Police Protesters Plan To Shut Down Mag Mile On Black Friday


Spoiled brats they need to be spanked and put in the corner!

Southern Poverty Law Center Claims “Drain The Swamp” is Racist…


The professional left have nothing left. It’s all racist now… all of it. Seemingly oblivious to former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi using the term in 2007, Marxist Moonbat Editor (…

Source: Southern Poverty Law Center Claims “Drain The Swamp” is Racist…

WHO CARES WHAT THEY THINK!

trump-drain-the-swamp12111111111111211111111111111111111111211111

Juvenile Delinquency versus the Victory of Donald Trump


Prof. Paul Eidelberg

The phenomenon of college professors inciting students to vehemently and violently protest against Mr. Donald Trump’s election as President of the United States should be understood as a manifestation of juvenile delinquency!

Truth be told, these professors are half-educated academics. They have been stupefied by the university-bred doctrine of multicultural moral relativism. This doctrine purveys nihilism, a denial of the existence of Truth. Nihilism denies the power of human reason, hence of man’s God-given capacity, to distinguish between good and evil.

This Nihilism has corrupted the minds of one generation after another of American college students since the end of the First World War. Although America won this European-inspired war on the battlefield, European philosophy defeated America on the campus. The skepticism of England’s philosopher David Hume, and the historical relativism of Germany’s philosophers Hegel and Marx, took American colleges and universities by storm.

European philosophy blitzed America by obliterating America’s primary intellectual and moral foundations, whose American bedrock was the Declaration of Independence. This foundational document embodied, and preserved for the American people, a concept known as “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,” a concept rooted in the Creation Narrative of the Book of Genesis, which was undermined by Darwin’s doctrine of biological Evolution.

Darwin’s doctrine of evolution reinforced the academic doctrine of historical relativism. Historical relativism includes moral relativism, which is magnified by present-day Liberalism. This degraded form of Liberalism has utterly corrupted college youth. For this corruption we may thank half-educated American professors. These academics have taken civilization for granted. They are oblivious of how many centuries were required for thoughtful and virtuous men to overcome centuries of pagan polytheism.

Countless Liberals of the academic elite have taken civilization for granted, which means they have taken decency for granted.

While the elites of Liberal Democracy exalt freedom and equality, they are oblivious of the demonstrable truth that freedom and equality without rational and moral constraints cannot but lead to barbarism or neo-paganism. These constraints (as was known by America’s Founding Fathers) are nothing other than the Noahide Laws of morality embodied in the Book of Genesis.

Neo-paganism is manifested today not only by Muslim terrorists who behead “infidels” or burn them alive. Neo-paganism lurks in the hostile passions and prejudices of half-educated college youth who believe that by protesting against the presidential election of Donald Trump, they are upholding Democracy, when in fact they are displaying contempt for the rule of law without which Democracy degenerates into anarchy.

Unfortunately, not a single 2016 presidential candidate, not even the erudite professor Newt Gingrich, possessed the wherewithal to denounce the corrosive impact of moral relativism, a doctrine that has been propagated by America’s academic elite for several decades. Sadly, notwithstanding his merits, President-elect Donald Trump is not intellectually well-fitted to combat that sinister doctrine without arousing fools and scoundrels in the academic and electronic media to denounce him as a proponent of “absolutism” and “McCarthyism.”

It should also be noted that relativism has flourished in America despite the influence of Christianity. Indeed, the hundred denominations of Protestant Christianity encourage relativism. So, too, does the Catholic Church, which, apart from its logically untenable and sinister doctrine of “Replacement Theology,” has sullied itself by supporting independent statehood for the pagan Palestinian Authority, a device used to undermine Israel and Jewish possession of Jerusalem. Even the Vatican fosters atheism via the moral equivalency implied in its politically neutral attitude toward the Israel-Palestinian conflict!

Small wonder the evangelical atheism current in America and promoted via moral relativism will not be overcome by the established churches of Protestant and Catholic Christianity. They are more concerned about the rebirth of Israel, that is, about the intellectual threat Judaism poses to Christian theology, for example, by the compatibility of Judaism with scientific cosmology.

This compatibility, to begin with, was confirmed recently by a team of scientists headed by astronomer John M. Kovac of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. Dr. Kovac announced on March 17, 2014 that his team of astrophysicists had found the evidence it was seeking to support the theory that the universe did indeed have a beginning. Of course, this finding, as mentioned, is only a beginning; but it’s the beginning of a worldwide intellectual revolution anticipated by the Sages of Israel.

That said, can it be that the presidential victory of Mr. Donald Trump, whose election has disconcerted America’s unknown but silently subversive academic establishment, has so rattled the eggheads of this intellectual clique as to prompt them and their students to behave as juvenile delinquents – can it be, I ask, that this election of an uncouth and
unlearned “outsider” heralds a step toward America’s redemption?☼

Why Democratic America Can’t Win the War against Islam


Eidelberg Report – Tamar Yonah Show, INR – December 11, 2006 Updated

Democracies cannot win a protracted war in an era in which their opinion makers have been indoctrinated and emasculated by the university-bred doctrine of multicultural moral relativism.

This relativism, which inclines liberal democracies to pacifism, corrupts 75-80 percent of American social scientists. These academics provide the experts of our policy makers and decision makers, as well as the mandarins of the mass media. Whether studying journalism, political science, sociology, psychology, etc., they have been taught there are no objective standards by which to determine whether the way of life of one individual, group, or nation is intrinsically superior to that of another. All lifestyles are morally equal. Hence there are no moral grounds for preferring the American way of life to the Islamic way of life.

This is a denial of evil. By denying the enormity of evil, relativism fosters sentimental humanism. This humanism underlies the strategy of “post-heroic” warfare, which would not only avoid casualties to your own troops, but also to avoid killing enemy civilians.

One would have to impose censorship on the universities and the media to conduct a war-winning strategy against Islamism and its global jihad.

Let me quote Nonie Darwish, that gallant Egyptian writer who immigrated to America in 1978 and has lectured around the world since 9/11. In her book, Now They Call Me Infidel, she refers to an authoritative Muslim leader who brazenly said this to Christians: “Thanks to your democratic laws we will invade you; thanks to our religious laws we will dominate you” (p. 144).

Darwish discerns how Muslims exploit the freedom of speech of liberal democracies to spread Islamism on university campuses where Muslim student organizations freely preach Islam, obscuring its history of despotism. She notes, moreover, that liberal professors are equally if not more radical than any imam in a radical mosque. And most mosques, she warns, preach anti-Americanism, anti-Semitism, and jihad.

Darwish, the daughter of a famous shahid, but educated by Christians as well as by Muslims, writes that “In the Muslim world there are no real distinctions between moderate or radical Muslims; all are Muslims” (p. 135). Moreover, “there is nothing America or the non-Muslim West can do that will meet with gratitude and appreciation…. To the contrary, good deeds of non-Muslims toward Muslims only deepen their sense of dependency and inferiority … [and resentment]”

Darwish deplores the media, especially CNN, which has contributed, she says, to Arab hatred by regularly criticizing America. The media, she argues, have failed to inform the public that the 9/11 attack was an attack not only on America. It was an attack by the haters of civilization. Yet the public, and even college students, are largely misinformed about this culture of hatred. A huge PR campaign, supported primarily by Saudi money, has spread across U.S. campuses selling Islam as a religion of peace. But that’s exactly what
President Bush told the nation the day after 9/11!

As I wrote in New York nine days after 9/11, democratic America lacks the concepts and perseverance to win the war against Islamic Jihad. I’ve mentioned the dispiriting influence of relativism. Add the fact there are some 150 billion Muslims on this planet. Daniel Pipes estimates that 10 -15 percent (or 150-225 million) support jihad. Robert Spencer reports estimates of more than 50 percent.

To win any war, one must be ruthless. The compassionate Abraham Lincoln understood this, which is why he was so frustrated with timid generals until Ulysses S. Grant and William Tecumseh Sherman came on the scene and ravaged the South to win the Civil War. Franklin D. Roosevelt understood this, which is why Dresden was napalmed. Harry S. Truman understood this, which is why Hiroshima and Nagasaki were vaporized. Today, when Israeli generals go abroad, they face the threat of being indicted as “war criminals” for having defended their country against Arab terrorists! They are shouted down as “war criminals” at American universities.

Higher education has eroded American resolve. Contrast the following. A CNN poll just days after 9/11 showed that 76 percent of Americans said they would support military action against al-Qaeda even if it meant 5,000 troops would be killed. Today, 56 percent are resigned to the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran, and less than 10 percent supports military action to prevent that deadly outcome.

Why don’t college students know that a nuclear Iran could dominate the Middle East and the oil resources of the Persian Gulf? Why don’t they know that a pacifist Europe, already Islamized, would succumb to nuclear blackmail? Why don’t these student know that the loss of Europe would wreck the American economy and radically curtail the scholarships and funding on which the education and careers of these students ultimately depend? Why this ignorance or indifference?

Multicultural moral relativism erodes the American people’s confidence in the justice of their own cause vis-a-vis Islamic terrorism. Like the mandarins of BBC, those of CNN, ABC, NBC, USA Today, the New York Times, and the Washington Post, choke on the word “terrorism.” The same may be said of Barack Obama. This is not all.

Moral relativism has degenerated into “moral reversal.” The clearest example of this metamorphosis is the media’s coverage of the war between Israel and the PLO-Palestinian Authority. Whereas the victim, Israel, is portrayed as the villain, the villains, the Palestinian terrorists are portrayed as the victims. This moral inversion is conspicuous on university campuses, where Israel has been demonized.

But what is singularly significant, without denying the pivotal role of the race card, multicultural moral relativism prompted the large percentage of academics that voted for and facilitated the dovish Obama presidency. It should also be emphasized, however, that by curtailing American military power, Obama has promoted international anarchy.

Meanwhile, Obama has fostered a “culture of American self-hatred,” the inverse, ironically, of Islam’s culturally-induced hatred of all infidels!

Self-hatred, which is typical of the American Left, has influenced Hillary Clinton, whose mentor was the anti-American radical Saul Alinsky. Clinton’s goal in the 2016 election was to further the program – really the treachery of Barack Obama. Recall that his slogan in the 2004 presidential campaign was CHANGE, which signified nothing less than his sinister ambition to de-Americanize America. This corresponds to the “G’D damn America” malediction of his guru pastor Jeremiah Wright, a patron of the Left.

Hence we may thank the unrefined and very American Donald Trump, a political outsider, for bringing America back to its senses by relegating Hillary to the political wilderness, which the forthright Mr. Trump might inelegantly refer to as a political outhouse.☼

We’re Being Played


Very Good Advise here I woke up in the mid 90’s and then became aware of what was being done to us maybe 10 years later. It wasn’t easy because I went to college when they actually taught things!

Analysis of Global Temperature Trends, October, 2016, what’s really going on with the Climate?


The analysis and plots shown here are based on the following two data series. First NASA-GISS estimates of a global temperature shown as an anomaly (converted to degrees Celsius) as shown in their table Land Ocean Temperature Index (LOTI) and shown in the following Chart as the red plot labeled NASA. This plot is shown as a twelve month moving average to minimize the large monthly swings and better show trends; the scale for the temperatures is on the left. Second NOAA-ESRL Carbon Dioxide (CO2) values in Parts Per Million (PPM) which are shown in the following Chart as a black plot labeled NOAA. This plot is shown exactly as the data from NOAA is presented and there is no need for a moving average the scale for CO2 is shown on the right.

NASA published data as stated in the first paragraph is shown as an anomaly, but what is a temperature anomaly?  An anomaly is a deviation from some base value normally an average that is fixed. There were two problems with the system that NASA picked which were number one there is no “actual” global temperature and two since climate is a variable there cannot be a real base to measure from. NASA known for its science and engineering expertise back in the day thought it could get around these issues and created a system to do so. First they developed a computer model which took readings from all over the planet and made significant adjustments to them called homogenization and came up with the estimated global temperature. Second they picked the period 1950 to 1980 (30 years) and averaged the values and came up with 14.00 degrees Celsius and make that their base.  Then they took the calculated temperature and subtracted the base from it which gave them the anomaly. The problem is that both the base and the anomaly are arbitrary.

page-1

Now that we have a base to work with we are going to add to the previous Chart three things. The first is a trend line of the growth in CO2 since that is the entire basis for climate change according to the government through NASA and NOAA. That plot is superimposed over the black plot of the actual NOAA CO2 values as the cyan line labeled as the CO2 Model and one can see there is a very good fit to the actual NOAA values so there should be no dispute about its validity.  This plot allows us to make projections as to future global temperatures according to the level of CO2. The second added item is James E. Hansen’s Scenario B data, which is the very core of the IPCC Global Climate models (GCM’s) and which was based on a CO2 sensitivity value of 3.0O Celsius per doubling of CO2. This plot is shown here in lavender and is part of a presentation that Hansen showed to congress in 1988 when the UN was about to set up the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and this plot is labeled as Hansen Scenario B which Hansen stated was the most likely to happen based on his theories’.  The third item is the current plot of the most likely temperature of the planet based on the growth of CO2 published by the IPCC. This plot is shown in Red and is labeled as IPCC AR5 A2 as that is the table where the data was found. This plot is a GCM computer projection of the planets temperature based to the complex relationships developed on the levels of CO2 by the IPCC through NASS and NOAA.

It can be seen in this Chart that the lavender plot and the Hansen plot are very close from 1965 to around 2000 after that, from 2000 to 2014, there is a very large and growing deviation reaching close to .5 degrees Celsius in 2014, which is not an insubstantial number.  Also of note is that there doesn’t seem to be a good correlation between the growth in CO2 and the increase in the planets temperature. The CO2 is going up in a log function and the Temperature was going down in a log function until recently where it reversed and is now going up in a log function. That major change in direction that occurred between 2013 and 2014 is the subject of this paper.

page-2

The next Chart is developed from the raw data from NASS and NOAA as shown in the first Chart.  This plot was made first by adding ten years blocks of temperature and CO2 as indicated in the Chart and diving by 120 to give an average for each.  Then the average Temperature was divided by the average CO2 to give degrees of temperature increase per PPM of CO2. After that was plotted it appeared that there were two different curves the first was from block 1965-1974 through block 2004-2014 shown as Black Dots and the second was from block 1995-2004 through block 2005-2016 shown as Black Dashes. When trend lines were added they were both almost perfect fits to the raw data and so you cannot see the data points very well on the Chart.  These blocks were picked to represent the entire period of time where we had both NASA temperature data and NOAA Co2 levels.

On the following Chart are two sets of color coded information. The first is Cyan plot and the Cyan box with the equation in it along with the R2 value 0f 1.0 are for the first series from block 1965-1974 through block 2004-2014. The other is the Red plot and the Red box with the equation in it along with the R2 value of 1.0 which are for the first series from block 1965-1974 through block 2004-2016. We can speculate on how this change has happened but it cannot be said that the plot change is not real; however additions data over the next few years will be required to actually prove that something has changed.

In summary the Cyan data set indicates a diminishing effect of CO2 on global temperature for about 54 years and the Red data set represents an increasing effect of CO2 on global temperature for the past 2 years. Since both data sets have an R2 value of 1.00 the trend lines cannot be in question.

page-3

Before we get into a possible explanation to the drastic change from the Cyan data to the Red data that occurred in 20014 we need to consider other factors than CO2 on Climate change.  The fault that occurred in the work that was done in the 1980’s was in assuming that there was an optimum or constant global temperature and therefore any change that was being observed was from the increasing amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.  There may have been correlation but it was never proved that there was causation (high R2 value) between CO2 and global temperatures. With that assumption, which limited options, we moved from true science into the realm of political science.  True science has an open mind and finds relationships that work in matching observations with predictions.  Political science changes history and/or facts to match the desires of the politicians. Since the politicians control the money political science is what we get; which means that what we get may not be technically correct.

A decade ago when I started looking at “climate” change the first thing I did was look at geological temperature changes since it is well known that the climate is not a constant; I learned that 52 years ago in my undergrad geology and climatology courses in 1964. The next paragraph explains currently observed patterns in climate related to this subject.

Ignoring the last Ice Age which ended some 11,000 years ago when a good portion of the Northern hemisphere was under miles of ice the following observations give a starting point to any serious study on the subject. First, there is a clear up and down movement in global temperatures with a 1,000 some year cycle going back at least 3,000 to 4,000 years; probably because of the apsidal precession of the earth’s orbit of about 20,000 years for a complete cycle. However about every 10,000 years the seasons are reversed making the winter colder and the summer warmer in the northern hemisphere. 10,000 years from now the seasons will be reversed. Secondly, there are also 60 to 70 year cycles in the Pacific and the Atlantic oceans that are well documented. These are known as the Atlantic MultiDecadal Oscillations (AMO) in the Atlantic and as La Nina and El Nino in the Pacific. Thirdly, we also know that there are greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide that can affect global temperatures. Lastly the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) estimated that carbon dioxide had a doubling rate of 3.0O Celsius plus or minus 1.5O Celsius in 1979 when there were only two studies available and one for sure and maybe both were not per reviewed.

The result of looking objectively at the three possible sources of global temperature changes was a series of equations based on these observations that when added together produced a sinusoidal curve that seemed to follow NASA published temperatures very closely.  Since this curve was based on observed temperature patterns it was called a Pattern Climate Model (PCM) which has been described in previous papers and posts on my blog and since it is generated by “equations” many assume it is some form of least squares curve fitting, which it is not. It does seem to be related to ocean currents.

As can be seen in the following Chart the PCM there is a 69.1 year cycle that moves the trend line up and then down a total of 0.29O Celsius and we are now in the downward portion of that trend (-.01491O C per year) which will continue until around ~2035.  This short cycle is clearly observed in the raw NASA data in the LOTI table going back to 1880. Then there is a long trend, 1036.7 years with an up and down of 1.65O Celsius (.00396O C per year) also observed in the NASA data. Lastly, there is CO2 adding about .0079O Celsius per year so currently they all basically wash out at -.0039O C per year, which matches the current holding pattern we are experiencing. After about 2035 the short cycle will have bottomed and turn up and all three will be on the upswing again.  Note: the values shown here are only representative as the actual model uses many more places than what are shown here.

When using the 12 month running average for global temperatures up until 2014 the PCM model was within +/- .01 degrees of what NASA was publishing in their LOTI table since the early 1960’s as shown in the next Chart. Further the back projection of the PCM plot matched historical records and global temperatures going back past the time of Christ. It should also be consider that geologically CO2 levels have reached levels many times that of the current 400 ppm without destroying the planet so the current hysteria over the current small numbers can only be explained by political science not real science.

page-5

The nest step in this analysis is to put all of the known data and projections into one Chart which will contain: NASA’s table LOTI global temperature estimates, NOAA’s actual CO2 values, the CO2 model projections, the PCM model global temperature plot, Hansen’s Scenario B 1988 global temperature plot, and lastly the IPCC AR5 A2 global temperature plot. With that done we can look at the results and try to make some sense of what is going on with the various arms of the federal government that are promoting that carbon based fuels be eliminated since they are responsible for the global temperature level  going up.  As previously started when the government pours money into the sciences the sciences respond with technical papers the support the governments views, this is what I call political science verses real science as was done prior to the 1980’s; money talks and BS walks as everyone on the street knows.  This Chart views a good overview of the current situation showing all the facts and all the projections.

This Chart contains no manipulation of the data and the only change that was made was to convert the NASA anomalies back to degrees Celsius to make it more readable to lay people.  This is only a change in units and has no bearing on the look.  A subject not broached here is that of the NASA homogenization process itself and the base period from 1950 to 1980. The portion in the black circle contains the NASA base period of 14.00 degrees Celsius and the reason it’s brought up here is that the Homogenization process causes the global temperatures to move around since the entire data base all the way back to 1880 is recalculated each month.  But since the base has to stay at 14.00 degrees Celsius the program must be set to not allow changes in that period of time. I’m sure the programmers have fun with that. Prior work here has shown how this creates a teeter totter effect with the data plots, some of which have recently been significant.

page-6

The next Chart will be a look at the period from 2010 to 2020 so we can see the detail of the past few years where a change in CO2 of only a few ppm has caused a major change in the global temperature way beyond anything previously shown in any published NASA data. There are two black ovals on the Chart one at the top of the Chart which is a black oval around the CO2 levels for 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 and part of 2016 and it’s very obvious that there has been very little change, maybe 7 ppm or about 1.9%. Then at the bottom of the Chart is another black oval around the NASA global temperature levels for 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 and part of 2016 and its very obvious that there has been a very large change, almost .45 degrees Celsius or about 3.1%. There has never been such a large increase in temperature from such a small increase in CO2.

By contrast the previous comparable period of the last part of 2010 through 2013 shows about the same increase for CO2 at 1.1% but no increase for global temperature but actually small decrease. Worse it appears that this current strange upward trend will continue as the values shown here are based on a 12 month moving average and the current values being published by NASA have been very high for the past 7 months and therefore I would expect the NASA plot to be well over 15.00 Celsius within a few months and certainly before the end of 2016.  Also in looking at the raw data for September 2015 and October 2015 there was a jump of almost .300 Celsius that is a very large number for a couple of months and as we have shown here in previous charts not reasonable at all and therefore a perfect example of political science.

page-7

In summary, the IPCC models were designed before a true picture of the world’s climate was understood. During the 1980’s and 1990’s CO2 levels were going up and the world temperature was also going up so there appeared to be correlation and causation. The mistake that was made was looking at only a ~20 year period when the real variations in climate all move in much longer cycles of decades and centuries.  Those other cycles can be observed in the NASA data but they were ignored for some reason.  By ignoring those trends and focusing only on CO2 the models will be unable to correctly plot global temperatures until they are fixed.

Lastly, the next chart shows what a plot of the PCM model, in yellow, would look like from the year 1400 to the year 2900. This plot matches reasonably well with recorded history and fits the current NASA-GISS table LOTI data, in red, very closely, despite homogenization.  I understand that this model is not based on physics but it is also not true curve fitting. It’s based on observed reoccurring patterns in the climate. These patterns can be modeled and when they are, you get a plot that works better than any of the IPCC’s GCM’s. If the conditions that create these patterns do not change and CO2 continues to increase to 800 ppm or even 1000 ppm than this model will work well into the foreseeable future.  150 years from now global temperatures will peak at around 15.750 to 16.000 C and then will be on the downside of the long cycle for the next ~500 years.

The overall effect of CO2 reaching levels of 1000 ppm or even higher will be about 1.50 C which is about the same as that of the long cycle.  The Green plot on the Chart shows the observed pattern with no change in CO2 from the pre-industrial era of ~280 ppm. CO2 cannot affect global temperatures more than 1.500 C +/- no matter what the ppm level of CO2is. The reason being that the CO2 sensitivity value is not 3.00 per doubling of CO2 but under 1.00 C per doubling of CO2 as shown in more current scientific work.

page-8

The purpose of this post is to make people aware of the errors inherent in the IPCC models so that they can be corrected. 

The Obama administration’s “need” for a binding UN climate treaty with mandated CO2 reductions in Europe and America was achieved as predicted at the COP12 conference in Paris in December 2015. To support this endeavor NASA was forced to show ever increasing global temperatures that will make less and less sense based on observations and satellite data which will all be dismissed or ignored.  Within a few years the manipulation will be obvious even to those without knowledge in the subject, but by then it will be to late the damage to the reputation of science will have been done.

 

Sir Karl Raimund Popper (28 July 1902 – 17 September 1994) was an Austrian and British philosopher and a professor at the London School of Economics. He is considered one of the most influential philosophers for science of the 20th century, and he also wrote extensively on social and political philosophy. The following quotes of his apply to this subject.

If we are uncritical we shall always find what we want: we shall look for, and find, confirmations, and we shall look away from, and not see, whatever might be dangerous to our pet theories.

Whenever a theory appears to you as the only possible one, take this as a sign that you have neither understood the theory nor the problem which it was intended to solve.

… (S)cience is one of the very few human activities — perhaps the only one — in which errors are systematically criticized and fairly often, in time, corrected.

Putting an End to the Regulatory Industry


Federal state and local regulations stop progress and drive business elsewhere.

President Elect Donald Trump Continues Meetings Throughout Sunday…


After attending church this morning, President-Elect Donald Trump and Vice-President Elect Mike Pence head back to Bedminster New Jersey for a full day of meetings and interviews. During a call wit…

Source: President Elect Donald Trump Continues Meetings Throughout Sunday…

trump-drain-the-swamp1211111111111121111111111111111111111121

Hey you Trump supporters: Your words are worthless. Why don’t you read a history book or something… — Fellowship of the Minds


Well said kommonsentsjane

kommonsentsjane's avatarkommonsentsjane

A 20-year-old singer, Lauren Jauregui, is a member of the band Fifth Harmony which was formed in 2012. She is of Cuban descent and recently came out as bisexual (give her a brownie!). She’s none-too-happy with Trump supporters and has exercised her First Amendment right in an open letter to those of us who voted […]

via Hey you Trump supporters: Your words are worthless. Why don’t you read a history book or something… — Fellowship of the Minds

Reblogged on kommonsentsjane/blogkommonsents.

My dear Lauren:

You lost me when you gave the world “your losers’ salute – the middle finger.”  You also need to rename your band “Fifth Harmony”- a misnomer.  In simple words of a born and bred American whose grand parents came from the Czech Republic.

My question, why are  you so angry – a young, beautiful young girl (forget the LADY part) with so much talent and given…

View original post 214 more words

James Bond Sends ‘Toxic’ Message About Masculinity — Fellowship of the Minds


Sometimes a real man is actually needed!

kommonsentsjane's avatarkommonsentsjane

Pajama Boy approved. From Heat Street: On International Men’s Day, a Conservative MP said that James Bond and characters like him send a “toxic” message that “a real man is fearless and emotionless,” as well as ”aggressive, disconnected and walking alone.” Film’s idealization of stoic heroes can have devastating real-world consequences, Caroline Dinenage said, specifically […]

via James Bond Sends ‘Toxic’ Message About Masculinity — Fellowship of the Minds

Reblogged on kommonsentsjane/blogkommonsents.

It is all about personalities and choices!

When will these people distinguish between – it’s a movie and real life?  You can choose to be whoever you want to be –  you have a choice -Hollyweird continues trying to influence our young people by instructing them on what choice not choices they have.  Some men  choose to be an intellect, some choose to be a tough guy, some work to be a rich guy, and others choose to be…

View original post 30 more words