Group items tagged

"A new study conducted at Harvard University shows that in America, Liberals have a significantly lower IQ than Conservatives. The study was conducted on 100,000 registered voters in 40 different states over the last twelve years, and has concluded its results. The first part of the study lists the correlation between political beliefs and intelligence. Subjects of the study were chosen at random and requested to come to an unmarked van to take a test and answer some questions for a reasonable amount of money. Of the 100,000 people, there were people from many doctrines, from conservative to liberal to marxist to fascist. Socialists came out on bottom, with an average IQ of 87. The second worst were Liberals and then Marxists, with 88 and 89 respectively. Conservatives received an average score of 110, which is significantly above average. However, the conservatives did not score the highest. The holder of second place were Communists with an average I.Q of 115, and the first place was apolitical people who did not follow any specific doctrine, who received a whopping score on average of 135."

Awesome piece of writing coupled with exceptionally clear thinking.  Obammunism is at odds with our long history of American Exceptionalism.  Shelby Steele explains why.  There are things about American life that are not good.  The 60's radicals identified racism, corporate merchantilism, the military industrial complex, environmental disregard, and pervasively corrupt big corporate-government cronyism as issues that shaped Liberal-Marxist hatred for America.  Shelby explains how that hatred is really a hatred of American Exceptionalism - the one force that actually rights the ship when the all to human failings of power and greed takes us down.  This is truly good stuff! excerpt: If I've heard it once, I've heard it a hundred times: President Obama is destroying the country. Some say this destructiveness is intended; most say it is inadvertent, an outgrowth of inexperience, ideological wrong-headedness and an oddly undefined character. Indeed, on the matter of Mr. Obama's character, today's left now sounds like the right of three years ago. They have begun to see through the man and are surprised at how little is there. Yet there is something more than inexperience or lack of character that defines this presidency: Mr. Obama came of age in a bubble of post-'60s liberalism that conditioned him to be an adversary of American exceptionalism. In this liberalism America's exceptional status in the world follows from a bargain with the devil-an indulgence in militarism, racism, sexism, corporate greed, and environmental disregard as the means to a broad economic, military, and even cultural supremacy in the world. And therefore America's greatness is as much the fruit of evil as of a devotion to freedom. Mr. Obama did not explicitly run on an anti-exceptionalism platform. Yet once he was elected it became clear that his idea of how and where to apply presidential power was shaped precisely by this brand of liberalism. There was his devotion to big government, h

"If Hillary Clinton becomes the President of the United States, then liberal billionaire George Soros becomes the most powerful person on the planet.  EARLIER TODAY, DML POSTED A VIDEO OF SOROS STATING HE WANTS ONE-WORLD-GOVERNANCE (SEE IT WITH YOUR OWN EYES BY CLICKING HERE). That said, WikiLeaks has unleashed another flood of emails showing Soros was the VIP to be pleased by all Clinton aides and team members, almost at any cost. A new batch of John Podesta emails show Clinton was advised to do fundraisers and profiting events for one simple reason: to make Soros "happy." Example 1: On Oct. 7, 2014, top aide Huma Abedin wrote an email to campaign manager Robby Mook that Soros is expecting Clinton to appear at a fundraiser for America Votes, a liberal Soros-funded organization. "I would only do this for political reasons (ie to make Soros happy)," Mook replied. Example 2: On Jan. 23, 2011, Soros wrote a specifically scripted email to Clinton regarding a "a serious situation" in Albania, claiming certain actions needed to be done "urgently." He suggested appointing a mediator, Miroslav Lajcak. The next day, Lajcak met Albanian leaders for a mediation effort. Example 3: This one is downright sinister in nature. Hours after Justice Antonin Scalia was reported dead on Feb. 13, 2016, Chris Stone, the president of the Open Society Foundations that Soros funds, cryptically emailed Podesta the following: "Remember our discussion of Wallace Jefferson, [former] Chief Justice in Texas?" Podesta's simple response: "Yup." Other examples of emails show a plethora of Soros' policy beliefs and suggestions being passed on to Clinton and Podesta: An invitation to the screening of a film about climate change at Soros' house in July 2015; a short documentary based on Soros' essays about Ukraine in January 2015; a Soros-authored piece titled "Recapitalize the Banking System" in October 2008; the crisis in Malaysia and TPP. In the en

"For the past eight years, Barack Obama has been using the power of the U.S. presidency to impose his vision of a progressive world order on the entire globe.  As a result, much of the planet will greatly celebrate once the Obama era officially ends on Friday.  The Obama years brought us the Arab Spring, Benghazi, ISIS, civil war in Syria, civil war in Ukraine and the Iran nuclear deal.  On the home front, we have had to deal with Obamacare, "Fast and Furious", IRS targeting of conservative groups, Solyndra, the VA scandal, NSA spying and the worst "economic recovery" since the end of World War II.  And right at the end of his presidency, Barack Obama has committed the greatest betrayal of Israel in U.S. history and has brought us dangerously close to war with Russia. So is the end of the Obama world order worth celebrating? You better believe it is. Of course Obama and his minions are in a great deal of distress that much of their hard work over the past eight years is about to be undone by Donald Trump.  On Wednesday, Vice President Joe Biden warned the elitists gathered at the World Economic Forum in Davos that their "liberal world order" is in danger of collapsing…     Vice President Joe Biden delivered an epic final speech Wednesday to the elites at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.   The gist of his speech was simple: At a time of "uncertainty" we must double down on the values that made Western democracies great, and not allow the "liberal world order" to be torn apart by destructive forces. And without a doubt, we definitely want it to collapse. During his time in the White House, Barack Obama has used the full diplomatic power of the government to promote "abortion rights", "gay rights" and other "liberal values" to the farthest corners of the globe.  Here at home, the appointment of two new Supreme Court justices under Obama paved the way for the Supreme Court decision that forced all 50 state

"James Robart, the U.S. district judge in Washington State, offered little explanation for his decision to stop President Trump's executive order temporarily suspending non-American entry from seven terror-plagued countries. Robart simply declared his belief that Washington State, which in its lawsuit against Trump argued that the order is both illegal and unconstitutional, would likely win the case when it is tried. Now the government has answered Robart, and unlike the judge, Justice Department lawyers have produced a point-by-point demolition of Washington State's claims. Indeed, for all except the most partisan, it is likely impossible to read the Washington State lawsuit, plus Robart's brief comments and writing on the matter, plus the Justice Department's response, and not come away with the conclusion that the Trump order is on sound legal and constitutional ground. Beginning with the big picture, the Justice Department argued that Robart's restraining order violates the separation of powers, encroaches on the president's constitutional and legal authority in the areas of foreign affairs, national security, and immigration, and "second-guesses the president's national security judgment" about risks faced by the United States. Indeed, in court last week, Robart suggested that he, Robart, knows as much, or perhaps more, than the president about the current state of the terrorist threat in Yemen, Somalia, Libya, and other violence-plagued countries. In an exchange with Justice Department lawyer Michelle Bennett, Robart asked, "How many arrests have there been of foreign nationals for those seven countries since 9/11?" "Your Honor, I don't have that information," said Bennett. "Let me tell you," said Robart. "The answer to that is none, as best I can tell. So, I mean, you're here arguing on behalf of someone [President Trump] that says: We have to protect the United States from these individuals coming from these countries, and there's no support for that."

Awesome!  Once again Rush takes us to school. excerpt: VAN SUSTEREN: I guess I mean a motive to -- an intentional motive to hurt the country, versus his (Obama) ideology is one that the way you achieve ideals is different values. LIMBAUGH: This is the question. We are living under a number of assumptions about Obama that have been presented to us by elites of both parties. One of the illusions is Obama's brilliant, that he's smarter than anybody else in the room, messianic. We have never had a politician like this in our midst, we were told in 2007, 2008. Nobody like Obama has ever trod our soil. He was going to unify us. The world was going to love us again. It's going to lower the sea levels. I mean, ridiculous stuff. So the question is, is he just dumb? Does he really believe this economic stuff? Does he really believe that taking capital, money out of the private sector and transferring it to government and unions is the way you grow the private sector? Is that the way (INAUDIBLE) Does he really believe that? Is he that ill educated? Is he the product of nothing other than the American education system and whoever influenced him at home when he was young? Or is he an ideologue? Is he a Marxist socialist who has an agenda that's oriented toward cutting the country down to size? I mean, that's the question. For me, the answer to the question is irrelevant. I think that whatever he's doing, why he's doing it, it's obvious he is doing it. He is taking steps, these 10 policies that are injurious to the country, injurious to individuals, targeting as the enemy the people who work in this country, targeting as the enemy that people that pay taxes. This business of this Occupy Wall Street crowd, which is his -- it was created I think on the basis that Romney was going to be the Republican nominee. Romney's Wall Street, so you get Obama's band out there, Occupy Wall Street, protesting. It was set up to oppose Romney -- Wall Street blamed for all these ills in the e

Greece and Hungary moving to the right *and toward Russia and China.* The Syrza Party won big in Greece on Sunday. 

LIBERAL DEMOCRATS LIE

One of the best articles a concerned American can read, VDH sums it all up and puts the dilemma we face in context.   excerpt: From Greece to California, the liberal dream is dead. This Fourth of July, what remains is the Founders' vision of a limited government; the idea of a population united by common values, themes, and ideas; a republican form of checks-and-balances government to prevent demagoguery, factions, and tyranny of the majority; the sanctity and autonomy of the nation-state; and individual freedom and liberty as protected through the Bill of Rights. Everything after and against that has proved a failure. Indeed, what makes this Fourth different from recent celebrations is the ongoing repudiation of almost everything antithetical to the Founders' views - the redistributive, all-powerful welfare state, the therapeutic arrogance that believes human nature can be altered by an omnipotent well-meaning government, the postmodern notion that nationhood and borders are passé, and the utopian idea that war can be declared obsolete and the need for defense transcended. From Greece to California such dreams are dead.

"Conflicting Meanings of Freedom For a classical liberal, freedom means that each individual possesses as a human being certain inviolable rights, those being rights to his life, liberty and honestly acquired property. And that human relationships should be based on voluntary consent and mutual agreement. For my interlocutor, freedom means "empowerment" or the ability to do or achieve certain things, without which "freedom" is not complete. These include a minimum or "decent" standard of living and the ability to attain certain potentials in life, which are everyone's "right" as a member of society. For my fellow conversationalist, society is a shared "community" of human beings each of whom owes certain things to the others, just as the others owe certain things to us. Society might be viewed as an extended family, from this perspective, all the members of which have certain required obligations to support and give assistance to their social "relatives." I suggested that society is a network of human relationships formed between individuals based upon opportunities for mutual betterment, including both the economic and the cultural in the widest sense, the fundamental foundation of which derives from those essential individual rights. The "Social Contract": Individualist or Collectivist? My dinner companion raised the issue of "the social contract," to which we are all participants and benefactors, he said. He referenced the famous French eighteenth century philosopher, Jean-Jacque Rousseau, who reasoned that man began as savages in the wild threatened by both beast and other men. Everyone entered into a social contract and formed society for mutual safety and betterment by giving up a portion of their complete and unrestrained "freedom" in that earlier setting of savagery for the order and security of shared community. The freedom given up is compensated by safety and the security of mutual aid, including the modern welf

Outstanding statement about what made America great, an dhow are government is destroying that greatness.  This is the full Text of Sen. Rand Paul's Tea Party Response to Obama's State of the Union Address: I speak to you tonight from Washington, D.C. The state of our economy is tenuous but our people remain the greatest example of freedom and prosperity the world has ever known. People say America is exceptional. I agree, but it's not the complexion of our skin or the twists in our DNA that make us unique. America is exceptional because we were founded upon the notion that everyone should be free to pursue life, liberty, and happiness. For the first time in history, men and women were guaranteed a chance to succeed based NOT on who your parents were but on your own initiative and desire to work. We are in danger, though, of forgetting what made us great. The President seems to think the country can continue to borrow $50,000 per second. The President believes that we should just squeeze more money out of those who are working. The path we are on is not sustainable, but few in Congress or in this Administration seem to recognize that their actions are endangering the prosperity of this great nation. Ronald Reagan said, government is not the answer to the problem, government is the problem. Tonight, the President told the nation he disagrees. President Obama believes government is the solution: More government, more taxes, more debt. What the President fails to grasp is that the American system that rewards hard work is what made America so prosperous. What America needs is not Robin Hood but Adam Smith. In the year we won our independence, Adam Smith described what creates the Wealth of Nations. He described a limited government that largely did not interfere with individuals and their pursuit of happiness. All that we are, all that we wish to be is now threatened by the notion that you can have something for nothing, that you can have your cake and ea

As we approach July 4, 2013, is America in a pre-revolutionary state? Are we headed for a Tahrir Square of our own with the attendant mammoth social turmoil, possibly even violence. Could it happen here? We are two-thirds of the way into the most incompetent presidency in our history. People everywhere are fed up. Even many of the so-called liberals who propelled Barack Obama into office have stopped defending him in the face of an unprecedented number of scandals coming at us one after the other like hideous monsters in some non-stop computer game. And now looming is the monster of monsters, ObamaCare, the healthcare reform almost no one wanted and fewer understood. It will be administered by the Internal Revenue Service, an organization that has been revealed to be a kind of post-modern American Gestapo, asking not just to examine our accounting books but the books we read . What could be more totalitarian than that? Meanwhile, the Wall Street Journal warns the costs of ObamaCare are close to tripling what were promised , and the number of doctors in our country is rapidly diminishing. No more "My son, the doctor!" It doesn't pay. And young people most of all will not be able to afford escalating health insurance costs and will end up paying the fine to the IRS, simultaneously bankrupting the health system and enhancing the brutal power of the IRS - all this while unemployment numbers remain near historical highs. No one knows how many have given up looking for work while crony capitalist friends of the administration enrich themselves on mythological clean-energy projects. In fact, everywhere we look on this July Fourth sees a great civilization in decline. And much of that decline can be laid at the foot of the incumbent. Especially his own people, African Americans, have suffered.  Their unemployment numbers are catastrophic, their real needs ignored while hustlers like Sharpton, Jackson, and, sadly, even the president fan the flames of non-exi

"Doug Casey on American Socialism"  .  Awesome interview, especially the discussion on Liberalism and how the socialist Norman Thomas decided to co-opt the term as an effective replacement for the disreputable socialism.  Links to the Thomas 1932 socialist platform that Casey points out has pretty much been put into place.   Good discussion.  Focus on an article published by socialist apologist and idiot, Allan Colmes.

I agree that Colmes is far from the sharpest knife in the drawer. In my opinion, he was largely a Fox News invention to give Shawn Hannity a far weaker opponent to argue against that Hannity's idiocy could still overcome. There are in reality liberals that Hannity could never have gone toe-to-toe with. (That's not an endorsement of liberalism; it's commentary on the quality of Hannity's arguments.) The show was mostly a variant of the straw man logical fallacy; the fact that Colmes lacked the ability to think critically or communicate effectively made Hannity "win" the pseudo-debate in the eyes of those unable to think critically themselves. I have some criticism of Casey's remarks that apply more generally to my experience of strict Libertarians and perhaps even farther to strict adherents to any "ism." My criticism boils down to a couple of examples of hard issues usually avoided by strict Libertarians. -- The Disabled: When discussing Social Security disability benefits, Casey changes the subject from the genuinely disabled to a short rant about those whose disability claims are bogus and the "ambulance chasing" lawyers who pursue their claims. But if pressed to the wall and forced to answer, I strongly suspect that Casey would admit that there are people, likely the majority of Social Security disability benefits, whose claims are genuine. The net effect of his relevant argument: an impression that he has a Darwinian view that he would leave the disabled dying in the streets without sustenance or medical care. That kind of society is unacceptable to me. Perhaps it is to Casey too, but if so I think it was incumbent on him to offer a solution for the genuinely disabled. (In fairness, I'll note that at one point Casey hinted but did not forthrightly say that he would favor financial assistance for single mothers in Harlem.) -- Medical Care: I agree that our health care system is badly broken. But again Casey is long on criticism but short on realistic idea

The times they are a changin'.

"It's still hard to believe we now live in a country where a district judge can demand that we bring in refugees from state sponsors of terror and failed states saturated with terrorists and no data systems during a time of war. It's almost unfathomable that a district judge, an institution created by Congress, can overturn long-standing refugee law and bar the federal government from prioritizing persecuted religious minorities for refugee resettlement. All in contravention to statute, numerous clauses of the Constitution, the social contract, the social compact, popular sovereignty, jurisdictional sovereignty, and 200 years of case law. If Obergefell redefined the building block of all civilization, Judge James Robart's ruling redefined the building block of a sovereign nation. It's hard to comprehend a judicial opinion more divorced from our Constitution, sovereignty, fundamental laws, founding values, history, and tradition. It's also hard to imagine an opinion that is of greater consequence - unless it is ignored. In the long run, Congress must strip the federal judiciary of their power grab and restore Congress' plenary power over immigration, as it was since our founding. However, in the meantime, it's time to make impeachment great again. Impeachment was a critical check on abuse of power   Before the growth of political parties killed the separation of powers, the tool of impeachment was regarded by our founders as one of the most effective ways of checking the executive and judicial branches of government. By my count, impeachment is referenced 58 times in the Federalist Papers and countless times during the Constitutional Convention. Impeachment [U.S.CONST. art. II, §4] was not only reserved for those who engage in criminal behavior. It was clearly designed to check abuse of power. As the Congressional Research Service observes, Congress has identified "improperly exceeding or abusing the powers of the office" as a criterion for

A useful comparison of Ron Paul's stunning economic conservative record.  RP is easily the most conservative candidate in the repubican primary.  Where RP differs from his comparatively liberal-socialist challengers (Santorum, Gingrich and Romney), is on social conservative values.  Simply put, the Constitution prohibits the Federal government from forcing into law the both social conservative "values" and socialist -liberal democrat "values".  Easy enough. At the State level, and with the blessing of the 9th and 10th Amendments, conservatives and socialist can have at it; as long as they don't cross the Bill of Rights barriers.  Federally, i'm a strict constitutionalist - which means libertarian. Good read, but the author does not go into foreign policy, where the strict Constitutionalist Libertarian clashes with both the militant social conservatives, and the nation building - human rights happy socialists. Sure would like to see a civil discussion of how those waging civil war in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Libya and the Congo (among other places :( ) are a direct threat to USA citizens.  If they are, then Congress needs to stand by the Constitution and declare WAR.  And do so before committing funds for these militarist - corporatist - bankster ventures.

The Williams article does no more than to sing to the choir and certainly is no scholarly work. First he stuffs the Nazis into his own "socialist" bag, ignoring the fact that the "socialist" label in the party name was only window dressing for what was in reality a mix of fascism and capitalism, not socialism. Then he declares that "communists" in the Soviet Union were responsible for mass murders, blinking past the fact that the Soviet Union was communist in name only. It was a fascist state during the entire period when the mass murders there took place and wound up an oligarchy before it died. "Communist China" likewise was never a communist state. It began as a socialist state ruled by an oligarchy, became near-fascist under Chairman Mao, and returned to being an oligarchy after his death, but this time sprouting capitalist wings. (Nixon removing the U.S. trade barriers with China had a lot to do with this.) Having stuffed everything in sight into his "socialist" bag, deserving or not, and labeling *all* socialists as government mass murders, Williams takes the insurmountable mental leap to paint groups like the "NAACP, the National Council of La Raza, Green for All, the Sierra Club and the Children's Defense Fund" as mass murderers, apparently should their views ever become dominant in the U.S. (Williams provides no connective tissue for his illogic there.) Then to top it all off, the web site's editor slaps a title on the essay lumping liberals and progressives in with the socialists, so apparently liberals and progressives are potential mass murderers too, which is unmistakably his innuendo. Williams seems to have a problem with organizations working *through our legal system* to expand civil liberties and to raise ethnic minorities out of poverty. Love 'em or hate 'em, those are not groups of mass murderers. Williams has the right to dislike those organizations. He also has the right to make absurd arguments, which he has fully exercised. But he wa