A plastic purse for carrying America’s most cherished food product.

Source

BK writes:

I received this ‘invitation’ within the hour:

‘We hope you’ll be able to join us at a livestream this October 31st, as we watch His Holiness Pope Francis, Lutheran World Federation President Bishop Munib A. Younan, and General Secretary Rev. Martin Junge lead the common prayer service in Lund, Sweden, and the public symposium that follows in Malmö, Sweden.’ Read More »

M. OLIVER HEYDORN writes at the Clifford Douglas Institute website:

We live now in an age of mass migrations and of rumours of mass migrations. With the term ‘mass migration’ we are referring, of course, to the movement, not merely of large numbers of people, but of whole groups of people, who constitute various racial-cultural gestalts, en masse from one nation or region to another. When it comes to explaining why this mass migration has been occurring, why it is, on the whole, a negative phenomenon, and what can be done to reduce migratory flows to saner proportions and saner forms, Social Credit theory has much to contribute to the public discourse.

See my previous post on Social Credit theory here. Social Credit aims to create an adequate flow of debt-free money in the economy and provide “national dividends” to citizens so that, among other things, the shortage of jobs caused by technological innovation does not result in a pervasive shortage of money. In Heydorn’s words, Social Credit is a “radical type of monetary reform that is specifically designed to subordinate the activities of the group to the well-being of each individual member of economic association (thus liberating the individual from the domination of the group – and from the domination of the elite who control the group – that currently characterizes economic life). ”

Heydorn continues in the above post:

Respect for the organic, i.e., that which arises spontaneously from within, is a hallmark of Social Credit philosophy and policy. Social Credit’s great objection to mass migration and to the type of multicultural societies which mass migration produces is the thoroughly inorganic character of both. People do not fall prey to a spontaneous desire to permanently uproot themselves by journeying thousands of miles away from home, often inter-continentally, because they have an overwhelming wish to enrich someone else’s culture or for the love of travel. They do it because the reigning financial system (amongst other possible factors) makes it difficult, if not extremely difficult, for many people to achieve a decent standard of living in their own countries of origin. The more well-to-do nations are all too eager to welcome these immigrants, who may be likened to ‘refugees’ fleeing financial oppression, as potential economic adjuncts. Provided that the money is forthcoming, these people will produce and above all consume, thus helping to satisfy the need for continual economic growth. [cont.]

WESLEY MORRIS, pop culture critic and Pulitzer Prize recipient, acclaimed as a latter-day Oscar Wilde, writes in the pages of The New York Times that American culture does not pay sufficient reverence to the black male sexual organ. Seriously.

Nothing is beneath the Times — absolutely nothing — when it comes to promoting racial division and dragging America into the gutter.

JAMES N. writes:

This is a “pumping pod” at the Atlanta Airport so that businesspeople, salespeople, managers and lawyers can pump in privacy between flights.

God forbid that anything should deter the needs of commerce.

Virgin and Child, Francesco di Stefano

ANOTHER day, another blasphemy from Frank the Fake:

“Practice and teach this prayer, for to ask and beg for consolation is the main service of joy,” Francis noted. “Joy is constitutive of the gospel message … good news cannot be given with a sad face.”

As anyone with the slightest familiarity with Catholic history knows, and as these paintings show, the good news has been given with a sad face.

Ecce Homo, Andrea Mantegna, c. 1500

A STORY you won’t find in The New York Times.

See many more cases here.

FEMINISTS, if they were true to their stated goal of obtaining recognition and compensation for women based on merit, should be deeply offended by anyone — man or woman — who says he will vote for Hillary Clinton simply because she is a woman. This idea should outrage feminists.

For being a woman in itself is not something with which a woman can be credited. She had nothing to do with the simple fact that she is a woman. Her character is something she creates, not her sex. There are all kinds of women. If they were true to their stated goal, feminists would be hyper-vigilant and discriminating when it comes to electing any woman. “No, we don’t want just a woman,” they would say. “We want the best.”

But they don’t say that. I realize that many, probably most, feminists believe Hillary is the best, but they typically don’t object to those who want Hillary to be president purely because she is a woman. And therefore, their alleged goal is cheapened by a tendency to assign virtue to the mere physical fact of being a woman, which perhaps explains why Hillary’s character, formed under this halo, is so poor.

Diana Johnstone, the liberal author of Queen of Chaos: The Misadventures of Hillary Clinton, responded to the notion of voting for Hillary purely because she is a woman. She was speaking to a liberal audience: Read More »

TK writes:

I remember not believing the polls in the last presidential election. I actually thought Romney would win in a landslide. I remember my disbelief when state after state started falling into the blue column. I couldn’t believe that this country would re-elect Obama, knowing so much more about him this time around than was known about him the last time. It made no sense to me. But it was what it was.

Here we are again. Polls, polls polls, almost all oversampling Democrats, some by a pretty decent margin. If we’re to believe them this time, we have to believe that the country wants more Democrat policies. Read More »

Boston Globe/ Jim Davis

A RHODE ISLAND man criticized the pervasiveness of yoga pants on women last week in a letter to the editor of a local newspaper. As a result, his home in Barrington was reportedly sieged this weekend, with hundreds of women walking past his house with bullhorns, flags, signs and an arsenal of feminist platitudes, in a flash mob generated on social media.

Alan Sorrentino, the letter writer, said he has also received death threats. Well, of course, he deserves a death sentence. He’s an enemy of women.  Apparently, Mr. Sorrentino, 63, has been living in a cave. How else could he not know that it is all but a capital crime to criticize the ugly, sexually aggressive clothing offered by a decadent, corporate fashion industry that doesn’t care if women look like slabs of meat and purveys everything feminists have ever decried as the “objectification” of women?

The Boston Globe quotes from the letter:

‘‘Yoga pants belong in the yoga studio,’’ he wrote. ‘‘What’s next? Wearing a ‘‘Speedo’’ to the supermarket? Imagine if men did that. Yuck!’’

Sorrentino wrote that it’s ‘‘bizarre and disturbing’’ to see the outfits on ‘‘mature, adult women,’’ noting that it’s ‘‘usually paired with a blousy top and a pony tail hairdo.’’ He said it’s the worst thing to happen in women’s fashion since the miniskirt. He said women should wear a ‘‘nice pair of tailored slacks’’ or jeans instead.

[…]

He told women who wear yoga pants that he’s struggling with his own physicality as he ages and said, ‘‘I don’t want to struggle with yours.’’

Mr. Sorrentino later defended himself by saying he was just joking and that only a “tormented, uptight individual” would criticize what women wear. He is scared. Men are understandably scared of yoga-practicing, peace-loving feminist bullies who have the multi-billion dollar corporate media, the American government and the entire political establishment behind them. Sorrentino probably is a “tormented, uptight individual,” and he certainly didn’t go far enough. He should have totally condemned the public wearing of yoga pants, not just on older women. Though most women don’t intend it, the clingy and revealing synthetic pants, which would have been considered not all that long ago no more acceptable in public than underwear, are a form of sexual aggression. They draw excessive attention toward their bodies — and thus away from their personalities. (Mr. Sorrentino might have also done the world a service by criticizing yoga itself, a practice which encourages resignation, a practice which, though connected to a noble contemplative tradition, presents the divine as an impersonal force, no more interesting than a rock, and is partly response for the Closing of the American Mind.)

Attendees of the march said they would not endure “policing” of women’s bodies — as if criticism was coercion, as if words constituted a jail sentence.

We need more tormented, uptight individuals to stand up to these bullies who don’t realize that what they wear affects other people and is a social statement. Yoga pants worn in public undermine the dignity of women. They make a statement: women are hunks of meat, rather than potentially elevated beings with a noble mission in this world. They are anti-feminine and cruel to women who don’t have the slim and sleek bodies idolized by our culture. Furthermore, they are depressing — black uniforms devoid of decorative interest — and thus they further undermine the dignity of women everywhere and contribute to the pervasive ugliness of our environment.

THE VOTE, writes Thomas Droleskey, has long been rigged:

Actual election fraud has been a common phenomenon in the history of this nation. The stuffing of ballot boxes was common in the nineteenth century when paper ballots were used. Voters were intimidated by means of physical threats. People voted two or three times. Ballots cast for some candidates were thrown out or burned. Dead people voted, a phenomenon still to be found in certain precincts in the country. Most of the popular vote totals of the nineteenth century are merely advisory. They do not truly reflect the actual votes cast by voters. Read More »

HILLARY CLINTON has flouted the law so brazenly that if she wins the election, her presidency will be of questionable legitimacy. Mike Adams writes:

Every element of this election is so rigged, so illegal and so fraudulent that if Hillary Clinton “wins” this vote, the Presidency of the United States will be null and void.

From Zero Hedge:

“That an establishment democratic candidate could endure an extended FBI investigation, in which multiple federal laws were clearly and intentionally broken, and clear evidence of corruption and collusion between the FBI and State Department is mind boggling. Throw in evidence from WikiLeaks clearly linking the DNC to criminal efforts to incite violence at rallies, numerous examples of pay-to-play activities at the Clinton Foundation, blatant media collusion, etc, etc, and it actually becomes quite frightening.” Read More »

WAYNE MADSEN contends there is no evidence that the Russian government hacked e-mails of Hillary Clinton and her staffers. Most likely, it was done by those attempting to gain entry to files pertaining to UFOs:

[C]entral Intelligence Agency director John Brennan, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, and National Security Agency director Admiral Mike Rogers provided not one iota of evidence that it was Russian state players who hacked into the computers of the Democrats or the personal email accounts of Hillary Clinton campaign manager John Podesta and other staffers.

Podesta has a long track record of interest in extraterrestrial visitations of our planet and unidentified flying objects (UFOs) and the files the U.S. government possesses on these subjects. Consequently, Podesta, who has served as White House chief of staff for Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, has drawn the interest of the most dedicated contingent among the computer hacker community: those who hope to discover the “mother lode” of secret files allegedly held by the U.S. government on alien visitations and UFOs.

Clinton’s unsupported and provocative claim that Russia is interfering in the election is a form of treason. Read More »

THE LGBT agenda is not kind. In fact, it is intolerant, hateful, narrow-minded and un-supported by science.

See more here. As Peter LaBarbera writes:

Is it not cruel to tell a man who was raped as a boy by an adult pervert – or seduced into incestuous sex by an older brother – that he is now destined to be stuck with a deviant and immoral sexual identity for the rest of his life? With so many ex-“gays” like Dennis Jernigan proclaiming freedom from past homosexuality, how can anyone – journalist, gay activist or scholar – claim that adults cannot change their “sexual orientation?” Read More »

IF you have any doubt about whether you should vote for Donald Trump, as opposed to not voting at all, I recommend this round up of editorial commentary from The New York Times on Wednesday’s debate. Anyone who inspires such adolescent rage on the part of the mental midgets at the Times deserves your support.

HILLARY Clinton’s sentimental distortions in Wednesday’s debate about women who make the “heartbreaking” decision to terminate the life of their late-term child because their own life is in danger is just the kind of thing hailed by these ghouls outside Trump Tower (above) protesting “hatred” of women. In the decadent United States of America, valuing the most important thing women do — bringing life into the world — is “hating” women. Hillary is a master at flattering women and presenting evil as good.

It is tragic when a woman becomes ill during pregnancy and needs treatment that may injure her unborn baby. If Hillary truly cared about families and children, as she so often maintains, she would argue for helping those in this situation to cope with the results and she would valorize their struggles. It is never necessary to abort a child to save a woman’s life. According to the Association of Pro-Life Physicians:

When the life of the mother is truly threatened by her pregnancy, if both lives cannot simultaneously be saved, then saving the mother’s life must be the primary aim.  If through our careful treatment of the mother’s illness the pre-born patient inadvertently dies or is injured, this is tragic and, if unintentional, is not unethical and is consistent with the pro-life ethic.  But the intentional killing of an unborn baby by abortion is never necessary. Read More »

LESLIE L. writes:

I have enjoyed your blog for quite some time. I am a housewife myself and thoroughly enjoy what I do. Yet I am facing a huge problem that I am hoping I can get some advice about.

My oldest daughter, who is a teenager, doesn’t want children. I don’t believe she is 100 percent adamant about it, because I think she gains some satisfaction at my dislike at the thought (maybe a control issue for her), yet I am worried I am just not setting a good example for her.

She is not the “average” teenager in that she participates in bible study nightly, doesn’t support the LGBT community (which she says is common at her high school), she doesn’t swear or dress immodestly, and wants to save herself for marriage. All of that in itself sets her apart from the average American teenager in my opinion. Read More »

GALLIWATCH reports on Sunday’s rally in Paris on behalf of marriage:

“Destroying the Family, the primary place of fraternity, is to make fraternity impossible.”

See more here. Read More »