Sunday, January 29, 2017

Swearing Associated With Honesty - Damn Right Study

From here:

This article originally was published on Medical Daily.

Swearing may be considered impolite and vulgar, but a new two-part study has revealed a more positive attribute for those with an off-color vocabulary—honesty. According to the research, people are more likely to swear as a way to express themselves, rather than cause harm to others, and the more an individual swears, the more honest they are likely to be.

The researchers found that while liars are known to prefer third-person pronouns and negative words in their speech, honest individuals are more likely to use profanity.

According to the researchers, that's because swearing is often used to express one’s feelings, and people who do this more regularly portray themselves in a more honest light, The Independent reported.

“The consistent findings across the studies suggest that the positive relation between profanity and honesty is robust, and that the relationship found at the individual level indeed translates to the society level,” the study read.

For their report, the team of international researchers asked a group of 276 participants about their swearing habits as well as how honest they were in different situations. In addition, they analyzed the status updates of more than 73,000 Facebook users, measuring for honesty and profanity. In the second study, the same team used previous data to compare the integrity levels of US states with how often they swear. All the experiments had the same result: honesty was associated with higher levels of swearing.

Past research has suggested that swearing may also be a sign of increased intelligence. A 2016 study found that individuals with higher levels of verbal intelligence, that is intelligence associated with oral language, tended to use more swear words.

“Taboo or ‘swear word’ fluency is positively correlated with overall verbal fluency. The more words you generated in one category meant the more words you generated in another category, orally and verbally,” Dr. Timothy Jay, of the Department of Psychology at Massachusetts College Of Liberal Arts and author of the study, previously told Medical Daily .

Tuesday, January 24, 2017

Qur'antine islam!

No, seriously - islam is a criminal mental disease which simply needs to be "qurantined" ASAP.


Thursday, January 19, 2017

Obama's Legacy


+ Destroyed Free Speech, Transferred control of the Internet to United Nations...WSJ
+ Destroyed Domestic Energy production doubling prices
+ Destroyed American household's, now $880,000 Fed debt each ...National Debt Clock.
+ Destroyed Credit Rating of USA, Debt grown from $10 to $20 Trillion

+ Greatest Intelligence Failure of all time possibly Treason.
OPM allowed China the passwords to the entire database of every Federal Employee including the entire Military and CIA.

+ Destroyed our national sovereignty (TPP head shot)
+ Destroyed health-care, Premiums & Deductibles more than doubled
+ Destroyed the integrity of the Courts
...Supreme Court forces Americans to purchase private products

+ Destroyed the integrity of the FBI & DOJ, now Political Police
+ Destroyed the sanctity of marriage
+ Destroyed the integrity of elections with Drivers License = Voting
22 million invalid voter registrations on the books ...Oct 13, 2016 The Federalist

+ Destroyed the Education System with Communist Core
+ Destroyed race relations, 20+ yr. Low NYT
+ Destroyed our Allies and Supported our Enemies

+ Destroyed the Middle Class:
….....Record 95,102,000 Americans Not in Labor Force;
Number Grew 18% Since Obama Took Office in 2009 CNS 1-6-17
….....Food stamps, 27 MM, now 43 million Families, 2008-2016
…....Since 2001, Wages declined from 49% to 43.5% of GDP, NYT
…....1973 to 2011, worker productivity grew 80%, Wages and Benefits grew 10% NYT
….... Unemployment 23.0% (7–2016) , ShadowStats - BLS U6
….....Legal Immigration at 1.1 Million Yr. During 7yr recession
….....NAFTA, China WTO MFN, TPP in the pipeline

+ Destroyed Black Employment, 58% youth unemployment
+ Destroyed Black Families, 80% single-mother
+ Destroyed 52% of Black Babies in Abortion Clinics
+ Attacked the Police and Praised Criminals, Obama = BLM

+ Destroyed Home Ownership, lowest since 1965
+ Destroyed membership in the Boy Scouts, now in decline

+ Turned our Military into a gay bath house, USS Harvey Milk

+ Destroyed relations with Russia, Restarted the Cold War
+ Attacks Christians and Supports Muslims
+ 200,000 Christians murdered in Syria by NATO backed Muslims
+ Reverted the Middle East back into the middle ages
+ Greatly empowered and supported Islamic radicals
+ Sold $108 Billion of advanced weapons to Saudi, vs $16B under Bush;
+ Flooded America with millions of illegal Aliens, and Muslims
+ Release 700 Terrorists from GITMO, A minimum of 200 resumed Terrorism:
- Director of National Intelligence.-
+ Destroyed sanctions against Islamist Iran: a path to Nuclear Weapons
+ Destroyed safety for Americans traveling overseas:
…...Paid $400 million cash Ransom to Iran for 4 Americans

+ Turned the IRS and NSA into the KGB
+ Infested America with Foreign Diseases, incurable TB is one
+ Wasted Billions of taxpayer $ on the Scam of "Global Warming"



+ Bill Ayers, Leader Weather Underground Terrorist Organization,Chicago

+ Saul Alinsky, Community Organizer, Chicago, Communist, and Author of Rules for Radicals

Obama studied and taught at Alinsky's Activist school in Chicago

+ Rev Wright, Liberation Theology (Communism) Minister, never converted from Islam. Chicago

“God Damn America”

+ Derrick Bell, Harvard and NYU Law professor,

Critical Race Theory (search and read American Thinker)

"White Privilege" aka all Whites are Racists, Whites must become a minority

Derrick Wilburn asks: what will be the legacy of Barack Obama’s presidency? Obama is leaving behind a mess. A train wreck.  An utter disaster. But fifty years from now, what will his presidency be remembered for?

The numbers and ways this president has failed are numerous. Feckless foreign policy leading to a complete and total meltdown in the middle-east; more debt added than the previous 43 presidents combined; civil unrest resulting in ten riots, more than one per year, during his tenure; citizens hunting (and killing) police in the streets; lies told in order to pass a piece of legislation bearing his name that collapsed and cost the American taxpayer two trillion dollars.

On and on it goes.

But the true legacy Barack Hussein Obama will be remembered for is his decimation of the Democrat Party. Obama has destroyed Democrats from coast-to-coast in a manner that is astonishing.

Obama’s first midterm election (2010) was disastrous for Democrats. With the birth of the Tea Party movement Republicans gained 63 seats in the House, the largest midterm seat change since 1938, and six Senate seats. That year Republicans gained a record pickup of 680 seats in state legislative races, giving R’s control of 26 state legislatures and dropping D’s to just 15 of 50. Republicans also took 11 governorships from the Democrats for a total of 29. 54 incumbents lost re-election bids that year, 52 were Democrats.

Next, 2014 midterms. Up for grabs, all 435 House seats, 36 Senate seats, 38 governorships, 46 state legislatures.

Though it didn’t seem possible, Democrat defeats in 2010 were dwarfed. Republicans gained control of the U.S. Senate for the first time since 2006, increased an already commanding majority in the House and gained two more governorships.

Things got much worse for Democrats. 2014 saw a sweeping in of the largest Republican majority in nearly a century, 54 seats in the Senate, 247 in the House, 31 governorships, and 68 state legislative chambers. Republicans gained their largest majority in Congress and largest majority of state legislatures since 1928.

State legislative elections were worse. After the 2014 election the number of Republican-controlled state senates and assemblies rose to 68, the highest number in Republican hands since 1928. The smallest number in Democrat control since 1860.

And then came Tuesday night, November 8, 2016 – when Obama finally finished off his party. Not only did Republicans win the Presidency and the Vice Presidency, not only did Republicans retain control of the Senate and of the House, Republicans actually flipped three more governor’s seats. Republicans now have the most number of Republican governors since 1922!

Thanks to his extreme narcissism, dislike for members of his party, the radicalness of his hope and change agenda, and somewhat lax work ethic – in just eight years Obama has done to the Democrat Party what Republicans couldn’t do in a century. He has obliterated it. But not just in elections and not just the prime time players like Hillary Clinton, he’s wiped out the bench too.

Think fast: had it not been Trump, name seven or eight others who could have been the Republican nominee. No problem, right? Now, name seven or eight Democrats who could have been their nominee. Heck, name two or three. Most can name but one — Bernie Sanders. A 75-year old second fiddle who was robbed by his own party’s crooked establishment.

The depth of current and future leaders who are under 55 years of age on the Republican side is impressive – Rand Paul is 53; Marco Rubio, 45; Bobby Jindal, 53; Chris Christie, 54; Nikki Haley, 44; Ted Cruz, 45; Scott Walker, 49.  Who is there on the Democrat side? Chuck Schumer? John Conyers?

So focused has Obama been on remaking America into his uber-Leftist-socialist utopia that he neglected something very important; the people of the USA do not want his vision and its the people who vote candidates and parties into and out of power. He focused on “change” at the expense of focusing on what’s best for Democrats.

What will be the true legacy of Barack Obama? It very well could be a statue placed in his honor right in the center lobby of the RNC building in Washington D.C. Because what this man has done is lay devastation upon the Republicans’ opposition.

Personally, I think Obama's hubris has exposed the left's infantile delinquency to all sane Americans!

PROOF: CNN Knows Climate Change Is a Big Fat Hoax

From here:

JANUARY 19, 2017
CNN, which is now, and for good reason, officially the least trusted name in cable news, published a breathlessly misleading (would you expect anything else?) report about Global Cooling Global Warming Climate Change Wednesday. The headline screamed: "2016 Was The Hottest Year On Record -- Again."
Now I don't want to get too bogged down in the debunking details, so I'll be quick…
1. Scientists claim that global temperatures have increased 1 degree Celsius/2 degrees Fahrenheit since pre-industrial times. Even if that's true, which I doubt, that is actually a good thing. Fewer people die when the planet is warmer. We can grow more food. Heating requires more energy than cooling.
2. We have only been tracking global temperature for about 140 years, or 0.000000000001% of the life of the earth (I might be off a few zeroes either way). To say we have no idea how the planet naturally cycles, is the understatement of all time.
3. On more than one occasion, scientists have been caught lying about global temperatures. The whole institution is a partisan-profit racket, and one where those who dare question the "consensus" are harassed and threatened -- you know, just like Copernicus was.
4. Remember when these same people told us the planet was cooling? Super Hurricanes were on the way? The ozone layer was disappearing? The oceans would be dead by now? Arctic ice was disappearing? Manhattan would be underwater by now? I do. And it was all lies.
5. No one who says they believe in Climate Change behaves as though they believe in Climate Change. After all, it is mostly Leftists who infest the coasts, and this is where all the flooding is supposed to take place. If these people truly believe this calamity is real, wouldn’t they sell their property before it loses all of its value?
Which brings me to the proof that CNN does not believe in the Climate Change hoax they are shamelessly promoting -- proof, by the way, that CNN hides in its own article:
Climate models consistently show that if CO2 continues to be released into the atmosphere at the current rate, temperatures will continue to climb well above 2 degrees Celsius, according to the latest from Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
That creates real consequences, from rising sea levels -- threatening low-lying islands and cities like Miami Beach, Florida -- to searing droughts and mass-extinction in the natural world. [emphasis added]
Note how CNN uses Miami as its example of a "low-lying … city" in danger of "rising sea levels."
Why Miami and not, say, Manhattan?
After all, many of the scientists CNN quotes extensively, also claim Manhattan will be underwater by as soon as 2015.
Oh, wait… 2015 has already passed and Manhattan is NOT underwater.
So the date has now been moved to 2018, I mean, 2045…  Whatever. What we do know is that the scientific community CNN holds up as infallible, also believe the flooding of Manhattan is imminent.
Why, then, is CNN moving its major operations out of Atlanta, a city far removed from the dangers of rising sea levels, and into New York, a city in imminent danger of flooding?
But here is the biggie…
Time Warner, the company that owns CNN, just invested in SEVEN new buildings located in Hudson Yards, a part of Manhattan just a block or two away from the water. An area that, according to its own CNN, will soon be underwater, and therefore utterly and completely worthless. 
Here is a portion of the Time Warner press release announcing the move:
After two years of research and planning – including input from across our divisions and many of you – we’re moving forward with a plan to relocate our New York City-based employees at Corporate, HBO, Turner, and Warner Bros. to a new building beginning in late 2018. …
Today, we announced the sale of our office space in Time Warner Center, and we have taken initial steps to acquire space in a new building that will be constructed on the southwest corner of 10th Avenue and 33rd Street in New York City’s Hudson Yards development.
Couple questions… 1) Did those "two years of research" not include CNN's ongoing Climate hysteria? 2) If CNN's parent company doesn't believe CNN, why should we?
And therein lies the bottom line.
These people are not just liars, they are brazen and audacious liars who, in full view of all of us, prove time and again through their own behavior and billion-dollar investments, that they know Climate Change is a hoax.
If all these media companies want to start to convince me that they truly believe the planet is in real danger, they will start unloading their Manhattan holdings and move inland.
But they don't.
Because they know it is all BS, and by extension, we know it is all posturing and fear-mongering and leftwing propaganda designed to help the Left reach its existential goal… The empowering of a central government, and an America where the Feds outlaw developing whatever land they can't steal, which means the rest of us are forced to live in "sustainable" crime-ravaged cities, while our Political and Media Ruling Class enjoy the life of the one-percent on the slopes of Aspen and in one of their seven Manhattan high-rises.
These are not good people.
Stay ungovernable, America.
Follow John Nolte on Twitter @NolteNC

Wednesday, January 18, 2017

GloBULL Warming Cost?! $100,000,000,000,000

From here:

By Bob Unruh

Global warming has become a huge industry these days, with climate-change entrepreneurs such as former Vice President Al Gore cashing in big, as Bloomberg estimated his worth several years ago at $200 million-plus, up from $1.7 million while he was running for president.

Governments are spending billions at a time. And doesn’t everyone feel the increasing costs of energy and products?

But a new estimate of what it will cost the world’s citizens to reduce the world’s temperature by the end of the century by a “grand total of three tenths of one degree” is a stunner: $100 trillion.

That’s $100,000,000,000,000.00.

Enough to make 100 million people millionaires.

The calculation comes from Danish statistician Bjorn Lomborg, the head of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, reports Climate Depot.

Lomborg states: “We will spend at least one hundred trillion dollars in order to reduce the temperature by the end of the century by a grand total of three tenths of one degree – the equivalent of postponing warming by less than four years.”

He explained the calculation is based on the U.N.’s own climate prediction model.

The total is bigger than the world’s gross domestic product.

He warned that if the U.S. “delivers for the whole century on … President Obama’s very ambitious rhetoric, it would postpone global warming by about eight months at the end of the century.”

“But here is the biggest problem: These minuscule benefits do not come free – quite the contrary,” Lomborg said. “The cost of the U.N. Paris climate pact is like to run 1 to 2 trillion dollars every year.”

That’s compared to the U.S. annual budget of under $4 trillion.

Here’s a video with Lomborg’s full analysis and commentary:

Climate Change publisher Marc Morano reported the evaluation was provided as part of Lomborg’s criticism of the recent Paris Climate Agreement, which was much ballyhooed by the Obama administration as a major step forward.

Lomborg produced a video titled “The Paris Climate Agreement Won’t Change the Climate” for talk-radio host Dennis Prager’s PragerU.

He poked fun at the Paris result as “grand pronouncements and vague specifics,” and said the folks in Paris, France, could learn a thing or two from those in Paris, Texas.

“Using the same prediction model that the U.N. uses, I found that [Obama’s] power plan will accomplish almost nothing. Even if its cuts to carbon dioxide emissions are fully implemented – not just for the 14 years that the Paris agreement lasts, but for the rest of the century – the EPA’s Clean Power Plan would reduce the temperature increase in 2100 by just .023 degrees Fahrenheit,”

Lomborg explained.

“In the unlikely event that all of these extra cuts also happen, and are adhered to throughout the rest of the century, the combined reduction in temperatures would be 0.057 degrees. To put it another way, if the U.S. delivers for the whole century on the President Obama’s very ambitious rhetoric, it would postpone global warming by about eight months at the end of the century,” Lomborg said.
He said that 99 percent of the assumed benefits of climate-change regulations would have to come after 2030, when the current plans would expire.

“If we generously assume that the promised carbon cuts for 2030 are not only met – which itself would be a U.N. first – but sustained throughout the rest of the century, temperatures in 2100 would drop 0.3 degrees – the equivalent of postponing warming by less than four years. Again, that is using the U.N.’s own climate prediction model,” Lomborg said.

At a cost of $1 trillion to $2 trillion a year.

WND reported earlier this month a posting at Real Climate Science delivered a body blow to the global-warming agenda – now called “climate change” since the globe doesn’t appear to be warming anymore.

It shows the Arctic sea ice today is about the same thickness as it was 75 years ago.

That’s despite the massive spread of SUVs, the use of coal-fired power plants to generate heat for homes and gasoline-powered lawn mowers and leaf blowers.

The posting from Steven Goddard, who blogs under the pseudonym Tony Heller, featured the image of a 1940 Townsville Daily Bulletin report that “ice measurements were on an average only 6 ½ feet,” according to a just-returned expedition of Soviet explorers.

The blogger noted that in 1940, Arctic sea ice was two meters thick.

Then, alongside a posting of a New York Times image stating the ice was “only about seven feet thick” in 1958, he wrote it was “about two meters thick” then.

And he posted an image from the Danish Meteorological Institute, dated Monday, that shows much of the Arctic sea ice cover was some two meters thick or more.

“All of the official fake news agencies and fake government agencies have been claiming that Arctic sea ice is getting thinner,” he said, citing online headlines from NOAA that “Arctic sea ice getting thinner” and the same from Scientific American.

And he pointed that that while a Bush administration official recently said “all the thick multi-year ice is gone,” in reality, a University of Colorado graphic reveals much of that ice is estimated at two to four years old.

“As is almost always the case with government officials and journalists, they were lying. Nearly half of the Arctic is covered with multi-year ice,” he said.

WND also reported in September that President Obama’s executive order to federal agencies to integrate into their policies and programs “behavioral-science insights” about how people make decisions and act on them has had little effect on how Americans think about “climate change,” the government-approved theory that mankind is causing irreparable damage to the planet.

The Social and Behavioral Sciences Team in the executive office of the president, part of the National and Science Technology Council, said in its annual report that part of its work is to respond to climate change.

“Climategate” exposes the global warming scam. Get it now at the WND Superstore.

The team said it started a dialogue with the Department of Energy’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy to “identify the potential behavioral barriers underlying low take-up of clean energy, as well as a suite of behavioral tools that can be used to address these barriers.”

“For example, behavioral science research indicates that prompting consumers to select a power plan from among clean and non-clean options (rather than defaulting them into a standard electricity plan) and presenting plan options in ways that facilitate informed decision-making can improve take-up,” the report said.

It also wants to make consumers better understand what the government wants them to do about global warming.

“To help households, communities and decision-makers better understand and adapt to the effects of rising global temperatures, SBST, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the University of Maryland have worked to help the United States Global Change Research Program improve their ‘climate indicators,’ which convey important information about climate patterns to non-scientists,” the report said.

But it still said consumer adoption of “green-power plans remains low at roughly 700,000 customers nationwide.”

WND reported much of the information on which global warming projections are based is simply wrong.

Morano of Climate Depot warned the intent now is not to discuss, investigate or research, but to send “a chilling message to doubters and skeptics” to be silent.

Morano said his movie, “Climate Hustle,” shows “the climate establishment comparing climate skeptics to Holocaust deniers.”

“It’s all an attempt to silence the debate, to silence any science and go right to centralized planning,” he said. “That’s what this is all about. The U.N. has admitted their goal is wealth redistribution and it doesn’t have anything to do with environmental policy.”

The solution offered by the climate establishment, he said, is always the same: “more centralized government.”

He said the result will be tragic for large populations who are being denied access to pumped water, power and heat because of antagonism to carbon-based fuels.

“The reason we know there’s a hustle is their predictions have failed to come true, on a whole host of issues,” Morano said. “That’s why they now want to stop the debate, suppress debate.”

Famous predictions

One of the more famous predictions came from former vice president and current carbon-credit entrepreneur Al Gore, who told an audience in a 2009 speech that “the entire north polar ice cap during some of the summer months could be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years.”
His 2006 documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth,” famously predicted increasing temperatures would cause earth’s oceans to rise by 20 feet, a claim many scientists say is utterly without rational basis.

See Gore:

Another came from a 2013 column by Mark Hertsgaard, which was headlined “The End of the Arctic? Ocean Could be Ice Free by 2015.”

He wrote: “Say goodbye to polar bears and a whole lot of ice. New research suggests the Arctic Ocean could be ice-free by 2015, with devastating consequences for the world. Can it be stopped?”
Taking one more step back in time, the BBC said Arctic summers would be ice-free by 2013.
Sierra Club Canada also said in 2013 that the Arctic sea ice would vanish that year.

Tim Ball, a former University of Winnipeg climatology professor, said global temperatures have been dropping since the turn of the century, prompting the change in terminology from “global warming” to “climate change.”

Activists are also spending less time discussing temperatures and more time pointing to more extreme events such as tornadoes, droughts, cold snaps and heat waves. Ball said there’s a shred of truth there, but it’s being badly distorted.

"Yes, there’s been slightly more extremes,” he said in an interview with WND and Radio America.
“That’s because the jet stream patterns are changing, because the earth is cooling down. All the arguments about sea-level rise, about Arctic ice disappearing, if you recall it’s not that long ago that our friend Al Gore was saying that there would be no summer ice in the Arctic. I think the year he set for it was 2014. That proved to be completely wrong.”

Listen to the WND/Radio America interview with Tim Ball:

At the Ron Paul Liberty Report, Chris Rossini said the “alarmism” about “climate change” is reaching “levels of desperation.”

“The arguments go from ridiculous to hysterical. We’re told by many politicians that ‘climate change’ is the #1 threat to Americans. This is of course a favorite of the swindling class. Others tell us that the #1 threat is ISIS, and some are now saying that it’s Donald Trump. Some say it’s North Korea, Russia, or Iran. The carousel of #1 threats is always in motion.”

Rossini continued: “In the media you’ll find stories that free birth control is needed in order to battle climate change, and that climate change will turn women into prostitutes. Non-believers of this ridiculous propaganda are branded as ‘deniers’.

“Even appeals to religion and the afterlife have been showered on Americans. Whether it be comments from the pope, or from Nobel Prize winning ‘economist’ Paul Krugman, who says: ‘You can deny global warming (and may you be punished in the afterlife for doing so – this kind of denial for petty personal or political reasons is an almost inconceivable sin).'”

Rossini wrote, “Boy, do these characters really want Americans to believe the climate change religion.”

Scientist Art Robinson has spearheaded The Petition Project, which has gathered the signatures of at least 31,487 scientists who agree that there is “no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”

They say, “Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”

Robinson, who has a Ph.D. in chemistry from the University of California-San Diego, where he served on the faculty, co-founded the Linus Pauling Institute with Nobel-recipient Linus Pauling, where he was president and research professor. He later founded the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. His son, Noah Robinson, was a key figure in the petition work and has a Ph.D. in chemistry from Caltech.

Heresy hunters

Many advocates have declared that it’s heresy not to agree that man is the cause of cataclysmic climate change. Some attorneys general, for example, have banded together to target any companies that challenge the climate “consensus.”

When the Daily Caller reported the story it cited the Spanish Inquisition, which “systematically silenced any citizen who held views that did not align with the king’s.”

WND also reported when some two-dozen scientists with major U.S. universities urged President Obama to use racketeering laws to prosecute opponents who deny mankind is causing catastrophic changes in the climate.

In a letter addressed to Obama, Attorney General Loretta Lynch and Office of Science and Technology Policy Director John Holdren, the scientists said they “appreciate that you are making aggressive and imaginative use of the limited tools available to you in the face of a recalcitrant Congress.”

“One additional tool – recently proposed by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse – is a RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) investigation of corporations and other organizations that have knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change, as a means to forestall America’s response to climate change,” they wrote, according to Politico.

Loretta Lynch, by the way, wants to “take action” on turning climate-change denial into a federal crime.

Two years ago, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said legal punishment was the appropriate response to global-warming dissenters.

“I wish there were a law you could punish them with,” he said, launching into a diatribe against philanthropists Charles and David Koch, known for their support of conservative causes.

“I think it’s treason. Do I think the Koch brothers are treasonous – yes, I do. They are enjoying making themselves billionaire[s] by impoverishing the rest of us. Do I think they should be in jail – I think they should be [enduring] three hots and a cot at the Hague with all the other war criminals. Do I think the Koch brothers should be tried for reckless endangerment? Absolutely, that is [a] criminal offense and they ought to be serving time for it.”

President Obama has demanded action on climate change, even though the top climate scientist for the U.N. at that time, Rajendra Pachauri, admitted: “The protection of planet Earth, the survival of all species and sustainability of our ecosystems is more than a mission. It is my religion and my dharma.”

See the movie trailer:

“Climategate” exposes the global warming scam. Get it now at the WND Superstore.

Sunday, January 15, 2017

French Court of Appeal rules that Israel is the legal occupier of West Bank

From here:

By Jerry Gordon

h/t Imre Herzog. Here’s a stunner. M. Jean Patrick Grumberg of the French blog Dreuz made a useful discovery and somehow the Israel and world media didn’t cover. The PA brought suit in France against French companies building the light rail system in Jerusalem. The PA lost in a decision that ruled that Israel is the legal occupant of Judea and Samaria.

So, why isn’t the Israeli and world media hopping all over this? Perhaps because they are intimidated by the threat of Islamic violence as their god Allah granted possession of any conquered lands in perpetuity. Which will never be held up in a Western court that doesn’t recognize sharia law ruling based on fiction rather than fact. But then the pack of Israel’s enemies gathering in Paris for tomorrow’s hatefest doesn’t care about the facts and law. That would include that self -promoting ‘stalwart defender of Israel’, Secretary of State Kerry. Read this important French court case findings in this Dreuz blog post by the estimable M. Grumberg.

Grumberg, a French lawyer by training wrote:

In a historical trial carefully « forgotten » by the media, the 3rd Chamber of the Court of Appeal of Versailles declares that Israel is the legal occupant of the West Bank*.

When I first learned that the Court of Appeal of Versailles ruled that West bank settlements and occupation of Judea Samaria by Israel is unequivocally legal under international law, in a suit brought by the Palestinian Authority against Jerusalem’s light rail built by French companies Alstom and Veolia, that received no media coverage, I decided to put to work my years of Law Studies in France, and I meticulously analyzed the Court ruling.

To my astonishment, pro-Israeli media did not cover it either. The few who mentioned the case did not have any legal background in French law to understand the mega-importance of the ruling, and, as a few lefty English speaking Israeli websites reported it, they thought that it was a decision strictly pertinent to the Jerusalem light rail. It’s not.

To make sure I did not overestimate my legal abilities and that I wasn’t over optimistic – as usual-, I submitted my analysis and the Court papers to one of the most prominent French lawyer, Gilles-William Goldnadel, President of Lawyers without borders, to receive his legal opinion. He indeed validated my finding. Then I decided to translate it to English, and it will soon be submitted to Benjamin Netanyahu thru a mutual friend.

First and foremost, the Versailles Court of Appeals had to determine the legal rights of Palestinians and Israelis in West Bank. Their conclusion: Palestinians have no right – in the international legal sense – to the region, unlike Israel, who is legitimately entitled to occupy all land beyond the 67 line.

The context :
In the 90s, Israel bid for the construction of the Jerusalem light rail. The tender was won by French companies Veolia and Alstom. The light rail was completed in 2011, and it cross Jerusalem all the way to the east side and the « occupied territories » (more about this term later).

Following this, the PLO filed a complaint with the High Court (Tribunal de Grande Instance) of Versailles France, against Alstom and Veolia, because according to PLO, « the construction of the tram is illegal since the UN, the EU, many NGOs and governments consider that « Israel illegally occupy Palestinian territories ».

The quest for the International Legislation to establish the rights of each party.
In order to rule whether the light rail construction was legal or not, the court had to seek the texts of international law, to examine international treaties, in order to establish the respective rights of the Palestinians and the Israelis.

And to my knowledge, this is the first time that a non-Israeli court has been led to rule on the status of the West Bank.

Why is this an historical ruling: it is the first international case since the declaration of the State of Israel in 1948

It is the first time since the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948 that an independent, non-Israeli court has been called upon to examine the legal status of West bank territories under international law, beyond the political claims of the parties.

Keep in mind though, that the Court’s findings have no effect in international law. What they do, and it’s of the utmost importance, is to clarify the legal reality.

The Versailles Court of Appeal conclusions are as resounding as the silence in which they were received in the media: Israel has real rights in the territories, its decision to build a light rail in the West Bank or anything else in the area is legal, and the judges have rejected all the arguments presented by the Palestinians.

The Palestinian arguments

• The PLO denounces the deportation of the Palestinian population, and the destruction of properties in violation of international regulations. Relying on the Geneva and Hague Conventions and the UN resolutions, it considers that the State of Israel is illegally occupying Palestinian territory and is pursuing illegal Jewish colonization. Thus, construction of the light rail is itself illegal (1).

• The PLO adds that the light rail construction has resulted in the destruction of Palestinian buildings and houses, the almost total destruction of Highway 60, which is vital for Palestinians and their goods, and has conducted many illegal dispossessions. Therefore, several clauses from the annexed Regulations to the October 18, 1907 Fourth Hague Convention were violated (2).

• Finally, the PLO alleges that Israel violates the provisions relating to the « protection of cultural property » provided for in Article 4 of the Hague Convention of May 14, 1954, Article 27 of the Hague Regulations of 1907, Article 5 of the Hague Convention IX of 1907, and Article 53 of Additional Protocol No. 1 to the Geneva Conventions.

The Court of Appeal does not deny the occupation, but it destroys one after another all the Palestinian arguments
Referring to the texts on which the PLO claim is based, the Court of Appeal considers that Israel is entitled to ensure order and public life in the West Bank,therefore Israel has the right to build a light rail, infrastructure and dwellings.

Article 43 of the Fourth Hague Convention of 1907 stipulates that « The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety ».

Israeli occupation does not violate any international law

« The Palestinian Authority misread the documents, they do not apply to the occupation »

The Court explains that the Palestinian Authority misinterprets the texts and they do not apply to the occupation:
• First of all, all the international instruments put forward by the PLO are acts signed between States, and the obligations or prohibitions contained therein are relevant to States. Neither the Palestinian Authority nor the PLO are States, therefore, none of these legal documents apply.

• Secondly, said the Court, these texts are binding only on those who signed them, namely the « contracting parties ». But neither the PLO nor the Palestinian Authority have ever signed these texts.

Propaganda is not international law
The Court, quite irritated by the presented arguments, boldly asserted that the law « cannot be based solely on the PLO’s assessment of a political or social situation.«

Humanitarian law was not violated

The PLO mistakenly refers to the wrong legal document because the Hague Convention applies in case of bombing. And … « Jerusalem is not bombed. »

The PLO invokes the violation of humanitarian law contained in the Geneva and Hague Conventions.
• But on the one hand, says the judges of the Court of Appeal, international conventions apply between States and the PLO is not a State: « the International Court of Justice has indicated that [the Conventions] only contain obligations for the States, and that individual have no rights to claim the benefit of those obligation for themselves ».

• Then the Court says that only the contracting parties are bound by international conventions, and neither the PLO nor the Palestinian Authority have ever signed any of them.

• The Court draw the conclusion that the PLO is mistakenly referring to the wrong legal document because the Hague Convention applies in case of bombing. And … « Jerusalem is not bombed.«

The PLO and the Palestinians were dismissed
The PLO cannot invoke any of these international conventions, said the Court.
« These international norms and treaties » does not give the « Palestinian people that the PLO says he represents, the right to invoke them before a court.«

The Court of Appeal therefore sentenced the PLO (and Association France Palestine Solidarité AFPS who was co-appellant) to pay 30,000 euros ($32,000) to Alstom, 30,000 euros to Alstom Transport and 30,000 euros to Veolia Transport.

Neither the PLO nor the Palestinian Authority nor the AFPS appealed to the Supreme Court, therefore the judgment has become final.

This is the first time that a Court has legally destroyed all Palestinian legal claim that Israel’s occupation is illegal.

Reprint or redistribution of this copyrighted material is permitted with the following attribution and link: © Jean-Patrick Grumberg for

• (1) The PLO relies on article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention of August 12, 1949, which states that « the occupant power may not deport or transfer part of its own civilian population in the Territory he occupies », and article 53, which states that « the occupant Power is prohibited from destroying movable or immovable properties belonging individually or collectively to private people, to the State or to public authorities or social or cooperative organizations, except in cases where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary for military operations ».

• (2) The PLO refers to the Fourth Geneva Convention of August 12, 1949: ? Article 23 (g), which prohibits « the destruction or seizure of enemy properties except in cases where such destruction or seizure are imperatively ordered for the necessities of war. »

(3) Article 27 according to which « in the sieges and bombardments, all necessary measures must be taken to spare as much as possible the buildings devoted to worship, the arts, sciences, charitable institutions, historical monuments, and hospitals … »

(4) Article 46 which states that « private property can not be confiscated ».…/israel-is-the-legal-occupant-of-th…/

Israel is the legal occupant of the West Bank, says the Court of Appeal of Versailles, France
In a historical trial carefully « forgotten » by the media, the 3rd Chamber of the Court of Appeal of Versailles declares that Israel is the legal occupant of the West Bank*. When I first learned that the Court of Appeal of Versailles ruled that West bank settlements and occupation of Judea Samaria…

Saturday, January 14, 2017

10 rules for radicals of the right

From here:

In 1971 Marxist strategist Saul D. Alinsky published his infamous handbook for “community organizers,” titled “Rules for Radicals,” which ever since has been the essential resource for left-wing agitators, including the Clintons and Obama.

Alinsky dedicated his “Rules for Radicals” to “the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom – Lucifer” [the entity also known as Satan, the Father of Lies and Enslaver of Mankind].

As we conservative populists begin to reclaim our nation from Alinsky’s anti-American Bolsheviks, we need a resource for pro-American constitutionalists. These Rules for Radicals of the Right are dedicated to the One who conquered Lucifer:

1. Tell the truth without hesitation or apology.

Truth is our most powerful weapon and strategy. Truth is objective, verifiable and self-evident to a clear-thinking mind grounded in rationality and knowledge of the facts. Rationality proceeds from recognition and respect for the created order and the Creator Himself. His immutable laws provide the fixed standards by which any material or spiritual thing can be measured, proved and trusted. Without fixed standards there can be no steadfast rule of law making all men equal and free, only arbitrary rule by those with power to enforce their will.

2. Keep it simple but not stupid.

The enemy relies on confusion to create chaos and then exploits it to take control. He weaves a complex fabric of falsehoods, half-truths, misrepresentations, misdirection, hidden false assumptions and sophistry designed to mislead the gullible into drawing false conclusions. Complexity favors the deceivers. Honest and intelligent simplification frees captive minds.

3. Trust or not trust, but always verify.

People who spin narratives or otherwise interpret facts or events instead of providing the straight facts to interpret for yourself often have their own agenda. This includes not just leftist media but can be any information source, including those you think are trustworthy. Whenever you’re expected to form a conclusion on any issue based on the authority of the source rather than the full and free presentation of the facts, including opposing opinions and interpretations, don’t trust it. This is especially true when an inherently controversial narrative is repeated consistently over time from only one perspective, such as “climate change,” the “born gay” assumption, or the theory of evolution.

4. Think for yourself.

Human beings are susceptible to jumping on bandwagons or joining teams to meet social needs, but this makes us vulnerable to manipulation by people who form or control teams to serve their own agenda (i.e, the R’s and D’s). Beware of any group, system or institution that requires or expects you to substitute their conclusions for your own, or to adopt a “team” position on a whole slate of issues, and shuns or denigrates you for disagreeing on one or more items. (E.g., many liberals recognize an essential natural order in the eco-systems of living things but are forbidden from acknowledging the natural family as humanity’s ecosystem because “gay rights” is a “must-embrace” leftist goal.)

5. See the good and bad on both sides.

Remember that the devil works both sides of the street, and it serves his goals if we evaluate people by the team they’re on, not their character or the rationality of their arguments. If truth is our standard and filter, we’ll judge things and people fairly and thereby lessen the “us vs. them” stupidity that makes us so easy to manipulate in elections and other cultural conflicts.

6. Restore critical thinking.

The goal of the elites has always been to “dumb down” Americans to make us easier to deceive and control. Thus liberal terminology always avoids simple definitions and distinct boundaries, especially when used in social policy or laws (e.g., “homophobia”: a nonsense word that implies all disapproval is an anxiety disorder). We can defeat the elites by mastering critical thinking skills and restoring true literacy that employs only clearly defined words in unambiguous sentences conveying true and trustworthy knowledge.

7. Reclaim objectivity.

The elites always obscure the distinction between objective truth and subjective opinion, and between hard science (which is never contradictory to biblical truth, properly understood) and “soft science” (which can easily be manipulated to serve a hidden agenda). We must always promote and defend objective truth and contrast it with the subjective opinions and belief systems of the often-fraudulent “soft sciences” that have been driving our social policies for decades.

8. Challenge the know-it-alls.

The elites on both sides invariably assume an attitude of moral and intellectual superiority. It’s easy to expose their errors by practicing the Socratic Method of interrogation. Just ask 1) “What do you mean by that?” (i.e., define your terms), and 2) “How do you know that’s true?” (i.e., what is your source of authority). You don’t have to be an expert on any given topic to take command of the discussion and expose liberal illogic and it’s lack of sound presuppositions.

9. Avoid the tar-babies.

Remember that you can’t persuade a true-believer leftist with fact and logic. Intellectually, most of them embrace a closed-loop Cultural Marxist narrative similar to paranoid schizophrenia. If someone proves himself incapable of recognizing self-evident truths (such as denying the humanity of an unborn baby while looking at an advanced stage ultrasound image), disengage immediately. Conservative populists should largely ignore the left and their delusions and just focus on taking the seats of power away from them.

10. Be an army of one.

Paradoxically, populism is a movement of individualists whose common denominator is the U.S. Constitution. Unlike our cultural opponents who hold the hive-mind mentality of big-government statists, our true strength isn’t in our numbers, but the rightness of our cause. We don’t need to wait for marching orders from Donald Trump or any other perceived leaders; we can act on our own or in small groups on the inherent authority granted to us by God and affirmed by the founders. The quicker we all decide just to do that, the quicker we can restore this republic. (I figure we’ve got about a two-year window.)

 - Scott Lively -

Thursday, January 12, 2017

Introducing ... Anti-Psychiatry!

From here:

New U of T grant backs studies in 'anti-psychiatry;' 

U of T’s ‘anti-psychiatry’ scholarship is affront to science and could hurt mentally ill patients, critics say

By Tom Blackwell | January 10, 2017 6:05 PM ET; Ottawa Citizen Wed January 11 2017 P.#NP3.
Field 'does not stand up to scrutiny': prof

As Bonnie Burstow sees it, there’s no such thing as mental “illness,” no evidence that psychological problems stem from physical imbalances in the brain, and even less that treatments like anti-psychotic drugs actually help people.
But PhD students who follow the University of Toronto professor’s radical ideas have a tough time winning financial support: arguing that mental health care as we know it should be abolished can be a hard sell.
So Burstow has put up $50,000 of her own money and convinced the U of T to back a striking new scholarship – for studies in “anti-psychiatry.”
The university defends the grant as an embodiment of academic freedom, but the controversial initiative is raising questions about just how far that freedom should extend.
"This is a case where academic freedom should be quashed
Burstow says her grant gives new legitimacy to a burgeoning field, and notes that many of the donors — who so far have matched her commitment with another $12,000 — are ”survivors” of psychiatric treatment or their parents.
“When they send it and they say, ‘I wish I could send more, but you’re saving the lives of those not yet born,’ you know that donation meant a lot to them,” she said. “A quite large number are parents of kids who have been hurt by psychiatry and want to see this line of research encouraged.”
Critics, however, worry the university is endorsing an anti-scientific, anti-intellectual exercise – a false attempt at “balance” that could inadvertently convince some patients to eschew treatment and put their lives at risk.
Indeed, the scholarship has won support from an organization founded by the Church of Scientology, zealous foes of psychiatry.
“This is a case where academic freedom should be quashed,” Edward Shorter, a U of T professor and expert in the history of psychiatry, states bluntly. “People will read this and think ‘Well, maybe mother doesn’t need that psychiatrist after all, it’s just a lot of bunkum.’ And then the first thing you know, someone has committed suicide.”
Dr. Joel Paris, a McGill University psychiatrist who does not hesitate to criticize elements of his own specialty, said he was “ashamed” the Toronto institution would endorse a scholarship dismissing the whole field.
While there is much unknown about psychiatry and problems with how it is sometimes practiced, the scientific foundation of mental illness and its treatment is undeniable, he said.
BULLSHIT. Just read Psychiatry founder Dr. Thomas Szasz's "The Myth of Mental Illness!"
“We don’t have an anti-neurology scholarship or an anti-hepatology scholarship. Psychiatry is the only specialty that has people trying to abolish it,” said Paris. “This doesn’t make sense.”
NO, what doesn't make sense are your evasive excuses; neurology (the study of the brain and nervous systems) exists because nerves exist; hepatology exists because the liver exists - but psychiatry isn't a real 'hard' science because the 'mind' is by definition an imaginary construct! Or at least, it hasn't been correctly presented as a hard science until now, because you charlatans are really only acting as high priests and claiming an unearned expertise and authority over other people, to give your selves rights over them without a concomitant  corollary responsibility to educate them all to become self-reliant autonomous beings; in short, you and your kind are hypocrites exactly as are all other sub-categories of criminals   who claim extra rights by offloading their own responsibilities onto their slave-victims, by selling them victimology! 

Unluckily for you and your complicit gangster cohorts, I have actually taken the time to solve these problems, and as such can describe the mind in far greater and more detailed hard-science terms that you could ever have dreamed of from behind the fact-shields you use to deny the existence of any and all universally objective facts in the first place!
But a spokesman for the university’s Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (OISE), home to Burstow and the scholarship, said the project flows from the right of academics to freely research even unpopular ideas.
"Psychiatry’s tenets and claims do not stand up to scrutiny. 
We do not have to begin by trying to prove that
And all disciplines should be open to critical analysis, said Charles Pascal, an applied psychology professor at OISE. 
He cited widespread concerns, for instance, about over-medication of conditions like ADHD,
“The best of us live in a grey zone,” he said. “The best of us do not say black-and-white things about how good any profession is.”
Wow - all the usual and sadly predictable critical-thinking logical fallacies in play here, I see!
"There are no right answers. Since life is too complex for any of us to ever really be able to understand cause and effect, and since all facts are really only opinions anyway, then our entirely fact-free subjective opinions are the diversely opposite equals to your silly objective scientific facts! And furthermore, since we are all so obviously such helpless victims, and we all do it, too, the only real crime should be to accuse other victims of being 'criminals' with free will choices and intentions, just because they commit 'crimes' against other helpless victims, you meanies! We should always go along (with criminal lies) to get along (with all the other lying criminals)! Whee!" 

In other words, Prof. Pascal just proudly confessed to being non-compus mentis, and so ungracefully bowed out of this very serious adult discussion!
And yet Burstow herself, who has a doctorate in educational theory with a minor in psychology, does not subscribe to a grey area on the topic. She denies the anti-psychiatry label implies any pre-conceived notions or that non-scientists are unqualified to study the area – because it’s already well established mental illness does not exist.
“Psychiatry’s tenets and claims do not stand up to scrutiny. We do not have to begin by trying to prove that,” said Burstow. “I am saying these are not diseases … There is not a single proof of a single chemical imbalance of a single so-called mental illness.”
Shorter and Paris said such statements are simply “absurd,” that thousands of scientific studies – now incorporating sophisticated imaging of the brain – bolster the idea that biology is behind many psychological conditions and that various treatments do, in fact, work.
NONSENSE! There have been absolutely zero instances of any cures for mental 'illnesses!'
And in fact, ALL the scientific evidence goes the other way, in the exact opposite direction!

Morally and legally, rights can only come with responsibilities. "Liberal" crime and hypocrisy is all about avoiding that fact. And not-so coincidentally, so are ALL examples of "mental illness!"

While controversy in the past often centred around involuntary commitment of psychiatric patients – epitomized by the Ken Kesey novel and 1975 movie, One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest – the vast majority of treatment today is voluntary, and institutionalization relatively rare, said Paris.
Even electro-convulsive therapy, portrayed by Kesey as almost an instrument of torture, has won support recently, with research suggesting new, safer versions of the technology can help severely depressed patients who are unresponsive to other therapy.
More bullshit. ECT simply fries people's memories, so they can't remember their fears!
National Post

Monday, January 9, 2017

Bombshell New Study Suggests that Liberals are Far More Likely to Commit Crime than Conservatives

From here:

Wow. The results of a new study conducted by researchers from the University of Cincinnati, Florida State University, and Pennsylvania State University are sending shockwaves across the nation.

Four researchers sought to discover whether or not political ideology could predict involvement in criminal activity, but what they found could upend our entire political and criminal justice systems.
Political ideology represents an imperfect yet important indicator of a host of personality traits and cognitive preferences. These preferences, in turn, seemingly propel liberals and conservatives towards divergent life-course experiences. Criminal behavior represents one particular domain of conduct where differences rooted
in political ideology may exist. Using a national dataset, we test whether and to what extent political ideology is predictive of self-reported criminal behavior. Our results show that self-identified political ideology is mono-tonically related to criminal conduct cross-sectionally and prospectively and that liberals self-report more criminal conduct than do conservatives. We discuss potential causal mechanisms relating political ideology to individual conduct.
The data was gathered through “self-reported” behavior and is therefore cannot be trusted as a fool-proof result, but it is instructive in explaining important cultural differences between conservatives and liberals. The data gathered and research presented seems to indicate a very strong correlation between political ideology and willingness to commit criminal behavior!
This dramatic chart is both compelling and astonishing:
Fig. 1. Estimated standardized scores on criminal involvement wave 3 and 4 by political ideology.  
The researchers do caution against assuming a “causal relationship between liberal political ideology and criminal conduct,” but they also observe that there is corresponding research that shows political conservatives are more closely associated with reduced criminal behavior.
There is apparent scholarly agreement that conservatives more strongly value social order, respect for authority, and social conformity and that conservatives are more religious, more conscientious, and demonstrate higher levels of self-control. These traits and values likely influence lifestyle choices in ways that better insulate conservatives against criminal behavior. Moreover, conservative narratives about “free will, personal responsibility, and morality may gel into cognitive scripts that condemn criminal conduct as immoral and worthy of social sanctions.
The researchers also point out that academics and philosophers are realizing more and more that political ideology may play a larger role in our daily life than most people realize. In fact, political ideology may indicate what a person believes, thinks, and does in more places than just the voting booth.

Overall, our study joins a growing stream of empirical assessments that document differences between liberals and conservatives. Collectively, these studies show the potent yet often unexamined role political ideology plays in everyday life. Political ideology represents more than disparate views on the proper role of government and adherence to refined political theories. Ideology reflects an assortment of correlated beliefs and narratives about behavior that are internalized by individuals. These narratives likely impact individual choices, making some choices more likely and other choices less likely. Criminal behavior may also reflect choices rooted in ideological narratives—narratives that promote or reduce the occurrence of crime.

Well, of course libertine "liberals" are all criminals! And here's the scientific proof of it:



...but it's all just a simple matter of binary either/or logic anyway!

Morally and legally, rights can only come with responsibilities.
"Liberal" crime and hypocrisy is all about avoiding that fact.

And not-so coincidentally, so are ALL examples of "mental illness!"


If psychopathic hypocrites didn't see something as important, they wouldn't try so fearfully to avoid it, nor work so diligently and obsessively hard to excuse themselves from ignoring it. They are enemies of thinking itself, which they refuse to admit is all fear-based triage, so they can be guaranteed to always try to do the exact opposite of the most inteligent and obvious thing. In old Biblical parlance, they are the Adversary of doing what is right (as in correct)!

Like all other people, they are motivated primarily by fear.

Unlike most others, they are motivated by the fear of 'it' - they are idolaters who try to distance them selves from the idealized ideology of "fear" as if "it" were a separate generalized force with which they could do combat.

They reject the truth - that all fears are separate but still generalized memories of specific pains, projected to the future. They must be analyzed and broken down into their originally-sourced component parts and scrutinized as to their present applicabilities, not rejected en masse.

This process is what has been attempted by psychiatrists and psychologists since the time of Sigmund Freud, BUT because they imitated the confessional, authoritarian approach of the Catholic church, they refused to let individuals apply their techings to them selves, in stead making them into helpless victims who were dependent on the 'doctors' as high priests of the new, 'secular' religion.

In other words, they refused to let people solve their own problems, in favour of enslaving them to a permanent dependency on them selves, because as usual, "There's No Money In Solutions, So Please Give Generously Again!"

Therefore, criminally negligent, morally and intellectually delinquent libertines (aka 'liberals') are emotion-based, but that emotion is idealized 'fear:' the strategy is to deny it, the tactics are all victim-blaming slander and (as is the case with religion) the promotion of mere cause-and-effect-free hope trumped up as the equally idealized, magical power called 'Faith!' to be used to "combat it!" And since 'fear' is the basis for all thinking, they substitute repetitive ritual templates and formats for actual case-by-case thinking.

Leftists fear other people's free-will choices. ALL criminal gangsters (leftists, muslims) want the POWER to forcibly CONTROL all other people, (whom they fear), through fear, simply because they can not trust them selves. As fear-fearing phobophobes, they are scared of others' fears, and so always accuse them of being afraid (as if being afraid or a phobe were some sort of thought-crime)!

Here's a short list of THEIR most prominent common phobias:

Racist, (melanin-o-phobe) Sexist, (femophobe) Homophobic, Xenophobic, Islamophobic, (aka Crime-o-phobic) - you name it.

Yet the only real thought crime is in refusing to think at all, because one is scared of the pain of fearful thought!

In one word, what they fear the most is "Freedom!" In stead, they prefer the safe surety and security of "inevitable" slavery! They are cowardly, suicidal masochists at heart - always seeking to control their own fears, BY causing those very same, worst-case scenario problems which cause the pains they fear the most!

"Since there is no free will, we have no choice but to commit "crimes" (because in every choice we make, something else must have "made" us choose one way rather than the other, right? And the only thing which that inevitable force can NOT have been, is "free will!") Because life is too complex for any of us to ever really be able to understand causes and effect, such that all so-called "facts" are really ever only opinions anyway. Therefore my entirely fact-free, subjective opinions are to be legally held up as being the diversely opposite EQUALS to your silly objective facts! Therefore there are no real "crimes" nor "criminals" because there is no 'mens-rea' guilty mind free-will choice at all, and so we're really ever all only helpless VICTIMS (of predetermined predestined forces, like of society/mere products of our environments, and of course proudly helpless slaves of allah)! Therefore the only real crime possible is to accuse any other victims of being "criminals" just for having committed their "crimes" against some "other" helpless victims!



That was a true depiction of the caricature of thought used by libertine criminals (aka circular 'reasoning' tautology!) as their #1 alibi to excuse their crimes; aka:

"We're not criminals, we're all really only victims too!"
(And the only people who see 'criminal enemies' are 'insane')! aka "Paranoid" and "conspiracy theorists!"

Libertines ("liberals") are criminals, who follow the brazen rule of chaos. Conservatives obey the Golden Rule of Law.

The Golden Rule is "Do Not Attack First!" The rule of chaos says "All is allowed unless specifically forbidden first!"

Democrats are gangsters. Republicans are individualists who occasionally group together to stop gangsters' extortion.

Gangsters aren't 'sociopaths' (they love grouping together for mob violence) but they are psycho-paths (which literally means "thought killers")! aka HYPOCRITES! 'Subjectivists' who oppose universal equal rights in favor of their double-standards and divisive, adversarial group-identity politics! Us-vs-them and might-makes-right, not right-makes-might!

ALL criminals are always hypocrites who want rights without responsibilities: to our stuff, without having to earn of otherwise pay for it! So extortionists will always use victimology as their main alibi to excuse their ongoing crimes.

UPDATES from here:

A recent study from the Brookings Institution found a strong correlation between a university’s high tuition costs and the likelihood of its student body conducting PC witch hunts and silencing dissenting opinions:
The average enrollee at a college where students have attempted to restrict free speech comes from a family with an annual income $32,000 higher than that of the average student in America….The pattern is clear: the more economically exclusive the institution, the more likely the students have attempted to hinder free speech.
No surprises there. Rich white students tend to suffer from “trauma envy” and thus have an insatiable need to identify with the “oppressed,” so long as such identification is done from a “safe space” where they don’t have to get unnecessarily dirty or suffer any oppression themselves. Poorer students tend to get distracted by trivialities such as wondering how they’ll feed themselves for the rest of their lives.
study published in the April 2017 edition of Motivation and Emotion confirms what we’ve been saying all along—the tendency to enter a public arena and thump one’s chest about the latest moral outrage has far less to do with any actual concern about social injustice than it does a psychological need of the chest-thumper to alleviate their own tangled guilt complexes. Researchers Zachary Rothschild and Lucas Keefer found that “moral outrage at third-party transgressions is sometimes a means of reducing guilt over one’s own moral failings and restoring a moral identity.” They also found that the deeper one’s sense of personal moral failure is, the more likely they are to publicly persecute some third party for similar ethical transgressions.
Let them have their guilt, but don’t let them try to foist it on you. After all, guilt is for the guilty.