Sunday, May 31, 2009

The Politics Of Science


Scientists, not unlike journalists, are arrogant people. No, its not because they are, as some would have you believe, smarter than the rest of us. It really has more to do with their perceptions of their reputations. Science, we are repeatedly told, is concerned with facts and data and therefore it is supposedly immune to the sort of criticism leveled at the likes of politicians and clergymen. Unfortunately, scientists are, in fact, human and therefore susceptible to the same biases and temptations that befall the rest of us. Is it then shocking to find out that scientists would cast their "precious" reputations before swine and bias their research in favor of a particularly desired outcome, especially if by doing so they would gain both fame and the financing needed to continue their pursuits? Of course not.

The fact is, we have seen politics invaded by science all too often lately. Or is it the other way around? Sometimes it can get really hard to tell who is the whore and who is the customer. We have seen this a lot lately in the political discourse over so-called man made global warming. There are billions, perhaps trillions, of dollars at stake over public policy that is being debated to combat what is essentially a scientifically superficial fraud. The legislation now being considered in congress is nothing more than a redistributionist scheme to extract wealth from the private sector and place it in the control of the government. More scientists are coming out every day against the idea that any change in the climate is due to the actions of mankind or, more importantly, that any action taken by mankind could or should reverse it. Yet, experts who contest the concept of man-made global warming are not even being allowed to bring their arguments into the Democratically controlled congress's debates on the issue. The game is being rigged and a sympathetic media is going along with it. There is still hope that this Cap and Trade swindle will be stifled by congressmen from energy producing states acting in their own self-interest. But who knows? In Obama's world anything that generates economy destroying debt is seen as the "collective good."

And how about the fiasco over embryonic stem cell research? We recently watched as the current president excoriated the previous one as being unfriendly to science because he failed to fund new lines of embryonic stem cell research. This, in spite of the fact that embryonic stem cell research has been a considerable failure compared to the research being done with adult stem cells. This entire episode is nothing more than a political sideshow in the continuing debate over abortion and the definition of an embryo as human life. The politics and the science is being intertwined into an unnecessary moral dilemma. One that, from a purely scientific point of view, should be resolved with the successes of adult stem cell research. But why put an end to a good fight?

It should therefore come as no surprise to find out that the politically motivated science of progressive social engineers has yet again been derailed from its devious and deceptive tracks. This time it is the myth that homosexuality is genetically inherited that is coming unravelled. Yes, you read that correctly, one of the progressive's favorite lies is being scientifically destroyed. And not a moment to soon.

Many people today believe that homosexuality is part of a homosexual's construction from the moment of conception. This idea that homosexuality is both a genetic and permanent condition has been promoted by both homosexual activists and a fawning media. One example often promoted by the media is this from a brochure issued by the American Psychological Association (APA) in 1998 that stated:

"There is considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality."

There is only one problem with that. It is not, and never has been, true. The truth is that such statements are, and always have been, part of a massive homosexual propaganda campaign designed to deceive the public into accepting homosexual behavior as natural and normal. It was neither, and many of us have said so all along. However, by taking control of the debate and framing homosexuality as non-choosable and inherited, it became possible to refer to anyone who opposes the homosexual agenda as a bigot. A nice weapon to wield if you can get away with it. Unfortunately the real science of genetic research was always unwilling to go as far as the propaganda, as evidenced by this from Science Magazine in 1994:

"Time and time again, scientists have claimed that particular genes or chromosomal regions are associated with behavioral traits, only to withdraw their findings when they were not replicated. "Unfortunately," says Yale's [Dr. Joel] Gelernter, "it's hard to come up with many" findings linking specific genes to complex human behaviors that have been replicated. "...All were announced with great fanfare; all were greeted unskeptically in the popular press; all are now in disrepute."

In other words, it is not as simple as the journalists and activists implied. They had a result they desired and proceeded to look for some science to back it up. In the meantime they were willing to stretch the inconclusive results into unsubstantiated data that would support their desired conclusion. That conclusion being that homosexuals are born and not the product of any "environmental" influences. How damning it is then that the APA, after years of research deliberately looking for this mythical "gay gene," would be forced to change their statement on homosexuality to this:

"There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles. ..."

Although they declined to reveal the particulars of the research that made them change their position it is resoundingly clear that all efforts to prove that homosexuality is biologically and genetically transmitted have failed. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A GAY GENE!

The MAJORITY of scientists now believe that homosexuality is attributable to a combination of psychological, social and biological factors, as the following statements on the matter can attest:

"Many scientists share the view that sexual orientation is shaped for most people at an early age through complex interactions of biological, psychological and social factors." -American Psychological Association

"At this point, the most widely held opinion [on causation of homosexuality is that multiple factors play a role." -Simon LeVay, "Gay Brain" researcher

"Any human behavior is going to be the result of complex intermingling of genetics and environment. It would be astonishing if it were not true for homosexuality." -Dennis McFadden, University Of Texas neuroscientist

"I know of no one in the field who argues that homosexuality can be explained without reference to environmental factors." -Steven Goldgerg, Sociologist

"If homosexuality was caused by genetic mechanisms, their children would be more likely to choose same-sex interaction. But they aren't more likely, so therefore it can't be genetic." - Douglas Abbott, University of Nebraska

All of this information is documented by The National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH). NARTH also has this to say about a term often used by proponents of homosexuality: "homophobia":

"The term 'homophobia' is often used inaccurately to describe any person who objects to homosexual behavior on either moral, psychological or medical grounds. Technically, however, the term actually denotes a person who has a phobia – or irrational fear – of homosexuality. Principled disagreement, therefore, cannot be labeled 'homophobia.'"

Homosexuality makes for strange bedfellows. The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 would provide special protections to homosexuals but leave Christian ministers open to prosecution should their teachings be linked to any subsequent offense, by anyone, against a homosexual. However, if we take this new Hate Crimes legislation to its natural conclusion, could not scientists who argue that homosexuality is not an inborn trait be considered guilty of violating the Hate Crimes legislation also? Homosexuals consider ANY criticism of them as hate speech so certainly if they decry the words of God from the Bible they must assuredly decry the words of scientists who fail to support their agenda. Something to consider as well is why we should allow such legislation to pass at all as it clearly is aimed at protecting behavior and not people. Perverse and un-natural behavior at that!

According to a recent survey by the Pew Research Center For People and the Press, attitudes about homosexuals have changed significantly over the last 22 years. This is especially true among people who consider themselves to be religious. There is a trend toward more tolerance towards homosexuals and the idea of homosexual marriage. This can be entirely attributed to the homosexual activists and their use of propaganda to deceive the public into viewing their "plight" as a civil rights issue. It is not. Their entire campaign has been built on deliberately misleading, and at times, entirely fabricated science. These lies are now being exposed. There is nothing virtuous about tolerating, supporting or endorsing homosexuals or homosexual behavior. If you are one of those who were led to believe that homosexuals are born that way, then you are a victim of this deceptive propaganda machine. Be a victim no more.

All of this has to be devastating to homosexual advocates, and it would be, if the media would report any of it. Like the also less that scientifically valid Theory of Evolution, some science is too politically important to allow the facts to interfere with the agenda. The Theory of Evolution is nothing more than a cog in the progressive religion of "multiculturalism" that is used to justify every social engineering scheme the socialist left favors. Genetic homosexuality, by contrast, is considered to be a poison to the only religion that can compete with theirs...Christianity. And to think these are the people who argue that they favor science over religion...

Sunday, May 3, 2009

Der Angriff


If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, then somewhere (Hell, perchance?) Joseph Goebbels is basking in celebration. Certainly the infamous propaganda minister for The Third Reich has to be proud of the Obama administration's bold use of his tried and true tactics of mass deception. Coordinated and "manufactured" stories and pseudo-events pour through the media daily, all in deliberate lockstep with the "Community Organizer In Chief's" agenda to remake Amerika into a socialist/fascist state more susceptible to deception and, ultimately, control. Consider these headlines which appeared in newspapers across the country on April 7th and 8th, 2009:

• Third of Illinoisans went without health insurance in last 2 years: Sun-Times
• Report: 2.5M in Michigan lacked health insurance: Chicago Tribune
• Study: 29% of Ohioans have gone without health insurance: BizJournals
• Report: More NJ residents lacking health insurance: Forbes
• Study: Many Kansans are uninsured: BizJournals
• Report tallies uninsured in Hawaii: KPUA AM 670
• Study: 1 in 3 Alabamians have no insurance: BizJournals
• 1 out of 4 NH residents lacked health insurance within last two years: WBZ
• 1 out of 3 Coloradans lacked insurance in past two years: Denver Post
• Nearly 1 in 3 Idahoans lack health insurance, study says: Idaho Statesman
• One in four nonelderly Minnesotans has been without health insurance, study shows: Twin Cities
• 1 in 3 are uninsured in Georgia, study says: Augusta Chronicle
• 1.3 million Louisiana residents uninsured: Independent
• Millions in N.C. lack health plan: Winston-Salem Journal
• Uninsured are mostly working: Sun-Herald
• Nearly one-third of Wyoming residents went without health insurance in past two years: Wyoming Tribune
• Report finds health insurance lacking in W.Va.: Charleston Gazette
• Nearly 1/3 Of Kentuckians Uninsured Says Report: WFPL Radio
• REPORT: 254K Rhode Islanders Uninsured at Some Point from 2007-2008: ABC 6

- List

There are considerably more examples than this but I think you get the idea. All of these stories were "supplied" by an organization called "Families USA." Actually they are nothing more than one of many liberal/progressive advocacy groups working under the larger umbrella of something that calls itself the "Progressive States Network." And who, praytell, would you imagine that they receive their orders from? Why none other than our good friends at ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) and the SEIU (Service Employees International Union).

Incidentally, aren't these the same people who are attempting to backdoor engineer the so-called "fairness doctrine" under the concept of "localism?" Yet none of these stories that appeared all across the country in "local" media sources were actually generated locally. Oh, the hypocrisy of the progressive/socialist left!

"I am absolutely determined that by the end of the first term of the next president, we should have universal health care in this country." -Barack Obama

President Obama made this claim during the campaign that got him elected. Now he has initiated the propaganda campaign that he hopes will help him to fulfill that promise. Unfortunately, as with most propaganda campaigns, accuracy, honesty and truth take a back-seat to partisan objectives. The mainstream media, an active participant in the Obama propaganda machine, continues to tout the figure of 47 million Americans without health insurance. However, as always, this figure is both misleading and distorted. Data from the Census Bureau reveals:

• 9.5 million people are illegal aliens.
• 8.3 million uninsured people are those who make between $50,000 and $74,999 per year and choose not to purchase insurance.
• 8.7 million uninsured people are those who make over $75,000 a year and choose not to purchase insurance.

Not particularly the kind of uninsured "victims" that the American people should be enthusiastic enough to overhaul their entire medical apparatus just to rescue are they? Why do so many people CHOOSE not to get health insurance that they CAN afford? Because 60% reported being in "excellent health or very good health" and purposefully decided not to buy insurance, a not unreasonable choice. Once we subtract these willfully uninsured from the original number we are left with approximately 20 million uninsured, that less than 7% of the population! Does 93% of the population really want to jeopardize the best health care system in the world over something that is most definitely NOT a crisis? There are ways to help the remaining uninsured that do not involve such a radical response as this president is proposing. The "crisis" in health care is false. You want to improve the system? Put limits on the judgements one can recieve for a malpractice/negligence lawsuit. However, since almost EVERYONE in government is a lawyer, and they tend to profit from such litigation, I wouldn't hold my breath for such tort reform.

The new U.S. Propaganda ministry (a.k.a. the mainstream media) doesn't satisfy itself with the mere misrepresentation of facts. Deliberately manufactured events and photo opportunities are just as useful in portraying our new president as something other than what he is. A recent "surprise visit" (c'mon "Clockwork Orange" fans) by the president to visit the troops in Iraq was plastered in the media all around the world. If you believed your lying eyes you thought the troops were elated to see the president. They were cheering and gathering around him in much the same way as they did for his predecessor who was very popular with them. The Associated Press expressed it thusly:

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama went for the defining television shot by capping his first extended foreign tour with a surprise visit to Iraq. He got it – pictures of hundreds of U.S. troops cheering wildly as he told them it was time for the Iraqis to take charge of their own future. The war-zone photo opportunity produced a stunning show of appreciation for Obama from military men and women who have made great sacrifices, many serving repeated tours in a highly unpopular war. - AP

But alas, you didn't see what you thought you saw. As it turns out the entire event was no "surprise visit" at all, but was instead a thoroughly planned and orchestrated event. When the curtain is pulled back we learn that all of the soldiers that were invited to greet the president on this fabricated "surprise visit" were, in fact, questioned beforehand so that only those who revealed themselves as having voted for Obama would be in attendance.

That wonderful cheering welcome that President Obama received with his unscheduled surprise visit to the troops in Iraq, was entirely a staged event. The troops were interrogated beforehand, with those military members who had voted for President Obama given identical digital cameras and placed in front of the media cameras covering the event. - Minority Report


A sergeant who was there explained the subterfuge. “We were pre-screened, asked by officials ‘Who voted for Obama?’, and then those who raised their hands were shuffled to the front of the receiving line. They even handed out digital cameras and asked them to hold them up.” - Minority Report

Isn't it strange that all these soldiers managed to have their cameras with them when the president "surprised" them with his visit? And don't they all look remarkably similar? Isn't that curious considering the plethora of different cameras there are on the market? But really, has this administration shown any competence at ANYTHING? Why would we presume they would be all that good at deception?

Do you remember that episode of the classic TV show "The Brady Bunch" where Greg Brady was made into a rock star because he fit the suit that the record company already had? They even hired girls to attack him everywhere he went so he would look like a star. Barack Obama's presidency is playing out much the same way. Everything is controlled and contrived, and he is not going to deviate from the pre-arranged plan. It worked to get him elected and as long as he keeps the mainstream media in his pocket, he hopes he can continue to manipulate public opinion through these deceptions. And boy does he have the media in his pocket!! Consider these recently revealed facts from the Center For Media & Public Affairs:

Total network news coverage for the first 50 days:

Obama 27 hours- 44 minutes-- Reporting 58% Positive
Bush 7 hours- 42 minutes -- Reporting 33% Positive
Clinton 15 hours- 2 minutes-- reporting 44% Positive

Obama’s news coverage for the first 50 days:

CBS 10 hours 46 minutes -- Reporting 58% Positive
NBC 9 hours 38 minutes -- Reporting 61% Positive
ABC 7 hours 20 minutes -- Reporting 57% Positive

Fox- Bret Baier 10 hours 24 minutes ( from the first 30 minutes of the show)--
Reporting 13% Positive

I would like to say these numbers are surprising but, unfortunately, we all knew this to be true. However what IS surprising is how blatantly and shamelessly journalists have sold their integrity. And for what? Like Esau in the famous Bible story, it would appear to be for food! Well, maybe not for food but certainly the transaction did take place over dinner. A recent report from Howard Kurtz revealed that David Bradley of the Atlantic Monthly has been, for over a year, regularly hosting dinners that allow certain elitist journalists to mingle with A list members of the Obama campaign and administration. These exclusive dinners are ongoing even as his campaign has become his administration. Who are these elitist journalists that merit invitations to these exclusive dinners?

"Among those in regular attendance are David Brooks and Maureen Dowd of the New York Times, Gene Robinson and Ruth Marcus of The Washington Post, NBC's David Gregory, ABC's George Stephanopoulos, PBS's Gwen Ifill, the New Yorker's Jane Mayer, Vanity Fair's Todd Purdum, former Time managing editor Walter Isaacson and staffers from Bradley's Atlantic and National Journal, including Ron Brownstein, Andrew Sullivan and Jonathan Rauch." - Washington Post

And you wonder how Obama gets such favorable reporting!! Don't be too impressed by all those polls that show Obama to have a high approval rating either. Numbers and statistics are even easier to manipulate than journalists...and they eat less! Barack Obama first conquered the media and effectively made them into his propaganda ministry. They have a lot invested in him. They need him to succeed to cover their own asses. Those polls that originate from media sources reflect a higher opinion of Obama than the more respectable (and accurate) polls used to track elections. He is not nearly as well approved of as is being reported. But remember, according to the media in Germany during WW II, they were always winning the war, even as the American and Russian armies were destroying their country. When your entire government is built on a foundation of deception and manipulation, you cannot ever abandon those methods. Certainly Joseph Goebbels would approve of Obama's methods. But then again, both Joseph Goebbels AND Barack Obama are...SOCIALISTS!!

Der Angriff (meaning "The Attack" in English) was a newspaper founded in 1927 by Joseph Goebbels.