► Show Top 10 Hot Links

Archive for the ‘Communism’ Category

The Wealth Gap Versus The Consequence Gap

by Flyovercountry ( 57 Comments › )
Filed under Communism, Progressives at July 7th, 2014 - 7:00 pm

Embedded image permalink

Any Government big enough to give you everything you need, will also be big enough to take from you, everything you have – Thomas Jefferson.

Elections have consequences. Laws passed have consequences. Laws passed also have unintended consequences. One of my favorite personal epiphanies has always been that America’s big problem is not a wealth gap, but rather a consequence gap. I’ll explain this, in case you’ve missed my post from a couple of years ago entitled, “The Consequence Gap.”

We have passed many laws over the last five years designed to provide a fairness for our society in areas of our daily lives where the political left has professed a perception that fairness was somehow lacking. Their chief piece of evidence for said lack of fairness has been the supposed wealth gap, that variance between those with means and those without, irrespective of what each group may or may not have done to create said wealth. Always, without fail, those laws have led to unintended consequences, which have had devastating consequences for society as a whole, most keenly felt among the very population that was supposedly being served, or targeted for help.

From the HotAir article linked to above:

“I’m at the breaking point,” said Gretchen Gardner, an Austin artist who bought a 1930s bungalow in the Bouldin neighborhood just south of downtown in 1991 and has watched her property tax bill soar to $8,500 this year.

“It’s not because I don’t like paying taxes,” said Gardner, who attended both meetings. “I have voted for every park, every library, all the school improvements, for light rail, for anything that will make this city better. But now I can’t afford to live here anymore. I’ll protest my appraisal notice, but that’s not enough. Someone needs to step in and address the big picture.”

Gretchen Gardner voted for massive taxation upon her fellow citizens, because she felt that somebody else would be paying for her city’s improvements, or more to the point, what she felt was necessary for her city to be improved. The result of course was that anyone who is on the bottom rungs of Austin’s economic ladder have undoubtedly found the consequences to be far more destructive. If you think, no this will only affect property owners, what do you think land lords are going to do with their increased tax burdens? They will simply embed that increased expense into the prices they charge for the usage of their property. People who are on the bottom of that ladder in terms of wealth accumulation will now have an even harder time saving for a place of their own. They will have less money to spend on other things, such as groceries, heat, gasoline needed to drive to work, clothing, and Bush = Hitler bumper stickers. The consequences of bad government policy are always paid disproportionately by those for whom they were supposedly designed. The progenitors of those policies are invariably exempted from any material change in their own lives, meaning consequences, and once things go bad will immediately proclaim that they should be judged by their intentions and not their results.

Our elected leaders, tasked with management of our Executive Branch, are watching events around the globe and here at home unfold as if they were watching a made for television movie. I am tired of listening to the political left bleat on about how the Republicans or Mitt Romney would have done no better in dealing with the complete implosion of our foreign policy, domestic policy, economy, the situation at our Southern Border, what have you. The problem of course is that this implosion can not be separated from the massively idiotic policies that fomented them in the first place, otherwise known as the Obama agenda. These things didn’t just happen, they are the inevitable end to the path chosen by two elections in which America elected the single worst President in our history to be our country’s top executive. They are the only possible conclusion to policies enacted by our white House from January of 2009 onward.

Special Note: Before anyone suggests that the latest jobs report shows that finally, after only 6 short years, Obamanomics is showing signs of working, please learn to read past the top line of a BLS report. Once again, most of the jobs created are part time, and without those plus the jobs produced by the Fracing Boom, Oil and Gas, (not fracking as dubbed by the environazi crowd,) we would be in solidly negative territory. Those oil and gas jobs by the way, are jobs that our President has done everything he possibly could to prevent from being created, and then he took credit for creating them. The U6 number is still North of 12% and the Labor Force Participation Rate declined again, past what was already a 40 year low. Which means that once again, more people in America got discouraged and left the workforce than actually found jobs. Let’s not forget that our last GDP report showed a 2.9% hemorrhage of productivity.

The lens of history has been crystal clear on this point. There has been nothing yet devised by man that comes anywhere close to providing improvements in the lot of ordinary people as the productive and innovative forces that are unleashed when the free market system is allowed to flourish unfettered by over bearing government regulation. The only impediment to that vast improvement in wealth and circumstance of ordinary people so far has been the infliction of bad government policy. Winston Churchill once said that if people were not liberals at age 20 they possessed no heart, and if they were not conservatives by age 40, they had no brains.

I believe personally however that Churchill got it somewhat wrong. I believe that, while many liberals 40 years and over are lacking the ability to think critically, many more wish to see this parade from crisis to crisis continue, and seek to inflict bad government policy upon us knowing full well what the results will be. Rahm Emanuel famously said, way back in week one of Barack Obama’s Presidency, as his Chief of Staff by the way, “never let a good crisis go to waste.” People have shown many times in the past that they’ll only inflict Socialism upon themselves if a current crisis makes that self destructive economic system seem to be the lesser of evils. As with all forms of governance that depends upon coercion for its ultimate method of enforcing participation, violence inflicted by a government upon its citizens will eventually become the only possible reality. Eventually, you’ll have some joker who wishes to speak his mind freely, or wants to participate in an economic activity that is better for himself, rather than sacrificing his needs or those of his family, for the greater glory of political elites, who care nothing for him.

I am often struck by how eloquently the Keynesians are able to describe their economic theory, and how they are able to explain away the fact that it has never worked, despite its long history of having been tried. The same holds true for the Socialists. Great in theory, as long as no critical thought takes place, but the lens of history has been nothing but clear. The only possible result will be the above picture. When Josef Stalin took power in the Soviet Union, the very first people that he rounded up and had executed were those who had helped sweep him into power. His reasoning was that they would have been the most severely disillusioned when his policies had the exact opposite effect of what he’d promised. The useful idiots are always the first to go. So, at least we have that.

There seems to be some sort of disease where people complain about things our government is doing, and then seek to solve those problems by taking more of the poison that made us sick in the first place. Crony Capitalism seems to be an evil that people from both sides of the political aisle can agree on. I personally don’t see the logic in a solution that would make the government even more powerful to exert even greater degrees of influence, allowing it to pick our winners and losers for us. The answer to problems created by bad government policy is not more government. Putting different people in charge or just doing it bigger this time, while it may seem intuitive when stated eloquently, has never worked, and most certainly has never worked as planned. Limiting government has always worked however, and has only ever failed when people became convinced of the need to solve non-existent problems.

Cross Posted from Musings of a Mad Conservative.

What Do You Call Scientific Theory Based On Faked Data?

by Flyovercountry ( 286 Comments › )
Filed under Communism, Fascism, Progressives at July 2nd, 2014 - 12:00 pm

Busted, you call it busted. Any statement past that is simply asinine. But, don’t worry my fellow inhabitants of the worker’s paradise formerly reserved for the free and brave, I’m sure that the whole climate change grievance theater will continue on, as if nothing has changed. We’ll still be bombarded with shouts of, “we have to self inflict economic hardship and damage now in order to save the Earth,” or, “anyone who denies that climate change isn’t real is just like someone who used to believe that the Earth was flat.” Let’s not forget my personal favorite, “anyone who denies climate science should be imprisoned for their heresy.”

That picture above? Oh, that’s just what happens when you try to reconcile the actual temperature data with the new and improved faked temperature data the NOAA and NASA peddled to American Citizens in order to make it appear as though the Earth’s mean temperatures were indeed rising. O.K., we’ll let that last bit sink in for just one moment.

Right after the year 2000, NASA and NOAA dramatically altered US climate history, making the past much colder and the present much warmer. The animation below shows how NASA cooled 1934 and warmed 1998, to make 1998 the hottest year in US history instead of 1934. This alteration turned a long term cooling trend since 1930 into a warming trend.

So, let’s take a rather brief walk down Chicken Little’s memory lane. The whole theory has morphed into this catch 22 style game, where computer models have predicted global catastrophe due to rising temperatures. Since Scientists have ruled out all natural causes for the rapidly increasing temperatures, man’s burning of fossil fuels, dumping Carbon Dioxide, and Methane now I guess, must be what’s to blame. This means that all economic development created by free market economics must be bad, while Socialism on the other hand, has been nothing short of a miraculous boon for Gaya.

So now, what we’ve seen is that the rising temperatures used to convince us all that this thing is real, turns out to have been falsely reported as such. When the temperatures in the past and present failed to live up to the predictions, the data was simply changed to show that the Earth was cooler in the past, and is getting warmer in the present. So, in order to prove that only man kind could possibly be responsible for the current warming trend, a warming trend was faked, and any other possibility for the warming trend was declared to be impossible, like say, its having been faked.

Don’t worry though, I’m sure we’ll get a flurry of dire predictions and warnings, as if this latest bombshell hadn’t been dropped on top of our heads, instead of the sky.

Well, maybe I’m not an engineer, nor a peer reviewed author of any scientific theory worthy of note, but I do know that needing to fake data in order to bolster a theory’s validity is considered deceptive, even in the world of academia. First we had the leaked email dump from East Anglia and Penn State, in which, “Climatologists,” were caught sending each other notes describing how they could continue perpetrating a fraud upon the entire world, and that was ignored. Now we have the faking of actual data used to convince us that this problem is very real, and an imminent threat. At some point, accountability must be introduced, even in the world of academia.

How silly of me, falling temperatures proves this theory too. Time for damage control now, see you in a few days, after all of the pieces designed to make us all forget that we saw the man behind the curtain. In the mean time, let’s get to work on that next Chicken Little scenario which will necessitate the self infliction of economic damage.

What were those possibilities again?

A) We need to prepare Earth for a possible invasion of Space Aliens.

B) All of the Honey Bees are suddenly dying off and no more plant will ever be pollinated, ever again.

C) The Ozone is disappearing.

D) Global Cooling, which we would’ve seen had we not faked the data to show a warming trend.

E) Hydraulic Fracturing causes Earth Quakes.

F) Nuclear Power Plants are causing fish to be born with three eyes, which will cause a planetary wide catastrophic loss of appetite, and subsequently world wide famine.

Cross Posted from Musings of a Mad Conservative.

Ex-Soviet Vladimir Jaffe Debates Socialism With Socialists

by Bunk X ( 162 Comments › )
Filed under Communism, Politics, Progressives, Socialism at June 30th, 2014 - 12:01 am

During the “Occupy Wall Street” assholery, one video caught my attention. An “occupier” was handing out propaganda to people sitting along the NYC protest route when he met Vladimir Jaffe.

Jaffe grew up in the Soviet Union, and at 29 years left Moscow in 1988. He understands first-hand what life under communism is like because he lived it – he understands the grotesque economic policies imposed by socialism and the results of those policies. The discussion that followed between the kid and Jaffe was excellent. Jaffe was polite, his arguments were coherent and based upon easily identifiable facts, and whether or not any of Jaffe’s facts sunk in to Occupy Boy’s brain is up for conjecture.

Vladimir Jaffe isn’t a one-hit Utoobage wonder – he’s got 187 videos posted on YouTube to date, and he plays the logic card on every one of them. Check this one out. Note that Jaffe is polite every step of the way, even while debating a young self-identified lawyer for #Occupy.

Then there’s this guy who gets humpy when he finds he has no answers to Jaffe’s questions:

We need more people with balls like Jaffe, willing to stand up and tell the truth about socialism.

[What am I doing about it you ask? Am I doing as much as I could? Nay, I'm posting here in my free time, posting elsewhere in my free time, and voting in my free time, because my time is limited and I only have a few years left to tell Charles Johnson and other leftists to go fuck themselves.]

[Update: "How would you deal with Vladimir Jaffe?" Libtards discuss what they can't comprehend.]

Mars Attacks: Ten Most Harmful Books of the 19th and 20th Centuries

by Mars ( 376 Comments › )
Filed under Abortion, Academia, Bigotry, Blogmocracy, Censorship, Communism, Corruption, Democratic Party, Education, Environmentalism, Fascism, Free Speech, Global Warming Hoax, government, Guest Post, Hate Speech, Hipsters, History, Leftist-Islamic Alliance, Liberal Fascism, Marxism, Multiculturalism, Nazism, Patriotism, Political Correctness, Politics, Progressives, Racism, Socialism, Tranzis at June 26th, 2014 - 12:00 pm

Ten Most Harmful Books of the 19th and 20th Centuries

By: Human Events
5/31/2005 03:00 AM

HUMAN EVENTS asked a panel of 15 conservative scholars and public policy leaders to help us compile a list of the Ten Most Harmful Books of the 19th and 20th Centuries. Each panelist nominated a number of titles and then voted on a ballot including all books nominated. A title received a score of 10 points for being listed No. 1 by one of our panelists, 9 points for being listed No. 2, etc. Appropriately, The Communist Manifesto, by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, earned the highest aggregate score and the No. 1 listing.

1. The Communist Manifesto

Authors: Karl Marx and Freidrich Engels
Publication date: 1848
Score: 74
Summary: Marx and Engels, born in Germany in 1818 and 1820, respectively, were the intellectual godfathers of communism. Engels was the original limousine leftist: A wealthy textile heir, he financed Marx for much of his life. In 1848, the two co-authored The Communist Manifesto as a platform for a group they belonged to called the Communist League. The Manifesto envisions history as a class struggle between oppressed workers and oppressive owners, calling for a workers’ revolution so property, family and nation-states can be abolished and a proletarian Utopia established. The Evil Empire of the Soviet Union put the Manifesto into practice.

2. Mein Kampf

Author: Adolf Hitler
Publication date: 1925-26
Score: 41
Summary: Mein Kampf (My Struggle) was initially published in two parts in 1925 and 1926 after Hitler was imprisoned for leading Nazi Brown Shirts in the so-called “Beer Hall Putsch” that tried to overthrow the Bavarian government. Here Hitler explained his racist, anti-Semitic vision for Germany, laying out a Nazi program pointing directly to World War II and the Holocaust. He envisioned the mass murder of Jews, and a war against France to precede a war against Russia to carve out “lebensraum” (“living room”) for Germans in Eastern Europe. The book was originally ignored. But not after Hitler rose to power. According to the Simon Wiesenthal Center, there were 10 million copies in circulation by 1945.

3. Quotations from Chairman Mao

Author: Mao Zedong
Publication date: 1966
Score: 38
Summary: Mao, who died in 1976, was the leader of the Red Army in the fight for control of China against the anti-Communist forces of Chiang Kai-shek before, during and after World War II. Victorious, in 1949, he founded the People’s Republic of China, enslaving the world’s most populous nation in communism. In 1966, he published Quotations from Chairman Mao Zedong, otherwise known as The Little Red Book, as a tool in the “Cultural Revolution” he launched to push the Chinese Communist Party and Chinese society back in his ideological direction. Aided by compulsory distribution in China, billions were printed. Western leftists were enamored with its Marxist anti-Americanism. “It is the task of the people of the whole world to put an end to the aggression and oppression perpetrated by imperialism, and chiefly by U.S. imperialism,” wrote Mao.

4. The Kinsey Report

Author: Alfred Kinsey
Publication date: 1948
Score: 37
Summary: Alfred Kinsey was a zoologist at Indiana University who, in 1948, published a study called Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, commonly known as The Kinsey Report. Five years later, he published Sexual Behavior in the Human Female. The reports were designed to give a scientific gloss to the normalization of promiscuity and deviancy. “Kinsey’s initial report, released in 1948 . . . stunned the nation by saying that American men were so sexually wild that 95% of them could be accused of some kind of sexual offense under 1940s laws,” the Washington Times reported last year when a movie on Kinsey was released. “The report included reports of sexual activity by boys–even babies–and said that 37% of adult males had had at least one homosexual experience. . . . The 1953 book also included reports of sexual activity involving girls younger than age 4, and suggested that sex between adults and children could be beneficial.”

5. Democracy and Education

Author: John Dewey
Publication date: 1916
Score: 36
Summary: John Dewey, who lived from 1859 until 1952, was a “progressive” philosopher and leading advocate for secular humanism in American life, who taught at the University of Chicago and at Columbia. He signed the Humanist Manifesto and rejected traditional religion and moral absolutes. In Democracy and Education, in pompous and opaque prose, he disparaged schooling that focused on traditional character development and endowing children with hard knowledge, and encouraged the teaching of thinking “skills” instead. His views had great influence on the direction of American education–particularly in public schools–and helped nurture the Clinton generation.

6. Das Kapital

Author: Karl Marx
Publication date: 1867-1894
Score: 31
Summary: Marx died after publishing a first volume of this massive book, after which his benefactor Engels edited and published two additional volumes that Marx had drafted. Das Kapital forces the round peg of capitalism into the square hole of Marx’s materialistic theory of history, portraying capitalism as an ugly phase in the development of human society in which capitalists inevitably and amorally exploit labor by paying the cheapest possible wages to earn the greatest possible profits. Marx theorized that the inevitable eventual outcome would be global proletarian revolution. He could not have predicted 21st Century America: a free, affluent society based on capitalism and representative government that people the world over envy and seek to emulate.

7. The Feminine Mystique

Author: Betty Friedan
Publication date: 1963
Score: 30
Summary: In The Feminine Mystique, Betty Friedan, born in 1921, disparaged traditional stay-at-home motherhood as life in “a comfortable concentration camp”–a role that degraded women and denied them true fulfillment in life. She later became founding president of the National Organization for Women. Her original vocation, tellingly, was not stay-at-home motherhood but left-wing journalism. As David Horowitz wrote in a review for Salon.com of Betty Friedan and the Making of the Feminine Mystique by Daniel Horowitz (no relation to David): The author documents that “Friedan was from her college days, and until her mid-30s, a Stalinist Marxist, the political intimate of the leaders of America’s Cold War fifth column and for a time even the lover of a young Communist physicist working on atomic bomb projects in Berkeley’s radiation lab with J. Robert Oppenheimer.”

8. The Course of Positive Philosophy

Author: Auguste Comte
Publication date: 1830-1842
Score: 28
Summary: Comte, the product of a royalist Catholic family that survived the French Revolution, turned his back on his political and cultural heritage, announcing as a teenager, “I have naturally ceased to believe in God.” Later, in the six volumes of The Course of Positive Philosophy, he coined the term “sociology.” He did so while theorizing that the human mind had developed beyond “theology” (a belief that there is a God who governs the universe), through “metaphysics” (in this case defined as the French revolutionaries’ reliance on abstract assertions of “rights” without a God), to “positivism,” in which man alone, through scientific observation, could determine the way things ought to be.

9. Beyond Good and Evil

Author: Freidrich Nietzsche
Publication date: 1886
Score: 28
Summary: An oft-scribbled bit of college-campus graffiti says: “‘God is dead’–Nietzsche” followed by “‘Nietzsche is dead’–God.” Nietzsche’s profession that “God is dead” appeared in his 1882 book, The Gay Science, but under-girded the basic theme of Beyond Good and Evil, which was published four years later. Here Nietzsche argued that men are driven by an amoral “Will to Power,” and that superior men will sweep aside religiously inspired moral rules, which he deemed as artificial as any other moral rules, to craft whatever rules would help them dominate the world around them. “Life itself is essentially appropriation, injury, overpowering of the strange and weaker, suppression, severity, imposition of one’s own forms, incorporation and, at the least and mildest, exploitation,” he wrote. The Nazis loved Nietzsche.

10. General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money

Author: John Maynard Keynes
Publication date: 1936
Score: 23
Summary: Keynes was a member of the British elite–educated at Eton and Cambridge–who as a liberal Cambridge economics professor wrote General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money in the midst of the Great Depression. The book is a recipe for ever-expanding government. When the business cycle threatens a contraction of industry, and thus of jobs, he argued, the government should run up deficits, borrowing and spending money to spur economic activity. FDR adopted the idea as U.S. policy, and the U.S. government now has a $2.6-trillion annual budget and an $8-trillion dollar debt.

Honorable Mention

These books won votes from two or more judges:

The Population Bomb
by Paul Ehrlich
Score: 22

What Is To Be Done
by V.I. Lenin
Score: 20

Authoritarian Personality
by Theodor Adorno
Score: 19

On Liberty
by John Stuart Mill
Score: 18

Beyond Freedom and Dignity
by B.F. Skinner
Score: 18

Reflections on Violence
by Georges Sorel
Score: 18

The Promise of American Life
by Herbert Croly
Score: 17

The Origin of Species
by Charles Darwin
Score: 17

Madness and Civilization
by Michel Foucault
Score: 12

Soviet Communism: A New Civilization
by Sidney and Beatrice Webb
Score: 12

Coming of Age in Samoa
by Margaret Mead
Score: 11

Unsafe at Any Speed
by Ralph Nader
Score: 11

Second Sex
by Simone de Beauvoir
Score: 10

Prison Notebooks
by Antonio Gramsci
Score: 10

Silent Spring
by Rachel Carson
Score: 9

Wretched of the Earth
by Frantz Fanon
Score: 9

Introduction to Psychoanalysis
by Sigmund Freud
Score: 9

The Greening of America
by Charles Reich
Score: 9

The Limits to Growth
by Club of Rome
Score: 4

Descent of Man
by Charles Darwin
Score: 2

The Judges

These 15 scholars and public policy leaders served as judges in selecting the Ten Most Harmful Books.

Arnold Beichman
Research Fellow
Hoover Institution

Prof. Brad Birzer
Hillsdale College

Harry Crocker
Vice President & Executive Editor
Regnery Publishing, Inc.

Prof. Marshall DeRosa
Florida Atlantic University

Dr. Don Devine
Second Vice Chairman
American Conservative Union

Prof. Robert George
Princeton University

Prof. Paul Gottfried
Elizabethtown College

Prof. William Anthony Hay
Mississippi State University

Herb London
President
Hudson Institute

Prof. Mark Malvasi
Randolph-Macon College

Douglas Minson
Associate Rector
The Witherspoon Fellowships

Prof. Mark Molesky
Seton Hall University

Prof. Stephen Presser
Northwestern University

Phyllis Schlafly
President
Eagle Forum

Fred Smith
President
Competitive Enterprise Institute

http://www.humanevents.com/2005/05/31/ten-most-harmful-books-of-the-19th-and-20th-centuries/

Kim Jong-un Directs Farmers To Stop Growing Tall Corn

by Bunk X ( 135 Comments › )
Filed under Communism, Food and Drink, North Korea, Politics, World at June 25th, 2014 - 1:00 am

Kim Jong Un Corn Mandate

Even well-off families Can Only Add a Handful of Rice to Their Corn Meal Porridge
Corn (maize) long ago replaced rice as North Korea’s staple food. North Koreans call corn meal “corn rice”. The well-to-do eat steamed rice; for others, corn is their staple food. Depending on a family’s economic status, the rice-to-corn ratio varies. Well-off families don’t use more than 50% corn; as the household budget becomes more strained, corn’s share grows.

Mrs. Kang Un-hui (alias) of Pyongsung city in South Pyongan Province has not so far had to worry about food thanks to her husband, who is a police officer. However, now only her husband gets a food ration. It has been several months since the food ration ended for the three other family members. Even so, they are not starving, but the quality of their meals has fallen sharply. Long ago, they only ate steamed rice. Last year, their meals were half corn and half rice. This year they struggle to be able to mix a handful of rice into the corn meal.

Says Mrs. Kang: “These days, if you’re not pretty rich, the quality of your meals worsens. Now, a family that can afford corn meal is doing well. It’s gotten to the point that it’s hard to have corn meal with even one handful of rice. If our family is like this, other families will be even worse-off. Apart from North Koreans of Chinese origins, everybody is like this. Even so, that does not mean we should complain. My husband has steady work, and I’m just grateful that he can keep his position. I hope that the country’s food situation will improve quickly and we can receive our food rations in the usual way.”
[Source: http://goodfriendsusa.blogspot.com/2012/07/north-korea-today-no-462-july-4-2012.html ]

Okay, the image (Kimmy Crack Corn?) is an obvious photoshop intended for political snark, and I’m not going to post the source in order to protect their anonymity. The story dated 4 July 2012, quoted verbatim, is unaltered.

But there is something odd in that report, and it has to do with rice and corn.
Lookee here:

Grains Comparison[Source]

So why is corn (maize) disparaged as a staple in North Korea when it has three times as many calories and more nutrients? Is it because it’s a crop cultivated in the Americas? I dunno, Babs, but I do know this.
The U.S. don’t raise no rice-fed cattle.

North Korea’s sparse agricultural resources limit agricultural production. Climate, terrain, and soil conditions are not particularly favorable for farming, with a relatively short cropping season. Only about 17% of the total landmass, or approximately 20,000 km2, is arable, of which 14,000 km2 is well suited for cereal cultivation; the major portion of the country is rugged mountain terrain.[1] [Wiki]

That means North Korea has approximately 12% of its landmass good for growing grains, and it grows mostly rice. The government takes most of the rice away from the private subsistence farms.

So much for the Workers’ Paradise. Eat dirt, peons.

Politically Correct Defined: Good bye First, Fourth, And Fifth Amendments.

by Flyovercountry ( 114 Comments › )
Filed under Censorship, Communism, Fascism, NFL, Progressives at June 19th, 2014 - 1:06 pm

Our Constitutional Scholar of a President researched our founding document and found that he has the right to take from private citizens what ever pleases him to do so. He doesn’t like the name Washington Redskins, so damn it, he’ll just remove what ever private property from team owner Dan Snyder he chooses in order to coerce gently convince the Obama supporter to get back onto the politically correct band wagon.

…these registrations must be cancelled because they were disparaging to Native Americans at the respective times they were registered…

The move affects six registrations and was brought about by a petition from five Native Americans. The office found that “a substantial composite of Native Americans found the term REDSKINS to be disparaging in connection with respondent’s services during the relevant time frame of 1967-1990.

We used to be a nation of laws, today not so much. Now we’re a nation of an emperor’s vision. It doesn’t stop there however. We’ve also become a nation subjected to a new class of overlords who’ve discovered a financial value to being aggrieved on behalf of somebody else. Read that statement from the patent office above carefully. You’ll see that the petition was placed with the U.S. Patent Office by a group of five individuals, out of a nation of 325 Million, and of those five, it is possible that none of them actually are Native Americans. (Let’s not forget the Ward Churchills and Elizabeth Warrens of the world.)

Never mind the small fact that a recent Associated Press Poll found that an eye popping 80% of Native Americans actually feel the name Washington Redskins represents an honorable tribute to their heritage and actually like the name. Never mind the fact that a similarly eye popping 80% of Americans in general in the same poll are also in favor of the Washington Redskins keeping their name. The fact that somebody in America was willing and able to fill out the appropriate somebody-else-should-feel-aggrieved form means that the Redskins organization would no longer enjoy their natural First, Fourth, or Fifth Amendment Rights. Because their speech has been deemed offensive, they have lost their right to be secure in their effects, and without due process, their property has been seized. Welcome to the fundamentally transformed America.

Here’s a letter penned by Snyder’s Attorney, which pretty much sums things up as far as addressing the aggrieved-on-your-behalf theater America is fast becoming.

“As a supporter of President Obama, I am sure the president is not aware that in the highly respected Annenberg Institute poll (taken 2004) with a national sample of Native Americans, 9 out of 10 Native Americans said they were not bothered by the name the ‘Washington Redskins.’
.
“The president made these comments to the Associated Press, but he was apparently unaware that an April 2013 AP poll showed that eight out of ten of all Americans in a national sample don’t think the Washington Redskins name should be changed.
.
“We at the Redskins respect everyone. But like devoted fans of the Atlanta Braves, the Cleveland Indians and the Chicago Blackhawks (from President Obama’s hometown ), we love our team and its name and, like those fans, we do not intend to disparage or disrespect a racial or ethnic group.
.
“The name ‘Washington Redskins’ is 80 years old – it’s our history and legacy and tradition. We Redskins fans sing ‘hail to the Redskins’ every Sunday as a word of honor not disparagement.”

Even if that were not true however, and let’s pretend just for the moment that Dan Snyder really did mean to disparage Native Americans. Let’s further pretend that every Native American living today was deeply offended by the Redskins name and logo. How would that change anything? Snyder’s property is and should always be Snyder’s property. The same goes for his right to accumulate and hold private property, say what ever is on his mind at any time any thought appears there, and he should only be deprived of such after due process within our judicial system dictated that his violation of our laws demanded fair recompense. Since when are these things removed from private citizens simply to assuage the anger of a President turned tin pot dictator?

Part of me says that Dan Snyder deserves his fate as a consequence for his endorsement, support, and campaign activities, all helping to get Barack Obama elected president, not only once but twice. But this nonsense is only the beginning, and what they can and are doing to Dan Snyder can just as easily be done to anyone else. Elections have consequences, and this sickening fundamental transformation of our nation from a representative republic into the tyrannical worker’s paradise not seen on Earth since before the fall of the Berlin Wall is ours.

Over the weekend I was asked during a debate on the Second Amendment with the brain dead friend of a friend whether I truly believed that vigilance against government tyranny were something that was applicable to today’s perfect version of the United States. This action by the U.S. Patent Office pretty much spells it out. Not only has our government grown tyrannical, it doesn’t even have the common decency to lie to us about it anymore.

That letter sent to King George in 1776 is every bit as applicable today as it was then.

Cross Posted from Musings of a Mad Conservative.

Mars Attacks: Psychology says it’s okay if you are evil, it’s not actually your fault.

by Mars ( 108 Comments › )
Filed under Academia, Blogmocracy, Communism, Corruption, Crime, Democratic Party, DOJ, Fascism, Free Speech, Guest Post, Hate Speech, Hipsters, Leftist-Islamic Alliance, Liberal Fascism, Marxism, Multiculturalism, Political Correctness, Politics, Progressives, Racism, Second Amendment, Socialism, Tranzis at June 19th, 2014 - 8:00 am

Here is another case of Psych “experts” trying to excuse behavior because “you’re just programmed that way”. Hey, but there’s good news. According to this self-serving article, the more you read articles like this, the less you believe in prison and capital punishment. So, see there is a silver lining.

Free will is just a myth according to these people you are just a preprogrammed set of impulses so it’s wrong (and probably racist) to insist that these people be locked away or executed where they can’t continue to harm those around them.

Hey, maybe this is the basis behind Obama’s catch and release terrorist program.

Enjoy this exercise in absurdity in it’s entirety.

Minimizing belief in free will may lessen support for criminal punishment

Exposure to information that diminishes free will, including brain-based accounts of behavior, seems to decrease people’s support for retributive punishment, according to research published in Psychological Science, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.

People who learned about neuroscientific research, either by reading a magazine article or through undergraduate coursework, proposed less severe punishment for a hypothetical criminal than did their peers. The findings suggest that they did so because they saw the criminal as less blameworthy.

“There is no academic consensus on free will, but we already do see discussions of brain processes and responsibility trickling through the justice system and other social institutions — for better or worse,” says psychological scientist and study author Azim Shariff of the University of Oregon.

While research suggests that most people believe in free will, Shariff and colleagues wondered whether increasing exposure to information about the brain, which suggests a more mechanistic account of human behavior, might have consequences for how we reason about morality and make moral attributions.

They hypothesized that exposing people to information that diminishes belief in free will — neuroscientific or otherwise — would, in turn, diminish perceptions of moral responsibility; ultimately, this shift in belief would influence how people think about crime and punishment.

So, for example, if people come to believe that the brain drives behavior, they may be less likely to hold others morally responsible for criminal actions, eliminating the need to punish so that they receive their “just deserts.”

In an initial experiment, Shariff and colleagues had college students read a passage and then read a fictional scenario about a man who beat another man to death. Some of the students read a passage that rejected free will and advocated a mechanistic view of behavior, while others read a passage unrelated to free will.

Those students who read the passage rejecting free will chose significantly shorter prison sentences, about 5 years, than did those who read the neutral passage, about 10 years.

The effect also emerged when the manipulation was more subtle: Students who read an article about neuroscience findings that only implied mechanistic explanations for human behavior chose shorter prison sentences than did their peers who read about nuclear power or natural headache remedies.

Not only that, they also placed less blame on the transgressor. Further analyses revealed that decreased blameworthiness actually accounted for the relationship between diminished belief in free will and lighter sentences.

Interestingly, students who freely enrolled and participated in an undergraduate course in cognitive neuroscience also showed the effect. Students who took a neuroscience course chose a lighter prison sentence at the end of the semester than they had at the beginning of the semester; this decrease in recommended sentence was associated with self-reported increases in knowledge about the brain over the course of the semester.

Students enrolled in a geography course, on the other hand, showed no change in their sentencing recommendations over time.

“These results show that our students are not only absorbing some of what we’re teaching them, but also seeing implications of that content for their attitudes about things as fundamental as morality and responsibility,” says Shariff. “It underscores the consequences that science education — and perhaps psychological science education, in particular — can have on our students and, ultimately, the broader public.”

Shariff and colleagues believe that their findings could have broad implications, especially in the domains of criminal justice and law.

###

This project was supported in part by the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation (Award 07-89249-000-HCD), by the Regents of the University of California, and by the John Templeton Foundation.

In addition to Shariff, study co-authors include Joshua D. Greene of Harvard University; Johan C. Karremans of Radboud University Nijmegen; Jamie B. Luguri of Yale University; Cory J. Clark of the University of California, Irvine; Jonathan W. Schooler of the University of California, Santa Barbara; Roy F. Baumeister of Florida State University; and Kathleen D. Vohs of the University of Minnesota.

All materials have been made publicly available via Open Science Framework and can be accessed at osf.io/dy3pm. The complete Open Practices Disclosure for this article can be found at http://pss.sagepub.com/content/by/supplementaldata.

This article has received the badge for Open Materials. More information about the Open Practices badges can be found at https://osf.io/tvyxz/wiki/view/ and http://pss.sagepub.com/content/25/1/3.full.

For more information about this study, please contact: Azim Shariff at shariff@uoregon.edu.

The article abstract is available online: http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/06/09/0956797614534693.abstract

The IRS and Stout Hemp Rope should have a serious and mutual Come to Jesus moment.

by Guest Post ( 193 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Communism, Corruption, Eric Holder, Fascism, Progressives at June 17th, 2014 - 7:00 am

Guest Blogger: Doriangrey


There are all kinds of lies, there are the innocent kind, where I tell you something because I don’t want to hurt your feelings. No those pants don’t make your butt look big, yes those shoes look pretty. There are the lies told out of spite to hurt people, there are lies told because you are scared. There are the lies told so that you can take advantage of someone. Then their are the lies that are told because you hold the person you are telling them to in such disregard that you honestly do not believe they deserve hearing the truth.

In order for a lie to be believed, it has to hold enough truth for those hearing it to think that what they are being told is at least plausible. Someone at the IRS just threw out the mother of all, “You don’t deserve the Truth” lies, and topped it off with a level of arrogance that is utterly mind boggling, in that it didn’t contain enough truth to fool even a Neanderthal magically transported to modern day America.

Lois Lerner’s emails disappeared when her personal computer crashed and are totally unrecoverable. That is utter and complete unadulterated bullshit. Email’s are the next closest thing to forever that there is. They are not just stored on your computer’s hard drive, they are also archived on the hard drives and tape back ups of every single Email server that they transit through.

The Blaze’s Jason Howerton has an article where an IT guru utterly obliterates the IRS claim that a hard drive crash destroyed Lois Lerner’s emails.

Veteran IT Professional Gives Six Reasons Why the IRS’ Claim That It ‘Lost’ Two Years of Lois Lerner’s Emails Is ‘Simply Not Feasible’

A veteran IT professional tells TheBlaze that the IRS’ claim that the agency lost two years’ worth of former IRS official Lois Lerner’s emails is “simply not feasible.”

On Friday, members of Congress revealed that the IRS would not be able to hand over Lerner’s emails to and from other IRS employees from January 2009 to April 2011, possibly due to a “glitch” or “crash.” Lawmakers were seeking the emails as part of their investigation into the IRS targeting scandal.

Norman Cillo, an Army veteran who worked in intelligence and a former program manager at Microsoft, argued it is very difficult to lose emails for good and laid out six reasons why he believes Congress is “being lied to” about the Lerner emails:

1. I believe the government uses Microsoft Exchange for their email servers. They have built-in exchange mail database redundancy. So, unless they did not follow Microsofts recommendations they are telling a falsehood. You can see by the diagram below that if you have three servers in a DAG you have three copies of the database.

IUn short, not only should the individuals at the IRS who told Congress that Lois Lerner’s emails were destroyed go to prison for lying to Congress, they should have an additional 10 years added to their sentence for indefensible stupidity in public, and another 10 additional years thrown on for incomprehensible incompetency on the job.

LGF meltdown over critcism of the Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl – Taliban swap deal

by Daedalus ( 235 Comments › )
Filed under Blogwars, Communism, Diary of Daedalus, Humor, LGF, Progressives at June 4th, 2014 - 7:00 am

Despite many Progressives abandoning Obama over the Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl – Taliban swap deal, one man has stayed loyal. Charles Johnson has gone all out to take on the critics of this lousy trade. Even funnier is the hysteria his minions have over criticism of their beloved god-king Obama.

LGF Meltdown 3 LGF Meltdown 4 LGF Meltdown 5 LGF Meltdown 6 LGF Meltdown 7 LGF Meltdown 8 LGF Meltdown 9 LGF Meltdown 10 LGF Meltdown 11 LGF Meltdown 12 LGF Meltdown 13 LGF Meltdown 14 LGF Meltdown 15 LGF Meltdown LGF Meltdown2

Charles and his merry band of losers would follow Obama no matter what he does.

Mars Attacks: Special addendum

by Mars ( 145 Comments › )
Filed under Academia, Barack Obama, Bigotry, Blogmocracy, Censorship, Christianity, Communism, Cult of Obama, Democratic Party, Education, Eric Holder, Fascism, Free Speech, Guest Post, Hate Speech, Hipsters, Liberal Fascism, Marxism, Multiculturalism, Patriotism, Political Correctness, Politics, Progressives, Racism, Socialism, Tranzis, Unions at June 2nd, 2014 - 8:00 am

You will notice that I have been posting these with the full article and video and no comment from myself. I have had a reason for my actions, and it isn’t laziness on my part. I feel these articles are incredibly important, so much so that I want to make sure that the original author and investigators receive all credit for their hard work. Any comments that I could have made would have, in my honest opinion, just detracted from their hard work putting together these exposes. I honestly feel that these are that important.

These articles may be about the White Privilege conference (a taxpayer funded conference for educators at every grade level that has gone on for fifteen years at this point), but this is about far more than that. These articles are being posted here for everyone, regardless of race, creed, sexual orientation, religion, what have you. That is because what is being conducted here is dangerous. Not just for “whites” but for everyone that wants to have the ability to speak their minds, or have their children live in a country where they will be allowed to speak openly. These conferences are about nothing less than suppression of free speech. They want to shut down everyone who disagrees with them, and they want to go further by ensuring that your children are educated in such a way that they will never know what free speech is.

This is not about one conference. In fact there are many of these held around the country at different levels, in different places, all over this great country of ours. We shouldn’t demand these conferences be shut down, (it would be nice if they weren’t being paid for out of peoples tax money though), but these conferences should be taken out of the darkness and shown in the light for all to see and hear. These are the educators in this country, this is what they want to teach your children. Suppression of speech, capitalism is evil, and the United States is responsible for all evil on this planet. These ideas are not just dangerous, they are enough to bring down the country if put into the minds of the future.

Somehow I have posted these in the wrong order, I hope it hasn’t messed anyone up.