Archive for the ‘Axis of Idiots’ Category

This is a good read. Pay attention people. We are at a dangerous crossroad in America. Freedom is at stake.

Nationalized Police?

I have two posts today. The one that follows this one is a re-post from 2008. When I wrote it, I got a lot of conspiracy theory like snarky comments for my effort.

Recently, there has been turmoil in our city streets. Businesses destroyed, property destroyed and police officers and National Guard told to stand down. Each and every one of these events is manufactured. They are built upon a false narrative from the media using one of our most precious rights to further an ideology and doing it with full knowledge that they are telling outright lies to the American people. Events such as these manufactured riots are not without purpose.

When added to the false narrative put out across the media people who are equivalent to black turban wearing Imams whip mobs of functional illiterates into destructive frenzy. Then, they begin to demand social justice. The very people who would cry lynch mob themselves become a destructive lynch mob. These mobs have been so worked up and the police in the cities so demonized that now police officers are being shot. The latest one just yesterday.

Then, in rides a politicized justice system whose professed purpose is to solve the manufactured problem. In other words, to deliver justice in the name of the wronged citizen. Never mind the wronged citizen robbed a store, assaulted a policeman and was returning to finish the job when he was justifiably shot. But, is that their real purpose? Or have they whipped illiterate mobs into rage to further a greater aim. A purpose even those in the mob believing someone is looking out for them and expecting favor will regret if it is ever realized. Their lives most certainly transformed – fundamentally so.

via Nationalized Police? | J. D. Pendry.

Great read.

Earth Day: 22 Ways to Think about the Climate-Change Debate : The Freeman : Foundation for Economic Education

Reasonable people can disagree about the nature and extent of climate change. But no one should sally forth into this hostile territory without reason and reflection.

“Some scientists make ‘period, end of story’ claims,” writes biologist and naturalist Daniel Botkin in the Wall Street Journal, “that human-induced global warming definitely, absolutely either is or isn’t happening.”

These scientists, as well as the network of activists and cronies their science supports, I will refer to as the Climate Orthodoxy. These are the folks who urge, generally, that (a) global warming is occurring, (b) it is almost entirely man-made, and (c) it is occurring at a rate and severity that makes it an impending planetary emergency requiring political action. A Climate Agnostic questions at least one of those premises.

Trying to point out the problems of the Climate Orthodoxy to its adherents is like trying to talk the Archbishop of Canterbury into questioning the existence of God. In that green temple, many climatologists and climate activists have become one in the same: fueled both by government grants and zealous fervor

More: Earth Day: 22 Ways to Think about the Climate-Change Debate : The Freeman : Foundation for Economic Education.

Ruh roh Raggie,

Looks like the science ain’t so settled now is it.
And Obama continues to shove this lie down everyone’s throat with his executive actions.

 

Scientists Say New Study Is A ‘Death Blow’ To Global Warming Hysteria

A new study out of Germany casts further doubt on the so-called global warming “consensus” by suggesting the atmosphere may be less sensitive to increases in carbon dioxide emissions than most scientists think.

A study by scientists at Germany’s Max Planck Institute for Meteorology found that man-made aerosols had a much smaller cooling effect on the atmosphere during the 20th Century than was previously thought. Why is this big news? It means increases in carbon dioxide emissions likely cause less warming than most climate models suggest.

via New Study Is A ‘Death Blow’ To Global Warming Hysteria | The Daily Caller.

Arm yourself with the knowledge that you are being lied to constantly from the media, the Democrats and anyone with a collectivist mindset.
Wake up people.

How To Untangle Orwellian Doublethink: 4 Secrets To Help You Spot BS

Even very smart people can be tricked by some of these terrible techniques…

In order to control millions of people, totalitarian or proto-totalitarian governments find it necessary to somehow prod their subjects into accepting that which is not true. Intelligent people will naturally see the truth and thereby comprehend when government lies to them – and so that’s the rub – how does totalitarian government deal with intelligent people when they must be lied to?

George Orwell provides the answer: intelligent people must be conditioned to reject self-evident truth, to reject the sanity of common sense, to accept the insanity of Orwellian Doublethink, to accept the lie and the truth in their minds simultaneously: “with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth.”

How do Dictatorships lie to intelligent people and get away with it?

1. In the early stages of totalitarianism the use of Orwellian Newspeak is preferred to blatant, in-your-face lies because Newspeak (otherwise known as Doublespeak) is the clever manipulation of words which mean one thing to the speaker and something very different or its opposite to the listener, thus one may plant a false idea into another’s head by lying to them directly, or by using the tricky technique of Doublespeak.

via How To Untangle Orwellian Doublethink: 4 Secrets To Help You Spot BS | PJ Lifestyle.

Good article.
Political correctness liberal stupidity that is swallowed hook, line and sinker at your local university.

Political Correctness: The Progressive Political Strategy

By Norman Rogers

Is there a bigger collection conformist drones than the tenured professorate of American universities? Tenured professors have lifetime guarantees of employment granted for the specific reason of protecting them from retaliation when they speak out on controversial subjects. Yet they are, by and large, terrified of even minor transgressions of progressive orthodoxy, otherwise known as political correctness. Granted, they do have reason to be afraid of stepping over politically correct lines. They won’t be paraded through the campus with a dunce cap while being pelted with rotten eggs, but they can be shunned, tried in a kangaroo court or fired. Universities may have totalitarian impulses, but they don’t have the enforcement tools that real totalitarians have. Harvard doesn’t have a forced labor camp in the forests of Maine. If a small percentage of professors stood up against political correctness it would melt away very quickly.

Political correctness is defined by dictionary.com as “marked by or adhering to a typically progressive orthodoxy on issues involving especially ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, or ecology.” For example, if you want to be politically correct, you cannot use ethnic or gender stereotypes, or suggest that gay marriage is a bad idea. When Larry Summers, then the president of Harvard University, timidly suggested as a hypothesis to explain the underrepresentation of women at the highest levels of mathematics that women may perform less well in math than men, he was quickly out of a job. Suggesting that men and woman are emotionally or intellectually different is prohibited by political correctness. If a mob of young blacks attack pedestrians, or robs a store, in the politically correct media they become unruly teenagers of no particular race. If you criticize the computer models that predict a global warming disaster you are depicted as an ignorant climate denier.

via Articles: Political Correctness: The Progressive Political Strategy.

In case you missed it, I thought y0u should catch up on the global warming scam.
Happy reading…

 

By Ken Haapala, President, Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)

Assertions and Creditable Evidence: This week, the movie, Merchants of Doubt, was released, which claims that certain scientists were in the pay of tobacco companies, etc. without advancing credible evidence. These scientists had the audacity of challenging that human emissions of greenhouse gases, particularly carbon dioxide, are causing unprecedented and dangerous global warming. Of course, warming has stopped even though emissions continue to increase and atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) continues to increase.

The movie is based on a book of the same name by Oreskes and Conway, which offers no credible evidence showing that the four scientists, including SEPP Chairman, Fred Singer, were paid by tobacco companies.

Without a causal mechanism, establishing that inhaling hot cigarette smoke was the primary cause of lung cancer was a difficult, statistically debatable process. Initially, many possible causes were considered, including replacing dirt roads with asphalted roads. The work by Sir Bradford Hill, and others, is laudatory.
There is no question that tobacco companies used unscrupulous means to attack the credibility of the researchers. This is well documented. Today’s issue centers on claims that anyone who questions the rigor of the statistical work supporting a politically popular cause must be using similar methods as the tobacco companies did – guilt by association. Fred Singer, who does not smoke, had the audacity of questioning the claim that second-hand smoke causes cancer. The claim is extremely weak, and far below any standard statistical threshold. For this, he was attacked in both the movie and the book as receiving money from tobacco companies, without any credible evidence supporting the claim.

These efforts illustrate how politically motivated persons will label those, who criticize the lack of rigorous science supporting a politically popular cause, as anti-science, or as paid by third parties. That scientists, and once highly-regarded scientific institutions, join this effort demonstrates the general lowering of standards of acceptable scientific rigor.

Fred Singer has challenged the producer of the movie for evidence. Ken Haapala is asking those who give it positive reviews to please provide credible evidence supporting claims that Singer were financially supported by tobacco companies. Of course, there is none. In fact, during his 25-year service as president of SEPP he received no salary or fee income whatsoever. Further, SEPP does not solicit support from corporations or government.

There may be a silver lining in the release of the movie. It comes at a time of increasing popularity of courtroom drama and crime shows. These are educating the viewing public that hearsay and rumor are not credible evidence. Some members of the public may begin to question the claims in the book and the movie that fail to produce credible evidence as hearsay and rumor. Who knows, they may begin to ask the same question about claims that human emissions of carbon dioxide are causing dangerous global warming? See links under Communicating Better to the Public – Dream Evidence Up.

You can read the rest here:

http://www.sepp.org/twtwfiles/2015/TWTW%203-7-15.pdf

 

And since we’re ignoring everything around the world except Ebola, this is happening…

North Korea now has the ability to produce a miniaturized nuclear warhead that can be mounted atop a ballistic missile.

That is the assessment of Gen. Curtis M. Scaparrotti, the senior U.S. commander on the Korean Peninsula, as he talked to reporters Friday. Scaparrotti also concluded that Pyongyang has a functioning long-range mobile missile launcher.

Although North Korea has conducted three nuclear explosion tests and several medium-and long-range missile test firings, it had not been known whether the regime had developed a nuclear warhead sufficiently small to fit on top of a missile with the range to reach the continental United States.

“Personally I think that they certainly have had the expertise in the past. They’ve had the right connections [with Iran and Pakistan],” commented Scaparrotti, “and so I believe have the capability to have miniaturized a [nuclear] device at this point, and they have the technology to potentially actually deliver what they say they have [and] I think they have a launcher that will carry it at this point.”

via US General: North Korea Now Has Nuclear Warheads for Missiles.