► Show Top 10 Hot Links

Archive for the ‘Democratic Party’ Category

Ghosts of Benghazi; Or What difference does it make.

by Guest Post ( 108 Comments › )
Filed under Al Qaeda, Barack Obama, Corruption, Democratic Party, Islamists, Libya at April 23rd, 2014 - 1:00 pm

Guest Blogger: Doriangrey


The 9/11/2012 attack on the US Embassy consular building in Benghazi Libya is once again meandering it’s way through the news. All of the same questions are being asked, and no surprise here, the same basic conclusions reached right here on this blog, are now being reached by many others who have looked carefully at the evidence.

File this under: “I Told you So” (The Kidnapping of Ambassador Stevens)

Back on April 30th I related a rumor to you about what supposedly really happened to Ambassador Christopher Stevens during the assault on the Consult in Benghazi. Most of you no doubt filed it away with a chuckle under super crazy tin-foil hat conspiracy theories. Here is what I told you back then.

Why we should hang the Fifth Column Treasonous Media talking heads.

Not only did Barack Insane Obama refuse to send Ambassador Stevens any help, their is considerable evidence to suggest that he actively prevented any help being sent. Moreover their is even rumor to the effect that that hep was specifically denied because the Whitehouse under Barack Insane Obama’s direct orders were engaging in a covert operation that was suppose to result in the kidnapping of Ambassador Stevens and 15 or 20 of his staff who were to be held as hostages so that the Obamanation Administration would have political cover for releasing Blink Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman to Egypt.

Moreover, their is even the suggestion that Ambassador Steven was intended to be killed at some point during that exchange because Ambassador Stevens was cooperating with known Al Qaeda terrorists in a trade of small arms and ammunition in exchange for a significant number of shoulder fired surface to air missiles that had been stolen from the US during the fall of Qaddafi’s Libya.

But, just as has been done in the past, so shall it be done again as this tempest in a teapot simmers down.


A burial shroud for Benghazi…

The Fifth column Treasonous Media is at it again, and sadly most conservatives who saw the 60 Minutes special on Benghazi are falling for it. Let me make something perfectly clear to everyone, the 60 Minute Special on Benghazi is not an expose designed to enlighten anyone nor to bring pressure on the Obamanation Administration. It amounts to nothing less than lime being thrown on a corpse to keep it from stinking, a burial shroud to inform everyone who see’s it, that this story is now officially dead.

The Mainstream media is and always has been fully aware of what happened and why in Benghazi. Their failure to cover the story more aggressively, to relentlessly demand the kinds of answers that was the hallmark of their coverage of the Nixon Watergate scandal, is because, like the Obama administration, they know such activity on their part would be profoundly damaging to Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Damaging enough to result in Barack Obama being impeached and land Hillary Clinton in a Federal Prison. The Mainstream Media is no longer about faithfully keeping the American People informed about what is really transpiring around them, not it is now nothing more than a propaganda organization where Marxist/Socialist ideology trumps all, and protecting America’s first Marxist President is the only thing that matters.

Benghazi attack could have been prevented if US hadn’t ‘switched sides in the War on Terror’ and allowed $500 MILLION of weapons to reach al-Qaeda militants, reveals damning report

The Citizens Commission on Benghazi, a self-selected group of former top military officers, CIA insiders and think-tankers, declared Tuesday in Washington that a seven-month review of the deadly 2012 terrorist attack has determined that it could have been prevented – if the U.S. hadn’t been helping to arm al-Qaeda militias throughout Libya a year earlier.

‘The United States switched sides in the war on terror with what we did in Libya, knowingly facilitating the provision of weapons to known al-Qaeda militias and figures,’ Clare Lopez, a member of the commission and a former CIA officer, told MailOnline.

She blamed the Obama administration for failing to stop half of a $1 billion United Arab Emirates arms shipment from reaching al-Qaeda-linked militants.

‘Remember, these weapons that came into Benghazi were permitted to enter by our armed forces who were blockading the approaches from air and sea,’ Lopez claimed. ‘They were permitted to come in. … [They] knew these weapons were coming in, and that was allowed..

‘The intelligence community was part of that, the Department of State was part of that, and certainly that means that the top leadership of the United States, our national security leadership, and potentially Congress – if they were briefed on this – also knew about this.’

The weapons were intended for Gaddafi but allowed by the U.S. to flow to his Islamist opposition.

————————————————————————————————————————————————-

‘We don’t claim to have all the answers here,’ said Roger Aronoff, whose center-right group Accuracy in Media sponsored the group and its work.

‘We hope you will, please, pursue this,’ he told reporters. ‘Check it out. Challenge us.’
Retired Admiral Chuck Kubic said the White House refused to let the Pentagon pursue a peaceful exit for Muammar Gaddafi: ‘We had a leader who had won the Nobel Peace Prize, but who was unwilling to give peace a chance for 72 hours’
+7

Retired Admiral Chuck Kubic said the White House refused to let the Pentagon pursue a peaceful exit for Muammar Gaddafi: ‘We had a leader who had won the Nobel Peace Prize, but who was unwilling to give peace a chance for 72 hours’

The commission and AIM filed 85 document requests under the Freedom Of Information Act, hitting the Department of Defense, State Department, Federal Bureau of Investigation and Central Intelligence Agency with demand after demand.

But most of its information has come from insiders with deep knowledge of the flow of weapons in Libya and elsewhere in the African Maghreb.

Admiral James ‘Ace’ Lyons told the group that he believes the raid on the Benghazi compound was intended as a kidnapping exercise, aimed at snatching U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and demanding a prisoner swap for the ‘blind sheikh’ Omar Abdel-Rahman.

Abdel-Rahman is serving a life sentence in federal prison for planning the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center garage in New York City. He also masterminded a plan, later foiled, to blow up the United Nations, both the Lincoln and Holland tunnels, the George Washington Bridge and a federal building where the FBI had a base of operations.

A senior FBI source, Lyons said Tuesday, ‘told me that was the plan.’

The attack, history shows, grew in intensity and resulted in the deaths of Stevens and three other U.S. personnel.

Lyons also said U.S. claims that it lacked the resources to mount a counterattack in time to save lives is false.

‘I’m going to tell you that’s not true,’ he said. ‘We had a 130-man unit of forces at Sigonella [AFB in Italy]. They were ready to go.’

‘The flight time from Sigonella to Benghazi is roughly an hour.’

————————————————————————————————————————————————-

The group has called for a Select Congressional Committee to investigate the Benghazi episode. A total of 189 House members have signed on to a bill that would create the committee, which would be bipartisan and have sweeping powers to subpoena the executive branch.

House Speaker John Boehner, Lopez said Tuesday, ‘he blocked it. One has to wonder if he and Congress have had some sort of briefing on what happened.’

Had the Mainstream Media any creditability what-so-ever left, it would be them, and not a British tabloid running this story, but, the American Mainstream Media has already chosen their side, it is not the side of the American people, for all practical purposes, they are repeating what are perhaps the most offensive and noxious words ever made on the subject of the attack on Benghazi, “At this point, what difference does it make?

(Cross Posted @ The Wilderness of Mirrors)

The thrill of tyranny.

by Guest Post ( 290 Comments › )
Filed under Anarcho-Capitalism, Communism, Conservatism, Libertarianism, Marxism, Progressives, Tea Parties, The Political Right at April 22nd, 2014 - 1:00 pm

Guest Blogger: The thrill of tyranny.


Lois Lerner may be gone, but her legacy looms large in the minds of Marxist tyrants pretending to be Democrats.

IRS revokes conservative group’s tax-exempt status over anti-Clinton statements

The Internal Revenue Servicehas revoked the tax-exempt status of a conservative charity for making statements critical of Hillary Rodham Clinton and John Kerry, according to a USA Today report.

The Patrick Henry Center for Individual Liberty, based in Manassas, Va., “has shown a pattern of deliberate and consistent intervention in political campaigns” and made “repeated statements supporting or opposing various candidates by expressing its opinion of the respective candidate’s character and qualifications,” according to a written determination released Friday by the IRS.

The IRS said the center acted as an “action organization” by publishing alerts on its website for columns written by its president, former FBI agent Gary Aldrich, the Washington Free Beacon reported.

The IRS pointed out a column that appeared to be published by Townhall on April 2, 2004, in which Mr. Aldrich wrote, “if John Kerry promises otherwise ill-informed swing-voters lower gas prices at the pump, more than a few greedy, registered ignoramuses will follow him anywhere,” the Free Beacon reported.

Another article cited by the IRS was a 2005 piece titled “Stop Hillary Now!,” which rallied “Clinton haters” to inform voters of Hillary Clinton’s “atrocious conduct,” USA Today reported.

IRS Commissioner John Koskinen said in an interview with The Washington Post last week that the IRS and Treasury Department are likely to rewrite controversial draft guidelines to better define “candidate-related political activities.”

“My bottom line is that it’s in everyone’s interest to have clarification,” he said. “My position since I started more than four months ago is that we ought to have clarity, and that any rule that comes out ought to be fair and easy to administer.”

Conservatives have argued that the proposals are just another way for the Obama administration to target right-leaning groups.

A Fox News poll published last week revealed that 49 percent of American voters believe the IRS intentionally targeted conservative organizations.

What is important to note here, is that at this particular point in time, neither John F’ing Kerry nor Hillary Clinton are declared candidates for anything. Thus rending the IRS act’s preemptive at best, and an illegal suppression of free speech at the barest of minimums. In short, this action by the IRS is nothing less than a expansion of the tyrannical overreach of the federal government that the Obamanation Administration has nurtured. Just as with the recent case witnessed in Nevada at the Bundy Ranch, these actions fly in the face of every word written by America’s Founding Fathers, not only in the Constitution itself, but in every one of their written documents in which they went to excruciatingly pains to make their position crystal clear on.

Oh, and just in case anyone thinks that the dust up in Nevada is a one off exception to the rule event for the BLM, think again.

BLM Eyes 90,000 Acres of Texas Land

After the recent Bundy Ranch episode by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Texans are becoming more concerned about the BLM’s focus on 90,000 acres along a 116 mile stretch of the Texas/Oklahoma boundary. The BLM is reviewing the possible federal takeover and ownership of privately-held lands which have been deeded property for generations of Texas landowners.

Sid Miller, former Texas State Representative and Republican candidate for Texas Agriculture Commissioner, has since made the matter a campaign issue to Breitbart Texas.

“In Texas,” Miller says, “the BLM is attempting a repeat of an action taken over 30 years ago along the Red River when Tommy Henderson lost a federal lawsuit. The Bureau of Land Management took 140 acres of his property and didn’t pay him one cent.”

Miller referred to a 1986 case where the BLM attempted to seize some of Henderson’s land. Henderson sued the BLM and lost 140 acres that had been in his family for generations. Now the BLM is looking at using the prior case as a precedent to claim an additional 90,000 acres.

Congressman Mac Thornberry (R-TX) represents the ranchers in this region of north Texas. According to Thornberry’s legislative analysts, the issue of the ownership of this land dates back to the Louisiana Purchase of 1803. When the BLM made the claim on Henderson’s land, their position was that Texas never had the authority to deed the land to private parties and therefore it would fall under federal control.

In 1922, the U.S. Supreme Court attempted to settle the boundary dispute in Oklahoma v. Texas and declared the boundary to be defined by wooden stakes set on the river bank. That boundary apparently lasted no longer than anyone could expect wooden stakes to last in the shifting sands of a meandering river. In 2000, Texas and Oklahoma’s legislatures agreed to a “Red River Boundary Compact” which defined the border between the states as the southern vegetation line. However, Congress must ratify agreements of this kind between the states according to Article 1, Section 10 (Clause 3) of the U.S. Constitution. Congressman Thornberry introduced House Joint Resolution 72 during the 106th Congress to codify the compact into U.S. Law.

The matter became somewhat of a national question drawing the attention of Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, “The U.S. Supreme Court has tried twice to settle this dispute, which at one point brought the governor of Oklahoma to the border in a tank…However, true to the slogan ‘One Riot, One Ranger,’ the good governor of Oklahoma and his tank was held off by a lone Texas Ranger on his horse.”

Tanks aside, the Texas Farm Bureau has produced a video that explains the problems left open by the current border definition from north Texas ranchers’ perspectives. This issue reportedly centers on Oklahoma’s definitions on the various forms of movement with the river.

Is is really any wonder, with the Federal government consistently acting with such a blatant disregard for the United States constitution, that so many American’s are getting fed up? And then, to add insult to injury, we have a Senate Majority Leader calling those who object to the Federal governments illegal and unconstitutional action “Domestic Terrorists”?

‘I blame both sides,’ Oklahoma militia members join fight against feds

OKLAHOMA CITY – A land dispute in Nevada between rancher Cliven Bundy and the federal government began decades ago.

The Bureau of Land Management says Bundy was allowing his cattle to graze illegally which triggered a round-up of about 400 head of cattle last week.

Bundy claims his family’s cattle have grazed on the land since 1870 without interference from the government.

However, the Bureau of Land Management says Bundy hadn’t paid his grazing fees since 1993.

Over time, officials say those fees have amounted to more than $1 million.

As authorities herded the cattle, a standoff was sparked with members of the militia.

Organizers with the Oklahoma Militia say they have members in Nevada who claim Bundy’s cattle were unlawfully herded by the bureau.

The Oklahoma Militia says it is made up of nearly 50,000 volunteers.

Members say they are taking Bundy’s side and fear this practice could spread to the Sooner State.

Scott Shaw said, “Evidently in America we don’t actually own the property anymore if you ever did.”

Shaw says Oklahoma Militia members are ready to take up arms against the federal government if needed.

He said, “It’s up to the feds. The ball’s in their court! You can do this legally or if you want to try to do a land grab violently, you can do that. We’re going to resist you!”

Shaw says the militia has not had to defend Oklahoma from the government yet but members are becoming concerned.

Shaw said, “Just look around the country, they are doing it everywhere. If they can do it in Nevada, they can do it in Colorado, Texas. I mean, what’s to stop them from coming to Oklahoma? The only thing to stop them is ‘We the People’.”

However, not everyone agrees.

Sen. Jim Inhofe said, “You’ve got a bunch of people there trying to take the law into their own hands and they shouldn’t be doing that. And the Bureau of Land Management is not government-owned, it’s publicly owned. There’s a big difference there. I blame both sides.”

I should like to point out the blatantly and painfully obvious to Scott Shaw, the moment any State enacts a property tax, it has illegally seized all privately held property in that state, since the penalty for failure to pay a property tax is seized and forced sale of the property in question the act of enacting a property tax instantly transforms the property owner into a tenant leasing or renting the property from the State.

As to Sen. Jim Inhofe’s bullshit, it is really no surprise to see a member of America’s self anointed Aristocracy aligning himself with the Federal governments Brown shirts against the average American citizen, while simultaneously berating American’s for being offended by the acts of a tyrannical government that has long since lost it’s moral or legal authority to govern.

That Congress can and does pass legislation that violates the United States Constitution and then uses the judicial branches and various Law Enforcement Agencies to apply it’s monopoly on violence to enforce those Unconstitutional laws is nothing new. Slavery was after all once legal as were all of the Jim Crow and Blue Laws.

What is relatively new, is the American People standing up and saying, NO, you have gone to far.

(Cross Posted @ The Wilderness of Mirrors)

Rick Perry challenges Andrew Cuomo to a debate

by Rodan ( 2 Comments › )
Filed under Conservatism, Democratic Party, Libertarianism, Progressives, Republican Party, Special Report at April 22nd, 2014 - 12:19 pm

The Libertarian leaning Governor of Texas Rick Perry has issued a challenge to NY’s Fascist Governor Andrew Cuomo. In a trip to NY, he wants to debate ideas for job creation. He wants to use stats showing Texas has economically outperformed NY in recent years.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who will be arriving in New York this afternoon for a trip trying to lure businesses to the Longhorn State, offered a Texas-sized takdown of Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s record on job creation this morning and challenged him to a debate.

“I’d be more than happy to sit down and have a thoughtful conversation, a debate with Gov. Cuomo over the issues that face us as a state and talk about the economic policies and compare New York to Texas,” said Mr. Perry, speaking on New York Post columnist Fred Dicker’s Live from the State Capitol radio show. “I think that would be not only interesting and fun, but a thoughtful way for us as a country to have a discussion between two of the major states in America, talking about which one of these policies are actually better for our people.”

Mr. Cuomo has made a point of emphasizing tax cuts and job growth as he runs for re-election, but Mr. Perry quickly brushed aside those efforts. Asked about a campaign Mr. Cuomo has been running advertising the state’s new tax-free zones to lure new businesses, Mr. Perry ran through a list of companies that had relocated or expanded into Texas recently, and also pointed to New York’s high net migration rate.

Man up Andrew and take Perry up on his offer.

 

 

Freedom Week: The Mystical Meaning Behind The Ancient Secret Of The Second Amendment

by Flyovercountry ( 255 Comments › )
Filed under Conservatism, Fascism, Libertarianism, Progressives, Second Amendment, Uncategorized at April 21st, 2014 - 12:00 pm

Political Cartoons by Steve Kelley

It has always been a source of great amusement for me, that our debates in this nation over the Constitution have tended to center around the concept of what the Founding Fathers meant when they put it all together. After all, they did not frame this document in a vacuum. They debated it vociferously, recorded their debate, argued with one another via written letters, and even took the measure to defend their work and explain it all, in great detail by the way, in a collection of news paper articles. Yet, even with all of that, we still get some down right zany explanations as to how their true intention was to limit personal freedom and build a top down nanny state with an overbearing government in control of even the most mundane daily decisions of everyone who happens to be a citizen of these fruited plains.

While there are certainly many areas of contention, none, in my humble opinion can match the beating over the years, taken by the Second Amendment. This particular safe guard against tyranny is the holy grail for the political left, and they’ve been after it since the very birth of the progressive movement. I want to make something perfectly clear, not all who advocate for gun control deserve ridicule. I do not doubt the sincerity of most of those that I meet and debate with. Most of the people we meet are honest in the way that they debate about any issue, and gun control versus the Second Amendment is no exception to that rule. The vast majority of the debate from the other side is being delivered by people who while they may be wrong, are none the less sincere in their thinking.

That’s important for a number of reasons, the most important of which is centered on how you defeat their ideology. Making it personal will not ever be a winning formula, they were led to where they live via their emotions, and the appeals to those emotions. What will work however, is a complete nonacceptance of their flawed straw man talking points. We need to back the train up, and refute them there, rather than trying to refute each individual piece of Tom Foolery that finds its way to the light of day.

For example, when Governor Cuomo screeches, “you don’t need x number of bullets to kill a deer,” simply remind the world that the Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting, killing deer, or target shooting. When the next mass shooting, and there will be a next one, takes its place in the never ending news pummeling, point out how it happened, as always, in a gun free zone. When the great Joe Biden gives his brilliantly thought out treatise on how merely firing off a shotgun blindly into the night will be sufficient to scare off any home invader, making any other type of firearm unnecessary for protection, remind him that home protection was not at all the intention of the Second Amendment. When Michael Moore intones his preposterous theory that the Second Amendment means that the Framers of our First National Law intended for citizens to be gifted with permission to carry front loading muskets only, laugh at what is truly, museum grade stupidity.

Here is the truth about the Second Amendment. It was not placed in the Bill of Rights so that people who were in militias could form paramilitary organizations to assist in national defense. It was not put in the Bill of Rights so that the people living in that age would be able to hunt for food. The Founding Fathers were not worried about citizens being able to ward off burglars, or even bandits in a wild and lawless frontier. They were not particularly frightened of the Indian population suddenly and without provocation marauding within the original colonies. They wanted to make certain that the citizens would be every bit a well armed, and even better armed, than any army that a central government would be able to put together.

When the Constitution was presented initially to the Legislatures of the individual states, it was not ratified. The individual state legislatures wanted some additions to the agreement codified into the deal, prior to signing on. One of the Amendments demanded was authored by George Mason of Virginia. It was the Second out of Eight, (the last two Amendments that rounded out the Bill of Rights were authored by James Madison, as a response to the discussion concerning the first Eight.) Of all of the quotes concerning the Second Amendment and what it really means, perhaps the best and most succinct belongs to the fellow who wrote the thing.

Here’s what George Mason had to say about the people’s right to keep and bear arms:

To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them.

If you still have doubts as to what was intended by the Second Amendment, we’ll let the author of the Constitution discuss it, at length. Here is the last paragraph from Federalist number 46, authored by James Madison, with emphasis added after the fact by myself:

Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it. The argument under the present head may be put into a very concise form, which appears altogether conclusive. Either the mode in which the federal government is to be constructed will render it sufficiently dependent on the people, or it will not. On the first supposition, it will be restrained by that dependence from forming schemes obnoxious to their constituents. On the other supposition, it will not possess the confidence of the people, and its schemes of usurpation will be easily defeated by the State governments, who will be supported by the people. On summing up the considerations stated in this and the last paper, they seem to amount to the most convincing evidence, that the powers proposed to be lodged in the federal government are as little formidable to those reserved to the individual States, as they are indispensably necessary to accomplish the purposes of the Union; and that all those alarms which have been sounded, of a meditated and consequential annihilation of the State governments, must, on the most favorable interpretation, be ascribed to the chimerical fears of the authors of them.

It is clear, or should be to anyone of even a slightly intellectually honest nature, that our founding fathers not only wanted our citizens to be armed to the teeth, but wanted private citizens to be a greater force than any military that our nation could muster. They wanted the private citizens to be able to defeat any military force Washington could send against us. So the short answer to the hyperbolic question, “do you think the Founding Fathers wanted private citizens to have nukes?” is an undeniable and resounding yes. They wanted the citizens to have access to anything our military, or any military has, at any time now, or in the future.

Cross Posted from Musings of a Mad Conservative.

Freedom Week: Seeing The Forest Through The Trees

by Flyovercountry ( 175 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Democratic Party at April 18th, 2014 - 12:00 pm

Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy

There has been much said, written, and opined, about the goings on in Nevada over the past week. Legal experts, who strangely enough skipped law school, have pontificated on the right and wrong of a situation that really is hard to fathom in today’s every-thing-is-fine-America. Does the Bundy Family have the right to keep using Federal Land, essentially claiming squatter’s rights, for their cattle to graze upon? Does the Federal Government have the right to confiscate the cattle, who have so graciously and efficiently eliminated the need for a professional lawn and garden service to maintain the land? Here’s my take, those are the small issues in a much broader discussion, and one that quite frankly should scare the snot out of you, if you place any value at all in the concept of America as it was founded.

We’ll start here. The more astute among you may have noticed that the Federal Government owns very little, and by that I mean lest than one tenth of one percent, of the land East of the Mississippi River. West of our national geographic dividing line of course is a different story. More interesting than that wonderful little nugget of information however is the reason why. During the early days of our nation, it never dawned on our leaders that the government would ever hold any lands of consequence. Yes they knew that a standing army would have to be kept some where, and by the time Jefferson was President, they knew that they would need a couple of offices in which to conduct the business at hand for the nation. By and large however, our earliest leaders envisioned a nation where the private sector would be best suited to utilize everything available in the most efficient manner, in order to have every man prosper to the fullest potential possible. The term, 40 acres and a mule, was born in this era, and the concept was that each citizen if he wanted, would be granted land in sufficient quantity, to make of it what he could. The economic theory was that private citizens, given the opportunity to create their own wealth, would bring about the greatest amount of prosperity for the greatest amount of ordinary citizens. It was truly the grandest experiment of Adam Smith’s, “Wealth of Nations,” that the world had ever seen. It was his invisible hand given free reign to weave its magic, and that invisible hand is the working definition of American Exceptionalism. It worked, and worked remarkably well.

West of the Mississippi however is a different story. In Nevada for example, our Federal Government owns 78% of the land. This has effectively changed the dynamic between government and private citizen in what can only be regarded as the most fundamental of ways. This has given the Federal Government control over which businesses and what resources will be allowed to flourish in the Western half of our nation. When Barack Obama truthfully declares that fossil fuel production has increased during his Administration, he always fails to mention that this is in spite of his efforts as President, and not because of them. Fossil fuel production has been largely diminished on Federally owned lands, and the entirety of the increase has been due to private land owners participating in a boom previously unforeseen by the politicos now in charge of the top down management of our national economy. This group has the political bent to replace fossil fuel production with solar and wind, and since they control land owned by the government, they have the power to force their will upon us. (By the way, there’s a connection here to the situation in Nevada that we’ll discuss later.) Every acre of land owned by our Federal Government is an acre not being put to productive use by the Private Sector, and one that is used to allow for cronies to be granted privilege not honestly earned. So, when the Bundy’s are called out for squatting on Federal Land, ask yourself why that land is owned by the Federal Government in the first place, and why the tradition of the government getting out of the way of the Private Sector has been eschewed.

The next thing that I’ve noticed over the last few years, since Barack Obama has become President, is that Federal Agencies not at all associated with law enforcement are toting guns. Those of you who know me, know that I am a big Second Amendment advocate, but this is not what our Founding Fathers meant to accomplish with the Second Amendment. Preventing those agencies from running roughshod over the citizens of this nation however, that is in fact the reason why the delegates to that Constitutional Convention demanded that the Second Amendment be included in the Bill of Rights prior to forming the Union that is the United States of America. I do not know how well armed those supporting the Bundy’s were in the open Nevada air, but if they were equipped with land mines and bazookas, that would have suited me just fine. The Bureau of Land Management has armed officers? This should worry any who value the freedoms that all citizens of this nation are born with, as a consequence of being gifted those freedoms by our Creator at the time of our birth. When campaigning, our President said that he envisioned a civilian force equal in training and armament to the military, and he wasn’t quite talking about protecting our Second Amendment, as his actions and rhetoric have shown repeatedly. He was speaking about an armed Bureau of Land Management, an armed Department of Education, an armed Environmental Protection Agency, and so on. These entities are becoming militarized, and will inflict their leftist vision for our nation by force if necessary.

Another of the more frightening things to consider with this mobilization, along with Waco, Ruby Ridge, and the dozen or so other places where our government has taken it upon itself to brandish arms against private citizens, is the fact that our government has decided to brandish arms against private citizens. Somehow, the Mexican Drug Lords who have invaded our Southern Border, without any sort of resistance what so ever, are not considered a threat to the peace and security of our nation. Barack Obama has unilaterally eased the restrictions on Visas offered to Islamists with previously known involvement in terrorist activities, (albeit those with involvement in acts of terror deemed to, “not be that bad,” what ever in the Hell that means,) and still had dreams of bringing their ideology to the United States. Somehow, to our government, these people are not considered to be a threat to national security. From day one of this President’s Administration, the only people considered to be a threat to the national security of the United States of America are those of us who advocate for limited government, free market economics, or private property rights. To that end, the IRS has specifically targeted us, on the political right for increased scrutiny, and as we’ve just learned within the last day and a half, for criminal prosecution, based on our political activities. (Wave bye bye to the First Amendment my fellow inhabitants of the land formerly known as the home of the free. I will await your arrival in one of the splendid reeducation camps, soon to be sprouting up all over the fruited plains.) As far as I know, every single government agency now has armed employees. What’s even more frightening than all of that however, is the fact that our government was able to find enough people of sound mind and body to go along with all of this, and brandish those arms against their fellow citizens.

Another major problem to consider with all of this is in how these federal agencies are constituted to begin with. I know that I’ve written about this before, but it bears much further discussion. Currently, and I have no idea when exactly this began, the laws that create these agencies are written in a purposefully vague manner. The agencies are created to oversee some part of the federal behemoth and given the powers of all three branches of our checks and balances system. They write their own rules, administrate those rules, determine how they will be enforced, and adjudicate their own case load, all with a minimal amount of oversight or judicial review. The case of the EPA forcing farmers to treat spilled milk in the exact manner as an oil spill would still be clogged in our court system had the light of day not been brought to bear to expose the lunacy. The EPA backed off, but only because political pressures lined themselves up to determine that this was not the right time to enforce what they actually do have the legal right to do. Lost in all of the angst over whether the law is being followed is whether or not a law is even valid, or more importantly a good and moral law to begin with. Bad policies lead people making the correct moral decision to act outside of the law. That situation is far worse than most people realize, and we have put ourselves in this great nation in the reprehensible position of prosecuting people for attempting to benefit their fellow man and support their families.

I could have written this essay on any one of a hundred topics, and been able to include all of the same points. This one is somewhat special however. The government’s stated reasoning behind preventing cattle from cutting federal grass for free was that somehow, and this is a stretch by the way, it would be bad for the indigenous population of turtles. As it turns out however, Nevada’s Senior Senator, Harry Reid, has a relative named Rory, who has a friend that wishes to lease that particular strip of land in order to build, (wait for it….,) a solar farm. If you thought cows eating grass was bad for wild life, what do you think a solar farm, which has average daytime recorded temperatures over 800 degrees, would do? As it turns out, these places are literally the killing fields for all things ecological. So stick that in your Green Peace Pipe and smoke it. What we have hear is a case of crony Socialism, at its finest.

I have just one more thought that I’d like to leave you with. This is a level of tyranny that is on a par with why our nation revolted against England in general, and against Mad King George III specifically. Asked at another one of his meet real Americans campaign style photo ops today, President Zero was asked about his spiffy Health Insurance non-affordable destruction of the entire medical profession act. Specifically, the complaint lodged was in regards to the spiraling price tag on premiums for policies, which offer less coverage, and include deductibles so high that they’ll never be met. His answer was, the law has passed, I won’t sign a bill to repeal it, so get over it and move on. That’s the exact amount of respect George III showed for the people living here in the Colonies. We are no longer citizens my friends, we’re subjects now. It hasn’t been said officially, but semantics aren’t all that important anyhow.

Cross Posted from Musings of a Mad Conservative.

Lena Dunham wishes to be Chelsea Clinton’s fetus

by Rodan ( 129 Comments › )
Filed under Entertainment, Hipsters, Humor, Progressives at April 18th, 2014 - 7:00 am

The Popular Culture is rallying around the “Great Mother” Hilliary in preparation for 2016. They are all ecstatic over Chelsea Clinton being pregnant. Leena Dunham who is a heavy hitter of the Popular Culture and a Hipster icon chimes in. She Tweets that she wishes to be the fetus of Chelsea Clinton!

 

 

Lena Dunham Pro-Obama ads in 2012 which Republicans ridiculed turned out to be very effective in motivating young Hipster females to come out and vote. Her opinions influences millions of people in this nation. She is a winner and committed to the triumph of the Progressive cause. That said, we can and should ridicule her stupidity!

(Hat Tip: Twitchy)

Freedom Week: No Captivating Fear Spreads As Far And As Quick As Environmental Fear

by Flyovercountry ( 128 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Democratic Party, Progressives at April 17th, 2014 - 12:00 pm

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

Have you noticed recently that every single initiative and statement mad by the environmental movement has an underlying theme that remains constant, no matter what the complained about crime against Mother Earth? These stories or proclamations always go something like this, “the upcoming environmental disaster is a threat to all life on the planet, and the only way to put a stop to that threat, thereby saving humanity and all living creatures is to adopt Marxism as a socioeconomic system.” I think, that just about covers it all. To prove my point, the U.N. grand poobahs on all things climate related released their third report this week, and if you had guessed that man kind is doomed and adopting a world wide Marxist government is the only possible way to save us all, then you would have won the office pool this year. I know that I’m shocked, how about you? Of course, there is a reason why, since 1991, Socialism and loss of freedom have been the only possible cures for our environmental sins, and I think I’ll let one of the very first environmentalists to grace our Earth Mother tell us what that reason is.

Patrick Moore, founder of Green Peace, on why he left his own creation:

Basically they are using sensation, misinformation, and scare tactics. The environmental movement was basically hijacked by political and social activists who came in and very cleverly learned how to use green rhetoric or green language to cloak agendas that had more to do with anti corporatism, anti globalization, anti business, and very little to do with science or ecology, and that’s when I left. I realized that the movement I had started was being taken over by politicos basically, and that they were using it for fundraising purposes. Nobody is going to listen to you if you say the world is not coming to an end, but if you say the world is going to end, you get headlines. And so sensationalism, especially when it’s combined with misinformation leads to a situation where people send gobs of money to these groups for campaigns that are actually totally misguided.

Now we can go on and on about whether such calamities are actually headed our way. I notice that Chicken Little wastes no time with apologizing for screeching about dangers that weren’t there to begin with, Ozone, Global Cooling, Godzilla, what have you. I also notice that Chicken Little and his merry crew are already on to some new issues with which to convince us to voluntarily give up our basic freedoms and economic prosperity and finally allow for the top down central planners to show us all a better way. But before anyone buys the premise that complete government control of our lives by some super world wide ruling elite party of genius bureaucrats would somehow be better for the environment, have a peek at the environmental track record of the Marxists the last time they were put in charge of things.

When the Berlin Wall came down and the Iron Curtain was finally lifted to expose the inner workings of communism to Western eyes, one of the more shocking discoveries was the nightmarish scale of environmental destruction. The statistics for East Germany alone tell a horrific tale: at the time of its reunification with West Germany an estimated 42 percent of moving water and 24 percent of still waters were so polluted that they could not be used to process drinking water, almost half of the country’s lakes were considered dead or dying and unable to sustain fish or other forms of life, and only one-third of industrial sewage along with half of domestic sewage received treatment.

An estimated 44 percent of East German forests were damaged by acid rain — little surprise given that the country produced proportionally more sulphur dioxide, carbon dioxide, and coal dust than any other in the world. In some areas of East Germany the level of air pollution was between eight and twelve times greater than that found in West Germany, and 40 percent of East Germany’s population lived in conditions that would have justified a smog warning across the border. Only one power station in East Germany had the necessary equipment to clean sulphur from emissions.

snip:

The environmental destruction associated with communism is no coincidence or accident of history, but rather a perfectly logical outcome for at least three reasons. Perhaps most obviously, communism invariably means authoritarianism (how else would a New Soviet Man emerge to work towards the bright, shiny future prophesied by Marx and Engels without re-education camps and control over the levers of societal machinery?), with little tolerance for dissent or concerns about hazardous waste in the worker’s paradise. To voice the opinion that perhaps not quite all was well, or that the air smelled funny, was to invite suspicions being a saboteur, kulak or harboring bourgeois tendencies.

Second, communism means an absence of property rights, having all been surrendered to “the people,” which is to say the state. As that which belongs to everyone in fact belongs to no one, who is to be confronted over the factory sending toxic plumes into the sky which then descends on the cornfield, or the dumping of waste into the river plied by tourists on cruise boats? And who really owns the cornfield or the boats?

Lastly, communism also simply cannot compete with capitalism in the production of wealth and technology, both of which greatly assist in addressing environmental problems. Why should anyone be surprised that only one East German power station had the necessary equipment to scrub sulphur from its emissions? This, after all, was a country whose answer to Western automobiles — the Trabant launched in the late 1950s — did not even include a fuel gauge in its early versions, something first introduced decades prior (unsurprisingly the Trabant was also bad for the environment, emitting nine times the hydrocarbons and five times the carbon monoxide emissions of the average European car of 2007).

Do you want to know what else causes a terrible ecological impact? If you guessed green technology or green energy does, you’ve won the prize. As it turns out, those Solar Energy Farms that our government has been pouring untold Billions into are responsible for a larger amount of deaths to birdies than pheasant season and duck season combined. Those Solar farms are basically the equivalent of the birdie killing fields.

The three main causes of death were:
1. Solar flux: Exposure to temperatures over 800 degrees F.

2. Impact (or blunt force) trauma: The birds’ wings are rendered inoperable while flying, causing them to crash into the ground. Birds that do not die are often injured badly enough to make them vulnerable to predators.

3. Predators: When a bird’s wings are singed and it can not fly, it loses its primary means of defense against animals like foxes and coyotes.
Hummingbirds, swifts, swallows, doves, hawks, finches, warblers and owls were just some dead birds found at the solar facilities’ “equal opportunity” mortality hazards.
In one instance, lab staff observed a “falcon-type bird with a plume of smoke arising from the tail as it passed through [a] flux field.”

The study found that besides the intense heat, birds may be mistaking large solar panels for bodies of water. The injured birds then attract insects and other predators to the area. They, too, are then vulnerable to injury or death.

In one instance, researchers found “hundreds upon hundreds” of butterfly carcasses (including Monarchs). The insects were attracted to the light from the solar farms, which in turn attracted birds and perpetuated a cycle of death and injury.

As for me, were it not for the very real danger of these people getting their way, and fulfilling their dream of wrecking the economic prosperity for all of us, (which by the way has a very real and terrifying human cost, such as famine in the third world among other things,) I would be laughing my touchas off at watching them run around from scary story to scary story bleating on about impending doom. I’m still cackling about that beyond stupid movie in which Man Made Global Warming literally chased Dennis Quaid down a corridor and had him slam a door shut to protect himself from it, (The Day After Tomorrow.)

One of the reasons environmental fear works so well on the easily duped is that you truly can not immediately see via empirical evidence the truth of falsity of the claim being made. The Earth is warming crapola has been shoveled at us since Ronald Reagan was President, and it wasn’t until this year that the American Physical Society has finally pushed back.

Perhaps no bleating from Chicken Little rewards the fear mongers as well as that warning associated with Nuclear Power. I watched with some amusement as the dolts in California flocked to pharmacy shelves and emptied the stores there of iodine due to the Earth Quake experienced in Fukishima. Never mind that the exposure to radiation felt by the California population was 2000 times greater due to the bananas found in the grocery stores there, or the granite on their kitchen counter tops, or in the phosphorous found in their laundry detergent, than any possible exposure caused by the Fukishima Plant, their fear came from that place that dared to use Nuclear Power in order to create cheap electricity for the citizens of Japan. This is because in the world of the Marxists, it is not the actual danger that is important, but that anyone outside of their socioeconomic system would successfully produce energy in order to create prosperity.

Just in case you’re predisposed to be afraid of Nuclear Power, perhaps you should read this article from the Wall Street Journal.

Besides the U.N.’s Chernobyl report, the most extensive data on human exposure to radiation is the American-Japanese joint study of hibakusha—”explosion-affected persons”—the 200,000 survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The expectations at the start of that study (which has taken over 60 years and continues to this day) were that survivorswould be overrun with tumors and leukemia and that a percentage of their descendants would be genetically deformed. Instead, researcher Evan Douple concluded, “The risk of cancer is quite low, lower than what the public might expect.”

Radiologist John Moulder analyzed the results of one group of 50,000 survivors, about 5,000 of whom had developed cancer: “Based on what we know of the rest of the Japanese population, you would have expected about 4,500 of them. So we have 5,000 cancers over 50 years where we would expect 4,500.” Assuming that the 500 additional cases are all due to radiation, that means a rate of 1%. And there was no increase in inherited mutations. Remember: These aren’t victims of a power plant breakdown; they are survivors of a nuclear attack.

For the Fukushima disaster of 2011, the consensus estimate is a 1% increase in cancer for employees who worked at the site and an undetectable increase for the plant’s neighbors. Just think of the difference between the overwhelming nuclear fears and nightmares we’ve all suffered from since 1945 and that range of increased risk: 0% to 1%. And if that’s not enough to question everything you thought you knew about radiation, consider that, even after the catastrophe in Japan, the likelihood of work-related death and injury for nuclear plant workers is lower than for real estate agents … and for stockbrokers.

That’s right, despite all of the Mother Jones and Huffington Post pictures and pontifications showing how Fukishima has doomed all of man kind, the truth is that there is a small chance that two, count them two, more people who worked at that plant on that day might, not definitely but might, develop health problems later in life due to exposure from that particular day. The resulting health impact on the neighboring community will be zero, and certainly Californians went a little overboard with their iodine buying spree.

By the way, if you guessed that Hydraulic Fracturing was going to cause Earth Quakes as the next Chicken Little table pounding warning, then you win the prize. What that prize is of course is another matter. Your prize is a spiffy multi year vacation at one of the reeducation camps coming soon to the People’s Republic Of Amerika, I’ll see you there.

COLUMBUS, Ohio — State regulators for the first time have linked earthquake activity in eastern Ohio to hydraulic fracturing, confirming the suspicions of activists pushing unsuccessfully for a drilling ban.

State Oil & Gas Chief Rick Simmers told The Associated Press on Friday that the state has halted drilling indefinitely at the site near Youngstown where five minor tremors occurred in March following investigative findings of a probable link to fracking.

A deep-injection well for fracking wastewater was tied to earthquakes in the region in 2012.

Simmers says Ohio will require sensitive seismic monitoring as a condition of all new drilling permits within three miles of a known fault or existing seismic activity of 2.0 or greater. Drilling will pause for evaluation with any tremor of 1.0 magnitude and will be halted if a link is found.

Cross Posted from Musings of a Mad Conservative.

What the hell is wrong with Steven Spielberg?

by Speranza ( 9 Comments › )
Filed under Anti-semitism, Barack Obama, Headlines, Holocaust at April 17th, 2014 - 10:13 am

I guess Jimmy Carter was unavailable.

by Paul Bois

Fresh off stroking President Obama’s ego with his quasi-comedic White House Correspondents’ Dinner video in which the President awkwardly portrayed Daniel Day-Lewis, pretending to be Barack Obama, Hollywood fat-cat Steven Spielberg will play an even bigger joke on Americans come May 7, only this time it’s unintentional

On that date, the director of such iconic films as Raiders of the Lost Ark, Jaws, and Jurassic Park will honor President Obama with the Ambassador for Humanity Award at the USC Shoah Foundation’s holocaust survivor gala.

The gesture is a thinly veiled attempt to manipulate impressionable Americans into believing the adage Obama is actually a “good guy, but a bad President” just in time for the mid-terms. The whole affair is reminiscent of Aesop’s The Viper and the Farmer the famous fable where a wandering Farmer naively nurses a freezing Viper back to health and receives a fatal bite in return. The moral: aiding your enemies leads to certain death.

By now, Spielberg has a long history of cozying up to snakes, but the biggest difference between he and the farmer is that when this snake finally bites back, the people left to bear the burden will be ones his USC Shoah Foundation claims to care about the most: persecuted Jews.

Spielberg has been traversing this road for quite some time, but regardless of how far he strayed from the path by siding with the Palestinians in Munich, there always followed him a hope the left’s disdain for Israel would wake him up. It defies imagination that the man who portrayed evil with such fierce judgment in Schindler’s List could be so naive as to label a president who may have allowed the most anti-Semitic regime since Nazi Germany obtain a nuclear weapon, an “Ambassador for Humanity.”

Aside from the obvious – that he either hates Israel or is at least entirely apathetic toward it – perhaps Spielberg’s actions confirm comedian Evan Sayet’s hypothesis: modern liberals’ unwillingness to objectively reason has lobotomized them to the rationale of a six-year-old child. Perhaps it confirms that men like Steven Spielberg think a country with widespread holocaust denial and state-sponsored terrorism operates on the same moral plain as the only free Jewish state since Roman times, because to think differently would be Islamophobic. Either way, it all raises a question: who’s worse, the Viper or the Farmer? At least the Viper had the honesty to admit in the end, “hey, I’m just a snake.”

An honor killing, Brandeis University-style

by Speranza ( 150 Comments › )
Filed under Free Speech, Islamists, Leftist-Islamic Alliance, Liberal Fascism, Political Correctness, Politics, Progressives at April 15th, 2014 - 7:00 am

We are definitely living in an age of Liberal Fascism. Louis D. Brandeis, a proud Zionist and defender of free speech must be turning over in his grave as a university named after him and founded by secular but proud American Jews, caves in to the pressures of Marxists and Islamists.

by Zev Chafets

Brandeis University committed an honor killing this week. The victim was a Somali woman named Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

Honor killings are depressingly common in the Middle East: punishment for women guilty of being raped, losing their virginity outside of marriage, adultery, dressing provocatively or simply embarrassing a male relative. These murders – most of which go unreported and unprosecuted – are usually acid-in-the-face, blood-on-the-floor affairs meant not only to salvage the good name of the dishonored family but to intimidate other women (and gay men) into abiding by the prevailing code of behavior.

[.....]

She comes by her passion honestly. At the age of 5 she was subjected to ritual genital mutilation by her family. As a young woman she rebelled against a traditional forced marriage and fled to the Netherlands, where she received political asylum.

As a girl, Hirsi Ali wore a hijab, abided by Shariah law and even supported the death threat issued by Iranian clerics against renegade Muslim author Salman Rushdie.

[.....]

She enrolled at a local university, became an avowed atheist and, in 2003, just 11 years after her arrival in her new country, she was elected to the Dutch parliament.

Along with Theo Van Gogh, a descendant of painter Vincent Van Gogh, Hirsi Ali made “Submission,” a cinematic protest against the brutal treatment in the Middle East of women who do not submit to their role as second-class human beings.

In the wake of 9/11, she issued warnings about the violent nature of armed political Islam. Her point was made for her by a fanatic who, in the name of Allah, stabbed Van Gogh to death on an Amsterdam street.

The murderer pinned a letter to Van Gogh’s body: a death threat against Hirsi Ali, who was forced into hiding and lived under government protection until she settled in the United States in 2007.

Hirsi Ali’s story is a heroic one, and her persona – Third World woman of color, secular humanist, ardent feminist, defender of gay rights and a near martyr to her liberal Western principles – certainly resonated with the awards committee of a proudly progressive university like Brandeis. She was almost the perfect candidate for an honorary degree.

But there was one small problem. She had dared to criticize Islam and Muslim behavior in the same way other religions and other human behaviors get criticized in an open society. In America you can’t get killed for this (yet), but you can be dealt with.

Enter Nihad Awad, the national head of the Council on American-Islamic Relations. He launched a letter of protest at Brandeis president Fredrick Lawrence, accusing Hirsi Ali of wrong thoughts and evil words. Giving her an award, he wrote, would be like “promoting the work of white supremacists and anti-Semites.”

That was rich. Awad has publicly supported Hamas (which is anti-Semitic) and Hezbollah, the terrorist arm of the Teheran Holocaust deniers. Not only that: He actually accused Ali of threatening the entire Muslim world with violence. The demand to rescind the award was backed by almost a quarter of the Brandeis faculty.

Faced with this absurd and offensive inversion of reality, President Lawrence informed Hirsi Ali that she was no longer welcome at commencement. He blamed this on “certain of her past statements,” which he said were inconsistent with the university’s “core values.”  He had the audacity to invite Hirsi Ali to visit the school someday for a discussion “in the spirit of free expression that has defined Brandeis University through its history.”

[.....]

Ayaan Hirsi Ali deserves her degree for precisely the reason Nihad Awad doesn’t want her to have it – because she dares to speak her mind and say things that offend the sort of people CAIR represents.

The Brandeis commencement this year is conferring an honorary degree on Jill Abramson, the gifted and outspoken editor of The New York Times. Hopefully she won’t let the occasion pass without reminding her hosts of who is absent from the podium: Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a woman whose reputation is the victim of an honor killing, Brandeis-style.

Read the rest – Ayaan Hirsi Ali -  victim of an honor killing, Brandeis-style

Freedom Week: Fear And Manipulation Are The Greatest Prison Guards

by Flyovercountry ( 189 Comments › )
Filed under Communism, Democratic Party, Fascism, Progressives at April 14th, 2014 - 5:11 pm

In honor of Passover starting this evening, with Tuesday being the first full day, I thought I’d go in a slightly different direction. A completely non religious discussion inspired by a religious event or celebration. Passover, for my non-Jewish friends is at its core, a celebration of freedom. More specifically, it means to those of us who are Jewish, our deliverance from bondage, (enslavement,) by God, and as a consequence of that deliverance, the agreement that we would live our lives according to the laws of the Torah, (the first Five Books of Moses found in the Old Testament of the Bible.) So, for this week, my topics will be a celebration of that spirit of freedom, what it means, how do we achieve it, keep it, and prevent the usurpers of such from gaining a foothold on ideology within our societal thought.

There are two conditions required in order for an entire population to be subjugated. One of those conditions is that there must be a group of elites or a ruling class that wishes to do the subjugating. The second condition that needs met is that the population in question must, for the entire duration of that subjugation, be incapable of doing anything about it. Those doing the subjugating will always live in constant fear of losing their upper hand. For them, Life itself will always be a paradox. Having a population that is totally and forever subordinated, and at the same time, constantly a threat if awakened to the possibility of revolt.

That is why slavers will institute certain precautions among their chattel. Education will be disallowed, most specifically, Slaves will not be allowed to learn the art of reading and writing. Disarmament is a must, as in complete gun control. Fear must be instilled, but a deeper and more subtle fear than what you might believe. Yes, making chattel fearful of immediate reprisal for breaking the rules is a necessary tool, but it is not the complete picture. Even more useful is making the subordinate population fearful for their very existence, thus convincing them to become complicit in their own bondage. Even more insidious, convincing the enslaved that they are not a permanent servant class, and controlling their behavior through mass manipulation techniques taught in every Group Dynamics Class on college campuses across our Fruited Plains.

Let’s explore those last two items in a more focused context. How do potential overlords achieve these ends? How do you convince an entire segment of the human population that without your protection from some perceived boogeyman or collection of unseen dangers, they would perish? How do you get them to be afraid of those boogeymen in the first place, meaning initiate the perception necessary to establish the ruse?

Fear, contrary to what you may believe is not a human failing. It is an evolutionary defense mechanism, which in the past helped us, as a species, to survive. When I managed Woolworth Stores in some of America’s crappiest neighborhoods, I happened upon an alcoholic named Norm. One day Norm came up to me and said, “you should try being an alcoholic John, it gets rid of your inhibitions.” I told Norm that I liked my inhibitions just fine, and that inhibited behavior was in fact what kept mankind alive for from his first appearance on Planet Earth. When you think to yourself, “should I play in traffic, in front of that oncoming tractor trailer?,” it is your inhibitions that say, “probably not a good idea.” It is the fear of falling from great heights that convinces your natural curiosity to not test the laws of physics by throwing yourself off of tall buildings to determine if you might indeed be able to fly. Fear and inhibitions were those very things that made early man not pull the tails of lions, poke bear while sleeping, or tug on Superman’s cape. What makes us different as species, is our ability to temporarily control those hardwired pieces of our natural design. The entire point I’m trying to make here is that those pimping fear in order to control everyone have a distinct advantage to begin with, and that advantage is that we are, all of us, genetically predisposed to be fearful pretty much most of the time.

Being a follower, is also hardwired into most of us. I know that this one hurts to read, and more specifically, most people actually see themselves as leaders. The truth is however, that this is not so. From the beginning of our first steps upright as people, when Simian Chromosomes 2 and 13 fused, forming our Human Chromosome number 2, with its two centromeres and three telomeres, our survival has been enhanced by living in collective groups, rather than individually. For any such social structure, leaders and followers are always established, with genetics playing a particular role in determining alphas and betas, (leaders and followers.) After the Nuremberg Trials, in which the world at large refused to accept officially any defense in which the betas of Germany professed that they were merely followers, a pretty smart guy named Stanley Milgram decided to test if it were possible after all that people in general would really be willing to simply follow a maniacal leader to commit genocide. What he found was to say the least, chilling.

Of Milgram’s original 40 test subjects, 4 were removed from the study due to a breakdown of the control conditions, (the actors involved failed to convince the test subjects of the ruse,) 35 deliberately killed off their victims, and 1 person refused. The single failure by the way was a Catholic Priest, scoring one for those of you with faith. Our humanity really is connected to our faith in a higher power. Also of note, Milgram eventually lost his job at Yale due to the fall out from this experiment, as many of those tested over the course of this study needed psychological counseling due to their realization that they were indeed willing to commit murder simply because a person in authority ordered them to do so. If WWII proved one thing, it is that human beings are predisposed to be followers, and that we are capable of being manipulated in mass, even if that manipulation leads us to do terrible things. For those of you who say it could never happen again, I would simply point to Josef Stalin’s mass murder in the Soviet Union, and Pol Pot’s mass murder in Cambodia, both of which happened after WWII. Both were instances of subordinates being ordered to exterminate millions of people based on ideological or racial grounds, and following those orders without question or failure.

I’m sure that many who read this will be those precious few alphas who are leaders and not followers, but the vast majority will be followers who view themselves as leaders. In Milgram’s experiment, each of the subjects was interviewed prior to the testing, and each one of them professed their belief that they were strong enough to stand out from the crowd and were essentially non-conformist in nature. My personal belief is that the first step in controlling these parts of our nature, genetically coded into us through millennia of natural selection, is recognition of the existence of this truth. Only by recognizing that we are being led against our will, or fearful for possibly irrational reasons, can we overcome the effects of those realities.

Always question the premise for which information is presented to you. Don’t allow for others to frame the debates of the day, dictating terms upon which decisions are made. We, as people with inalienable rights granted by our creator have a say so in matters pertaining to our existence as well, meaning, self determination. As a small lad who was a member of BBYO, (for you Christians out there, think church youth group,) I participated in a leadership weekend. There was some hippie present who taught us a class in Group Dynamics, doubtless based on his work at some leftist corner of what ever institution of higher learning was providing him protection from the consequences of living in the real world. We glossed over the basics of recognizing that when collected together as a group, people will begin to act in concert in certain respects, without recognizing the phenomenon. This behavior will begin to take on a life of its own, and will do so in every instance of any group’s formation. Even today, and in the most unlikeliest of places, I can see evidence of this in motion. Not only can this group behavior be noticed, but it can be manipulated, and most of the members of the group will follow suit. There probably will be a few dissident influences, but there is a methodology of dealing with those as well. The means of dealing with those dissident influences is easier for leaders who are organized, and looking out for them specifically. The success of the dissidents, similarly depends upon the ability to organize, but that success can be accomplished. For what makes groups easy to manipulate, is also the thing that the manipulators fear the most, and that is the recognition of the manipulation. People are generally not pleased to learn that they’ve been conned. They’re downright mad beyond belief if they feel that they’ve been led to a bad end.

Milgram’s test subjects did not just go away after his experiments were done. They contacted the University in New Haven, Connecticut demanding his head upon the realization that he had played with their emotions, consciousness, and pointed out how easily they could be led into tossing aside their humanity. The people of Germany held war crimes trials for decades after the original Nuremberg Trials had ceased, hunting people for prosecution deemed to low on the totem pole to be considered war criminals by the International Court. Truth and knowledge are the tools which will make combating the weapons of the left possible.

Cross Posted from Musings of a Mad Conservative.