Saturday, July 30, 2016

Thought for the Days


The persistent existence of Liberals is due to their immunity to any infection of intelligence that will cure their Aggressive Ignorance. When faced with irrefutable facts, Liberals cling to their indefensible opinions the same way they ridicule Conservatives “clinging to their guns and Bibles”. The significant difference being Conservatives are principally motivated to defend their inalienable right to Life, Liberty and Happiness. In contrast, the Liberals’ minds are in permanent lockdown, thoroughly resistant to any reasoned enlightenment that threatens their oppressive worldview of entitlement to authority and power over others into subservience through unbridled, aggressive force.

- Brian Wilson

Tuesday, July 26, 2016

Free Movie

Clinton Cash, a feature documentary based on the Peter Schweizer book, has been posted to YouTube for all to view free just in time for the DNC. Clinton Cash investigates how Bill and Hillary Clinton went from being “dead broke” after leaving the White House to amassing a net worth of over $150 million, with over $2 billion in donations to their foundation. This wealth was accumulated during Mrs. Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State through lucrative speaking fees and contracts paid for by foreign companies and Clinton Foundation donors.

The New York Times hailed the book as “The most anticipated and feared book of a presidential cycle" while MSNBC described the documentary as devastating for the Hillary campaign.

The Clinton camp has, of course, dismissed the documentary as a right-wing smear campaign filled with unsubstantiated conspiracy theories. That said, perhaps the most shocking aspect of the release is that many of the biggest bombshells revealed in the documentary have been vetted and confirmed by various mainstream media outlets. More recently, some information uncovered in the Panama Papers has echoed some of Schweitzer’s allegations in the movie and book.

Click here - and Share
Clinton Cash

Monday, July 25, 2016

The Doctor is In

The diagnosis is complete: the I’s have it.

Laboratory results:

America’s metastasizing societal insolvency is being led via the generational infection of the “Four I’s”: Igorance, Incompetence, Indiffernce and Indulgence evidenced by the following symptomatic warning signs:

Ignorance – The perfected result of the deliberate dumbing down of America, courtesy of the permanent parasitical partnership between Government Training Camps (public schools) and socialized Teachers Unions “where destruction of the Individual and construction of the Lemming is Job One!” Critical Thinking, Logical Reasoning and Objective Analysis not permitted; “social justice”, liberal media bias, “compensatory inequality”, “anti-social tolerance” and “Political Correctness” is practiced, corrosive and mandatory. Experts also refer to this as the new “non-invasive prefrontal lobotomy”.

Incompetence – The primary result of 12 years (minimum) of induced Ignorance (see above), aided and abetted by Helecopter Parenting, “Snowflake” Indulgence and “Safe Space” sheltering from “real world” realty; elevation of opinions over facts, feelings over thoughts, absent marketable skills, long on “entitlements” and imagined “rights”.

Indifference – (aka Attitudinal Apathy). Combined with Incompetence and Ignorance (above), behaivior resulting in the belief in being free of any personal responsbility or obligation not specifically self-centered. When combined with Indulgence (below), results in poor work performance, poor interpersonal conduct, confrontational communication and immunity to any occupational discipline or social limitations.

Indulgence – Absence and rejection of any moral compass; self-induced narcissism, bloated egocentrism, civil behavioral limitations based solely on personal preferences and selective application of self-defined, self-assumed “values” not reflective of anything currently recognized as “civil”.

Experts say a cure was possible, however MGI (Malignant Governmental Interference), a side effect of Cultural Malaise, eliminated hope for salvation of the majority of those infected. Future generations could only be immunized if the missing essential elements that contributed to the current epidemic are cultivated and distributed in mass quantities. Unfortunately, they say, such production can only come at the hands of those not already infected and those numbers are too small to be remotely effective.

Put more simply: We’re doomed.

Thursday, July 21, 2016

Couple questions, Judge

Anyone following this site likely knows of my long-standing professional and personal friendship with FOX News Senior Judicial Analyst, Judge Andrew Napolitano. We recently enjoyed a celebratory dinner toasting 4 years of "Judging Freedom", a podcast that has appeared on this and several other web sites. Today (7/21/16), the Judge published one of his popular "Socratic" pieces in which he poses questions that have answers that are - or should be - obvious to anyone paying attention regarding the recent inaction of the FBI and DOJ to indict former SoS Hillary Clinton. According to FBI Director Comey's own testimony, there was ample evidence to do so.

First, read the Judge's piece here.

Then consider this note I wrote to my friend:

Nice piece, Judge. Couple questions.
Where is the vaunted integrity of FBI Director Comey? What possible repercussions other than getting fired would he suffer if he came forward with what he really knows? Similarly, where is the integrity of just two of the 150(alleged) FBI agents who reportedly worked this investigation and could step up with the concealed facts ? Where are the mass resignations of FBI agents you suggested would almost surely occur if Clinton wasn’t indicted – Director Comey’s among them? Where is the integrity of the “dozen members of Congress” who were privy to Clinton’s secret Libyan war plans? Who might be among that “dozen”? You wrote:

"What if Hillary Clinton has engaged in espionage and public corruption and FBI agents know that she has? What if they have evidence to prove it but they could not present anything to a grand jury because President Obama wants Clinton, and not Donald Trump, to succeed him in office?"

Just what is the obligation of an FBI agent to step forward with such evidence? Hasn't he sworn an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution? If his immediate superiors are corrupt and guilty of “blatant political interference”, does the Agent have no alternative course of action? What about the “Grand Jury of Public Opinion”? Wouldn’t a public uproar motivate Congress to act in some decisive manner?

You asked “What do we do about it”? Other than the suggestions above, where do the people go for learned guidance?

Saturday, July 16, 2016

Is it war or theater?



This week’s collection of horror stories about a mass killing in France and the rise of organized sniper attacks on police and civilians in the US has brought to mind the word ‘theater’.

In the classical sense, a theater of war is defined as a geographical area of land, sea, and airspace that is directly involved in war operations. In the Orwellian sense, however, the word, theater, takes on the meaning of something that is fictional and is designed to create a psychological impact on those who observe.

There can be little doubt that this second view is the correct one in terms of current events. If the carnage we are seeing were the result of a real war, the leaders of the governments under attack would be in full action to overcome the threat and destroy the enemy. They would seek out the known leaders of these violent groups (and the known financiers behind them) and put them permanently out of business. Instead, they tolerate, coddle, and even assist these people to carry out their plans.

If this were a real war, the leaders of the EU would not allow millions of so-called migrants into their borders and then protect them from prosecution for their crimes. If this were a real war, American leaders long ago would have locked up the violent organizers of militant groups like Black Lives Matter and also people like George Soros who fund them.

But it’s not a real war. It’s theater. Its purpose is to create sufficient carnage to frighten the majority into passive acceptance of a police state as the inevitable outcome.

It’s not a pretty picture, but … we need to know.

- G. Edward Griffin

Friday, July 15, 2016

The End is Near-er

Pull quote:

"Being wealthy used to be a virtue worthy of widespread aspiration.

Now it’s met with skepticism and derision.

Similarly, intellectual dissent used to be embraced.

Now it’s increasingly considered “hate speech” that must be banished from university campuses and their infantile ‘safe spaces’.

And the entire west, it seems, is moving towards an ever-expanding, fiscally unsustainable welfare statethat creates swelling masses of dependents.

This is a complete breakdown of western values, and that has serious consequences."


Entire article: Click here...

Sunday, July 10, 2016

Consent of the Governed?

Mr. Higgs eloquently expands on one of my previous posts.
BW

What gives some people the right to rule others? At least since John Locke’s time, the most common and seemingly compelling answer has been “the consent of the governed.” When the North American revolutionaries set out to justify their secession from the British Empire, they declared, among other things: “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed.” This sounds good, especially if one doesn’t think about it very hard or very long, but the harder and longer one thinks about it, the more problematic it becomes.

One question after another comes to mind. Must every person consent? If not, how many must, and what options do those who do not consent have? What form must the consent take ― verbal, written, explicit, implicit? If implicit, how is it to be registered? Given that the composition of society is constantly changing, owing to births, deaths, and international migration, how often must the rulers confirm that they retain the consent of the governed? And so on and on. Political legitimacy, it would appear, presents a multitude of difficulties when we move from the realm of theoretical abstraction to that of practical realization.

I raise this question because in regard to the so-called social contract, I have often had occasion to protest that I haven’t even seen the contract, much less been asked to consent to it. A valid contract requires voluntary offer, acceptance, and consideration. I’ve never received an offer from my rulers, so I certainly have not accepted one; and rather than consideration, I have received nothing but contempt from the rulers, who, notwithstanding the absence of any agreement, have indubitably threatened me with grave harm in the event that I fail to comply with their edicts. What monumental effrontery these people exhibit! What gives them the right to rob me and push me around? It certainly is not my desire to be a sheep for them to shear or slaughter as they deem expedient for the attainment of their own ends.

Moreover, when we flesh out the idea of “consent of the governed” in realistic detail, the whole notion quickly becomes utterly preposterous. Just consider how it would work. A would-be ruler approaches you and offers a contract for your approval. Here, says he, is the deal.