Please donate any amount you can to help us try to recover legal costs in defending liberty and the right of free speech !

THE HYPOCRITES ABOUND – 1,700 private jets fly to Davos to discuss perils of ‘climate change’

A squadron of 1,700 private jets are rumbling into Davos, Switzerland, this week to discuss global warming and other issues as the annual World Economic Forum gets underway.

The influx of private jets is so great, the Swiss Armed Forces has been forced to open up a military air base for the first time ever to absorb all the super rich flying their private jets into the event, reports Newsweek.

“Decision-makers meeting in Davos must focus on ways to reduce climate risk while building more efficient, cleaner, and lower-carbon economies,” former Mexican president Felipe Calderon told USA Today.

Davos, which has become a playground of sorts for the global elite, is expected to feature at least 40 heads of state and 2,500 top business executives. Former Vice President-turned-carbon billionaire Al Gore and rapper Pharrell Williams will be there as well; each plans to discuss global warming and recycling respectively.

Another big theme of the mega-rich confab will be combating “income inequality” and how the world’s rich can pay their fair share to reduce the gap between top earners and the lower class. Admission price for Davos: roughly $40,000 a ticket.

The World Economic Forum will also feature discussions on gender equality and opportunities for women. According to the World Economic Forum’s own statistics, just 17% of all 2015 participants are women.

The 45th World Economic Forum meeting begins on Wednesday and runs through Saturday.


AP Fact Check Obliterates Obama’s SOTU

U.S. Vice President Biden and Speaker of the House Boehner watch as U.S. President Obama delivers his State of the Union address to a joint session of the U.S. Congress on Capitol Hill in Washington

How sad is it when even the liberal press doesn’t support Obama?
Check it out:

The US may not have “risen from recession” quite as rousingly as President Barack Obama suggested in his State of the Union speech Tuesday night. Seven years after that severe downturn began, household income hasn’t recovered and healthy job growth is complicated by the poor quality, and pay, of many of those jobs.

It’s always problematic when a president takes credit for an improving economy, just as it is when he’s blamed for things going bad. A leader can only do so much, for better or worse, and there are two sides to every economy. But after an election in which Obama largely held off on chest-beating, he claimed credit in bold terms for what is going right.

Also in his speech, Obama skimmed over the cost to taxpayers of free community college tuition and invited closer scrutiny with his claims about US support for Syrian moderates and about his record of public-lands preservation.

A look at some of his claims, and the facts and the political climate behind them, as well as a glance at the Republican response:

Obama: “At this moment — with a growing economy, shrinking deficits, bustling industry and booming energy production — we have risen from recession freer to write our own future than any other nation on Earth.”

The facts: By many measures, the economy is still recovering from the deep scars left by the Great Recession.

Job growth has been healthy, but fueled in part by lower-paying jobs in areas such as retail and restaurants, which have replaced many higher-paying positions in manufacturing and construction. Part-time jobs also remain elevated: There are still 1.7 million fewer workers with full-time jobs than when the recession began in December 2007.


Community versus collectivism

by Brandon Smith Views

Tyranny thrives by feeding on human necessity. It examines what sustains us, what we hope for, what we desire and what we love, and it uses those needs as leverage against us.

If you want safety, tyrants will take it away and barter it back to you at a steep price. If you want to raise a family, then you must accept the state as a part-time parent. If you want independence, then you are simply labeled as a threat and done away with altogether. Autocratic rulers are first and foremost salesmen; they convince us that life itself has a cost, that we are born indebted and that all bills must be made payable to the establishment. First and foremost, we are sold on the idea that in all of this, we are ultimately alone.

It is within these manipulated concepts of cost and isolation that we discover the foundation of all totalitarian cultures: collectivism.

Collectivism is a psychological prison derived from a beneficial instinct as old as humanity itself: the instinct to connect with others, to share experiences and knowledge, to build and create together. It is an instinct as essential to our survival as breathing. Collectivism uses this instinct as a weapon. It is a corrupted and poisoned harnessing of our intuitive nature. It is an inadequate and cancerous substitute for something that normally invigorates and supports healthy culture: true community.

In this age, our ideas of what constitutes “community” have been tainted and confused with the propaganda of collectivists. Our instincts tell us that the world we have been presented is hollow, while our controlled environment tells us that the world is just as it should be (or the best we’re going to get, anyway). How then, are we to tell the difference between natural community and destabilizing and destructive collectivism?

Common aspects of collectivism

Looking back at the single-minded and highly dominating collectivist experiments of the past, it is easy to see the common threads between them. Certain methods are always present. Certain actions are always taken. Certain beliefs are always adopted. Here are just a few:

The blank slate: In order for the state to elevate itself in importance above the individual, it must first promote the idea that the individual does not exist, that your uniqueness or inherent character are only a byproduct of your environment. There are many methods to propagating this mindset. Junk science and establishment psychological theorists often treat the human mind as a mere bundle of chemicals and synapses.

Existentialism attacks individualism from the philosophical end, suggesting that all actions and reactions are random results of a purely chaotic universe, while at the same time peddling moral relativism and apathy.

Religious organizations that choose to abuse their positions of trust also feed collectivism by standing in the way of personal awareness, or even making it taboo to value the individual over the collective (though people tend to wrongly blame the concept of religion itself, rather than the corrupt men who sometimes misuse it).

Each one of these tactics is a tool in the arsenal of collectivists meant to degrade our social admiration for individual thought. Yet as desperate as elitists have been through the years to build an environment devoid of independent thought, they have met only with failure.

Centralization instead of cooperation: Cooperation in society is often spontaneous and dependent on a number of underlying factors working together at the right place and at the right time. It takes a noble endeavor and even more noble leadership to inspire the masses to step onto the same path toward the same direction. This is why legitimate, large-scale cooperation is so venerated in the annals of history; such events are truly rare and miraculous. Tyrants and elitists have no endeavors that rank as “noble.” They serve only their own interests. So, instead of trying to encourage cooperation they won’t receive, they centralize various systems by coercion. If you can’t convince the public to abandon their own paths for yours, then forcefully remove all paths until the people have only one choice left.

Economic centralization is very indicative of this maneuver. While we in the liberty movement see a whole spectrum of possible options for markets and trade, many other people see only what is right in front of them: the same crooked fiat money system controlled by the same gaggle of fraudulent central bankers. A large portion of our populace has been convinced that there is only one way to participate in the economy; thus, they act collectively and blindly.

Another obvious example is the false left/right political system. While there are as many political views as there are people, most people tend to affiliate themselves with one of two: Republican or Democrat. Even if you were to believe that the two major parties are honestly opposed, you have still allowed the establishment to narrow your choices down to two. Add the fact that both major parties actually support nearly the same exact policies and goals, and now your choices have been narrowed to one. Millions of people jump on this one bandwagon every four years, thinking that they are cooperating voluntarily, when they have instead been centralized, and collectivized.

Constant fear, constant threats: Fear and survival are powerful motivators. Without ample self-awareness and strength of character, these basic instincts can overwhelm rationality and conscience. Every collectivist feudalist system ever devised has used a “common enemy” or an iron hand to quell dissent in the citizenry and to forcefully unify them not under the auspices of an honest cause, but a terror so profound as to drive them to malleable despair. After a period of constant danger and distress, even fascism can feel comfortable for a while. Collectivist systems are always clashing with the bubbling tides of individual freedom. Because of this, they must continuously qualify their usefulness. There must always be an imminent threat over the horizon; otherwise, the strangling regulations of the state serve no purpose.

Individualism equated with selfishness: One of the inevitable conditions of collectivism is the demonization of free thought. In a collective, every person becomes a cog in a great machine. The majority begins to see itself not as a group of individuals acting together, but as a single unit with a single purpose. Any person who chooses to step outside of the box and point out a different view becomes a danger to the whole. A machine cannot function if all the parts are not working in harmony. Disagreement in a collectivist system is not considered a civic duty; it is considered a crime that places everyone else at risk. As a dissenter, you are not a person, but a malfunction that must be dealt with.

It is easy to tell when your nation is turning toward collectivism; you have to gauge only how often you are accused of “selfishness” every time you question the needs of the state over the needs of the individual.

Promises of a fantastic future: “Innovation” and “progress” are alluring dreams that can easily be realized in a free society made up of intelligent individuals thinking in ways that go against the norm. The more unique insights present in a culture, the more likely it is to surpass itself and succeed. Strangely, though, it always seems to be collectivists who throw around visions of high-tech trains, floating cities and sustainability as benefits to relinquishing certain freedoms. The insinuation is that if people set aside their individualism, their society becomes stronger and more productive, like worker bees who strive for only one thing: the perfect hive.

Common aspects of community

Now that we have explored the intricacies of collectivism, let’s take a look at what it is designed to destroy. What makes real community? What are its benefits and its weaknesses? How does it begin? How does it end? Why is it such a threat to collectivists?

Real purpose: Communities develop in light of meaningful exchange. Their purpose is natural and common. Their goals are not fixed, but evolve as the community progresses. The beneficiaries are the citizenry — sometimes even those who do not directly participate, rather than a select minority of elites. Communities work best when purpose and destiny are self-determined.

Voluntary participation: There is no need to force people to participate in a system that operates on honesty, conscience and individual will. In fact, many people today long for a system like this. When men and women apply their energies to something they believe in, instead of something they are manipulated into following, the results can be spectacular. Progress becomes second nature — an afterthought instead of an unhealthy obsession.

Legitimate respect: The purpose of a true community is not to keep tabs on the personal lives of its participants, nor to mold their notions. The rights of the individual are respected above all else. Again, the more varied the insights of a population, the stronger it becomes. For a community to attempt to stifle the viewpoints of its citizens would be to commit suicide. There is strength in numbers, but even greater strength in variety. Individualism takes effort, time and dedication. A society made up of people who have made this journey cannot help but esteem each other.

Flexibility leads to stability: A wise man adopts what works and throws out what fails. He does not dismiss methods out of hand, nor does he hang onto methods that disappoint simply because he cannot let go. He educates himself through experience. Adaptability, flexibility and agility in thought and in policy create solid ground for a society to build. Communities survive by being able to admit when a mistake has been made and by being open to new options. Rigid systems, like collectivist systems, cannot function unless the people conform to the establishment and its deficiencies. Communities function best when the establishment conforms to the people and the truth.

Mutual aid: Collectivist systems are notorious for promoting the idea that “we are all one.” However, they usually end up becoming the most antisocial and uncaring cultures to grace the planet. You cannot centralize or enforce charity because then it is no longer charity, but slavery. Citizens of communities, on the other hand, actually seek to help each other — not because they expect immediate returns or because it’s “good for the state,” but because they value an atmosphere of benevolence. The generosity of community helps individuals detach from dependence on government, or bureaucracy. The less dependence on centralized authority, the stronger and safer everyone becomes.

Mutual defense: While collectivism sacrifices its participants for some undefined “greater good,” communities defend one another, knowing that if the fate of one’s neighbor is ignored, the fate of oneself may also be ignored by others. No one is “expendable” in a community. Everyone is expendable in a collective.

Building community in a modern world

The task of constructing meaningful community today is daunting, but crucial. In an increasingly centralized and desensitized world, the only recourse of the honorable is to decentralize and to reintroduce the model of independence once again. This starts with self-sufficient communities and solid principles. It starts with unabashed and unwavering pride in the values of sovereignty and liberty. It starts with a relentless pursuit of balance and truth. It starts with an incredible amount of hard work.

The trappings of collectivism sometimes seem insurmountable. The mindless devotion of our friends and family to a system that harms them can cause us to lose hope and to lose focus. We must remember how collectivism operates: by removing the power of choice from the equation. If we return that power, then many people who we may have once deemed “lost causes” might awaken as well. By exposing the masses to another option, a better option, we undo years of lies and lengths of chain. If there was ever a perfect moment to begin this battle, now is the time. Americans are still searching for solutions, and they are not too fearful to pursue them once they are found.

–Brandon Smith

The Jihadist Next Door


by Katie Pavlich

With recent Islamic terror events unfolding around the world, Americans at home are growing concerned about sleeper cells activating inside the United States.

Last week, an Ohio man with sympathies to ISIS was arrested for plotting to blow up the Capitol building. Just three years ago, Amine El Khalifi was arrested and charged on similar counts after planning to use a suicide vest to carry out an attack on the Capitol. At the time, Khalifi lived in the same apartment complex as I did in Northern Virginia just outside of Washington D.C. He was in the U.S. as an illegal immigrant after living on an expired visa for years and frequently attended a mosque in Falls Church. More from the Washington Post:

Federal authorities on Friday arrested a 29-year-old Moroccan man in an alleged plot to carry out a suicide bombing at the U.S. Capitol, the latest in a series of terrorism-related arrests resulting from undercover sting operations.

For more than a year, Amine El Khalifi, of Alexandria, considered attacking targets including a synagogue, an Alexandria building with military offices and a Washington restaurant frequented by military officials, authorities said. When arrested a few blocks from the Capitol around lunchtime on Friday, he was carrying what he believed to be a loaded automatic weapon and a suicide vest ready for detonation.

The gun and vest were provided not by al-Qaeda, as Khalifi had been told, but by undercover FBI agents who rendered them inoperable, authorities said.

Khalifi “allegedly believed he was working with al-Qaeda,” said Neil H. MacBride, U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. Khalifi “devised the plot, the targets and the methods on his own.”
I remember the day he was arrested. I drove home one day in 2012 to grab my suitcase for a midday flight and there was a local reporter outside the complex stopping people for comments. When I asked her why she was there, she informed me about Khalifi’s plans and that he had lived in the building.

Stay vigilant, America.

Newest Charlie Hebdo Cover Drives Muslim Mobs Crazy!

Charlie-Hebdo-image2 This one is similarly, shockingly inoffensive. The cover says “100 lashes if you don’t die of laughter!”
Look, can I begin by saying I understand why the Muslim faithful get mad when other people mock their religious beliefs? Because I do. I am a devout evangelical Protestant Christian who gets upset whenever I see my faith mocked as well. Over the years, I’ve learned a neat little trick to deal with the many and varied insults to my faith, my God and the most important thing about who I am. Can I share my “trick” with the Muslim world?

Here’s what I do when faced with content offensive to my faith.

If it’s on TV – I change the channel.

If it’s on the radio – I change the station.

If it’s in a magazine – I flip the page.

If it’s on a website – I close the browser.

If it’s on a billboard – I look away.

If it’s on a flyer – I throw the flyer away.

If it’s in a conversation – I walk away.

If it’s on a t-shirt – I don’t look at it.

If it’s on a bumper sticker – I don’t look at it.

Actually… my basic secret is don’t look, listen or interact with things that offend me. And then I don’t feel sooooo bad (he sang, thinking of Julie Andrews…).

Seriously, I know it probably sounds trite or a little ridiculous, but it’s just that simple. We only really get offended at things that we want to be offended by. As a Christian, I believe that my God made an immense sacrifice to secure my salvation, and as such, I hold my faith and love for Him very dearly. It breaks my heart to see people blaspheme and ridicule Him and my faith… but that heartbreak leads me ultimately to feel sorry for those people – not to violence.

Here’s what happens when someone says something offensive about Islam. This is how supposedly sane Muslim people in Niger act.

At least ten people were killed in the rioting over the latest Charlie Hebdo cover in Niger (where most of the rioters never actually saw the offensive cartoon). Yes, this is the same Charlie Hebdo that just saw 10 of their employees brutally murdered… did you notice any RIOTING in France after the attack? No? Interesting… Murder 10 French people, no one riots. Publish one cartoon… everybody freaks out.

So how offensive was the cartoon on the cover of the latest Charlie Hebdo? Take a look for yourself…


Charlie Hebdo Latest

Under the title Charlie Hebdo it says “Irresponsible Journal” then it says “All is Forgiven.” The picture then shows a depiction of Mohammed holding a sign that says “I am Charlie.”

This is the horribly offensive image that “caused” rioting in Niger and much anger throughout the rest of the Islamic world.

I understand that Mohammed forbade depictions of himself in the Koran, but isn’t there some thought about the spirit of the law as opposed to the letter of the law in Islam? I mean, wasn’t the point about “no depictions” so that people wouldn’t worship Mohammed? Right?

So if the point was to make sure no one ended up worshipping Mohammed – why do Muslims freak out when someone draws a picture of him that NO ONE will end up worshipping? Actually, not all Muslims do freak out. Most Shia Muslims have no problem with depictions of Mohammed, and some Sunni don’t either!

So it becomes extremely hard to take “moderate” Muslim people serious about their faith and their desire for peace when they attack Charlie Hebdo for making depictions of Mohammed.

Ironically, the image above is strikingly similar to the one printed on the cover of Charlie Hebdo back in 2011 which led to their offices being firebombed by Muslim terroists. ask that Muslim believers don’t get angry when their faith is mocked; I only ask that they consider their beliefs. If they are right and the person doing the mocking is doomed… then isn’t that punishment enough? Why must they bring a current and violent judgment down upon people thousands of miles away when their faith says that those people will eventually receive “what is coming to them”? If I could speak to the Muslim world, I would beg them to consider instead of defending their god and their religion with their swords– allow him to defend himself.

“An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind.”


Dems Replaced MLK with Sharpton

by Daniel Greenfield
The Rev. Al Sharpton-  Washington, DC

Selma, the new Martin Luther King Jr. biopic, had barely been released before it was being used as a weapon of racial division by Sharpton.

Al Sharpton is a racist whose advocacy of hate has made him the dominant black leader. The ascent of Sharpton from street thug to MSNBC host and Obama confidante is the clearest possible rejection of the MLK legacy, not by white racists, but by black racists and their progressive collaborators.

That hasn’t stopped Sharpton from hijacking the King legacy by holding annual MLK day events and using Selma to accuse Hollywood of racism to shake it down for money.

Sharpton, like King, has managed to bring people together, but not in the same way. After the racist #BlackLivesMatters marches culminated in the murder of two police officers, a majority of White and Hispanic New Yorkers polled said that they view Sharpton as a negative influence on their city.

But Sharpton monetizes negativity like no one else. If Martin Luther King Jr. often spoke of the power of love, Sharpton has shown that racial divisiveness is far more effective. Unlike King, Sharpton never had any interest in racial healing. His specialty is racial divisiveness for personal profit. Even his new book is being published by “Cash Money Content.”

Sharpton’s sins however are not just his own. The days when he was just a street agitator yelling hate through a megaphone and sweating through his latest track suit are long behind him. Instead he became a campaign stop for a long line of Democratic candidates from Bill Bradley to Barack Obama.

“Racial unity, it’s who I am, what I believe and what I care most deeply about,” Bill Bradley said, even while making nice with a bigot who stood for the exact opposite of racial unity.

Sharpton was more likely to assert that, “White folks was in caves while we were building empires…. We taught philosophy and astrology and mathematics before Socrates and those Greek homos ever got around to it.” Or “We are the royal family on the planet. We are the original man. We gazed into the stars and wrote astrology. We had a conversation and that became philosophy. We are the ones who created mathematics… We are the alpha and omega of creation itself.”

But the Democrats have wanted a racial id more than a racial superego. Behind every Democrat preaching racial unity, there’s a Jeremiah Wright screaming “God damn America” or a Sharpton denouncing a “white interloper.” The Democrats rejected King long ago. From the KKK to Sharpton’s NAN, they have always put their money on racist demagogues skilled at stirring up racial troubles.

Sharpton is part of a duo with double-dealing Democrats claiming to believe in racial unity while playing up racial divisiveness.

New York City Mayor David Dinkins, Sharpton’s original better half, had promised that, “I am the mayor of all the people… and my administration will never lead by dividing, by setting some of us against the rest of us.” But he kept the NYPD from responding to the racist attacks on Korean groceries and then the Jewish community of Crown Heights.

The hypocritical rhetoric of racial unity coming from Dinkins and Bradley should sound familiar.

“There is not a Black America and a White America and Latino America and Asian America—there’s the United States of America,” Barack Obama had told the country. But once in power, Obama shifted to the brand of racial divisiveness that he had condemned, setting some of us against the rest of us.

Obama’s cynical choice to screen Selma in the White House is not a reminder of what has been achieved, but of what is missing. His administration has set back race relations by decades. Polls show that the majority of Americans believe that race relations have grown worse under him.

Race relations have been set back because like Sharpton, Obama and his supporters have wielded racial division as a weapon, whether to scapegoat critics or to stir up protests to improve voter turnout.

Sharpton succeeded because he understood his role as the dark side of the Democratic Party. He knows that the Democrats don’t want “I have a dream,” instead they want Sharpton’s “These whites must learn in this town that they going to pay when they put their hands on African people.”

Selma is the carrot. The dream is never supposed to be achieved because if it is achieved, it isn’t only Sharpton who will have to go begging for work, but much of the Democratic Party. What used to be the spectator sport of urban political machines has become national politics. Obama endorsed the hate marches that led to the murder of two cops, not because he cares about their goals, but because racial conflict drives voter turnout in the black community along with insecurity and guilt among whites.

Having killed the dream, they resurrect it every few years to blame its failure on their opponents.

Somebody is always killing the dream, but it’s never Al Sharpton or Barack Obama. Instead it’s any interference with the Democratic Party’s political program of welfare ghettos, broken families and political machine fraud that kills the dream that the machine had already run over and left for dead.

In a culture of weaponized racial grievance, Selma’s appearance has quickly become a tool of racial division by the same players who have made the racial healing that appeals to audiences so impossible to achieve. The feel good moment, whether it’s Obama promising a post-racial nation or Selma invoking old dreams of the same thing, always has to give way to racial guilt and discord.

The feel good post-racial moment milks audiences for their best intentions and then gleefully poisons them. And that is what makes it so evil.

Sharpton, for all his vileness, was preferable to the Democrats who were using him. In the same way Jeremiah Wright’s vicious rants were far better than the disingenuous rhetoric of his protégé, Barack Obama. Likewise, Louis Farrakhan is a truer version of his former man, Keith Ellison.

If we’re going to have bigots, then at least let’s have honest ones. If we can’t have unity and healing, then let’s stop letting the people responsible beat us over the head with their absence.

What we have here is not a dream deferred, but a dream perverted. The civil rights movement is no longer invoked for progress, but as a reactionary segregation of hostilities between races and parties. Martin Luther King Jr’s dream is no longer on the menu. The only things being served up are politicians like Obama who can talk like King, but think like Malcolm X and govern like George Wallace.

The civil rights movement ended in the gruesome hypocrisy of becoming identified with racist demagogues whose civil rights activism seeks to perpetuate racism in order to monetize it. Racial inequality is not its enemy, but its power base. Violence is not the unfortunate response to conditions, but the reason for which those conditions have been maintained by the Party of Sharpton.

The only thing more repulsive than the Democratic Party’s racism is its racial hypocrisy. A former outpost of the Klan, the party was taken over by the ideological descendants of left-wing radicals who despised Martin Luther King Jr., but insist on using him as a weapon against a nation that listened to his plea for unity, rather than to their divisiveness.

The Democratic Party replaced Martin Luther King Jr. with Al Sharpton. It’s hypocritical for them to celebrate King while rejecting his message.

Please donate any amount you can to help us try to recover legal costs in defending liberty and the right of free speech !