Category: Uncategorized

Unpublished Letters Reveal Close Hillary-Alinsky Link

 

15263ac4588739cc5536dd14f90eb22f

Written by Chad Groening

An author and political activist says the Democratic Party is clearly controlled by far left-wing radicals who want to create a one-party state.

Recently The Washington Free Beacon obtained some unpublished correspondence between Hillary Clinton and 1960s-era left-wing radical Saul Alinsky. The letters revealed a close relationship between Clinton and Alinsky, who wrote Rules for Radicals, a controversial guide to the ends-justifies-means approach to power and wealth redistribution through community activism.

David Horowitz is a former member of the communist party who has now become a conservative and is the founder and CEO of the David Horowitz Freedom Center.

“The aim of Democrats is to create a one-party state,” he says. “These are totalitarians. They think they know what’s good for everybody and they’re going to force you to follow their plan – and their means are deceptive. Hillary is part of this. It’s all the Alinsky strategy. You don’t telegraph your agendas.”

The author contends Democrats are working hard to build a permanent majority of dependency voters.

“Their defense of voter fraud is just another aspect of that,” he tells OneNewsNow, referring to the party’s general opposition to voter ID laws. “They want illiterate people. They want people who are here illegally to vote. They’ve already got them included in ObamaCare. I mean it’s disgusting what they’re doing.”

Horowitz admits he doesn’t understand why the Republican Party isn’t hysterical about what the Democratic Party continues to do to America.


This article was originally posted at the OneNewsNow.com website.

Loch Ness Socialism

By Bill Whittle

The Loch Ness Monster is a “cryptid” — something rumored to exist but without actual proof. The Socialist Utopia of the progressives is a cryptid too. In his latest Firewall, Bill Whittle shows why Good Socialism, like the Loch Ness Monster, is a giant, air-breathing creature that (conveniently!) NEVER COMES UP FOR AIR.


 

Federal Judge Envisions ‘Rape License’ for ‘Right to Rape’

Judge-Richard-Posner

Written by Matt Barber

Judge Richard Posner, a federal judge with the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, recently become a hero to the pro-”gay marriage” left when, by way of a “legal analysis” free from the troublesome constraints of logic, case precedent, biology, tradition and reality in general, he managed to somehow divine a long-hidden constitutional “right” for two dudes to get “married.” “How can tradition be a reason for anything?” an incredulous Posner demanded last month of attorneys defending marriage protection amendments in both Wisconsin and Indiana.

It would seem that Posner’s contempt for tradition extends to all things sexual, up to and including the puritanical presupposition that it’s always wrong for a man to rape a woman. This idea, according to Posner in his 2011 book “Economic Analysis of the Law” (8th edition), is evidently an equally archaic tradition that, like the institution of natural marriage, needs a significant overhaul.

Posner’s suggestion? Perhaps it’s time the government begin issuing “rape licenses” (I kid you not) since, and based upon an exclusively utilitarian and morally relative cost-benefit analysis, the “right to rape,” for some men at least, “exceeds the victim’s physical and emotional pain.”

On page 216, Posner, a Reagan appointee considered “conservative” in “progressive” circles, writes, “Rape bypasses the market in sexual relations (marital and otherwise) in the same way that theft bypasses markets in ordinary goods and services, and it should therefore be forbidden.”

OK, while this is an oddly detached and clinical start to a discussion on rape, it is, so far, not entirely unreasonable. Posner would have been well served to stop here. But, and much like those who are the subject of his rape analysis, he does not stop.

“But,” continues Posner – I didn’t know there were any “buts” when it comes to rape – “But some rapists derive extra pleasure from the fact that the woman has not consented. For these rapists, there is no market substitute … and it could be argued therefore that, for them, rape is not a purely coercive transfer and should not be punished if the pleasure to the rapist (as measured by what he would be willing to pay – though not to the victim – for the right to rape) exceeds the victim’s physical and emotional pain. There are practical objections [No, really? Practical objections to rape?] … [b]ut the fact that any sort of rape license is even thinkable [what kind of bigoted rape-o-phobe would suggest otherwise?] … is a limitation on the usefulness of that theory.

“What generates the possibility of a rape license,” he persists (hold off, fellas, they’re not available yet), “is the fact that the rapist’s utility is weighted the same as his victim’s utility. If it were given a zero weight in the calculus of costs and benefits, a rape license could not be efficient. The only persuasive basis for such a weighting, however, would be a moral principle different from efficiency.”

And herein lies the rub. We all know what Posner thinks about “moral principles.” He’s a moral relativist. There are no moral principles, most especially “traditional” moral principles. I mean, “How can tradition be a reason for anything?”

But wait, there’s more. You gals trapped in one of those “traditional” marriages needn’t fret. Posner’s got you covered, too. “Marital rape?” C’mon, is there really such a thing?

“In a society that prizes premarital virginity and marital chastity [I know, sheesh, right?], the cardinal harm from rape is the destruction of those goods and is not inflicted by marital rape,” he writes.

“… The nature of the harm to the wife raped by her husband is a little obscure,” he continues. “If she is beaten or threatened, these of course are real harms inflicted by an ordinary assault and battery. Especially since the goods of virginity and of chastity are not endangered, the fact of her having intercourse one more time with a man with whom she has had intercourse many times before seems peripheral to the harm actually inflicted but is critical to making the offense rape.

“Most of the reasons for not making marital rape a crime have lost force with time,” he laments.

Of late a fanciful meme has taken root among the “progressive” left. It’s one that imagines ours as a patriarchal “rape culture,” which fosters an environment wherein women are systematically raped with impunity (especially on our nation’s college campuses).

Apparently, the solution is for chicks to pierce and tattoo themselves, declare “slut pride” and parade nude in “slut walks” across the globe. But that’s an outlier.

I finally get it. Posner is the “rape culture.” I wonder how these mouth-frothing “marriage equality” lefties will react to his permissive approach to rape. In much the same way, I suppose, they reacted to myriad accusations of sexual harassment and assault lodged against Bill “depends-on-what-is-is” Clinton. With total silence and self-serving hypocrisy.

None of this should surprise anyone. Richard Posner is a faithful disciple of Alfred Kinsey, the anti-science, anti-morality left’s sexual messiah. Kinsey was a bug doctor turned “sexologist.” Though married to a woman who took part in his many filmed “scientific” orgies, Kinsey was a promiscuous homosexual and sadomasochist. He managed to completely upend and twist the world’s perception of human sexuality in the 1950s and ’60s with his world famous “Kinsey Reports.”

Even today, most are completely unaware that during his tenure at Indiana University, Kinsey facilitated, with stopwatches and ledgers, the systematic sexual abuse of hundreds, if not thousands, of children and infants – all in the name of science. His research also “found” that rape doesn’t really hurt women. In his 1953 volume “Sexual Behavior in the Human Female” at page 122, Kinsey wrote, “Among the 4,441 females [reporting rape] on whom we have data, there was only one clear cut case of injury … and very few instances of vaginal bleeding, which however, did not appear to do any appreciable damage.”

Starting to see what makes Posner click? “His Honor” is a dyed-in-the-wool Kinseyite.

Though Kinsey’s “research” has long since been completely debunked and discredited, the elitist left, to include Judge Posner, even still relies on it to push its own sexual anarchist worldview. Writing in his 1992 book, “Sex and Reason,” for instance, Posner gushed, “The two Kinsey reports remain the high-water mark of descriptive sexology.” He calls Kinsey the “central figure” in the “scholarly science” of sexology.

Raped? Well, suck it up, walk it off and congratulate yourself.

You’ve reached Posner’s “high-water mark.”


 

Matt Barber is founder and editor-in chief of BarbWire.com. He is an author, columnist, cultural analyst and an attorney concentrating in constitutional law. Having retired as an undefeated heavyweight professional boxer, Matt has taken his fight from the ring to the culture war. (Follow Matt on Twitter: @jmattbarber). 

 

The Failing Minimum Wage Scam

??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Written by Michael Medved

The New York Times described a disappointing Washington rally for Democratic Senate candidates pushing the slogan, “America Needs a Raise.”

Only a few dozen attended the big event and the Times concluded: “The Democrats’ strategy of making an increase in the minimum wage a midterm election rallying cry has been drowned out by world events. The party continues to talk about it, but it appears that few are listening.”

While threats from ISIS, Ebola and Russia certainly dominate the news, the minimum wage was bound to flop as an election issue in any event. Only 2.6 percent of all workers are earning the legal minimum wage—and a sudden, unearned raise for them would tighten business budgets and make it harder for the 97.4 percent who already earn above minimums to win their own raises.

The Democratic minimum wage scam would favor new hires and less productive employees at the expense of everyone else.


This article was originally posted at the MichaelMedved.com blog.

Hillary’s Applause Line: Pro-Lawyer, Anti-Business

Hillary Rodham Clinton

Written by Michael Medved 

Since her disastrous showing in the Iowa caucuses six years ago, Hillary Clinton has stayed away from the Hawkeye State—until a recent visit viewed by many as the unofficial kickoff of her new presidential campaign.

Speaking to more than 5,000 at a “Steak Fry” in Indianola, the former Secretary of State got by far her biggest applause with a ringing declaration that women deserve “equal pay and that means you should get equal pay for equal work.”

Unfortunately, Clinton arrived about 40 years late on this issue: in 1963, President John F. Kennedy signed legislation guaranteeing equal pay for equal work and punishing any businesses that knowingly discriminate against women.

The “equal pay” legislation Democrats push today would merely make it easier for lawyers to file suits, rather than protecting ordinary working women. It’s not a pro-female reform—just procedural change that’s pro-lawyer and anti-business.

Illinois Paychecks Shrink Compared To Neighboring States

Illinois Paychecks Shrink Compared To Neighboring States

Written by Michael Lucci

Illinoisans enjoyed a larger paycheck than their Iowa counterparts for 30 years – until 2012.

For the first time ever, the median household in Iowa surpassed its Illinois counterpart, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

If you lined up all households in order of income, the median household would be the one in the very middle. The middle income in Illinois has collapsed by $12,000 in the last 15 years, indicating that the state is hollowing out its middle class.

These shrinking paychecks have been driven by a number of factors, including state policies that smother entrepreneurs, a regulatory environment that strangles businesses, Illinois’ culture of cronyism and overall high taxation.

In addition, Illinois’ out-migration crisis is magnitudes greater than Iowa’s, as Iowa has turned the corner and is stemming its annual loss of residents to other states.

Illinois, on the other hand, leads the Midwest in exporting talent, accounting for a net loss of 50,000 Illinoisans and $2 billion worth of income in 2010 alone.

The average Illinoisan who leaves the state makes about $8,700 more than the average person who enters into the state, and about $9,300 more than the state median income, causing the state’s middle income to slip lower and lower.

As recently as 1990, Illinois had the highest median household income of the 12 states in the Midwest. Now Illinoisans have fallen to sixth, with Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota and Wisconsin moving ahead.

Illinois’ tax-and-spend policies, cronyism and dystopian regulation do not serve the middle class. An economic agenda that would serve the middle class would include:

Modified by Matthew Medlen.com