Posts Tagged ‘PEOPLE’


by Stephen Levine on Tuesday, April 8th, 2014

This is article 305 of 342 in the topic Global Warming


Artisanal violence? You have to hand it to the Orwellian progressive socialist democrats to develop new word and definitions to hide their fundamentally corrupt agenda of destroying America from within … [My comments in blue italic]

 Let’s Call Climate Change What It Really Is—Violence

If you’re poor, the only way you’re likely to injure someone is the old traditional way: artisanal violence, we could call it – by hands, by knife, by club, or maybe modern hands-on violence, by gun or by car.

But if you’re tremendously wealthy, you can practice industrial-scale violence without any manual labor on your own part. You can, say, build a sweatshop factory that will collapse in Bangladesh and kill more people than any hands-on mass murderer ever did, or you can calculate risk and benefit about putting poisons or unsafe machines into the world, as manufacturers do every day. If you’re the leader of a country, you can declare war and kill by the hundreds of thousands or millions. And the nuclear superpowers – the US and Russia – still hold the option of destroying quite a lot of life on Earth.

[Can you clearly see the socialist tactic of class warfare in the rhetoric, pitting numerous poor masses against the rich to create social division and chaos – possibly erupting to mass demonstrations, violence, and then on to revolution?]

So do the carbon barons. But when we talk about violence, we almost always talk about violence from below, not above.

[A new term has been created – carbon barons – vaguely similar to the hated “robber barons” of old and the socialist unions fight to control labor.]

Or so I thought when I received a press release last week from a climate group announcing that “scientists say there is a direct link between changing climate and an increase in violence“. What the scientists actually said, in a not-so-newsworthy article in Nature two and a half years ago, is that there is higher conflict in the tropics in El Nino years, and that perhaps this will scale up to make our age of climate change also an era of civil and international conflict. The message is that ordinary people will behave badly in an era of intensified climate change.

[This is the big lie – the conflating of correlation with causation. I can prove a 100% correlation between water drinkers and hard drug users, but did the water induce individuals to take drugs. Yes, this would be a stupid connection and conclusion.

Some of the violence will be happenstance attributable to individuals who are criminals and crazies, some of the violence will be purposeful, governments seeking to oppress their people and use scarce food, water, energy, and sanitation resources to gain and maintain political and military power. And, much of what will be cited is simply a coincidental correlation with climate. By the way, weather is the short-term phenomena that we experience on a day-to-day basis and climate is the long-term trend over significant periods of time.]

All this makes sense, unless you go back to the premise and note that climate change is itself violence. Extreme, horrific, long-term, widespread violence.


1 2 3
Go straight to Post

Your Need Limits to be Free

by Dr. Robert Owens on Sunday, March 9th, 2014

This is article 27 of 29 in the topic Forms of Government

The problem with anarchy is that it must become organized to accomplish anything.  Then like militant apathy it declares war against the machine never realizing that it is merely another cog in the wheel that grinds itself to dust. 
The Law of Liberty defines that space where an individual is secure and free to live their life as they choose. 

The life of humanity with society is only possible because the vast majority of people act within the framework of certain rules.  As society becomes more complex these rules evolve from the basic instinct of what is right and wrong to evermore explicit guidelines that are both general and abstract. 

The fact that we are the products of thousands of years and hundreds of generations of institutional law makes us as blind to the intricate and all-encompassing nature of this skeleton upon which our society lives and moves.  Just as a fish does not notice the water within which it moves and we are not constantly aware of the air in which we move our social self is not aware of the framework of laws which daily provide the context within which we find our meaning. 

If we were to have one flash of insight which revealed to us the web of law, tradition, and ceremony within which we move we would realize that it is no more the invention of design of one person or group than the ubiquitous personal computer upon which I am writing this essay and upon which you are reading it.  We realize that this wonder of technology that in so many ways defines our lives has evolved by fits and starts.  One person or group developed this and some other individual or group added that.  From hardware to software we have advanced from the Commodore to the Mac from the mainframe to the tablet.  To trace the development of the life changing wonder now takes volumes yet we wake up every morning, turn it on, go to work, and never give a thought as to how it got here.  Such is the scaffold which delineates both our limits and our freedom. 

In the simplest of societies, when two individuals meet a basic level of order is inherently understood thus establishing a sphere of action that is recognized as belonging to each one separately.  In personal relations this is usually through the unconscious acceptance of rules inbred by that society not by formal law.  These are habits of thought and action not expressed as legally proscribed but instead as universally accepted. 

This is the basis for the abstract nature of human society wherein individuals respond in a similar manner to circumstances which share some but not all things in common.  People will obey and follow such abstract rules long before it becomes necessary to write them down.  People knew it was wrong to murder or steal long before it became necessary to have formal laws saying these actions were illegal.   

The most important aspect of laws in relation to freedom is that they need to be general and they need to apply to everyone equally as opposed to directives which are specific and focused.  It is vitally important to keep these two aspects of society’s structure clearly understood and delineated.   

Laws should be applicable to all people at all times in all places.  In this way they do not encumber our freedom and are more as a natural part of the environment with which all must contend equally.  As laws are applied in varying situations they become more specific and directed morphing from law into directive.  Directives proscribe the actions of individuals and laws define the actions of all. 

For example in a large enterprise most of the time individuals will go about their tasks without singular guidance.  They will follow standing orders adapting them to unique situations as they arise only on rare occasions receiving specific direction.  In other words within the sphere of general subordination most of the time is spent as an autonomous actor accomplishing individual tasks. 

In this large enterprise we envision all activity is directed ultimately by the highest authority.  In order to provide for the appearance of unforeseen and unforeseeable events a certain amount of latitude is always allowed to the individual.  This is the sphere of freedom even within a tightly controlled environment.  Of course this also means that the means to any end must be presupposed to be allocated to any particular individual presented with any particular circumstance.  Such an allocation of resources might be the assignment of particular things or times that can be applied by the individual to their own design. 

These general guidelines for individuals can only be altered by new laws from the highest authority that are announced for longer periods of time and for more unforeseen events.  These new laws may serve to change the shape or complexion of the sphere of freedom however they will apply to everyone and therefore become an impediment to personal freedom akin to a natural barrier affecting all the same.  Everyone must climb the same mountain to reach the same valley.   

Thus within even a tightly controlled enterprise each individual comes to know what their sphere of liberty is, where it ends, and another’s begins.  This is how, even within societies that mandated the communal ownership of the means of production and the state ownership of everything else such as the former USSR, people still spoke of “My” house, “My” clothes, and “My” children.  

Some measure of liberty will always exist as long as humans are humans.  Even as our current government seeks to exert control over the totality of life our sphere of liberty still exists.   

The greatest safeguard for the preservation and restoration of liberty is the limitation of the power of government to move beyond the general into the specific.  As long as laws apply to everyone the individual is secure.  As long as the laws our representatives pass apply to them as well as us we are all secure.  However when we find ourselves dominated by a perpetually re-elected ruling class aided, abetted, and encouraged by a unionized civil-service-protected nomenclature intent on ignoring constitutionally mandated limits we approach a time when the directives of the few will trump the laws of the many.   

We need limits to be free.  In a complex society we need laws to have limits.  The Constitution was written to limit the laws to certain areas for certain reasons making them general and universally applied.  The progression of the advocates of control past the written certainty of the Constitution to the fog of the Living Document seeks to issue directives that are specific and individually applied.   

Anarchy does not bring freedom but neither does totalitarian control.  Somewhere in between is the sweet spot.  Somewhere in between lies a dynamic relationship where each person does not do whatever is right in their own eyes and no one attempts to make every decision for everyone everywhere.  Somewhere in between is a place that declares that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness has been endowed upon everyone equally by our creator.  Somewhere in between lays a more perfect union of limited government, personal liberty, and economic opportunity.  We were there once.  Let’s find our way home. 

Keep the faith, keep the peace, we shall overcome. 


Click to continue reading “Your Need Limits to be Free”
Go straight to Post

South Carolina: Concealed carry in Restaurants that serve alcohol and bars, ONLY two states will still ban guns in restaurants that serve alcohol

by John Lott on Sunday, February 16th, 2014

This is article 512 of 603 in the topic Gun Rights
From The State newspaper (South Carolina):

Gov. Nikki Haley has signed a bill allowing people with concealed-weapon permits to bring their guns into restaurants and bars in South Carolina, if the businesses do not prohibit it.

The law took effect with Haley’s signature Tuesday.

The Republican governor stresses it is illegal for people to drink alcohol while carrying a gun. Under the law, anyone caught would have the permit revoked for five years, plus face up to two years in prison and a $2,000 fine.

Businesses can post a sign barring concealed weapons. . . .

North Carolina now allows concealed carry in restaurants serving alcohol and bars and in March Illinois will soon allow it also.  With South Carolina’s new law, only two states will still have such a ban.  The map below doesn’t show these changes.

Go straight to Post


by Stephen Levine on Friday, December 6th, 2013

This is article 510 of 576 in the topic Media

Even though Nelson Mandela was a great revolutionary leader who brought about significant and beneficial change in his country, let us not forget that behind the smile and affable nature, he was a militant communist.

Although initially committed to non-violent protest, he co-founded the militant Umkhonto we Sizwe (MK) in 1961 in association with the South African Communist Party, leading a sabotage campaign against the apartheid government. In 1962 he was arrested, convicted of conspiracy to overthrow the government, and sentenced to life imprisonment in the Ravinia Trial. Read more.

Before we allow the politically correct progressive socialist to create another folk hero, take a closer look at the man behind the media myth. What you might find will often astound you as the media engages in revisionist history that eliminates troubling associations and actions in the very simplification of the story.

While Mandela fought against a great injustice, and paid a high personal price, in the final analysis, it was all about using the people to gain political power.

Go straight to Post


by Stephen Levine on Monday, September 30th, 2013

This is article 16 of 55 in the topic Government Shutdown

The face of dictatorial progressive socialism …


Senator and Majority Leader Harry Reid … a man who refuses to entertain Republican amendments to bills and rules the progressive socialist democrats with an iron fist. A corrupt man whose ethics appear to be severely compromised. Many believe that Reid, out of spite, will not call the Senate into session until the last minute to reject the vote – theatrically enhancing the drama surrounding a bill that accomplishes little, but kicking the can down the road for a month or so.

What will Harry Reid do?

House delays Obamacare as shutdown near

House Republicans forced through a short-term government funding bill that delays Obamacare and permanently repeals a tax on medical devices, setting up their most dramatic face-off ever with President Barack Obama and Senate Democrats.

The vote to delay Obamacare was 231-192, with two Republicans voting against the bill, while two Democrats supported it.  The Republicans opposed to the bill were New York Reps. Chris Gibson and Richard Hanna, and the Democrats who supported the measure were North Carolina Rep. Mike McInytre and Utah Rep. Jim Matheson.

The move represents a complete about-face by Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and the House Republican leadership. They wanted to shift the focus of health care and budgetary squabbles onto the debt ceiling fight, but conservative Republicans honed in on the government funding battle. This strategy — forced upon Boehner, Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) and Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) by the conservative rank-and-file — dramatically increased the chances of a government shutdown come Oct. 1.

The House has again passed a plan that reflects the American people’s desire to keep the government running and stop the president’s health care law,” Boehner said in a post-vote statement. Repealing the medical device tax will save jobs and delaying the president’s health care law for all Americans is only fair given the exemptions the White House has granted to big businesses and insurance companies.”

He added: “Now that the House has again acted, it’s up to the Senate to pass this bill without delay to stop a government shutdown.” The House also passed a bill to fund U.S. troops in case of a shutdown. The chamber further adopted a “conscience clause” that postpones until 2015 an Obamacare requirement that employers cover birth control as part of their health-insurance packages. Their funding resolution keeps government open until Dec. 15 at a level of $986 billion.

Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) have already warned that the GOP proposal is unacceptable. Reid may not even bring back the Senate into session until Monday afternoon — just hours before a shutdown would begin — to reject the GOP proposal.

“Today’s vote by House Republicans is pointless,” Reid said in a statement. “As I have said repeatedly, the Senate will reject any Republican attempt to force changes to the Affordable Care Act through a mandatory government funding bill or the debt ceiling. Furthermore, President Obama has stated that he would veto such measures if they ever reached his desk.”

Source: Government shutdown: House delays Obamacare as shutdown nears –

Bottom line …

Both the progressive socialist democrats and their republican counterparts have had months to work out an acceptable solution to implementing the will of the people.

Go straight to Post

Of Course: Obama Blames Health Care Law’s Lack of Popularity on Fox News

by Doug Powers on Saturday, September 28th, 2013

This is article 500 of 699 in the topic Healthcare

Sorry, but there aren’t nearly enough Fox News viewers to account for the upside-down national public opinion of Obamacare.

This is one of the most disingenuous human beings ever to personally slow the rise of the world’s oceans:

Fox News isn’t the one sending out policy cancellation notices and cutting hours, but nice try, Prez.

For me this isn’t one of those stories where you just hear about the negative effects. I now personally know a half dozen people who are losing their current health insurance as a direct result of Obamacare. Obama is welcome to give them a call and tell them it’s because of Fox News, but I don’t think they’d buy it.

As Obamacare approaches full implementation, we’ll witness a disaster of epic proportions. DAMN YOU, FOX NEWS!

(h/t Weasel Zippers)

Go straight to Post

Biden in Mexico: I assure you all the people who came to the US illegally will be granted amnesty

by Doug Powers on Tuesday, September 24th, 2013

This is article 390 of 466 in the topic Immigration

Boy, this will sure go a long way towards discouraging people from crossing into the U.S. illegally:

“With regard to immigration, let me make two things absolutely clear,” Biden said in Mexico City. “It is not only from the perspective of the President, myself and the American people a matter of justice, respect, and according dignity to all people to bring 11 million undocumented men, women, and children out of the shadows, but it’s also overwhelmingly in the self-interest, the economic self-interest of the United States.”

“So I want to make it clear to you that President Obama is deeply invested in the maturation of this relationship at every level–at every level,” said Biden. “This is a different day. This is a different day.

In the last sentence below, I completely agree with Biden, and not in a good way (the “do a shot” word is “literally,” so be prepared):

“I wanted to be here with you because my country’s foreign policy is about more than dealing with threats, as we are dealing with in the Middle East,” said Biden. “It’s also about partnerships — partnerships that we believe, the President and I, are literally going to shape the future for my country for the next 10, 20, 30, 40 years.

If anything, Biden understated how long this administration and its accomplices in Congress have “shaped the future.” It could take a half century to dig out of this mess, and that is if a recovery will even be possible.

Go straight to Post

Shooting the Syrian Elephant

by Daniel Greenfield on Monday, September 9th, 2013

This is article 74 of 91 in the topic Wars

The majority of Americans do not want to invade or bomb Syria. The majority of American leaders do. Such a disparity between the leaders and the people is not wholly unique, but it arises in this case not from the usual disparities of power or corruption.

Americans don’t want to fight Syria because it is no threat to them. American leaders admit that Syria is no threat to America. They want to bomb Syria because they feel that they ought to do it. And they feel that way because behind the power of the West stands the will of the East.

Long before Animal Farm of 1984, George Orwell wrote a short essay about his time in the east. It’s titled “Shooting the Elephant.”

Orwell’s narrator is told of an elephant that has run riot and he dutifully follows up the report. “We began questioning the people as to where the elephant had gone and, as usual, failed to get any definite information. That is invariably the case in the East; a story always sounds clear enough at a distance, but the nearer you get to the scene of events the vaguer it becomes.

“Some of the people said that the elephant had gone in one direction, some said that he had gone in another, some professed not even to have heard of any elephant.”

Substitute chemical weapons for elephant and the story becomes a familiar one.

Eventually, Orwell encounters a dead body and sends back for an elephant gun while a crowd gathers behind him eagerly waiting for him to shoot the elephant. “I had halted on the road,” he writes. “As soon as I saw the elephant I knew with perfect certainty that I ought not to shoot him. It is a serious matter to shoot a working elephant – it is comparable to destroying a huge and costly piece of machinery – and obviously one ought not to do it if it can possibly be avoided.”

It is likewise a serious matter to start a war. But the issue, whether with Obama’s red line or Orwell’s elephant is credibility.

“But at that moment I glanced round at the crowd that had followed me. It was an immense crowd, two thousand at the least and growing every minute. It blocked the road for a long distance on either side. I looked at the sea of yellow faces above the garish clothes-faces all happy and excited over this bit of fun, all certain that the elephant was going to be shot. They were watching me as they would watch a conjurer about to perform a trick. They did not like me, but with the magical rifle in my hands I was momentarily worth watching. And suddenly I realized that I should have to shoot the elephant after all. The people expected it of me and I had got to do it.”

We now have to go into Syria because the crowd expects it of us. They have been clamoring for us to do it forever, listening impatiently to our excuses and dismissing them. And our function in the region has come down to shooting the elephant. It’s what the crowd wants us to do. And our leaders find themselves with no other role in international affairs except the hollow role of puppets.

1 2 3 4
Go straight to Post

Bill Clinton begins Obamacare sales pitch: ‘It will empower people to have better life stories’

by Doug Powers on Thursday, September 5th, 2013

This is article 481 of 699 in the topic Healthcare
Never lied to you. Not gonna start today.

Recently, President Obama tapped Bill Clinton to “explain” Obamacare to America. Today, Clinton gave his first pitch, reading from a prepared text as he promised America they’d love Obamacare so much that the government had to make it mandatory in order to improve everybody’s life story:

Former President Bill Clinton said Wednesday that the role of government is to “empower people to have better life stories” by working with the private sector, NGOs, and citizens, and Obamacare helps achieve that goal.

“I have believed all my life that the role of government was to work with the private sector and non-governmental groups and communities and ordinary citizens, essentially to empower people to have better life stories. And that’s what this whole issue is about,” Clinton said in a speech explaining Obamacare in Little Rock, Ark.

“The role of government is to work with the private sector and non-governmental groups and communities and ordinary citizens, essentially to empower people to have better life stories”? Now why didn’t the Founders phrase it like that?

Apparently America’s “better life story” starts by getting work hours cut.

Related Clinton story: It depends on what your definition of “vegan” is.

Go straight to Post

Restore The Constitution We Have By Learning What It Means!

by Publius Huldah on Monday, September 2nd, 2013

This is article 164 of 186 in the topic US Constitution

Our Constitution really was a 5000 Year Miracle.

The attached pdf chart illustrates the Miracle.

Rights come from God, and the purpose of civil governments is to secure the rights God gave us.

Accordingly, WE THE PEOPLE ordained and established the Constitution for the United States of America wherein we created the federal government. 

A “federal government” is an alliance of Sovereign States associated together in a “federation” with a national government to which is delegated supremacy over the States in specifically defined areas only.

These specifically defined areas are the “enumerated powers” WE delegated to the three branches of the national (“federal”) government.

The States and The People retained all other powers.

The pdf chart depicts the elegant simplicity of our Constitution; lists the few and defined powers WE delegated to the national government for the Country at Large; shows how the powers WE delegated to the national government secure specific God given rights; and shows the retention of all other powers by the States and The People.

Our Constitution isn’t broken!  Our Constitution isn’t outdated. The problem is that WE – who are “the natural guardians” of the Constitution – didn’t bother to learn it.  Since we didn’t bother to learn it, we elected representatives who also hadn’t bothered to learn it.  And so everyone ignores it.

And we abandoned the religious and moral foundation of our Constitution.

It is our own ignorance of our existing Constitution, and the collapse of religion and morality which have brought us to the brink of destruction.

Our Constitution doesn’t need “fixing”!  The only Amendments we need are to repeal some of the previous Amendments we got deceived into approving.

WE THE PEOPLE need “fixing”.  Restoration of our religious and moral foundation and our Constitution is the Answer to the Healing of our Land.

Let the Restoration begin with you.  Share this Article.  Print out the chart.  Study it.  Flesh it out with your own personal readings of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bible.  Have study groups in your home.  You can become a “guardian” of the Constitution. PH

Go straight to Post

Featuring YD Feedwordpress Content Filter Plugin