Monday, August 29, 2011

28-AUG-11 Edition: Barack Obama: Administrator ~ By Henry Lamb

Barack Obama has demonstrated his impatience with the legislative process. He has demonstrated his contempt for the U.S. Constitution. He has displayed his willingness to ignore enforcement of immigration and marijuana laws with which he disagrees, while using the rule-making process to create and enforce his policies without congressional involvement.

Col. Edward House's vision of the future, in
"Philip Dru: Administrator"
(A Story of Tomorrow)
When Obama talks, the most common words heard in every speech, regardless of the subject are: "I" and "my." His behavior in office makes him appear to be unaware and unconcerned about anything and everything other than his prestige, his comfort, his fortune and his future. He looks very much like the Administrator Philip Dru envisioned when "… there were no legislative bodies sitting, and the function of law making was confined to one individual, the Administrator himself."
I am hoping that you will be so bored with hearing about Hurricane Irene in the last several days that you will surf the web and stumble across this post.

I am hoping that you will understand the meaning of the cartoon I included above, and how it correlates precisely with this column.

I am hoping that you realize that it is bad enough that our government has become God to a large portion of our population, but now, so has our President.

I am hoping that you decide that we've had enough of the way that our current President disregards the Constitution of the United States, and that you know it isn't just about a way to "get things done."

I am hoping that you will never allow any President to morph "leadership" into "dictatorship."

I am hoping that when you read Henry Lamb's column today, you will pay attention to the solid evidence of the similarities that Henry provides to show Obama's true intention to become "our administrator."

I am hoping that when you watch the following video, you will share my grave concern that our freedom is in dire jeopardy. Ponder on this!

Video provided by DPS72 on on Sep 21, 2009

Well, actually, I'm hoping that you are fully aware that it's a lot more than just "hoping." I'm just prayin'...

*     *     *     *

Barack Obama: Administrator

By Henry Lamb

August 26, 2011 ~ 2:37 pm Eastern

© 2011

Edward Mandell House wrote a terrible novel titled "Philip Dru: Administrator." The book is a vision of how House believed government should operate. As Woodrow Wilson's "alter-ego," he did everything he could to bring about his vision during Wilson's presidency, including the design and creation of the League of Nations. House could not have known that some 70 years after his death, Barack Hussein Obama would be in the White House displaying many of the same beliefs and implementing many of the same ideas attributed to Philip Dru.

Philip Dru believed that "Our Constitution and our laws served us well for the first hundred years of our existence, but under the conditions of today they are not only obsolete, but even grotesque" (p. 222).

Obama believes that the Constitution is an "imperfect" document that is "flawed."

Philip Dru believed that "Government … was to have representation upon the boards of [every] corporation. ... Labor was to have one representative upon the boards of [every] corporation and to share a certain percentage of the earnings above their wages" (p. 183).

The Washington Post reported in April 2009: "The Obama administration will play a key role in reshaping General Motors' board of directors over the next six months, potentially giving it even greater control in the management of the storied American manufacturer." Slate reported in June, 2009 that: "The United Auto Workers control about 65 percent of Chrysler and 17.5 percent of General Motors."

Philip Dru believed that: "The strong will help the weak, the rich will share with the poor, and it will not be called charity, but it will be known as justice" (p. 42).

Barack Obama believes that neither the Constitution nor the Supreme Court go far enough to say what the government must do on behalf of its citizens to redistribute the wealth of those who have it, in order to achieve social justice.


Don't be afraid!
are the MOB
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear

Friday, August 26, 2011

26-AUG-11 Edition: News media taking stance on Marco Rubio eligibility

In a speech last night at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, Calif., Rubio reportedly received laughter as he clowned, "I have no interest in serving as vice president for anyone who could possibly live all eight years of the presidency."

"What happens in politics is the minute you start thinking there's something else out there for you, it starts affecting everything you do," he added. "The reality of it is I'm not going to be the vice presidential nominee, but I look forward to working with whoever our nominee is."

Well, there goes my dream ticket for 2012 of Herman Cain and Marco Rubio! It doesn't sound like Senator Rubio is interested in being on the GOP ticket in the VP position. It may be that Rubio understands and respects the Constitution and does not want to have any questionable Constitutional issues facing him and the possible next President of the United States.

Maybe it is time to clearly define eligibility, in today's terms, in a Constitutional Amendment. There are just too many opinions regarding the definition of "natural born citizen," and the issue continues to grow in complexity and vagueness.

Until the matter of Constitutional eligibility is definitely settled, we may have to keep this Senator from Florida in the wings. It's sad, because he'd be a great running mate with my favorite Republican candidate, Herman Cain.

Think about what I just wrote above while you watch the following segment from Hannity:

I'm just sayin'...

*     *     *     *

News media taking stance on Marco Rubio eligibility
Those asking question called 'racists,' 'misguided adherents to Constitution'

By Joe Kovacs

August 24, 2011 ~ 8:10 pm Eastern

© 2011 WND

Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL)
MIAMI, Fla. – Some national news media are declaring that U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio is a natural-born citizen and thus eligible for the presidency or vice presidency, even though Rubio's constitutional eligibility remains unclear and the popular Florida Republican has himself downplayed any interest in running on a White House ticket.

In a Daily Caller piece today titled "Coming soon: Rubio 'birthers,'" journalist Matt Lewis warns, "There is already a movement afoot (led by some on the fringe) to disqualify him from serving as president (which would presumably disqualify him from serving as vice president). That's right – some are arguing that Rubio is not eligible because he is not a 'natural-born citizen.'"

Don't be afraid!
are the MOB
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear

Friday, August 19, 2011

19-Aug-11 Edition ~ Inside the debate: Missed opportunity for voters ~ By Herman Cain

Although former Gov. Pawlenty has announced that he is ending his race after last Saturday's Iowa straw poll, he was one of the most genuinely nice opponents in the race. I wish him well in wherever his future takes him.

Whereas the debate gave some people a chance to learn about some of the candidates' ideas for solving problems, different people have different ideas about who won. So pick your favorite candidate and declare them the winner.

But clearly, the American people lost an opportunity to learn more than they did.

As do all the GOP candidates for President, Herman has his flaws. There's no question about it, Herman Cain is way too honest to be a politician. In a post-Iowa Straw Poll interview, Citizen Cain had this to say:

Yes, Herman definitely has his flaws. He is consistent. He doesn't put his finger in the air to see which way the political winds are blowing. Herman sticks to his convictions. Politicians just don't act that way. Oh, wait, that's what is different about him, isn't it?

Wait a minute.... I'm not the only person out here that is tired of the polished politicians always being the presidential candidates, am I?

Actually, in my humble opinion, there is incontrovertible evidence that Herman Cain is exactly what people in the Tea Party Movement are looking for in a candidate, one that would defeat the current President. Rick Perry could beat Obama, too, but can we completely trust that he wouldn't be more of the same? I'm just sayin'...

Inside the debate: Missed opportunity for voters

By Herman Cain

August 14, 2011 ~ 9:00 pm Eastern

© 2011

First, let's clarify some of the media noise about my campaign and my intentions.

I am running for president, seeking the Republican nomination. I finished fifth in the Iowa straw-poll last Saturday ahead of six other candidates. The candidates who finished ahead of me spent millions on TV and radio advertising, and we spent $0.

We have no debt beyond travel and other expenses, which we settle within 30 days after the end of the month. We are raising money at a rate ahead of expenses. We are running the campaign like a business. What a novel idea, and it is working!

With a national name ID of just 46 percent, I have no intentions of dropping out of the race. All of those predictions of the demise of my campaign are all self folly.

Now, last week all media eyes were on Iowa with the latest presidential debate and the Iowa straw poll. Both events are barometers of knowledge of the issues and their respective solutions, presentation, communication skills and how well a candidate can get his supporters to turn out for events. But neither event is a predictor of who will ultimately win the Republican Party's nomination.

Saturday, August 13, 2011

12-Aug-2011, Part 3: The mob is coming ~ By Phil Elmore

As liberals grow increasingly shrill in their hatred and frustration over conservative attempts to thwart their power plays, America's leftists will resort to violence more frequently and in greater numbers. The rancor over the recent debt-ceiling debate will become a fond memory. Obama and his minions, not to mention a complicit media, were quick to tell us that we may never disagree with liberals – for if we do, America will be punished by foreign bankers. As the rhetoric grows hotter, the fists will fly faster. Blaming the "terrorists" in the tea party for Obama's failures of leadership will seem tame by comparison.

The mob is coming. Be ready.
It's chilling. As I mentioned from the beginning of this 8-12-11 series, there is a common theme. If you haven't figured it out yet, you will soon. So let's start with this:
The classic quote from a rioter on the street in London was this: "We hear people were getting stuff free, so why not us?"

You will notice that tea-party activists don't have a sense of entitlement. They don't ask for free stuff. They don't demand handouts. They don't ask that government take care of them. They just ask that government follow the rule of law and act responsibly.

The rioters in the streets of London and Philadelphia most certainly do have a sense of entitlement. They believe they have the right to rob and beat other people and take what they want. They believe in burning and terrorizing and attacking police and civilians.

 ~ Joseph Farah, on 9-AUG-11: You want to see face of 'terrorism'?
Oh, well, shucks... You're getting the point, right? Are you ready for what we will be facing very soon? You won't bother to "get ready" if you are neither aware or believe that it can happen. But look, it's going on in London, in Europe, and even here.

Those on the left love to talk about the "Tea Party rage." There's really no way to be any more disingenuous than that. The left is using that phrase, "Tea Party Rage," knowing that the tea party's "rage" has nothing to do with violence. It hasn't ever happened. No tea party has ever broke out into violence. Looting and pillaging is not part of the Tea Party Movement. Really, get serious!

However, Phil Elmore gives us a stern warning in his column. It is one thing to endure harsh and inaccurate rhetoric against the tea party. We must be prepared, because suppose for a minute that the leftist minions (union thugs and people living on entitlements) decided that only violence would get the attention of the media and politicians so that they could get their "free stuff"? Or, could it even be a ploy to intimidate and get the attention of those who would peacefully protest against the largess of government?

If you read all three of the columns that I referenced yesterday and today, you will hopefully get the point. The MOB that Nancy Pelosi accused the Tea Party of being, and the MOB that the leftists are organizing and putting into play, are two different things.

Joseph Farah sums it up perfectly when he wrote, "When you demonize the hard-working, productive middle class who organize peacefully and call for reforms, you are inviting the shiftless, unproductive class to take the opposite approach."

The Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights is the force multiplier, as Phil says. It exemplifies "Peace through strength," because deterrence of violence is our priority. I'm just sayin'....


*     *     *     *

The mob is coming
By Phil Elmore

August 10, 2011 ~ 1:44 pm Eastern

© 2011

Obama hates guns.

This is a fact. Like every lib, like every socialist would-be dictator, like every arrogant statist who views his fellow human beings' freedom of action as a threat (rather than a benefit that accrues to all the citizenry), Obama cannot stand the idea that you, armed, might be able to stand up to leftist bullying.

You see, that is what a firearm is. Before guns are "liberty teeth," before they are a tool for resisting oppression, before they are the linchpin of a free society that defends and protects the other natural rights protected by the Bill of Rights, they are a personal means of standing up for yourself. A gun, like a lever or a hammer, is a force multiplier. Firearms are a labor-magnifying technology that enables the user to apply more force to more people than that user could apply with his bare hands. That's it. That's all guns do. They possess neither volition nor morality. By themselves, they are complicated paperweights.

The fear and loathing liberals heap on firearms is largely ignorance, projection of their own weakness and irrational fear ... but deep down, it is also a recognition of the gun's utility as a force multiplier. If you're a lib desperate to control every waking moment of his fellow human beings' lives, you absolutely cannot abide the idea of force multiplication. This is because liberals adore violence. Specifically, they adore mob violence. An ideology that subordinates the individual to the collective and the citizen to the state of necessity lauds the power of the mob. Liberals are, after all, only courageous in groups. They are happy to bully any man or woman whom they outnumber and can overpower, but will scream victimization if aggressively opposed by prepared, right-thinking citizens.

Examples of liberal thuggery and hate abound and are as close as the nearest political protest. Our left-leaning media delight in furthering the mythology that conservatives, tea-party members and other libertarians are violent and threatening toward peaceful leftist activists, when of course the exact opposite is true and has been demonstrated time and again. Consider, for example, the beating of conservative Kenneth Gladney.

Don't be afraid!
are the MOB
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear

Friday, August 12, 2011

12-Aug-2011, Part 2: Hysterical leftist rhetoric? Thank Marx ~ By Erik Rush

Finally, if Americans remain unaware of how fragile civilized society actually can be, they will be caught unawares when civil unrest rears its ugly head in their neighborhoods – which is exactly where the left want us. So, between the press and this administration, which uses every means of diversion to draw our eyes away from their dark designs, there are really no bombshells here.

It's evil, and it's scary – but it shouldn't be surprising.

Leftist power players did not expect Americans to fight for their liberty; it is no wonder at all that the voice of desperation is shrill and deceitful. Like the movie villain, finally cornered and unarmed, he begs for mercy, yet his shifty eyes dart about, seeking a way that he might still sucker the hero, turn the tables and undo him without mercy.

So let's not be suckered. This ain't the movies.
I should probably mention that much of my inspiration for this part of this series today came from watching a great movie earlier this morning. I just happened to see, "The Book of Eli," with Denzel Washington. You should watch it, if you haven't already; it will probably help you understand what I'm trying to say today.
I honestly believe this is what happens to societies that try to bribe the disenchanted with "entitlements" and welfare. It doesn't lead to a more peaceful society. It leads to a more expectant and demanding underclass.

 ~ Joseph Farah, on 9-AUG-11: You want to see face of 'terrorism'?
Speaking of movies, Erik Rush reminded me that I've watched enough films in the last few days that I think I now understand what leads to societal decay: 1) Greed (i.e., covetousness: wanting to have what other people have, even if it means ripping off their stuff from them); And, 2) The lust for power, so as to have the ability to take other people's stuff (in a way to make it seem right... Social justice, anyone?).

That's Marxism, folks! Plain and simple. Erik Rush's column provides another huge piece of the puzzle that I'm trying to put together today. Well, okay, I already get it, but I'm just trying to make sure that you do, too... Especially if you are prone to vote Democrat. (Some of my best friends do that, but I still love them.)

And on a side bar, allow me to say: No, I wouldn't ever suggest to friends that that they should go blindly pulling a lever for all Republicans on the ballot in November of 2012! That is NOT a good idea! Actually, what I would suggest is that we do our best to nominate the best of the tea party candidates in the GOP primaries and caucuses.

A good friend of mine, who happens to be a despondent non-voter, made a statement to me last night that caught my attention. Paraphrased: "All politicians are crooks, it doesn't matter what party they are in." I hope that I will someday have the opportunity to explain to my friend why that generality is not completely accurate. I will first need to understand how my friend defines, "crooks." 

Sure, if he is saying that politicians that want to stay in office do everything that they must do to "try to bribe the disenchanted with 'entitlements' and welfare," that would be correct because that is criminal. And then I'll tell my friend, "That's Marxism!!" I'm just sayin'...


*     *     *     *

Hysterical leftist rhetoric? Thank Marx


By Erik Rush

August 10, 2011 ~ 2:06 pm Eastern

© 2011

Let us not be surprised that the rhetoric of Democratic politicians, the establishment press, union bosses, career civil-rights activists, actors, rappers and assorted liberal miscreants has taken a foray into the realm of the truly bizarre. Yes, it is stupefying that some of these individuals have the temerity to say what they've been saying in public lately, let alone with a straight face. Let us neither be surprised that a segment of our population is either so intellectually indolent or thoroughly indoctrinated that they receive these words without laughing themselves into a hernia.

In recent weeks, liberals have charged that Republicans and conservatives want to destroy America, burn and blow things up, starve old people and children, and lay waste to our economy. The tea-party movement has been blamed for the downgrade in America's credit rating by Democratic leaders at the highest levels, a most absurd calumny since the machinations behind said downgrade were in progress long before the tea party came to be.

While liberal charges against conservatives have always been on the inane side, lately they've been right off of a preschool playground. Calling American patriots Hitlerites, comparing them to history's worst tyrants and mass murderers (I wouldn't be surprised if Sen. Kerry's "Jenjis Khan" made an appearance sometime soon) – it's the shock value that's calculated to drive people into a frenzy of irrational fear. Just examine how socialist factions have historically demonized the opposition in order to harden citizens to the final solutions these regimes eventually come up with; you will easily see the parallel to what is occurring in America.

Don't be afraid!
are the MOB
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear

12-Aug-2011, Part 1: Just who, exactly, is delusional? ~ By Robert Ringer

Would that the Republicans had thrown a temper tantrum (as Democrats and the left-wing media accused them of doing) and gotten their way. If so, we'd be looking at a very panicked Barack Obama today rather than the same cool community organizer who is focused on raising a billion dollars to aid him in anesthetizing the public once again and winning what should be, based on the results of his presidency, an unwinnable election for him.

Maybe the tea-party people do need to get violent, given that the left will continue to accuse them of doing so regardless of how civil they act. Even if they throw out of office enough RINOs who still don't get the tea-party message and bring in a whole new group of Republicans who are willing to take a chainsaw to the budget (rather than just getting excited about "changing the terms of the debate" in Washington), the violence that Messrs. Bashir and Peele so worry about is sure to happen anyway.

However, violence that results from real (as opposed to imaginary) spending cuts won't come from the tea-party folks. It will come from those who are unwilling to give up the good life they've become so accustomed to as a result of the government's redistribution-of-wealth policies.

But let's see the spending cuts first. We can worry about the violence later.
I've been having a productivity decline this summer. There have been so many columns that I wanted to bring to your attention, but just haven't had the time to get them all in. I've been spending a large portion of time digesting and discussing a small number of columns. So, today, I'm dividing my blog post for the day into three parts. This will be the first of the three that I chose to discuss. There was a common theme that I found in several articles on

I've been wanting to do something different in this venue for quite awhile. Today, I saw an opportunity which came from three great columns that were published on August 10, 2011. A column written and published on August 9, 2011 by the founder, editor and CEO of WND, Joseph Farah, set the stage. This is going to be fun doing these three columns, and I think you are going to like these posts! It's going to be fresh, and it will be easy to understand what the theme is and why it is so very important to be aware of. It's going to be an "AMEN!" moment for you when you read these three posts and the corresponding columns!

So, let's get started. We'll begin by stating just who is actually delusional in order to answer Robert's question posed in the title to his column:
People who characterize the tea-party movement as terrorists are clearly incapable of rationally processing information.

They don't know right from wrong.

They have no appreciation for American history and constitutional guarantees for freedom of speech and petitioning for redress of grievances.

~ Joseph Farah, on 9-AUG-11: You want to see face of 'terrorism'?
I just wonder if the rules are changing on us, gang. You're probably going to need an appointment with a chiropractor soon, folks, because I warn you, it's possible that you may suffer from a neck injury caused by the whiplash you'll receive when reading this.

First of all, do you know why some of those on the left, specifically the ones that Robert mentions in this column, are so delusional? It is so obvious, but yet, they actually do not believe that you are aware that the much of the violence is coming from the left, and the racist subgroups that fall on that side of the political spectrum. That's right. The problem with violence is NOT coming from tea party groups. Not even a spec of evidence exists that would suggest that it is tea partiers whom resort to violence. So, for leftists to make that assertion, it's truly delusional!

But, a thought that crossed my mind: Is it any less delusional for those of us in the tea party and on the Conservative side to believe that at some point, society's decay will not require us to defend ourselves? I'm just sayin'....


*     *     *     *

Just who, exactly, is delusional?

By Robert Ringer

August 10, 2011 ~ 1:26 pm Eastern

© 2011

Isn't it remarkable how the left is railing on and on about how the tea-party members of Congress held the debt-ceiling talks hostage by demanding that there be no tax hikes? They've even referred to them as terrorists and suicide bombers, malcontents who ignored the heartfelt pleas of that paragon of unity, Barack Obama, to tone down the rhetoric after the Tucson shootings.

But something doesn't quite ring true here. If the tea-party contingency sabotaged the debt-ceiling talks, why would a majority of Republicans be so mad at them?

Democratic feigned anger aside, the truth is that what the Republicans actually accomplished was to 1) raise the debt ceiling enough to take the pressure off Obama until after the 2012 elections, 2) fail to make certain that there will be no tax hikes in the near future (trust me, there will be), and 3) rather than cut spending, merely slow the growth of spending (as Republicans have been doing for decades) from an Obama baseline that would have been unheard of even in the George W. Bush years.

Nevertheless, along comes a real radical, CNBC's Martin Bashir, and conducts an anti-tea-party interview with a left-wing shrink by the name of Stanton Peele. Peele told Bashir (with the utmost objectivity, of course) that tea-party conservatives are "delusional," "could become a very angry movement" and "could potentially become a violent movement."

Really? Funny, but in all the tea-party events I've been to, I haven't seen anyone who looks like he has the "potential" to become violent. On the other hand, I've seen a lot of union thugs who are violent, but, for some reason, neither Bashir nor Peele mentioned any of those guys. Hmm, that's weird … I wonder why? Must have just slipped their minds.

At one point, Bashir asked Peele: "So you're saying that they [the tea-party people] are delusional about the past and adamant about the future?" To which Peele responded, with an air of professional pomposity, "They are adamant about achieving something that's unachievable, which reminds us of a couple of things: It reminds us of delusion and psychosis. It reminds us of addiction because addicts are seeking something that they can't have."

Something they can't have? Hmm … and here I thought the tea-party candidates won the mid-term elections in a landslide, so gaining control of the House and increasing the number of Republicans in the Senate turned out to be something they could have.

Could it be that Martin Bashir, Dr. Peele and angry Democrats are the ones who are delusional? Do they not understand that history has repeatedly shown that radicalism and violence are overwhelmingly traits of the far (and sometimes not so far) left?

Don't be afraid!
are the MOB
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear

Sunday, August 07, 2011

The cultural tyranny of junk-science 'studies' ~ By Phil Elmore

What else do these "studies" prove? Why, they prove that "dieting is a waste of time" – even though anyone who sticks to a consistent diet can, will and does lose weight. They prove that "men need cuddling more than their girlfriends" – even though this idea belies every direct experience of every heterosexual male since the beginning of time and certainly in the context of contemporary culture. They prove that creative people are arrogant jerks – even though a relatively small survey that relies largely on self-reporting cannot possibly be accurate enough for us to draw such conclusions with any confidence. They also prove that Democrats lack patriotism and seeing the American flag motivates people to vote Republican – even though ... well, OK, not all of these "studies" can be wrong.
A speech was given by the late Michael Crichton at a Caltech Michelin Lecture on January 17, 2003, called "Aliens Cause Global Warming." There is a segment of that speech that I was reminded of when reading Phil's column:
I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.
You see, "consensus science" is almost always the result of "studies" that become cultural consensus. This confirms what Phil is writing about in his column. Or, at least it helped me understand what Phil is saying a little better.

I'd like to think that I motivated Phil to write this column to some extent. Perhaps, I may have even beaten him to warning you of the ridiculousness of "studies" when I produced a blog back in July. Perhaps he was aware of that column where I discussed the junk-science of the Harvard (aka "Hawvawd") study.  Phil mentioned that study in his column (as you'll read in that paragraph I quoted above).

What I want you to see here is that "studies" can be biased from their conception.  It's the reality of the 21st Century.  Cultural behavior has become easier yet to modify by using social media to convey various ideologies, supported by those good old "studies," in this century. And, in effect, it seems to always end in "Cultural Tyranny." That is, until a new study comes out; kind of like when the theme, "based on studies," went from global cooling in the '70's to global warming in the '90's.  I'm just sayin'...

*     *     *     *

The cultural tyranny of junk-science 'studies'
By Phil Elmore

August 03, 2011 ~ 2:13 pm Eastern

© 2011

Are you stupid? If you're reading this in Internet Explorer, you must be. I know, because somebody I think might have been a scientist, or something, says so.

Wait … what?

Previously in Technocracy, I felt it necessary to point out that, no, liberals aren't smarter than conservatives. I called the attempt to use junk science and intentionally distorted or misinterpreted statistics a cultural libel that propagates myths, lies, and misinformation intended to marginalize those whom liberals hate and fear:
Simple lies, distortions and urban legends propagated about conservatives and libertarians all pale in comparison to what is the most coveted of all libelous popular-culture mechanisms. I refer, of course, to the study. A "study," no matter how it is produced and, more importantly, no matter how ineptly it is analyzed, is repeated without question in the popular media if that study furthers a left-wing political perspective. Such studies are presented with pious credulity as liberal holy writ, from which absurd, illogical and irrational pronouncements are foisted on the public.

… The fundamental lesson here is that correlation is not causation. Further, a failure to consider the demographics of the study will inevitably taint the conclusions drawn from the results.

Now an "IQ test" given to Web surfers purports to show that users of Internet Explorer are all stupider than users of other browsers, many of which are presented as more hip, more modern, or functionally superior:

Researchers gave over 100,000 Web surfers a free online IQ test. Scores were stored in a database along with each person's Web browser data.

The results suggested that Internet Explorer surfers had an average IQ in the low 80s. Chrome, Firefox and Safari rated over 100, while minority browsers Opera and Camino had an "exceptionally higher" score of over 120.

[The consulting firm that conducted the study] stressed that using IE doesn't mean you have low intelligence. "What it really says is that if you have a low IQ then there are high chances that you use Internet Explorer," said AptiQuant CEO Leonard Howard.
The study is, on its face, rife with potential errors, not the least of which is that there is no way to verify the nature of the sample (which I have a hard time believing is random enough). More disturbing is that this "study" claims the Explorer users averaged an IQ in the 80s – a number so low that one wonders how those tested were able to switch on the computer and navigate to such a test without drooling into spit-cups nestled in their open and obsolete CD drives. I mean, honestly: 80? If you have an IQ that low, there's a good chance you live in a group home and aren't allowed to use a computer unsupervised.

There is no indication that any conclusions about the political leanings of the participants has been offered by AptiQuant, the consulting firm posing here as scientific or psychological research firm. It's probably only a matter of time before some lib somewhere tries to draw that conclusion, as the shortest increment of time yet measured by humanity is the interval between some undesirable fact or act and the assertion by leftists that right-wing tea-bagging hobbit terrorist radical extremist ideologues are responsible.

Don't be afraid!
are the MOB
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear

Monday, August 01, 2011

So you say you want a revolution? ~ By Patrice Lewis

We need look no further than our own history to find an example of constitutional government. Riddled with mistakes as it was, our nation leaped ahead 5,000 years in terms of technology, medicine, manufacturing, standard of living and other benefits – all due to the unique freedom from governmental interference our founders laid out. "By 1976," notes author W. Cleon Skousen, "the 'noble experiment' of American independence and free-enterprise economics had produced some phenomenal results … [it] allowed science to thrive in an explosion of inventions and technical discoveries …" Communication was revolutionized, the average life span was doubled and our standard of living was exponentially enhanced.

But this isn't good enough for the progressives. They want to make over our nation in their own image. They desire power instead of freedom. They prefer to be slave masters of a bankrupt state over being part of a free society.

So let's give them what they want.

Let's leap ahead and pretend that our nation has already divided. Most of the people reading this column will chose to live in the CSA. But what about those who chose to live in the PSA?

When the dust of producing a new country has settled and the hoopla has died down, the citizens of the PSA may eventually recognize what we've been trying to tell them all along: They've been able to get away with all their whining about entitlements and fake "rights" for as long as they have because they've been riding on the backs of those who supported our original Constitution. When that document is thrown out, everyone will want to get on the government dole. To paraphrase Margaret Thatcher, their socialism will work just fine until they run out of other peoples' money.

Then, and only then, might they realize how good they had it before screwing it up. And then we'll get to say, "I told you so."
There was a column that Patrice wrote last September which I have not quit thinking about, and which this column expounds on. Patrice wrote the following in "A House Divided":
We will never agree.

When it comes to progressives versus conservatives, there is no middle ground to agree upon. In other words, my liberal reader holds opinions so far in contrast to mine, and vice versa, that we will always differ on everything of political significance.
Here's the thing I worry about. Let's say that somehow, America divided as Patrice suggests. We're here in the CSA (Conservative States of America). A bloody civil war or revolution is avoided. So... Are we going to be unified? Would there not be disagreement on any issue? Assuming we have a Constitution similar to what the Founding Fathers came up with, there would still be free elections. Well, guess what? Would there not still be dissent? How about differences between the candidates to represent us? In my humble opinion, we would still have division, even in the Conservative States of America.

Well, if we are going to consider all of the options, we need to keep our options open. Patrice gave us the two options of revolution or dividing our country. But I believe there is a third option that needs to be added to what we need to explore.

The third option that I would want on the table is to avoid civil war or revolution. It will also avoid dividing the country as Patrice suggests. Unfortunately, there is a slight obstacle: It may take generations in order to reverse the direction this country has taken.

I know, that is a great challenge! And, hopefully, it isn't too late! It has been a long process for progressives to get America to where we are now. Education and the media had to fall under their control. Conservatives would have to reverse-engineer the process and methods that the Progressives have used over the last century.

Is this option possible? Yes, absolutely! It can be done! But, it will take effort, and a few of us may have to make sacrifices to get the word out, especially those of us that live in progressive territories (blue states). The time is NOW to make sure that we can offer some hope. The time is NOW to make sure that enough people are armed with the information that can be passed on to our future generations!

Allow me a moment to step out of the box, please. I really didn't want to tell you this, but I guess I should. In the past few months, I've seen my blog stats "slump a bit" (there's a major understatement for you!). The month of July was a total bust. It was giving me heartburn. I took some time off in order to get away for a few days and sort things out. I was giving great consideration to the thought of finding something else to do, like spending the rest of my life playing "Angry Birds."

Why? I was becoming an "angry bird." My frustration was overwhelming. I wondered if there was a reason to persist. I began thinking that it was time to call off the relentless pursuit of uninterrupted freedom. Apparently, it was easy for me to ignore the fact that there could be that one person that read what I had to say, that would possess the ability and the passion to fire up a lot of other people; no gunpowder needed. Giving up was not an option. That would eliminate the third option that I suggested above.

Patrice may be right that dividing the country into two separate entities would be a better solution than a revolution. But, as I remember it, there was a civil war the last time the United States divided. Or, here's another thought; think: North Korea and South Korea. How's that working out? I'm just sayin'...

UPDATE Aug 02, 2011:

Alex Jones makes a statement that I believe may be too close to the truth.  If he is right, everything that I wrote in this post is moot... In other words, it may be too late.

Video provided by TheAlexJonesChannel on Aug 1, 2011

The last words that Alex spoke in the video above are rather haunting: “Spread the word, warn the people, defend the Republic, defend liberty. You have been warned.”


*     *     *     *

So you say you want a revolution?

By Patrice Lewis

July 29, 2011 ~ 9:00 pm Eastern

© 2011

Consider these recent news headlines:
  • Republican and Democratic leaders are floating the idea of a new "Super Congress" not authorized in the Constitution
  • A legislative proposal in San Francisco seeks to make ex-cons and felons a protected class, along with existing categories of residents like African-Americans, people with disabilities and pregnant women.
Shall I go on? I located these headlines in about 30 seconds. I can list more if you like.

As these articles abundantly illustrate, our elected officials have abandoned all pretense of adhering to the Constitution and Bill of Rights. They don't even bother pretending anymore. In fact, their attitude is mockery and downright hostility whenever it is suggested that the government should limit itself to the small, streamlined entity it was meant to be.

Today, anyone who suggests our government is out of control is labeled a right-wing extremist or even a domestic terrorist. Yet all the constitutionalists and tea partiers want to do is return our nation to the governmental restraints outlined in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. We do not want a theocracy. We do not want an oligarchy. Is this too much to ask?

Sadly, yes. The progressives and the constitutionalists have no middle ground anymore. Listening to the arguments on both the left and the right provides abundant evidence that our nation as it currently exists is not salvageable. Freedom and slavery can never reach an accord.

I mean that in all seriousness. America as it was meant to be cannot be brought back on track. There are too many powerful people – virtually the entire government, mainstream media and populations of large urban areas – who are too addicted to spending, to entitlements, to control and to manufactured "rights." It's too late.

In an earlier column, I wrote that We the People are actually living in an occupied nation; the occupier – the enemy – is our own government. But progressives don't see the problem. That is, they don't see that an ever-growing governmental body is a bad thing – and they'd like to see more of it. They want our wealth redistributed. They want unconstitutional entitlements such as health care. They want the debt ceiling raised. They want everything they can lay their hands on when it comes to their agenda, and the Constitution be damned.

"The federal government is an out-of-control beast, no longer a body of representatives of the people but rather a house of aristocracy whose members do nothing unless it's for the good of their house," wrote a reader. "We the People have become nothing more than wage slaves to the gluttonous bloated entity our government has become. Nothing short of a military coup d'etat is capable of restoring our country back to the people, back to what was intended by the Founders."


Don't be afraid!
are the MOB
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear