So the guy behind “Sharknado” (Thunder Levin) says the movies warn of the dangers of global warming and bio-meteorology.
You just can’t make this stuff up.
Anonymous asked: A woman should only get an abortion if the infant (or mistake in this case) was physically and/or mentally disabled in anyway, other than minor things like ADHD, or (strictly) Aspergers, they at least have some worth to them.
That’s very Progressive of you. That’s the same mentality Hitler and the Nazis had back in the day, which they learned from the early 20th century American Progressives (Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, FDR, etc.)
Look up eugenics and it’s history. If you still feel the same way, well, that’s sad.
White couples that adopt non-white kids
If you’re getting mad at someone for adopting a parentless child and bringing that child into a loving home because their skin color doesn’t match then you need to take a good hard look at your prioritys, evaluate your life, and ask yourself how you sunk this fucking low.
Also, would it be just as bad for a black couple to adopt non-black kids?
Or should qualified adoptive parents be allowed to adopt whichever kid they want to?
See, when I talk about adoption as an alternative to abortion, and I say how easy it is for infants to be adopted, I get snarky people saying “unless you’re black or disabled.” And I always thought, “huh?”, because there are a lot of waiting families that either don’t care about the race of their child or specifically want to adopt a minority child. There are also families waiting to adopt special needs kids.
But now I get it. They say that because they don’t WANT minority children to be adopted — unless it’s by someone of their own ethnicity. They would rather that child grow up in the foster system they despise than see a white couple adopt them.
Or, really, they’d rather see that child killed before birth. After all, black children are killed by abortion at 5x the rate white children are. And apparently that’s awesome.
You guys are so tolerant and not racist.
More than half of central American immigrants live off of US government welfare
According to a new report, more than half of all immigrants from Central America to the United States receive welfare from the US taxpayers. Of these immigrants, more than 60% are in this country illegally.
from Center for Immigration Studies:
The figures below are for both legal and illegal immigrants from the public-use files of the 2012 American Community Survey, collected by the Census Bureau:
- Population Totals: In 2012 there were 2.7 million immigrants from El Salvador (1.3 million), Guatemala (880,000), and Honduras (536,000) in the United States. Combined, the immigrant population from these three countries has grown 234 percent since 1990.
- The Top-10 States of Settlement: California Texas, New York, Florida, Maryland, Virginia, New Jersey, Massachusetts, North Carolina, and Georgia.
- Illegal Immigrants: Department of Homeland Security estimates indicate that about 60 percent of immigrants from these three countries (1.6 million) are in the United States illegally.
- Language: Of immigrants from El Salvador, 70 percent report they speak English less than very well; for immigrants from Guatemala, it is 72 percent; and for immigrants from Honduras, it is 69 percent.
- Home-ownership: Of households headed by Salvadoran immigrants, 41 percent are owner-occupied, as are 28 percent of Guatemalan households, and 29 percent of Honduran immigrant households. The corresponding figure for natives is 66 percent.
The figures below are for both legal and illegal immigrants from the public-use files of the March 2013 Current Population Survey, collected by the Census Bureau:
- Educational Attainment: 54 percent of Guatemalan immigrants (ages 25 to 65) have not graduated high school. The figure for Salvadorans is 53 percent, and for Hondurans, 44 percent. The corresponding figure for native-born Americans is 7 percent.
- Welfare Use: 57 percent of households headed by immigrants from El Salvador use at least one major welfare program, as do 54 percent of Honduran households, and 49 percent of Guatemalan immigrant households. Among native households it is 24 percent.
- Poverty: 32 percent of Honduran immigrants and their young children (under 18) live in poverty; as do 31 percent of Guatemalan immigrants and their children and 28 percent of Salvadoran immigrants and their children. The corresponding figure for natives and their children is 14 percent.
- Health Insurance: 47 percent of Guatemalan immigrants and their young children (under 18) do not have health insurance. The figure for both Salvadoran and Honduran immigrants and their young children is 41 percent. The corresponding figure for natives and their children is 13 percent.
- Share Working: 77 percent of immigrants from El Salvador (ages 25 to 54) have a job, as do 74 percent of Guatemalan immigrants and 73 percent of Honduran immigrants. The corresponding figure for natives is 76 percent.
This is the single largest problem with our broken immigration system, and it’s a very practical reason why an open-borders policy simply will not work. You cannot have a lax immigration policy and also have a massive welfare state. The economy simply cannot sustain such a drain from the taxpayers.
What Democrats know is that welfare-addicted individuals (if allowed to vote) will always vote for the party that gives them the most free stuff. The entire reason for the amnesty push is to grow the voter base. Democrats are willing to do this at any cost, even if it crushes the US immigration system and the economy simultaneously.
Hillary Clinton Still Says A Video Was A Factor In The Benghazi Attacks
Senate Intelligence Chair Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) “Took Issue With The Notion That The Libya Strike Was Sparked By A U.S.-Made Anti-Islam Video Online.” “The chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee said that key conclusions of a recent New York Times investigation into the 2012 Benghazi attack are wrong. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) rejected the Times’s conclusion that al Qaeda wasn’t responsible for the attack that killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans. She also took issue with the notion that the Libya strike was sparked by a U.S.-made anti-Islam video online.” (Julian Pecquet, “Feinstein Rejects NYT On Benghazi,” The Hill, 1/14/14)
- Feinstein, On The Idea Benghazi Evolved From A Protest Against The Video: “It Doesn’t Jibe With Me.” “She also disputed the notion that the Sept. 11, 2012, assault evolved from a protest against the video, which was widely disseminated by Islamic clerics shortly before the attack. ‘It doesn’t jibe with me,’ she said.” (Julian Pecquet, “Feinstein Rejects NYT On Benghazi,” The Hill, 1/14/14)
Former Deputy Chief Of Mission Greg Hicks: “I Think Everybody In The Mission Thought It Was A Terrorist Attack From The Beginning.” “‘I think everybody in the mission thought it was a terrorist attack from the beginning,’ Greg Hicks, a 22-year foreign service diplomat who was the highest-ranking U.S. official in Libya after the strike, told investigators under authority of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Hicks, the former U.S. Embassy Tripoli deputy chief of mission, was not in Benghazi at the time of the attack, which killed Chris Stevens - then the U.S. ambassador to Libya - and three other Americans.” (Lindsey Boerman, “Official: We Knew Benghazi Was Sa Terrorist Attack ‘From The Get-Go,’” CBS News, 5/5/13)
Retired Africom General: I Dismissed The Idea That Benghazi Resulted From A YouTube Video. REP. ISSA: “And in the hours that ensued after the attack on our consulate compound in Benghazi, did you hear YouTube video?” GEN. LOVELL: “Briefly discussed, but not from any serious standpoint.” REP. ISSA: “What time did you first hear that there was a video, roughly?” GEN. LOVELL: “It would — it was early on in the evening of September 11th.” REP. ISSA: “Before 3:15 in the morning.” GEN. LOVELL: “Yeah, absolutely. We were — absolutely; I would have to say probably dismissed that notion by then, by working with other sources.” REP. ISSA: “OK. I just want to follow up with this one last thing. You heard about this early on, and you — as the deputy and the highest-ranking person that moment, working these issues, you dismissed the idea that this attack was, in fact, a demonstration that went awry and was based on a YouTube video out of Los Angeles.” GEN. LOVELL: “Yes, sir; short answer.” (House Oversight And Government Reform Committee Hearing, Benghazi, Instability, And A New Government: Successes And Failures Of U.S. Intervention In Libya, 5/1/14)
Former Deputy CIA Director Mike Morell: “When [Rice] Talked About The Video, My Reaction Was, That’s Not Something That The Analysts Have Attributed This Attack To.” MORELL: “I did not see her on the Sunday shows. As I said, I was in a deputies’ meeting, and I—” MILLER: “You’ve never seen it since?” MORELL: “—it was probably days later that I read what she said on the shows.” MILLER: “And what was your reaction when you finally did?” MORELL: “My reaction was twofold. One was that what she said about the attacks evolving spontaneously from a protest was exactly what the talking points said, and it was exactly what the intelligence community analysts believed. When she talked about the video, my reaction was, that’s not something that the analysts have attributed this attack to.” (House Permanent Select Committee On Intelligence, Hearing, 4/2/14)
Anybody think she’s little more than a liar and crook? If you do, you haven’t been paying attention to this trainwreck.
Experts agree that 15 - 25% of the world’s 1.2B Muslims are “radical” & for the destruction of Western civilization. The peaceful majority is irrelevant. In Germany, Russia, Japan, China MILLIONS were killed by a minority while peaceful majority was irrelevant!
It is the radicals that kill & behead, not the peaceful majority. On 9/11 there were 2.3 M Muslims in the US yet it took only 19 to bring down the world trade centers & attack pentagon & kill approx 3000 Americans.
In a book, written by John Esposito and Dalia Mogahed, both professional pro-Islam propagandists, published by the Gallup organization, polls were taken in several Muslim populations, asking them questions such as “Do you think that Sharia law should be imposed by force?” or “Do you think 9/11 was completely justified?”
6.5% of the 1.2 billion Muslims, (78 million!), think that 9/11 completely justified, while another 23.1%, (277.2 million!) thought it was at least partially justified.
Further, the respondents in that last category, making up 23.1%, also said that they hate America, want to impose Sharia law, support suicide bombing, and oppose equal rights for women.
And yet, in the book, Esposito and Mogahed call these “moderates.”
And THIS was a book written by Islamic apologists! But you media PC clowns suggest that Brigitte Gabriel and Frank Gaffney are somehow extremists for indirectly comparing these Islamist freaks to Hitler.
No, these radical Islamists aren’t Hitler, yet, but their pernicious ideology is an even greater threat to the world than Nazism, because it IS IN FACT supported by those 300 million Muslims.
Wow, I hope these numbers are wrong.