DOE working to wean U.S. off oil, not lower prices

DOE is working to promote alternatives such as biofuels and electric vehicles, Chu said. |

The Energy Department isn’t working to lower gasoline prices directly, Secretary Steven Chu said Tuesday after a Republican lawmaker scolded him for his now-infamous 2008 comment that gas prices in the U.S. should be as high as in Europe.
Instead, DOE is working to promote alternatives such as biofuels and electric vehicles, Chu told House appropriators during a hearing on DOE’s budget.

But Americans need relief now, Rep. Alan Nunnelee (R-Miss.) said — not high gasoline prices that could eventually push them to alternatives.

“I can’t look at motivations. I have to look at results. And under this administration the price of gasoline has doubled,” Nunnelee told Chu.
“The people of north Mississippi can’t be here, so I have to be here and be their voice for them,” Nunnelee added. “I have to tell you that $8 a gallon gasoline makes them afraid. It’s a cruel tax on the people of north Mississippi as they try to go back and forth to work. It’s a cloud hanging over economic development and job creation.”
Chu expressed sympathy but said his department is working to lower energy prices in the long term.
“We agree there is great suffering when the price of gasoline increases in the United States, and so we are very concerned about this,” said Chu, speaking to the House Appropriations energy and water subcommittee. “As I have repeatedly said, in the Department of Energy, what we’re trying to do is diversify our energy supply for transportation so that we have cost-effective means.”
Chu specifically cited a reported breakthrough announced Monday by Envia Systems, which received funding from DOE’s ARPA-E, that could help slash the price of electric vehicle batteries.
He also touted natural gas as “great” and said DOE is researching how to reduce the cost of compressed natural gas tanks for vehicles.
High gasoline prices will make research into such alternatives more urgent, Chu said.
“But is the overall goal to get our price” of gasoline down, asked Nunnelee.
“No, the overall goal is to decrease our dependency on oil, to build and strengthen our economy,” Chu replied. “We think that if you consider all these energy policies, including energy efficiency, we think that we can go a long way to becoming less dependent on oil and [diversifying] our supply and we’ll help the American economy and the American consumers.”
Tapping the Strategic Petroleum Reserve — as some congressional Democrats have advocated — is on the table but may not fit this situation, Chu added.
“Remember that the fundamental reason why we have an SPR is to deal with an interruption in supply,” he told reporters after the hearing. “What happened in Libya was an interruption in supply. We’re very concerned about what’s happening in Iran and so we’re working with the [International Energy Agency]. We’re also looking very closely at all these concerns.”
A DOE spokeswoman later clarified that the department is working with the IEA on monitoring global oil supply and prices, not on a specific release from the reserve.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/73408.html#ixzz1nnQemscM

Did Gingrich Just Win In Michigan?

Richard F. Miniter

Ever since Newt Gingrich's loss in Florida's Republican primary I've been trying to read that gotcha-just-where-I-want-you smile of his. What's his plan for winning the nomination? No matter how bleak his prospects appear, he does have a plan, that we can be certain of. And whatever it is, it is patient, simple and clever. He's the same man after all who wrote a book explaining how Robert E. Lee could have won the battle of Gettysburg by simply abandoning the field July 2, marching a day south and east and waiting for the Union Army to destroy itself. As Newt has done the same thing himself numerous times, most famously when he stopped negotiating with Bill Clinton when everybody told him he had to and if it wasn't for Bob Dole surrendering the government shut-down, almost folded up that administration like a cheap suit.

Now watching Romney and Santorum each beat the other's brains out in Michigan I think I finally figured out what Newt is up to. Waiting for it to finish so that he can move south and east again. Just like he always does. And if I'm right it means we'll look back and see that both Romney and Santorum showed up for a chess match, clutching a box of checkers.

From day one Gingrich could only win the nomination if he was the only conservative alternative to Romney. That a fact and that's his baggage. And so Michigan was the set-up Newt was waiting for. Let Romney be defeated in his home state he was finished and then Gingrich could take Santorum in the areas of the country where Monsignor Rick doesn't play all that well. Let Romney win and Santorum's momentum would peak and a week he'll be polling 10-15% again.

Heads I win, tails you lose because either way Gingrich will be the only conservative alternative to Romney.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/02/did_gingrich_just_win_in_michigan.html#ixzz1nnKvzokJ

A Guide to the Liberal Mind

By Victor Volsky

As a great fan of Jeff Foxworthy, it occurred to me that it might be a good idea to use his hilarious you-might-be-a-redneck comedy routine in an attempt to characterize the liberal mindset (tweaking Jeff's formula a bit to convert it from the suppositional to the unconditional).  So, with apologies to the wonderful country comedian, here are some of the notable features of the liberal's mental landscape:

• If you believe that freedom of expression is sacrosanct but would like nothing better than to deny it to anyone who doesn't share your views, you are a liberal.
• If you believe that the 1^st Amendment separates church from state, but not state from church, you are a liberal.
• If you believe that the 2^nd Amendment was the founding fathers' big mistake and that the 10^th Amendment shouldn't be taken seriously, you are a liberal.
• If you believe that endlessly discussing a problem amounts to actually solving it, you are a liberal.
• If you believe that the results of progressive programs are irrelevant and that only good intentions count, you are a liberal.
• If you believe that Mark Foley, who wrote salacious e-mails to a young but legally adult congressional page, was an evil libertine, while Gerry Studds, who had sex with an underage congressional page, was a knight in shining armor, you are a liberal intellectual.
• If you believe that Obama is an intellectual giant whose IQ is off the charts even though you have no idea what his IQ actually is, you are a liberal.
• If you believe that a decades-old drunk-driving episode in George W. Bush's biography comes under the "people's right to know" doctrine while the entire past of Barack Obama is protected by his right to privacy, you are a liberal.
• If you believe that we can spend and borrow our way out of the recession in keeping with the thoroughly discredited Keynesian model, you are a liberal.
• If you believe that taxpayers don't change their behavior when the government tries to squeeze more tax money out of them, you are a liberal.
• If you believe that Americans are undertaxed, while carefully hiding your own money in offshore tax shelters, you are a liberal.
• If you believe, with Nancy Pelosi and Valerie Jarrett, that unemployment benefits are a boon to the economy (but without taking this brilliant insight to its logical conclusion: that the path to unprecedented prosperity lies through 100% unemployment), you are a liberal.
• If you believe that affirmative action improves the lot of poor minorities rather than miring them in perpetual misery and dependence, you are a liberal.
• If you believe that Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty failed because not enough money (a trifling $16 trillion) was spent on it, you are a liberal.
• If you believe that God's middle name is Kennedy, you are a liberal.
• If you believe that Jimmy Carter, who has been working indefatigably over the last three decades to subvert his country's foreign policy, is the best ex-president ever, you are a liberal.
• If you believe that the Fox News Channel is the modern-day equivalent of Völkischer Beobachter and The New York Times a light unto the world, and whatever the Times publishes is God-given truth while whatever it deems unfit to print doesn't deserve to be known, you are a liberal.
• If you angrily castigate your compatriots for being profligate with their energy consumption while generously allowing yourself to use more than 20 times as much energy as a regular household (see Gore, Al), you are a liberal.
• If you believe that your choice of a car affects the planet's climate while sunspot activity doesn't, you are a liberal.
• If you are notoriously stingy with personal charitable giving but deliriously generous with other people's money while proudly posing as the true benefactor of the poor, you are a liberal.
• If you believe that human nature is infinitely malleable and that nurture easily trumps nature, you are a liberal.
• If you believe that your women's studies degree is superior to a Ph.D. in engineering, you are a liberal.
• If you believe that the anarchists, hoodlums, and hobos who make up the Occupy movement are noble idealists who truly represent the 99 percent of America while the Tea Partiers are Nazi troglodytes and of course racists, you are a liberal.
• If you believe that perjury is not a crime if it is about sex, you are a liberal.
• If you believe that Bill Clinton defended the Constitution as he repeatedly perjured himself, you are a liberal.
• If you believe that Hillary's rather primitive bribery scheme with cattle futures was so complicated as to be beyond human comprehension and thus ought to be shoved into the memory hole, you are a liberal.
• If you believe that Chuck Colson, who served seven months behind bars for procuring a single FBI file, got away with murder, but the Clintons, who demanded from the FBI some 900 files, were defenseless lambs relentlessly persecuted by cruel Republicans, you are a liberal.
• If you believe that the mountains of corpses and rivers of blood that have been the chief result of all communist "experiments" are merely collateral damage, a possibly regrettable but unavoidable byproduct of the high-minded attempts to build paradise on earth and thus nothing to talk about, you are a liberal.
• If you believe that Alger Hiss or Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were innocent victims of McCarthyism, you are a liberal.
• If, to reinforce your salon cred, you bedeck your infant in a T-shirt bearing the likeness of that murderous sadist, Che Guevara, you are a liberal.
• If you believe, against plentiful historical evidence to the contrary, that appeasement works and that America's unilateral disarmament will surely mollify enemies by demonstrating our peaceful intentions and shame them into following our example, you are a liberal.
• If you believe that negotiations are the be-all and end-all of international relations and that as long as our adversaries deign to talk to us, everything is fine and dandy, even if they clearly use the negotiations as a smokescreen to pursue their nefarious schemes unmolested, you are a liberal.
• If you believe that the Palestinians sincerely want an accommodation with Israel and that only the stiff-necked Jews' obduracy stands in the way of Middle East peaceful settlement, you are a liberal.
• If you believe that all cultures are equal but that Western culture is less equal than the others, you are a liberal.
• If you believe that a crucifix immersed in the "artist's" urine or a bucket of paint splashed onto a canvas is genuine art, you are a liberal.
• If you believe that a murderous hoodlum is not really guilty because he grew up in a tough neighborhood and that "judgmentalism" is really the only crime deserving of opprobrium, you are a liberal.
• If you reflexively sympathize with the criminal while scornfully ignoring the crime victim, you are a liberal.
• If you believe that Bill Maher is indeed politically incorrect and Warren Buffet is dying to pay more taxes, you are a liberal.
• If you love the "people" but despise the "populace," you are a liberal.
• If you believe that you and your ilk will be able to fool the American people indefinitely...well, you may have a point there.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/02/a_guide_to_the_liberal_mind.html#ixzz1nnIypypg

Gasoline Prices and Dollar Prices

Gasoline Prices and Dollar Prices

The Effect of Political Correctness on Politics

By Warren Beatty

The late Charlton Heston once said, "Political correctness is tyranny with manners."

The rationale of political correctness (PC) is to prevent supposed minorities from being offended (the manners) -- to compel people (the tyranny) to avoid using words or behavior that may upset homosexuals, women, non-whites, the crippled, the stupid, the fat, the ugly, or any other minority group identified by those who define PC. Its primary method is the redefinition or replacement of words and behavior in order to avoid offense, to be sensitive to the feelings of minorities.

Before we can examine PC and its effect on politics, we must first understand PC's origin and purpose.

The concept of PC was developed at the Institute for Social Research, in Frankfurt, Germany, in the early 1920s. The institute considered why communism in Russia was not spreading westward. The conclusion was that Western civilization, with its belief that the individual could develop valid ideas, was the problem. At the root of communism was the theory that all valid ideas came from the state, that the individual is nothing. The institute believed that the only way for communism to advance and spread was to help Western civilization destroy itself, or else force it to.

The institute said that by undercutting Western civilization's foundations by weakening the rights of individuals through the change of speech and thought patterns, by spreading the idea that vocalizing beliefs was disrespectful to others and had to be avoided to make up for past inequities and injustice, Western civilization could be destroyed. The institute wanted to call its method something that sounded positive -- thus "political correctness."

Another communist, Chairman Mao Zedong, in China in the 1930s, wrote an article on the "correct" handling of contradictions among the Chinese people, thus giving us the PC concept of "sensitivity training."

Today we can add socialism to communism. Does the addition of that economic philosophy alter the original intent of PC in any way?

Here are two specific examples of PC and of not being sensitive.

First, a famous PC incident occurred in Washington, D.C. in 1999. David Howard, a white aide to Anthony A. Williams, the black mayor of Washington, D.C., correctly used the word "niggardly" in reference to a particularly small budget item. This reference upset one of his black colleagues, who interpreted it as a racial slur and lodged a complaint. The use of the word "niggardly" was not PC due to its phonetic similarity to the racial slur "nigger," despite the fact that the two words are etymologically unrelated. Howard was not "sensitive" or PC. He actually resigned his job, but was reinstated after a national outcry over the conflation of unrelated terms.

The cited incident (and others like it) raise the question, "Are we now to abandon the use of certain useful words in the English language in the name of sensitivity and PC?"

We can now examine how PC specifically affects politics.

PC particularly serves mediocre politicians and the bureaucrats they appoint. It is used to hold on to jobs, silencing critics and threatening anyone who questions their abilities. If the offended party can strike back with accusation of racism, discrimination, prejudice, and hatred, then PC has done its job. PC is a way of covering up incompetence and corruption. It has worked well in the U.S. for decades: attack the accuser. Benjamin Jealous, president of the NAACP, wrote, "Let me tell you something about political correctness: when politicians start overdoing it with PC, rest assured they're either hopeless at what they do or have screwed everything up big time."

The current uproar about the Health and Human Services (HHS) edict on birth control is a good example of the PC problem. The HHS edict said it wanted to expand "health carepreventive services." But that PC phrase included some services that were contrary to the First-Amendment guarantee of freedom of religion. PC tends to eliminate any possibility of the discussion of the rightness and wrongness of a particular action through the restraint of free speech.

As a final example of PC run amok, consider this: Why have "swamps" been replaced by "wetlands"? Why have "rainforests" replaced "jungles"? Are they not the same things? A government that wants to spend taxpayer money on conservation needs to avoid the negative connotations involving parasites and disease, so it redefines/replaces words in order to be more PC. The preservation of wetlands is a much more noble cause than preserving a mosquito-infested swamp.

The continuing necessity for PC and sensitivity indicates that the ideal of societal equality (as defined by the PC-definers) has not yet been realized.

Where, ultimately, can PC take us? One forecast was published in 1949 by George Orwell. In his book 1984, Orwell, characterizing "newspeak," wrote, "The destruction of words is a beautiful thing." Big Brother, the personification of the power of the state, through newspeak "simplified" words (gave them definitions he determined) to better control society. With the simplification of words, the younger generations knew only Big Brother's version of reality. Is PC today's newspeak?

Dr. Beatty earned a Ph.D. in quantitative management and statistics from Florida State University. He was a (very conservative) professor of quantitative management specializing in using statistics to assist/support decision-making. He has been a consultant to many small businesses and is now retired. Dr. Beatty is a veteran who served in the U.S. Army for 22 years. He blogs at rwno.limewebs.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/02/the_effect_of_political_correctness_on_politics.html#ixzz1nRL3mJHM

Impeach Them All

By Monty Pelerin

The US Government continues actions that will result in its own demise. That might seem fitting, except that its failure will seriously harm the citizenry.

Government decisions and actions have assured an economic collapse that will result in another depression. Federal debts and promises are too large to be honored, a conclusion based not on economics but on simple arithmetic.

The government collapse will likely trigger the economic collapse, although the order could be reversed. Arguably, we are already in a depression which has been disguised by juicing GDP via excessive government spending. This spending has been funded increased government debt in magnitudes never seen before. To put matters into perspective, by the end of President Obama's first four years, he will have added more to the federal debt than all 43 Presidents who preceded him.

The economic collapse, as a result of this borrowing and stimulus, will be terrifying and worse than it needed be. Whether it is preceded by hyperinflation or goes directly into a deflationary collapse is moot and immaterial regarding an ultimate depression. Resulting conditions will be worse than those experienced during the Great Depression of the 1930s.

As frightening as the economic event will be, it will be superseded by the political damage. Given the state of our economy and the state of our government, there is a high probability that we lose our form of government. The confluence of the horrific economic events coupled with what H. L. Mencken foresaw long ago brings the very survival of freedom and liberty into question:

As democracy is perfected, the office of President represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be occupied by a downright moron.

Mencken's "great and glorious day" is upon us. We have found our "moron," not that he is the first or only one. His intent "to transform America" suggests that his actions will not be limited to methods considered appropriate by his predecessors.

In a recent article on American Thinker Steve McCann expressed his concerns that Obama is following in the footsteps of Twentieth Century despots:

... Barack Obama is the most corrupt, dictatorial, and ideologically driven president in American history? That his entire being and psyche are devoted to transforming the country not only into a socialist utopia, but into a nation permanently governed by a radical oligarchy?

Other observers share McCann's opinion, and many do so in less complimentary terms.

What Made This Country Great?

America became great not because it consisted of great men (even though there were many). Our system of governance encouraged laissez-faire capitalism and the freedom and opportunity that allowed ordinary men to do great things. Greatness did not come from electing great leaders. They may have helped, but they were neither necessary nor sufficient for the country to succeed.

The Founding Fathers provide a framework and an "operating system" which allowed the country to prosper. These hearty men were wise, courageous and noble. They understood the nature of man and the danger of power. They established a system designed to protect people from both. They designed a form of governance to accommodate imperfect and less than honorable men. Their primary focus was on limiting the role and power of the federal government.

Under such an arrangement the energy and creativity of people pursuing their own self-interests quickly transformed America into a dynamo unlike anything seen before. In less than a century, the US grew from a backwoods society to one of the most powerful, prosperous nations in the world. Along the way the country elected its share of idiots and morons, perhaps not in a clinical sense but in terms of the gap between their abilities and the abilities required for their offices. The limited role of government restricted the damage that could be imposed on the citizenry. Imperfect men were constrained by a nearly perfect Constitution.

What Happened?

Sadly, the citizenry is no longer protected by the institutional constraints established by the Founders. Over time, continued attacks on the Constitution by the power hungry elite weakened the document. Today, it is more an interesting historical artifact than the basis of law and government limitations for which it was created. That is the problem, not the current occupant of the White House. The deterioration in government constraints enabled fools, hucksters and charlatans to exploit the country. The decline of the Constitution led to the decline of America.

Where We Are Now?

The government has now grown to Leviathan proportions. It is into everything from light bulbs to toilets and every other aspect of our lives. No business is immune from inane and arbitrary bureaucratic regulations, most of which make no economic, environmental or occupational sense. Faceless bureaucrats now run your life and your business, believing they are more knowledgeable and trustworthy than you. Via force they have slowly crippled the productivity of American workers and companies. In doing so, they raise the cost of living for all citizens. Their hubris and ideology supersedes any need for cost-benefit analyses. When they "know" something is "right," they will make you conform.

This country is approaching the fascist state which ran the economy of Nazi Germany. Government has removed decisions from the board room and delegated them to the mindless bureaucracy. As a result, productivity has declined and uncertainty has increased. Investment has declined and much of it has been driven to more welcoming places overseas. Human capital is fleeing and the rate of outflow will likely accelerate if conditions continue to be unfavorable. Jobs are scarce and educational results are disgraceful. Everything the government has run is either bankrupt or soon to be. In short, we are in one big economic mess, all of which can be traced back to the relaxation/elimination of constitutional constraints. When government broke its chains, we began our descent into toward the dustbin of history.

Much of the emasculation of the Constitution happened surreptitiously and slowly over many years. No amendments were added or overruled. An implicit agreement among the political class seems to have been struck. Both parties apparently considered their work too important to be constrained by some old document. Court decisions soon reflected this political attitude. The judiciary, while a separate branch of the government by law, has always been de facto cognizant of and bent with the political winds. The notion that justice is blind or even consistent is questionable when judges are appointed based on political and legal ideology. Republican law says the Constitution is fixed and to be interpreted by original intent. Democrat law says the Constitution is a living document, subject to change to meet the needs of a changing society.

Blame for the destruction of much of the Constitutional constraints is bi-partisan. Both political parties had incentives to increase their power, only achievable by relaxing the legal limitations on government. Both chose to ignore or violate the Constitution when it served their purposes. After a century of this behavior, the Constitution is a shell of its original self. Unfortunately, that thin piece of parchment is all that stands between us and tyranny. It has been the difference between the development of the United States and the rest of the world. Now it is gone.

What Can Be Done?

Let us return to the beginning, or at least the McCann quote:

... Barack Obama is the most corrupt, dictatorial, and ideologically driven president in American history? That his entire being and psyche are devoted to transforming the country not only into a socialist utopia, but into a nation permanently governed by a radical oligarchy?

Read that quote again, slowly. Now read the second half of it again. I am not offended by the characterization of Obama or even its accuracy. What galls me is the presumption that one man, Democrat or Republican, believes he has the authority to change the governance model of this country. That notion is antithetical to everything this country was based upon and everything that enabled it to become so prosperous. It conflicts with all of our traditions, customs and laws. The mere thought implies that we are no longer a country subject to the Rule of Law but subject to the whims of whoever the current ruler might be. This is the governing principle of countries like North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela and the old Soviet Union. If this is acceptable, then we are truly doomed as a country.

Do the masses believe that a president has such power? Have they become so dumbed-down that they don't understand the consequences? Has our country fallen this far so fast? If so, totalitarianism is just a matter of time. If Obama doesn't achieve his objectives, then some successor will. America is over if mob rule (democracy) has replaced the Constitution and the Rule of Law.

Democrats in favor of what is happening should realize the implications. Just because your man is assuming these extra Constitutional powers today doesn't mean the next in that office will be so pleasing. Remember how you felt about George Bush when you saw some of his actions as unconstitutional? How would you feel if he came back to office with expanded power? Or, how about a reincarnation of Richard Nixon? How would you feel about Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh or whomever your worst nightmare might be in office with virtually unlimited power? Hopefully, you understand the danger. It is not the man, it is the power. No man can be trusted with excessive power!

I see no reason for optimism regarding any solution to this problem. We no longer have politicians with conscience or integrity. Why have Democrats and Republicans not stepped forward to admonish Obama for his extra-Constitutional acts? Why has someone not issued a cease and desist order backed up by the threat of impeachment hearings? Why do these elected fools stand by and watch the destruction of their country? Does no one have courage? Do principles not matter?

Sadly, I think the answers to most of these questions are obvious. Both political parties participated in the destruction of the Constitution because they believed it to be in their personal self-interest. Strengthening government strengthens themselves. If both parties didn't willingly participate in this destruction, we could never have moved so far off course.

Now we are close to going over a cliff from which there is no return. That would result in a substantial loss of our remaining freedoms, our prosperity and our country. The siren song of our Socialist in Chief does not explain this problem. We know how socialism works -- it doesn't! It steals freedom, impoverishes people (except the ruling elite) and ultimately results in the collapse of governments, economies and civilizations. The data on these claims are irrefutable. Socialism, even in theory, does not work. In practice it is worse; it is death, destruction and suffering.

The Outrage

I do not blame Obama for seeking to increase his power, control or even the pursuit of a dictatorship. Blaming him is like blaming a shark because it preys on other creatures. It is in the nature of sharks and politicians. That is what they do.

What I am outraged over is that he can so blatantly commit transgressions without a meaningful peep from either political party. That is clear indication of how corrupt our political system is. The 500 plus elected peacocks that strut around looking for TV cameras to impress us with how smart, important and necessary they are, are the problem. Republicans and Democrats alike ignore this blatant violation of the law and the anger of the public.

Obama is a problem on many levels. But he is merely a product of the corrupt system. Both parties have lost their will to do what is right and what they are legally obligated to do. They are different wings of the same predatory bird. Their behavior is indistinguishable from that two organized crime syndicates who have cut a deal. Rather than act on principles, they agreed not to fight other than at the ballot box. So long as neither party exposes the other, the plunder and pillage of the population can continue. The two mob bosses apparently have seen cooperation as a better solution than fighting. Some years the Bloods will be in charge and other years the Crips. No matter who is in charge, there is plenty of loot to divvy up. Better to share the scam than to jeopardize its continuance.

Congress is clearly in violation of their oath of office to defend and uphold the Constitution. Impeachment proceedings should be brought against this president. They will not be and our country will be lost. The selfishness and greed of the political class is best served in such a fashion.

Unless meaning is put back into the Constitution, it will not matter who wins or loses the next election. Elections no longer matter! We think we are voting for change and can achieve such by changing horses. That is exactly what they want you to believe. If you were to recognize that you no longer have any control over what is happening, then the myth of government has been exploded.

I have no solution to this problem other than to Impeach Them All. That is the correct solution, but not a practical one.

Thus we are left waiting for the collapse. Perhaps in rebuilding from the ashes a Constitutional Republic that worked and we wasted, can be re-instituted. But a collapse of the economy, the government and much of society is very dangerous and opens the door for a demagogue to assume power. That was the recipe used by Hitler.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/02/impeach_them_all.html#ixzz1mStrNpUU

Are Libs Smarter?

By Jeffrey Folks

Every teacher knows that one can make any group of kids look smart just by altering the content of the test. That is what's behind several studies purporting to show that liberals are smarter than conservatives.

Using data from previous studies in Britain, researchers at Brock University in Canada claim to have discovered a relationship between IQ scores and political orientation. The study suggests that persons of lower IQ choose to be conservatives because conservatism opposes change and is thus "safer" for those who are slow to adapt. Not only that, the researchers find that conservatives, being persons of low intelligence, are less tolerant, less original, and less open-minded than others.

In a separate study, Satoshi Kanazawa of the London School of Economics purports to have found that highly intelligent people tend to identify themselves as liberals and atheists. Researchers suggest that the link may reflect "evolutionary forces," as smarter humans advance the species with "new thinking," or it may result from smarter individuals competing for status by embracing unconventional and "advanced" ideas.

There are several fallacies, I believe, behind both of these studies. Intentionally or not, the "questions asked" -- in this case, IQ tests from as long as forty years ago that measure a subset abstract intelligence but nothing else -- were selected to arrive at the result that libs are smarter.

In fact, on all measures of practical intelligence and performance, conservatives would seem to be brainier.

Standard IQ tests have never been a very good predictor of success because they fail to measure a broad range of mental aptitudes -- everything from mechanical ability to social skills and emotional stability. Many of these alternative mental aptitudes contribute to one's ability to function in the real world. They comprise a set of skills that philosophers have traditionally referred to as "good sense," the sort of intelligence that liberals appear to lack entirely if we are to judge from their recent "investments" in green energy and their mishandling of health care reform.

In contrast to the abstract reasoning measured by standard IQ testing, this deeper intelligence plays a crucial role in making essential life choices. It involves more than solving problems on paper; it makes possible prudent choices, careful planning, and responsible behavior over the course of an entire lifetime. The evidence suggests that liberals don't score too well on these benchmarks. It is a fact, for instance, that those stodgy conservative sorts who marry and stay married over the period of a lifetime live longer. They also raise children who are less likely to commit crimes, take drugs, or commit suicide. And they end up donating more to charity and participating more in volunteer activities. All of these measurements reflect a more profound order of intelligence that exists among conservatives and not among liberals.

Perhaps the best overall proxy for intelligence is happiness. One would expect that those who are truly intelligent would find a way to obtain happiness. And yet every objective study of happiness, conducted by unbiased polling, reveals that as a group, conservatives are happier than liberals. If conservatives are such idiots, why are they so happy?

According to Jaime Napier, a researcher at Yale University, conservatives are happier because they believe in meritocracy. That is, they believe that in America, with its free-market system, they will be rewarded for their efforts. When people believe in the system in which they work and live, they have a sense of purpose and fulfillment. They can work toward a goal, and they have a positive orientation toward life. This is certainly part of what it means to be happy. But not all.

The more important reason why conservatives are happier than liberals is because they possess a moral intelligence that liberals lack. While they may disagree on the details, conservatives believe in the existence of fixed ideas and strict moral accountability. This deeper level of intelligence involves more than just multiplying numbers or solving word games; it involves making decisions based on crucial assessments of the broader purposes of life. In other words, it involves the possession of a moral and religious sensibility.

Conservatives display this sort of moral intelligence; liberals, whose moral orientation is based on relativism if not nihilism, don't. Not only that, liberals spend their lives mocking and sneering at the very sorts of intelligence that would otherwise make them happy.

The most powerful novelistic treatment of this paradox can be found in Fyodor Dostoevsky's The Devils. In this magnificent novel, the "devils" are those who, out of pride and spite, turn their faces away from those simple truths that would actually save them. Like liberals today, Dostoevsky's devils imagine themselves to be more intelligent than their more conservative-minded neighbors. They believe that they constitute the intelligentsia, and that, as such, they have the right to decide the future direction of their country. Unfortunately, their "intelligence," and their penchant for social transformation whatever the cost, leads to violence, anarchy, and ruin. Dostoevsky understood that the intellectual class, so full of confidence in its own powers to transform life for others (and in its absolute right to do so, based on superior "intelligence"), is the greatest threat to human happiness.

For one thing, liberal intellectuals pay little if any attention to the cost of their reforms. Yet fiscal responsibility, which is integrally related to happiness if not survival, is one of the aspects of life that is controlled by this deeper level of intelligence. The ability to conceptualize the long-term effects of debt, and to restrain one's impulses so as to manage debt responsibly, is a form of intelligence that conservatives possess and liberals lack. One need look no farther than Obama's 2013 budget proposal, with its endless future of trillion-dollar deficits, for proof.

In reality, the abstract intelligence measured by academic testing -- the testing that "proves" that liberals are smarter than conservatives -- is precisely the sort of impractical, detached mental functioning that leads to failure in the real world.

Among those who actually produce actual goods and services -- those who are not government bureaucrats, teachers, or community organizers -- a very different kind of intelligence holds sway. This practical intelligence involves the ability to focus on outcomes, to display resolve, and to make difficult decisions within an imperfect world. It involves mental qualities that are not measured on academic tests.

Put simply, conservatives are smarter.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/02/are_libs_smarter.html#ixzz1mNg7IPmB

Top Dem: 'The Fact is You Don’t Need a Budget'

http://nation.foxnews.com/budget/2012/02/08/top-dem-fact-you-don-t-need-budget


All reality has left these people. If it wasn't so terrible it would be hilarious.

A Post-American World?

By Victor Davis Hanson In a scathing denunciation of Mitt Romney last week, Fareed Zakaria praised Barack Obama for his nuanced understanding of what Zakaria has called the “Post-American World”: This is a new world, very different from the America-centric one we got used to over the last generation. Obama has succeeded in preserving and even enhancing U.S. influence in this world precisely because he has recognized these new forces at work. He has traveled to the emerging nations and spoken admiringly of their rise. He replaced the old Western club and made the Group of 20 the central decision-making forum for global economic affairs. By emphasizing multilateral organizations, alliance structures and international legitimacy, he got results. It was Chinese and Russian cooperation that produced tougher sanctions against Iran. It was the Arab League’s formal request last year that made Western intervention in Libya uncontroversial. By and large, you have ridiculed this approach to foreign policy, arguing that you would instead expand the military, act unilaterally, and talk unapologetically. That might appeal to Republican primary voters, but chest-thumping triumphalism won’t help you secure America’s interests or ideals in a world populated by powerful new players. Where to start with Mr. Zakaria’s indictment? George Bush traveled frequently to “emerging nations,” as did Bill Clinton. The former’s multibillion-dollar initiatives to help battle AIDS in Africa have saved millions of lives. Long before Obama, the G-something meetings were already more than “the old Western club.” Unlike Obama in Libya or Clinton in Serbia, Bush did not intervene in Afghanistan or Iraq without first obtaining congressional support. Bush obtained United Nations approval for our intervention in Afghanistan and tried to for Iraq. In contrast, Clinton did not go to the U.N. before bombing Serbia, and Obama obtained U.N. resolutions to enforce a no-fly-zone in Libya and offer humanitarian aid, and he then summarily far exceeded both by bombing ground troops. War with Iran is more likely now than it was in 2008. The opening of a U.S. embassy in Syria accomplished nothing, while China and Russia hand-in-glove block American efforts to impose sanctions on Damascus. The Arab League authorized American action in Libya and then whined when we interpreted its so-so support as a green light for bombing rather than merely giving the rebels military and material aid. Libya is a blueprint for nothing, and that pattern will not be followed in Syria. Unfortunately, the U.S.-forced removal of a tyrant without the presence of American ground troops — completely different from what we did in Germany, Italy, Japan, Serbia, Panama, Afghanistan, and Iraq — gives no guarantee that something just as bad cannot follow, as we are seeing with the Arab Winter. In the case of Iran, loud promises of face-to-face talks; empty threats about deadlines; failed efforts at quid pro quo deals with the Russians to thwart proliferation; near silence when protesters jammed the streets of Teheran in spring 2009; mushy apologetic references to our role in the 1953 coup against Mossadegh; and ostentatious outreach to Syria, Iran’s best friend in the region, coupled with even more ostentatious snubbing of Israel, Iran’s worst enemy in the region — all these have made both an Iranian bomb and a war in the Persian Gulf more, not less, likely. In short, I am afraid that “multilateral organizations” and “international legitimacy” long ago were mostly reduced to partisan talking points. Liberal hysteria over Guantanamo, renditions, tribunals, preventive detention, and Predators vanished when Obama embraced or expanded all of them. If there is a war with Iran, the Left will be as quiet about a preemptive effort as it was once so loud over Iraq. “Chest-thumping triumphalism” of course is unwise; but even worse is naïve and clumsy deal-making at the expense of American interests and allies. It cannot be seriously argued that since 2009 China, Iran, North Korea, Russia, Syria, or Venezuela are either more reasonable toward, or more deterred by, the United States. The old hot spots in Afghanistan, Cyprus, Eastern Europe, Iraq, the Falkland Islands, Mexico, North Africa, the former Soviet republics, Taiwan, and the West Bank are not cooler than in 2009, for all the 2012 Obama cool, but more likely warmer and more unstable. I do not think that allies like Britain, Canada, India, Israel, or Poland are more rather than less friendly. So what about the president’s being praised for transitioning America to “a post-American world,” in which we are supposed to accept a new multipolar reality to replace the fossilized concept of American exceptionalism? Our own massive debt, the rise of China, and the emergence of India and Brazil as major economies are often offered as proof that post-Americans should accept a new “lead from behind” role abroad. Yet in 1939 there were more multipolar contenders — France, Britain, Germany, Russia, and Japan — than there are now. And in varying ways all those rivals deprecated an isolationist Depression-era America, despite the fact that the U.S. had the world’s largest economy and had miraculously, just two decades earlier, sent a million men to Europe in a single year to ensure the allied victory over imperial Germany. Long ago we first heard faddish talk of post-Americanism. Supposedly superior models in Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan energized throngs and produced modern arms far more than did a Grapes of Wrath America. Next, the declinists warned us about the ascendant Communist Soviet Union, which overran Eastern Europe and Asia, and whose missiles went up, unlike ours, which crashed on the launch pad. Then followed Japan, Inc., in the 1970s, which was to own American golf courses, while we were to tend them. Then in the late 1990s it was the turn of the utopian European Union, which reminded Americans what a waste was our military budget and how silly was our suspicion of man-made global warming. Currently, the fact that China has a bullet train and we do not is supposed to convince us that half a billion Chinese never having been to a Western-style doctor and the Chinese industrial landscape resembling the area around Lake Erie circa 1920 simply don’t matter. But is the latest cry-wolf trend one that we should finally heed? Post-Americans certainly have put themselves in a financial jam by borrowing an additional $12 trillion since 2000. If Obama were to be reelected, he would finish his presidency having borrowed more money than all prior presidents put together. We run chronic trade deficits and outsource millions of jobs overseas. Unemployment remains high, economic growth sluggish. Federal oil leases are canceled and pipelines not built. We did not pacify Iraq quickly, and we remain bogged down in Afghanistan. Still, all of that hardly adds up to a post-American world. Instead, by almost any historical standard of assessing civilizations, the 21st century looks far brighter for America than for its rivals. American population growth is robust; post-Japan, post-Europe, and post-China are aging and shrinking. We are daily increasing our known fossil-fuel reserves; those in Europe and China are declining. Copying and rivaling America’s free-market economy are impressive Chinese achievements, but hardly proof that China can likewise emulate our Constitution, racial inclusion, transparency, or cultural dynamism. With all the post-America talk, we forget that one American on average still produces threes times as many goods and services as do three Chinese. Our Constitution facilitates economic change; post-Communist Russia and China still cannot square the circle of authoritarian government and free markets. In its worst financial crisis in the last 80 years, the United States nonetheless proved more robust and stable than the soon-to-be-post–European Union. In some world rankings of the top 15 institutions of higher learning, California’s universities are more heavily represented than are those of any entire country — except the United States itself. India is still straitjacketed by caste impediments, Europe by class boundaries, China, Japan, and South Korea by sharp racial distinctions, and the Arab world by insidious tribal loyalties. The idea of a Brazilian or Chinese President Obama is the stuff of fantasy. All that retrograde typecasting seems pretty post-something to me. In contrast, America, alone of the major powers, is a multiracial open society bound by one culture, where merit, more than race, tribe, birth, or class, determines success. When post-Americans unwisely talk about slashing the military, we still should remember that all the world’s other carrier battle groups combined will for decades lack the power of one of our eleven. The productivity of American agriculture continues to be unsurpassed, in a world that will become increasingly food short and hungry. And a notable thing about American farming is that it has millions of acres idle or allotted to subsidized biofuels, suggesting that we could easily produce even more food than we do now. China has riots; Russia has riots; Europe has riots; the Arab world is one large riot these days. America has a few sputtering Occupy Wall Street street carnivals. An authoritarian, aging, resource-starved, mercantilist, and racially intolerant China is hardly an inspiration for an aspiring Africa. Latin American elites do not send their children to Tokyo for medical training. American families are not emigrating to India or Brazil to find opportunity. Americans cross the border for vacation homes, not to find work in Latin America. The equivalents of post-America’s Facebook, Amazon, Walmart, and Google do not sprout up in a supposedly ascendant Istanbul or Mumbai. Nor does the United Nations offer much hope of replacing American influence. In Libya, the U.S. bragged that it had obtained U.N. approval for a no-fly zone and humanitarian relief — but then had to violate those resolutions in order to join its NATO allies in bombing Moammar Qaddafi’s forces. Whether Iran lets off a nuclear weapon, or North Korea uses one against South Korea or Japan, depends not on the U.N. Security Council, or Chinese deterrence, but only on whether those rogue states fear a response from the United States. Again, as far as Syria goes, the U.N. is irrelevant. Of course, the United States should work with its allies. It must be a good international citizen and where possible embrace international cooperation. Who even minds if on occasion an unsure American president may feel obliged to bow or apologize to foreign leaders? America will have to reduce its borrowing, pay down its debts, and reformulate its entitlement system, or face a Greek-style financial crisis. That said, let us not confuse the trendy pumps of the hour with the unchanging water of the ages. A new Shanghai airport, a Brazilian Olympics, a new Russian pipeline, or a new Indian enterprise zone still does not tell us much about the underlying principles and values of nations that so far have not been able to create transparent institutions, stable consensual constitutions, sustainably lawful societies, and meritocratic, rather than racially or tribally based, advancement of the sort that allows a nation to meet crises, adapt, and grow stronger. As far as the 21st century goes, compared to the alternatives, it is more likely that we are in a pre-American than a post-American age. — NRO contributor Victor Davis Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and the author most recently of the just-released The End of Sparta, a novel about ancient freedom.

© National Review Online 2012. All Rights Reserved. 

New conservative publication offers to practice 'Combat Journalism' for the right

New conservative publication offers to practice 'Combat Journalism' for the right

http://freebeacon.com/

The Duty of the Citizen

Its up to us.

Its up to YOU...

What do we do? How do we take back control of our

government and protect the ideals which made the

United States of America that shining city on the hill

Ronald Reagan described?

We need to do many things. We need to re-educate

ourselves as to how different a society based on

individual freedom is from societies that are not. We

need to pass down ethics and morals inherent in the

founding of our nation. A focus on fairness is not an

American ideal. Equality of opportunity is the goal, not

equality of results. We need to create a standard of what

is expected of every United States Citizen. We need to

use the time provided by our freedom and success to

better ourselves and our minds. American

exceptionalism has provided us with leisure time to do

great things because of the efficiency created by talented

and exceptional people. It would be shameful to waste

the gift of freedom we possess. Let us not continue to

waste this gift we have as Americans but let us fight

everyday against the natural decay which comes with

being comfortable.

Put simply, we need to make better choices, choose

carefully, and always think about the possible outcomes.

We need to choose the hard things in life. One of the

most memorable quotes I know is from John F. Kennedy

when he said: “We choose to go to the moon and do the

other things not because they are easy but because they

are hard.” We went to the moon but we can always work

better and harder at the other things in life. Difficulty

and struggle builds character and self esteem. Our free

society allows people to go through their lives if they

choose always making the easy choices. I think

sometimes unconsciously because they are comfortable

and/or afraid of failure. It is my opinion that someone

who remains a fence sitter, one who always makes the

easy decisions will not amount to much of anything in

their lives and it makes me sad to see such opportunity

squandered when I see it. This is the human nature

aspect we must become aware of internally, and as a

nation of citizens, struggle to overcome. We must be

conscious of our decisions and ask ourselves why am I

making this choice? Is it best for me and my country in

the long run or am I looking for a quick fix? Where will

it likely lead?

When we choose the easy route we learn nothing

and we gain very little. It is when the difficult choice is

made which requires long periods of effort, focus,

struggle, thought, and many times risk of failure that

results in something worthwhile in life. Risk and hard

fought effort is what builds a person of good character

and confidence. This is American Spirit. You know

people like this. Most likely you look up to them

because you want to be like them in some ways. You can

and I can. It only takes the willingness to do the hard

things in life and be willing to put in your time. Few

things worth having or of real meaningful value in life

come easy. If they did, everyone would have them. This

could be either material things or personal attributes that

people of strong character possess. You can only legally

possess these things by earning them in an honest way or

learning for yourself, in a way that required hard fought

internal drive and effort.

We must fight human nature and the urge to make

the easy choice or the choice which allows us to stay in

our comfort zone. To keep America great it is our duty

to do this. We must educate our children to think about

this starting as young as possible. Help our children

understand risk taking and how it helps grow us as

individuals. We must also teach consequences and

understand them. To take risk is to understand the

consequences and willingly accept them if and when

they come. Sometimes we fail but if we think through

the possible outcomes, we will most likely not be

overwhelmed if things go array and they will. But this is

not bad, this is America. We learn the most from the

mistakes we make in life. Taking risks and making

mistakes gives us more information which allows us to

make better decisions in the future. It opens doors, gives

us new routes and other choices to make. A person who

never takes risks or makes decisions will never see new

choices or opportunities. They remain not knowing what

they do not know. They stay comfortable in their state of

not knowing very much at all. This is not an American

ideal.

Do not fear mistakes. You will know failure.

Continue to reach out.

-Benjamin Franklin

Think about what kind of person you are and be

honest with yourself. If you think you are weak at

something, admit it. If you do, the next time you have to

make a decision you will be more aware of your

weakness in the past and may be more likely to make a

different decision. Do not beat yourself up if your fail at

first. Knowing why you failed now gives you the tools to

do better and try again. You still may fail but you may

just learn that one small piece of information which was

missing before and it is now enough to lead to success.

Someone who fears failure will never really know

the true taste of success. For to achieve success,
one must risk failure.

-This U.S. Citizen

This is American Spirit. Make your goals smaller and

more easily achievable. Do not take on more than you

can handle but do push yourself to try to do more than

you think you can. If you break things up into sections to

conquer one at a time you achieve something big by

succeeding a little at a time. Life is a slow process and

most of the time, success is as well. Success, like life is a

journey. You have to enjoy the journey and smell the

roses instead of worrying about getting to the end of the

road. Over time you will become more of a do-er like

America’s founders and ready to pass on that American

Spirit instead of the fence sitter who decided maybe I’ll

cross that ocean tomorrow but never does.

Now if you are a do-er and you know who you are.

It is your obligation to pass on the American Spirit to

others, especially to those who lack it. The feeling of

being part of something bigger than yourself and making

a contribution to the preservation of the United States of

America as the founders created it is worth the continued

effort. Take notice of those who do not possess the drive

and spirit you possess and talk to them. It will be hard at

first. Some will be open to ideals they are not

accustomed to hearing and will need additional

motivation. Some people will not care no matter what

and those people; you must leave behind because they

may unfortunately be a lost cause in the preservation of

our founding principles. I am realistic and I know there

will always be those who cannot be helped so we must

focus on those who can benefit from your spirit of taking

action and making a difference. It is our duty and our

debt to the Founding Fathers who pledged their lives and

their fortunes to create a new way of life for us. To

honor those who died for our freedom on foreign shores,

we owe it to them as well. I know I do.

I have talked about what I believe to be influencing

the decay of American ideals and how we can overcome

them. We are possibly reverting to the mindset of the

rest of the world due to fear of passing judgment, fear of

upsetting or offending someone, and the lack of

accountability by people and parents to the ideals which

founded the United States of America. This means we

have failed at the task of conserving those ideals and

passing them on for the specific purpose of preserving

the American Way, the American system, and the

American way of life. The term conservatism

specifically is the belief in preserving and protecting

these ideals and founding principles and comes directly

from the definition of conserve which is to preserve,

save, keep, protect, and safeguard. To safeguard the

Constitution is the Rule; everything else should fall

under this Rule. Lip service to an oath of office is not

enough and we have ventured down a path where the

Constitution is not the first consideration and thus we

end up where we are today, approaching despotism. If

collectivism was ever to be useful, a collectivist effort on

the part of the U.S. citizenry to protect the Constitution

from meddling politicians and their damaging agendas

would be an acceptable use. This is the only instance

where collectivism should be part of the United States of

America.

This U.S. Citizen has spent much time and written pages

explaining what he thinks about the causes and given

some solutions to what is going on in our country. He

would like to hear everyone reading this say the words

and think This U.S. Citizen followed by what you

believe and think. Do not be timid in speaking about our

founding ideals. Write it in a book, on a website, say it

to your neighbor, to your family members, to your coworkers,

and especially to your children, on a sign, at a

tea party and repeated to your representative and

senators. If they do not listen, run against them or work

with and support those who will for the sake of the

United States of America.

Say the words This U.S. Citizen… and you decide

what comes next in the quote and what comes next for

our country. We are empowered by the Constitution to

stand up to an oppressive federal government. It is time

for the real power of this country to speak and finally be

heard because we have been silent too long and we are

now paying the price for our complacency. This U.S.

Citizen not only wants to hear your words but the more

important point is every other U.S. Citizen needs to hear

what you think and believe. We all need to know we are

not alone in our thoughts and that our ideals are still the

ones which made America great and will allow it to

remain that way. This U.S. Citizen does not want to be

told what to do, what is best for him, and will not be

tread upon any longer. We must come together as a

group of individuals, as U.S. citizens, focused directly

on the same object, to expound the greatness of America

and the ideals which made it so. It is time for the next

generation of American leaders to step up and take

charge of protecting the freedoms of the U.S. Citizens. It

is apparent our current group of leaders is not up to the

task because they do not even understand the cause of

Liberty. They can no longer be trusted with such an

important undertaking.

The price of freedom is vigilance.

-Thomas Jefferson

So what happened in the elections of 2014 an 2016?

This is what I hope does happen... It is what I believe will happen...

Elections were held and new representatives and

senators were elected while others lost their seats for the

straightforward reason that they were no longer

trustworthy enough to fulfill their oath to the people and

to the Constitution of the United States. The U.S. was

taken to the brink of government meddling with our very

lives (Obamacare) and the people stood up and said no, not this. The do-ers showed up and took action, promising they would

not be lulled back to sleep. They would closely monitor

our representatives and participate in lawmaking and the

operations of our officials who are so dutifully entrusted

with the care of our precious republic. The people have

vowed to support only those candidates who will correct

the problems created by the latest political agenda and

by actions not words, preserve the ideals of the

Constitution and the Founding Fathers.

We have returned the republic to one focused on

protecting us from our enemies and creating

opportunities for all citizens of the United States instead

of controlling and meddling in their lives. We have again

realized how important our freedom is, the sacrifices

which have been made for it, and vowed to never let a

few people rule over us in our best interest because we

know they will do no such thing. We have never come

so close to returning to the old ways of the rest of the

world left behind hundreds of years ago in search of new

and better opportunities in the new world of America.

We have walked down the easy path of government

control and dependency and saw that its price is too

high. A price that sentences us and our children to a life

where we can no longer say the sky is the limit and that

one is only limited by one’s self because those words

would have no longer been true. We have chosen the

path where those words again have real meaning and

have chosen the difficult path to protect our part of the

American dream and the American Way.

Stand by… We The People are paying attention, we

are watching, we are taking action, and we are not going

away!

Its up to us.

Its up to YOU...

Signed,
This U.S. Citizen