Pop Quiz on the Constitution!

Written by Shim’on Ben Avigdor

Pop quiz: you make disparaging remarks about the Communist Party to your colleagues in 1970’s USSR. Do you a) go to the infamous Lubyanka prison and get shot in the back of the head, or b) quietly lose your job. If you answered “a”, no points for you. Let’s continue. Write down in 30 seconds or less as many sentences as you can that while not using any swear words or stating any conspiracy theories will get you immediately fired from your job if said in public. Here are two to get you started. “I am not sure that I like the fact that American Jews, a 2% minority in the general population, constitute nearly half of influential elites and public opinion influencers.” Or how about this: “I am a rather religious person and it is difficult for me to accept that homosexuality is a valid lifestyle choice”. Ok, now you; one point per sentence. Final question for this section: did the USSR have a constitution that guaranteed the freedom of speech to all citizens? Y/N. If you said no, take two points off. It did.

Moving on to the next section. Most if not all peoples and countries have complex histories and judging one’s ancestors by contemporary standards is considered a mark of mental incompetence and intellectual laziness. A common symptom of this attitude is the destruction or removal of statuary and other symbols from the past from the public square. Who is more currently guilty of this behavior (rate worst to best): the US, the Russian Federation, or ISIS. If you were triggered by the mere inclusion of the US or put the US last on the list; no points for you. While one has to give the first place to ISIS for actually blowing up statues of the Buddha and the like, the US with its assault on Confederate statuary and public symbols is right behind. Russia? It is busy rebuilding churches and erecting statues to its often discredited (by intellectual frauds) personages such as tsar Ivan the Terrible and White Army general Petr Wrangel. It is notable to note that even the Bolsheviks did not destroy the famous equestrian statue of Peter the Great in St. Petersburgh. In fact, they took great pains to protect it from Nazi bombardment in WWII. Peter was the embodiment of everything the Bolsheviks hated; the most absolute of all monarchs, he paid no attention to countless lives lost when his “window to the West” was being carved out of the tidal swamps on the Neva river. His statue was and is a part of Russia. But here in the US, poor General Lee has no chance and the ancestral memory of millions is being abused.

Now for the final question: having completed this quiz, do you feel that the Constitution of the United States of America is a) the one guiding document that is adhered to by the powers that be in our country or b) it is as relevant to our lives as the constitution of the USSR was to the Soviet citizens circa 1975? I’ll leave this question to be self-graded on an honor system.

It's only fair to share...Share on RedditTweet about this on TwitterEmail this to someoneShare on FacebookPin on PinterestShare on LinkedInDigg thisShare on Google+

How Empathy Bias is Killing the Main Stream Polls (Trump’s Right, They’re Rigged!)

Written by Shim’on Ben Avigdor

So imagine that you get an invitation from a market research company to participate in a focus group on a new organic cashew nut butter flavored with fair trade cocoa nibs made by the Whole Foods brand “365”. They give you a $50 shopping coupon for 365 products (available only at Whole Foods) and reimburse you for the travel to and from. When you get there, you see a bunch of people just like you, upwardly mobile, on your way, but not there yet, can afford the fancy house brand, but not the really fancy small farm made in small copper kettle exclusive brand kind of folks.

A couple of very nice young people who looks like Columbia grad students (and you hope so very much that your own Amy makes it there in five years!) treat you to drinks and refreshments. Finally, it’s judgment time: how is that cashew butter? Would you spend $8.99 for a tiny jar that lasts for three school lunches? The organic cocoa nibs (whatever that is) lodge themselves firmly in your teeth and you drink copious amounts of barley flavored green tea (“sencha” for in crowd) to unglue your tongue from the roof of your mouth.

When you are finally able to speak, you and your co-tasters fall over yourselves to praise the new product. Apparently it is actually under-priced and you would never consider giving your kids the regular organic cashew nut butter ever again. Place it next to the $12.99 small batch brumbleberry-honey jam and our school lunch problem is solved forever, you declare. In the parking lot you sneak a sheepish look from your Audi to the Volvo next to you and give a half-hearted wave; You know that between your mortgage and the private school tuition it’s Bonne Maman strawberry jam and organic Skippy for the foreseeable future for you. But you said “yes” when they asked would you buy it. You lied.

This is the so called “empathy bias” in focus group testing; it’s peer pressure personified and if you can resist it you are a dangerous sociopath. You know what the expected answer is and if you fail to provide it, you are a traitor to your peer group. Traitor is not something you want to be.

It is also what’s happening in this cycle’s polling. When called by pollsters, and as you are busy telling them you are female and/or Hispanic and/or African American and/or have a graduate degree and/or make six figures and/or live in Massachusetts, you know what you must say when THE QUESTION comes: Hillary, who else?

There’s a slightly vomitty taste in your mouth and you go in search of a website that’s running Trump or Hillary clickbait polls. Doesn’t Buzzfeed have one on all the time? You read the disclaimer that this poll means absolutely nothing and only complete fools and coal miners believe it and click on Trump. You’re no fool! There, you feel better already.

It's only fair to share...Share on RedditTweet about this on TwitterEmail this to someoneShare on FacebookPin on PinterestShare on LinkedInDigg thisShare on Google+

On sampled polling vs. online polling (Psst…Trump won the debate!)

Written by Shim’on Ben Avigdor

Sampled polling derives information about the entire voting public’s opinion (perhaps 130 million) from a sample (typically only a few thousand).

The larger the ratio of population size to sample size, the more sensitive the results are to errors in the sample. In this case the ratio is five orders of magnitude, or about 100 thousand.

Polling samples are only accurate if they accurately predict the makeup of the electorate in the coming election. This is impossible to do (obviously), hence any sample will be an erroneous one. This year’s electorate is particularly hard to predict, hence the samples are less accurate than ever before and so are the projections based on these samples.

The margin of error number given by the pollsters does not reflect the most important source of uncertainty – the one that comes from erroneously constructed samples. These are simply mechanical measures of the ratio of the population size to sample size.

Online polls can be construed in two ways:

Deterministically, without projecting from the number of people who voted in the poll to the entire voting population.

Stochastically, using the people who voted to project to the entire population.

Deterministic sources of errors in online polls can be the following:

People voting multiple times each time from a different device (smartphone, laptop, etc.)

Malicious software designed to mask its IP address and vote multiple times from the same source.

Stochastic error derives from the sample (people who voted in the online poll) being highly non-representative of the voting population in a biased way (for example favoring Trump)

Examining Trump’s dominance in online polling after the first debate, we find it extremely unlikely that malicious software was involved in attacking such diverse polls as Variety, Time, CNBC, Fortune, etc., leading in each case to varying margins of victory for Trump. It is further unlikely that many real people bothered to vote multiple times using multiple platforms, though there must have been a certain number that did so.

Based on the above, we can simply say (deterministically) that majorities ranging from significant (4% spread in Fortune) to extreme (40% in CNBC) of the people voting in the polls thought that Trump won the debate.

Turning to stochastic analysis, we note that the sample sizes in online polls ranged from the tens of thousands to the millions, meaning that their ratios to the entire voting population was on the order of two to four orders of magnitude as opposed to five for the “scientific” polls. This yields much smaller (in the case of polls like the Time poll vanishingly small) MOE’s.

Proceeding now to systematic bias in Trump’s favor, we can certainly identify it in the right-leaning Drudge poll (60% Trump victory). Fortune magazine poll, however, would heavily favor high-net worth voters more likely to be leaning to Hillary. The same can be said for CNBC. Time magazine is center left, an unlikely oversampling of Trump voters. Far-left salon.com also produced a Trump victory. On the issue of gender, we see Trump victory in Variety, read almost exclusively by women, who as we know are supposed to favor Hillary.

Based on the large variety of online publications conducting online polls all won by Trump, the only bias that can be discerned is that these polls exclude low-income individuals who do not have access to electronic platforms or the time to use them to vote in online polls. There are two such populations: poor rural whites (overwhelmingly Trump) and poor inner-city blacks and Hispanics (overwhelmingly Hillary). We submit that in battleground states the former group outweighs the latter by a large margin. This would mean that the online polls underestimate rather than overestimate Trump’s support.

Finally, let us address the enthusiasm question. In order to justify results such as 2:1 Trump in CNBC poll with almost a million votes cast using the enthusiasm excuse, we have to believe that Hillary’s supporters either did not tune in to the debate (this is demonstrably false), or did not care to engage in any significant numbers in the online conversation going on at their virtual community of choice. Since Hillary’s demographic is known to be younger, more technically savvy, and hence more engaged online than the Trump demographic, this excuse just does not hold water.

In conclusion we can say that the very large number of online voters coupled with Trump’s win on every online forum addressing diverse population groups should leave no doubt in anyone’s mind that Trump won the first debate with a large margin that can be calculated with further analysis.

It's only fair to share...Share on RedditTweet about this on TwitterEmail this to someoneShare on FacebookPin on PinterestShare on LinkedInDigg thisShare on Google+

Hey Bernie, Forget Henry Kissinger: Let’s Talk About Socialism’s Role in Genocide

Originally posted at People’s Pundit Daily

Hey Bernie, Forget Henry Kissinger: Let’s Talk About Socialism’s Role in Genocide. Socialism, Leftwing Governments Killed 262 Million People in 20th Century

On Thursday night, Bernie Sanders trashed Hillary Clinton’s relationship with Henry Kissinger over his involvement in Cambodia,. He called it “one of the worst genocides in the history of the world.”

That is a telling statement and, frankly, one that is absolutely delusional. Yet, not one PBS moderator–nor Hillary herself, for that matter–bothered to push back with the truth. The truth is that Bernie Sanders ignored the real horrifying reality in Cambodia and instead highlighted a bombing campaign against North Vietnamese supply lines.

Folks, this is crazy. There was a real genocide in Cambodia, but Henry Kissinger wasn’t responsible for it–socialism was responsible. In Cambodia, from 1975 and 1979, a genocide that led to the deaths of an estimated 25% of the total population (around 2 million people) was carried out by the Khmer Rouge (KR) regime led by Pol Pot, a radical leftwing nut job who promised “free stuff” at the expense of others.

Sound familiar?

In fact, socialism and other leftwing governments are responsible for the deaths of hundreds of millions of people in the 20th century, alone. It’s called democide, Bernie supporters. Google it. Read a book. They all promised “free” stuff, too.

Democide, as defined by the seminal work of R.J. Rummel, Death by Government, is “the murder of any person or people by a government, including genocide, politicide and mass murder; and although the figures are dynamic, six times as many people died as a result of democide during the 20th century than in all that century’s wars combined.”

While the system of government and policy approach to democide vary, there are two commonalities observed in these societies that were tragically subjected to democide. The ruled–which is an appropriate title as Europeans and other peoples are not privy to citizenship as we understand it–all forfeited the rights and duty of self-defense by popular support, as well as other rights of protection I’ve identified in Our Virtuous Republic.

Leading up to democide, government engages in an assault on civil society with objectives that include the disintegration of the political and social institutions of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups; the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and the lives of of the individuals belonging to such groups.

Again, sound familiar?

During the era of the American Revolution, war was the number one cause of unnatural human death. That all changed during so-called “progressive” cultural and political revolutions in the 20th century. All of the human tragedies studied by Rummel and others who have documented democide have occurred throughout a period the academic establishment, politicians and the media would have us believe was and is an era of “progress.”

In total, the era of “progress” in political thought, which spawned a dangerous collective trust in government, resulted in 262 million victims of democide; 262 million precious, human lives lost along with all their potential. It is immeasurable and it is impossible to know how each personal journey may have benefited humankind, how many Albert Einsteins (who barely escaped Nazi democide) or Nikola Teslas the world was denied by free stuff-promising leftwing governments.

All in the name of “progress” and “fairness,” right? The “progressive” assault on the characteristics that make us uniquely American–including our traditions and culture, the English language, Christianity, globalist hostility toward American exceptionalism, incessant attacks on the Second Amendment, intolerance of individualism and the promotion of indignity through social welfare dependence–all are policies that meet the aforementioned pre-democide criteria–verbatim.

Do I think the socialist curmudgeon Bernie Sanders intends to inflict such horror on the American public? No. I think he is an ignoramus who chose to honeymoon in the former Soviet Union because he is a product of the leftwing, inner-city Democratic machine. But that’s irrelevant.

For those who mock such a possibility, I’d remind you all that millions of Russians honored Joseph Stalin with titles like “father,” “Father of Nations,” “Brilliant Genius of Humanity,” and “Gardener of Human Happiness”–right before he shipped millions of them off to the gulag to rot in their own despair before dying their miserable deaths.

So, Bernie, let’s talk about genocide. Let’s talk about how you support a system of government that rises to power on popular support driven by hate, envy, weakness and other forms of victimization. Let’s talk about real victimhood felt by millions around the world who fell for the promise of political revolution and social justice.

Political revolution, my @$$. Government does not have the power to raise others up, to expand the boundaries of human potential. It only has the power to tear others down, and the history of it doing so is very long and very bloody.

It's only fair to share...Share on RedditTweet about this on TwitterEmail this to someoneShare on FacebookPin on PinterestShare on LinkedInDigg thisShare on Google+

Cheating American Woman Living Eat Pray Love Lifestyle Murdered By Her African Lover

Originally posted at Return of Kings

Once again, the American media is going gaga over an Italian homicide involving a female US citizen. Except this time, instead of being the prime suspect, like Amanda Knox some time ago, the American is the purported victim. Ashley Olsen was found dead, apparently strangled by a Senegalese immigrant after having sex with him in her apartment in Florence, despite having a long-term Italian boyfriend. This has led to an eruption of sycophantic praise about her life, as if she were some non-besmirchable sage of philosophy for having moved to Italy like Julia Roberts in the film Eat, Pray, Love.

Cheating American Woman Living Eat Pray Love Lifestyle Murdered By Her African Lover

To be clear, Olsen was a 35-year-old habitual drug and alcohol abuser who seems to have found no steady way to support herself, which makes her descent into drugs even more reckless. Time reports that she worked as a “babysitter, dog-sitter, and organizer of art events.” There is no doubt that Olsen’s consumption of narcotics led to woefully poor judgment. On a moral basis, we can always fall back on “She didn’t deserve it,” a sentiment I totally agree with, but how about preventing further deaths like this?

Presenting Olsen as a grossly undeserving victim of homicide is not mutually exclusive with a proper assessment, based on facts and testimonies, of her character and actions. On that theme, forensic evidence so far indicates consensual sex took place between Olsen and a Senegalese illegal migrant. This is already being toned down or swept under the carpet by the media, which has quoted someone saying “She would never have cheated on her boyfriend.” Incidentally, the Senegalese man is the one who has been arrested, at least so far, for her murder.

Olsen’s love of drugs and degrading lifestyles exposed her to the circumstances in which she died

Cheating American Woman Living Eat Pray Love Lifestyle Murdered By Her African Lover

If I travel to Sinaloa in Mexico and get murdered, I do not deserve to be killed. But I have exposed myself to a spectacular risk. The same goes for me venturing to Afghanistan for a desert jaunt, going camping in Siberia in January, or starting a makeshift expedition into the Amazon Rainforest. They don’t need to be human-related dangers for me to need to take significant precautions (or just not go!).

When was the last time you:

Went for a late night walk in the projects of Detroit, Harlem or South Central Chicago?
Wordlessly stared at members of a motorcycle gang at a remote highway bar?
Ran through cars moving in traffic, even when the vehicles are going over 25 miles an hour?
How is taking any of these steps different from consuming ample drugs and then sauntering around a large city at night? The point here is an appreciation of risks and consequences, rather than declaring that a victim is moral culpable.

This is my exact point about Ashley Olsen. Her lifestyle brought her into contact with forces and circumstances that cause immeasurable injury or plain snuff out lives across the world every day. And even though Italy, particularly Northern Italy, isn’t exactly a failed state, there are plenty of behaviors that can make anyone edge dangerously close to personal oblivion in any country.

This is another reason why the media portrayal of Ashley Olsen is so inexcusable and dangerous. American tourists, disproportionately in harm’s way in these situations, are being exposed to heightened risk because almost every outlet is interested in glamorizing stupid women like Olsen, not spelling out the facts of how their lifestyles put them in the wrong place at the wrong time.

When you take drugs and gallivant around a city, even one you have lived in for a few years, you are playing Russian roulette.

Olsen’s Instagram account is completely misleading

Cheating American Woman Living Eat Pray Love Lifestyle Murdered By Her African Lover

Where are the real drug-related pictures on Olsen’s Instagram? She didn’t put them there, of course. People put on Instagram what they want others to see, not scenes of vomiting after reacting to some obscure chemicals in their narcotics. They want to been as fun, wise (in a cool way), and show a life capable of stoking envy in others.

Countless media reports have linked to Olsen’s Instagram, contaminating the actual story and with the full knowledge of reporters that the account presents a very satiated image of what her lifestyle really entailed. Regardless, this narrative of hers is being taken as Gospel truth, as if she were some spiritual teacher we could all learn from.

Was Ashley Olsen a good person? Probably. But she is far from the person being lionized in the media and as a society we are failing to teach others about how the world, oftentimes a very troubling place, needs to navigated wisely.

There will be fewer dead people when we put media substance ahead of style

Cheating American Woman Living Eat Pray Love Lifestyle Murdered By Her African Lover

Media outlets gain more money the more they sensationalize. If the facts don’t match the desired level of sensationalism, just ditch them, or promote pseudo-stories by selectively discarding some realities while embellishing or making up others. It is hard to imagine, therefore, that these outlets will abruptly have a pang of conscience and start to reflect on the deeper implications of their reporting.

To repeat, Ashley Olsen’s victimhood should not prevent us from trying to spare others from her grisly fate. Countless American young men and women need to either come back safely to their families after an overseas holiday or live peaceful, long lives as expatriates. Maybe Olsen would have died anyway, but her drug use and other behaviors made her extremely vulnerable to whatever nefarious individual(s) killed her.

What’s a bigger crime: being labeled politically incorrect for exploring hard truths about tourist dangers, or failing to warn people of the danger of certain lifestyle choices in order to stop further tragedies like this? You be the judge.

It's only fair to share...Share on RedditTweet about this on TwitterEmail this to someoneShare on FacebookPin on PinterestShare on LinkedInDigg thisShare on Google+

The Most Prescient Thriller Of Our Generation

‘That feeling of just not wanting to stop reading…’

This review was sent to us by one of our readers…

A friend loaned me a novel to read the other day, one I had never heard of. I was skeptical because the author was unknown to me but my friend has good taste, so I took a chance. Literally, I finished the book the next morning as the sun came up. It was that good.

I have to say, I have never quite read a book like this. It was a mix of historical fiction, Tom Clancy, and a lesson on Wall Street, that I didn’t even realize I was getting until the last page was turned. Currency, by L. Todd Wood is a unique book. It’s actually three stories that start in the past and end up coming together in the future. It’s the ultimate page-turner, that feeling of just not wanting to stop reading.

With everything that is happening in the world, Russia, China, the nuclear deal with Iran, the national debt, this book is a must read for anyone who loves an awesome thriller but is also concerned about our nation’s future. Currency is endorsed by the Honorable David Walker, former Comptroller General of the U.S., and Bill Gertz, of the Washington Free Beacon. But don’t take it from them or me, here’s a sampling of the reviews on Amazon, of which there are many.

In Currency, Wood has pulled off a first novel that captures the reader with a page-turning adventure, while it addresses head-on the most pressing and intense global economic, military and political issues of our very challenging current times.

Wood’s real world experience on both Wall Street and at the center of the US Military Special Operations world, combine with his love of history and command of current global issues, to create a story that is as intense and gripping as it is timely.

Currency weaves the historical adventures of our US Founding Fathers who built the country’s early economic structure, with current day hero Connor Murray. Connor unexpectedly finds himself thrust into a world shaped as much by greed, betrayal and violence as it by heroism, loyalty, love and the quest for personal peace.

Fate forces Murray to navigate events that play out on the world stage. The United States’ current economic weakness collides with its international rival’s very real drive for economic, political and military influence. This collision produces an intense drama and adventure that is as scary as it is possible amidst the world’s current state of affairs and balance of power.

If you love a good adventure story on both the personal and international level – Currency is a must read. If you’re concerned about how the United State’s current economic challenges could play out for the country in a very real way – Currency is a must read. And if you want to be an early reader of a new author who has tremendous promise – Currency is definitely a must read.

I’m currently reading the sequal, Sugar, and it’s even better. I guess I’m in for another sleepless night… Enjoy!

Here’s the link to where you can buy any version of the book. It’s definitely one for a signed copy…just sayin.

It's only fair to share...Share on RedditTweet about this on TwitterEmail this to someoneShare on FacebookPin on PinterestShare on LinkedInDigg thisShare on Google+

Are You Ready To Live In A Society That Pressures Toddlers To Become Transgender?

Originally posted at Return of Kings

Society That Pressures Toddlers To Become Transgender

I sometimes find it difficult to accept the rapid changes our society has seen. My grandparents were born shortly after the First World War, when Western culture began its decline. And I grew up watching old reruns of Leave it to Beaver and The Brady Bunch, where mothers played a much more traditional feminine role, only to enter the dating world, where aggressive, masculine butch women shunned all of their femininity and presented me with their rude, sarcastic, overweight, abrasive selves.

Yet perhaps the most rapid change of all has been in the realm of sex and gender. Gender is a word created by Dr. John Money only a few short decades ago, and the idea of gender being an arbitrary and capricious element of our humanity, like our hair color or personal style, was rapidly introduced. While there are still members of society alive that remember concentration camps, segregation, and other relics of the past, I honestly don’t know how they can process the light speed changes in the realm of sexuality.

It’s hard to believe that after all we’ve seen, society still has the ability to shock and mortify. This happened most recently to me when a story came on my radio about a toddler tranny. (Oh, the politically correct word is transitioning or transgender, which sounds less twisted and perverse). I could barely continue driving my car, questioning whether I was dreaming or not.

Even writing this article, a part of me wants to believe these are fictional stories, meant to indoctrinate, enrage, or distract the public. But sadly, I believe them to be real. Let’s examine one such case.

3 Year Old Jack Transitions To Jackie

A Georgia couple who recently moved to California with their two children decided that the youngest, Jack, wasn’t really happy being a boy, and really should be a girl. How old was Jack when they made this decision? Three years old. I have cousins approaching three, and they can barely talk. When they do talk, they often don’t make sense. I’ve never heard them express any sort of independent thought, and they are easily distracted.

Their thoughts range from “let’s play with my action figure over here” to “lets go color or draw something over here” to “lets go watch TV in here.” They essentially have no awareness of themselves, or what we call consciousness.

Society That Pressures Toddlers To Become Transgender
Curiosity does not equal a desire to be sexually mutilated

They certainly don’t have any sort of sexuality, and whatever sexual organs they have are not yet developed. They are, in a way, asexual. They can’t even understand what the difference is between a male and female. Sure, they know what daddy looks like, and mommy looks like something different, but there’s no understanding of sexual correlation.

Society That Pressures Toddlers To Become Transgender
Nothing sexual is going on here, feminist perverts!

You can see this from the way young children will play with each other. Boys will play with girls just as freely as with other boys–there’s no realization of a difference, primarily because the differences haven’t yet developed. A baby boy has no significantly higher upper body strength, deeper voice, or logically developed mind than a baby girl.

The idea of ascribing sex to them at such a sickeningly young age is perverse enough. What’s sicker is to decide for them that a mistake was made, and instead of becoming a man, they should become a woman or vice versa.

Society That Pressures Toddlers To Become Transgender
In the past, all baby boys wore dresses.

Jack’s mom allowed Jack to wear his older sister’s dresses, but a three-year-old has no concept of what a dress is, and there is nothing inherently sexual about a dress—this is all societally contrived. The Scottish wear skirts and this doesn’t mean they want their penis lopped off. Jack also would wear pink boots (one would assume his parents bought him pink boots, encouraging this behavior, and again, there is nothing inherently feminine about a color–society has simply decided that baby boy = blue and baby girl = pink).

One day, when Jack’s mom was driving his older sister to Kindergarten, his mother decided he “looked really sad” and had “this weight that looked like it weighed more than she (sic) did, something she (sic) had to say and I didn’t know what that was. So I asked “Jack, are you sad that you’re not going to school today? And Jack was really quiet and put her (sic) head down and said “No, I’m sad because I’m a boy.”

Society That Pressures Toddlers To Become Transgender
You want to drive? Sure! Why not! You’re a fully developed, rational human being with logic and reason.

The mom continued, “I thought a little bit longer and I said, ‘Well, are you happy being you?’ And that made Jack smile,” she says. “And I felt like for that moment, that was all that really mattered. That was ‘The Day.’”

So, there you go. If you hand a boy a doll, and instead of throwing it down, he analyzes or plays with it, and he agrees that he is “happy being himself,” then that is a clear sign that his penis must be immediately cauterized, he should be shot up with hormones, dressed and treated a certain way, and his name changed.

As anyone who has been around toddlers knows, they are silly, easily distracted or amused, illogical, and lack self awareness. Yet, this mother treats her son like he is a wise prophet trapped in a child’s body, mysteriously issuing her secretive coded messages about how he wants her to change him.

The mom drove Jack to a drugstore, bought him elastic hair bands, and put Jack’s hair in a ponytail. The mom took this as a clear sign: “I’ve never seen such a happy child. To go from maybe an hour before this, this child who looks so sad, to that, I felt like I’d done something right by her (sic).

Society That Pressures Toddlers To Become Transgender

The mom soon decided Jack should be called Jackie, and from that moment on, referred to him as a her. The older sister, Chloe, doesn’t understand this, and will still sometimes refer to her brother as “Jack” “he” and “brother.”

I don’t have any memories of age three or earlier, and I’d guess chances are fairly high, that much like the story of David Reimer, Jack won’t know or remember that he was a boy, and if he ever finds out will be incredibly angry and confused. If the David Reimer story isn’t a warning about what can happen when doctors alter the sex of children (hint: both twins committed suicide after struggling with depression, drug abuse, and crime), I don’t know what is.

This is a clear case of child abuse, and mental illness by the parents.

Society That Pressures Toddlers To Become Transgender
The double standard–this is completely normal, while the opposite is a birth defect

When they are infants and toddlers, it is normal for children of both sexes to be interested in and learn about everything they come across. The way they learn the difference between a masculine G I Joe and a feminine My Little Pony is by examining and playing with each.

Society That Pressures Toddlers To Become Transgender

The tranny movement is mental illness, as Johns Hopkins lead psychologist Paul McHugh stated (since Johns Hopkins has closed Dr. Money’s gender clinic). It is a pure attack on men and masculinity. Notice how these stories are always about baby boys, and the solution is to chop off their penis and treat them as women. If a girl wants to pick up an action figure or a gun, she is “empowered.” But if a boy is curious about a Barbie or the color pink, he is a disfigured and defective, and must be corrected by hormone treatment and surgery.

A World Of Regret

Society That Pressures Toddlers To Become Transgender
Author and anti-sex change activist Walt Heyer

Walt Heyer, who was treated as a girl by his parents, had sex surgery, and later returned to identifying as a man, has documented many cases of regret, suicide, reverse sex change operations, and stories about children and gender reassignment at his site Sexchangeregret. Recent studies have shown that having sex surgery increases your risk of suicide by 20 TIMES. Furthermore, even if one did take children at their word, pretending that they are rational, developed adults, studies from Vanderbilt University and London’s Portman Clinic indicate that over time, children who expressed transgender feelings, “spontaneously lost those feelings 70% to 80% of the time.”

This is all-out war on men and masculinity. As mass sexual mutiliation of most boys occurs through hospital circumcision, men have been targeted since birth to be brought down in order to raise up other groups. Childhood sexual reassignment is child abuse and must be stopped. If not, we are in for a sick, dark future.

Originally posted at Return of Kings

It's only fair to share...Share on RedditTweet about this on TwitterEmail this to someoneShare on FacebookPin on PinterestShare on LinkedInDigg thisShare on Google+

Obama, Leftists Want to Import Islamofascism Precisely to Put Nation at Risk

Originally posted at People’s Pundit Daily, by Richard Baris

The untold casualty of the great wars of the 20th century, particularly World War I, was socialist theory as a sound intellectual school of thought. European socialists in Germany and France prior to the war believed in a “spontaneous harmony of interests” among the various proletariat parties in each country, which in their view, would put the common aspirations of all socialists above individual national interests.

Well, of course, they were wrong. As international relations realist Kenneth Waltz correctly argued in Man, the State and War, the harmony of interests and common aspirations “quickly broke down” as “each socialist party found itself bound to its national state by ties of emotional and material interest.” Vladimir Lenin chastised his statist counterparts for their failure to live up to socialist ideals and evolved the Marxist theory in a futile attempt to explain the more “problematic promises of socialism.”

Tom Nairn, who is often referred to as the heir to the Marxist school of social science, wrote that “the theory of nationalism represents Marxism’s great historical failure.”

Why? Because nationalism is more powerful than ideology.

Look, I don’t write opinion columns often. But, when I do, there is little regard for political correctness, feelings or potential offenses. In other words, you’ve been warned and, if you happen to be someone who cannot handle the empirical and historical truth because it invariably contains micro-aggressions, then stop reading.

Nationalism, or the concept of nation, has proven difficult to define–yet, much to the chagrin of statists–exists nonetheless. For the Left, it has proven far more difficult to defeat, and that has been particularly true of their efforts in America. As someone who has researched extensively and help define it, perhaps with and in more detail than any other before me, I can say without flinching that the American national identity is the most antithetical to statism the world has ever seen; and, that is definitively the case if we are limited to the history of the modern liberal nation-state.

So, after decades of trying to disprove or discredit the phenomena of nation, statists in all their forms refocused and dedicated their efforts to destroy it. Those efforts have been two-fold and include 1) redefining the ideological spectrum and, 2) pushing for a preferably more secularized, pluralistic society that diminishes Christianity, specifically the Protestant ethic.

Ideological Spectrum

Import Islamofascism

The ideological spectrum, as our founders understood it and as it truly exists, looks very different than the modern narrative pushed by the Left, which the Right has largely conceded. In order to get a better grip on reality, let’s look at the Statist Spectrum above. What is particularly noteworthy is where fascism falls on the Statist Spectrum for a number of reasons; among them being that fascism belongs to the political Left, not the Right as we are led to believe.

NAZI, after all, stood for the National Socialist German Workers’ Party. Regardless, our founders would’ve associated the far Left with “rulers’ law” and the far Right with “no law,” or anarchy. When we put this truth into perspective, then we come to realize that the modern Right is really our Founding Fathers’ political center. Perhaps that’s worth conserving, after all?

Which brings us to Islam and the Left’s insistence on increasing immigration from Muslim-dominated countries in the face of dire warnings from the intelligence community.

Pluralistic Society

Import Islamofascism

Sharia-Law-Support-by-Muslim-CountryThose who understand Sharia as it is practiced in the Muslim world wouldn’t be very honest with themselves if they didn’t ask, “What could possibly account for the Left’s defense of Islam and their strong condemnation of Christianity?” Islam is not simply a religion. It’s a political, judicial, civil and spiritual way of life that also includes geo-political aspirations. In a majority of Muslim-dominated Middle East countries, large pluralities–and, in many countries majorities–support making Sharia law the official law of the land.

In fact, a majority of American Muslims desire the same. Don’t take my word for it. Raheel Raza, a Sunni Muslim and human rights activist, revealed the disturbing truth in a serious video recently produced by The Clarion Project.

For all intensive purposes that should scare the hell out of the so-called defenders of women’s rights, gay rights and the like. But it shouldn’t at all surprise us to learn not a single Muslim-dominated nation is truly democratic, let alone working toward republicanism. When pushed into democratically held elections by the international community, Islamists have seen the biggest gains. Egypt, Palestine and even Turkey, all have moved toward Islamist supremacy by popular support.

But these truths and dangers are secondary to the political benefit that Muslims bring to the Left. Islamofascism, whether politically correct a term or not, correctly underscores the cultural tendency of Muslims to follow dictatorial “rulers’ law.” Ben Carson was brave and fundamentally correct to say that Sharia is antithetical to American values and the spirit of the U.S. Constitution.

And according to the polls, most Americans know it. On the other hand, Judeo-Christian values are as much opposed to Islam as they are to statism, plain and simple.

Let’s get one thing straight, Islam means submission, not peace or tolerance. Throughout the history of the Islamic world, there was only peace under a Pax Islamica, a world or region dominated by Islam. That was the goal 1,400 years ago and it has remained unchanged today.

It is intellectually dishonest to argue otherwise so long as Islam remains in its current form. The good news is that Muslim leaders like Egyptian President al-Sisi and King Abdullah of Jordan are willing to wage a war on those in their faith who follow Islamic law to the letter. The bad news is our president and the American Left, are not. It benefits them little to do so. Whether intentional, conscious or not, it is worth it to the Left to put our lives and our national security at risk because it puts our very nation at risk.

And, for them, that’s the ultimate goal.

It's only fair to share...Share on RedditTweet about this on TwitterEmail this to someoneShare on FacebookPin on PinterestShare on LinkedInDigg thisShare on Google+

Islamophobia means fear of Muslims, not hatred

Originally posted at The Washington Times

Islamophobia means fear of Muslims, not hatred.

One of the definitions of a phobia is “extreme fear” of something. Many Americans have a fear of Muslims. They fear the woman in a burka walking down the street. Is she a suicide bomber?

This is entirely normal. It is rational. It is to be expected, the fear of the unknown, coupled with the very public scourge of Islamic terror.

This is not hatred or bigotry. No, it is a prehistoric reaction. A reaction to something that you know could very possibly inflict great bodily harm on yourself and your family.

I’m not saying it is preferred or the way things should be. I am saying, it’s just normal human instinct. Americans would rather not feel this way. They would rather have a pleasant feeling when they see someone who is obviously a Muslim. But years of jihad all over the world, including the United States, have prevented this from happening.

I don’t have to go through all of the Islamic attacks over the last few decades to prove my point. If you can’t see that, then you are in willful denial and irrational.

Americans are not bigots for feeling this way. They are not racist. They are rational human beings feeling things they can’t help but feel. President Obama and the media asking Americans to ignore and shame these feelings are not being honest. They have a hidden agenda.

Let’s for a second imagine there was a religion and a portion of that faith worshipped death. Let’s imagine that a small but powerful percentage of these worshippers wanted to kill Americans in brutal fashion any chance they could get. Now let’s add that 3,300 Americans were killed by airplanes flown by these worshippers crashing into buildings, and scores of innocents killed in many other distinct attacks. Let’s also imagine these extremists were sneaking into the country, taking advantage of the goodwill of Americans who welcome all who are interested in finding a better way of life.

Would any president be wrong to be concerned about the safety of his people? Should he take action?

Should he be shamed, ridiculed and called a bigot if he did so? I think not.

It is up to Muslims to fix this situation. Americans should not have to put aside their instincts to protect their families in order to not offend someone else. That is wrong and will only serve to cause more fear and distrust. The Obama administration is complicit in this shaming. Members of the administration would rather denigrate honest, innocent Americans rather than protect the people and the U.S. Constitution they swore to defend.

This is why Donald Trump is rising. It is not bigotry, hatred or racism. It is the fear mechanism that was built in our genes over the millennia. He simply has put a voice to what a majority of Americans already sense.

I wish it weren’t this way, but this is the reality.

At a recent event I attended, an Indian who brought his family to America seven years ago and now is a successful businessman, struck up a conversation which eventually moved to a political discussion. He was very interested in a variety of issues facing the country and I could tell he was a very intelligent man and had assimilated into American society. As the conversation ended and we said our goodbyes, he leaned over and whispered, “Don’t tell anyone, but I’m a Trump supporter.”

It's only fair to share...Share on RedditTweet about this on TwitterEmail this to someoneShare on FacebookPin on PinterestShare on LinkedInDigg thisShare on Google+

My Gun Rights Outweigh Your Cowardly, Tyrant-Loving Ignorance

President Barack Obama pauses while making a statement on Wednesday’s mass shooting in San Bernandino, Calif., in the Oval Office of the White House, left, while law enforcement, right, searches for a suspect in a mass shooting at a social services center Wednesday in San Bernardino, Calif. (Photo: AP /Evan Vucci/Chris Carlson)

Written by Richard Baris at People’s Pundit Daily

In the wake of the terror attack in San Bernardino, Calif., President Obama and Democratic presidential candidates Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley all immediately called for gun control. They left the more pressing question of what makes some human beings want to kill other human beings who don’t share their religion for the more intellectually honest and capable to answer, and instead advocated to take away my God-given right to defend myself, my family and my fellow Americans.

Without fail, their tyrant-loving sycophants in the media began to push each other over to see who could grab their water buckets first.

Mark Joseph Stern, who “covers law and LGBTQ issues” for the uber-left website Slate, suggested “we need to reconsider what liberty means” in the wake of San Bernardino because his “right to safety outweighs” the Second Amendment.

“Perhaps that was true in 1868, when the 14th Amendment was ratified,” Stern writes of the Supreme Court’s 2008 decision upholding the Second Amendment as an individual right, as it was intended. “Perhaps that was even true in 2010—a year with fewer mass shootings than every year since. Is it true today?”

Stern goes on to cite the response to the court’s majority opinion written by Justice John Paul Stevens, the same thankfully-retired liberal hack who recently proposed restricting gun rights and free speech, as well as other rights explicitly protected by the very Constitution he once swore to defend. For him, “we must balance ‘respect for the liberty of the individual’ against ‘the demands on the organized society.’”

What Stern and those who agree with him desperately need is a lesson on American citizenship, and all that comes with it. Thomas Jefferson said a citizen “has no right in opposition to his social duties,” meaning with those rights comes responsibility and those willing to preserve them truly deserve them. In other words, there is no God-given right that the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God has not also paired with an equivalent duty or obligation.

While we have all agreed to give up certain rights enjoyed in a basic state of nature for a limited degree of security, in the American social contract the duty to preserve our right to life and security is ultimately ours and ours alone, not government’s. But Stern and other statists want to shirk their duty, forfeit liberty, and yet still insist they deserve security. Because Stern is either too ignorant, too weak, or just too much of a pansy to preserve his security by exercising his Second Amendment right, he wants to subcontract his duty to the government and thus, wants politicians to force us to forfeit ours.

That’s not going to happen. Ever. At least not without a fight, a real fight the left is not prepared to wage and most certainly cannot win.

I, and frankly millions of others, are sick and tired of cowardly, latte-sipping weaklings dumping the fruits of their bankrupt ideology on liberty-loving Americans and our Constitution. They want us to forsake a document for the very authoritarian-natured institution it was designed to protect us from, which is responsible for more human death than all the last century’s great wars.

It’s called Democide. Google it.

In the real world, you can never have total safety in any society, particularly a free society. But I have a beautiful wife, who gave me two beautiful children. Though my wife is more than capable, herself, I will defend our family and community if needed because it is my duty to learn how to effectively and my right to obtain the necessary means to do so.

And I intend to teach both my children of their duties and rights, and suggest Stern and other leftists do the same.

When we have these debates, we must move the national discourse beyond the narrow and simplistic attributes to personhood that don’t at all differentiate a citizen from what our Founding Fathers would consider an old world subject. A subject, or one who subjects his or herself to a sovereign in return for a service–in this case it is security–puts a demand on society. That would be the demand Stern is talking about.

A citizen, if they deserve and want to preserve this gift of liberty, contributes to society. If we were serious about responding to domestic terror or even inevitable incidents of a mad-man or woman with a gun, then let’s teach each other and learn from one another about how to become more capable and aware citizens.

I would be remise not to point out the fact that the Left’s plan to repeal the Second Amendment won’t stop mass violence. The Left’s argument is getting so Orwellian that both President Obama and Barbara Boxer made totally delusional claims in the wake of the attack.

“Sensible gun laws work. We’ve proven it in California,” Sen. Boxer said, apparently not realizing that the attack transpired in her own state, where gun laws are among the strictest in the nation.

“I say this every time we’ve got one of these mass shootings. This just doesn’t happen in other countries,” claimed Obama, while speaking in gun-free Paris.

In 2015, as John R. Lott recently noted, France unfortunately suffered more casualties from mass public shootings than the U.S. has suffered during the entire Obama presidency (508 ). Yet, the president boldly made that claim in Paris, where just two weeks before terrorists still managed to obtain banned firearms and shoot unarmed, defenseless subjects who don’t have the Second Amendment rights American citizens have.

“There have been at least 351 mass shootings so far this year. Mothers, daughters, brothers, fathers, sisters, husbands, and wives are being slaughtered every day by guns,” Stern writes to inject emotion into his intellectually feeble and otherwise inadequate legal argument. “Their blood is being shed in the name of liberty.”

No, their blood was shed most frequently in gun-free zones among citizens ill-prepared to exercise their rights because, as I’ve stated, too many Americans no longer understand what it takes to earn, deserve and preserve liberty. How many mothers, daughters, brothers, fathers, sisters, husbands, and wives would’ve survived if we did?

It's only fair to share...Share on RedditTweet about this on TwitterEmail this to someoneShare on FacebookPin on PinterestShare on LinkedInDigg thisShare on Google+

Change their socialist outlook on life without them knowing it! Bookmark this site for the best entertainment choices for capitalism and freedom! If You can, please support the effort by buying a book or a movie off our site!