get more child support money to children by offering a tax credit for fathers who pay support, more efficient collection and penalties for fathers who don't meet their obligations."
But how does that view logically square with the sacred liberal doctrine of "a woman's right to choose"?
How 'A Woman's Right to Choose' Is Inherently Unfair to Men
At the moment a man (white, black, or otherwise) and a woman conceive, standard liberal doctrine is that nothing of any value whatsoever was created. You merely have what the abortion industry lovingly calls the "products of conception." There is no life in any meaningful sense. There is no child. There's just valueless, meaningless goo.
Well, that man (please don't call him a "father", because you have to have a child to be a father) goes his merry way. And of course, the woman (please don't call her a "mother" for the same reason as above) gets to go "choose."
How on earth is the man responsible? He didn't father a child; he contributed half of the ingredients to some gooey thing called "a zygote" that some leftist philosophers agree will become a child a child at birth (mind you Peter Singer doesn't think so; a newborn merits fewer "human rights" than does a pig on his view).
Now, on this liberal view, I can see requiring a man to pay for half the cost of an abortion. After all, he was 50% responsible for creating the goo creature "fetus," and it is only fair that he should be half responsible for taking care of the mess.
But "child support"? Requiring "penalties for fathers who don't meet their obligations"?
What kind of nonesense is that?
All that poor man did was take part in producing a goo creature. He didn't "father" "a child." Liberal theology requires that we affirm that denial.
If he "fathered" "a child," after all, then logically abortion kills a child. No liberal should tolerate that kind of talk.
And – as wrong as it is to say he "fathered" "a child," it is even worse to claim that it is in any sense "his" "child."
If this goo creature "fetus" were "his" "child," after all, then he would have a right to decide what happens to it. Which he most certainly does not – and MUST NOT – have according to all the tenants of liberal thought that worships "a woman's right to choose."
If it is "his child," then no one could kill it or take it away from him. The goo creature "fetus" is not his child, even in theory: it is not a child at all, and – whatever you want to call the goo creature – it is not his, because the woman and the woman alone gets to make all the decisions for it.
If it is "my shirt" then no one can take it off my back. If it is my dog then you'd BETTER not hurt it. But when it comes to being "a father," the term "my child" doesn't mean a whole heck of a lot.
Just to make sure we're tracking together, allow me to restate: According to liberalism, it aint a child, and it certainly aint his. It is nothing more than a goo creature, a thing, the "products of conception," and ALL rights without a single exception must necessarily go immediately to the woman. A father gets all the rights he deserves in liberal thought: absolutely none.
Now, if a woman subjectively "chooses" to be "a mother," then suddenly the man who helped produce the goo creature "fetus" becomes "a father," and he darned better take his responsibility seriously. She gets to choose for both of them. For all three of them, in fact. That is the fundamental injustice of abortion.
It is her sole, solitary decision whether to kill the goo creature or cherish the child. It is her sole, solitary decision whether the man with whom she became pregnant becomes "a father" or not. It is her sole, solitary decision whether the "father" is forced to pay child support or not. And it is generally her decision whether "the father" has visitation rights or not (she can always move away with her child, if nothing else).
Here's an anology that I really hope some liberal takes me up on. A liberal and I get a car together (make it a Ferrari, as I want nothing less than the very best in all my analogies). I of course get to possess "the right to choose" in this relationship, and I choose that the liberal doesn't get to drive it. That is my choice. But once a month, when it comes time to make the car payment, I decide that it is the liberal's Ferrari too – requiring him to meet his obligation and pay support. And dad burn it, Mr. Liberal, "our" car needs a garage, and you sure better not shirk on providing gas for "our car."
Liberals have been puzzling over this part for decades now. But somehow, for some incomprehensible reason, men (and yes, most definitely black men) don't seem to appreciate this deal.
How can you possibly hold a man responsible for "child support" when at the time of his involvement it WASN'T a child at all, but merely the "products of conception"? And, given the fact that abortion is strictly "a woman's right to choose" – with a man being absolutely forbidden from interfering with her decision – how can you possibly require that a man be held accountable for a woman's decision not to choose abortion when she could easily have done so? Come on: if it used to be a product of conception and subsequently became a child, and if women and women alone get to choose abortion to kill the P.O.C., then whose freakin' fault is it that that meaningless little P.O.C. became a child?
How does the expression go? Fatherhood and a quarter will get you a cup of coffee (adjust for inflation accordingly).
The liberal doctrine of a woman's right to choose abortion assumes that women should have only rights, and that men should have only duties imposed upon them. After all, the more stupid an idea is, the more necessary it is to have a fall guy. Otherwise, people might start holding the idiots who came up with the stupid idea responsible.
But there is more. The same root evil underlying abortion has been the root cause resulting in the destruction of the black family.
The Terrible Idea Abortion Shares With American Slavery
Barack Obama's views on black fathers are nothing new. Bill Cosby spoke out years ago (and was unrelentingly attacked as an "Uncle Tom" for his troubles by so-called "Civil Rights leaders." And some forty years ago, Senator Patrick Moynihan issued a report trying to understand and help resolve the dilemma of the black family. He too was excoriated by the "black community" for his troubles, and labeled as a racist.
Chapter III of the report, titled, "The Roots of the Problem," contains the following analysis on why American slavery was so devastating upon its victims.
The most perplexing question abut American slavery, which has never been altogether explained, and which indeed most Americans hardly know exists, has been stated by Nathan Glazer as follows: "Why was American slavery the most awful the world has ever known?" The only thing that can be said with certainty is that this is true: it was.
American slavery was profoundly different from, and in its lasting effects on individuals and their children, indescribably worse than, any recorded servitude, ancient or modern. The peculiar nature of American slavery was noted by Alexis de Tocqueville and others, but it was not until 1948 that Frank Tannenbaum, a South American specialist, pointed to the striking differences between Brazilian and American slavery. The feudal, Catholic society of Brazil had a legal and religious tradition which accorded the slave a place as a human being in the hierarchy of society — a luckless, miserable place, to be sure, but a place withal. In contrast, there was nothing in the tradition of English law or Protestant theology which could accommodate to the fact of human bondage — the slaves were therefore reduced to the status of chattels — often, no doubt, well cared for, even privileged chattels, but chattels nevertheless.
Slavery has always been hard for slaves, but there was something far more sinister to the phenomenon of American slavery. Many peoples have historically become slaves, and yet fully recovered within a fairly short time of the end to their captivity. What was different in the unique case of American slavery was the complete dehumanization of slaves. In contrast to the description of slavery in the Bible, and in contrast to the institution of slavery in Brazil (which endured another 20 years after the United States abolished slavery), American slavery denied the dignity and humanity of Africans in bondage.
It was that denial of humanity and human dignity, more than anything else, that has so traumatized the black descendants of those slaves to this very day.
The horror of abortion, like the horror of American slavery, is that it denies the dignity and humanity of its victim.
When you deny the humanity, dignity, and ultimate incommensurable transcendent worth of a class of human beings, then any depradation or violence can be justified. It was what the American industry of slavery did to blacks, it was what the Holocaust did to Jews, and it is what abortion does to the unborn.
Just as the institution of slavery could not have endured if the human status of blacks was acknowledged, so also the institution of abortion could not endure if the human status of the unborn is acknowledged.
And what impact does that denial of humanity, of human dignity, of transcendent value of the unborn have?
It goes far beyond the status of those who are killed.
If the humanity, dignity, and incommensurable transcendent value of the unborn is recognized, then it necessarily becomes a duty for parents of that marvelous unborn little human being to love, care, and support their child.
This is why ultrasound technology has proven so powerful. The Sep. 30, 2007 Constitutent Insight Report provided concluded that 89% of women who see their unborn children in an ultrasound when seeking an abortion opt out of it and choose to keep the baby. This is because they come to see with their own eyes that their babies are human beings for the first time.
If that status is denied, then the "duty" to love, care, and support becomes a "choice," and one can choose to love, care and support their child the way they can choose to love their dog. Whether children are precious little human beings or worthless products of conception is entirely up to the choice of the pregnant woman.
Women can renounce any responsibility for the life they helped to create by choosing death for their "products of conception." Men are denied that recourse, but they can make the philosophically identical choice by choosing to walk away.
If a woman can choose to renounce her child even to the point of choosing to kill it, why shouldn't a man be able to choose to walk away?
The Abandonment of the Concept of Justice by the Legal System of the Welfare State
Insanity gives birth to more insanity and Injustice gives birth to more injustice, just as a lie gives birth to more lies to cover for the first lie. Liberals who justify abortion on the grounds that the goo creature who is conceived is most definitely not a child turn around and attempt to force man after man to pay child support in order to fund the welfare state they have created.
Douglas M Richardsonposts his own story of being forced to pay child support to the man who had an affair with his wife. If being a cuckhold isn't bad enough for you, take your problems before a judge. A man named Andy Bathie who donated sperm to a lesbian couple was made to pay child support, despite having no involvement in the children's lives.
In Bernie Goldberg's book Bias, he includes a chapter titled "Targeting Men." He related a 1998 story he covered "that would have sent shivers down Kafka's spine," about a man named John Johnson who was forced to pay child support for a woman he'd never even met based on a legal technicality. He described the case of Tony Jackson, a working class black man with a wife and family, who was put on the hook by the court for $13,000 in child support even after a DNA test proved he was not the father. An undercover LA police officer was similarly ordered to pay $14,000 in child support based on the affidavit of a former girlfriend even though he was similarly cleared by a DNA test (see pp. 144-147).
A man would get fairer treatment by being cast into a pit of starving feral dogs than he would receive at the hands of a typical liberal family court judge. At least he could have a chance to fight the feral dogs.
The very theory of abortion based upon a woman's right to choose fundamentally denies men equal rights under the law.
And if, after all, the life of a baby is up to "a woman's right to choose," then what does fatherhood amount to? Basically, the prestige and power of fatherhood, like what was once said about the vice presidency, is "not worth a bucket of warm spit." Why stick around? Being a father means nothing. The goo creature you conceived certainly isn't worth anything.
The Logic of Abortion Annihilates Objective Human Value
Look at a newborn baby and consider, "You are here only because your mother chose to let you live. If she had chosen differently, you would not be a human being; you would have merely been yet another goo creature to be dismembered and sucked out of a womb."
That is quite a foundation for recognizing and affirming human value, isn't it? Only a liberal is morally stupid enough to lack the capacity to understand the horror and chaos that would inevitably result from denying the fundamental human status and dignity of precious unborn human beings.
As terrible and self-defeating as it is, it is nevertheless incredibly common for those who have been victimized to perpetuate victimization. Think of the Stockholm syndrome. Think of the fact that children of physical and sexual abusers tend to become physical and sexual abusers themselves. The descendants of black slaves who were denied their fundamental right to human dignity deny that status to their own children.
The Black Family Has Born the Brunt of the Horror of Abortion
And what are the results of this liberal doctrine on the black community? Kenneth Blackwell writes:
The statistics on African American abortions are shocking. Even though African Americans are only about 13 percent of the U.S. population, one of every three abortions in the United States is performed on a black woman. Three of every five African American women will abort a child. Some 1,452 African American babies are killed each day in abortions. Let's compare these statistics to the number of African Americans who have been killed by crimes of racial violence. Statistics show that between 1882 and 1968, 3,446 blacks were lynched in the United States. That number is bypassed by the number of African American abortions every three days. Let's project the favorable consequences had the aborted babies been allowed to live. Had the 13 million babies aborted since Roe v. Wade in 1973 been allowed to live, today's African American population of 37 million could reasonably be projected to exceed 50 million today. In other words, today's potential African American population has been reduced 25 percent by abortions. And the 13 million African American abortions are estimated to have enriched the U.S. abortion industry by some $4 billion since Roe v. Wade.
Some in the black community are calling abortion a genocide – a genocide of black mothers against their own children.
And what then becomes of all these surviving "goo creatures" who were allowed to live merely as a result of the complete subjectivity of "a woman's choice"?
Jeff Jacoby, in a Boston Globe article titled, "Destruction in black America is self-inflicted," wrote:
In a new study, the Justice Department's Bureau of Justice Statistics confirms once again that almost half the people murdered in the United States each year are black, and 93 percent of black homicide victims are killed by someone of their own race. (For white homicide victims, the figure is 85 percent.) In other words, of the estimated 8,000 African-Americans murdered in 2005, more than 7,400 were cut down by other African-Americans. Though blacks account for just one-eighth of the US population, the BJS reports, they are six times more likely than whites to be victimized by homicide — and seven times more likely to commit homicide.
Such huge disproportions don't just happen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan famously warned 40 years ago that the collapse of black family life would mean rising chaos and crime in the black community. Today, as many as 70 percent of black children are born out of wedlock and 60 percent are raised in fatherless households. And as reams of research confirm, children raised without married parents and intact, stable families are more likely to engage in antisocial behavior.
End abortion. End it once and for all. Affirm the ultimate dignity of every human being.
Barack Obama is right: fathers should bear a fundamental duty to provide care and support for the child.
But he is completely wrong in believing that "more efficient collection and penalties for fathers who don't meet their obligations" will solve the problem of fatherlessness. His unequivocal support for abortion – which is tantamount to the denial of the most fundamental right of a father: the right to fight to save his child's life – is more responsible for the abandonment of the role of the father as any other issue.
Fathers should bear the duty to care for and support their child from the moment that child is conceived. And mothers should likewise bear the similar duty to care and nurture her baby from the moment her baby is conceived. Either both parents have such a duty, or neither do. It is as simple as that.
There was a time when walking out on one's children was regarded by society with revulsion as the ultimate act of cowardice and weakness. Abortion undermined that attitude just as surely as it undermined the right of an unborn child to live. Only a complete moral idiot would attempt to argue that a woman has a fundamental right to kill her child, but a man cannot have the right to walk away from supporting that very same child.
Ending abortion would not solve the problems of fatherhood overnight. Nothing will. But we can never hope to solve the abandonment of the institution of fatherhood until we end the institution of abortion.
Tags:abortion, Barack Obama, black abortions, black fathers, black homicide, child support, Father's Day, fatherhood, fatherlessness, fetus, liberals, products of conception, right to choose
Posted in abortion, Barack Obama | 4 Comments »
Abortion Destroys More Than Just A Baby
Abortion is a cancer that makes our society sick on every level. It destroys us individually – one baby at a time; it erodes the essential institution of fatherhood by removing fathers from the most basic decision regarding their children; and, ultimately, it creates unstable consequences that damage our nation and our world. And rather than being a necessary industry that protects the weakest and neediest among us, it is in fact a holocaust among the very groups of people we claim to be trying to save.
First of all, abortion clearly results in the death of a child. Do the math: if your beloved mommy had decided to have an abortion during her pregnancy with you, you would not have been born. More specifically, you would have died. Mommy would have killed you. The same you who was once a teen ager, once a toddler, once an infant, was also once a fetus, once an embryo, and once a zygote. Killing you at any point during that continuum would have rendered you every bit as dead. If you don't believe me, look at your brother or sister; a different egg and sperm produce a totally different child every time. Even in the case of identical twins – where a zygote divides – we end up with two different children. Abortion destroys a child.
But when the Supreme Court looked down from Mount Olympus and divined in the Constitution a woman's right to choose abortion, it did something else: it destroyed the rights of fathers, and undermined the traditional family structure.
Think about it: if a mother exercises her "right to choose" abortion, it presupposes a duty upon the father of that child to idly sit by while his child is killed. While mommy beams down at her little bundle of joy and says, "I could have chosen to kill you, but let you live because I wanted a baby, daddy is outside somewhere saying, "Well, mommy didn't decide to kill it, so I guess I'm a father. How can anyone who claims to have an IQ above that of the baby that abortion kills not see how radically abortion undermines the role of the father?
Conversely, if daddy dearest is a "pro-choicer" who doesn't want anything to do with his child and would very much like to choose death for it, he may well be subjectively compelled by the courts to pay child support. A woman can kill her child at will during pregnancy. That is her right. But if she subjectively decides to keep her baby, the courts impose the burden on a father to support that child whether he wants it or not. That is his duty. Where's daddy's "right to choose"? He has no rights at all, only duties selectively imposed upon him by the granting of this bizarre woman's right. So much for equal rights; so much for equal protection under the law. If daddy desperately wants his child and mommy wants to abort, too bad, so sad, dad. If daddy doesn't want to be responsible for his kid but mommy wants to keep it, to bad, so sad, dad. Abortion is not only murder, it is also patently unfair by any meaningful standard.
In their infinite wisdom, the courts decided that fatherhood amounted to nothing more than donating sperm and writing checks. A woman kills her child and is regarded as making a choice with all the moral consequence of choosing whether to buy a particular blouse. A father walks away from a liftime commitment of supporting that same kid that momma could have had chopped into little pieces and he becomes a "deadbeat dad." And the same courts that made all this possible – after creating the chaotic disaster of "no-fault divorce" – have also nearly unanimously decided that fathers shouldn't get custody of their kids. They're lucky if they get joint custody! Being a father means being pretty low on the totem poll. And of course, in recent years, we have lesbians actually taking advantage of the latest science to bypass daddy altogether. So much for dads.
Incredibly, the same secular humanists who utterly failed to see the consequences of their utter contempt for fathers have for going on forty years continued to fail to see the clear cause-effect relationship between abortion and the declining participation by fathers. But suprise, suprise. Fathers by the millions recognized and internalized the utter meaninglessness that society clearly impugned upon them and simply walked away. Duties without rights, plus criticism without recognition, is no way to attract men to embrace fatherhood. And, for that matter, rights without duties is no way to attract women to embrace motherhood.
The statistics are overwhelming and inexorable. Abortion. Fatherlessness. Out of wedlock births. Single parent households. Crime. Drugs. Gangs. Prison. Chronic dysfunction. Studies galore support the death of the family with the rise of a sociopathic youth culture. In many major cities, 65% of babies are born to unmarried women. Nationally, 70% of the long-term inmates in prisons who have committed the most violent crimes grew up without fathers. INTERPOL statistics have likewise revealed that single parenthood ratios were strongly correlated with violent crimes. Studies of juvenile offenders have shown that family structure significantly predicts delinquency. Children born out of wedlock are three times more likely to drop out of school than children in two parent households, and they are far more likely to end up on welfare. And study after study has demonstrated that children without fathers are far more likely to abuse alcohol and drugs, far more likely to be sexually, physically, and emotionally abused, far more likely to become obese, and far more likely to perpetuate the vicious cycle by having out of wedlock children themselves. And there is no connective link – NONE! – that more determines poverty than single parenthood.
You want to turn this tide around? Criminalize abortion. The problem isn't too many children being born; the problem is fatherlessness! Stop the insane double standard. If fathers should have any duty whatsoever to support their children, surely mothers have at the very least the duty to allow their children to live! Hey, guess what? This isn't a meaningless fetus; it is a precious, valuable human being, and BOTH mother and father have a duty to care for their child. Dad, you brought this little mouth into the world, and you have an obligation to provide for your baby; mom, you conceived this little bundle of joy, and you have an obligation to nurture your baby. But only a fool decrees that mother gets to decide whether a child should count enough to live, and that a father must somehow be duty-bound to completely respect and honor whatever her choice is. That is insane, and it is evil.
If we as a society begin to respect life enough that we begin to recognize that it is worth nurturing, worth, providing for, worth loving, and worth sacrificing for, then we will finally begin to see a turnaround in our society. Decades of terrible statistics will begin to improve as the society that demands that fathers recognize their children itself fundamentally recognizes children.
Abortion by its very design and by its very nature removes fathers from the equation of life. It is time to bring them back.
When fatherhood is trivialized, ignored, and removed as a factor by abortion, chaos follows. That's what all the trends tell us. And that chaos has had a terribly detrimental impact upon society. The liberals who decry the United States' involvement in the five-year old Iraq war may well have a point in noting the trillion-dollar debt that the war will cost American society; but they will not for a single nanosecond consider the multi-, multi-, multi-, multi-trillion dollar cost of abortion upon our society as it triggered massive fundamental philosophical and sociological degredations of human life. It is frankly incredible that so many supposedly intelligent people failed to see that the stupid logic that you are human only if you are wanted would not have massive unintended consequences.
And we will increasingly see the result of the international aspect of abortion as well. A June 13, 2007 news story (Infanticide, Abortion Responsible for 60 Million Girls Missing in Asia) begins as follows:
There is a little-known battle for survival going in some parts of the world. Those at risk are baby girls, and the casualties are in the millions each year. The weapons being used against them are prenatal sex selection, abortion and female infanticide — the systematic killing of girls soon after they are born.
According to a recent United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) State of the World Population Report, these practices, combined with neglect, have resulted in at least 60 million "missing" girls in Asia, creating gender imbalances and other serious problems that experts say will have far reaching consequences for years to come.
"Twenty-five million men in China currently can't find brides because there is a shortage of women," said Steven Mosher, president of the Population Research Institute in Washington, D.C. "The young men emigrate overseas to find brides."
The imbalances are also giving rise to a commercial sex trade; the 2005 report states that up to 800,000 people being trafficked across borders each year, and as many as 80 percent are women and girls, most of whom are exploited.
"Women are trafficked from North Korea, Burma and Vietnam and sold into sexual slavery or to the highest bidder," Mosher said.
Source: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,281722,00.html
Here we have a clearly established link between abortion and sex selection, as well as clear correspondence between abortion and sex slavery as well as a link between abortion and an unstable and unsustainable societal dilemma in a nuclear state. What will be the long-term psychological state of an already rogue nation as hundreds of millions of men begin to come onto the scene who cannot possibly marry or ever enjoy a normal relationship with a woman?
I still recall Senator Hillar Clinton going to a women's conference in China and lecturing the Chinese on abortion. In her view, although it is perfectly legitimate for American women to abort their progeny out of whatever subjective preference that entered their minds, as long as it is a woman's "choice." However, it is immoral for a nation-state to attempt – out of what they perceived as a direct threat to their national survival (i.e. a one child per family edict to control overpopulation) – to control the number of children born. This view is particualarly hypocritical coming from a liberal Democrat who generally favors big government bureaucratic solutions over individual free market ones. If her reasoning process wasn't already twisted enough, she then proceeded to undermine her whole "abortion is wonderful as long as women choose to do it" by lecturing the Chinese on sex selective abortions, which are done not only in China but in much of the developing world out of long-standing cultural practices that value sons over daughters. In Senator Clinton's reasoning, abortion is fine as long as it is a woman's choice, as long as she doesn't choose to abort her girls.
Sex selective abortions routinely take place throughout Asia, and is also a rampant practice in India and much of Latin America. In a bizarre but talionic twist, "a woman's right to choose" has resulted in a literal holocaust against women.
And it is not only women who fall prey to the abortion mills. While so many liberals who claim to champion civil rights laud abortion, the fact remains that abortion has cut a terrible swath among black Americans. There is a clear prima facia case to be made that abortion seems to selectively favor the weakest, the poorest, and the most vulnerable members of society. If liberals had a functioning moral compass, they would be troubled by the ramifications of their ideologies. They don't, and they aren't.
Last month UCLA students had an actor call Planned Parenthood development centers in seven states asking whether his donation could be specifically targeted to "lower the number of black people." Each branch agreed to process the racially earmarked donation. None expressed concern about the clearly expressed racist motives for the donation, and some staffers explicitly agreed with the racist reasoning. Planned Parenthood issued a statement that attempted to redirect attention from its profoundly racist staffers. We should likewise forget that 79% of Planned Parenthood abortion facilities are in minority neighborhoods, or that the founder of Planned Parenthood was a prodoundly racist proponent of eugenics. From its inception, Planned Parenthood has readily agreed with the statement, "the less black kids out there, the better," which was uttered by the UCLA actor in his recorded conversation with Planned Parenthood's Autumn Kersey. She called his position "understandable," and indicated her excitement to process the donation. He was acting; the Director of Development at the Idaho Planned Parenthood office was not.
The Rev. Johnny Hunter has bemoaned the plight of black Americans, who are killing themselves off at an incredible rate, and has pointed out that abortion has killed far more blacks than the Klu Klux Klan. Dr. Alveda King, the niece of the famed Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., has used the same analogy, saying, "The great irony is that abortion has done what the Klan only dreamed of." She quoted her uncle as having said, "It's time that we remember the sacrifices of men like my father and my uncle who worked and died so that our children could live." And she said, "It's time to stop killing the future and keep their dream alive."
The numbers are simply staggering. Dr. Alveda King says that a full one quarter of the black population is missing from the abortion genocide. "15 million black people have been denied their most basic civil right, the right to life," she says. Out of 42 million total abortions in the United States, 15 million (35.7%) have been black. Black women are three times more likely than white women to have an abortion, and a nearly half of all black pregnancies are ending in abortion!
If conservatives championed a campaign that would inevitably come to result in the termination of women and blacks in massive numbers, one can only imagine the rhetoric of disgust and righteous outrage that would flood the media ink and airwaves. But the central plank of both liberalism and the Democratic Party has clearly done exactly that, and there is nothing but stony silence.
And may I point out (again) that abortion – which removes fathers from the equation and thus trivializes fatherhood – has anhiliated black fatherhood every bit as much as it has anhiliated their babies. When we look at the shocking statistics regarding black crime, drug use, incarceration, and dysfunction on virtually every level we need to realize that abortion is not the cure, but the disease.
Finally, let me discuss the relationship of abortion with the impending Social Security meltdown. By 2017, Social Security be greater than what it takes in (the definition of bankruptcy, by the way), and the trust fund will be completely emptied by 2041.
In 1950, there were 16 workers for every recipient of Social Security. Today there are only three workers for every recipient. And given current trends, within a few decades there will only be two. There are obviously other factors to account both for this trend and for the overall problems with Social Security in general, but no problem is greater than the fact that we have killed off more than 42 million potential workers since the 1970s. Grandpa's generation did not exterminate themselves, you see (and all the wars from the Revolutionary War to the war in Iraq haven't begun to kill off Americans the way abortion has!), and so there are a lot of people to support, and way too few to support them.
Medicare is in even worse shape. By 2014, payroll tax revenue will cover just over half of Medicare's budget, and the program's trust fund – which pays for critical medicare care – will be exhausted by 2019. Something dramatic will have to be done to save the program, and liberals' promises to pump more government money into health care amount to what one of my professors – commenting on students who wrote lengthy answers to exam questions that somehow never arrived at an answer – called "pumping sunshine." By the time the bickering parties and entrenched interest groups get around to seriously trying to turn around this Titanic, it will be too late to cut benefits, and workers will revolt on a level not seen since the early 1930s if they are called upon to pay the taxes necessary to keep the entitlement programs alive.
My fear is that the younger generation and the government bureaucrats will apply the same twisted reasoning as the thinking that brought us the abortion mills that caused so much of this growing disaster in the first place. If you can kill a baby before it has a chance to be born and become potential burdens upon society, why not kill the elderly before they have a chance to become guaranteed burdens on society? Watch out, grandpa! Because the generation that survived abortion will almost surely come after you!
Liberals despise the Bible, so let me end by quoting it. Proverbs 8:32-26, urging readers to pursue godly wisdom, says, "And now, o sons, listen to me: blessed are those who keep my ways. Hear instruction and be wise, and do not neglect it. Blessed is the one who listens to me, watching daily at my gates, waiting beside my doors. For whoever finds me finds life and obtains favor from the Lord, but he who fails to find me injures himself; all who hate me love death."
Abortion is the love of death, and the pursuit of death over the pursuit of life. And the end of a culture that loves death is death.
Tags:abortion, black, burden, child support, courts, crime, drugs, duty, fatherhood, fatherlessness, fathers, fetus, holocaust, Medicare, out of wedlock, Planned Parenthood, poverty, pro-choice, right, sex trade, sex-selective, Social Security, statistics, two-parent households, zygote
Posted in Religion and Culture | 13 Comments »


Shailaja is a graduate in Child Psychology and holds a diploma in interior design. She was proprietor at her own business in designing interiors & ran it successfully for 15 years from 1994 – 2009. She has also worked as Director, Kisan Exhibitions Pvt. Ltd during 2000 – 2014.
Her urge to work in environmental field was a driving force for doing a diploma course in "Sustainable Management of Natural Resources & Nature Conservation" from Ecological Society. She has also done field botany courses. She has worked as coordinator for a project undertaken by Ecological Society for Global Forest Watch.
From 2014 onwards working on Revival of Rivers. She is an active member of Jeevitnadi group, spearheading activities with her excellent communication and leadership skills. She is practicing Toxin free life style in her own house since last 3 years. Actively participating in various workshops and presentations on Toxin free lifestyle organized by Jeevitnadi.


text:
Q: Scala split with "/" strange behaviour I'm trying to use method split on string line like this:
println("/gg/dsa".split('/').toString)
println("/gg/dsa".split("/").toString)

But both methods prints something strange like this:

[Ljava.lang.String;@6ac7c6cc

But as I can see in examples http://alvinalexander.com/scala/scala-split-string-example this should print array data.
What I've missed here?

A: you have some options to do that:
as described previously:
println("/gg/dsa".split('/').mkString(", "))

will print:

, gg, dsa

a valid alternative with the same output can be:
"/gg/dsa".split('/').foreach(print)

another alternative:
runtime.ScalaRunTime.stringOf("/gg/dsa".split('/'))

with the output:

Array("", gg, dsa)

A: Its cause you convert it to a string the String represention is printed. Now if you want to prettify an array just do:
println("/gg/dsa".split('/').deep.mkString("\n"))

A: This is the definition for java.lang.Object#toString:
public String toString() {
   return getClass().getName() + "@" + Integer.toHexString(hashCode());
}

java.lang.Array inherits directly from java.lang.Object without overriding toString to return something more appropriate, resulting in the output you're getting. What you can do is call .mkString(", ") in Scala to create the result string:
println("/gg/dsa".split("/").mkString(", "))
Which will result in output like:
, gg, dsa

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange