Latest on Cancer

Big Hospital Finally telling the truth about Cancer, Johns Hopkins

LATEST CANCER INFORMATION
from Johns Hopkins
AFTER YEARS OF TELLING PEOPLE CHEMOTHERAPY IS THE ONLY WAY TO TRY AND ELIMINATE CANCER, JOHNS HOPKINS IS FINALLY STARTING TO TELL YOU THERE IS AN ALTERNATIVE WAY …
1. Every person has cancer cells in the body. These cancer cells do not show up in the standard tests until they have multiplied to a few billion. When doctors tell cancer patients that there are no more cancer cells in their bodies after treatment, it just means the tests are unable to detect the cancer cells because they have not reached the detectable size.
2. Cancer cells occur between 6 to more than 10 times in a person’s lifetime.
3. When the person’s immune system is strong the cancer cells will be destroyed and prevented from multiplying and forming tumors.
4. When a person has cancer it indicates the person has multiple nutritional deficiencies. These could be due to genetic, environmental, food and lifestyle factors.
5. To overcome the multiple nutritional deficiencies, changing diet and including supplements will strengthen the immune system.
6. Chemotherapy involves poisoning the rapidly-growing cancer cells and also destroys rapidly-growing healthy cells in the bone marrow, gastro-intestinal tract etc, and can cause organ damage, like liver, kidneys, heart, lungs etc.
7. Radiation while destroying cancer cells also burns, scars and damages healthy cells, tissues and organs.
8. Initial treatment with chemotherapy and radiation will often reduce tumor size. However prolonged use of chemotherapy and radiation do not result in more tumor destruction.
9. When the body has too much toxic burden from chemotherapy and radiation the immune system is either compromised or destroyed, hence the person can succumb to various kinds of infections and complications.
10. Chemotherapy and radiation can cause cancer cells to mutate and become resistant and difficult to destroy. Surgery can also cause cancer cells to spread to other sites.
11. An effective way to battle cancer is to STARVE the cancer cells by not feeding it with foods it needs to multiple.

What cancer cells feed on:
a. Sugar is a cancer-feeder. By cutting off sugar it cuts off one important food supply to the cancer cells. Note:Sugar substitutes like NutraSweet, Equal, Spoonful, etc are made with Aspartame and it is harmful. A better natural substitute would be Manuka honey or molasses but only in very small amounts. Table salt has a chemical added to make it white in colour. Better alternative is Bragg’s aminos or sea salt.
b. Milk causes the body to produce mucus, especially in the gastro-intestinal tract. Cancer feeds on mucus. By cutting off milk and substituting with unsweetened soy milk, cancer cells will starved.
c. Cancer cells thrive in an acid environment. A meat-based diet is acidic and it is best to eat fish, and a little chicken rather than beef or pork. Meat also contains livestock antibiotics, growth hormones and parasites, which are all harmful, especially to people with cancer.
d. A diet made of 80% fresh vegetables and juice, whole grains, seeds, nuts and a little fruits help put the body into an alkaline environment. About 20% can be from cooked food including beans. Fresh vegetable juices provide live enzymes that are easily absorbed and reach down to cellular levels within 15 minutes t o nourish and enhance growth of healthy cells.
To obtain live enzymes for building healthy cells try and drink fresh vegetable juice (most vegetables including bean sprouts) and eat some raw vegetables 2 or 3 times a day. Enzymes are destroyed at temperatures of 104 degrees F (40 degrees C).
e. Avoid coffee, tea, and chocolate, which have high caffeine. Green tea is a better alternative and has cancer-fighting properties. Water–best to drink purified water, or filtered, to avoid known toxins and heavy metals in tap water. Distilled water is acidic, avoid it.
12. Meat protein is difficult to digest and requires a lot of digestive enzymes. Undigested meat remaining in the intestines will become putrified and leads to more toxic buildup.
13. Cancer cell walls have a tough protein covering. By refraining from or eating less meat it frees more enzymes to attack the protein walls of cancer cells and allows the body’s killer cells to destroy the cancer cells.
14. Some supplements build up the immune system (IP6, Flor-ssence, Essiac, anti-oxidants, vitamins, minerals, EFAs etc.) to enable the body’s own killer cells to destroy cancer cells. Other supplements like vitamin E are known to cause apoptosis, or programmed cell death, the body’s normal method of disposing of damaged, unwanted, or unneeded cells.
15. Cancer is a disease of the mind, body, and spirit. A proactive and positive spirit will help the cancer warrior be a survivor.
Anger, unforgiving and bitterness put the body into a stressful and acidic environment. Learn to have a loving and forgiving spirit. Learn to relax and enjoy life.
16. Cancer cells cannot thrive in an oxygenated environment. Exercising daily, and deep breathing help to get more oxygen down to the cellular level. Oxygen therapy is another means employed to destroy cancer cells.

Are Americans Ready For A Revolution?

May 28, 2014 by John Myers  TOCK

“While all our ancient beliefs are tottering and disappearing, while the old pillars of society are giving away one by one, the power of the crowd is the only force that nothing menaces, and of which the prestige is continually on the increase.” — From Gustave Le Bon’s 1895 book, The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind

Imagine sitting in a theater watching a movie. Behind you someone jumps to his feet and shouts, “Fire!”

You can’t smell a whiff of smoke, nor can you spot a single spark. The smoke detectors are silent; the automatic sprinklers motionless. Yet none of this matters. Within seconds, The Crowd has been created. People everywhere are screaming out. A mass of people begins to make its way to the fire escape. Assume you know for certain that there is no fire. You face a choice: either plant yourself in the center aisle and oppose The Crowd, or throw yourself into the throng.

If you are a principled man or woman, you might think it’s your duty to oppose The Crowd. Guess what? Fulfilling that duty will be the last thing you ever do. A panicked crowd is not going to listen to what you have to say no matter how well reasoned it is argued. Opposing it is like opposing a cattle stampede. If you stand in its path, you will surely be trampled to death.

The problem with crowds is they have no ear for reason. Once a contagious fear grabs ahold, a crowd loses all sense of objectivity all reason. Truth is meaningless.

There is no way on Earth that you are going to reverse it until the hysteria has run its course.

Crowd Control

The longevity of a government is often dependent on its ability to control and, in some cases, incite a crowd.

Napoleon understood this as well as any leader and used his influence to revitalize France after it had torn itself to shreds during its bloody revolution. The powers that had preceded him — most notably the Jacobins — were able to incite the masses, but thereafter could not control them. A testament to this was the summary execution of Robespierre with the guillotine, the instrument he used so effectively during the Reign of Terror, a 13-month period that claimed the lives of 20,000 Frenchmen.

Crowds are not only pervasive in politics, but are also indigenous to investment markets. As a result, conscientious investors must always be wary of crowds. If one starts to form, markets take on a life of their own, quite apart from reason or reality.

One of the earliest examples of a market gone awry after being besieged by a crowd is the case of the South Sea Bubble.

According to Wikipedia, the South Sea Company “was a British joint-stock company founded in 1711, created as a public–private partnership to consolidate and reduce the cost of national debt.” The real objective of the company and its creator, John Blunt, was to bilk the investment public. After British Parliament legalized the sale of stock in 1711, the South Sea Company issued debentures worth 100 pounds a share. Immediately, the stock rose; but not because of any ventures undertaken by the company.

None of the company directors ever traveled to the South Seas; and none of them took seriously any trade with South America, still a protectorate of Spain, which was unwilling to share any of its spoils. For a decade, this inconvenient fact did not matter. Yet Blunt was able to entice the cream of English society into its venture. Royalty, noblemen and even members of Parliament bought into the South Sea promise.

As this new money washed in, it was used to pay off the few that sold out. By 1718, the South Sea Company attracted a much wider audience. Everyone from cobblers to milkmaids learned of this great new venture that promised profit without work.

Propelled by the capital of the masses, the South Sea speculation took off. The price of a single share began to skyrocket: first to 500 pounds, then to 700 pounds and finally to more than 900 pounds. Then in the summer of 1720, the roof craved in. The plague arrived in England, and a sense of foreboding was everywhere. Money became tight, and investors began to sell out.

But when several of them moved to sell, the company was unable to pay off. The South Sea Bubble burst.

Huge fortunes were wiped out, and thousands of speculators were left penniless. By October 1720, the nation was embroiled in a full-scale financial crisis. Bankruptcies swelled, the real estate market collapsed and, in the end, the government itself fell. England was shaken to its core.

Part and parcel of the South Sea Bubble, and typical of all speculative bubbles over the past 300 years, was the participation of The Crowd. Typical to the late stages of a bull market is swelling public interest. This often creates a crowd.

Cautiously at first, and then later with reckless abandon, The Crowd becomes overwrought with greed, propelling it into a feeding frenzy. Thereafter, markets reach unsupportable heights that can no longer be levitated because the universe of new buyers has run dry. The markets collapse underneath their own weight; and another crowd, rank with fear, rushes for the exits. The bullish excesses on the run-up are now exceeded by the bearish impulses of the downside.

This pattern of surge and crash has occurred repeatedly since the South Sea Bubble. To dismiss it now would be like dismissing the ebb and flow of the tides of human behavior.

Nothing Civil About Civil War

For decades, my focus with the masses was which way they would take the markets. The stock market crashes of 1987 and 2008 showed me that is not going to be the total crisis of confidence if markets face big downward swings only to be puffed backed up by imaginary money created by Congress and the Federal Reserve and that real crisis is going to be when the Federal government steps forward and institutes draconian laws upon all Americans.

What the Federal government doesn’t yet realize is the conflict coming into play from two masses: the liberal lobby for President Barack Obama — with his pro-gay, pro-black, pro-socialist agenda, executed by his secret National Security Agency drone army — and freedom-loving, gun-owning Americans who are willing to fight and, if necessary, die for the Constitution. These are the masses headed to battle, to civil war. And I expected it will happen two years after the 2016 Presidential election. For the first time in my life, I fear blood in the streets.

Yours in good times and bad times,

–John Myers

Abolish state funded primary elections.

Reg Henry: Vote 'yes' to abolish primaries

Posted: May 27, 2014 - 12:01am

By REG HENRY

I am writing this on Pennsylvania primary election day and the excitement is palpable. Be still, my throbbing heart.

I arrive at the church where the wall of separation between church and state has been lowered for purposes of polling, which is reasonable. But where are the crowds of voters? It is about as crowded as the bar at the Mothers Against Drunk Driving Christmas party.

I declare my registration: Republican. I am a RINO — not the usual Republican In Name Only, but instead a Republican Intelligent Not Obtuse. Yes, you can argue about the intelligent part.

It’s hard, of course, and often embarrassing (thank you, Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum and Rick Perry). But even as the party grew angrier and less rational, I endured in the belief that there was nothing wrong with the GOP that some liberals in it couldn’t fix. Liberals were common in the party back when it was sane, but we have gone the way of the passenger pigeon.

If you are a true GOP stalwart, the sort of person who thought Sarah Palin highly intelligent, it is probably about now that you are saying: “This guy shouldn’t be voting in Republican primaries.”

Guess what? You are right. But you can rest easy, because in this primary Republican voters in my area had almost nothing to vote for: a governor opposed by a write-in candidate, some unopposed lawmakers, some committee people.

To someone like me who thinks of voting as an act of civic communion, it was like going to the altar and finding that they had run out of bread. But even in the best of times, primaries are ridiculous. It’s not just me who shouldn’t be voting in them, it’s everybody.

If you were born in this country, primaries may not seem odd to you, but in the places I lived — Australia, Britain — nothing so goofy could be imagined. Why have two elections a year? And what business does a state have in running elections for parties?

Primaries haven’t always existed here. They are relics of the progressive movement, which sought to get party bosses out of the equation and let the people decide. Bet they are sorry now.

For Republicans in particular, primaries have become contests to see who can be the biggest Neanderthal, an honor not so much appreciated by voters in the general election. Genghis Khan would be accused of being a liberal if he ran in a GOP primary.

Here’s an idea: Have parties pick their own candidates on their own dime, not the state’s, in their own way with their own members, maybe using a democratic caucus model. A state like Pennsylvania could save a ton of money by running only general elections and perhaps save us all from the extra bout of poisonous political TV ads every year.

By reducing state-run elections to once a year, people might actually come to regard voting as something special, not commonplace. More voters might go to the polls and with less risk of dying of loneliness.

Their hearts might actually throb and enthusiasm might be palpable, not pathetic.

Reg Henry is deputy editorial-page editor for the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

Pat Buchanan on Liberalism's failure with Washington D.C.failure in public education.

When Brown v. Board of Education, the 9-0 Warren Court ruling came down 60 years ago, desegregating America’s public schools, this writer was a sophomore at Gonzaga in Washington, D.C.

In the shadow of the Capitol, Gonzaga was deep inside the city. And hitchhiking to school every day, one could see the “for sale” signs marching block by block out to Montgomery County, Maryland.

Democratic and liberal Washington was not resisting integration, just exercising its right to flee its blessings by getting out of town.

The white flight to the Washington suburbs was on.

When this writer graduated in 1956, all-white high schools of 1954 like McKinley Tech, Roosevelt, Coolidge and Anacostia had been desegregated, but were on their way to becoming all black.

Across the South, there was “massive resistance” to Brown, marked by the “Dixie Manifesto” of 1956, Gov. Orval Faubus’ effort to keep black students out of Little Rock Central High in 1957, and the defiance of U.S. court orders to desegregate the universities of Mississippi and Alabama by Govs. Ross Barnett and George Wallace.

While he has received little credit, it was Richard Nixon who desegregated Southern schools. When he took office, not one in 10 black children was going to school with whites in the Old Confederacy.

When Nixon left, the figure was close to 70 percent.

For nearly half a century, no black child has been denied entry to his or her neighborhood school because of race. Ought we not then, with Stephan and Abigail Thernstrom in the Wall Street Journal, celebrate Brown “as a truly heartening American success story”?

Certainly, by striking down state laws segregating school children, Brown advanced the cause of freedom. But as for realizing the hopes of black parents, that their children’s educational progress would now proceed alongside that of their new white classmates, it is not so easy to celebrate.

For despite half a century of desegregation, three in four black and Hispanic children are in schools that are largely black and Hispanic. And the old racial gap in test scores has never been closed.

A May story in the Washington Post reports that not only has there been no gain in U.S. high school test scores in reading and math — the USA has been steadily sinking in rank in international competition — the disparity between black and white students has deepened.

The quadrennial test given in 2013 to 92,000 12th-graders by the National Assessment of Education Progress, the nation’s report card, found that the test scores of Latino students are today as far behind those of whites’ as in 1999. The gap between white and black high school seniors in reading and math has widened.

Speaking in Topeka on the anniversary of Brown, Michelle Obama bemoaned the fact that, “Today, by some measures, our schools are as segregated as they were back when Dr. King gave his final speech.

“Many districts have actually pared back on efforts to integrate their schools and many communities have become less diverse.”

Ms. Obama is undeniably correct. Yet, there are other realities that folks need to stop denying.

First, as the Thernstroms write, where white children were 80 percent of pubic school students in 1970, today they are 50 percent and falling. In California and Texas, whites make up 27 and 31 percent respectively of the pubic school enrollment.

If 74 percent of black kids and 80 percent of Hispanics are in minority-majority schools today, those numbers are inexorably going to rise, as white students become a new national minority.

Second, there is no conclusive research that black kids learn more when sitting beside white kids, just as there is no evidence that Head Start has any positive enduring impact on pupil achievement.

Third, after trillions dumped into education at all levels since the Great Society, with the educational gap persisting between whites and Asians and blacks and Hispanics, it is apparent the education industry has not only failed the nation. It has no idea how to close that gap.

Fourth, while Michelle Obama may cherish diversity, the wealthy white liberals who dominate the D.C. metropolitan area appear to prefer living in predominately white neighborhoods and sending their children to predominantly white schools, be they public or private.

The 60 years since Brown in D.C. have demonstrated another truth. There is no correlation between dollars invested in education and student achievement in schools where the money is spent.

Per capita expenditures for students in D.C.’s schools invariably rank among the nation’s highest, while the test scores those tax dollars produce invariably rank among the nation’s lowest.

And whom should be held accountable?

Since D.C. got the right to vote, no GOP candidate has ever carried its electoral votes. Obama won the city with 93 percent in 2008. And since home rule half a century ago, we have had only black Democratic mayors and liberal Democratic city councils.

This social debacle belongs to liberalism alone.

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of “Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025?”

And the World awaits its fate...

Tripp's Graduation, Class of '14

Young people 'feel they have nothing to live for'

By Katherine SellgrenBBC News education and family reporter

As many as three quarters of a million young people in the UK may feel that they have nothing to live for, a study for the Prince's Trust charity claims.

The trust says almost a third of long-term unemployed young people have contemplated taking their own lives.

Urgent action must be taken to prevent the young jobless becoming the young hopeless, it says.

The government commented that it was doing "everything possible" to help young people find work.

Last month, figures from the Office for National Statistics showed the UK unemployment rate had fallen to its lowest level since 2009, with the number of people out of work falling by 99,000 to 2.39 million in the three months to October.

'Devastating'

The Prince's Trust Macquarie Youth Index was based on interviews with 2,161 16 to 25-year-olds. Of these, 281 were classified as Neet (not in employment, education or training) and 166 of these Neets had been unemployed for over six months.

The report found 9% of all respondents agreed with the statement: "I have nothing to live for" and said if 9% of all youngsters felt the same, it would equate to some 751,230 young people feeling they had nothing to live for.

Among those respondents classified as Neet, the percentage of those agreeing with the statement rose to 21%.

The research found that long-term unemployed young people were more than twice as likely as their peers to have been prescribed anti-depressants.

One in three (32%) had contemplated suicide, while one in four (24%) had self-harmed.

The report found 40% of jobless young people had faced symptoms of mental illness, including suicidal thoughts, feelings of self-loathing and panic attacks, as a direct result of unemployment.

Three quarters of long-term unemployed young people (72%) did not have someone to confide in, the study found.

Martina Milburn, chief executive of the Prince's Trust, said: "Unemployment is proven to cause devastating, long-lasting mental health problems among young people.

"Thousands wake up every day believing that life isn't worth living, after struggling for years in the dole queue.

"More than 440,000 young people are facing long-term unemployment, and it is these young people that urgently need our help.

"If we fail to act, there is a real danger that these young people will become hopeless, as well as jobless."

Wage incentives

A spokesman for the Department for Work and Pension said the government was "doing everything possible" to help young people into work and that there were currently 106,000 fewer young people claiming Jobseeker's Allowance than there were in 2010.

"Through the youth contract, we've hugely increased the number of work experience placements and apprenticeships to give young people the support they need to find a job," the spokesman said.

"By offering employers wage incentives worth up to £2,275 we are helping businesses to take them on.

"The work programme has also helped more than 74,000 young people escape long-term unemployment and find lasting work."

The Prince's Trust was set up by Prince Charles in 1976 to help disadvantaged young people.

It supports 13 to 30 year-olds who are unemployed and those struggling at school and at risk of exclusion.

Glorifying Perversion

May 14, 2014 by Bob Livingston 

 1129 25

 

 7 1332

UPI FILE

Former University of Missouri football player Michael Sam was selected by St. Louis in the seventh round of the 2014 NFL Draft. When he found out, he kissed his boyfriend for all the world to see.

It is now established orthodoxy that not only must the homosexual lifestyle be “accepted” by all without question, but it must be glorified by all as well.

The sports and entertainment media jumped the shark with Michael Sam’s celebrated kiss televised for all to see after learning he was drafted by an NFL team. But the kiss was not a one-off event, as it began to be replayed ad nauseam on sports media, particularly ESPN.

Sam was lauded for his courage in “coming out.” But what courage is involved in riding the wave of popular culture? When he announced he was gay, he was invited to the White House by President Barack Obama.

Sam had the example of NBA player Jason Collins, who was featured on the cover ofTime in its April 2014 issue of the “100 Most Influential People of the World,” after he announced he was homosexual, becoming the celebrated “first ever openly gay player in a major U.S professional league.”

There is no courage in glorifying perversion, nor in riding the wave of popular culture. The courage is in opposing it, which can cause you to be sent to a re-education camp (NFL player Don Jones) or cost you your livelihood (Brendan Eich, David and Jason Benham and almost Phil Robinson).

In case you haven’t heard, the Benhams had a show canceled that was scheduled to begin on HGTV. That announcement coincided with an announcement by NBC that it was to begin production of a lesbian sitcom produced by Ellen DeGeneres. The establishment culture has been inoculating us to this end for some time with shows featuring homosexual characters.

Michael Sam and Jason Collins are not Jackie Robinson. Robinson’s effort took courage. Sam’s and Collins’ not so much.

Unleash the hounds with charges of homophobia. I do not care. Nor do I care when I meet someone whether he is homosexual or heterosexual. I never inquire, nor do I expect it to be announced, much less thrown in my face.

It is long-established religious orthodoxy that sexual immorality — including homosexuality — is a sin. That is God’s word, not mine. Don’t blame me.

Christianity is my lifestyle. I have no desire to preach that truth to you if you don’t want to hear it. Why must you insist on preaching to me that I should embrace your lifestyle? I will not, for I cannot (Romans 1:18-32).

We are no longer slouching toward Gomorrah. We have long since arrived.

Going contrary to established orthodoxy has become dangerous. Contrary viewpoints are no longer tolerated in America. That is fascist and totalitarian.

Ron Paul: What Does The U.S. Government Want In Ukraine?

May 12, 2014 by Ron Paul 

 23 7

 

 2 169

In several eastern Ukrainian towns over the past week, the military opened fire on its own citizens. Dozens may have been killed in the violence. Although the U.S. government generally condemns a country’s use of military force against its own population, especially if they are unarmed protesters, this time the U.S. Administration blamed the victims. After as many as 20 unarmed protesters were killed on the May 9th holiday in Ukraine, the State Department spokesman said “we condemn the outbreak of violence caused by pro-Russia separatists.”

Why are people protesting in eastern Ukraine? Because they do not believe the government that came to power after the U.S.-backed uprising in February is legitimate. They do not recognize the authority of an unelected president and prime minister. The U.S. sees this as a Russian-sponsored destabilization effort, but is it so hard to understand that the people in Ukraine may be annoyed with the U.S. and EU for their involvement in regime change in their country? Would we be so willing to accept an unelected government in Washington put in place with the backing of the Chinese and Iranians?
The U.S. State Department provided much assistance earlier this year to those involved in the effort to overthrow the Ukrainian government. The U.S. warned the Ukrainian government at the time not to take any action against those in the streets, even as they engaged in violence and occupied government buildings. But now that those former protesters have come to power, the U.S. takes a different view of protest. Now they give full support to the bloody crackdown against protesters in the east. The State Department spokesperson said last week: “We continue to call for groups who have jeopardized public order by taking up arms and seizing public buildings in violation of Ukrainian law to disarm and leave the buildings they have seized.” This is the opposite of what they said in February. Do they think the rest of the world does not see this hypocrisy?
The residents of eastern Ukraine have long been closer to Russia than to the U.S. and EU. In fact, that part of Ukraine had been a part of Russia. After February’s regime change, officials in the east announced that they would hold referenda to see whether the population wanted autonomy from the U.S.-backed government in Kiev. The U.S. demanded that Russian President Putin stop eastern Ukraine from voting on autonomy, and last week the Russian president did just that: he said that the vote should not be held as scheduled. The eastern Ukrainians ignored him and said they would hold the vote anyway. So much for the U.S. claims that Russia controls the opposition in Ukraine.
Even though the Russian president followed U.S. demands and urged the eastern Ukrainians to hold off on the vote, the U.S. State Department announced that the U.S. would apply additional sanctions on Russia if the vote is held! Does this make any sense?
The real question is why the U.S. government is involved in Ukraine in the first place. We are broke. We cannot even afford to fix our own economy. Yet we want to run Ukraine? Does it really matter who Ukrainians elect to represent them? Is it really a national security matter worth risking a nuclear war with Russia whether Ukraine votes for more regional autonomy and a weaker central government? Isn’t that how the United States was originally conceived?
Has the arrogance of the U.S. Administration, thinking they should run the world, driven us to the brink of another major war in Europe? Let us hope they will stop this dangerous game and come to their senses. I say let’s have no war for Ukraine!

Hillary Is Corrupted

Journalist: Hillary Is ‘Banal, Corrupted, Drained Of Vibrancy’ And ‘A F*cking Hawk And Like A Neocon’

May 12, 2014 by Sam Rolley 

 643 115

 

 12 1334

UPI FILE

In a recent interview, Glenn Greenwald— the journalist instrumental in helping Edward Snowden leak classified national security documents last year— had some harsh words for Hillary Clinton and Americans likely to support her if she runs for President in 2016.
Greenwald told GQ that he hopes Clinton gets the Democratic nod so that Americans can learn from the mistake of blindly supporting candidates based on their race or sex and allowing the Nation to become a “de facto monarchy”:
The observations were made in response to a question about how he views all of the “early presidential jockeying” leading up to 2016:

Hillary is banal, corrupted, drained of vibrancy and passion. I mean, she’s been around forever, the Clinton circle. She’s a fucking hawk and like a neocon, practically. She’s surrounded by all these sleazy money types who are just corrupting everything everywhere. But she’s going to be the first female president, and women in America are going to be completely invested in her candidacy. Opposition to her is going to be depicted as misogynistic, like opposition to Obama has been depicted as racist. It’s going to be this completely symbolic messaging that’s going to overshadow the fact that she’ll do nothing but continue everything in pursuit of her own power. They’ll probably have a gay person after Hillary who’s just going to do the same thing.
I hope this happens so badly, because I think it’ll be so instructive in that regard. It’ll prove the point. Americans love to mock the idea of monarchy, and yet we have our own de facto monarchy. I think what these leaks did is, they demonstrated that there really is this government that just is the kind of permanent government that doesn’t get affected by election choices and that isn’t in any way accountable to any sort of democratic transparency and just creates its own world off on its own.

Bigotery still alive on college campuses

Matt Towery: Bigotry still alive on college campuses

Posted: May 11, 2014 - 9:23pm  |  Updated: May 12, 2014 - 12:00am

By Matt Towery

It’s happened again.

Another conservative African-American leader with the “taint” of a GOP past is invited to speak to a university. A small group of “enlightened” professors or students decide that the speaker is offensive to the highbrow standards of academia. A drumbeat starts and in a matter of days he or she is forced to withdraw in favor of a more “acceptable” replacement.

What open bigotry. What an assault on the entire concept of a true education in “the liberal arts.”

Condoleezza Rice was never a favorite of mine during the years of George H.W. Bush. I fell for the image pushed by the press that she was a “facts be damned” booster of Vice President Dick Cheney’s “let’s get ‘em at any cost and without solid proof” style of foreign policy.

But regardless of my ignorance of Rice’s job performance, what would a faithful execution of her duties as Secretary of State have anything to do with her worthiness as a commencement speaker at a second- or even third-tier university such as Rutgers?

I mean it’s a fine school (tying Texas A&M for 69th on last year’s U.S. News list of top schools). But Oxford or Cambridge it’s not.

Perhaps that is best illustrated by Rutgers’ decision to pay New Jersey’s version of Honey Boo Boo, the one and only “Snookie” of MTV reality fame, over $30,000 for an appearance there. How dreadful.

Ms. Rice’s unfair treatment by a select group of “intellectual” protesters at Rutgers was treated as par for the course by mainstream media. But it was not “par for the course” treatment. It was racist, cruel and anti-intellectual, bully-like behavior by “learned” men and women.

Had they directed their ire at a white equivalent, such as Hillary Clinton, their protests would have brought fire and brimstone upon their heads. And, hey, it’s no secret: I’m a fan of Hillary.

Al Sharpton, who has been accused of everything under the sun by critics, can speak wherever he pleases without protest or hassle. And that’s fair because this is America. If someone invites the man to speak, then speak he should.

But when Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, a conservative African-American, is chosen to speak at a commencement, there’s a good chance that “scholars of conscience” will raise hell about it. That happened in 2008 when Thomas was asked to return to his native Georgia to an even higher ranked national institution, the University of Georgia.

So let’s be clear about how this works. An idiot like Snookie can impart “wisdom” to Rutgers students. But when a woman with a Ph.D., who has studied at Harvard and Stanford, and who rose to become U.S. Secretary of State, is unworthy of sharing her observations to a group of 22-year-old students, the speech is met with protest.

This is not only racism but it is truly what I call “the honoring of ignorance.”

The Rutgers debacle is nothing new. It serves as a reminder of how our nation’s “intellectual elite” often end up paying homage to their own ignorance ... and racism.

Matt Towery lives and writes in Atlanta.