Saturday, July 30, 2016

Thought for the Days

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

- Brian Wilson

Tuesday, July 26, 2016

Free Movie!

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

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

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

Click here - and Share
Clinton Cash

Thursday, July 21, 2016

Authority and Obedience

There is a harsh contrast between what we are taught is the purpose of authority (to create a peaceful civilized society) and the real world results of “authority” in action. Flip through any history book and you will see that most of the injustice and destruction that has occurred throughout the world was not the result of people “breaking the law”, but rather the result of people obeying and enforcing the laws of various governments. The evils that have been committed in spite of “authority” are trivial compared to the evils that have been committed in the name of “authority”.

Nevertheless, children are still taught that peace and justice come from authoritarian control and that, despite the flagrant evils committed by authoritarian regimes around the world throughout history, they are still morally obligated to respect and obey the current government of their own country. They are taught that “doing as you’re told” is synonymous with being a good person, and that “playing by the rules” is synonymous with doing the right thing. On the contrary being a moral person requires taking on the personal responsibility of judging right from wrong and following one’s own conscience, the opposite of respecting and obeying “authority”.

"The Most Dangerous Superstition"

Friday, July 15, 2016

The End is Near-er


Pull quote:

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

Now it’s met with skepticism and derision.

Similarly, intellectual dissent used to be embraced.

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

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

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


Click here...

Sunday, July 10, 2016

Consent of the Governed?

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

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

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

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