Wednesday, May 31, 2017

CNN Documentary: Islam is Intrinsic to America's Founding

CNN Documentary: Islam is Intrinsic to America’s Founding

There has been an ongoing battle of information regarding the founding of our nation and its Christian roots. To listen to citizen Obama, one would believe that Christianity was a passing thought, but Islam…now that, that was the true religion that the founders had in mind when they wrote our institutional documents that literally changed humanity.
Our schools, having been run by Liberals for nearly seven decades, have made great strides in erasing most “factual history” and rewritten most every textbook there was in order to soften past terminology and purposefully confuse children to the point where they are nearly completely ignorant of the truth of the events which led to the formation of our great nation. Never mind that the Leftist agenda has been to destroy Christianity at its roots in order to move onward with its 100% decimation of the strides America has made toward the betterment of the human condition, Progressives need you to be so blissfully unaware of the truth that you will never question them in their legislation of the citizenry.
The best way to keep the people unaware is to snatch them earlier and earlier from the nasty influence of their parents and begin feeding their heads with revisionist information. When they reach the age where they begin to question the world and their parents attempt to answer their inquiries, the child has already been taught to wave indifferently in a stunning dismissal of their true Godly teacher to bow instead to the thought that their parents are merely colossally stupid ignoramuses who know nothing beyond biblical myth and traditionally old-fashioned and outdated ideologies. This is evidenced by students who are now given pamphlets in elementary schools to take home that teach their Dark Age parents a lesson on climate change or the graces of Islam. If you can recall, just last Thanksgiving, after the terrible election of Trump to the White House, students in colleges who were going home for the holiday break were given discussion pamphlets to “combat” their parents’ backwards mentality toward race and culture.
CNN has produced for all those who have become disillusioned by the election of Donald J. Trump a new, fresh, and completely concocted view of Islam and the founding of our great nation. Yes, according to the Clinton News Network, Islam had more to do with the founding of this country than Christianity…even if the overwhelming evidence says otherwise.
Prepare to arm yourselves with the truth of the founding documents, because coming soon to a home near you will be a relative, friend, or university student who has been spoonfed this drivel about a religion whose message of hope pales in comparison to the alternative message that has made its true intentions known upon mankind since its inception.

CNN marches on toward Progressivism and revisionist history in its newest and most insulting “fake news” installment about the Founding Fathers and how Islam was at the very foundation of the United States of America. This pseudo-documentary is meant to do nothing more than incite anti-Leftists into a state of complete consternation as they fight the urge to shout obscenities at their television screens. The information contained therein is not factual, it is not historical, and it is not evidentiary. The alt-Left version of the truth attempts to convince a very unwilling and untrusting public that Islam was present at every bend of our great history. It expects us to swallow this very jagged pill that suggests that the American people were by and large Islamist supporters and fully accepting and tolerant of Muslims, completely ignoring the truth found in nearly every founding document, letter, opinion and newspaper article written since the outset of this experiment of a Republic that represented a citizenry steadfastly hardwired in Christian theology.

CNN’s W. Kamau Bell devoted a recent episode of his series United Shades of America to exploring Muslim and Arab communities.
Aside from some interesting vignettes, the program is left-wing, anti-Trump propaganda that firmly establishes the network’s political bias. Bell also serves up some historical distortions of the sort spoonfed to undergraduates on politically-correct campuses, such as the claim that Islam has always been present in the U.S.
“Islam has always been part of the American fabric,” one Muslim man in Detroit tells Bell at an anti-Trump event. “A lot of people think that Islam is from a foreign country, or is a foreign religion. It’s not — it’s very American.” He goes on to criticize “those more violent voices in our society” — and he does not mean radical Islamists. Bell is so impressed that he asks the man, “When are you running for mayor?”, comparing him to a “young Barack Obama.”
It was Obama who told the Muslim world in his Cairo speech in 2009: “Islam has always been a part of America’s story.” He offered a dubious proof: “The first nation to recognize my country was Morocco.” He also cited the Treaty of Tripoli, which was essentially an agreement to pay a bribe to Muslim pirates who had made a practice of kidnapping Americans.

Aldous Huxley, who wrote “Brave New World” spoke about the predations of government, all-seeing, all-knowing, that had literally obliterated normal human reproduction itself by outlawing intercourse and, instead creating babies in a laboratory. Upon birth, these infants were transported immediately to caretakers who raised them from that time, eventually giving them their occupation chosen by the government. It precluded any presumption on the parts of the adults who grew out of this practice that there was another better way to bring up children.
This is what we are experiencing today. Our government has been coopted by the Progressive mentality to the point where even the Republican Establishmentariat has fallen under its hypnotic spell, willingly going along with its twisted narratives. Our children are being taught lessons of a history that never took place; events that never occurred on U.S. soil. They are ensconced in a quasi-curriculum filled with suggestions of opinions and thought processes of our founding fathers that never existed.

For CNN, the argument that Islam has “always” been present in the U.S. rests largely on the claim that a significant minority of black slaves were Muslim. On Saturday, CNN correspondent Dean Obeidallah claimed that “Islam has been here since the time of slavery, because ten to fifteen percent of the African slaves brought were Muslim. So Islam was here before the creation of the United States. It was actually part of the creation of the United States of America.” Bell’s interviewee raises the estimate, claiming that “during the slave trade, up to about 25 to 30% of the slaves came from areas where there were predominantly Muslim populations.”(Note that these claims leave out the role of Muslims in the slave trade itself, casting Muslims purely as victims.)
There is some basis for some of the claims CNN cites. As Daniel Pipes noted in 2000, “Muslims constituted a significant percentage of the Africans brought to the Americas in servitude; and that, as the most educated and resistant of the captive peoples, they exerted a disproportionate influence on slave life in the Americas.” But the faith did not survive among these populations; few of their descendants knew their forefathers’ Muslim origins.
While Muslims were present at America’s founding, Islam — as a coherent, self-conscious religious and political civilization — was not. Had it been present, one would have expected the Founding Fathers to be more aware of it, and one would have expected to see an American version of the faith emerge, one more comfortable with ideas of tolerance and individual liberty, much as different reformist versions of Judaism flourished in the United States.

Too many documents exist today in many different forms, originals and copies, from Joseph Story, George Mason, George Washington, James Iredell, Samuel Johnson, Richard Dobbs Spaight, John Locke, Richard Henry Lee, Patrick Henry, and Thomas Jefferson (among dozens of others) that obliterate any notion of fantasy that Islam was in any form in their minds, let along tolerated in its original fundamentalist format, at the founding of the nation and within its documents. Leftists would love for you to believe that these documents suggest otherwise, but their pure existence is the contrary evidence needed to quickly and succinctly debunk any such daydream. If these documents were to ever completely vanish from our vaunted lexicons of history, there may be a chance for these fantastical fictions to take a firm hold on society. As it is, the Library of Congress is an institution dedicated to retention of the integrity of this information. Facts are a tricky business in Liberal politics.

There are echoes of that Islamic supremacism in the public statements of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), whom Bell interviews jovially on CNN. After the San Bernardino terror attack in December 2015, CAIR not only ensured an Islamic burial for the terrorists and represented their family in court, but blamed the murder of 14 Americans and the wounding of 22 more at a Christmas party on U.S. foreign policy.
(CAIR has been declared a terrorist organization by the United Arab Emirates, and was named by federal prosecutors as an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas terror-funding operation — none of which Bell mentions.)
Bell offers one additional argument to defend the idea that Islam is intrinsically American: “America has always had heroes who were Muslims.” He cites Muhammad Ali, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, and Malcolm X — none of whom were active in public life before the 1960s.
Amazingly, he also praises the Nation of Islam and its leader, Louis Farrakhan. Bell cites Farrakhan’s “Million Man March” — and ignores his vicious racism and antisemitism.

Considered the Father of American Jurisprudence, Joseph Story in his discussion of religious freedom in “Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States” wrote of the First Amendment:

[I]t is impossible for those, who believe in the truth of Christianity, as a divine revelation, to doubt, that it is the especial duty of government to foster, and encourage it among all the citizens and subjects….
Indeed, in a republic, there would seem to be a peculiar propriety in viewing the Christian religion, as the great basis, on which it must rest for its support and permanence, if it be, what it has ever been deemed by its truest friends to be, the religion of liberty.
Probably at the time of the adoption of the constitution, and of the amendment to it, now under consideration, the general, if not the universal, sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the state, so far as was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience, and the freedom of religious worship. An attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation.
[T]he real object of the [First] amendment was not to countenance, much less to advance Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment which should give to a hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government.

As can be seen, the establishment by the government of a leveling of all religions to Christianity was not the intention of the First Amendment. Christianity was always the benchmark with which all other religions would be compared, not the other way around. Islam would never have been a benchmark by any standard other than sharia law, which did not technically yet exist. Therefore, CNN’s insistence that it was integral in the founding is inherently false and unable to be upheld evidentially.
George Washington himself delivered a speech to the Delaware Indian chiefs on May 12, 1779:

“You do well to wish to learn our arts and ways of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. These will make you a greater and happier people than you are. Congress will do everything they can to assist you in this wise intention.”

If that is not enough proof that Christianity and no other was the standard, fear not. There are thousands more references…
If you’re not afraid to search through actual historical truth.

Tuesday, May 30, 2017

How Many People Has Obamacare Really Insured?

Scott Gottlieb ,

Contributor

One of the key questions surrounding Obamacare is just how many people have been newly insured under the law. The answer is clouded by the fact that the White House and others have changed some rules of math for making these assessments.
For example, several years ago, the Obama administration fiddled with the Census Bureau’s definition of what it means to be “uninsured.” The new parameters, which were looser than the old factors, make it hard to construct comparisons between today’s figures for the total number of uninsured and the historical trends.
The Obama team also abruptly started to exclude uninsured illegal immigrants from the national tally on total number of uninsured Americans. Before Obamacare, these individuals were counted in that reporting, inflating the numbers. After Obamacare, these individuals didn’t get insurance, but suddenly didn’t get counted any more.
Now, a new analysis from the highly regarded managed care analyst at Goldman Sachs, Matthew Borsch, and his team, cast uncertainty on some of the recent data releases from the White House, and its network of academicians. In particular, the Goldman breakdown conflicts in some key ways with a recent analysis from RAND that was published in the journal Health Affairs and widely cited by the media.
Goldman Sachs estimates that total coverage under the ACA increased by 13 to 14 million last year and may have increased by another 4 million during the first five months of 2015, for a total coverage increase of 17 to 18 million combined. At a top line, this coincides with the figure from RAND, which estimated that there were 22.8 million newly insured people since the launch of the ACA. At the same time, 5.9 million people lost coverage. This comes out to a net gain of 16.9 million lives.
But how the two reports arrived at their numbers differ in important ways. The Goldman analysis relied on multiple data streams, including information released by insurers. The RAND study used a survey instrument sent to 1,589 people.
There are two critical questions embedded in all of these analyses. First, how many of the newly insured people would have gotten health coverage anyway, through some other mechanism (like their workplace)? In other words, is the law simply crowding out other forms of private coverage? Second, how many of the newly insured simply ended up on an expanded (and decaying) Medicaid program? The answers to these questions are an important measure of the ACA’s “success.”
On the latter question, according to the Goldman analysis, about two-thirds of the 2014 coverage increase was from the expansion in Medicaid. For 2014, their figures for net new coverage includes 9 million more people obligated to Medicaid, and about 2 million aging into Medicare. Only about 3 million got commercial coverage.
Moreover, Goldman estimates that employer sponsored coverage declined by about 2 million lives last year, which is at odds with other estimates. The widely cited study by RAND, for example, estimated that 9.6 million people who became newly insured since the fall of 2013 gained their coverage by enrolling in employer sponsored insurance. At the same time, the Goldman analysis estimates that total individual, commercial coverage increased by about 5 million. People migrating out of employer-sponsored insurance, and onto the Obamacare exchanges, explain a large measure of the relative change, under the Goldman analysis. The biggest change, according to their data, was for small employers, where the number of covered lives declined by 2.2 million people, a reduction of 13% year-over-year.
This is in sharp contrast to other analyses, and particularly the RAND study published in Health Affairs, which found that an increase in employer-sponsored insurance was the biggest driver of the total rise in coverage. Moreover, RAND estimates that 43% of the people newly insured by workplace coverage had the insurance available to them in 2013, but opted not to take it. This would suggest that the new tax penalty compelled them to seek the coverage. The RAND authors noted that there were possible methodological challenges with their survey; including confusion people might have had about their own source of coverage. This could potentially explain the wide discrepancies between the two analyses.
Obamacare’s supporters have argued that the public exchanges have not crowded out private insurance coverage that was previously offered at work. The Goldman analysis suggests that the law has indeed crowded out some employer coverage.
Unanswered in all this is also the question of how many employers might have offered insurance for the first time, or expanded their coverage, but for Obamacare and the ability to move their workers onto the exchanges. In an expanding economy, the total share of employer-sponsored coverage should have similarly grown, if historical trends are any guide. Yet the number of people insured through work was flat by many other estimates, and according to the Goldman analysis, actually declined. This strongly suggests the ACA is displacing private coverage.
It could be that most of what Obamacare does to address the “uninsured” problem is obligate a whole lot more people to Medicaid, a program that already suffers from severe access problems owing to years of underfunding relative to its expanding mission, and the chronic health needs of its mostly indigent population. Obamacare only adds to the program’s strains. At the same time, on the commercial side, Obamacare may be mostly creating churn -- by displacing people from their employer-sponsored coverage and moving them onto the exchanges.
It’s hard to know for certain, since the current figures – at least those released by Washington – can’t be compared to historical trends. The Census Bureau made a significant change in how it estimates the number of people who lack insurance, starting with its assessment for 2013. That means that after 2013, the results can’t be compared to those for prior years. The government’s new method conveniently results in a lower estimate of the total number of people without insurance.
So far, even if you accept the most optimistic math, Obamacare is hardly the unmitigated success that its many apostles proclaim. Whatever minimal gains in the level of commercial coverage that’s been achieved has come at a huge fiscal expense. This is not to mention the massive growth in costly and restrictive regulation.
These numbers will continue to be the subject of fierce scrutiny, dispute, and fiddling. The proclamations of those who worship the ACA as a new religion are carved out of these numerals. Their scripture is open to a lot of interpretation.

Monday, May 29, 2017

Who was Thomas Jefferson?

Who was Thomas Jefferson?

Thomas Jefferson was a very remarkable man who started learning very early in life and never stopped.
At 5, began studying under his cousin's tutor.
At 9, studied Latin, Greek and French.
At 14, studied classical literature and additional languages.
At 16, entered the College of William and Mary. Also could write in Greek with one hand while writing the same in Latin with the other.
At 19, studied Law for 5 years starting under George Wythe.
At 23, started his own law practice.
At 25, was elected to the Virginia House of Burgesses.
At 31, wrote the widely circulated "Summary View of the Rights of British America? And retired from his law practice.
At 32, was a Delegate to the Second Continental Congress.
At 33, wrote the Declaration of Independence.
At 33, took three years to revise Virginia's legal code and wrote a Public Education bill and a statute for Religious Freedom.
At 36, was elected the second Governor of Virginia succeeding Patrick Henry.
At 40, served in Congress for two years.
At 41, was the American minister to France and negotiated commercial treaties with European nations along with Ben Franklin and John Adams.
At 46, served as the first Secretary of State under George Washington.
At 53, served as Vice President and was elected president of the American Philosophical Society.
At 55, drafted the Kentucky Resolutions and became the active head of Republican Party.
At 57, was elected the third president of the United States.
At 60, obtained the Louisiana Purchase doubling the nation's size.
At 61, was elected to a second term as President.
At 65, retired to Monticello.
At 80, helped President Monroe shape the Monroe Doctrine.
At 81, almost single-handedly created the University of Virginia and served as its first president.
At 83, died on the 50th anniversary of the Signing of the Declaration of Independence along with John Adams.
Thomas Jefferson knew because he himself studied the previous failed attempts at government. He understood actual history, the nature of God, his laws and the nature of man. A voice from the past to lead us in the future:
John F. Kennedy held a dinner in the White House for a group of the brightest minds in the nation at that time. He made this statement: "This is perhaps the assembly of the most intelligence ever to gather at one time in the White House with the exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone."
"When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe."
-- Thomas Jefferson
"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."
-- Thomas Jefferson
"It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world."
-- Thomas Jefferson
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."
-- Thomas Jefferson
"My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government."
-- Thomas Jefferson
"No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms within his own lands."
-- Thomas Jefferson
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
-- Thomas Jefferson
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
-- Thomas Jefferson
"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."
-- Thomas Jefferson
Thomas Jefferson said in 1802: "I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property - until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."
I wish we could get this out to everyone!

Mark Zuckerberg Calls for Universal Basic Income

Mark Zuckerberg Calls for Universal Basic Income in His Harvard Commencement Speech

Kevin Lui

May 25, 2017

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has become the latest major tech figure to call for universal basic income as a solution for inequality, joining a growing chorus from Silicon Valley.

"Every generation expands its definition of equality. Now it's time for our generation to define a new social contract," Zuckerberg said during his commencement speech Thursday at Harvard University. "We should have a society that measures progress not by economic metrics like GDP but by how many of us have a role we find meaningful."

"We should explore ideas like universal basic income to give everyone a cushion to try new things," he said.

Zuckerberg told the class of 2017 that he was able to pursue his passion in Facebook because he knew he had a safety net to fall back on. "If I had to support my family growing up instead of having time to code," he said. " I wouldn't be standing here today."

The idea of universal basic income—in which the government unconditionally pays all citizens a small amount of money to cover basic needs—has recently gained traction within the tech community, as phenomena like automation and the startup culture emerge.

Major figures who have publicly supported the idea as a form of more efficient government welfare include Sam Altman, President of Y Combinator, and Tesla CEO Elon Musk, who argues that the concept is a solution to unemployment caused by automation.

CNN Declares ISLAM is Part of “AMERICA’S FOUNDING”

By Amy Moreno May 29, 2017

CNN is desperate to shove Islam down America’s collective throat.
So much so, they devoted an entire show to the idea that Islam is part of America’s founding.
According to CNN, Islam has been woven throughout the fabric of the United States since our birth.
If you believe CNN, we should be a country founded on Islam, not Christianity.

More FAKE NEWS.
From Breitbart
CNN’s W. Kamau Bell devoted a recent episode of his series United Shades of America to exploring Muslim and Arab communities.
Aside from some interesting vignettes, the program is left-wing, anti-Trump propaganda that firmly establishes the network’s political bias. Bell also serves up some historical distortions of the sort spoonfed to undergraduates on politically-correct campuses, such as the claim that Islam has always been present in the U.S.
“Islam has always been part of the American fabric,” one Muslim man in Detroit tells Bell at an anti-Trump event. “A lot of people think that Islam is from a foreign country, or is a foreign religion. It’s not — it’s very American.” He goes on to criticize “those more violent voices in our society” — and he does not mean radical Islamists. Bell is so impressed that he asks the man, “When are you running for mayor?”, comparing him to a “young Barack Obama.”
It was Obama who told the Muslim world in his Cairo speech in 2009: “Islam has always been a part of America’s story.” He offered a dubious proof: “The first nation to recognize my country was Morocco.” He also cited the Treaty of Tripoli, which was essentially an agreement to pay a bribe to Muslim pirates who had made a practice of kidnapping Americans.

For CNN, the argument that Islam has “always” been present in the U.S. rests largely on the claim that a significant minority of black slaves were Muslim. On Saturday, CNN correspondent Dean Obeidallah claimed that “Islam has been here since the time of slavery, because ten to fifteen percent of the African slaves brought were Muslim. So Islam was here before the creation of the United States. It was actually part of the creation of the United States of America.” Bell’s interviewee raises the estimate, claiming that “during the slave trade, up to about 25 to 30% of the slaves came from areas where there were predominantly Muslim populations.”(Note that these claims leave out the role of Muslims in the slave trade itself, casting Muslims purely as victims.)
There is some basis for some of the claims CNN cites. As Daniel Pipes noted in 2000, “Muslims constituted a significant percentage of the Africans brought to the Americas in servitude; and that, as the most educated and resistant of the captive peoples, they exerted a disproportionate influence on slave life in the Americas.” But the faith did not survive among these populations; few of their descendants knew their forefathers’ Muslim origins.
While Muslims were present at America’s founding, Islam — as a coherent, self-conscious religious and political civilization — was not. Had it been present, one would have expected the Founding Fathers to be more aware of it, and one would have expected to see an American version of the faith emerge, one more comfortable with ideas of tolerance and individual liberty, much as different reformist versions of Judaism flourished in the United States.
To the extent that Islam was a part of early American history, it was a negative force, an external enemy. The predations of the Barbary pirates prompted the U.S. to build a world-class navy and deploy the fledgling Marines. As Brian Kilmeade and Don Yaeger recall in Thomas Jefferson and the Tripoli Pirates: The Forgotten War That Changed American History, Jefferson was shocked when, at a meeting in London with the Tripolitan ambassador and John Adams in 1786, the Muslim envoy declared that American Christians were fair game for piracy: “… all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of faithful persons to plunder and enslave.”

Sunday, May 28, 2017

Study: Physically weak men more likely to be socialist, strong men more likely to be capitalist

Brandon Morse May 25, 2017 5:30 pm

A new study out of a London university suggests that physically stronger men tend to prefer capitalist policies over socialist policies. (Getty Images)

A new study from Brunel University London found that physically weaker men are more apt to believe in socialist policies, such as redistribution of wealth. Meanwhile, stronger men are more geared to believe in the capitalist concepts, such as the idea that people should keep what you earn.
Brunel University academics studied 171 men aged 18 – 40, examining their overall physical strength, bicep circumference, weight, and height. They also noted the amount of time each individual spent at a gym, and examined these variables in light of whether they subscribed more to capitalist or socialist ideologies. They found that the more physically strong the men were, the less they believed in socialist policies, and the more they believed certain social groups should be dominant.
According to The Times, Brunel University’s senior lecturer in Psychology in the College of Health and Life Sciences Michael Price said the study raises questions about the correlation between physical strength and egalitarianism — and also poses something of a “chicken or the egg” philosophical question.
“We believe that this link between perceived formidability and egalitarianism could be explained in a number of ways,” Price said in the report on Brunel University’s website. “It could be the result of men calibrating their egalitarianism to their own formidability. It could be the case that less egalitarian men strive harder to become muscular. Or there could be a third variable at play affecting both egalitarianism and muscularity.”

Additionally, Price found that stronger men tend to reject the redistribution of wealth, whether they are financially rich or poor.
“Our results suggest that wealthier men who are more formidable physically are more likely to oppose redistribution of wealth. Essentially, they seem more motivated to defend their resources. But less wealthy men who are still physically formidable don’t seem more inclined to support redistribution either,” Price said. “They’re not demanding a share of the wealth.”
Price believes, however, that the correlation of strength and capitalist tendencies stems from our primitive brains that still apply value to strength that would help us acquire and defend resources.
“This is about our Stone Age brains, in a modern society,” Price said in an interview with The Times. “Our minds evolved in environments where strength was a big determinant of success. If you find yourself in a body not threatened by other males, if you feel you can win competitions for status, then maybe you start thinking inequality is pretty good.”
“Of course, this isn’t rational in modern environments, where your ability to win might have more to do with where you went to university,” Price said. “Lot of guys who are phenomenally successful in modern societies would probably be nowhere near as successful in hunter gatherer societies.”
The study also posited that a possible alternate explanation might be that people who begin with a belief that strength begets success attempt to achieve success by spending more time in the gym, hypothesizing that “men who were less egalitarian felt more need to go to the gym, unconsciously believing they needed the strength in order to reach a better place in a red-in-tooth-and-claw social hierarchy[,]” according to The Telegraph.
The findings of the Brunel study somewhat match results previously found in a similar 2013 study done by Aarhus University in Denmark. Researchers studied hundreds of men from America, Denmark, and Brazil, using the same criteria Brunel had used, and found that stronger men “take a conservative stance of protecting their own interests,” according to the Telegraph.
“Our results demonstrate that physically weak males are more reluctant than physically strong males to assert their self-interest – just as if disputes over national policies were a matter of direct physical confrontation among small numbers of individuals, rather than abstract electoral dynamics among millions,” said Michael Bang Petersen, who lead the Aarhus University study.

Thursday, May 25, 2017

Best breakdown of Islamic "peace"

Best breakdown of Islamic "peace"

Here's the best breakdown of Islamic "peace" I've ever read. It's by a Muslim named Bassam Tibi, who lives in Germany. From what I gather, he's anti-jihad, anti-sharia law, etc. (meaning, Anti-Islam, in essence) Whatever his twisted reason for remaining a Muslim, I can't say, but I've never heard it put better:

"At its core, Islam is a religious mission to all humanity. Muslims are religiously obliged to disseminate the Islamic faith throughout the world. "We have sent you forth to all mankind" (Q. 34:28). If non-Muslims submit to conversion or subjugation, this call (da’wa) can be pursued peacefully. If they do not, Muslims are obliged to wage war against them. In Islam, peace requires that non-Muslims submit to the call of Islam, either by converting or by accepting the status of a religious minority (dhimmi) and paying the imposed poll tax, jizya. World peace, the final stage of the da’wa, is reached only with the conversion or submission of all mankind to Islam…
Muslims believe that expansion through war is not aggression but a fulfillment of the Qur’anic command to spread Islam as a way of peace. The resort to force to disseminate Islam is not war (harb), a word that is used only to describe the use of force by non-Muslims. Islamic wars are not hurab (the plural of harb) but rather futuhat, acts of “opening” the world to Islam and expressing Islamic jihad.
Relations between dar al-Islam, the home of peace, and dar al-harb, the world of unbelievers, nevertheless take place in a state of war, according to the Qur’an and to the authoritative commentaries of Islamic jurists. Unbelievers who stand in the way, creating obstacles for the da’wa, are blamed for this state of war, for the da’wa can be pursued peacefully if others submit to it.
In other words, those who resist Islam cause wars and are responsible for them."
I got the quote from page 328 of the Andrew Bostom-edited book, The Legacy of Jihad.

Wednesday, May 24, 2017

D.C. surgeon who operated on Seth Rich: ‘The DNC staffer was alive and well after surgery, before a group of LEOs showed up to the ICU’

Posted by Shepard Ambellas

WASHINGTON (INTELLIHUB) — A 4-year resident surgeon at Washington Hospital Center claims that Seth Rich was alive and recovering well in facility’s Intensive Care Unit (ICU) after being treated for a total of 3 routine gunshot wounds — that is until a number of law enforcement officers arrived eight hours later kicking most everyone out of the ICU and physically barring doctors and others from attending to Rich.
The surgeon who witnessed this bizarre behavior decided to come forth with the information despite the fact that he or she may be easy to identify.
Posted on May 17, to 4chan under the anonymous ID: “rhotYJAg,” the surgeon wrote:

4th year surgery resident here who rotated at WHC (Washington Hospital Center) last year, it won’t be hard to identify me but I feel that I shouldn’t stay silent.
Seth Rich was shot twice, with 3 total gunshot wounds (entry and exit, and entry). He was taken to the OR emergently where we performed an exlap and found a small injury to segment 3 of the liver which was packed and several small bowel injuries (pretty common for gunshots to the back exiting the abdomen) which we resected ~12cm of bowel and left him in discontinuity (didn’t hook everything back up) with the intent of performing a washout in the morning. He did not have any major vascular injuries otherwise. I’ve seen dozens of worse cases than this which survived and nothing about his injuries suggested to me that he’d sustained a fatal wound.

In the meantime he was transferred to the ICU and transfused 2 units of blood when his post-surgery crit came back ~20. He was stable and not on any pressors, and it seemed pretty routine. About 8 hours after he arrived we were swarmed by LEOs and pretty much everyone except the attending and a few nurses was kicked out of the ICU (disallowing visiting hours -normally every odd hour, eg 1am, 3am, etc- is not something we do routinely). It was weird as hell. At turnover that morning we were instructed not to round on the VIP that came in last night (that’s exactly what the attending said, and no one except for me and another resident had any idea who he was talking about).

No one here was allowed to see Seth except for my attending when he died. No code was called. I rounded on patients literally next door but was physically blocked from checking in on him. I’ve never seen anything like it before, and while I can’t say 100% that he was allowed to die, I don’t understand why he was treated like that. Take it how you may, /pol/, I’m just one low level doc. Something’s fishy though, that’s for sure.

Was Seth Rich set up by DC Metro Police and left to die or murdered in the hospital as the post claims?

Tuesday, May 23, 2017

Here are the 66 programs eliminated in Trump's budget

By Niv Elis - 05/23/17 02:03 PM EDT

President Trump's fiscal 2018 budget proposal would completely eliminate 66 federal programs, for a savings of $26.7 billion.

Some of the programs would receive funding for 2018 as part of a phasing-out plan.

Here are the programs the administration wants on the chopping block.

Agriculture Department — $855 million

· McGovern-Dole International Food for Education

· Rural Business-Cooperative Service

· Rural Water and Waste Disposal Program Account

· Single Family Housing Direct Loans

Commerce Department — $633 million

· Economic Development Administration

· Manufacturing Extension Partnership

· Minority Business Development Agency

· National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Grants and Education

Education Department — $4.976 billion

· 21st Century Community Learning Centers

· Comprehensive Literacy Development Grants

· Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants

· Impact Aid Payments for Federal Property

· International Education

· Strengthening Institutions

· Student Support and Academic Enrichment Grants

· Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants

· Teacher Quality Partnership

Energy Department — $398 million

· Advanced Research Projects Agency—Energy

· Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Loan Program and Title 17 Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program

· Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility

Health and Human Services — $4.834 billion

· Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality

· Community Services Block Grant

· Health Professions and Nursing Training Programs

· Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program

Homeland Security — $235 million

· Flood Hazard Mapping and Risk Analysis Program

· Transportation Security Administration Law Enforcement Grants

Housing and Urban Development — $4.123 billion

· Choice Neighborhoods

· Community Development Block

· HOME Investment Partnerships Program

· Self-Help and Assisted Homeownership Opportunity Program Account

Interior Department — $122 million

· Abandoned Mine Land Grants

· Heritage Partnership Program

· National Wildlife Refuge Fund

Justice Department — $210 million

· State Criminal Alien Assistance Program

Labor Department — $527 million

· Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker Training

· OSHA Training Grants

· Senior Community Service Employment Program

State Department and USAID — $4.256 billion

· Development Assistance

Earmarked Appropriations for Non-Profit Organizations

· The Asia Foundation

· East-West Center

· P.L. 480 Title II Food Aid

State Department, USAID, and Treasury Department — $1.59 billion

· Green Climate Fund and Global Climate Change Initiative

Transportation Department — $499 million

· National Infrastructure Investments (TIGER)

Treasury Department — $43 million

· Global Agriculture and Food Security Program

Environmental Protection Agency — $493 million

· Energy Star and Voluntary Climate Programs

· Geographic Programs

National Aeronautics and Space Administration — $269 million

· Five Earth Science Missions

· Office of Education

Other Independent Agencies — $2.683 billion

· Chemical Safety Board

· Corporation for National and Community Service

· Corporation for Public Broadcasting

· Institute of Museum and Library Services

International Development Foundations

· African Development Foundation

· Inter-American Foundation

· Legal Services Corporation

· National Endowment for the Arts

· National Endowment for the Humanities

· Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation

· Overseas Private Investment Corporation

Regional Commissions

· Appalachian Regional Commission

· Delta Regional Authority

· Denali Commission

· Northern Border Regional Commission

· U.S. Institute of Peace

· U.S. Trade and Development Agency

· Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars

Right legal definition of right

right

Also found in: Dictionary, Thesaurus, Medical, Financial, Acronyms, Idioms, Encyclopedia, Wikipedia.
Related to right: right wing, right brain, human right

Right

In an abstract sense, justice, ethical correctness, or harmony with the rules of law or the principles of morals. In a concrete legal sense, a power, privilege, demand, or claim possessed by a particular person by virtue of law.
Each legal right that an individual possesses relates to a corresponding legal duty imposed on another. For example, when a person owns a home and property, he has the right to possess and enjoy it free from the interference of others, who are under a corresponding duty not to interfere with the owner's rights by trespassing on the property or breaking into the home.
In Constitutional Law, rights are classified as natural, civil, and political. Natural rights are those that are believed to grow out of the nature of the individual human being and depend on her personality, such as the rights to life, liberty, privacy, and the pursuit of happiness.
Civil Rights are those that belong to every citizen of the state, and are not connected with the organization or administration of government. They include the rights of property, marriage, protection by law, freedom to contract, trial by jury, and the like. These rights are capable of being enforced or redressed in a civil action in a court.
Political rights entail the power to participate directly or indirectly in the establishment or administration of government, such as the right of citizenship, the right to vote, and the right to hold public office.

right

1) n. an entitlement to something, whether to concepts like justice and due process, or to ownership of property or some interest in property, real or personal. These rights include various freedoms, protection against interference with enjoyment of life and property, civil rights enjoyed by citizens such as voting and access to the courts, natural rights accepted by civilized societies, human rights to protect people throughout the world from terror, torture, barbaric practices and deprivation of civil rights and profit from their labor, and such American constitutional guarantees as the right to freedoms of speech, press, religion, assembly and petition. 2) adj. just, fair, correct. (See: civil rights, marital rights)

right

(Correct), adjective aboveboard, accurate, ethical, fair, honest, honorable, in accordance with duty, in accordance with justice, in accordance with morallty, in accordance with truth, legitimate, reasonable, rightful, scrupulous, truthful, unswerving, upright, valid, veracious, virtuous

right

(Direct), adjective absolute, exact, immediate, straight, straightaway, straightforward, undeviating, unswerving

right

(Suitable), adjective accepted, admissible, allowable, appropriate, apt, conventional, customary, fit, fitting, orderly, perfect, proper, reasonable, recognized, seemly, suitable, valid, virtuous, well-done, well-performed, well-regulated

right

(Entitlement), noun authority, authorization, due, fair claim, heritage, inalienable interest, ius, iusta, just claim, justification, legal claim, legal power, legal title, power, prerogative, privilege, sanction, stake, title, vested interest, warrant
Associated concepts: absolute right, accrued rights, Bill of Rights, claim of right, color of right, Constitutional right, conningent right, established right, exclusive right, future right, inchoate right, incorporeal right, inherent right, marital rights, material rights, mineral rights, natural rights, permissive right, preemptive right, preferential right, prescriptive right, prima facie right, proprietary right, prospective right, reciprocal rights, right of action, right of entry, right of priiacy, right of redemption, right of way, right to bear arms, right to counsel, right to jury trial, right to vote, right-tooork laws, riparian rights, substantive right, vested rights
Foreign phrases: Assignatus utitur jure auctoris.An assignee is clothed with the right of his principal. Nul charrer, nul vente, ne nul done vault perpetualment, si le donor n’est seise al temps de contracts de deux droits, sc. del droit de possession et del droit de propertie. No grant, no sale, no gift, is valid forever, unless the donor, at the time of contract, has two rights, namely, the right of possession, and the right of property. Non videtur vim facere, qui jure suo utitur et ordinaria actione experitur. He is not considered to use force who exercises his own right, and proceeds by ordinary action. Nemo plus juris ad alienum transferre potest quam ipse habet. No one can transfer to another any greater right than he himself has. Cui jus est donandi, eidem et vendendi et concedendi jus est. He who has the right to give has also the right to sell and to grant. L’ou le ley done chose, la ceo done remedie a vener a ceo. Where the law gives a right, it gives a remedy to recover. Ubi jus, ibi remedium. Where there is a right, there is a remedy. Non debeo melioris conditionis esse, quam auctor meus a quo jus in me transit. I ought not to be in better condition than he to whose rights I succeed. Nemo potest plus juris ad alium transferre quam ipse habet. No one can transfer a greater right to another than he himself has. Jus publicum privatooum pactis mutari non potest. A public right cannot be changed by agreement of private persons. Nullus jus alienum forisfacere potest. No man can forfeit the right of another. Neminem laedit qui jure suo utitur. He who stands on his own rights injures no one. Cujus est inntituere, ejus est abrogare. Whose right it is to institute anything, may also abrogate it. Qui jure suo utitur, nemmni facit injuriam. One who exercises his legal rights, innures no one. Ignorantia juris sui non praejudicat juri. Ignorance of one's right does not prejudice the right. Jus triplex est,-propietatis, possessionis, et possibilitatis. Right is threefold-of property, of possession, and of possibility. Nullus videtur dolo facere qui suo jure utitur. No one is considered to have committed a wrong who exerrises his legal rights. Cuilibet licet juri pro se introducto renunciare. Any one may wave the benefit of a legal right that exists only for his protection. Qui prior est tempore potior est jure. He who is first in time is first in right.

right

(Righteousness), noun correctness, due, duty, equitableness, equity, evenhanded justice, excellence, fair treatment, fairness, good actions, good behavior, goodness, honor, integrity, justice, justness, merit, morality, morals, principle, probity, propriety, rectitude, rectus, straight course, truth, uprightness, verus, virtue, worthiness
Foreign phrases: Fiat justitia, ruat coelum.Let right be done, though the heavens fall. Ipsae leges cupiunt ut jure regannur. The laws themselves are desirous of being governed bywhat is right. Jus et fraus nunquam cohabitant. Right and fraud never dwell together. Jus naturale est quod apud homines eandem habet potentiam. Natural right is that which has the same force among all mankind. Pacta privata juri publico derogare non possunt. Private compacts cannot derogate from public right. Jus est norma recti; et quicquid estcontra normam recti est injuria. Law is the rule of right; and whatever is contrary to the rule of right is an injury. Lex est norma recti. Law is the rule of right. Quid sit jus, et in quo consistit injuria, legis est definire. What constitutes right, and what injury, it is the business of the law to define. Jus ex injuria non oritur. A right does not arise from a wrong.

RIGHT. This word is used in various senses: 1. Sometimes it signifies a law, as when we say that natural right requires us to keep our promises, or that it commands restitution, or that it forbids murder. In our language it is seldom used in this sense. 2. It sometimes means that quality in our actions by which they are denominated just ones. This is usually denominated rectitude. 3. It is that quality in a person by which he can do certain actions, or possess certain things which belong to him by virtue of some title. In this sense, we use it when we say that a man has a right to his estate or a right to defend himself. Ruth, Inst. c. 2, Sec. 1, 2, 3; Merlin,; Repert. de Jurisp. mot Droit. See Wood's Inst. 119.
     2. In this latter sense alone, will this word be here considered. Right is the correlative of duty, for, wherever one has a right due to him, some other must owe him a duty. 1 Toull. n. 96.
     3. Rights are perfect and imperfect. When the things which we have a right to possess or the actions we have a right to do, are or may be fixed and determinate, the right is a perfect one; but when the thing or the actions are vague and indeterminate, the right is an imperfect one. If a man demand his property, which is withheld from him, the right that supports his demand is a perfect one; because the thing demanded is, or may be fixed and determinate.
     4. But if a poor man ask relief from those from whom he has reason to expect it, the right, which supports his petition, is an imperfect one; because the relief which he expects, is a vague indeterminate, thing. Ruth. Inst. c. 2, Sec. 4; Grot. lib. 1, c. Sec. 4.
     5. Rights are also absolute and qualified. A man has an absolute right to recover property which belongs to him; an agent has a qualified right to recover such property, when it had been entrusted to his care, and which has been unlawfully taken out of his possession. Vide Trover.
     6. Rights might with propriety be also divided into natural and civil rights but as all the rights which man has received from nature have been modified and acquired anew from the civil law, it is more proper, when considering their object, to divide them into political and civil rights.
     7. Political rights consist in the power to participate, directly or indirectly, in the establishment or management of government. These political rights are fixed by the constitution. Every citizen has the right of voting for public officers, and of being elected; these are the political rights which the humblest citizen possesses.
     8. Civil rights are those which have no relation to the establishment, support, or management of the government. These consist in the power of acquiring and enjoying property, of exercising the paternal and marital powers, and the like. It will be observed that every one, unless deprived of them by a sentence of civil death, is in the enjoyment of his civil rights, which is not the case with political rights; for an alien, for example, has no political, although in the full enjoyment of his civil rights.
     9. These latter rights are divided into absolute and relative. The absolute rights of mankind may be reduced to three principal or primary articles: the right of personal security, which consists in a person's legal and uninterrupted enjoyment of his life, his limbs, his body, his health, and his reputation; the right of personal liberty, which consists in the power of locomotion, of changing situation, or removing one's person to whatsoever place one's inclination may direct, without any restraint, unless by due course of law; the right of property, which consists in the free use, enjoyment, and disposal of all his acquisitions, without any control or diminution, save only by the laws of the land. 1 Bl. 124 to 139.
    10. The relative rights are public or private: the first are those which subsist between the people and the government, as the right of protection on the part of the people, and the right of allegiance which is due by the people to the government; the second are the reciprocal rights of husband and wife, parent and child, guardian and ward, and master and servant.
    11. Rights are also divided into legal and equitable. The former are those where the party has the legal title to a thing, and in that case, his remedy for an infringement of it, is by an action in a court of law. Although the person holding the legal title may have no actual interest, but hold only as trustee, the suit must be in his name, and not in general, in that of the cestui que trust. 1 East, 497 8 T. R. 332; 1 Saund. 158, n. 1; 2 Bing. 20. The latter, or equitable rights, are those which may be enforced in a court of equity by the cestui que trust. See, generally, Bouv. Ins t. Index, h.t. Remedy.
RIGHT, WRIT OF. Breve de recto. Vide Writ of light.

A Law Dictionary, Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States. By John Bouvier. Published 1856.

Confessions of a Colorado Conservative

Wednesday, May 31, 2017