Visitor Total - Since December 2016


U.S. Debt Clock

U.S. Debt Clock
This is what out of control looks like

Thursday, December 19

Marxism and the Manipulation of Man

Amazing Things Do Happen! · Post Marxism and the Manipulation of Man Posting as Rooofer

Marxism and the Manipulation of Man

Another page with the same lecture:

It is an astonishing fact that a philosophy like Marxism, which attacks the whole social system, remained for many decades more or less unattacked and uncontested. Karl Marx was not very well known in his lifetime and his writings remained practically unknown to the greater part of his contemporaries. The great socialists of his age ...

Ludwig Von Mises considers the following as important:

This could be interesting, too:
Madsen Pirie writes The Penlee lifeboat disaster

It is an astonishing fact that a philosophy like Marxism, which attacks the whole social system, remained for many decades more or less unattacked and uncontested. Karl Marx was not very well known in his lifetime and his writings remained practically unknown to the greater part of his contemporaries. The great socialists of his age were other men—for instance, Ferdinand Lassalle. Lassalle’s agitations lasted only a year because he was killed in duel as a result of a private affair, but he was considered a great man in his age. Marx, on the other hand, was more or less unknown. People neither approved, nor criticized, his teachings. He died in 1883. After his death, there appeared the first part of Böhm-Bawerk’s critique of the economic doctrines of Karl Marx. And later in the 1890s, when the last volume of Das Kapital was published, there appeared the second part of this critique, which completely killed Marx’s economic doctrines. The most orthodox Marxians tried to revive and restate his doctrines. But there was practically no sensible critique of the philosophical doctrines of Karl Marx.

Marx’s philosophical doctrines became popular in that people became familiar with some of his terms, slogans, and so forth, although they used them differently from the way they were used in the system of Karl Marx. Such simplification happens to many doctrines. For instance, Darwinism became known as the theory based on the idea that man is the grandson of an ape. What remains of Nietzsche is not much more than his term “superman,” which later acquired popularity in the United States without any connection to Nietzsche. Regarding Marx, people know his terms but they use them very loosely. But by and large, Marxian ideas have little or no opposition.
One of the reasons why the doctrine of Marx was so diluted in the public mind was the way Engels tried to explain Marxian theory. See his statement at the graveside of Marx: “Marx discovered the law of mankind’s historical evolution, i.e., the simple fact, hitherto hidden beneath ideological overgrowths, that men must first of all eat, drink, have shelter and clothing before they can pursue politics, science, art, religion, and the like.” Yet no one ever denied this. But now if someone says something against Marxian doctrine then they can be asked: “How can you be so stupid as to deny that one must first eat before one becomes a philosopher?”
Again there is the theory of the material productive forces. But no explanation is offered for their formation. Dialectical materialism states that the material productive forces come to the world—one doesn’t know how they come, nor where they come from—and it is these material productive forces that create everything else, i.e., the superstructure.
People sometimes believe that there has been a very sharp conflict between the various churches and Marxism. They consider Marxism and socialism as incompatible with the teachings of all Christian churches and sects. The early communist sects and early monastic communities were based on a peculiar interpretation of the Bible in general, and of the book of Acts especially. We don’t know much about these early communist sects but they existed in the Middle Ages and also in the early years of the Reformation. All these sects were in conflict with the established doctrines of their churches or denominations. So it would be absolutely wrong to make the Christian church responsible for them. I mention this to show that, at least in the minds of some groups, most of which the church considered heretical, there is no absolute conflict between socialism and the teachings of the church. The anti-Christian tendencies of the socialist forerunners of Karl Marx, of Karl Marx himself; and later of his followers, the Marxians, must first of all be understood within the whole framework which later gave rise to modern socialism.
The states, the governments, the conservative parties, were not always opposed to socialism. On the contrary; the personnel of a government has a tendency or a bias in favor of the expansion of government power; one could even say that there is an “occupational disease” on the part of government personnel to be in favor of more and more governmental activities. It was precisely this fact, this propensity of governments to adopt socialism—and many governments really did adopt socialism—that brought Marxism into conflict with the various governments.
I have pointed out that the worst thing that can happen to a socialist is to have his country ruled by socialists who are not his friends. This was the case with respect to Karl Marx and the Prussian government. The Prussian government was not against socialism. Ferdinand Lassalle attacked the liberal parties of Prussia, which were at that time fighting a great constitutional battle against the Hohenzollern kings, headed by Bismarck. The majority in Prussia at that time was against the government; the government couldn’t get a majority in the Prussian Parliament. The Prussian government was not very strong at that time. The King and the Prime Minister ruled the country without consent, without the cooperation of the Parliament. This was the case in the early 1860s. As an illustration of the weakness of the Prussian government, Bismarck, in his Memoirs, reported a conversation he had with the King. Bismarck said he would defeat the Parliament and the liberals. The King answered, “Yes, I know how that will end. Here in the square in front of the palace. First they will execute you and then they will execute me.”
Queen Victoria [1819–1901], whose oldest daughter [Victoria, 1840–1901] had married the royal prince of Prussia, was not very pleased by these developments; she was convinced that the Hohenzollerns would be defeated. At this critical moment Ferdinand Lassalle, who was at the head of a labor movement which was then still very modest, very small, came to the aid of the Hohenzollern government. Lassalle had meetings with Bismarck and they “planned” socialism. They introduced state aid, production cooperatives, nationalization, and general manhood suffrage. Later Bismarck really embarked on a program of social legislation. The greatest rival of the Marxians was the Prussian government, and they fought with every possible movement.
Now you must realize that in Prussia, the Prussian Church, the Protestant Church, was simply a department of the government, administered by a member of the Cabinet—the Minister of Education and Affairs of Culture. One of the councilors in the lower levels of the administration dealt with the problems of the church. The church in this regard was a state church; it was even a state church in its origin. Until 1817, there were Lutherans and Calvinists in Prussia. The Hohenzollerns didn’t like this state of affairs. The Lutherans were in the majority in the old Prussian territories, but in the newly acquired territories there were both groups. In spite of the fact that the majority of the whole Prussian people were Lutherans, the electorate of the Brandenburgs had changed from Lutherans to Calvinists. The Hohenzollerns were Calvinists, but they were the head of the Lutheran Church in their country. Then in 1817, under Frederick Wilhelm III of Prussia, the two churches were merged to form the Prussian Union Church. The Church was a branch of the country’s government.
From the seventeenth century on in Russia, the church was simply a department of the government. The church was not independent. Dependence of the church on the secular power was one of the characteristics of the Eastern Church at Constantinople. The head of the Eastern Empire was in fact the Superior of the Patriarch. This same system was to some extent carried over into Russia, but there the church was only a part of the government. Therefore, if you attacked the church, you also attacked the government.
The third country in which the problem was very critical was Italy, where the nationalist unification implied the abolition of the secular rule of the Pope. Until the second part of the nineteenth century the central part of Italy was ruled independently by the Pope. In 1860, the King of Sardinia conquered these states. The Pope retained only Rome, under the protection of a detachment of the French Army until 1860, when the French had to withdraw to fight Prussia. Therefore, there was a very violent feud between the Catholic Church and the Italian secular state. The struggle of the church against the ideas of the Marxians concerning religion is something different from their struggle against the socialist program. Today it is complicated even more by the fact that the Russian Church, the Oriental Orthodox Church, came as it seems, to some agreement with the Bolsheviks. The struggle in the East is to a great extent a struggle between the Eastern Church and the Western Church—a continuation of the struggle that originated more than a thousand years ago between the two churches. Therefore, the conflicts in these countries, between Russia and the western boundaries of the Iron Curtain, are very complicated. It is not only a struggle against totalitarian economic methods for economic freedom; it is also a struggle of various nationalities, of different linguistic groups. Consider, for instance, the attempts of the present Russian government to make the various Baltic nationalities over into Russians—a continuation of something that had been started by the Tsars—and the struggle in Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and so on, against the attempts of the Russian Church to bring them back, as they say, to the Oriental Creed. To understand all these struggles one needs a special familiarity with these nationalities and with the religious histories of these parts of the world.
In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries there were changes that expanded the size of the territory in which the Pope’s supremacy was acknowledged. Therefore, there existed a Russian Church, the Orthodox Church, and a Ukrainian or Russian Catholic Church which acknowledged the supremacy of the Pope. All these things together constituted the great religious struggles of the East. However, one must not confuse the events happening in these nationalistic and religious struggles with the fight against communism. For instance, the politicians fighting against the Russians today are not always, or at least not in most cases, fighters in favor of a free economic system. They are Marxians, socialists. They would probably like to have a totalitarian police state, but they don’t want it to be governed by the Russians.
From this point of view, one cannot say that there is any real opposition to the social teachings and social programs of Marxism. On the other hand, it is important to realize that there isn’t necessarily always a connection between anti-Marxism, an ideological philosophy, and economic freedom.
One of the outstanding contemporaries of Karl Marx in Germany was a philosopher, Friedrich Albert Lange [1828–1875]. He wrote a famous book, The History of Marxism, considered for many years, not only in Germany but also in English-speaking countries, one of the best introductions to philosophy. Lange was a socialist; he wrote another book about socialism. In his book he didn’t criticize Marx, but rather materialism. Marxian materialism is a very imperfect materialism because it traces all changes back only to something which is itself already the product of the human mind.
It is important to stress the fact that the critiques of Marxism were sometimes very wrong. I want to point to only one typical example. This is the popular propensity of anti-Marxians to consider dialectical materialism and Marxism as something belonging to the same group of ideas as Freudian psychoanalysis. I am not a psychologist, but I only have to point out how mixed up these people are who believe that materialism in general and Marxian materialism in particular have some connection with Freudian psychoanalysis.
Before Sigmund Freud [1856–1939] and Josef Breuer [1842–1925], who opened up this whole method of thinking, began to develop their doctrines, it was the generally uncontested assumption among all doctors that mental disabilities were caused by pathological changes in the human body. If a man had something that was called a nervous or mental disease they looked for some bodily factor that brought about this state of affairs. From the point of view of the doctor who deals with the human body this is the only possible interpretation. However, sometimes they were absolutely correct when they said, “We don’t know the cause.” Their only method was to look for a physical cause. One could give many examples. I want to cite only one. It happened in 1889, just a few years before the first book of Freud and Breuer was published. An eminent man in France committed suicide. For political reasons and because of his religion, the question was raised whether or not he was sane. His family wanted to prove that it was a mental disease. In order to prove his mental disease to the Church, they had to discover some physical cause. There was an autopsy by eminent doctors, and their report was published. “We discover certain things in the brain,” they said; “there is something that is not regular.” At that time, people thought that if a man doesn’t behave like other people, has no physical sign of abnormality in his body, he is a malingerer. Sometimes this is unfortunate, because one can only discover whether or not a person is a malingerer after he is dead. In this regard, psychoanalysis brought about a great change. The case of Crown Prince Rudolf of Austria [1858–1889], who committed suicide at Mayerling, raised similar issues.
The famous first case was that of a woman who was paralyzed. Yet nothing could be discovered in her body to explain her situation. The case was written up by a man who followed the advice of a Latin poet: wait nine years with your manuscript before you publish. Breuer got the idea that the origin of this bodily deficiency was not physical but that it was in the mind. This was a radical change in the field of the natural sciences; such a thing had never happened before—a discovery that mental factors, ideas, superstitions, fables, wrong ideas, what a man thinks, what he believes, can bring about changes in the body. This was something that all the natural sciences had denied and contested before.
Freud was a very conscientious and cautious man. He didn’t say, “I have completely discredited the old doctrines.” He said,
Perhaps one day, after a very long time, the pathological doctors will discover that ideas are already the product of some physical external bodily factor. Then psychoanalysis will no longer be needed or useful. But for the time being you must at least admit that there is a temporary value in Breuer’s and my discovery and that, from the point of view of present-day science, there is nothing that confirms the materialist thesis that every idea or every thought is the product of some external factor, just as urine is a product of the body. Psychoanalysis is the opposite of materialism; it is the only contribution to the problem of materialism vs. idealism that has come from empirical research in the human body.
We have to deal with the ways some people abuse psychoanalysis. I do not defend those psychoanalysts who try to explain everything from the point of view of certain urges, among which the sex urge is considered the most important. There was a book by a Frenchman dealing with Baudelaire [Charles Baudelaire, 1821–1867]. Baudelaire liked to spend money, but he didn’t earn money because publishers didn’t buy his poems during his lifetime. But his mother had money; she had married money and her husband died and left it to her. Baudelaire wrote his mother a lot of letters. This writer found all sorts of subconscious explanations for his letters. I don’t defend this attempt. But his letter writing doesn’t need any further explanation than that Baudelaire wanted money.
Freud said he didn’t know anything about socialism. In this regard he was very different from Einstein [1879–1955] who said, “I don’t know anything about economics, but socialism is very good.”
If we follow how Marxism became the leading philosophy of our age, we must mention Positivism and the school of Auguste Comte. Comte was a socialist similar to Karl Marx. In his youth, Auguste Comte had been the secretary of Saint-Simon. Saint-Simon was a totalitarian who wanted to rule the whole world by world council and, of course, he believed he would be the president of this world council. According to Comte’s idea of world history, it was necessary to search for the truth in the past. “But now, I, August Comte, have discovered the truth. Therefore, there is no longer any need for freedom of thought or freedom of the press. I want to rule and to organize the whole country.”
It is very interesting to follow the origin of certain terms which are today so familiar that we assume they must have been in the language from time immemorial. In French, the words “organize” and “organizer” were unknown before the end of the eighteenth century or the beginning of the nineteenth century. With regard to this term, “organize,” Balzac [1799–1850] observed “This is a newfangled Napoleonic term. This means you alone are the dictator and you deal with the individual as the builder works with stones.”
Another new term, “social engineering,” deals with the social structure. The social engineer deals with the social structure or with his fellowmen as the master builder deals with his bricks. Reasoning in this way, the Bolsheviks eliminate those individuals who are useless. In the term “social engineering” you have the idea of planning, the idea of socialism. Today we have many names for socialism. If a thing is popular, then the language has many expressions for it. These planners say in defense of their ideas, you must plan things; you cannot let things act “automatically.”
Sometimes “automatically” is used in a metaphorical sense to apply to things that happen on the market. If the supply of a product drops, then they say prices go up “automatically.” But this doesn’t mean that this is done without human consciousness, without some persons bidding and offering. Prices go up precisely because people are anxious to acquire these things. Nothing in the economic system happens “automatically.” Everything happens because certain people behave in a definite way.
Also the planners say, “How can you be so stupid as to advocate the absence of planning?” But no one advocates the absence of a plan. The question is not “Plan, or no plan.” The question is “Whose plan? The plan of one dictator only? Or the plan of many individuals?” Everyone plans. He plans to go to work; he plans to go home; he plans to read a book; he plans a thousand other things. A “great” plan eliminates the plans of everybody else; then only one plan can be supreme. If the “great” plan and the plans of individuals come into conflict, whose plan is to be supreme? Who decides? The police decide! And they decide in favor of the “great” plan.
In the early days of socialism, some critics of socialism used to blame socialists for their ignorance of human nature. A man who must execute the plan of somebody else only would no longer be a man of the kind we call human. This objection was answered by those socialists who said, “If human nature is against socialism, then human nature will have to be changed.” Karl Kautsky said this many years before, but he didn’t give any details.
The details were provided by Behaviorism and by [Ivan] Pavlov [1849–1936], the psychologist mentioned in every book by a Marxist. The explanation was offered by Pavlov’s conditioned reflex. Pavlov was a Tsarist; he made his experiments in the days of the Tsar. Instead of human rights, Pavlov’s dog had canine rights. This is the future of education.
The Behaviorist philosophy wants to deal with human individuals as if there were no ideas or no faults in men. Behaviorism considers every human action as a reaction to a stimulus. Everything in the physical and physiological nature responds to certain reflexes. They say, “Man belongs to the same realm as animals. Why should he be different? There are certain reflexes and certain instincts that guide men to certain ends. Certain stimuli bring about certain reactions.” What the Behaviorists and the Marxists did not see was that you cannot even discredit such a theory of stimuli without entering into the meaning that the individual attaches to such stimuli. The housewife, when quoted the price of an object which she is considering buying, reacts differently to $5 than she does to $6. You cannot determine the stimulus without entering into the meaning. And the meaning itself is an idea.
The Behaviorists’ approach says, “We will condition the other people.” But who are the “we”? And who are the “other people”? “Today,” they say, “people are conditioned for capitalism by many things, by history, by good people, by bad people, by the church, etc., etc.”
This philosophy doesn’t give us any answer other than the answer we have already seen. The whole idea of this philosophy is that we must accept what Karl Marx told us because he had the great gift—he was entrusted by Providence, by the material productive forces, with discovering the law of historical evolution. He knows the end toward which history leads mankind. This leads eventually to the point where we must accept the idea that the party, the group, the clique, that has defeated the others by force of arms, is the right ruler, that he is called by the material productive forces to “condition” all other people. The fantastic thing is that the school which develops this philosophy calls itself “liberal” and calls its system a “people’s democracy,” “real democracy,” and so on. It is also fantastic that the vice president of the United States [Henry Wallace, 1888–1965] one day declared, “We in the United States have only a civil rights democracy—but in Russia there is economic democracy.”
There was a socialist author, valued highly by the Bolsheviks in the beginning, who said the most powerful man in the world is the man in whose favor the greatest lies are told and believed. (Something similar was said by Adolf Hitler.) Here is the power of this philosophy. The Russians have the power to say, “We are a democracy and our people are happy and enjoy a full life under our system.” And other nations seem to be unable to find the right answer to this idea. If they had found the right answer, this philosophy wouldn’t be so popular.
There are people living here in the United States, at an American standard of living, who think they are unhappy because they do not live in Soviet Russia where, they say, there is a classless society and everything is better than it is here. But it seems that it is not very much fun to live in Russia, not only from the material point of view, but from the point of view of individual freedom. If you ask, “How is it possible that people say everything is wonderful in a country, Russia, in which everything is probably not very wonderful,” then we must answer, “Because our last three generations were unable to explode the contradictions and the failures of this philosophy of dialectic materialism.”
The greatest philosophy in the world today is that of dialectical materialism—the idea that it is inevitable that we are being carried toward socialism. The books that have been written up to now have not succeeded in countering this thesis. You must write new books. You must think of these problems. It is ideas that distinguish men from animals. This is the human quality of man. But according to the ideas of the socialists the opportunity to have ideas should be reserved to the Politburo only; all the other people should only carry out what the Politburo tells them to do.
It is impossible to defeat a philosophy if you do not fight in the philosophical field. One of the great deficiencies of American thinking—and America is the most important country in the world because it is here, not in Moscow, that this problem will be decided—the greatest shortcoming, is that people think all these philosophies and everything that is written in books is of minor importance, that it doesn’t count. Therefore they underrate the importance and the power of ideas. Yet there is nothing more important in the world than ideas. Ideas and nothing else will determine the outcome of this great struggle. It is a great mistake to believe that the outcome of the battle will be determined by things other than ideas.
Russian Marxists, like all other Marxists, had the idea that they wanted to nationalize agriculture. That is, the theorists wanted to—the individual worker did not want to nationalize the farms; they wanted to take the big farms, break them up, and distribute the land among the small farmers. This has been called “agrarian reform.” The social revolutionaries wanted to distribute the farms to the poor peasants. In 1917, Lenin coined a new slogan, “You make revolution with the slogan of the day.” Therefore, they accepted something that was against Marxism. Later they started the nationalization of farm lands. Then they adopted this idea in the new countries they took over; they told every man that he would get his own farm.
They started this program in China. In China they took the big farms and abolished the rights of mortgage banks and landlords and freed the tenants from making any payments to the landlords. Therefore, it was not philosophy that made the Chinese peasants communistic, but the promise of a better life; people thought they would improve their conditions if they could get some farm land owned up to then by wealthier people. But this is not the solution for the Chinese problem. The advocates of this program were called agricultural reformers; they were not Marxians. The idea of land distribution is entirely un-Marxian.

Additional comments by Mises during the question-and-answer period.

Majorities are also not godlike. “The people’s voice is God’s” is an old German maxim, but it is not true. The basis of the idea of talking about pleasing the majority is that in the long run the majority will not tolerate rule by a minority; if the majority are not pleased there will be a violent revolution to change the government. The system of representative government is not radical; it is precisely a way to make a change of government possible without violence; many think that, with the approval of the people, they can change the government at the next election. Majority rule is not a good system but it is a system that assures peaceful conditions within the country. Newspapers, periodicals, books, and so on, are the opinion-makers.
The great progress of the modern age is that it led to representative government. The great pioneer of this idea was the British philosopher David Hume [1711–1776], who pointed out that in the long run government is not, as people believed, based on military power, but on opinion, on the opinion of the majority. What is needed is to convince the majority. It is not because the majority is always right. On the contrary, I would say the majority is very often wrong. But if you do not want to resort to a violent overthrow of the government, and this is impossible if you are the minority because if you are the minority they will overthrow you, you have only one method—to talk to the people, to write, and to talk again.

Post settings Labels Published on 12/19/19,
11:22 AM Pacific Standard Time by Andy Jennings

Wednesday, September 18

The idea. The idea of a negative income tax began gaining steam with the 1962 publication of economist Milton Friedman’s book "Capitalism and Freedom" Friedman thought a negative income tax would alleviate poverty — and he believed it would have many additional benefits, as well.

Monday, September 16

Anti-American High School in North Carolina


Brad Craddock, President
Glenn High School
​​Jerry Simmons, Vice President
New Bern High School
Sandy George, Past President
Assistant Superintendent
Mount Airy Schools

Board Members

Ronnie Beverly
Athletic Director
Lexington High School
Neil Blankenship
Athletic Director
Swain High School
Chris Blanton
Watauga High School
Mark Byrd
Wilkes County

Brian Edkins
Scotland High School
Tim Foster
Southwest Onslow High School
Michael Gainey
Athletic Director
Rocky-Mount High School
Stephen Gainey
Randolph County
Rob Jackson
Eden-Chowan County​
Troy Lindsey
Athletic Director
Gray's Creek High School
John Luciano
Manteo High School
Fred Lynch
Athletic Director
Laney High School
Kathy Quiroz Moore
Wake County Schools
Masanori Toguchi
Athletic Director
Hough High School
Joy Warner
Community School of Davidson

Bobby Wilkins
Hendersonville High School

Affiliate Board Members

David Brown
Piedmont Baseball Official
Joe Franks
North Carolina Coaches Association
Wendell Hall
North Carolina School Board Association
Burt Jenkins
North Carolina Department of Public Instruction
Vernon Aldridge
North Carolina Athletic Directors Association/Cumberland County Schools

Tuesday, August 27


I take you through the whole incident leading up to the Portland Massacre videos with this AMAZING VR 360 cam Video. I breakdown exactly what happened with Greg Isaacson a Well know and respected USMC VETERAN who lives there and is under constant attack by Antifa for no reason! I stopped an attempted stabbing without him even knowing! Glory to God

Monday, August 26

American migrants flee socialist states

August 27, 2019

American migrants flee socialist states

  • by: 
  • Source: FreePressers

smoorewik2 by Gage Skidmore is licensed under Wikimedia Commons Creative Commons 2.0

FPI / August 21, 2019

Americans by the thousands are bolting from high tax burdens in socialist sanctums and heading for the conservative heartland, according to American Heritage Foundation chief economist and WorldTribune columnist Stephen Moore.

They are escaping New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and Illinois and moving to Florida, Texas, Tennessee, Utah and North Carolina.

“This is the big demographic story of our country,” Moore said during an Aug. 20 appearance on Fox News’s The Daily Briefing with Dana Perino. “It may be the biggest political economic story that’s happening in America — the transformation where people are moving out of the high-tax states at a rate of about 1,000 people every day to low-tax states.”

Moore continued: “We just did an analysis at ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council) — I’m on the board there — of four states that I call the ‘four states of the apocalypse.’ You know what they are? New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and my home state of Illinois just getting clobbered because they have the highest taxes. They actually have huge budget problems, though they have high taxes.

“Where are those people leaving to?” he continued. “Where are they going? Certainly Florida. Then Tennessee, Texas, Utah, North Carolina. By the way, There’s something similar about Texas, Tennessee, Florida. No income tax, and boy does that make a difference.”

Moore continued: “Let’s say you’re a millionaire and you move out of New York to Florida or Texas, you can practically buy a house just with the money you save on your income tax.”

There is a concern, however, that the residents and businesses who are fleeing the Democratic-dominated states are bringing their leftist political ideology with them.

“Isn’t it interesting that the states people are leaving from, those are the most, quote, progressive states,” Moore said. “Yet you’ve got all these Democrats saying let’s make America look more like New York and New Jersey. No, we should make America look more like Texas, Tennessee and Florida.”

In an Aug. 21 report, BizPac Review cited the example of AllianceBernstein (AB), a global asset management firm that announced in the spring that it would be relocating from New York to Tennessee to escape the left-wing state’s left-wing policies.

Before the official move, however, the firm issued a statement decrying the Tennessee’s conservative government for being supportive of a religious liberty bill, the report said.

“AB chose to move to Tennessee because we believe it is a welcoming state that is focused on growing jobs, incomes and the tax base, which will improve lives for all Tennesseans,” the firm’s COO, Jim Gingrich, said in a statement at the time.

But, he continued, “[t]he bills being debated in the current session of the legislature send a clear message to certain constituencies that they are not welcome. Other states have tried to pass similar bills and this has proven to be anti-growth, anti-job and against the interests of the citizens of those states.”

Family Research Council president Tony Perkins noted in a rebuttal: “[T]he last time financial experts checked, the most socially conservative states also happened to be the most prosperous. For years, places like North Carolina (No. 1), Texas (No. 3), and Georgia (No. 6) have topped Forbes’s Best States for Business list — despite high-profile campaigns for privacy, religious liberty, and life.”

Perkins continued: “What these liberal CEOs don’t understand is that these favorable business climates only come from conservative legislators who understand that real freedom leads to economic growth. That’s why these red states are so enticing to companies, because their social values haven’t just built a foundation for workforce and family success — but thriving corporations, too.”

It’s not just the American people who are benefiting from low taxes.

Florida, despite boasting some of the lowest tax rates in the country, is “raking in billions,” as reported by Fox Business Network.

“According to a new study from LendingTree, which analyzed IRS data from 2016, Florida is the number one largest beneficiary from relocations out of all 50 states — by a landslide,” the Fox Business report said.

“The Sunshine State drew in a net influx of about $17.7 billion in adjusted gross income (AGI) – most of which (72 percent) came from those aged 55 and older. It is consistently one of the most popular destinations for retirees due to affordability and low taxes. Florida’s $17.7 billion in net AGI dwarves the remaining 19 states that saw a positive net influx of income – which combined for a total of $19.4 billion.”

This appears to disprove the Democrat Party narrative that tax cuts lead to reduced revenue and thus higher deficits and debts.

Free Press International
Source: Free Press International News Service

Friday, August 23

Patrick M. Byrne

Fmr. Overstock CEO Patrick Byrne: "FBI Got Hijacked From The Top," The "Men In Black" Pushed Me To Contact Butina

Posted By Ian Schwartz with Real Clear Politics
On Date August 22, 2019

23 minute interview with Martha MacCallum

Patrick Byrne, who just resigned as CEO of today, said the FBI "got hijacked" and the "Men in Black," those at the top, were part of a conspiracy to set up Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Rubio, and Cruz.

Byrne said after he reported contact from Russian national Maria Butina to the federal authorities he was approached by "the men in black" and encouraged to have a relationship with her. The businessman said Butina was being set up by the "men in black" to approach and build contacts with people in the Trump campaign, Clinton campaign, and even with Senators Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio.

The former CEO said he uses the term "men in black" instead of FBI because he wanted to separate people who sabotaged the bureau.

Byrne told MacCallum if you went up to fired FBI Director James Comey and said his name that the G-man would "crap his pants"

From his interview with Martha MacCallum on Thursday, August 22, 2019's 'The Story' on FOX News:
MARTHA MACCALLUM, FOX NEWS ANCHOR:  So, here now, as we said, in a "Story" exclusive tonight, is Patrick Byrne, the now former CEO of

Patrick, thank you very much for being with us tonight to talk about your story.

PATRICK BYRNE, FORMER OVERSTOCK CEO:  It's an honor to be on.  There is some confusion wrapped up and I believe you just heard from (inaudible) but we’ll unscramble it.

MACCALLUM:  OK. Yes, we will unscramble it to be sure.

So, you know, first of all, I know that you -- obviously, you left your company today.  It’s a company that you built through your own, you know, sweat and grit over all of those years, a very successful business.

Your thoughts quickly about the company?

BYRNE:  The company is in a great position.  We have two sides to it.  We have the retail business.  We also have a network of Blockchain companies that I think can change the world.

And for example, with something called -- if you are into Blockchain, there’s a killer app called Security Tokens.  We have a tZERO that is leading that.  We have all these great Blockchain companies.

And our retail business, we turned a positive, in the black EBITDA in the second quarter.  So, everything is in a great situation.


BRYNE:  I have to get away for the retail company based on what I think is going on.

MACCALLUM:  OK.  So -- so, obviously, you stepped away from your company, you say, for the good of the company and the good of the country.

BYRNE:  Yes.

MACCALLUM:  You say that you got tangled up in the deep state investigation into President Trump.  Tell me how -- how did all of this start?

BYRNE:  Let me give you the bottom line up front.  So, listen, I’m a -- I’m a hippie.  I have nothing to do with the feds.  I’m a flag-waving hippie.

Twice in my life, I had the honor of helping them.  A friend of mine named Brian Williams (ph) was murdered 17 years ago.  I helped them bring the murderer to justice.

And I helped them fight Wall Street about 12 years ago.  I was kind of a one-man Occupy Wall Street.  In ’05, ’06, the feds showed up and it was my honor to help them take down a couple hundred people on Wall Street.


BYRNE:  So that’s that.  Let me jump to the bottom line and this I’ve learned is the quickest way to explain it.

In 2015, 2016, they got back in touch with me, the third time, and it was -- I was given some fishy orders.  And I carried them out thinking -- in 2015-2016, thinking I was conducting law enforcement.  Let me emphasize, don't say the FBI.  The FBI is barely involved in this.  It’s all at the top.

The "men in black," as I called them, showed up and asked for this third favor.  And I -- well, anyway, I’m not going to go into the details right now, but I didn't know who sent the orders, but I did them last -- they seemed fishy, last summer watching television and here's the punch line -- here’s the punch line, people, last summer watching television and some congressional hearings, I figured out where those orders came from.  It came from a guy named Peter Strzok.

And well, three staff (ph) -- Carlin, McCabe, Comey, that was who sent the orders.  And …

MACCALLUM:  Well, you're naming a bunch of FBI people there.

BYRNE:  Well, the -- Peter Strzok, and it’s been confirmed to me that my instructions came from Peter Strzok, that the people who carried me orders were coming ..


BYRNE:  .. or on behalf.


MACCALLUM:  So, you -- you had helped the government a couple of times.  They reached out to you.  What did they ask you to do?

BYRNE:  I don't want to go into the nitty-gritty right now.  Well, the nitty-gritty, I can tell you the main event.  And I feel terrible.  I’ve been watching for three years, and our country is coming apart, and people are killing each other.

And I finally went to see Buffett.  And Buffett -- Buffet and I -- Buffett is kind of my rabbi, I call him.  And -- and he said, Patrick, you have to come forward.  And I said, you know, it's going to make some feds furious at me, their heads are going to explode.  And he said, you let the feds do their job, you're a citizen, you got your job, you’re coming to the public.

Here’s what it is.  This was all political espionage conducted against Hillary Clinton, Rubio, Cruz, and Trump.  This is not a theory of mine -- some political theory.  I was in the room when it happened in a way.  I mean, not in a way.  I was part of it.

I didn’t know -- I knew I had some of the pieces.  I thought I had the pieces of something much bigger.  Last summer, as stuff bubbled into the news, thanks to good journalists such as yourself, I started realizing I had these very important missing pieces.  I actually started coming -- trying to help them, but I had to wait until there was a return to the rule of law in our country.

And I’ve lived in place where (INAUDIBLE) -- that took waiting until Bill Barr got installed.  And then -- I don't know the guy, I’ve never shaken hands or anything, but only then did I trust things enough and I went to the Department of Justice and started to explain .. 

MACCALLUM:  And you told them what you know.

BYRNE:  Of what I know.

MACCALLUM:  Yes.  And, you know,  and it's my understanding that -- that -- you know I should just point this out because some people might be listening and saying, you know, well, how credible is this?  And, you know, we -- we did some asking around and, you know, we have basically had the indications that, you know, there’s every reason to believe that what you -- that your story is indeed credible.  So ..

BYRNE:  I’m not in the -- I’m not in the convincing business.  I’m in the business of, I’m opening the door and letting the world open …


MACCALLUM:  But let me go back to the basics because this is what everybody is saying at home, it’s what everyone is saying at home.  What did they tell you to do?  What did they ask you to do, Patrick?

BYRNE:  There was -- well, some of it involved this young lady Maria Butina who came here -- so, I’ve -- so, some of it involved her.


BYRNE:  Some of it involved setting up Hillary Clinton for what looked like -- and -- looked like law enforcement, it was actually setting her up to be blackmailed.  I had helped them set up Hillary Clinton to be blackmailed.

MACCALLUM:  What was the nature of the blackmail?

BYRNE:  I can’t go into it.  And so I’ve already -- I’m sure there’s a bunch of people in Washington who are going to rip me apart, and I have actually been warned.  I was warned last October from a friendly person -- Patrick, if you come forward, this entire town of Washington is going to destroy you.  It’s going to turn you into dust.

MACCALLUM:  Well, and, you know, I give you a lot of credit because I know that you said that you did some soul-searching over the summer and you, you know, talked to good friends and you mentioned one of them a moment ago.

What was the nature of your relationship with Maria Butina?  Did you reach out to you?  Or did you reach out to her?  And -- and how involved were you?  Did you have an affair with her for three years?  Or what was the nature of your relationship?

BYRNE:  You've seen the video, I bet you’ve played it, were candidate Trump is at a conference …


BYRNE:  … and this young lady (ph) stands up and asks a question.

MACCALLUM:  Asked the question, sure.

BYRNE:  If you go and look up that conference which was a 2015 conference in Las Vegas -- I’m a small L libertarian, a small R Republican.  I don't identify as a Republican, I’m a -- but I get asked to speak at sort of freedom oriented conferences like that and I did and I was at that conference.

And after I spoke, she actually came up to me and talked about guns.  Well, and some gun rights thing in Florida, and the first time, I brushed her off, I’m not into guns.  I’m not -- everybody should have one but I’m not into them.  I don’t fetishize them or anything like Republicans but -- often do.

But then she came up the next day and said, I’m really here -- look, I’m really here -- I’ve been sent from Russia to make contact with you.  There's some people in Russia who want to talk to you, they know about you and your relationship with Milton Friedman.  Believe it or not, there are people like this in Russia.  There are liberals.

Anyway, she had this whole story. I don’t want to get into here -- I’ll put it up on a website called Deep Capture, which is where I used to write to the world.  But I’ll go into the all -- I don’t want to go into the where on the doll did  you touch her stuff.

We had -- we had an intellectual relationship.  I was given a green light to meet her again.  She turned that into a physical relationship, I don’t mean to -- not that I’m unwitting (ph) or unwilling, but -- so we dated for about six months.

I was trying to enter her in to some senior foreign policy thinkers, because of some things I used to do involving law enforcement and taking down Wall Street, I used to have very low, low level security clearance.

And when you get that, you sign a piece of paper that says, when a gal comes up to you from Russia and says, listen, I’ve been sent here to make contact with you, and we want to take you to Moscow and want you to speak on bitcoin and speak on liberalism, at the central bank and then we want other -- you have to report that.

I reported that and sent that to my clearance authority, and which she’s kind of -- you know, I talk to them once every three years if something like that happen.

And before I know it, the men in black are back of my life and I was trying to encourage her to have a relationship and she wanted to be a back channel for peace.  I could have open some doors, but I didn't want to do that until I had -- until I had some green light.

And after a couple months, I don’t -- I was given the green light.  That turned romantic.  I was bothered -- I’ll tell you something that -- I mean, I’ll tell you some really deep stuff.  I was by -- I was two-thirds judging it as an opportunity for something good, something to move the ball of peace down the field a bit.  One-third of it was a risk.

As those -- I know she was dating or living with some -- some Republican bigwigs and stuff.  So, my idea (ph) -- I just said, I’m -- I’m  a 56-year-old bachelor.  I said, you just -- every six weeks or so, when you want to see some place, give me a call and we’ll meet there.

But I was trying to enter (ph) her in and maybe something peaceful could happen.  But I had sort of a third -- maybe two-thirds I was positive, one-third this is quite a risk and especially over those -- from July of 2015 to March of 2016 as I -- she -- she clearly was swanking around more and more in big shot Republican circles, including -- including people like Don Jr.

I was telling her that the men in black had all of those meetings before she had them, they knew about her the day she landed.  They knew about every one of these meetings.  They knew that at one point, she was going off to have a meeting with Don Jr.

I don’t know.  And listen, I didn't vote for Trump.  I’m not a never Trumper.  I have -- he won fair and square and that’s …


MACCALLUM:  So, do you think she was set up by the men in black to approach people in the Trump administration?  Is that possibility?

BYRNE:  It was all a -- 100 percent.  They knew she was trying to approach, and her instructions were, to approach -- she had to build a contact with anyone in the Hillary Clinton, Rubio, Cruz, or Trump.

And they knew that because she told me and I let them know.  And they let -- it all happened.  I could have told you in December of 2015, I had a suspicion forming in my mind -- It was really quite strange, because she had initially checked off -- she doesn't like, she’s -- Democrats, she is much more of Republican and a much more of small L liberation -- she's a Milton Friedman fan.  I’m a Milton Friedman guy.

So, once she checked off having met somebody in Clinton -- I don't know who --  and she was telling me all this.  She was just going to focus on Cruz, Rubio, and Trump.  At that point, the interest of -- and the United States government in doing anything about this went to zero.

It became like this even to the point I was telling them things like, look, she's telling me that in a manner of weeks, she’s going to be at some conference of -- of conservatives and Donald Trump is going to be taken down and out the back door of his hotel and be taken to meet her and this and that, what do you want me to do?  Can I -- let me take her off for a trip and swish her away to the Bahamas or what do you want.


BYRNE:  And they said, no, we're going to let it all happen.  100 percent


MACCALLUM:  So, do you believe that -- do you believe they -- that she was working for them, for these men in suits in the United States or that she was working for the Russian government or some combination?

BYRNE:  No, no, no, I’m not going into that.  I’m not going into that.  It’s -- she wasn't working for the men in suits here.

Listen, here's the other main event.  It’s horrible to even say the initials FBI involved in this.  It wasn't the FBI.  The FBI got hijacked from the top.  It’s the top.  It’s …


MACCALLUM:  Well, you talked about Comey.  You talked about Brennan, Clapper.  So, you're talking about the CIA?

BYRNE:  I’m talking about -- I have made -- well, I have said there’s three officials whose names were used with me.  X, Y, and Z, I’m not going to say on your show,    the feds all have this.  I’m sorry, the legitimate feds all have this as of April.  There were three names used at the -- three senior officials.


BYRNE:  They were behind all of this.

And the FBI was out of it.  The FBI, they delivered the message.  And let me -- and then there was another period where they -- so then they told me to break up with her, I was stage four and stuff, they came back and this time they specifically said, we need you to conduct a romantic -- rekindle your romantic relationship and the orders are coming from X, Y, Z.  And they felt horrible.

I want to be clear.  These are men and women of honor and I think those are illegal orders.  And I -- they made very clear to me, you do not have to take these.  You did not have to help.  I think they didn't want me to, but they felt terrible.

MACCALLUM:  When you say all the way up, you're talking -- what do you mean?  The White House?  The CIA?

BYRNE:  I think -- I know the names …

MACCALLUM:  Or are you talking about entities that were separate from these?  Look, when you say it wasn’t the FBI, but you say it was Peter Strzok, are you sort of carving him out as being part of a separate operations, separate from the FBI?

BYRNE:  No, no, I’m just -- forget Strzok for a moment.  I -- the X, Y, Z are actual human beings whose names you know who were in the Obama administration.  Guys like Strzok and stuff are the errand boys.  They are the clerks who sent the messages for some …


MACCALLUM:  Is it John Brennan?  Is it James Clapper?  Is it Comey?

BYRNE:  General Barr -- General Barr has that information and …


BYRNE:  And I think -- I think -- they are over there I’m sure furious.  I’ve way overstepped the lines.

MACCALLUM:  All right.  I understand.

BYRNE:  Don’t reveal it here.  Don’t reveal it here.

MACCALLUM:  OK, you know, I’m asking questions because that's-- that’s my job, and you can answer them, you know, to do whatever extent you feel comfortable.

BYRNE:  Yes, fair enough.

MACCALLUM:  And I understand that.

But, you know, when you said that you realized last summer that it was Peter Strzok that had contacted you, and, you know, you’ve talked about -- you know, having discussions about Maria Butina, what -- you said that something -- did something make you uncomfortable that they ask you to do?  And is that why you, you know, sort of said, uh-uh, I’m out?

BYRNE:  No, it didn't work that way.


BYRNE:  You know, I’m going to -- I will write up an explanation over this and people can read it so it's clear.


BYRNE:  It was -- what was making me uncomfortable was two things.  That I was -- you know, I originally said, hey, this -- two-thirds an opportunity and something, -- she is very well-connected in Russia.

Let me introduce her to some people in our -- in our foreign policy think tank establishment and would that be OK?  One-third -- you know, she wanted to talk about John Stuart Mill and Erasmus and the Greeks -- I mean, she's a real intellectual.

But I had this concern about the risk that there was some -- some mischief afoot.  And she was here doing what -- well, as those first six months wore on, that -- that risk profile shifted and she stopped talking so much about John Stuart Mill and John Rawls and Milton Friedman, she started talking about all these Republican bigwigs she’s swanking around with.

I could have told you, I’m looking for a prop.  I could have told you, in December of 2015, I was forming this thought.  It's starting to seem what they’re doing is now that they know she is here, just swimming around with Republicans, it starting to seem like what they are doing is letting this kind of (ph) scandal develop on the Republicans and some day, they’re going to pick it up and shake it, crack it and the spray it on Republicans.

Nah, no way, no way with James Comey.  No way would President Obama ever do something like that.

Well that’s literally what -- and I’m not saying President Obama was involved.  Don't make any assumptions about who X, Y, and Z are.  Those are all up to the DOJ involved.

But I literally -- I could have told you in December 2015 which I will note is seven months before the official start of the investigation …


BYRNE:  … that I had already picked -- I was already hypothesizing this is starting to seem like they are deliberately letting this grenade develop on the Republicans.  Are they just going to pull the pin on it someday?

MACCALLUM:  I hear you.

BYRNE:  I could’ve -- you know …

MACCALLUM:  Was there anything that you witnessed that -- you know, or were you ever told to stand down, you know?  To back off?  Is that what you were referring to a little while ago, or is that something different?

BYRNE:  No, in -- in March 2016, I was -- she asked me over to Russia to give a speech.  Her goal was to get me to Moscow to give a talk at the central bank on bitcoin and liberalism.

And then to take me to a resort in the Altai Mountains that was going to be shut down for three days so that 40, 45 people would get together, from the oligarchs and governments, and their liberals, and we’re going to spend three days talking about liberalism and also -- anyway, this is -- this was the offer and she had been sent by them to come to get me to come back and do this.


BYRNE:  When she asked me in March to come over again, she was saying speak in St. Petersburg on Blockchain and I think that we can change the world and eliminate poverty and stuff with Blockchain.  Come speak, Putin is going to be there.  It’s been arranged.  You’re going to have 60 minutes alone with Putin, and this would be great.

At that point, I was told to break up with her and get her out of your life.  And I worked on something else involving corruption of the federal official.


BRYNE:  When that, what -- OK.

MACCALLUM:  No, go ahead, when that.

BYRNE:  When that matter involving the corruption of the federal official was complete, it ended in an odd way that sounded fishy.  It ended in an odd way that was very fishy, and again, the details are all in the Department of Justice.

But it was involved in a corruption of a federal official and it ended in a way that smelled like a skunk at which point when they came back around July 1st of 2016, which is to say a few weeks before the Republican convention.


BYRNE:  But about the time that Trump became the …

MACCALLUM:  Nominee.

BYRNE:  Presumptive nominee, not a nominee.


BYRNE:  They came back and said, boy, did we make a mistake.  Russia, Russia, Russia, we need to do it.

I want to be clear they said this.  They said the United States never, never asked this of somebody, never asked a citizen to conduct a romantic relationship or in order to get information.  This is such a national security emergency.  We need to ask you to do this if you are willing and the orders come from X, Y, Z.

We want to be clear, Patrick, you are absolutely in your rights to refuse this.  You have no obligation to, we never -- in all our careers we never heard of an American citizen being asked to sleep with someone in order to get information and such.  I want to be clear about something.  And so, then I conducted for the following seven months, I -- to all intents and purposes, conducted another romance.  That entire time, I was lying to the federal government.

I put on a show, I was flying her, wining and dining her, that second time I spent time with her, I created that impression deliberately that I was complying with the request and being romantic, while I was actually doing, and she has confirmed this I understand from a prison cell -- she has no -- you know, she could have every right to hate me.  I understand she has confirmed to journalists I was a total gentleman.

Anyone observing and surveilling would have thought that we were deeply in love.  I never laid a finger on her because I knew it would disgrace our country and it would disgrace Maria, and that entire period I was being instructed to romance her, I created the impression and it was all a lie.  And I did that at the same time, I set up X, Y, Z for some felony charges.

MACCALLUM:  OK.  I just have two quick questions for you.  One is, what made you realize last summer the person who was contacting was Peter Strzok?

BYRNE:  Well, he wasn't contacting me.  Let me be clear.


BYRNE: Some people showed up and these instructions come and this request comes -- it was things -- because I had been involved, I deliberately kept once this Russia scandal started, believe it or not, I didn’t -- I tried as much as I could not to follow it, because I wanted to keep own my mind clear for when investigators show up.  And we should talk about that, too.

But when the investigators showed up, so my mind would be clear.  So, I really tried not to follow it, as hard as I could.  By last May or June, I mean, it became impossible, I felt awful because I knew I had these very important pieces.

I actually went to see a lawyer, and the lawyer who is a big Republican lawyer, he was all excited.  I’m going to -- I said I need to come forward, somebody help me and heard about 5 minutes of my story and he said, Patrick, you're going to go home and you’re going to keep your mouth shut.  You're going to go to prison for the rest of your life if you come forward.

But the next month, I was watching Strzok -- I was watching the congressional hearing ripping these guys apart that there were little details that were said that made me realize, holy cow, this guy Peter Strzok is the guy who sent these instructions and its little details within the things that were said -- and they have since confirmed to me, more recently I guess you are correct in what you figured out.

MACCALLUM:  All right.  Last question, what do you say to folks who watch this and they say, you know, he's spinning a yarn?

BYRNE:  Yes, listen.  I’ve put everything on the line, I was warned that I’m going to be destroyed by this, that all of Washington is going to try to grind me into dust. I had to eject from the company.  I had to eject.  I can't bring that on the company.

If you want to help me, you -- anyway, you go buy your daughter a pillow at  The entirety of Washington is going to come down on me and try to destroy me.  So, I had to get out of the way.  That’s what’s happened.  And --


MACCALLUM:  No doubt.  Peter Strzok would watch this and say, you know, he's full of it.  I had nothing to do with anything that he’s talking about.  I would imagine.

BYRNE:  I can -- he won’t.  I can tell you, Peter Strzok -- you want to see a former director crap his pants?  Pardon me.  Go stick a television camera on Peter Strzok, or let’s just say James Comey, and say the name Patrick Byrne.  You will see a former director of the FBI crap his pants.

MACCALLUM:  All right.  Well, we -- we thank you for coming here tonight and telling your story, and we’ll obviously follow it as it moves forward and done.

Thank you very much.

BYRNE:  Shop Overstock.  Thank you.

MACCALLUM:  Thank you very much, Patrick Byrne, joining us tonight.  Good to see you, sir.

Ronald Reagan

Are we Crazy? or Politically Correct? or both?

Congress is set to give legally protected status to 30 sexual orientations, including incest. Because of pressure from homosexual groups, Congress has refused to define what is meant by sexual orientation in H.R. 1913, the "Hate Crimes" bill. This means that the 30 different sexual orientations will be federally protected classes.
To see the orientations that will be protected by the Hate Crimes bill (H.R. 1913), click here.
You may be told this information is incorrect. If so, ask why then did the House Judiciary Committee refuse to define "sexual orientation?"

One Bad Man! - Must Be Thrown Out!

Governor Spencer of Greensboro NC. is a bad man and needs to step down or be thrown out of office. I never said he was a black man, I said he was a bad man. There is a difference and a thinking person can tell the difference. I bet that this Governor Spencer might not have a clue.
Click Here:

* VIDEO: Why is Govenor Spencer of Greensboro, NC walking around free today? Unable to control himself when he crashed a peaceful, Tea Party Protest, he pushes a woman and then punches her husband, Nathan Tabor, in the face – all caught on video

Why does your Government keep getting it wrong?

Why does your Government keep getting it wrong?
Don't Tax Me BRO!

In 2004 Video Unearthed Democrats in their own words Covering up the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac Scam

You must let the Government plunder your goods!

The silent majority

Our own freedom and the American dream.
Our own freedom and growth have never been the final goal
of the American dream. We were never meant to be an oasis of
liberty and abundance in a worldwide desert of disappointed dreams.
Our Nation was created to help strike away the chains of ignorance and
misery and tyranny wherever they keep man less than God wants him to be.
Lyndon B. Johnson

Climategate - To be Gored...

Israeli scientist denies global warming
Written by Robyn Rosen, Jewish Chronicle
Thursday, December 03 2009 13:12

Professor Giora Shaviv

A leading Israeli scientist has renounced the concept of man-made global warming at a lecture given to the British Technion Society, just days before world leaders meet to discuss ways to halt it.
Professor Giora Shaviv, professor of physics at the Technion, claimed that the accepted level of carbon dioxide in the air is wildly exaggerated.
Prof Shaviv said that though for years the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has claimed that an increase in carbon dioxide has led to an increase in temperature, in fact, the reverse is correct.
He argued that the movement of the sun affects temperature, which influences the levels of carbon dioxide, and that these levels have risen and fallen for centuries, even before mankind.
He said: “CO2 is not responsible for heating the earth, the cause is the activity of the sun which we cannot control.
“However we are responsible for our environment on earth, for the future of our grandchildren, and therefore, we should all still act responsibly.”
The lecture was attended by Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, which was set up by former Chancellor of the Exchequer Lord Lawson to analyse global warming policies and its economic implications.
Dr Peiser, who was born in Haifa, said that too much money was being ploughed into climate change research and that politicians were stifling contentious research that opposed the commonly accepted views.
He said: “People talk about saving the world but no one crunches the figures. It has become an obsession and economic burden for many countries.
“There is a hysteria and exaggeration of the issue with people worrying that the end is nigh. People need to calm down. The reality is we haven’t got a clear idea what the climate is doing.
“Part of our agenda is that scientists like Professor Shaviv have to be allowed to research freely and without political pressure.”

Climategate: This time Al Gore lied - Think Mental Illness

Lier Lier, Pants on fire

Don't be dumb... All scientists know Climate change is caused by WATER VAPOR

Obama is the grand leader of the whole world

Record Lies in Record Time - 7 lies in under 2 minutes.

I think this is a new world's record for a dirty, lying politician. Wow. Not one element of truth in there. Not one. Nada. Zip. Zilch.

Do any Americans even care?

Obama Obama

And He is now our President... Some facts are blury but acurate

I bet he will not eat them - green eggs and ham.

You know the President is telling a lie when he says something like this. "I hope we can build on the progress we made at last year's G20 summits by coordinating our global financial reform efforts to make sure a crisis like the one from which we are still recovering never happens again," he said on June 25th 2010. U.S. President Barack Obama gestures prior to a 2010 G8 Summit photo with the ''My Summit 2010 Youth'' at the Deerhurst Resort at Muskoka in Huntsville, Canada, June 25, 2010. REUTERS/Saul Loeb/Pool

O'Reilly Blasts Barney Frank On Fannie Mae Mess!... Dumb Ass

Barnie Barnie Barnie

Karl Rove - "Chris Dodd & Barney Frank Prevented Mortgage Reform"

The UN sucks your money up, up and away. $5,000,000,000 Yes That's "Billion" just last year.

Smack it to me