Study: Earth Has A ‘Natural Thermostat’ To Regulate Climate During Extreme Temperature Swings

From Study Finds.com (Jan 1, 2018):

PARIS — The possibility of controlling the Earth’s temperature has long led to various experiments by inquisitive scientists, but without great results. Now a recent study found proof for the first time ever of a natural thermostat that helps regulate the planet during extreme temperature swings.

British scientists say they’ve discovered that the preeminent mechanism that allows the Earth to recover from global cooling events is linked to the weathering of rocks. Rocks dissolve by rain and river water during the weathering process, and carbon dioxide is taken from the atmosphere to carbon-rich rocks in nearby waterways. When weathering runs its course, there’s a decrease in carbon dioxide on our planet.

he researchers examined rocks from about 445 million years ago, which matches out to the second largest extinction period in the planet’s history. Using samples from Canada and Scotland, the rocks showed that the global chemical weathering rate declined, which meant less carbon dioxide was removed and the climate was able to recover from the cool temperature.

“From looking at the relative abundance of lithium isotopes in ocean-derived rocks, we were able to confirm that chemical weathering is the driver of the Earth’s natural thermostat,” explains lead scientist, Dr. Philip Pogge von Strandmann, in a news release. “When there is a warmer climate, there is more weathering, and when it is cooler there is less weathering: this is what you would expect, given that chemical reactions go faster with increasing temperature.” [read more]

So, earth is homeostatic? Make sense to me.

Other articles about the earth:

• Earth's Core Has Been Leaking for 2.5 Billion Years and Geologists Don't Know Why
• NASA bombshell: Earth’s rotation is slowing - and it could cause major earthquakes

The First Democrat: Andrew Jackson Part 3

Jackson dispatched his brother-in-law and business partner John Donelson to Florida. Donelson went, carrying a letter of introduction from Jackson. There he found—voila!—that many doors were open for him. Jackson and his friends invested heavily in Florida real estate. Later they sold much of that land at many times the price they paid for it. In other words, they made out like bandits.

In five separate treaties between 1816 and 1820, Jackson forced the Indians to give up tens of millions of acres in what would eventually become five American states. In this respect, Jackson is the true architect of the map of the Deep South. We can respect the single-minded determination with which he created what Inskeep calls “Jacksonland” while at the same time deploring the self-serving means that were used to bring it about.

Jackson’s real estate shenanigans became a hot topic in his 1828 presidential campaign. Even earlier, in 1824, his opponents suspected him of profiting from political office but they were unable to produce convincing evidence. By 1828, however, Jackson’s critics had gotten smarter and more determined. Jackson, however, was ready for them. On December 4, 1827, a fire broke out in the building containing Jackson’s financial papers. Conveniently, all the original records of his earlier land dealings were destroyed.

Jackson professed his innocence, and again, no one could prove he was behind the fire. The whole situation, however, bears an uncanny resemblance to Hillary Clinton deleting her emails. Oops! They’re gone! And now we will never have full information about why she set up her private email account and what she wanted to keep out of the official State Department email system. Hillary might have thought she was being original, but Jackson got there first. Just like his twenty-first-century counterpart, Jackson deleted the evidence that his critics might have used to incriminate him.

Source: Hillary’s America. The Secret History of the Democratic Party (2016) by Dinesh D’Souza.

WALSH: How To Identify And Destroy Fascists

From The Daily Wire.com (July 3):

As you've heard, a group of virtuous freedom fighters took to the streets of Portland this past weekend to protest the rise of fascism in the United States. They expressed their point of view by marching and chanting and occasionally smacking someone in the face with a crowbar. Conservatives, of course, have not stopped complaining about this peaceful political demonstration. These snowflakes just love "free speech" until someone uses their free speech to fracture a skull. Typical hypocrisy from the Right.

But despite Antifa's honorable efforts to raise awareness of the fascist threat, there are still many who deny that fascism is a problem. Even worse, there are some who make the wild claim that the "real fascists" are the ones who will bludgeon you with a blunt object if they don't like your opinions. This is absurd, obviously. Antifa stands for "Anti-fascist." They literally cannot be fascist. It says "anti" right there in the name. Can you not read? What's the problem here?

No, Antifa isn't fascist. But there are fascists in this country. A lot of them, too. For those who have not been paying close attention, I will provide a guide to identifying fascists. We'll make this very simple.

1. Everyone who disagrees with me is fascist.

I am progressive and enlightened. I went to college. I read a book every year. I listen to informative podcasts. My views on all things are objectively correct. Truth is relative, of course, but my truth is far truthier than the average schlub's truth. To deny my truth — which, again, is a very true truth — is an act of fascism.

2. Everyone who fails to sufficiently value tolerance and open-mindedness is fascist.

The most important thing in life is to be tolerant and accepting. Intolerant people deserve to be beaten to death with a bicycle chain. [read more]

The rest of satire’s guide is:

3. All racists are fascist.
4. All religious people are fascist. Except Muslims.
5. All sexists and transphobes and homophobes are fascist.

How Libertarianism Fails

From American Thinker.com:

Modern libertarianism is founded on ideas of the prevalence of individual rights, privacy, and respect for private property and the absolute negation of coercion and involuntary restrictions toward sovereign individuals.  Traditionally, compulsion is associated with the institution of the state, which libertarians consider a necessary evil.

However, we should not forget that the emergence of the state logically follows from the libertarian philosophy itself.  It recognizes that humans are lawful owners of their bodies and consciousness and varying in their physical and mental abilities.  At the same time, all humans are born free and equal before the laws of the land; they are endowed with natural rights in their pursuit of happiness.  The delicate interplay of nature and nurture results in a whole pallet of skills that differentiates people in their commercial undertakings.  It feeds the specialization and division of labor at different levels, from the primitive division between the sexes to the global division of labor.

As social beings, humans strive for self-organization, which they carry out by stratification of society and imposition of rules that minimize violence within a community.  The emergence of power that establishes and enforces a set of behavioral rules and norms prevents a total war, with everyone against everyone for scarce resources and others' property.

Therefore, the urgent problem of protecting private property and the sovereign life of an individual creates an institution of defense and justice, which eventually becomes a state.  In other words, the state is the making of economic necessity.  However, the appearance of the state has one significant side effect: the state becomes a factor in the economy.  This is primarily due to the fact that the state has the exclusive right to taxation, control over imports and exports, the ability to incite wars for territorial gains, and superiority in international affairs.  The question is not whether a state should exist.  The crux is how much of the state is allowed in private life and economy.

……………….

1. Libertarianism works well if all economic partners are friendly and honest and adhere to all its provisions.  That is why it is easier to follow its tenets within the boundary of a nation rather than between countries.

2. Libertarianism does not show a good solution at times of war or acute social unrest, where vital decisions must be produced quickly, and all resources must be concentrated on and managed by the authority rather than by the market forces.

3. Libertarianism has weak solutions in some extreme points, such as the maximal concentration of capital that leads to the monopolization of industries or unchecked international divisions of labor.

Libertarians envision an ideal situation where one country produces "bread" and another "butter" and happily trade with each other.  This division of labor is fair and economically beneficial for both countries.  The citizens of both countries enjoy high quality and low prices of goods.  Libertarianism works just fine in case of the division of labor between friendly democratic countries, which have similar economic capabilities and cultural and moral values.  However, in the expression "division of labor," the key word is "labor."  It assumes that the "division of labor" does not lead to a sharp decrease or even disappearance of the opportunity to perform labor in one country and, on the contrary, a rise of employment in another.  The jobs are supposed to remain in both countries.  The division of labor is optimal when both counterparts keep employment on a high level.  [read more]

A very good analysis of libertarianism.

Another article on libertarianism: “Libertarians: Chirping Sectaries” by Russell Kirk.

A Jihad Basis for the Coup

From American Thinker.com (June 24):

What were the top professionals in intelligence and Hillary's State Dept. so afraid of — so mortally afraid that they gambled their careers to block Donald J. Trump?

How did a dozen top FBI and intelligence officials blunder into virtual treason in a time of war?

That is the biggest question today, and we still don't know the whole answer.

But here is a reasonable guess:

Obama executed a huge flip-flop in U.S. policy, one that continued to cover up the 9/11/01 Saudi attack on the U.S., and which also flipped U.S. policy to favor the poisonous mullahs in Iran.

We know two high-level channels for that big flip: Valerie Jarrett (born in Shiraz, Iran) and Huma Abedin (from a Muslim Brotherhood front in the U.K.).  The evidence is covered in previous American Thinker columns.  It is also easy to find on policy websites like MEMRI.org, Jihad Watch, Judicial Watch, and others.  (This, for example.)

Bottom line: The U.S. flipped totally in the Obama years, consistent with Obama's hard-left/jihadist roots and his political and money network.  At one point, we were actively supporting al-Qaeda allies in Syria, and we colluded with ISIS monsters.

Just one item: President Rouhani of Iran flew to Chicago in 2013 to meet privately with Louis Farrakhan and other Democrats.  That was not reported.  The Trump administration exposed that meeting last year, but the media still said nothing. [read more]

Yea, something smells in Washington and it isn’t President Trump.

Trump doubles Obama level of Christian refugees welcomed in US, now 80%

From Washington Examiner.com (July 2):

The Trump administration has ended the surge of Muslim refugees into the United States during the Obama era, significantly boosting the percentage of Christians accepted into the country.
At the end of the Obama administration, not only were more refugees being let into the country, but the levels of Muslims and Christians were nearly level, 43% Muslim, 47% Christian. The year before, 44% were Christian to 46% Muslim.
In the last year, according to State and Homeland Security data analyzed by the Migration Policy Institute, 16% were Muslim and 80% were Christian.
The shift came after the White House put new vetting requirements on Muslims and refugees coming from warring areas in the Middle East and after Christian groups pressed the administration for help.
It also came as the White House cut the Obama-era goal of letting 110,000 refugees into the country every year by 73%, to just over 26,000, cuts that impacted refugees of all religions. [read more]

Good for President Trump! It’s about time.
More immigration articles:

• ‘Assimilate or Leave’ has Always Been U.S. Immigration Policy
• The Statue of Liberty poem means the exact opposite of what immigrant welfare advocates think
• 64% Of Federal Arrests Were Of Non-Citizens In 2018, DOJ Finds
• Crimes by Illegal Immigrants Widespread Across US
• Former ICE Director Tom Homan: ICE Has Prosecutorial Discretion for Deferred Action, Not USCIS
• Tom Homan rips Democratic efforts to abolish ICE
• Michelle Malkin: Get Off the Sidelines: #StandWithICE
• Michelle Malkin: 7 Dem Debate Questions Jorge Ramos Won't Ask
• Illegal Immigration Is Down: Trump’s Plan Is Working [video]
• Trump’s plan to stem border crossings gets results
• Pace of border wall construction doubled, work on private land begins
• New Immigration Policy Causes Needless Confusion
• Tulsi Gabbard: The Rest of Democratic Primary Field Has Embraced ‘Open Borders’
• An Inside Look at All the Data CBP Collects About Everyone Crossing U.S. Borders

The First Democrat: Andrew Jackson Part 2

Jackson convinced the Madison administration to give him the right to negotiate with the Cherokees to buy some of the land in question. Jackson implemented a new, and this time successful, rip-off scheme.

Jackson’s first step was to bribe the Cherokee chiefs. Each of them received “presents” from Jackson that ranged from $50 to $100. Jackson also used threats and intimidation against Cherokee holdouts. He and his associate John Coffee warned Cherokee leaders that if they failed to sell their land, then white settlers would take it for nothing.

Jackson obviously had no intention of offering military protection to the Cherokee against these white intruders. Jackson’s offer to the Cherokee was: take my money and leave, and then your safety will be guaranteed. Many Cherokee dejectedly agreed to depart from the lands on which they and their ancestors had lived for hundreds if not thousands of years.

As soon as this happened, Inskeep reports, “Jackson and his friends moved to take advantage. The scale of their gain has rarely, if ever, been calculated. Many real estate records from the era have been lost. But records that survive show that after 1816, the names of Andrew Jackson, his relatives, and his two closest business associates appeared on the titles to more than forty-five thousand acres of newly opened Alabama land. Most was in the Tennessee Valley.”
………………..
Jackson also teamed up separately with his brother-in-law, John Donelson, who brought a group of Philadelphia investors. While Jackson certainly intended to enrich his relatives and cronies, every one of these deals was structured to provide maximum benefit to Andrew Jackson.

Inskeep reports in Jacksonland that in order to camouflage the scale of his investments, Jackson put the land that he bought into other people’s names. For instance, he listed three tracts of land on the south side of the river in the name of Andrew Jackson Hutchings, an orphaned relative of his wife Rachel. “More than twenty-two hundred acres were purchased under the name of William Donelson, Rachel Jackson’s nephew. William Donelson was also the registered name for the purchaser of thirteen town lots in Coldwater, the former Indian village at the bottom of Muscle Shoals.”

Source: Hillary’s America. The Secret History of the Democratic Party (2016) by Dinesh D’Souza.

China Hacked 8 Major Computer-Services Firms in Multiyear Attack

From News Max.com (June 26):

Hackers working for China's Ministry of State Security broke into networks of eight of the world's biggest technology service providers in an effort to steal commercial secrets from their clients, according to sources familiar with the attacks.

Reuters today reported extensive new details about the global hacking campaign, known as Cloud Hopper and attributed to China by the United States and its Western allies.

A U.S. indictment in December outlined an elaborate operation to steal Western intellectual property in order to advance China's economic interests but stopped short of naming victim companies. A Reuters report at the time identified two: Hewlett Packard Enterprise and IBM.

Now, Reuters has found that at least six other technology service providers were compromised: Fujitsu, Tata Consultancy Services, NTT Data, Dimension Data, Computer Sciences Corporation and DXC Technology, HPE's spun-off services arm.

Reuters has also identified more than a dozen victims who were clients of the service providers. That list includes Swedish telecoms giant Ericsson, U.S. Navy shipbuilder Huntington Ingalls Industries and travel reservation system Sabre. [read more]

Yea, China is the bigger threat to America not Russia. Although, Putin cannot be trusted either for that reason.

Other stories about China that the Chinese people won’t probably read because they are censored:

• China's Rogue Regime
• BreakPoint: China and Forced Organ Harvesting
• Stealing Secrets from Students
• China Is Installing Spyware on Tourists' Phones
• China's New Silk Road Will Flop
• Why Huawei Is Dangerous [video]
• China Cheats…Offsets Tariffs By Devaluation [video]
• China is having its Boston Tea Party moment
• Should U.S. Health Care Depend on China?
• Pompeo: China Pressured Some Countries to Stay Away From the Religious Freedom Meeting
• China Threatens Hong Kong Protesters: ‘End Is Coming’ For Those Who ‘Antagonize China’
• The Need to Clarify and Strengthen Our Relationship with Taiwan
• China and the 2020 Election
• China Uses Technology To Control EVERY Aspect Of Life [video]
• Chinese firms are driving the rise of AI surveillance across Africa
• The Treasury Department Is Wrong. China Didn’t Just Devalue Its Currency.
• What Hong Kong Unrest Tells Us About China’s Plans for the Rest of the World
• How Trump Can Squeeze China Harder [video]
• China's success is a story of capitalism eradicating poverty
• U.S. needs to respond to rising Chinese influence in the United Nations
• Our National Interest and the South China Sea

2020 Dems Mum on Secret List of Judicial Nominees

From Real Clear Politics.com (June 14):

In 2016, then-candidate Donald Trump took the unusual step of pledging to choose his Supreme Court nominees from a list vetted and compiled by Leonard Leo, an outside adviser to Trump on the courts while on leave from the Federalist Society, and the Heritage Foundation.

That step provided Republicans wary of how Trump would govern with reassurance that their vote for him would have a substantial impact on the high court and tilt it to the right. The move was risky and unprecedented, but 2016 Election Day exit polls showed it paid off, with one out of every five voters saying that the makeup of Supreme Court was their top issue. Trump ended up winning 57% of those voters.

Liberal judicial activist groups announced earlier this week that they are working on a similar effort -- compiling a list of progressive judges who would fill the courts if a Democrat wins the White House in 2020. Building the Bench, an initiative by the Alliance for Justice and other liberal organizations, will identify progressive judges they believe are best-suited to fill likely vacancies.

Democrats are counting on scores of lower court openings -- seats held by senior judges appointed by Presidents Obama, Clinton and Carter who are waiting out the Trump administration to retire if a Democrat wins the presidency.

……………

But unlike Trump’s transparent 2016 move, the AFJ and the other groups involved are keeping their lists of judges secret, and no Democratic presidential campaign is willing to say it would use the list to select nominees.

RealClearPolitics reached out to a dozen of these campaigns to ask whether they would commit to selecting appointees from the Building the Bench roster, but only a handful responded to repeated requests – and those responses were noncommittal. [read more]

Yea, Dems why are you secretive about your list? Hmmm. I thought the democratic party was transparent.

Another article on the subject: Why Do Democrats Have a Secret List of Supreme Court Nominees?

How Big Government Destroys Friendships

From The Daily Signal.com (June 12):

We are living in a time of increasing domestic tension. Some of it stems from the presidency of Donald Trump. Another part of it is various advocacy groups on both sides of the political spectrum demanding one cause or another.

But nearly totally ignored is how growing government control over our lives, along with the betrayal of constitutional principles, contributes the most to domestic tension.

Let’s look at a few examples.

Think about primary and secondary schooling. I think that every parent has the right to decide whether his child will recite a morning prayer in school. Similarly, every parent has the right to decide that his child will not recite a morning prayer.

The same can be said about the Pledge of Allegiance to our flag, sex education, and other hot-button issues in education. These become contentious issues because schools are owned by the government.

In the case of prayers, there will either be prayers or no prayers in school. It’s a political decision whether prayers will be permitted or not, and parent groups with strong preferences will organize to fight one another.

A win for one parent means a loss for another parent. The losing parent will be forced to either concede or muster up private school tuition while continuing to pay taxes for a school for which he has no use.

Such a conflict would not arise if education were not government-produced but only government-financed, say through education vouchers.

Parents with different preferences could have their wishes fulfilled by enrolling their child in a private school of their choice. Instead of being enemies, parents with different preferences could be friends.

People also have strong preferences for goods and services.

Some of us have strong preferences for white wine and distaste for reds while others have the opposite preference—strong preferences for red wine. Some of us love classical music while others love rock ‘n’ roll music. Some of us love Mercedes-Benz while others love Lincoln Continentals.

When’s the last time you heard red wine drinkers in conflict with white wine drinkers? Have you ever seen classical music lovers organizing against rock ‘n’ roll lovers or Mercedes-Benz lovers in conflict with Lincoln Continental lovers?

People have strong preferences for these goods just as much as they may have strong preference for schooling. It’s a rare occasion, if ever, that one sees the kind of conflict between wine, music, and automobile lovers that we see about schooling issues.

Why? While government allocation of resources is a zero-sum game—one person’s win is another’s loss—market allocation is not.

Market allocation is a positive-sum game where everybody wins. Lovers of red wine, classical music, and Mercedes-Benz get what they want while lovers of white wine, rock ‘n’ roll music, and Lincoln Continentals get what they want.

Instead of fighting one another, they can live in peace and maybe be friends. [read more]

Those who believe in big gov’t don’t care about friendships. All they care about is “equality,” “fairness,” and power. Mainly power. The other two are afterthoughts.

Why Gun Control Is Wrong Response to Tragic Virginia Shooting

From The Daily Signal.com (June 7):

In the wake of the tragic shooting in Virginia Beach, Virginia, that claimed the lives of 12 people, Gov. Ralph Northam has called for a special legislative session to address gun-related violence.

Using the shooting as a call to action, he then proposed a variety of restrictions on lawful gun owners—not one of which would have prevented or even mitigated the very shooting used to justify them.

Northam’s proposals show a deep misunderstanding of the causes and mechanisms underlying gun-related violence in general, and mass public shootings in particular.

Worse, they inherently place the blame for these criminal actions on the shoulders of hundreds of thousands of law-abiding Virginia gun owners who will never use their firearms in an unlawful manner.

In fact, Americans use guns in self-defense far more often than criminals use them to kill or injure others.

A 2013 report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention concluded that studies routinely show that Americans use guns to defend themselves or others between 500,000 and 3 million times every year. Data collected by the CDC itself, which it long declined to publicize, indicates that the number of annual defensive gun uses is likely around 1 million.

This hardly comes as a shock to most lawful gun owners, who know that the right to keep and bear arms is the best—and sometimes the only—recourse against immediate threats to life, liberty, and property. Consider the following recent examples, none of which received significant national attention.

On April 1, a domestic violence incident in Idaho ended badly for the male abuser after his female victim shot him in the face. The man survived and now faces charges of domestic battery and attempted strangulation. [read more]

Gun control didn’t stop eight elementary school children being killed in Communist China. They were stabbed to death. Maybe China should have knife control? Or maybe the Left should stop blaming the weapon and put the blame on the attacker. Just a thought. Actually, a town in England has knife control but the criminal residents just attacking one another with forks and other objects.

More articles on the issue:

• A Houston Woman Proves To Her Attackers And The Media That A Gun Is A Girl’s Best Friend
• Gun Rights Made All the Difference for These Intended Victims
• Guns Saved These Americans From Assault and Robbery in July
• Why These Defensive Uses of Firearms Should Disarm Second Amendment Skeptics
• Gun-Controlled Mexico: 3,080 Homicides in June Alone
• Understanding Recent Mass Shootings
• Mass Murder without Guns
• Mass Shootings: The Elephant in the Room
• The brilliant new Joker movie offers an uncomfortable message about mass shooters
• Trump Admin Draws Up Alternative to Gun Control: Execute Mass Shooters Right Away   
• Charlie Daniels: Master Plan on Radical Side Is to Incrementally Outlaw All Privately-Owned Firearms
• Justice for Victims of School Shootings Act Could Have Unintended Consequences
• D'Souza: Gun Confiscators Are 'Coming Out of the Closet' in 'All-Out Assault' on 2nd Amendment
• Answers to Common Gun-Related Questions After the Shootings in El Paso and Dayton
• The Problem with “Do Something!”
• Anti-Gun Laws Will Never Solve Gun Violence in America
• Hawkins: Universal Background Checks Unenforceable Without Gun Registry
• Answers to Common Questions About ‘Red Flag’ Gun Laws
• The Role of Gun Control in Dictatorship
• I tried to buy a gun at Walmart twice, and roadblocks left me empty-handed both times
• Why the Right to Bear Arms Is an Individual Right
• The Firearms of the American Founders' Era
• Walmart plans to dramatically step back from ammunition sales after ‘horrific’ shootings
• Liberals Propose First Gun Grab Since Lexington and Concord
• Gun Sales Jump 15.5 Percent in August as Dems Renew Push for Regulations
• Over a Quarter of Democrats Think It Should Be Illegal to Join NRA

Why the Left Mocks the Bible

Commentary from Dennis Prager on National Review.com:

At PragerU, we have released about 400 videos on virtually every subject outside of the natural sciences and math. Along with 2 billion views, the videos have gotten tens of thousands of comments. So we have a pretty good handle on what people most love and most hate. For example, any video defending America or Israel inevitably receives many negative responses. But no videos elicit the amount of contempt and mockery that videos defending religion, explaining the Bible, or arguing for God do.

Why is that?

There is a good reason. The Bible and the Left (not liberalism, leftism) are as opposed as any two worldviews can be. While there are people who claim to hold both a Bible-based worldview and left-wing views, these people are few in number. Moreover, what they do is take left-wing positions and wrap them in a few Bible verses. But on virtually every important value in life, the Left and the Bible are diametrically opposed.

Here are a few examples:

• The biblical view is that people are not basically good. Evil therefore comes from within human nature. For the Left, human nature is not the source of evil. Capitalism, patriarchy, poverty, religion, nationalism, or some other external cause is the source of evil.*

• The biblical view is that nature was created for man. The left-wing view is that man is just another part of nature.

• The biblical view is that man is created in the image of God and, therefore, formed with a transcendent, immaterial soul. The left-wing view — indeed, the view of all secular ideologies — is that man is purely material, another assemblage of stellar dust.

• The biblical view is that the human being has free will. The left-wing view — again, the view of all secular outlooks — is that human beings have no free will. Everything we do is determined by environment, genes, and the matter of which we are composed. Firing neurons, not free will, explain both murders and kindness.

• The biblical view is that while reason alone can lead a person to conclude that murder is wrong, murder is ultimately and objectively wrong only because there is a transcendent source of right and wrong — God — who deems murder evil.

• The biblical view is that God made order out of chaos. Order is defined by distinctions. One such example is male and female — the only inherent human distinction that matters to God. There are no racial or ethnic distinctions in God’s order; there is only the human sex distinction. The Left loathes this concept of a divine order. That is the primary driver of its current attempt to obliterate the male-female distinction. [read more]

*I never have understood this concept because capitalism, nationalism, religion etc. are just social systems—meaning they are composed of people. You cannot say those systems are evil and not say mankind is not capable of evil because if mankind were not sinful those systems wouldn’t be “evil.” Logically, the Left’s argument doesn’t make sense. Then again a lot of their arguments don’t.

More articles on the Left:

• WALSH: Explaining Progressive Gender Theory To Right Wing Bigots
• The Left’s Favorite Tool to Attack Our Founding Principles
• With Abortion and Socialism, Democrats Are Peddling Slavery Again
• Leftism Makes People Meaner: Reflections on the Torture of Paul Manafort
• Marianne Williamson: ‘I Didn’t Think the Left Lied like This’
• Elites Have No One to Blame for Populism but Themselves
• WAYNE ALLYN ROOT: Democrats Produce…Venezuela
• WAYNE ALLYN ROOT: Democrat Campaign Theme: Pain and Misery
• Understanding Leftists in Three Easy Steps
• Where the Democrats are Trying to Take Us
• It's Not Really a Climate Thing: It's about Control
• The Left’s Demonization of Conservatives Becomes Dangerous
• David Limbaugh: The Left Is on a Mission to Annihilate Conservatism
• The Divine Right of the Democratic Party
• Why Blacks Should Ignore the Liberal Agenda
• The Link between Today's Leftists and Yesterday's Nazis
• The Left and Its Dishonest 'Truths'
• Rejection of Moral Absolutes Plagues the Modern Left
• Can the Democratic Party Govern America?
• The Left Can’t Stop Lying About the Tea Party
• The War Over America’s Past Is Really About the Future
• Homelessness Is Due To Liberal Policies, Not Poverty [video]
• The Left Has a $500 Million Dark Money ‘ATM Machine’ Called Arabella
• Here Are 4 Ways the Left Is Grabbing Power in America

Slavery Is Neither Strange Nor Peculiar

From Townhall.com:

The favorite leftist tool for the attack on our nation's founding is that slavery was sanctioned. They argue that the founders disregarded the promises of our Declaration of Independence "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." These very ignorant people, both in and out of academia, want us to believe that slavery is unusual, as historian Kenneth Stampp suggested in his book, "Peculiar Institution: Slavery in the Ante-Bellum South." But slavery is by no means peculiar, odd, unusual or unique to the U.S.

As University of Nebraska-Lincoln political science professor David P. Forsythe wrote in his book, "The Globalist," "The fact remained that at the beginning of the nineteenth century an estimated three-quarters of all people alive were trapped in bondage against their will either in some form of slavery or serfdom." Slavery was common among ancient peoples -- Egyptians, Babylonians, Assyrians, Hittites, Greeks, Persians, Armenians and many others. Large numbers of Christians were enslaved during the Ottoman wars in Europe. White slaves were common in Europe from the Dark Ages to the Middle Ages. It was only during the 17th century that the Atlantic slave trade began with Europeans assisted by Arabs and Africans.

Slavery is one of the most horrible injustices. It posed such a moral dilemma at our 1787 Constitutional Convention that it threatened to scuttle the attempt to create a union between the 13 colonies. Let's look at some of the debate. George Washington, in a letter to Pennsylvania delegate Robert Morris, wrote, "There is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do, to see a plan adopted for the abolition of it." In a Constitutional Convention speech, James Madison said, "We have seen the mere distinction of color made in the most enlightened period of time, a ground of the most oppressive dominion ever exercised by man over man." In James Madison's records of the Convention he wrote, "(The Convention) thought it wrong to admit in the Constitution the idea that there could be property in men."

John Jay, in a letter to R. Lushington: "It is much to be wished that slavery may be abolished. The honour of the States, as well as justice and humanity, in my opinion, loudly call upon them to emancipate these unhappy people. To contend for our own liberty, and to deny that blessing to others, involves an inconsistency not to be excused." Patrick Henry said, "I believe a time will come when an opportunity will be offered to abolish this lamentable evil." George Mason said, "The augmentation of slaves weakens the states; and such a trade is diabolical in itself, and disgraceful to mankind." [read more]

Other articles on slavery and reparations:

• Walter Williams: Reparations for Slavery
• Reparations: Democrats Scam and Insult Blacks Again
• The Fundamental Injustice of Reparations
• Reparations and Racial Politicking
• No American Owes A Dime In Reparations
• The History Of Slavery [video]
• Walter Williams: Beginning of US Slavery
• Five Things They Don’t Tell You about Slavery
• WATCH: Black Republican Shows Up At Democrat Protest And Demands They Pay Reparations

Bernie Sanders campaigned for Marxist party in Reagan era

From Washington examiner.com (May 30):

Bernie Sanders campaigned for the Socialist Workers Party in the 1980 and 1984 presidential campaigns and was investigated by the FBI for his ties to the Marxist group.

Sanders has always played down the extent of his involvement with the party, which included radicals who praised the Soviet Union and Cuban communists, and has denied ever being a member. Asked in 1988 about his role as an SWP elector in 1980, he said: "I was asked to put my name on the ballot and I did, that’s true." In fact, his ties to the party are deep and enduring.

The 2020 Democratic presidential primary candidate and United States senator from Vermont, now 77, often scoffs at comparisons between his brand of self-described "democratic socialism" and communism. In recent years, he has said he is merely interested in having the United States look more like Sweden, a social democracy with a broad welfare state but a well-functioning private sector.

But his personal files from his time as mayor of Burlington, from 1981 to 1989, archived at the University of Vermont, show that he supported and campaigned for the communist SWP and maintained a close relationship with its senior members. While Democrats campaigned for President Jimmy Carter in 1980 and Walter Mondale in 1984, Sanders spent the Reagan era supporting fringe Marxists with no chance of reaching the White House. [read more]

Defining and Defending Religious Freedom

Commentary from John Stonestreet on Breakpoint.org:

You might have heard of “S.L.E.D.” It’s an acronym which stands for “Size, Level of development, Environment, and Degree of dependency.” It makes the argument for unborn life simple and focused, even when things get emotional. It’s memorable and reusable.

For a long time now, I’ve wished there were a "S.L.E.D." for religious freedom—something to help us remember the arguments and make the case in a convincing way. Well, my colleague Shane Morris has just came up with one: “F.R.E.E.” Free is an acronym that can walk you through an intelligent conversation about religious liberty.

F is for Forcing. Forcing people to go against their beliefs for no good reason is a bad thing. This is a premise that even most secular people should be able to get behind.

R stands for Reason. Is there a good reason to force a religious person to go against his or her belief in the case you’re discussing? And are there less burdensome alternatives to squashing this freedom, like using a bakery down the street or an adoption agency across town?

The first E is for Examples. Offer examples that the person you’re talking with may not have thought of or heard of. Should a Muslim t-shirt designer be forced to create shirts mocking the prophet Muhammad? Should an Orthodox Jewish club at a university be forced to admit Christians as officers? Should an LGBT baker be forced to bake a cake with anti-gay slogans?

The final E is one I think they’ll love: Equality. Christians who don’t agree with the new sexual orthodoxy should be equally free to live according to their faith, without being compelled to violate their consciences. Don’t hesitate to turn it around as a question: “If you think Muslims and Jews should have religious freedom in the examples we gave, why not Christians?”

It’s not a silver bullet, nor does it say everything that we'll need to about religious freedom, but “F.R.E.E” can help you have a conversation that’s intelligent and focused. If we can discuss religious freedom in a way that cuts through the rhetoric—the way many of us have learned to talk about abortion—we’ll have a chance of preserving this freedom no matter who’s in office.

Interesting. The acronym could be used for other freedoms too like speech which the Left wants to shut down too especially if they think it is a “microaggression” whatever that is.

More articles on religious liberty:

• Making LGBT a Protected Class Will Kill Religious Liberty
• BreakPoint: Woke Capitalism Targets Religious Freedom
• Trump Should Use UN Meeting to Champion Religious Liberty

3 of the Most Telling Failures of Socialism

From The Daily Signal.com (Apr. 24):

Some conservatives may be discouraged by the latest surveys confirming that nearly one-half of millennials are receptive to living under socialism and regard capitalism as a captive of greed. In fact, they present us with a golden opportunity to educate all Americans about the manifold failures of socialism and the miraculous advances the world has made under free enterprise. 

For example, the Canadian psychologist Jordan Peterson revealed at a Heritage Foundation event that between 2000 and 2012, “the rate of absolute poverty in the world fell by 50%.” That is, “the poor in the world are getting rich at a rate that is absolutely unparalleled in all of human history.”

Heritage’s 2019 Index of Economic Freedom reported that the greatest advances came in African and Asian countries (such as Botswana and Taiwan) that limited rather than expanded the role of government. More than 100 countries, many of them with less developed or emerging economies, showed marked advances in economic growth and individual prosperity.
…………….
Conservatives must step forward to tell the truth about capitalism: the better life it has brought to billions of people, the diversity and freedom of choice it celebrates, the individual responsibility it encourages, the continuing miracle of Adam Smith’s “invisible hand,” its rejection of government planning that always leads to dictatorship.

Which brings us to the urgent task of exposing the chimera that socialism is just another political system. Sen. Bernie Sanders, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and their fellow socialists carefully omit any mention of the principles laid down by Karl Marx, the founding father of Socialism, such as the abolition of private property and the centralization of the means of production and of decision-making. But make no mistake: There are radical socialists waiting in the wings to promote these extreme initiatives.

It’s up to us to tell the truth. Socialists promise a classless society but create the prison camps of the Gulag and the Isle of Pines. They assure peace but engage in wars of national liberation. They abolish private property but depend upon the underground economy. They stamp out religion but worship Big Brother. They bring down corrupt dictators but institute a dictatorship of the Party.

Here are some of the most telling failures of socialism:

One, socialism has never succeeded anywhere, including the Marxism-Leninism of the Soviet Union, the National Socialism of Nazi Germany, the Maoism of Communist China, the Chavez-Maduro socialism of Venezuela. It has never come close to anywhere near Marx’s ideal of a classless society.

Two, Marx has been wrong about nearly everything he predicted. The nation-state has not withered away. Capitalism didn’t break down as a result of the Industrial Revolution. Workers haven’t become revolutionaries but capitalists. The middle class hasn’t disappeared; indeed, it has expanded exponentially around the world (see the above about the sharp decline in global poverty). Marx’s attempt to use Hegel to create a “scientific socialism” has been an abject failure.

Three, socialism denies the existence of an essential human trait—human nature. Marx borrowed from the Enlightenment to declare that human nature was malleable, not constant. Christian theology with its idea of a fixed God-given nature infuriated Marx.

The socialist state established by Lenin tried for seven decades to create an entirely new human being—Soviet Man. In December 1991, Mikhail Gorbachev gave up trying and dissolved the world’s most spectacular failure in human engineering.

Four, socialism depends not upon the will of the people but on the dictatorship of the Party to remain in power. In “The God That Failed,” six famous Western intellectuals describe their journey into socialism and their exit when they encountered the gigantic gap between their vision of a socialist utopia and the totalitarian reality of the socialist state.
………………
What price socialism? The Chinese philosopher Lin Yutang listed the “little terrors” that prevailed in China—making children of 12 subject to capital punishment, sending women to work in underground coal mines, harassing workers during their lunchtime with threats of prison if they were late returning to work. A Soviet defector said of the perpetual surveillance: “We lived in a world swarming with invisible eyes and ears.”

Given the ignorance of so many of our fellow, especially young, Americans, telling the truth about socialism has become an imperative. If we do not, Sanders, Ocasio-Cortez, and their fellow travelers will fill the vacuum with their misleading rhetoric. This is the truth about socialism: It is a pseudo-religion founded in pseudo-science and enforced by political tyranny.  [read more]

Yea, I think the far-Left will never learn the lessons of socialism.

More articles on socialism:

• This Man Grew Up in Venezuela. Here’s His Message to Americans Who Want Socialism.
• Allen West: Socialism Is Philosophy of Control Freaks
• Socialism Promises a Utopia, but Delivers Suffering
• How Victim Mentality Is Pushing Women Toward Socialism
• Where Bernie’s Socialism Will Lead [video]
• The Perilous Mainstreaming of 'Democratic Socialism'
• Socialism – Its Adherents and the Enduring Lies
• I Went to a Socialism Conference. Here Are My 6 Observations.
• Socialism 101: Myths and Realities
• Cuba, the Healthcare Darling of the International Left, Is Running Out of Medicine
• Native of Scandinavia Debunks Myth of Nordic Countries as Socialist
• ‘The Source of Evil Is the Same’ in These 3 Captive Nations
• Ignorance of the Past Fuels Young Americans’ Enthusiasm for Socialism
• She Survived China’s Forced Labor Camp. Now She’s Urging Americans to Reject Socialism.

The First Democrat: Andrew Jackson Part 1

The real founder of the modern Democratic Party was Andrew Jackson. Jackson, an orphan from Appalachia, rose from obscurity to become America’s most celebrated general and military hero after George Washington. He won the presidency by a landslide in 1828 and an even bigger one in 1832. His proteges dominated the Democratic Party for half a century, until the Civil War. During his lifetime Jackson was immensely popular with ordinary people, earning him the reputation of being the common man’s president.

……………….

Not only do many on the Left refuse to acknowledge Jackson’s founding role in the Democratic Party, they also want to kick him off the $20 bill where his face currently appears. Progressives want to see him replaced on the currency with the woman who ran the Underground Railroad, Harriet Tubman.

To some degree, the progressive objective seems clear. Jackson, after all, owned some three hundred slaves during his lifetime. At one time he ran a plantation that had 150 slaves.

………….

The progressive media is not comfortable with a female black abolitionist representing the Republican Party while a white male slave owner represents the Democratic Party.

………….

[Jackson stole] land from the native Indians and then making it available for cheap purchase by white people, thus making those people beholden to Jackson and his Democratic Party.

Now it is shameful enough to use military power, political intimidation, and trickery to seize and occupy other people’s land. It is even more disgraceful to do so while pretending to be the friends of those you are stealing from, giving them the impression you are helping them. Jackson mastered the art of posing as the ally of Native Americans while robbing them blind.

Today’s Democrats in this sense are heirs of Jackson. They too appropriate resources from others and distribute them among Democratic constituencies, trading favors for votes. They too pose as the friends of those they are stealing from, justifying their confiscations as good for the victims and good for the country.

Jackson started this racket by seizing Indian land and then using it to make white settlers a bargain they could not refuse. He was, in a sense, a merchant trading in stolen goods. In this respect he exposes the low, disgraceful origins of Democratic success with the common man. No wonder Democrats are eager to bury this record, or at least foist it on someone else.

…………….

[Jackson] didn’t really go around the law; he made the law. He was a law unto himself. That’s because he had the troops and the guns to make the Indians do his bidding. Of course Jackson wasn’t getting the Indians off their land simply because he wanted to help poor whites to have their own land. What Jackson also wanted was the votes of those people. He was willing to make land available to them knowing that this would make them into his lifelong supporters and constituents.

………………

Jackson’s Horseshoe Bend massacre could be considered a case of frontiersman “excess” but in this case Jackson intended to go too far. He wanted to terrorize the Indian tribes in the region, and he largely succeeded. After Horseshoe Bend, Jackson found the other tribes much more pliant.

………………..

While Jackson had few qualms about using force, he preferred, like his successor Democrats today, to rely on intimidation and deceit if he could thereby get the results he wanted.

Source: Hillary’s America. The Secret History of the Democratic Party (2016) by Dinesh D’Souza.

Just like a Leftist.

Ancient Cave Paintings Show Early Humans Understood Complex Astronomy

From Study Finds.org (Nov. 29, 2018):

EDINBURGH, Scotland — Even cave-dwellers were fascinated with the mysteries of time and outer space. Analysis of some of the world’s oldest cave paintings revealed that ancient people had a better conception of time and astronomical properties than previously thought.

A study led by researchers at the University of Edinburgh found that perhaps as far back as 40,000 years ago, humans were already keeping track of time using their knowledge of how the positions of stars and constellations in the night sky shift over millennia.

The UE researchers, joined by others from the University of Kent, studied Neolithic and Paleolithic paintings in France, Turkey, Spain, and Germany. All of the paintings they studied showed signs of this ancient method of time-keeping.

Most of the recovered prehistoric cave paintings still surviving today depict humans and animals. It was thought that the animals were simply representations of wild game and predators that early humans dealt with in their everyday lives, but the new analysis suggests that the animals in these paintings are actually representations of constellations in the sky, used to mark dates and events, such as comet strikes. [read more]

Just like the ancients really knew the earth was round. It was a myth (more like fake news) that people in the past thought the earth was flat. The ancients weren’t that stupid or primitive.

Study: Robots Capable Of Developing Prejudice On Their Own

From Study Finds.org (March 16):

CARDIFF, Wales —  Embracing stereotypes or even forming a simple opinion about others may seem like a trait exclusive to humans, but a recent study shows that robots can develop prejudice and even discriminate in similar ways to people, too.

You might think that’s because they’re programmed that way, but the research by computer science and psychology experts at Cardiff University shows that robots and machines using artificial intelligence are capable of generating prejudice on their own.

Joined by researchers from MIT, the Cardiff team explained this discriminatory behavior by suggesting robots could identify, copy, and learn this behavior from one another. Previous research has shown that computer algorithms have exhibited prejudiced behaviors and attitudes, such as racism and sexism, but researchers believe the algorithms learned it from public records and other data created by humans. The Cardiff and MIT researchers wanted to see if AI could evolve prejudicial groups on its own.

For the study, the researchers set up computer simulations of how prejudiced individuals can form a group and interact with each other. They created a game of give and take, in which each individual virtual agent makes a decision whether or not to donate to another individual inside their own working group or another group. The decisions were made based on each individual’s reputation and their donating strategy, including their levels of prejudice towards individuals in outside groups. [read more]

Interesting. So, AI can be bigots, racists and sexists too? Hmmm. They’ll probably be prejudice against humans then humanity will be screwed.

Other articles on AI;

• AI is getting more in touch with your emotions
• Amazon's Rekognition software can now spot fear
• AI systems to detect 'hate speech' could have 'disproportionate negative impact' on African Americans: Study

Key to understanding aliens might be unlocked by octopus' tentacles

From Fox News.com (July 1):

The key to understanding E.T. might be as simple or as complex as understanding a creature on Earth we know very little about — the octopus.

New research presented at the 2019 Astrobiology Science Conference looks at how an octopus is able to perceive and process information using their tentacles, which are believed to have minds of their own.

“The octopus’ arms have a neural ring that bypasses the brain, and so the arms can send information to each other without the brain being aware of it,” Dominic Sivitilli, a graduate student in behavioral neuroscience and astrobiology at the University of Washington, said in a statement. “So while the brain isn’t quite sure where the arms are in space, the arms know where each other are and this allows the arms to coordinate during actions like crawling locomotion.”

Sivitilli worked with different kinds of octopus for the experiment, including the Giant Pacific octopus and the smaller East Pacific red octopus. Both species are believed to have learning and problem-solving capabilities that are similar to those seen in crows, parrots and primates.

Like humans, the octopus has similar behaviors to other vertebrates, but it's the central nervous system that could be the key to understanding life outside our planet. Of the 500 million neurons inside an octopus, 350 million of them are in its eight arms. Its arms are all capable of processing and learning sensory information, akin to running and understanding eight computers at once. [read more]

Interesting.

Our Brain Uses a Not-So-Instant Replay to Make Decisions

From Scientific American (June 27):

The hippocampus is a small curl of brain, which nests beneath each temple. It plays a crucial role in memory formation, taking our experiences and interactions and setting them in proverbial stone by creating new connections among neurons.

A report published on June 27 in Science reveals how the hippocampus learns and hard wires certain experiences into memory. The authors show that following a particular behavior, the hippocampus replays that behavior repeatedly until it is internalized. They also report on how the hippocampus tracks our brain’s decision-making centers to remember our past choices.

Previous research has shown that the rodent hippocampus replays or revisits past experiences during sleep or periods of rest. While a rat navigates a maze, for example, so-called place cells are activated and help the animal track its position. Following their journey through the maze, those same cells are reactivated in the exact same pattern. What previously happened is mentally replayed again.

The authors of the new study were curious whether this phenomenon only applies to previous encounters with a particular location or if perhaps this hippocampal replay also applies to memory more generally, including mental and nonspatial memories.

It turns out it does.

In the study, 33 participants were presented with a series of images containing both a face and a house. They had to judge the age of either one or the other. If during the second trial, the age of the selected option remained the same, the judged category also did not change in the subsequent trial. If the ages differed, the judged category flipped to the other option in the next round. [read more]