Tuesday 10-04-16

Flash of the blinding obvious, hang in there Jerry and Ken.

But What Happens When There Are No Old Men?

From Instapundit:

Gangs of young men strutting and killing people is the default state for humanity. Civilization is what puts that under control. Until it doesn’t.

I was reminded, as I often am, by something I posted here many years ago -

I was reading an article the other day, in the local newspaper, about an elderly Korean gentleman who has moved into town and opened a martial arts studio. He chastened the reporter who had come to interview him not to suggest that the martial arts were 'all about fighting.' "No!" he said. "The purpose is social harmony."

That is exactly right. The secret of social harmony is simple: Old men must be dangerous.

Very nearly all the violence that plagues, rather than protects, society is the work of young males between the ages of fourteen and thirty. A substantial amount of the violence that protects rather than plagues society is performed by other members of the same group. The reasons for this predisposition are generally rooted in biology, which is to say that they are not going anywhere, in spite of the current fashion that suggests doping half the young with Ritalin.

The question is how to move these young men from the first group (violent and predatory) into the second (violent, but protective). This is to ask: what is the difference between a street gang and the Marine Corps, or a thug and a policeman? In every case, we see that the good youths are guided and disciplined by old men. This is half the answer to the problem.

But what happens when there aren't enough (or any) dangerous old men to guide the young ones?

Chicago. New Orleans.  Detroit.  St. Louis....

http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2016/09/but-what-happens-when-there-are-no-old.html

'Sixth sense does exist' scientists claim - but it's nothing to do with ghosts

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-news/sixth-sense-exist-scientists-claim-8964578

Tuesday 04-26-16

Common sense

Bright flash of light marks incredible moment life begins when sperm meets egg

Human life begins in bright flash of light as a sperm meets an egg, scientists have shown for the first time, after capturing the astonishing ‘fireworks’ on film.
An explosion of tiny sparks erupts from the egg at the exact moment of conception.
Scientists had seen the phenomenon occur in other animals but it is the first time is has been also shown to happen in humans.

“To see the zinc radiate out in a burst from each human egg was breathtaking.”

Professor Teresa Woodruff, Northwestern University

Not only is it an incredible spectacle, highlighting the very moment that a new life begins, the size of the flash can be used to determine the quality of the fertilised egg.
Researchers from Northwestern University, in Chicago, noticed that some of the eggs burn brighter than others, showing that they are more likely to produce a healthy baby.

Eggs flash as they meet sperm enzyme, capturing the moment that life begins Credit: NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY 

The discovery could help fertility doctors pick the best fertilised eggs to transfer during in vitro fertilisation (IVF).
“It was remarkable,” said Professor Teresa Woodruff, one of the study’s two senior authors and an expert in ovarian biology at Northwestern.
“We discovered the zinc spark just five years ago in the mouse, and to see the zinc radiate out in a burst from each human egg was breathtaking.
“This means if you can look at the zinc spark at the time of fertilization, you will know immediately which eggs are the good ones to transfer in in vitro fertilization.
“It’s a way of sorting egg quality in a way we’ve never been able to assess before. “All of biology starts at the time of fertilization, yet we know next to nothing about the events that occur in the human.”

A fluorescent flash captures the moment that sperm enzyme enters the egg Credit: Northwestern University 

Currently around 50 per cent of fertilised eggs do not develop properly and experts believe that faulty genetic code could be responsible.
Some clinics take videos of the egg developing to try pick up problems early, while others check for genetic mutations, but that is an invasive procedure which can damage the tiny egg. Often it is just down to a clinician decided which eggs look the healthiest.
But the new findings could give and extra indication that an egg is flourishing. A video of nine human eggs coming into contact with sperm enzyme showed two flashed much brighter than the rest.
“This is an important discovery because it may give us a non-invasive and easily visible way to assess the health of an egg and eventually an embryo before implantation,” said co-author Dr Eve Feinberg, who took care of the patients who provided eggs for the basic science study and collaborated with the research team. 
“There are no tools currently available that tell us if it’s a good quality egg. Often we don’t know whether the egg or embryo is truly viable until we see if a pregnancy ensues.
“That’s the reason this is so transformative. If we have the ability up front to see what is a good egg and what’s not, it will help us know which embryo to transfer, avoid a lot of heartache and achieve pregnancy much more quickly.”

The top right and bottom left egg flashed brighter showing they were healthier  Credit: Northwestern University 

The bright flash occurs because when sperm enters and egg it triggers calcium to increase which releases zinc from the egg. As the zinc shoots out, it binds to small molecules which emit a fluorescence which can be picked up my camera microscopes.
Over the last six years this team has shown that zinc controls the decision to grow and change into a completely new genetic organism.
In the experiment, scientists use sperm enzyme rather than actual sperm to show what happens at the moment of conception.
“These fluorescence microscopy studies establish that the zinc spark occurs in human egg biology, and that can be observed outside of the cell,” said Professor Tom O’Halloran, a co-senior author. 
In a companion paper published in Scientific Reports on March 18, a zinc spark is shown at the precise time a sperm enters a mouse egg.
This discovery was made by Zhang, a postdoctoral fellow at Northwestern.  Little is known about the events that occur at the time of fertilization, because it is difficult to capture the precise time of sperm entry.
The study will be published April 26 in Scientific Reports.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/04/26/bright-flash-of-light-marks-incredible-moment-life-begins-when-s/

Tuesday 03-29-16

Does The United States Still Exist? — Paul Craig Roberts

Does The United States Still Exist?
An address delivered to the Libertarian Party of Florida on March 23, 2016 in Destin, Florida
Paul Craig Roberts
To answer the question that is the title, we have to know of what the US consists. Is it an ethnic group, a collection of buildings and resources, a land mass with boundaries, or is it the Constitution. Clearly what differentiates the US from other countries is the US Constitution. The Constitution defines us as a people. Without the Constitution we would be a different country. Therefore, to lose the Constitution is to lose the country.
Does the Constitution still exist? Let us examine the document and come to a conclusion.
The Constitution consists of a description of a republic with three independent branches, legislative, executive, and judicial, each with its own powers, and the Bill of Rights incorporated as constitutional amendments. The Bill of Rights describes the civil liberties of citizens that cannot be violated by the government.
Article I of the Constitution describes legislative powers. Article II describes executive powers, and Article III describes the power of the judiciary. For example, Article I, Section 1 gives all legislative powers to Congress. Article I, Section 8 gives Congress the power to declare war.
The Bill of Rights protects citizens from the government by making law a shield of the people rather than a weapon in the hands of the government.
The First Amendment protects the freedom of speech, the press, and assembly or public protest.
The Second Amendment gives the people the right “to keep and bear arms.”
The Third Amendment has to do with quartering of soldiers on civilians, a large complaint against King George III, but not a practice of present-day armies.

The Fourth Amendment grants “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures” and prevents the issue of warrants except “upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” The Fourth Amendment prevents police and prosecutors from going on “fishing expeditions” in an effort to find some offense with which to charge a targeted individual.
The Fifth Amendment prohibits double jeopardy, self-incrimination, the taking of life, liberty, or property without due process and the prohibition of seizing property without just compensation.
The Sixth Amendment guarantees speedy and public trial, requires that a defendent be informed of the charge against him and to be confronted with the witnesses, to present witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of an attorney.
The Seventh Amendment gives the right of trial by jury to civil suits.
The Eighth Amendment prevents excessive bail and cruel and unusual punishments.
The Ninth Amendment says that the enumeration of certain rights in the Constitution does not deny or disparage others retained by the people. In other words, people have rights in addition to the those listed in the proscriptions against the government’s use of abusive power.
The Tenth Amendment reserves the rights not delegated to the federal government to the states.
The Tenth Amendment is a dead letter amendment. The Third Amendment protects against an abandoned abusive practice of government. The Seventh Amendment is still relevant as it allows damages in civil suits to be determined by a jury, once a protection against unfairness and today not always the case.
The other seven amendments comprise the major protections of civil liberty. I will examine them in turn, but first let’s look at Section 1 and Section 8 of Article I. These two articles describe the major powers of Congress, and both articles have been breached. The Constitution’s grant of “all legislative powers” to Congress has been overturned by executive orders and signing statements. The president can use executive orders to legislate, and he can use signing statements to render sections of laws passed by Congress and signed by the president into non-enforced status. Legislative authority has also been lost by delegating to executive branch officials the power to write the regulations that implement the laws that are passed. The right that Section 8 gives to Congress to declare war has been usurped by the executive branch. Thus, major powers given to Congress have been lost to the executive branch.
The First Amendment has been compromised by executive branch claims of “national security” and by extensive classification. Whistleblowers are relentlessly prosecuted despite federal laws protecting them. The right of assembly and public protest are overturned by arrests, tear gas, clubs, rubber bullets, water cannons, and jail terms. Free speech is also limited by political correctness and taboo topics. Dissent shows signs of gradually becoming criminalized.
The Fourth Amendment is a dead letter amendment. In its place we have warrantless searches, SWAT team home invasions, strip and cavity searches, warrantless seizures of computers and cell phones, and the loss of all privacy to warrantless universal spying.
The Fifth Amendment is a dead letter amendment. The criminal justice system relies on self-incrimination as plea bargains are self-incrimination produced by psychological torture, and plea bargains are the basis of conviction in 97% of all felony cases. Moreover, physical torture is a feature of the “war on terror” despite its illegality under both US statute and international law and is also experienced by inmates in the US prison system.
The Fifth Amendment’s protection against deprivation of life, liberty, and property without due process of law has been lost to indefinite detention, executive assassination, and property takings without compensation. The Racketer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) passed in 1970. The act permits asset freezes, which are takings. The Comprehensive Forfeiture Act passed in 1984 and permits police to confiscate property on “probable cause,” which often means merely the presence of cash.
The Sixth Amendment is a dead letter amendment. Prosecutors routinely withhold exculpatory evidence, and judges at prosecutors’ requests have limited attorneys’ ability to defend clients.The “war on terror” has introduced secret evidence and secret witnesses, making it impossible for a defendant and his attorney to defend against the evidence.
The Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of excessive bail and torture are routinely violated. It is another dead letter amendment.
It is paradoxical that every civil liberty in the Bill of Rights has been lost to a police state except for the Second Amendment, the gun rights of citizens. An armed citizenry is inconsistent with a police state, which the US now is.
Other aspects of our legal protections have been overturned, such as the long standing rule that crime requires intent. William Blackstone wrote: “An unwarrantable act without a vicious will is no crime at all.” But today we have crimes without intent. You can commit a crime and not even know it. See for example, Harvey Silverglate, Three Felonies A Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent.
Attorney-client privilege has been lost. The indictment, prosecution, and imprisonment of defense attorney Lynne Stewart is a good example. The DOJ prevailed on her to defend a blind Muslim regarded by the DOJ as a “terrorist.” She was informed that “special administrative measures” had been applied to her client. She received a letter from the federal prosecutor informing her that she and her client would not be permitted attorney-client privilege, and that she was required to permit the government to listen to her conversations with her client. She was told that she could not carry any communications from her client to the outside world. She regarded all this as illegal nonsense and proceeded to defend her client in accordance with attorney-client privilege. Lynne Stewart was convicted of violating a letter written by a prosecutor as if the prosecutor’s letter were a law passed by Congress and present in the US code. Based on a prosecutor’s letter, Lynne Stewart was sentenced to prison. No law exists that upholds her imprisonment.
Our civil liberties are often said to be “natural rights” to which we are entitled. However, in historical fact civil liberty is a human achievement that required centuries of struggle. The long struggle for accountable law that culminated in the Glorious Revolution in England in the late 17th century can be traced back to Alfred the Great’s codification of English common law in the 9th century and to the Magna Carta in the early 13th century. Instead of issuing kingly edicts, Alfred based law on the traditional customs and behavior of the people. The Glorious Revolution established the supremacy of the people over the law and held the king and government accountable to law. The United States and other former British colonies inherited this accomplishment, an accomplishment that makes law a shield of the people and not a weapon in the hands of the state.
Today law as a shield of the people has been lost. The loss was gradual over time and culminated in the George W. Bush and Obama regime assaults on habeas corpus and due process. Lawrence Stratton and I explain how the law was lost in our book, The Tyranny of Good Intentions. Beginning with Jeremy Bentham in the late 18th century, liberals saw the protective shield of law as a constraint on the government’s ability to do good. Bentham redefined liberty as the freedom of government from restraint, not the freedom of people from government. Bentham’s influence grew over time until in our own day, to use the words of Sir Thomas More in A man for All Seasons, the law was cut down so as to better chase after devils.
We cut down the law so that we could better chase after the Mafia.
We cut down the law so that we could better chase after drug users.
We cut down the law so that we could better chase after child abusers.
We cut down the law so that we could better chase after “terrorists.”
We cut down the law so that we could better chase after whistleblowers.
We cut down the law so that we could better cover up the government’s crimes.
Today the law is cut down. Any one of us can be arrested on bogus charges and be helpless to do anything about it.
There is very little concern in legal circles about this. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) does attempt to defend civil liberty. However, just as often the ACLU is not defending the civil liberties in the Bill of Rights that protect us from the abuse of government power, but newly invented “civil rights” that are not in the Constitution, such as “abortion rights,” the right to homosexual marriage, and rights to preferential treatment for preferred minorities.
An attack on abortion rights, for example, produces a far greater outcry and resistance than the successful attack on habeas corpus and due process. President Obama was able to declare his power to execute citizens by executive branch decision alone without due process and conviction in court, and it produced barely audible protest.
Historically, a government that can, without due process, throw a citizen into a dungeon or summarily execute him is considered to be a tyranny, not a democracy. By any historical definition, the United States today is a tyranny.

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2016/03/26/does-the-united-states-still-exist-paul-craig-roberts/

I mean, does this surprise anyone?  Mohamed did the same thing to a child.  Well mean except for getting arrested that is.  Well it was not in Texas either.  Well Mohamed married her* before he raped her, so I guess it is ok.

Cops: Illegal Immigrant Arrested for Raping, Impregnating 12-Year-Old in TX

An illegal immigrant has been arrested and charged with raping and impregnating a 12-year-old Texas girl, authorities say.
Prosecutors charged that in 2015 an illegal immigrant, Jose Alejandro Najarro, tried to convince his 12-year-old victim to have sex with him, but she refused. Refusing to take “no” for an answer, the suspect allegedly raped her at his home in Kyle, Texas.
Several months later, the girl was found to be pregnant and an investigation into her predicament was begun at that time. The girl told authorities she only had sex one time and that was with the suspect.
(the rest of the sick story is at)

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/03/28/illegal-immigrant-arrested-in-texas-for-raping-impregnating-12-year-old/


* excerpt from Wikipedia 

The majority of traditional hadith sources state that Aisha was married to Muhammad at the age of six or seven, but she stayed in her parents' home until the age of nine, or ten according to Ibn Hisham,^[11] when the marriage was consummated with Muhammad, then 53, in Medina.^[12][13][14] This timeline has been challenged by a number of scholars in modern times.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aisha

Saturday 03-05-16

Scientific paper which says the human hand was designed by a 'Creator' sparks controversy

A recent scientific paper on the movement of the human hand has faced strong criticism for referring to a 'Creator' throughout.

The paper, titled: 'Biomechanical characteristics of hand coordination in grasping activities of daily living' was written by a team of four researchers, three from Huazhong University in China, and one from Worcester Polytechnic Institute in Massachusetts.

Published in the PLOS ONE journal, the fairly conventional study looked at the mechanics of how we grasp things, and involved the measurement of the hand movements of 30 participants.


However, members of the scientific community have demanded the paper be retracted, for its several perceived references to the pseudoscientific theory of intelligent design and a possibly divine 'Creator'.
In the opening sentences of the study, it claims the link between muscles and hand movements is the product of "proper design by the Creator."
Later, it says human hand coordination "should indicate the mystery of the Creator's invention," and concludes by again claiming the mechanical architecture of the hand is the result of "proper design by the Creator."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/scientific-study-paper-creator-intelligent-design-plos-one-creatorgate-a6910171.html

High Value Steels–Getting Top Shelf Performance on the Cheap

 If you’re a steel junkie, then life is expensive. The latest blend of iron, carbon, and assorted other elements never comes cheap. Add to the pricey steel the cost of things like bearing pivots and handles with exotic materials, and you are regularly looking at knives that cost more then $300. It’s daunting. But there are a few steels that offer surprising performance for less than their competitors. Don’t be fooled by 154CM or S35VN or M390–these are great steels, but they are pricey for the performance you get. Some lesser known steels give you a ton of bang for your buck. Just to prove a point, let’s compare some steels known for high performance with two steels referenced in this article (note: the prices were from USA Knife Maker as of 2/18/16. I rounded some numbers up, and D2 has too many variants to price compare accurately). 154CM: $62 (.140 x 1.5 x 36) S35VN: $128 (.140 x 2 x 36) M390 (a.k.a. 20CV or CTS-204p): $140.31 (.159 x 2.5 x 36) 1095: $12 (.093 x 1 x 36) M4: $51.06 (.103-.113 x 1 x 36) As you can see, on a per unit volume basis, some of the steels we all know and love are very expensive in their bar stock form. It’s not a direct indicator of price, as knife companies buy in much larger volumes than single pieces of bar stock, but there is some correlation between bar stock price and the price of a completed knife sold to a consumer. Old School Carbon Steels (1095 and A2) Until about 20 years ago, if you wanted high hardness and toughness, you had to go old-school and get a non-stainless steel. Stuff like 440B and 420HC still can’t match high carbon steels in terms of edge retention. It’s only with the advent of high tech steels like powder metal steels that you get the corrosion resistance of stainless and the edge retention of carbon. With powder steels we finally have stainless that far surpasses the edge holding of high carbon steels. But this blend of characteristics comes at a cost, a high monetary cost. Dabbling in traditional knives has shown me the value of 1095. Sure, it won’t gleam after a few months of use, but it will take an edge and hold it much longer than stainless steels of comparative price. In my mind 1095’s best role is in a small, thinly ground folder. Lots and lots traditional knives and some kitchen knives use 1095 as a slicing steel, and it does very well there. Pressed into harder uses, the steel’s limitations become clear. Even when expertly ground and heat treated, 1095 is soft and dings often. A big fixed blade of 1095 is something you need to enjoy maintaining because you will be doing it a lot. A2 offers some really great performance as well, but as it is harder than 1095, it can do more cutting with less maintenance. I really like fixed blades with A2 as a good value choice. It’s not 3V, but it is about 1/3 the price. A 1095 knife: GEC’s #25 Small Jack An A2 knife: Northwoods Knives Iron River D2 Most metallurgists agree that a stainless steel is something with at least 12-14% chromium content. Under this definition D2 falls just short. But its performance, especially for the money, is something that never falls short. I have had more than a dozen knives with D2 and I have rarely complained. Like 1095, D2 has been around forever, and in that time it has been the darling of quite a few knife makers of some renown. Most famously, D2 is the steel of choice for Arkansas maker Bob Dozier. Dozier’s proprietary heat treat gets a lot of performance out of this golden oldie of a steel. Having owned a Dozier custom, I can say with certainty that the D2 blade was the highlight of the knife. Lots and lots of companies and custom makers start with D2. It is relatively easy to grind (given its hardness), there are lots of good heat treat protocols out there, and its performance, especially in edge retention, is something you can count on. In production knives D2 offers performance like some of the newer powder steels at a lower price. It will tarnish, but I have yet to have D2 go 1095 on me and completely patina over. It’s also nice to know that D2 is a steel that has been proven over and over again, basically since the 60s and 70s. We know what D2 does, and we know it works. A D2 knife: Brous Blade Bionic 2.0 (My review was of a Brous modded 1.0 version; all of the mods were incorporated into the 2.0 version.) M4 If you judged steels solely based on their performance at cutting M4 would be hard to beat. It is the choice of virtually every competitor in the BladeSport competition–a series of cutting challenges performed against a field for money. M4 is insanely hard, cutting for an extremely long time before needing sharpening. It rivals the best steels out there in terms of edge retention–ZDP-189, S110V, M390–all of them rank right around M4. M4 is a non-stainless steel and it patinas quickly, but what you get in return is truly world class edge retention. M4, like D2, has some proponents, among them Gayle Bradley. Bradley is a long time Blade Sport competitor, and his experience there and from making knives has led him to M4. Some of his customs run the steel, and all but one of his production collaborations uses M4 (that other collaboration uses PFS27 a powder version of D2… see the trend?). An M4 blade: Spyderco Gayle Bradley 2 or the discontinued Spyderco Gayle Bradley Air The bottom line is simple–you can be a steel junkie and not go broke if you are careful. There are some great steels out there for very little money, and with just a bit more you can get truly best in class performance. You make some compromises, of course, but M4 is downright awesome and D2 isn’t a slouch.

http://www.alloutdoor.com/2016/02/24/high-value-steels-getting-top-shelf-performance-cheap/#sthash.u7pdD8tl.dpuf

Wednesday 01-27-16

The Right to Tell the Government to Go to Hell: Free Speech in an Age of Government Bullies, Corporate Censors and Compliant Citizens

 
“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”― George Orwell
Free speech is not for the faint of heart.
Nor is it for those who are easily offended, readily intimidated or who need everything wrapped in a neat and tidy bow. Free speech is often messy, foul-mouthed, obscene, intolerant, undignified, insensitive, cantankerous, bawdy and volatile.
While free speech can also be tender, tolerant, soft-spoken, sensitive and sweet, it is free speech’s hot-blooded alter ego—the wretched, brutal, beastly Mr. Hyde to its restrained, dignified and civil Dr. Jekyll—that tests the limits of our so-called egalitarian commitment to its broad-minded principles.
Unfortunately, our appreciation for a robust freedom of speech has worn thin over the years.
Many Americans have become fearfully polite, careful to avoid offense, and largely unwilling to be labeled intolerant, hateful, closed-minded or any of the other toxic labels that carry a badge of shame today. We’ve come to prize civility over freedom. Most of all, too many Americans, held hostage by their screen devices and the talking heads on television, have lost the ability to think critically.
Societies that cherish free speech relish open debates and controversy and, in turn, produce a robust citizenry who will stand against authoritarian government. Indeed, oppressive regimes of the past have understood the value of closed-mouthed, closed-minded citizens and the power inherent in controlling speech and, thus, controlling how a people view their society and government.
We in the United States have a government with a ravenous appetite for power and a seeming desire to turn the two-way dialogue that is our constitutional republic into a one-way dictatorship. Emboldened by phrases such as “hate crimes,” “bullying,” “extremism” and “microaggressions,” the government is whittling away at free speech, confining it to carefully constructed “free speech zones,” criminalizing it when it skates too close to challenging the status quo, shaming it when it butts up against politically correct ideals, and muzzling it when it appears dangerous.
Free speech is no longer free.
Nor is free speech still considered an inalienable right or an essential liberty, even by those government entities entrusted with protecting it.
We’ve entered into an egotistical, insulated, narcissistic era in which free speech has become regulated speech: to be celebrated when it reflects the values of the majority and tolerated otherwise, unless it moves so far beyond our political, religious and socio-economic comfort zones as to be rendered dangerous and unacceptable.
Consider some of the kinds of speech being targeted for censorship or outright elimination.
Offensive, politically incorrect and “unsafe” speech: Disguised as tolerance, civility and love, political correctness has resulted in the chilling of free speech and the demonizing of viewpoints that run counter to the cultural elite. Consequently, college campuses have become hotbeds of student-led censorship, trigger warnings, microaggressions, and “red light” speech policies targeting anything that might cause someone to feel uncomfortable, unsafe or offended.
Bullying, intimidating speech: Warning that “school bullies become tomorrow’s hate crimes defendants,” the Justice Department has led the way in urging schools to curtail bullying, going so far as to classify “teasing” as a form of “bullying,” and “rude” or “hurtful” “text messages” as “cyberbullying.”
Hateful speech: Hate speech—speech that attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as gender, ethnic origin, religion, race, disability, or sexual orientation—is the primary candidate for online censorship. Corporate internet giants Google, Twitter and Facebook are in the process of determining what kinds of speech will be permitted online and what will be deleted.
Dangerous, anti-government speech: As part of its newly unveiled war on “extremism,” the Obama administration is partnering with the tech industry to establish a task force to counter online “propaganda” by terrorists hoping to recruit support or plan attacks. In this way, anyone who criticizes the government online is considered an extremist and will have their content reported to government agencies for further investigation or deleted.
The upshot of all of this editing, parsing, banning and silencing is the emergence of a new language, what George Orwell referred to as Newspeak, which places the power to control language in the hands of the totalitarian state. Under such a system, language becomes a weapon to change the way people think by changing the words they use. The end result is control.
In totalitarian regimes—a.k.a. police states—where conformity and compliance are enforced at the end of a loaded gun, the government dictates what words can and cannot be used. In countries where the police state hides behind a benevolent mask and disguises itself as tolerance, the citizens censor themselves, policing their words and thoughts to conform to the dictates of the mass mind lest they find themselves ostracized or placed under surveillance.
Even when the motives behind this rigidly calibrated reorientation of societal language appear well-intentioned—discouraging racism, condemning violence, denouncing discrimination and hatred—inevitably, the end result is the same: intolerance, indoctrination and infantilism.
Thus, while on paper, we are technically still free to speak, in reality, we are only as free to speak as a government official or corporate censor may allow.
The U.S. Supreme Court has long been the referee in the tug-of-war over the nation’s tolerance for free speech and other expressive activities protected by the First Amendment. Yet as I point out in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the Supreme Court’s role as arbiter of justice in these disputes is undergoing a sea change. Except in cases where it has no vested interest, the Court has begun to advocate for the government’s outsized interests, ruling in favor of the government in matters of war, national security, commerce and speech. When asked to choose between the rule of law and government supremacy, this Court tends to side with the government.
In the 225 years since the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was adopted, the rights detailed in that amendment—which assures the American people of the right to speak freely, worship freely, peaceably assemble, petition the government for a redress of grievances, and have a free press—have certainly taken a beating, but none more so than the right to free speech.
Nowhere in the First Amendment does it permit the government to limit speech in order to avoid causing offense, hurting someone’s feelings, safeguarding government secrets, protecting government officials, insulating judges from undue influence, discouraging bullying, penalizing hateful ideas and actions, eliminating terrorism, combatting prejudice and intolerance, and the like.
Unfortunately, in the war being waged between free speech purists who believe that free speech is an inalienable right and those who believe that free speech should be regulated, the censors are winning. Free speech zones, bubble zones, trespass zones, anti-bullying legislation, zero tolerance policies, hate crime laws and a host of other legalistic maladies dreamed up by politicians and prosecutors have conspired to corrode our core freedoms.
If we no longer have the right to tell a Census Worker to get off our property, if we no longer have the right to tell a police officer to get a search warrant before they dare to walk through our door, if we no longer have the right to stand in front of the Supreme Court wearing a protest sign or approach an elected representative to share our views, if we no longer have the right to voice our opinions in public—no matter how misogynistic, hateful, prejudiced, intolerant, misguided or politically incorrect they might be—then we do not have free speech.
What we have instead is regulated, controlled speech, and that’s a whole other ballgame.
Just as surveillance has been shown to “stifle and smother dissent, keeping a populace cowed by fear,” government censorship gives rise to self-censorship, breeds compliance, makes independent thought all but impossible, and ultimately foments a seething discontent that has no outlet but violence.
The First Amendment is a steam valve. It allows people to speak their minds, air their grievances and contribute to a larger dialogue that hopefully results in a more just world. When there is no steam valve—when there is no one to hear what the people have to say—frustration builds, anger grows and people become more volatile and desperate to force a conversation.
The problem as I see it is that we’ve lost faith in the average citizen to do the right thing. We’ve allowed ourselves to be persuaded that we need someone else to think and speak for us. The result is a society in which we’ve stopped debating among ourselves, stopped thinking for ourselves, and stopped believing that we can fix our own problems and resolve our own differences.
In short, we have reduced ourselves to a largely silent, passive populace, content to watch and not do. In this way, we have become our worst enemy. As U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis once warned, a silent, inert citizenry is the greatest menace to freedom.
Brandeis provided a well-reasoned argument against government censorship in his concurring opinion in Whitney v. California (1927). It’s not a lengthy read, but here it is boiled down to ten basic truths:

1. The purpose of government is to make men free to develop their faculties, i.e., THINK. 2. The freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think are essential to the discovery and spread of political truth. 3. Without free speech and assembly, discussion would be futile. 4. The greatest menace to freedom is a silent people. 5. Public discussion is a political duty, and should be a fundamental principle of the American government. 6. Order cannot be secured through censorship. 7. Fear breeds repression; repression breeds hate; and hate menaces stable government. 8. The power of reason as applied through public discussion is always superior to silence coerced by law. 9. Free speech and assembly were guaranteed in order to guard against the occasional tyrannies of governing majorities. 10. To justify suppression of free speech, there must be reasonable ground (a clear and present danger) to believe that the danger apprehended is imminent, and that the evil to be prevented is a serious one.

Perhaps the most important point that Brandeis made is that freedom requires courage. “Those who won our independence by revolution were not cowards,” he wrote. “They did not fear political change. They did not exalt order at the cost of liberty.” Rather, they were “courageous, self-reliant men, with confidence in the power of free and fearless reasoning applied through the processes of popular government.”
In other words, the founders did not fear the power of speech. Rather, they embraced it, knowing all too well that a nation without a hearty tolerance for free speech, no matter how provocative, insensitive or dangerous, will be easy prey for a police state where only government speech is allowed.
What the police state wants is a nation of sheep that will docilely march in lockstep with its dictates. What early Americans envisioned was a nation of individualists who knew exactly when to tell the government to go to hell.

https://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/john_whiteheads_commentary/the_right_to_tell_the_government_to_go_to_hell_free_speech_in_an_age_o

Feds foresee $30 trillion debt, blame looming tax hikes and Obamacare

 
The federal government will be flirting with $30 trillion in debt within a decade, the Congressional Budget Office reported Monday, blaming an aging population, new spending and tax cuts approved on Capitol Hill, and the growing burden from Obamacare for erasing the progress Washington had made over the past few years.
Analysts said Obamacare will chase more workers out of the labor force over the next five years, adding pressure to an economy still struggling to spring to life more than seven years into the Obama recovery.

 

The Affordable Care Act itself is still struggling to attract a customer base, the CBO said, lowering its estimate for the number of people who will sign up for the exchanges from 21 million to 13 million — a drop of nearly 40 percent in projections. Customers collecting taxpayer subsidies this year will be 11 million, down from the 15 million the CBO projected a year ago.

---

---

The grim news comes with less than a year left for President Obama to put the law on firmer footing as he seeks to head off what is likely to be a last effort at repealing the act after November’s elections.
The economic front is somewhat brighter for Mr. Obama, who seven years into the recovery will finally see significant sustained growth of 2.5 percent this year and 2.6 percent next year, the CBO said.
That will be followed by a cooling off, with growth dropping below 2 percent in 2019 and 2020. The economic gains will continue to go disproportionately to the wealthy, helping boost income tax revenue but limiting payroll taxes, which will put even more pressure on the entitlement programs that are driving up deficits.

---

---

The biggest fiscal dent, however, was made late last year when Mr. Obama and the Republican-run Congress struck a deal. The president won significant spending hikes, and Republicans insisted on a new round of special tax breaks that, combined, reversed years of progress and added nearly $750 billion to projected deficits over the next decade.
“After six consecutive years in which the deficit has declined relative to the size of the economy, this year’s deficit — at 2.9 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) — is anticipated to increase for the first time since it peaked at 9.8 percent in 2009,” the CBO said.
Deficits will continue to rise over the next 10 years, topping $1 trillion again in 2022 and reaching $1.4 trillion in 2026, the analysts said.
The accumulation of those deficits will deepen the gross public debt from $18.1 trillion at the end of 2015 to $29.3 trillion in 2026. By contrast, the debt stood at $10.6 trillion when Mr. Obama took office in 2009.
Looking decades into the future, the picture only gets worse, the CBO said.
“Beyond the 10-year period, if current laws remained in place, the pressures that had contributed to rising deficits during the baseline period would accelerate and push debt up even more sharply. Three decades from now, for instance, debt held by the public is projected to equal 155 percent of GDP, a higher percentage than any previously recorded in the United States,” the analysts concluded.
The grim picture has sparked fear among budget watchdogs and on Capitol Hill — though Democrats and Republicans remain at odds over the best way to tackle the problem. Republicans favor tax cuts to spur the economy, and Democrats call for tax increases and government spending to invest in growth.
In the short term, the tax cuts have deepened the deficit, the CBO said. But so have the tax increases under Mr. Obama’s policies, including the Affordable Care Act’s levy on high-income taxpayers.
“The ACA’s largest effect on the labor market — especially as overall employment conditions improve — will come from provisions of the act that raise effective marginal tax rates on earnings, thereby reducing how much some people choose to work,” the CBO said. “The act also directly imposes higher taxes on some people’s labor income. Because both effects on labor supply will grow over the next few years, CBO projects, they will subtract from economic growth over that period.”

On the enrollment side, the news is also troubling. The exchanges, which are the online marketplaces where those without coverage can buy plans, are struggling to meet goals.
The CBO said enrollment this year is now likely to be only 13 million customers — down from the 21 million projected a year ago. Of the enrollees, just 11 million will get government subsidies — down from the 15 million the CBO previously projected.
The updated projections were released as part of the CBO’s 2016 budget outlook and confirm the administration’s own dim estimates of how many people would take advantage of the health care exchanges, which are at the heart of the Affordable Care Act.
The Obama administration already dropped its own projections of enrollment, saying the pool of available customers was smaller than it thought, so there are simply fewer people to be nudged into signing up.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jan/25/warning-feds-now-foresee-30-trillion-debt/

Saturday 01-02-16

Common sense for the new year

When Mr. Chandler's comments arrived by email, I immediately requested his permission to post them as an article in yer ol' Woodpile Report. Fortunately for Woodpile Report readers, he consented. Mr. Chandler writes from Australia, a nation that has suffered draconian gun laws and outright confiscation of previously legal arms. Requests for re-posting will be forwarded to the author.

On Assault Rifles
Guest post by B. Chandler

As a preface I will note that I was in high school in 1996 when our laws came down, and at that time owned no guns for anyone to pry from my cold, dead hands.
The common conception of how an assault weapon ban will pan out in America usually follows the same inscrutable logic. The Feds will ban the weapons and the citizens will revolt. Truth, Justice and the American way will be restored. The end.
I would offer an alternative. It's less patriotic, there's no swelling crescendo of "from sea to shining sea", and there's no happy ending. Thus it's completely impossible. I offer it none-the-less.
After some run of the mill atrocity "that happens nowhere in the world but the USA" the Feds manage to pass a law banning "assault rifles". There is a generous buyback included, paid for by the federal money spigot. They know only a few guns will be handed in initially so it's more than affordable.
A thousand legal battles will be launched but they will take time to come to fruition and the government is not bound to wait until the result comes out in the wash.
Meanwhile there will be a groundswell of protest. People will march in the streets with their ARs and AKs. No matter. The buy-back amnesty runs for six months. Nobody is breaking the law. Meanwhile other more important factors are coming into play.
Immediately noticeable is the disappearance of online trading in the banned articles. The guns themselves. Magazines for said guns. Etc. Companies like Cheaper Than Dirt can be easily bankrupted by court orders to cease and desist trade. They will not martyr themselves. Gun ranges, also typically being business entities, will no sooner allow you to arrive with banned assault weapons than they would allow you to bring in a pound of cocaine. "Just give the courts some time work it out, Joe", they'll say. Some ranges will shrug off the rules. Nothing will come of it. Not until later.
Similarly, larger companies that manufacture such guns are now either forced to go back to building bolt action rifles or go to work for the government. Back room deals will be made. Nobody will be out so much as a dollar. "Just go along quietly. After all. If the American people want freedom then it doesn't fall to Remington to drag them to it kicking and screaming."
The months will tick by. The protests will start to dwindle in number and attendance. The amnesty is still in effect and many are starting to wonder how this thing is going to go down. After all. Nobody has started shooting so far, at least as far as the mainstream media is saying, and can you really trust those Alex jones types?
Joe Average is starting to wonder if he really wants to bury several thousand dollars of guns. After all, they're fetching top dollar in private sales. Consequently many Joe Averages divest themselves of any skin they had in the game. In any case, they still have their deer rifle and their .45, and that's enough to fight tyranny, right?
The hour draws nigh. The amnesty is drawing to a close. Finally, federal tyranny will have to bare it's teeth and be put down like the monster it is. The protests fire back up. Cold, dead hands, etc etc!
The amnesty is extended for another three months. The cycle begins anew. By the second extension of the amnesty the assault rifle owners have become quite drawn and haggard. Nobody is kicking in their doors and they're getting tired of perpetually attending protests or talking tough on the internet. By the time the final extension peters out the protests are lackluster.
True enough, there are still a LOT of assault rifles in circulation. The majority of them in fact. Many have since been buried. Many sit by bedsides or other handy locations, awaiting the inevitable jack boot of tyranny to come stomping. Their owners grimly await a valiant death in defense of liberty.
They are left waiting.
Protests continue, albeit on a smaller scale. People photographed at such gatherings with illegal weapons start to lose their jobs or their contracts. "Can't be seen to associate with people flaunting the law, you understand." No crackdowns required.
Meanwhile trade in the guns and their parts is closed save for the black market. What breaks or wears down has to be replaced by hand or not at all. Internet forum moderators studiously ban all talk of such things. They can be shut down easily if they were seen to be aiding and abetting lawlessness. Videos on Youtube and other video hosting websites that contain footage of the weapons in anything other than a blatantly historical context are removed, "just to be on the safe side".
Only a few brave bloggers are left to post such content as they are able, and they will later be rounded up by their internet service providers as would be someone caught posting risque pictures of children. No top-down federal tyranny required. The SWAT teams continue playing cards to pass the time.
By this stage the various cases have wound their way through the Supreme Court. If the ban is overturned then a few words in the legislation will be tweaked and it will be passed again. The slowing of momentum would require sophisticated equipment to detect. In any case, no company is going to bet the farm on retooling to ramp up supply of guns that might be illegal in another six months.
As time ticks by we will see an all too familiar story recurring across the nation.
An anonymous call from a concerned neighbor will have the police knocking on Joe Average's door at 3 in the morning. "Domestic dispute", they'll say, "you have to let us in".
"I live alone", he might reply.
"We have to verify that", they will counter.
The rest is inevitable. Either Joe has hidden his gun(s) exceptionally well at short notice or he's going to find himself dead to rights. Maybe he's buried his guns in preparation for the day when he get's the memo from the ghost of Guy Fawkes instructing him to dig them up and RSVP for the revolution scheduled for Tuesday-week. Those guns thus buried will be fodder for future archaeologists.
Most likely, Joe will long have come to hate that gun. It will burn in his presence like the beating of Edgar Allen Poe's Tell-tale Heart. Chances are he'll toss it in the river or sell it to some shady character down at the bar, if not by his own determination then by the insistence of his wife.
"Anonymous tip leads to discovery of illegal weapon cache" will be the mainstream media cliche for a decade. The inference will be that the person in question is either a terrorist or a gang member. Their life will be turned upsidown. If they plead guilty then they get to go home and live out their lives as a convicted felon with a suspended sentence.
The few that try to fight the charges will end up in federal prison as an example to the rest. Their fate will be lamented by internet patriots for five minutes per occurrence, during which many will tout the fact that they'll never give up their deer rifles, such being the necessary tool to defeat Federal tyranny.
Others will shrug their shoulders.
"We may not like it, but it's the law...
We live in a democracy...
Yadda yadda yadda..."

By the 20 year mark a new generation will come of age wondering how it was ever possible for people to legally own such deadly and dangerous weapons.

The odd AR or AK will turn up in grand-dad's wardrobe after he shuffles off this mortal coil and the lawful ownership of such weapons in the USA will end not with a bang but with a whimper.
Nobody has a crystal ball but you can reliably bet that while you have clean(ish) water, electricity, beer and television that the second amendment will only be diluted further. Ask the typical infantry grunt back from Fallujah how much of his kit he'd be allowed to legally own off-base without special federal permission slips.

http://woodpilereport.com/

Immorality and Contempt for Liberty

American immorality and contempt for liberty lie at the root of most of the political economic problems our nation faces. They explain the fiscal problems we face, such as growing national debt and budget deficits at the federal, state and local levels of government. Our immorality and contempt for liberty are reflected most in our widespread belief that government ought to forcibly use one American to serve the purposes of another American. Let's examine it.

Suppose there is an elderly widow in your neighborhood. She does not have the strength to mow her lawn, clean her windows and perform other household tasks. Plus she does not have the financial means to hire someone to perform them. Here is my question: Would you support a government mandate that forces one of your neighbors to mow the widow's lawn, clean her windows and perform other household tasks? Moreover, if the person so ordered failed to obey the government mandate, would you approve of some sort of sanction, such as a fine, property confiscation or imprisonment? I believe and hope that most of my fellow Americans would find such a mandate repulsive. They would rightfully condemn it as a form of slavery, which can also be described as the forcible use of one person to serve the purposes of another.
Would there be the same condemnation if, instead of forcing one of your neighbors to actually perform the household tasks, your neighbor were forced to fork over $50 of his weekly earnings to the widow? That way, she could hire someone to perform the tasks that she is unable to do. Would that mandate differ from one under which your neighbor is forced to actually perform the household tasks? I'd answer no. Just the mechanism differs for forcibly using one person to serve the purposes of another.
Most Americans would want to help this widow, but they would find anything that openly smacks of servitude or slavery deeply offensive. They would have a clearer conscience if government would use its taxing authority, say an income tax or property tax. A government agency could then send the widow a $50 check to hire someone to mow her lawn and perform other household tasks. This collective mechanism would make the servitude invisible, but it wouldn't change the fact that people are being forcibly used to serve the purposes of others. Putting the money into a government pot simply conceals an act that would otherwise be deemed morally repulsive.
Some might misleadingly argue that we are a democracy, in which the majority rules. But a majority consensus does not make acts that would otherwise be deemed immoral moral. In other words, if the neighbors got a majority vote to force one of their number, under pain of punishment, to perform household tasks for the elderly widow, it would still be immoral. People like to give immoral acts an aura of moral legitimacy by noble-sounding expressions, such as "spreading the wealth," "income redistribution," "caring for the less fortunate" and "the will of the majority."
If one American can use government to force another to serve his purpose, what is the basis for denying another American the right to do the same thing? For example, if farmers are able to use Congress to give them cash for crop subsidies, why should toymakers be denied the right for Congress to give them cash subsidies when their sales slump?
Congress has completely succumbed to the pressure to use one American to serve the purposes of another. As a result, spending grows. Today's federal budget is about $3.8 trillion. At least two-thirds of it can be described as Congress taking the earnings of one American to give to another.
I personally believe in helping one's fellow man in need. Doing so by reaching into one's own pockets is laudable and praiseworthy. Doing so by reaching into another's pockets is evil and worthy of condemnation.
Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

http://www.creators.com/opinion/walter-williams/immorality-and-contempt-for-liberty.html

Tuesday 11-10-15

Hopefully you can tell which is which.

Man with terminal cancer marries sex doll so he doesn't leave a grieving widow

Wedding: A 28-year-old man has married an inflatable doll

A man with terminal cancer was desperate to get married - but didn't want to leave a heartbroken widow.
His solution? Get married to a SEX DOLL.
Now his surprisingly tasteful wedding pictures have become a viral sensation in his native China.
The Beijing man reportedly wanted to experience a fancy wedding shoot before he died, so he brought the life-like inflatable doll and got the full works - including a make up artist and a beautiful wedding dress.
In the pictures he is seen tenderly holding his plastic 'bride', enjoying a first dance in a ballroom and even taking part in candid shots in front of the make-up mirror.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-news/chinese-man-with-terminal-cancer-6792493

Sonny with a Chance of Showers

Maybe so, but we doubt that he's 99 and 99/100ths percent pure.

Quietly weeping mourners braved dark clouds and chill winds yesterday to attend the graveside services for Common Sense, which finally passed away this week after a long, painful, and ultimately hopeless battle with Liberalism.

The final blow was thought to be the Department of Education's ruling that a transgendered student who self-identifies as female but was born male, and still has male genitalia, must be allowed to shower with the girls on the school soccer team.

To the school's credit, they had previously done everything possible to accommodate "the girl with something extra," including providing a privacy curtain for shower time. But that still wasn't acceptable to the student - who is apparently either an asshole or a bitch, depending on whether you believe gender is genetic or simply a choice.

Which is why the Department of Education conducted a taxpayer-funded two-year investigation into what should be done (and the Dems are whining about the length of the Benghazi hearings?!) before determining that the student was being discriminated against "on the basis of sex." Because, no doubt, they didn't want to say "on the basis of having a skin flute."

"All students deserve the opportunity to participate equally in school programs and activities - this is a basic civil right," said Assistant US Secretary Catherine Lhamon, adding "including showering with nubile young athletic women, their skin delightfully flushed from their exertions, and watching the sinuous streams of water course sensuously over their firm young breasts before racing down, down, down to disappear into the heady tangled forests surrounding their teammates' forbidden love grottos."

Okay, she didn't say that last part word for word, but we're pretty sure it was implied.

Hope n' Change isn't against reasonable accomodation of transgendered people, but that word "reasonable" needs to be emphasized. With a Louisville Slugger, if necessary. Which should also be the case when dealing with other ludicrously clear cases in which "self-identifying" doesn't make something true. And we don't just mean Rachel Dolezal's "blackness," Elizabeth Warren's claim to be "Native American," Ahmed's timed detonator that identifies as a "clock," or B. Hussein's transparently ridiculous assertion that he self-identifies as a Christian.

For instance, a 12 year old who "identifies" as an adult shouldn't get to buy booze. A 25 year old who "identifies" as a senior citizen shouldn't be able to collect Social Security payments.  An 11 year old girl who "identifies" as a grown woman shouldn't be able to be a consensual sex partner for a pederast. Yet in our society, it seems increasingly likely that any and all of these things could come to pass.

If Common Sense was still with us, we think it would present us with an elegantly simple solution to the problems above: the requirement of a "No Dicks" sign outside girls shower rooms, and perhaps an identical one to tell the dicks in Washington to start solving problems instead of inventing them.

http://hopenchangecartoons.blogspot.com/

Wednesday 11-04-15

Sorry a little late today, things come up.  I try to be a little ahead of the curve most of the time, but life does not always cooperate.  lol

Here are two polar opposite stories, or maybe they are not.  It does not make sense,  people are going crazy.  You tell me which one will be considered a hate crime?  I'm not necessarily talking about the people in the two stories either.

Mississippi man 'bombed a Walmart store after the chain stopped selling the Confederate flag'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3302087/You-better-run-Mississippi-man-allegedly-warned-employee-escape-bombing-Wal-Mart-store-chain-stopped-selling-state-flag.html

and the other story is

Fight over Confederate Flag decal could be investigated as hate crime, police say
http://fox13now.com/2015/11/02/fight-over-confederate-flag-decal-could-be-investigated-as-hate-crime-police-say/

***************************************************************************

Disliking something is not the same as fearing it. If you don't like the taste of chili, it doesn't mean that you're chiliphobic.

Jim Goad at takimag.com

Hillary should have listened to Bill

Posted by David Hardy · 2 November 2015 09:41 AM

Nearly two years ago, "Bill Clinton Warns Democrats Against Overreaching on Gun Debate."
"Former President Bill Clinton warned a group of top Democratic donors at a private Saturday meeting not to underestimate the passions that gun control stirs among many Americans.
"Do not patronize the passionate supporters of your opponents by looking down your nose at them," Clinton said.
"Alot of these people live in a world very different from the world lived in by the people proposing these things," Clinton said. "I know because I come from this world.""

http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2015/11/hillary_should_.php