This should be the easiest Caption Contest, ever!

This is the 82nd world-famous FOTM Caption Contest!

Here’s the pic:

Next generation of Democrats

You know the drill:

  • Enter the contest by submitting your caption as a comment on FOTM (scroll down), not via email or on Facebook.
  • The winner of the Caption Contest will get a gorgeous Award Certificate of Excellence and a year’s free subscription to FOTM! :D
  • FOTM writers will vote for the winner.
  • Any captions proffered by FOTM writers, no matter how brilliant (ha ha), will not be considered. :(

To get the contest going, here’s my caption:

The next generation of Democrats!

This contest will be closed in a week, at the end of next Tuesday, Sept. 23, 2014.

For the winner of our last Caption Contest, click here.

Seen any good pics that you think would be great for our Caption Contest? Email them to us! :D

fellowshipminds@gmail.com

~Eowyn

Coming Soon to a Theater Near You

In the 60’s and 70’s, we had several well-received realistic horror movies: The Exorcist, Rosemary’s Baby, etc. Made by veteran craftsman, these movies were not the make-believe fables that many thought them to be, but rather honest portrayals of very real demonic possession.

The 80’s and 90’s followed with a slew of low-budget, over-the-top slasher movies: Halloween (and its sequels), Friday the 13th (and its sequels), etc. Made independently by young casts and crews looking to break into the business, these movies were taken for what they were, mindless driven aimed at the pot-smoking high school and college crowds.

Today, we have an onslaught of slickly made, big-budget horror spectacles made by autonomous corporations, as seen on the posters below. The casts and crews of these “new” horror movies all appear to be either members of, or at least highly influenced by, the satan-worshipping illuminati. These movies are not intended as entertainment. They are meant to indoctrinate a new generation into the satanically possessed new world order. The same new world order being promoted by the United Nations and the Democratic Party.

image

image

image

image

3 graphs that should send shivers down your spine

Graph No. 1

Percentage of Americans satisfied with the direction the U.S. is going.

Gallup Poll of Sept. 12, 2014 found that only 23% of Americans are satisfied with the direction of the U.S.; 76% are not. Compare that to the high of 70% satisfied in 2002.

Click graph to enlarge

Gallup poll

Graph No. 2

Index of NATO’s military expenditures since 1950 (where 1950 expenditures = 100; calculated in 2011 constant US$). This is the longest data series on military expenditures that’s publicly available. (Source: SIPRI via ZeroHedge)

NATO military expenditures

Graph No. 3

World IQ level over time (Source: University of Hartford)

I.Q. is the intelligence quotient used to measure the intelligence of every human on the planet. Most people in modern day society have an average I.Q. ranging between 89 and 100.

The larger the human population grows, the average human I.Q. seems to drop. Studies conducted in recent years have shown a direct correlation between population growth and the decline in the standard I. Q of countries such as New Zeland, Australia, Brazil and Mexico. The average world I.Q. for 2011 is calculated to be 88.54 — the lowest I.Q. rate in years. At that rate, for every 10 years a .30 I.Q drop occurs, so it is predicted that by the year 2050, the average I. Q. will have fallen to 89.32 from 91.64 in 1950.

World IQ

See also:

~Eowyn

President Lucifer on ISIS threat: More Toyota trucks on the ground

Obama doctrine: More white sneakers and Toyota trucks on the ground

Obama Doctrine: More white sneakers and Toyota trucks on the ground

Obama doubles down on the Benghazi error and Congress helps

House approves Obama’s Iraq-Syria military strategy amid skepticism

In answer to Obama and Congress, I would ask,
“Have you forgotten Benghazi?”

We were funneling arms and support to jihadists in Benghazi, when things went sideways, leading to the murder of several Americans. Fearing political backlash, Obama worked to silence the people who were knowledgeable, by issuing gag orders.

We have people in Turkey, supporting islamist terrorists, and sending them into Syria to destabilize Assad’s government. Sounds okay, right? But these are the same people who have been beheading Christians in the historic Christian towns of Syria; the same ones who are terrorizing Iraq and Syria, and threatening European, Russian and American citizens; the same ones who were caught red-handed, gassing Syrian towns and trying to blame Assad’s army for the atrocity.

The destruction of governments across North Africa by the Muslim Brotherhood has Obama’s fingerprints all over it. In case you haven’t read it, the result was the ruin of the economy of Egypt, and the beginning of genocides all over the African continent. Did you know that, under Obama, our tax dollars are rebuilding mosques and islamic schools? Did you know that Obama’s family members in Africa are deeply embedded in the Muslim Brotherhood?

Just today, there was a bust in Australia, arresting ISIS members who were planning “random beheadings” in the that country. We have islamist militias training in compounds all over America, with nobody in our government shutting them down. We know that jihadists are pouring over our Mexican border, while our border patrol agents have been forced by our government to let them in.

At a time like this, any sane and moral leader would muster the Police, Army, Navy, and Air Force. Orders would be given to take down jihadists wherever they are found, to kill them if they show any sign of resistance. Unmistakable messages would be sent throughout the world, “America is coming after the islamic radicals, and you had better support us or at least get out of our way.”

So, Obama’s response to the outrageous beheadings of western journalists and overt threats to our own country was…

wait for it…

More of the same. Support more “good” jihadists

Congress agrees to fund more terrorists

Congress agrees to fund more terrorists

And Congress is okay with this?!!!

murderer_and_victim

What time is it?

Did you know that prophecies account for nearly one third of the Bible?

Revelation 1:3 says, “Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written in it; for the time is near.”

Two recent essays point to the unsettling and troubling times we live in. Is the time near?

~Eowyn

Helm's Deep

Victor Davis Hanson, “Are the Orcs Winning?,” PJMedia, Sept. 7, 2014:

J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings was sometimes faulted by literary critics for caricaturing the evil orcs as uniformly bad.  All of them were as unpleasant to look as they were deadly to encounter. There is not a single good orc or even a reformed orc in the trilogy. The apparent one-dimensional assumption of men, hobbits, dwarves, and elves is that the only good orc is a dead orc. So the absolutist Tolkien tried to teach us about the enduring nature of absolute good and evil. Apparently he did not think that anything from his contemporary experience might allow him to imagine reforming or rehabilitating such fictive folk.

Tolkien’s literary purpose with orcs was not to explore the many shades of evil or the struggle within oneself to avoid the dark side; he did that well enough in dozens of once good but weak characters who went bad such as the turncoat Saruman the wizard, his sidekick Wormtongue, a few of the hobbits who had ruined the Shire, and, best of all, the multifaceted Gollum. Orcs, on the other hand, are unredeemable. Orcs, goblins, and trolls exist as the tools of the even more sinister in proud towers to destroy civilization, and know nothing other than killing and destruction. Their reward is to feed on the crumbs of what they have ruined.

In the 21st century we are often lectured that such simplistic, one-dimensional evil is long gone. A ubiquitous civilization has so permeated the globe that even the worst sorts must absorb some mitigating popular culture from the Internet, Twitter, and Facebook, as if the sheer speed of transmitting thoughts ensures their moral improvement.

Even where democracy is absent, the “world community” and a “global consciousness” are such that billions supposedly won’t let Attila, Tamerlane, and Genghis Khan reappear in our postmodern lives. To deal with a Major Hasan, Americans cannot cite his environment as the cause, at least not poverty, racism, religious bigotry, nativism, xenophobia, or any of the more popular –isms and-ologies in our politically correct tool box that we customarily use to excuse and contextualize evil behavior. So exasperated, we shrug and call his murdering “workplace violence” — an apparent understandable psychological condition attributable to the boredom and monotony of the bleak, postmodern office.

But then suddenly along comes the limb-lopping, child-snatching, and mutilating Nigerian-based Boko Haram. What conceivable Dark Age atrocity have they omitted? Not suicide bombing, mass murder, or random torture. They are absolutely unapologetic for their barbarity. They are ready to convert or kill preteens as their mood determines for the crime of being Christian. In response, the Nigerian government is powerless, while the United States is reduced to our first lady holding up Twitter hashtags, begging for the release of the latest batch of girls.

Is the Somalia-based Al-Shabaab worse? It likes the idea that it is premodern. In addition to the usual radical Islamic horrors of beheadings, rape, and mutilation, Al-Shabaab even kills protected elephants, perhaps thousands of them, to saw off tusks and fund their killing spree. They seem to make the medieval Taliban look tame in comparison.

Roger Cohen, “The Great Unraveling,” New York Times, Sept. 15, 2014:

(Note: my words are colored teal)

It was the time of unraveling. Long afterward, in the ruins, people asked: How could it happen?

It was a time of beheadings (ISIS). With a left-handed sawing motion, against a desert backdrop, in bright sunlight, a Muslim with a British accent cut off the heads of two American journalists and a British aid worker. The jihadi seemed comfortable in his work, unhurried. His victims were broken. Terror is theater. Burning skyscrapers, severed heads: The terrorist takes movie images of unbearable lightness and gives them weight enough to embed themselves in the psyche.

It was a time of aggression. The leader of the largest nation (in land mass) on earth (Russia) pronounced his country encircled, even humiliated. He annexed part (Crimea) of a neighboring country (Ukraine), the first such act in Europe since 1945, and stirred up a war on further land he coveted. His surrogates shot down a civilian passenger plane (MH17). The victims, many of them Europeans, were left to rot in the sun for days. He denied any part in the violence, like a puppeteer denying that his puppets’ movements have any connection to his. He invoked the law the better to trample on it. He invoked history the better to turn it into farce. He reminded humankind that the idiom fascism knows best is untruth so grotesque it begets unreason.

(See “Was it really a Russian INVASION of Crimea?” )

It was a time of breakup. The most successful union (United Kingdom) in history, forged on an island in the North Sea in 1707, headed toward possible dissolution — not because it had failed (refugees from across the seas still clamored to get into it), nor even because of new hatreds between its peoples. The northernmost citizens (Scotland) were bored. They were disgruntled. They were irked, in some insidious way, by the south and its moneyed capital, an emblem to them of globalization and inequality. They imagined they had to control their National Health Service in order to save it even though they already controlled it through devolution and might well have less money for its preservation (not that it was threatened in the first place) as an independent state. The fact that the currency, the debt, the revenue, the defense, the solvency and the European Union membership of such a newborn state were all in doubt did not appear to weigh much on a decision driven by emotion, by urges, by a longing to be heard in the modern cacophony — and to heck with the day after. If all else failed, oil would come to the rescue (unless somebody else owned it or it just ran out).

It was a time of weakness. The most powerful nation on earth (USA) was tired of far-flung wars, its will and treasury depleted by absence of victory. An ungrateful world could damn well police itself. The nation had bridges to build and education systems to fix. Civil wars between Arabs could fester. Enemies might even kill other enemies, a low-cost gain. Middle Eastern borders could fade; they were artificial colonial lines on a map. Shiite could battle Sunni, and Sunni Shiite, there was no stopping them. Like Europe’s decades-long religious wars, these wars had to run their course. The nation’s leader (POS) mockingly derided his own “wan, diffident, professorial” approach to the world, implying he was none of these things, even if he gave that appearance. He set objectives for which he had no plan. He made commitments he did not keep. In the way of the world these things were noticed. Enemies probed. Allies were neglected, until they were needed to face the decapitators who talked of a Caliphate and called themselves a state. Words like “strength” and “resolve” returned to the leader’s vocabulary. But the world was already adrift, unmoored by the retreat of its ordering power. The rule book had been ripped up.

It was a time of hatred. Anti-Semitic slogans were heard in the land that invented industrialized mass murder for Europe’s Jews. Frightened European Jews removed mezuzahs from their homes. Europe’s Muslims felt the ugly backlash from the depravity of the decapitators, who were adept at Facebooking their message. The fabric of society frayed. Democracy looked quaint or outmoded beside new authoritarianisms. Politicians, haunted by their incapacity, played on the fears of their populations, who were device-distracted or under device-driven stress. Dystopia was a vogue word, like utopia in the 20th century. The great rising nations of vast populations held the fate of the world in their hands but hardly seemed to care.

It was a time of fever (Ebola). People in West Africa bled from the eyes.

It was a time of disorientation. Nobody connected the dots or read Kipling on life’s few certainties: “The Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire / And the burnt Fool’s bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire.”

Until it was too late and people could see the Great Unraveling for what it was and what it had wrought.

100 most livable cities in USA

bay6

Livability just came out with their 2nd annual top 100 best small to mid-sized cities in the U.S.

More than 2,000 cities were ranked by the following criteria:

  • Amenities: Variety of terrain; access to water; farmers markets; golf courses; parks; a moderate climate; role of arts in the community. 
  • Demographics: Racial, ethnic, and age diversity; population growth.
  • Economy: income inequality; income growth forecasts; employment; the amount residents spend on food.
  • Education: Quality of public schools; presence of colleges and universities; education levels of the adults.
  • Health care: Presence of hospitals within the town limits; low-birth-weight rate among children; obesity rates among adults; ratio of primary care physicians per 100,000 residents.
  • Housing: Access to affordable housing; diversity of housing stock.
  • Social and civic capital: Who are the people in your neighborhood? and what do they do for your neighborhood?
  • Transportation: Access to major airports; walkability; transportation costs; percentage of the population who commute to work by some means other than driving alone.

Below are the top 100 cities:

  1. Madison, Wisconsin
  2. Rochester, Minnesota
  3. Arlington, Virginia
  4. Boulder, Colorado
  5. Palo Alto, California
  6. Berkeley, California
  7. Santa Clara, California
  8. Missoula, Montana
  9. Boise, Idaho
  10. Iowa City, Iowa
  11. Bozeman, Montana
  12. Asheville, North Carolina
  13. Ann Arbor, Michigan
  14. Bellevue, Washington
  15. San Mateo, California
  16. Santa Barbara, California
  17. Overland Park, Kansas
  18. Salt Lake City, Utah
  19. Rockeville, Maryland
  20. Eugene, Oregon
  21. Pasadena, California
  22. Fargo, North Dakota
  23. Ventura, California
  24. Fort Collins, Colorado
  25. Sunnyvale, California
  26. Mountain View, California
  27. St. Louis Park, Minnesota
  28. Santa Monica, California
  29. Durham, North Carolina
  30. Ames, Iowa
  31. San Rafael, California
  32. Frederick, Maryland
  33. Greenville, South Carolina
  34. Lakewood, Colorado
  35. Provo, Utah
  36. Sandy Springs, Georgia
  37. Lincoln, Nebraska
  38. Miami Beach, Florida
  39. Quincy, Massachusetts
  40. Cambridge, Massachusetts
  41. Sioux Falls, South Dakota
  42. Towson, Maryland
  43. Tempe, Arizona
  44. Portland, Maine
  45. Alameda, California
  46. Renton, Washington
  47. Bellingham, Washington
  48. Beaverton, Oregon
  49. Fullerton, California
  50. Columbia, Missouri
  51. Bismarck, North Dakota
  52. Helena, Montana
  53. Irvine, California
  54. Reno, Nevada
  55. Olympia, Washington
  56. Santa Cruz, California
  57. West Des Moines, Iowa
  58. Honolulu, Hawaii
  59. Eau Claire, Wisconsin
  60. Ashland, Oregon
  61. Monterey, California
  62. Chapel Hill, North Carolina
  63. Alexandria, Virginia
  64. North Bethesda, Maryland
  65. Cedar Rapids, Iowa
  66. Lexington, Kentucky
  67. White Plains, New York
  68. Costa Mesa, California
  69. Corvallis, Oregon
  70. Manhattan, Kansas
  71. Tampa, Florida
  72. Silver Spring, Maryland
  73. Kirkland, Washington
  74. Lawrence, Kansas
  75. Westminster, Colorado
  76. Bend, Oregon
  77. Redmond, Washington
  78. Santa Rosa, California
  79. Goleta, California
  80. Knoxville, Tennessee
  81. Stamford, Connecticut
  82. Des Moines, Iowa
  83. Fayetteville, Arkansas
  84. Denton, Texas
  85. Springfield, Missouri
  86. Orlando, Florida
  87. Menlo Park, California
  88. Salem, Oregon
  89. Burbank, California
  90. Hayward, California
  91. Greensboro, North Carolina
  92. Charleston, South Carolina
  93. Richardson, Texas
  94. Tysons Corner, Virginia
  95. La Crosse, Wisconsin
  96. Grand Rapids, Michigan
  97. Framingham, Massachusetts
  98. Billings, Montana
  99. Brookline, Massachusetts
  100. Coral Gables, Florida

Do you live in one of the above cities?

Do you agree with the ranking criteria? (I’m surprised crime rate isn’t a criterion.)

~Eowyn

“Who wants their son to live the life of a handicapped person? Maybe some families want this, but we don’t.”

AFP Photo

AFP Photo

France24: Parents of an extremely premature baby, currently in hospital in the city of Poitiers, have asked doctors to take their child off life support, or “passive euthanasia”. The doctors, however, say they need more time to evaluate the baby’s condition.

“We made this decision over a week ago,” said the baby’s mother, Mélanie, who was interviewed by France Info. “Who wants their son to live the life of a handicapped person? Maybe some families want this, but we don’t.”

The baby boy, named Titouan, was born on 31 August, four months before his due date. He weighed just under 2lb at birth and suffered from an intracerebral haemorrhage. For now, the doctors at the University Hospital Center of Poitiers (CHU) are unable to judge the extent of the damage to his brain.

“If we want to be able to fully understand the consequences [of the haemorrhage], we can’t rush this. We need a few weeks to evaluate his condition,” said Professor Fabrice Pierre, of the department of gynecology and obstetrics at Poitiers CHU, on French TV channel France Bleu. “Currently, we are not giving him intensive treatment; we are simply giving him life support to give us the time to do a proper evaluation.”

The baby’s parents, Mélanie and Aurélien, who are both in their 30s, say that doctors have already told them that their son will be paralysed on one side and that it is very likely he will be “severely disabled.”

They accuse the “inhumane” doctors of prolonging their son’s suffering.

Currently, euthanasia is illegal in France, though the 2005 law says that doctors are allowed to end or refrain from using treatments or care that result in the artificial prolongation of life, as long as the family agrees with the doctor’s decision. This is often referred to as “passive euthanasia,” or withholding treatments necessary to the continuation of life.

Importantly, the 2005 law also puts the decision in the hands of the doctors.
Faced with the repeated demands of Titouan’s parents, CHU’s neonatal unit sought out the advice of an ethics panel. They have yet to make a decision.

Earlier in the year, French President François Hollande announced that the government planned to enact a tightly-framed law allowing “medical assistance to end one’s life in dignity”.

Close to nine out of ten French people (89%) interviewed said they would be in favour of a law authorising euthanasia, according to a survey published in French daily Le Parisien at the end of June.

In situations when a person is too sick to make the decision themselves, 53% said the family should make the decision, 41% said a doctor should only 6% said a judge should make the decision.

In June, The Council of State, France’s top administrative court ruled in favour of so-called passive euthanasia in the high-profile case of Vincent Lambert, a tetraplegic patient who has been in a state of minimal consciousness for the past six years.

See also:

DCG

Obama administration forcing new gun buyers to declare race, ethnicity

obama gun gesture

Washington Times: The Obama administration quietly has been forcing new gun buyers to declare their race and ethnicity, a policy change that critics say provides little law enforcement value while creating the risk of privacy intrusions and racial profiling.

With little fanfare, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) in 2012 amended its Form 4473 — the transactional record the government requires gun purchasers and sellers to fill out when buying a firearm — to identify buyers as either Hispanic, Latino or not. Then a buyer must check his or her race: Indian, Asian, black, Pacific Islander or white.

The amendment is causing a headache for gun retailers, as each box needs to be checked off or else it’s an ATF violation — severe enough for the government to shut a business down. Many times people skip over the Hispanic/Latino box and only check their race, or vice versa — both of which are federal errors that can be held against the dealer.

Requiring the race and ethnic information of gun buyers is not required by federal law and provides little law enforcement value, legal experts say. And gun industry officials worry about how the information is being used and whether it constitutes an unnecessary intrusion on privacy.

“This issue concerns me deeply because, first, it’s offensive, and, secondly, there’s no need for it,” said Evan Nappen, a private practice firearms lawyer in New Jersey. “If there’s no need for an amendment, then there’s usually a political reason for the change. What this indicates is it was done for political reasons, not law enforcement reasons.”

ATF said the change came about because it needed to update its forms to comply with an Office of Management and Budget (OMB) reporting standard put into effect during the Clinton administration. The ATF declined to comment on why race and ethnicity information are needed in the first place or what they are used for. On its prior 4473 forms, the bureau had been collecting race data.

OMB’s race and ethnicity standards require agencies to ask both race and ethnicity in a specific manner (as done on [Form 4473]), and agencies may not ask for one without asking for the other,” wrote Elizabeth Gosselin, a spokeswoman for the ATF, in an emailed response to The Washington Times. She did not say why the agency suddenly made the change in response to a rule that was more than a decade old.

For ATF to ask for a purchaser’s race and ethnicity is not specifically authorized under federal statute, and since a government-issued photo ID — like a driver’s license — and a background check are already required by law to purchase a gun, the ethnicity/race boxes aren’t there for identification reasons, Mr. Nappen said.

“There is nothing [in ATF or OMB’s website links addressing the change in policy] that supports the requirement that ATF collect race-based information. The OMB guidance merely describes what categories of race should look like if information is collected,” Laura Murphy, the American Civil Liberties Union director for legislative affairs in Washington, said in an emailed statement.

In addition, Mrs. Murphy notes, the OMB guidance was supposed to be implemented by 2003; there’s no information given why ATF decided to make this change almost a decade later, she said. “If there is a civil rights enforcement reason for the ATF to collect this data, I have not heard that explanation from ATF or any other federal agency,” said Mrs. Murphy.

Both the NAACP and the National Council of La Raza — the nation’s largest national Hispanic civil rights group — declined comment.

The 4473 form is supposed to be kept in a gun retailer’s possession at all times — allowing ATF agents to inspect the form only during the course of a criminal investigation or during a random audit of the dealer. The form is to be kept out of the hands of the government, hence the distinction between “sales/transaction form” and “registration form.” But that isn’t always the case, gun rights advocates say.

“We’ve been contacted by several dealers saying ATF is or has been making wholesale copies of their 4473 forms, and it’s just not legal,” said Erich Pratt, spokesman for Gun Owners of America, a gun advocacy group. “If this is what they’re doing somewhat out in the open, what’s going on behind closed doors? Are these names and demographic information getting phoned [in and] punched into a government computer? Do they ever come out?

During the time ATF revised its 4473 form to include Hispanic or Latino as an ethnicity, the Obama administration was building gun control cases by saying U.S. firearms dealers were supplying Mexican gangs with weapons and that violence related to the sales was seeping across the border.

Hillary

In March 2009, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton visited Mexico City and gave a speech against American gun stores and owners — blaming them for the drug cartels’ violence. Mrs. Clinton subsequently told CBS News that “90 percent” of the “guns that are used by the drug cartels against the police and military” actually “come from America.”

Eric Holder

About a week later, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. made the same points at a gun trafficking conference outside of Mexico City. In April, the president himself flew down to Mexico to inform President Felipe Calderon that Mr. Holder was going to review U.S. law enforcement operations, according to a 2011 report by the American Thinker.

This political worldview may have fueled decision-making at ATF, Mr. Nappen suggests. Around the same time that ATF started specifying “Latino/Hispanic” on their U.S. purchasing forms, they also required border firearms dealers in Texas, Arizona, California and New Mexico to start reporting multiple rifle sales.

In 2012, when ATF made the Form 4473 modification, they insisted their new reporting requirement for multiple rifle sales in those border states had led to “follow-up investigations involving transactions that might indicate firearms trafficking activities.”

“Was it coincidental [that] about the time the form changed the requirements came in that border states had to report multiple rifle sales, and there was a push in the antigun movement to claim American guns were arming Mexican cartels south of the border?” asked Mr. Nappen.

Although gun advocates speculate on the reasoning behind changing the form, on one thing they are clear: Requiring ethnicity and race to purchase a gun is a clear government overstep, violating Second Amendment rights.

second amendment3

“It’s an overreach, not authorized by Congress, taken upon [by ATF] unilaterally,” said Mr. Pratt. “The president has said his biggest frustration has been not getting gun control enacted — but we can see he’s been very active with his phone and his pen. And this certainly — either intentionally or unintentionally — feeds that notion.”

DCG