LGBTQ Ratings Flop: Americans Keep Rejecting ‘Gay’ Programming

17 March 2017

LIFESITE NEWS — As the Disney Corporation experiments with a “gay” subplot in its remake of Beauty and the Beast, the recent ratings flop of an ABC miniseries extolling “gay rights” confirms that Americans are not tuning in to pro-LGBTQ programming.

With great fanfare, ABC launched its “epic” miniseries, When We Rise, about the “gay rights” revolution. As Heatstreet reported, “When We Rise received saturation ad coverage during the Oscars ahead of its premiere this week.”

But the hype didn’t work and the show tanked from the first episode (the four-part miniseries totaled eight hours). Deadline reported on When We Rise’s disappointing debut:

“It was a noble effort, but viewers largely shunned it, with the opening two hours averaging a paltry 0.7 in 18-49 and 3 million viewers coming off the strong Bachelor lead-in.

When We Rise was the lowest-rated program on the Big 4 [CBS, NBC, ABC, FOX] and second lowest-rated overall last night, matching the CW’s Supergirl (0.7, even with last week). The CW’s Jane The Virgin (0.3) was off by a tenth.”

The Advocate, a magazine for homosexuals, described When We Rise as “a sprawling tale of queer liberation that covers the Stonewall riots to marriage equality to the transgender rights battle.” The ABC series was directed by “out” homosexual Dustin Lance Black and featured Rachel Griffiths, Guy Pearce, Mary-Louise Parker, David Hyde Pierce, and other stars. […]

Stealing from the Citizenry: How Government Goons Use Civil Asset Forfeiture to Rob Us Blind


(John W. Whitehead“Civil forfeiture laws represent one of the most serious assaults on private property rights in the nation today. Under civil forfeiture, police and prosecutors can seize your car or other property, sell it and use the proceeds to fund agency budgets—all without so much as charging you with a crime. Unlike criminal forfeiture, where property is taken after its owner has been found guilty in a court of law, with civil forfeiture, owners need not be charged with or convicted of a crime to lose homes, cars, cash or other property. Americans are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, but civil forfeiture turns that principle on its head. With civil forfeiture, your property is guilty until you prove it innocent.”— “ Policing for Profit: The Abuse of Civil Asset Forfeiture,” Institute for Justice
Read more »

EPA Official Accused of Helping Monsanto ‘Kill’ Cancer Study

By Joel Rosenblatt, Lydia Mulvany and Peter Waldman | 14 March 2017

  • Monsanto is fighting suits claiming it hid Roundup health risk
  • ‘I should get a medal,’ regulator allegedly bragged to company

 BLOOMBERG — The Environmental Protection Agency official who was in charge of evaluating the cancer risk of Monsanto Co.’s Roundup allegedly bragged to a company executive that he deserved a medal if he could kill another agency’s investigation into the herbicide’s key chemical.

The boast was made during an April 2015 phone conversation, according to farmers and others who say they’ve been sickened by the weed killer. After leaving his job as a manager in the EPA’s pesticide division last year, Jess Rowland has become a central figure in more than 20 lawsuits in the U.S. accusing the company of failing to warn consumers and regulators of the risk that its glyphosate-based herbicide can cause non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

“If I can kill this I should get a medal,” Rowland told a Monsanto regulatory affairs manager who recounted the conversation in an email to his colleagues, according to a court filing made public Tuesday. The company was seeking Rowland’s help stopping an investigation of glyphosate by a separate office, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, that is part of the U.S. Health and Human Service Department, according to the filing.

A federal judge overseeing the glyphosate litigation in San Francisco said last month he’s inclined to order Rowland to submit to questioning by lawyers for the plaintiffs, who contend he had a “highly suspicious” relationship with Monsanto. Rowland oversaw a committee that found insufficient evidence to conclude glyphosate causes cancer and quit last year shortly after his report was leaked to the press. […]

Tactics of Manipulation – Understanding the Control Dramas

Source – Jeremy McDonald

by: Jeremy McDonald; March 22, 2017

One thing is for sure in the current world people are walking around with an unconscious mind.

Lashing out in reaction to the stimulus around them. We all suffer from a little bit of unconscious reaction. It's what we do with our initial reactions before they manifest into the physical world that makes a difference.

Are we making proactive decisions or Knee Jerk Reactions? Are we empowered or dis-empowered? It is truly is our choice.

In this video I talk about the four control dramas and how we can become self aware of them and manage them within.

Also, on how we can navigate around the Control Dramas in others.
Read more »

Ray Kurzweil’s plan for immortality is missing one thing: you

Ray Kurzweil’s plan for immortality is missing one thing: you

By Jon Rappoport

In a Wired interview (11/18/02), leading transhumanist and Google’s director of engineering, Ray Kurzweil, spoke about living forever. He was asked: “Will you have your entire body preserved or just your head?”

The usual method of preservation, upon physical death, is freezing. Then, when the technology exists, sometime later, there would be the unfreezing and the reanimation. The dead person would come back to life…

Kurzweil said: “I think there’s some part of our identity and valuable information in our bodies. There’s more in our brains, but there’s some in our bodies as well. It gets into some technical issues. There’s a better way of preserving the brain, which they haven’t been able to do with the whole body yet. The vitrification process, which does a better job of preserving structural integrity in the cells, they do with the head but not with the body. At any rate, I’d go for the grade A plan.”

Kurzweil would apparently have his brain and body preserved, for future reanimation.

There is, of course, an underlying question:

What about consciousness?

Assuming the technology will exist to “bring back” the body and the brain, will the consciousness of being alive exist? Or will the process reinstitute something entirely mechanical?

Mechanical, as in: “The car was sitting in the garage on blocks for 50 years, and then we fixed it and made it start again.”

Biologists and physicists are bothered by the “consciousness question.” When they discuss it, they assume the brain produces consciousness because, well, where else could awareness come from? In other words, they resort to unscientific circular reasoning.

At the same time, they assert that the basis for all matter and energy in the universe is tiny particles; none of those particles have consciousness; and the particles make up the brain; the brain is composed entirely of those non-conscious particles.

This is called a trap. Hard scientists have no reason to assume consciousness exists at all. Yet it does exist. That implies consciousness is coming from somewhere other than the brain, somewhere other than particles—but according to these scientists, that “other somewhere” doesn’t exist.

So they retreat back into “consciousness is in the brain”—even though by their own science, it isn’t.

Preserving body and brain in a state of suspended animation, and then bringing it back, would not, according to a proper reading of their own science, bring back consciousness.

What would come back is some sort of mechanical functioning, and nothing else.

A conscious Ray Kurzweil would never come back.

His body and brain might hum again, like an old car that was fixed, but that’s all.

People continue to argue, of course, that in some very complex way the brain causes consciousness, we just don’t know how yet, but we’re getting there. That’s not evidence. That’s a naked assumption. They may as well be saying the moon is surely made of cheese and one day we’ll prove it, so for now just accept it.

“Well, folks, we just brought back Ray Kurzweil from fifty years of suspended animation. Remember him? He was a futurist at Google, or the CIA, it’s hard to tell which. Apparently the two organizations were one. Anyway, Ray is back.”

“Wonderful. Is he talking?”

“There is brain activity. No talking yet.”

“Is he looking at anything?”

“We assume so. His eyes are open. Also, his hands are opening and closing.”

“Is he gesturing?”

“It’s theoretically possible.”

“Is he conscious?”

“Of course. There is brain activity.”

“Well, there could be brain activity without consciousness.”

“Where did you pick up that idea? Are you crazy? He’s conscious. That’s all there is to it.”

“Maybe there is no ‘he’. There are just electrical signals.”

“Idiot. Life is electrical signals. What else could life be?”

“Life could be conscious, as in ‘hello I’m alive and I’d like to take a walk and look at the clouds and read a book and here’s an interesting passage on page ten, let’s discuss it’.”

“What’s your name again? Guards, take this man to the re-education center. He’s lost his basic programming…”

Ray, your reanimated brain and body aren’t going to bring back conscious-you. (You might reincarnate in a quite different way, but that’s a different story for another time…)

But don’t despair. In the future, when there are 10,000 brains and bodies in a warehouse, and technology allows them to be reactivated, they might, combined, generate enough electricity to run, say, a toaster, a refrigerator, and an oven in a micro apartment in San Francisco.

Filed under: Uncategorized