Over 16,532,393 people are on fubar.
What are you waiting for?
There are all types of statistics that could lead one to believe that liberals are smarter than conservatives. These include the fact that "Blue States" have higher graduation rates than "Red States" and the fact that most people who seek higher education have liberal ideologies.
But in reality, these numbers provide circumstantial proof at best. We need something more. Something that fully delves into the minds of conservatives and liberals to see just what's going on. Though the right-wingers out there might not want you to know it, studies that do just that already exist.
Conservatism, Racism and Low IQ
"Bright Minds and Dark Attitudes" is a study performed by researchers at Brock University, and it caused quite the commotion when its results were released. The researchers found that having lower general intelligence in childhood could predict conservative and racist ideas as an adult. That's right: having a low IQ score makes you more likely to vote conservative... and be a racist.
Now this isn't to say that all Republicans are stupid. On the contrary: I fully believe that rich Republicans are some of the smartest people in the world. They literally trick poor Republicans into thinking it's the big bad government's fault that they're poor, and in doing so, they make these people vote against their own best interests.
Even though being conservative doesn't make you stupid, there's no doubt that being stupid makes you more likely to be conservative.
Fox News Makes You Less Informed
It's not like we really needed a study to tell us this, but the survey "What You Know Depends on What You Watch," undertaken by Fairleigh Dickinson University, found that watching Fox News results in knowing less about the world. Researchers asked 1,185 respondents which news shows they consumed and then asked general questions about newsworthy events.
Five questions were asked, and those who watch Fox News exclusively got 1.04 correct, on average. Individuals watching MSNBC, on the other hand, got 1.26. NPR listeners? They got an impressive 1.51. The Daily Show? Surely a "fake news" program couldn't make you more informed than "the most watched cable news channel in America."
Yep, as it turns out, The Daily Show viewers scored 1.42 on average. The best thing about this study, though? It asked questions to people who watch no news at all, and those individuals scored 1.22 on average. That's right: Fox News makes you less informed than watching no news at all.
Let that sink in.
Low Effort Thought Leads to Conservatism
We live in a complex world, and understanding this world requires complex thought. It would be easy to look at conservatives who think that all Muslims are terrorists or all Mexicans should "go home" and say that they're engaged in simplistic thought. Instead of making that assumption ourselves, though, let's look towards science.
Researchers over at the University of Arkansas released their study [link opens PDF] "Low-Effort Thought Promotes Political Conservatism," and things started to make sense. They performed four different studies, all of which reduced subjects' ability to use "effortful, deliberate thought," and they found that situations causing low-effort thought resulted in more conservative beliefs.
Heck, one of the studies found that, as an individual becomes more intoxicated on alcohol, their conservative beliefs increase. Which makes perfect sense, because if you ever saw me vote for Sarah Palin, you can rest assured that I'm drunk.
Scratch that. It's a catch-22. The amount of alcohol it would require for me to vote for Palin would literally kill me.
Literally.
Homophobia Linked to Low Abstract Reasoning Skills
Let's get this out of the way first: Yes, there are "liberals" out there who are homophobic. That being said, homophobia is a largely conservative disease. It's conservatives who usually hold homophobic attitudes and fight against marriage equality. With that being said, let's look at abstract reasoning skills.
A researcher out of Kent State University undertook a study he would eventually title "Abstract Reasoning as a Predictor of Attitudes Toward Gay Men." What he found was no big surprise. Those who have lower abstract reasoning skills experience higher levels of anti-gay prejudice.
When they looked at other predictors of anti-gay prejudice, they found that right-wing authoritarian ideas were most strongly related to this prejudice. So lacking abstract reasoning and being a right-wing nut job increases your prejudice against gays. Like we couldn't have figured that out on our own.
It's All In The Brain, Baby
Some of the aforementioned studies show us that being dumb makes you more likely to be conservative, and unfortunately, watching conservative channels like Fox News can make you even more dumb. Of course, conservatives will likely attack these studies and say that they're biased.
Unfortunately for them, the study "Political Orientations Are Correlated with Brain Structure in Young Adults" was released. The researchers in this study performed MRI scans on participants. Just so you know, there's no way to insert liberal bias into an MRI scan.
What they found was that "conservative students had a larger amygdala than liberals." Conversely, the anterior cingulate cortex of liberal students had more gray matter than their conservative counterparts. Here's why that's important:
"The amygdala is... active during states of fear and anxiety. [...] The anterior cingulate cortex [is] a region of the brain that helps people cope with complexity."
And the best part? This is biological. There's no arguing the point. Liberals' brains are biologically more able to handle complex thought, and conservatives base their beliefs on fear. This study isn't hard to believe when one considers the fear conservatives showcase for immigrants, Muslims, minorities and any of the other million things they're bigoted towards. Hence the success of the 24-7 fear cycle of Fox News.
These are peer-reviewed studies, by scientists who cumulatively have more degrees than I've got houses in my neighborhood. Conservatives can try to say they're biased all they want, but as we know from their beliefs on climate change, they don't subscribe much to the area of science.
Conservatives are dumb... it's a scientific fact.
Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, is an ugly process that drives highly-pressurized chemicals, water, and sand into underground rock. Usually looking for oil or natural gas, fracking operations leave their stain on the environment, but the human price might even be higher. Think of it this way: imagine dropping a couple of tablespoons of red dye into an Olympic-sized pool. Now instead of dye, think about a common fracking mixture: a cocktail of benzene, toluene, and xylene. Do you want to be exposed to this stuff?
1. Fracking Chemicals Damage Fertility and Cause Birth Defects
A recent study suggests of the 750-plus chemicals used in fracking, over 130 are endocrine disruptors. [1] Once in the body, these toxins have been linked to fertility issues in men and women as well as birth defects. Pregnant women are also at risk according to the report, linking toxic metal exposure to an increased risk of stillbirths and miscarriages.
2. Fracking May Be a Greater Threat Than Thalidomide or Asbestos
Fracking has become a trend in the drilling industry, and a new report from the UK worries it's been adopted too quickly without a full investigation into its damaging effects. [2] The study compares it to our superfluous use of asbestos and thalidomide in the past, indicating that fracking may be the next big health threat facing our world.
3. Fracking Chemicals May Cause Cancer
A new study suggests that the closer you live to a fracking site, the greater your risk for major health problems, like cancer, further down the line. Cancer-causing poisons like benzene and formaldehyde were found at dangerously high levels near operations in five states. [3] In the short-term, residents are developing conditions like asthma, ringing ears, or nose polyps—things that weren't an issue before.
4. Fracking Chemicals Pollute the Environment
With all the chemicals used, fracking and pollution go hand in hand. One group of researchers has discovered a method for effectively locating drilling chemicals in the water supply, even at water treatment plants. [4] The chemicals have typically been difficult to trace. While this isn't exactly a boon for the environmental community, this information could help track water pollution. This is good news since, in 2005, Congress exempted fracking from some requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act, a decision health advocates have taken to calling the "Halliburton Loophole." [5]
5. Fracking is Affecting More Than Our Health
Fracking not only targets our health, it could also have lasting effects on our rights. So fed up with the effects of fracking on his property, Steve Lipsky of Parker County, Texas, took to the Internet and media. [6] He claimed his water supply became so polluted by methane, it had become flammable—and even had videos and photos of his water burning to prove it. In 2011, the company responsible for the fracking operation sued him; the company claimed Lipsky tarnished its reputation for environmental stewardship.
6. The Energy Companies Don't Want You to Know What Chemicals They Use
Energy companies tend to get angry when you talk about their shortcomings (read: lawsuits), but they really don't even want you to know what goes into fracking operations. Recently, these companies have told the EPA they shouldn't have to disclose fracking information. [7] There's also a lot out there trying to lessen the danger of these toxins. A recent report even suggested chemicals used are no more dangerous than additives in your toothpaste. [8]
7. Even if No Chemicals Were Used, Fracking Isn't Harmless
Fracking takes a huge toll on our natural resources. Even if you were to completely remove the chemical element, the fracking industry uses a ton of one of our most precious resources: our water. Take Ohio, for example. The state saw drilling operations use 4 billion gallons of water since 2011. [9]
Something to Think About
While fracking is a clear danger to our health and environment, there are many that think government and industry are blinded by profits. What are your thoughts? Do you think fracking ought to be banned outright? Share your opinions in the comments.
-Dr. Edward F. Group III, DC, NP, DACBN, DCBCN, DABFM
In Native cultures, men and woman are recognized by the length and glory of their hair. The cutting of hair by oppressors has long represented the submission and defeat of a People, through humiliation. The way a People comb (the Alignment of thought), braid (the Oneness of thought), tie (the Securing of thought) and color (the Conviction in thought), their Hair is of great significance. Each hair style represents a different frame of mind.
Hair is largely believed by them to be an extension of your thoughts. Hair styles are especially important for they portray and announce participation in various events. Your hair style indicates your state of merriment or mourning at a given time, whether you're marriageable or married, your age, and tribal status. It is a representation of your feelings and your life situation.
Different styles signify the Tribe one belongs to and are worn to indicate times of peace or war. Hair is just not a fashion accessory for aesthetic advancement, it's literally the pinnacle of their spiritual expression and is a source of their strength, intuition and power.
We usually think of hair as just being a matter of personal preference, but in reality its much more than that. Nature put every hair on your body for a reason. The hair of the legs regulates the glandular system and stabilizes a person's electromagnetic field. The hair under the armpits protects the very sensitive area where the parasympathetic and sympathetic nervous systems come together; this affects the brain and your energy level.
Eyebrows protect the eyes from sun and sweat. Facial hair on men covers the moon center on the chin and protects them from excessive moon energy. The hair on top of the head is very long, while the hair on the body is short. If it were only for warmth, the hair on the body would be long also. We only have long hair right over the brain. We are practically the only creatures designed this way. Some say hair is your antenna to receive a picture of the subtle world around you, to tell when people are lying, to feel things before they happen, etc..
The natural intelligence of the body is to maintain its hairs. If you allow the hair on the head to grow undisturbed; it will grow to a certain length required by your body and then it will stop. Perhaps you have noticed among Sikhs who do not cut their hair that hair length is different for each person. Each body has its own requirement. The hair also reflects the health of the individual.
It has been proven scientifically that people who have long hair tend to be less tired, more energetic and less likely to become depressed. People who have long hair also conserve energy and don't feel the cold of winter the same as people with short hair. A person who has short hair wastes his body's energy. A person who cuts his hair over his lifetime forces the body to grow 22 meters of replacement hair. A person who keeps his hair only produces 1.5 meters of hair over his lifetime.
Think of the story of Samson and Delilah in the Bible! He lost his strength when she cut his hair! Another example of the power of hair: To humiliate the conquered people of China, Genghis Khan made them cut their hair and wear bangs over the forehead! (Bangs cover the 3rd eye, inhibiting intuition and subtle knowledge.)
Hair is a conductor of the body's electromagnetic energy. Ever see how the antenna wire in an AM radio is coiled in a circle? That's because of something called induction. Induction causes any conductor of electromagnetic energy to induce a current in adjacent conductors. This means that when you coil a conductor, the signal becomes much stronger. Hairs on top of the head act as antennae. They conduct energy into the body.
Besides absorbing information, hair also has the ability to emit energy patterns and frequencies into the environment. This has been seen in hair experiments that involve Kirlian photography. For more information on Kirlian photography, read this enlightening article.
Also, wearing the hair on top of the head protects the top of the head from sun and exposure, as well as channeling solar energy and improving vitamin D absorbtion. The body grows hair for a reason.
I think the Natives had it right when they treated hair as a necessary component to their spiritual life. I have personally been growing my hair for years now, and I don't think I will wear it short ever again. I just feel more natural and more attuned with myself when it's long. If we truly were made in the image of something divine, why not embrace our natural state?
Yogi Bhajan was the wealthy Indian emigrant and guru who introduced Kundalini Yoga to the United States. On the topic of cutting one's hair, he said:
"Our hair fashions might be just a trend, but if we investigate, we may find that we have been depriving ourselves of one of the most valuable sources of energy for human vitality... When the hair on your head is allowed to attain its full, mature length, then phosphorous, calcium, and vitamin D are all produced, and enter the lymphatic fluid, and eventually the spinal fluid through the two ducts on the top of the brain. This ionic change creates more efficient memory and leads to greater physical energy, improved stamina, and patience... Your hair is not there by mistake. It has a definite purpose, which saints will discover and other men will laugh at."
In the aftermath of yet another highly publicized terror attack (or at least the potential for a high profile attack) in Australia by foreign-born jihadists, the Western public is once again experiencing a variety of emotional reactions that they have carefully been trained to experience whenever such events take place at home or abroad.
The xenophobic pro-war right is predictably using the attack as an example of how all Muslims are terrorists and how their total annihilation and implementation of police state tactics are the only solution. The pathetic left-wing is attempting to portray the gunman as a "lone nut" with no political motives as a justification for more "anti-terror" laws. The vast majority in the middle, however, believe the official mainstream version of events, quake in their boots, and move on to the next form of entertainment provided to them by the culture creators without a second thought.
Yet, as is almost always the case, there is much more to the story than is being reported by mainstream outlets. There exists a number of unanswered questions and unexplained inconsistencies with the story of "Man Haron Monis" and his hostage taking escapade in Sydney.
1.) Man Haron Monis (aka Manteghi Boroujerdi) is Shiia, not Sunni.
While the mainstream reports may suggest that Monis is yet another ISIS-style terrorist that finally attempted to rise and meet his destiny by engaging in terrorist attacks in the West, there are a number of problems with the presentation in terms of details.
Western media reports that, among other ludicrous demands, Monis requested to be provided with an ISIS flag while holding up the café in the Sydney business district. The problem, however, is that Monis is Shiia, not Sunni. Sunni, of course, is the brand of Islam that ISIS espouses. While both sects see their share of fundamentalism, the twain do not mix.
Why then, would a Shiia cleric (fundamentalist or otherwise) request an IS flag at the scene of his crime for all the world to see?
2.) Is Monis A "Liberal Muslim" Or A "Fundamentalist Muslim?"
While the absurd request for an IS flag during the course of an act of violence being committed by a Shitte Muslim is enough to convince the average spectator that Monis was a member of ISIS, there is a distinct lack of consistency in the way in which Monis has been portrayed in the Western media. Nearly ten years ago, Monis was presented as a "liberal Muslim" preaching a brand of tolerant and mainstream Islam. Since 2013, however, Monis has been presented as both a murderer and now a terrorist. While the latter may certainly be true, the presentations are nonetheless contradictory.
Indeed, as Tony Cartalucci of Land Destroyer reports in his article "Who Created Cartoon Character'Man Haron Monis' Behind 'Sydney Siege' Crisis," Monis has spoken glowingly of the West in the past; Canada, the United States, and Australia in particular. In an interview with The Religion Report of the Australian ABC, he stated,
...we can say Australia, Canada, England, USA, so many western countries, they are religious societies. They don't say 'We are religious', but in fact the spirit of religion, we can see the spirit of religion in these societies. And some other countries in the Middle East, in Asia, they say 'We are Islamic' they have a name of Islamic, but in fact they are not religious societies and religious governments. Whenever I walk in the street, whenever I go out in Australia, I feel I am in a real religious society. I don't want to say it is perfect, we don't have a perfect society on the earth, but when we compare, if we compare Australia with Iran and other countries in the Middle East, we can say it is heaven.
These are hardly the words of an Islamic terrorist filled with hatred for the West. Yet that is exactly what Monis is portrayed as being in later years. Indeed, there is little evidence to the contrary that the assailant was, in fact, Monis. The question then, is why the contradictory behavior and media portrayal of Monis.
3.) Monis Served US/NATO/West's Interests As Propaganda Tool Against Iran
Before Monis became the star of Sunday evening/Monday morning news, he served as a convenient agent of propaganda against the government of Iran, itself a major target of NATO and the West.
As Tony Cartalucci writes,
But before Monis/Boroujerdi's recent run-ins with the law and his role as chief "Muslim boogeyman" in Australia, he was "Manteghi Boroujerdi," a "victim" of the "Iranian regime" who was in love with Western society.
Australia's ABC in its "Religion Report" dated January 31, 2001, introduced Monis/Boroujerdi as follows:
...while in Sydney we talk to Ayatollah Manteghi Boroujerdi, an Iranian cleric espousing a liberal brand of Islam – dangerously liberal, as his views have led to his wife and two daughters being held hostage in Iran.
The interview itself is used as yet another vehicle to carry along Western propaganda long-aimed at Iran. It claims Monis/Boroujerdi's family is in grave danger and that Monis/Boroujerdi himself would be executed should he ever return to Iran. It quotes Monis/Boroujerdi several times including claims he was formally associated with Iranian intelligence:
In Iran, mostly I have been involved with the Ministry of Intelligence and Security.
And was in contact with the UN regarding security issues in Iran:
...more than four years I have not seen my family, and the Iranian regime doesn't let them come out. In fact I can say they are hostage; as a hostage the Iranian regime wants to make me silent, because I have some secret information about government, and about their terrorist operations in the war. I sent a letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations and somebody on behalf of Mr Kofi Anan sent the answer, and they want to do something. I have hope and always I pray and ask God to solve my problem.
4.) Did Monis Love His Wife And Fear For Her Safety Or Did He Kill Her?
Notice in the statement above that one of Monis' gripes with the Iranian government was that not only was he in personal danger as a result of his "liberal" teachings, but his family was in danger as well. Ironically, he stated that his family was being held hostage by the Iranian regime. However, fast forward to 2013, and Monis is facing charges on "accessory before and after the fact to the murder of [his ex-wife] Noleen Hayson Pal, 30, who was stabbed 18 times and set alight outside a western Sydney unit in April."
While Monis would certainly not be the first man to kill his ex-wife, his concern for her safety at the hands of the Iranian government does not match up with the concern he allegedly showed her in Australia. If Monis was truly the "Hate Sheik" as he was presented in the articles regarding his ex-wife's murder, then why was he first portrayed as such a loving liberal by the very same media?
It should also be noted that Monis recently made a reputation for himself by sending hate mail to the families of dead Australian soldiers who fought in Afghanistan. Monis' letter writing campaign was used to stir up tension between the pro and anti-war factions in Australian society and cause quite the controversy publicly.
5.) Shiite Clerics In Australia Did Not Trust Monis
By 2008, Shiite religious leaders in Australia had asked Australian Federal security agents to investigate Monis and his activities. As an article in the Australian reported,
FEDERAL agents have been urged by the nation's senior Shia leader, Kamal Mousselmani, to investigate an Iranian man purporting to be a prominent Islamic cleric.
Sheik Mousselmani told The Australian yesterday the mystery cleric – who has been identified as Ayatollah Manteghi Boroujerdi on his website after appearing under the name Sheik Haron – was not a genuine Shia spiritual leader.
He said there were no ayatollahs – supreme Shia scholars – in Australia and none of his fellow spiritual leaders knew who Ayatollah Boroujerdi or Sheik Haron was.
"We don't know him and we have got nothing to do with him," Sheik Mousselmani said. "The federal police should investigate who he is. It should be their responsibility."
Yet, as Cartalucci adds in his own article,
But it was the Australian media itself who introduced him publicly as an "Ayatollah" and the Australian government that vetted him and allegedly granted him political asylum. He was allegedly in contact with the UN and was used to stir up anti-Iranian sentiment in Australia. It is then highly suspicious that now both the Australian media and the Australian government appear to have no knowledge of who he is or where he came from.
Conclusion
Whatever the true nature of Monis may be – legitimate mental patient, patsy, or tool of Western intelligence agencies – there is clearly much more to the story than what the mainstream press is printing and promoting.
Regardless, the only thing that we can know with absolute certainty is that the Sydney Siege will be used as propaganda to the utmost effect by all Western and NATO governments in the push for further war abroad and an even greater police state at home.
I don't have to tell you things are bad. Everybody knows things are bad. It's a depression. Everybody's out of work or scared of losing their job. The dollar buys a nickel's worth, banks are going bust, shopkeepers keep a gun under the counter.
Punks are running wild in the street and there's nobody anywhere who seems to know what to do, and there's no end to it. We know the air is unfit to breathe and our food is unfit to eat, and we sit watching our TV's while some local newscaster tells us that today we had fifteen homicides and sixty-three violent crimes, as if that's the way it's supposed to be.
We know things are bad - worse than bad. They're crazy. It's like everything everywhere is going crazy, so we don't go out anymore. We sit in the house, and slowly the world we are living in is getting smaller, and all we say is, 'Please, at least leave us alone in our living rooms. Let me have my toaster and my TV and my steel-belted radials and I won't say anything. Just leave us alone.'
Well, I'm not gonna leave you alone. I want you to get mad! I don't want you to protest. I don't want you to riot - I don't want you to write to your congressman because I wouldn't know what to tell you to write. I don't know what to do about the depression and the inflation and the Russians and the crime in the street.
All I know is that first you've got to get mad. You've got to say, 'I'm a HUMAN BEING, God damn it! My life has VALUE!' So I want you to get up now. I want all of you to get up out of your chairs. I want you to get up right now and go to the window. Open it, and stick your head out, and yell, 'I'M AS MAD AS HELL, AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!' I want you to get up right now, sit up, go to your windows, open them and stick your head out and yell - 'I'm as mad as hell and I'm not going to take this anymore!' Things have got to change. But first, you've gotta get mad!... You've got to say, 'I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore!' Then we'll figure out what to do about the depression and the inflation and the oil crisis. But first get up out of your chairs, open the window, stick your head out, and yell, and say it: "I'M AS MAD AS HELL, AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!"
FB has decided my yahoo name Aliwishes Sebastian Jones is fake and deleted my profile. Well hell, see you later then. I don't need to spend my tracfone minutes on your stupid website. Seriously. I was spending my cell phone minutes to surf Facebook. However, my family account is still approved. So I just might delete family and re-add my online friends. still undecided.
My Summer Vacation by Peacey
What I did on my summer vacation.
On the first day of my summer vacation
I woke up...
then I went downtown to look for a job
then I hung out in front of the drugstore.
On the second day of my summer vacation
I woke up
then I went downtown to look for a job
then I hung out in front of the drugstore
On the third day of my summer vacation
I woke up
then I went downtown to look for a job
then I found a job
Keeping people from hanging out in front of the drugstore
We all know at least one person that doesn’t know much about history. And we all know that there have been people who have tried to distort history. The Republican Party, however, does both. Over these last two years, Republicans have a made a real effort to distort history as much as possible, to the point where they are now seeking to rewrite school textbooks. The Republican Party has bent over backwards to present their own twisted version of history and it’s starting to look like that one requirement to be a Republican is to be ignorant of historical facts and events. Below is a list of the many historical facts that Republicans have either distorted or have just gotten plain wrong along with corrections of their errors.
1. Did Paul Revere Ride To Warn The British?) Sarah Palin made the dubious claim that Paul Revere actually warned the British instead of the American colonists. Her supporters even made attempts to edit the Paul Revere Wikipedia entry to make her claims sound correct. If she had taken the time to read Longfellow’s poem, Paul Revere’s Ride, she would not have made this error, as the great majority of school children know that Revere made his midnight ride to warn Americans, not the enemy.
2. Was The Shot Heard ‘Round The World Fired In New Hampshire?) Did you know that Lexington and Concord are located in New Hampshire? I didn’t. And the people in New Hampshire and Massachusetts didn’t either. When Michele Bachmann exclaimed to a New Hampshire crowd that “the shot heard ’round the world” occurred in their state, I’m sure that Massachusetts let out a roar of laughter. The sad but hilarious thing is that most American children know that the first shot of the American Revolution occurred in the state of Massachusetts.
3. Was John Quincy Adams A Founding Father?) Michele Bachmann must have failed American History in school. Because she has absolutely no knowledge of early American history. She once claimed that John Quincy Adams is a Founding Father of America when in fact, JQA was just a child when the Revolution began. He was born in 1767 and was just 14 when the war ended. And like Palin’s supporters, Bachmann fans proceeded to edit the Wikipedia page of John Quincy Adams in an attempt to make her claim viable.
4. Did The Founding Fathers End Slavery?) Michelle Bachmann isn’t through yet. During a speaking event she once claimed that the Founding Fathers were the ones who ended slavery. That’s a surprise to me since George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and James Monroe all owned slaves. In fact, 12 of the first 16 American Presidents owned slaves. But Bachmann’s attempt to paint the Founding Fathers as saints is also a denial of past Republican Party history since early Republicans rose to prominence by fighting against slavery and the first Republican President, Abraham Lincoln, ended slavery altogether.
5. Was America Founded As A Christian State?) Ever heard of David Barton? He’s the guy that Glenn Beck goes to when he wants to distort history. David Barton claims that the Founding Fathers intended the United States to be a Christian state. Many Republicans have since picked up on this claim and have been shamelessly using it to court the Christian right-wing, and as a reason to end the separation of church and state that has been part of this country since its founding. His claim can be trounced with one question. If the Founding Fathers wanted America to be a Christian state why did they not say so in the Constitution? Instead, the Founders placed this in the document.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
~First Amendment, Bill of Rights of the Constitution
In other words, there is to be absolutely NO state religion.
6. Did Benjamin Franklin Reject Evolution?) We continue with the lack of knowledge of the Founding Fathers among the right-wing. Many Republicans have been making the claim that Benjamin Franklin rejected evolution. There are two problems with this claim. First, the theory of evolution wasn’t around until Charles Darwin published the theory in 1859, nearly 70 years AFTER Franklin died in 1790. And secondly, Franklin was a man of science above all else. It is unlikely that he would have rejected a scientific theory in favor of creationism. Franklin in fact, rejected the dogma and divinity of Christianity.
7. Was The American Revolution Fought To End Slavery?) Yet another claim that David Barton makes in an attempt to present the founding generation as perfect, is that the American Revolution was waged to end slavery. Once again, Barton makes a claim that is completely false. The American Revolution was fought to win American independence from Great Britain. And as I recall, the slaves were certainly not freed before, during, or after the war. They remained as slaves and would be slaves until the Civil War.
8. Was The Civil War Fought Over State’s Rights?) Republicans claim that it was all about state’s rights and not about slavery. The truth is, state’s rights only played a small role. The South feared that President Lincoln would end slavery, so they took preemptive measures by seceding from the Union and attacked Fort Sumter without any provocation. Slavery was, without a doubt, the main cause of the war between the states. Without slavery, white plantation owners would have to pick their own cotton, or, pay people to do it for them. They also believed Africans to be inferior and would not tolerate their freedom. We should all keep that in mind as the South/Republican home base continues to make claims that they aren’t racist.
9. Do States Have The Right To Secede?) After President Obama took office, many Republican legislators and governors, particularly in the South, began threatening secession. They say secession is a right but is it really? The answer is absolutely not. Not only did the Civil War settle this dispute, James Madison and Andrew Jackson (both Southerners) also rejected this claim. Nowhere in the Constitution will you find the right to secede. The Constitution was created by the people “in order to form a more perfect union” and by seceding, a state breaks up the nation, thus breaking a legally binding contract. And Andrew Jackson once threatened to march an army to South Carolina after that state threatened to secede. In fact, Jackson felt that secession was treason. The Supreme Court has also weighed in on this issue. In Texas v White, the court held that the Constitution did not permit states to secede from the United States, and that the ordinances of secession, and all the acts of the legislatures within seceding states intended to give effect to such ordinances, were “absolutely null”.
10. Was D-Day All About Health Care?) Republicans have been very vocal about the Affordable Care Act and Rick Santorum is no exception. He has made the claim that Americans stormed the beaches at Normandy on D-Day because they opposed Obamacare. He said, “Almost 60,000 average Americans had the courage to go out and charge those beaches on Normandy, to drop out of airplanes who knows where, and take on the battle for freedom … Those Americans risked everything so they could make [their own] decision on their health care plan.”
This is absurd. The men that stormed the Omaha and Utah beaches were fighting to liberate Europe from Nazi rule. They weren’t thinking about health care 67 years into the future. They were thinking of their families and whether they’d ever see them again. Santorum also fails to realize that military personnel and their dependents have government-run health care. And the soldiers aren’t complaining about it either. And as a matter of fact, many World War II veterans and their families also have Medicare which is also run by the federal government. That blows Santorum’s claim out of the water.
11. Did Ronald Reagan Only Lower Taxes?) Worshiping Ronald Reagan means you also have to believe that Reagan never raised taxes during his Presidency, but this constant right-wing claim is false. While he did cut taxes in 1981 and again in 1988, Reagan actually raised taxes every year from 1981 to 1987 including The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 which, at the time, had been the largest peacetime tax increase in U.S. history, the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984, a higher gasoline levy, a higher payroll tax, and a 1986 tax reform deal that included the largest corporate tax increase in American history.
12. Was Joseph McCarthy A Hero?) Another idol of the Republican Party is Joseph McCarthy. Republicans are now rewriting school books to present McCarthy as a hero who did no wrong. In reality, where the rest of us live, Joseph McCarthy was nothing more than a witch hunter who accused innocent Americans of being communists. He had no real evidence that people were communists and he should have recognized that people have the right to be part of any political party they choose. He violated the Constitution and ignored the values of freedom that we hold dear.
Just like Republicans today.
13. Was Martin Luther King Jr. A Republican?) Republicans claim that Martin Luther King was a Republican. So they can explain this part of a speech by King, right? In one speech, he stated that “something is wrong with capitalism” and claimed, “There must be a better distribution of wealth, and maybe America must move toward a democratic socialism.” So, by claiming King as one of their own, I’m assuming Republicans are also adopting his philosophy.
14. Who Signed The Smoot-Hawley Act?) Many Republicans still have anti–New Deal views. Michele Bachmann blamed FDR for turning a recession into a depression by passing the “Hoot-Smalley Tariff”. Except that FDR didn’t pass it. Hoover did, three years before FDR took the oath of office. Oh, and it’s Smoot-Hawley, NOT “Hoot-Smalley”.
15. Did 9/11 Happen On George Bush’s Watch?) How many times have we heard a Republican or right-wing talking head on Fox say that no terrorist attacks happened when George W. Bush was President? In July, Fox News host Eric Bolling said “we were certainly safe between 2000 and 2008 — I don’t remember any terrorist attacks on American soil during that period of time.” Other Republicans such as Rudy Guiliani and Dana Perino also “misremember” that period of time. I seem to recall sitting in a 20th Century History course at my high school on September 11, 2001 when terrorists struck the World Trade Center in New York City. And as I also recall, George W. Bush was President at the time.
16. What Did The Founding Fathers Think About Corporations?) Corporations are people according to Republicans. They even believe the Founding Fathers loved corporations. But that couldn’t be farther from the truth. The truth is that the Founding generations distrusted corporations with a passion. That’s why corporations were regulated rather harshly compared to the pampering Republicans give them today. Corporations were limited to an existence of 20-30 years and could only deal in one commodity, could not hold stock in other companies, and their property holdings were limited to what they needed to accomplish their business goals. And perhaps the most important facet of all this is that most states in the early days of the nation had laws on the books that made any political contribution by corporations a criminal offense. If the Founding Fathers were still alive and reinstated these regulations, Republicans would be accusing George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and the rest of the founders of being evil, un-American socialists.
17. What Is The Constitutionality Of Federally Mandated Health Care?) Is federally mandated health care unconstitutional? According to Republicans it is. But that’s not what the Founding Fathers thought. Congress passed and John Adams signed, a mandatory health care insurance law back in 1791. The mandate required sailors to pay a tax and in the event they needed care, they could get medical care from the government. If it was unconstitutional as Republicans claim, why didn’t Thomas Jefferson or James Madison repeal it? The fact is, they didn’t, and I’d say James Madison knew more about the Constitution than any Republican does, considering he’s the primary author of that sacred document.
18. Is Social Security A ‘Ponzi Scheme’?) When Rick Perry called Social Security a “ponzi scheme” in the first GOP Debate, he not only made a political mistake of epic proportions, he was also dead wrong. Social Security was created to keep senior citizens out of poverty and it has done a wonderful job of doing just that. When people put money into a ponzi scheme, they don’t get it back. Social Security, however, gives the money back plus more to every person who puts money into the system. It’s far from being a ponzi scheme. The real ponzi scheme is the private health insurance business which takes money from you and then drops you when you need medical care.
19. Did The Founding Fathers Support A Strong Federal Government Or A Weak One?) This is an easy one. Republicans are dead wrong when they claim that the Founding Fathers wanted a weak federal government. And that is simple to prove. Before we had the Constitution, America was a loose alliance of states under the Articles of Confederation. Under the Articles of Confederation, the federal government was weak. So weak in fact that it didn’t have the power to levy taxes, could not regulate commerce, and relied on the states to provide money for defense. The states had all the power and the federal government had virtually none. This was a chaotic system that threatened to tear apart the new nation. So the Founders wrote the Constitution which created a strong central government capable of levying taxes, regulating commerce, printing money, and forming a military. Most importantly, under the Constitution, the federal government was given the power to provide for the general welfare and the states were given far less power. Republicans will often cite the Tenth Amendment as proof of state supremacy but they’re wrong about that too. After the Constitution was ratified, some wanted to add an amendment limiting the federal government to powers “expressly” delegated, which would have denied implied powers. However, the word “expressly” ultimately did not appear in the Tenth Amendment as ratified, and therefore the Tenth Amendment did not reject the powers implied by the Necessary and Proper Clause. In other words, the federal government has the power to make laws about things that are not found in the Constitution such as health care.
20. Were The Founding Fathers A Group Of Right Wingers?) Republicans have been crisscrossing the country trying to convince Americans that the Founding Fathers were conservatives. But were they really? The answer to this question is absolutely not. If the Founding Fathers were conservatives they would never have revolted against England. One can hardly call breaking away from the most powerful nation on Earth at the time a conservative act. Plus, the Founding Fathers supported a strong federal government, believed in civil rights, supported separation of church and state, despised corporations, and believed the government had the power to provide health care and levy taxes. This is why the Supreme Court throughout American history has rarely ruled laws unconstitutional using the Tenth Amendment.
Republicans and Americans in general need to get a firm grasp of history. The Republicans understand that the lack of education is the key to controlling the electorate. All they need to do is distort and re-write history in their favor to win the votes of the ignorant. We must learn our past history so that we do not go down the backwards road that Republicans are leading us down.
“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
~George Santayana
There are so many traditions associated with Christmas. Many of them we just take for granted, accepting the “prevailing wisdom” as to their origins. But sometimes things are not what they seem. Here are ten things that you may not have known…
1. Christmas was once against the law in America. When the Puritans came to this continent they brought their objection to Christmas with them. They believed it was a creation of man, not Christ, so it should not be considered a holy day. They weren’t too keen on the revelry that went along with the holiday, either. Christmas was celebrated in America by Anglicans but most Protestant groups forbade it. It wasn’t until June 26, 1870 that Christmas took its official place on the American holiday calendar.
2. Christmas trees were forbidden as a part of the celebrations until as late as 1640. Since the tradition of bringing evergreen boughs or trees into the home at the Winter Solstice was pagan in origin, the early Church forbade them. The first recorded instance of a Christmas tree dates to 1510 when the town of Riga in Latvia brought a tree into the town square, decorated it and then burned it. Thankfully, we have relegated the burning part to the Yule log. Approximately 30-35 million Christmas trees are sold each year in the U.S.
3. Speaking of “Yule,” that word is believed to originate from the Anglo-Saxon for “wheel” (though scholars are not completely certain). A mid-winter festival known by this name has been celebrated since well before 1000 CE, marking the Winter Solstice. The term “yuletide” as a reference to the Christmas season dates back to about 1475.
4. Christmas songs date back to the 4th century: St. Hilary of Poitiers composed Jesus refulsit omnium for a Christmas Mass. The Renaissance brought lighter songs and the earliest English carol came in 1410. It was composed by Ritson and is found in the Ritson Manuscript. One of the oldest carols that we still sing today is “O Tannenbaum” from Germany. The most popular Christian carol is “Silent Night,” while the most popular secular song is “White Christmas.”
5. The date on which we celebrate Christmas was chosen by Bishop Liberius of Rome in 354 CE. The actual date has been debated since the formation of Christianity. The biblical account says, “And there were shepherds living out in the fields near by, keeping watch over their flocks at night.” Shepherds in the Middle East would have only had their flocks in the fields from Spring into Fall. In December, the animals were brought in close to shelter to protect them from the cold and rain. The likeliest date for the birth of Jesus is March, 6 BC.
6. Santa Claus is an amalgamation of several figures: St. Nicholas, the Bishop of Myra (modern-day Turkey), the Norse god, Woden, and the Celtic Holly King primary among them. The beard, the cloak, the reindeer… these are associated with the aforementioned figures. Our modern Santa was created by cartoonist Thomas Nast in 1860 for Harper’s Weekly magazine. Every year he added more to Santa, including his home at the North Pole, the “naughty and nice” list, and coming down the chimney. When the Coca-Cola company started using Santa Claus in its advertisements, it built even more on the lore.
7. Gift giving at the Solstice did not originate with the Magi. During the Saturnalia, which had some influence on our own modern Christmas holiday, gifts were exchanged among friends. As for the Magi… the Bible doesn’t say that there were three of them. There were three kinds of gifts – gold, frankincense and myrrh – so it was just assumed that there were three men who brought them.
8. Mistletoe was a sacred plant to both the Druids and the Norse. According to Norse myth, when the god Baldur was killed by a mistletoe arrow, his mother Frigga wept white berries which brought him back to life. The mistletoe was then blessed by Frigga so that whoever stood beneath it received a kiss. The Druids collected mistletoe by cutting it with a gold sickle, catching it in a cloth before it could hit the ground. The sprigs were placed over doorways to protect the dwelling and bring blessings.
9. The first Christmas cards appeared in 1843, designed by John Horsley, and sold in London for one penny each. The image on the front was of a family raising a Christmas toast which caused the Puritans to denounce it. But cards became very popular anyway. A German lithographer named Louis Prang brought the tradition to America in 1860, printing the cards in his press in Boston. Nowadays, more than 3 billion Christmas cards are sent in America alone!
10. Santa’s reindeer are based upon the eight-legged Sleipnir, the Norse god Woden’s flying horse. The reindeer received their names from Clement Moore in his poem, “A Visit From St. Nick” in 1823. Rudolph didn’t join them until 1939 when Robert L. May wrote a verse for Montgomery Ward. Gene Autry recorded the song that Johnny Marks adapted from the poem, releasing it during Christmas week, 1949. It became the second best-selling song of all time until the 1980′s, selling over 25 million copies.
Though we know a lot more about Christmas traditions now, that shouldn’t stop us from celebrating them. Embrace all the origins and stories and archaic reasons we do what we do. Celebrate in your own way and enjoy the season!
Crazy woman #1 I've met three times, first time I gave her some of my goodybag sandwich. (sandwich/candy/chips and sometimes a drink. volunteers get at end of day) I didn't want it and I hate wasting food. Anyhow, she definitely likes me, even said I was a good looking indian. (she's eskimo) But at the time, she was swaying...just a little drunk. Second time, she gave me a roll...ed smoke saying "I just rolled it" Today, she waves with fingers (starting with pinky and ending with forefinger) smiling coyly.
Crazy woman #2 I've met while walking home late one night, she had a fifth of Crown Royal and asked if I wanted a shot. Sure, I do. Then gives me her Marlboro to hold, ending up giving it to me. Then gives me a hug and I compliment on scent of hair. 2nd time, she just smiles. Today she is walking down street arms waving wildly. (could be waving to oncoming traffic, I don't know) She stops me in middle of intersection saying something about going over here. I said "What?" "I love you, But I'm gonig this way." gives me a kiss on cheek.
