Archaeologists Discover Remains of Egyptian Army From the Biblical Exodus in Red Sea |

Archaeologists Discover Remains of Egyptian Army From the Biblical Exodus in Red Sea

Egypt’s Antiquities Ministry announced this morning that a team of underwater archaeologists had discovered that remains of a large Egyptian army from the 14th century BC, at the bottom of the Gulf of Suez, 1.5 kilometers offshore from the modern city of Ras Gharib. The team was searching for the remains of ancient ships and artifacts related to Stone Age and Bronze Age trade in the Red Sea area, when they stumbled upon a gigantic mass of human bones darkened by age.

The scientists lead by Professor Abdel Muhammad Gader and associated with Cairo University’s Faculty of Archaeology, have already recovered a total of more than 400 different skeletons, as well as hundreds of weapons and pieces of armor, also the remains of two war chariots, scattered over an area of approximately 200 square meters. They estimate that more than 5000 other bodies could be dispersed over a wider area, suggesting that an army of large size who have perished on the site.

This magnificient blade from an egyptian khopesh, was certainly the weapon of an important character. It was discovered near the remains of a richly decorated war chariot, suggesting it could have belonged to a prince or nobleman.

Many clues on the site have brought Professor Gader and his team to conclude that the bodies could be linked to the famous episode of the Exodus. First of all, the ancient soldiers seem to have died on dry ground, since no traces of boats or ships have been found in the area. The positions of the bodies and the fact that they were stuck in a vast quantity of clay and rock, implie that they could have died in a mudslide or a tidal wave.

The shear number of bodies suggests that a large ancient army perished on the site and the dramatic way by which they were killed, both seem to corroborate the biblical version of the Red Sea Crossing, when the army of the Egyptian Pharaoh was destroyed by the returning waters that Moses had parted. This new find certainly proves that there was indeed an Egyptian army of large size that was destroyed by the waters of the Red Sea during the reign of King Akhenaten.

For centuries, the famous biblical account of the “Red Sea Crossing” was dismissed by most scholars and historians as more symbolic than historical.

This astounding discovery brings undeniable scientific proof that one the most famous episodes of the Old Testament was indeed, based on an historical event. It brings a brand new perspective on a story that many historians have been considering for years as a work of fiction, and suggesting that other themes like the “Plagues of Egypt” could indeed have an historical base.

A lot more research and many more recovery operations are to be expected on the site over the next few years, as Professor Gader and his team have already announced their desire to retrieve the rest of the bodies and artifacts from was has turned out to be one of the richest archaeological underwater sites ever discovered ( via worldnewsdailyreport.com).

Articles: European Pathology Hasn’t Changed

Articles: European Pathology Hasn’t Changed

February 2, 2016

European Pathology Hasn’t Changed

By James Lewis

After the Hitler and Stalin disasters, Europeans swore “Never Again!” over and over again. Never Again to the Holocaust and Stalin massacres, but also to the many occasions of mass bloodshed that began with the wars of the Reformation.

And yet, today we can see Europe’s boastful old narcissism again.

It is a troubling and ominous sight.

I don’t mean to pick on Europe -- there are plenty of mad political movements in the world. But Europe has been the source of all major international wars for centuries. Maybe it was only the Industrial Revolution that made Europe so destructive. But its neurotic repetition compulsion goes back at least to the invention of the printing press, which made mass political movements possible.

“Whom the gods would destroy they first make mad,” said the Greeks, and they were right. The very same signs of severe mental pathology seem to show up before every major bloodletting in history. If you look for historical patterns, you can see the signs long before mass violence breaks out again. Today, the most stunning example of pathology is visible in the suicidal policies of the European Union, a grossly dysfunctional family if ever there was one.

Many historians consider World War I to be the greatest disaster of the 20th century, because it killed a whole generation of highly educated men, who could have given constructive political and cultural leadership for decades to come. World War I itself was triggered by a century of tit-for-tat Franco-German wars, and it led directly to Hitler and the Cold War.

The war brought Lenin to power in Russia, followed by the first Marxist Terror. Hitler’s rise was driven by a desire to take revenge for WW I. Without WW I the world would have been spared much suffering.

Every European disaster echoes the previous one, which is why the historical pattern looks so neurotic. Europe’s propaganda line changes, but it always comes down to the same old narcissistic grandiosity, the same glorious rhetoric of Empire. Today the European Union is seriously intent on taking over the world via bureaucratic imperialism, using a network of international “laws” that nobody has ever voted for. Euro-imperialism is the reason behind the global climate fraud.

Not surprisingly, in the end the Eurocracy serves no one but itself. The elite helped to ruin viable economies on its own Mediterranean shores, simply in pursuit of a glorious new euro currency; the EU has knowingly imported 50 million easily radicalized Muslims; and Euromedia have fallen back into their bad old habits of viciously scapegoating anybody who stands in the way of their fantasy life. Europrop is no different from the imperial propaganda of Kaiser Wilhelm, Hitler, or Stalin. Only the designated scapegoats change.

(See this website for excellent coverage of the German media).

America and Israel are Europe’s favorite scapegoats today -- putting Germany into that old mood of arrogant superiority -- but scapegoating is a primitive emotional defense mechanism, which can be directed at any target. The psychology of scapegoating empowers demagogues -- it’s practically the definition of demagogy. Which what makes Europolitics so neurotic today.)

For 70 years American power helped to hold back Europe’s mood swings, by protecting the Continent from Soviet aggression. Europe responded to Uncle Sam’s free ride by cannibalizing its own defense capabilities, to buy more welfare votes to keep the Left in power.

As a direct result, today the EU is utterly helpless in the face of Putin’s new imperialism. The end of the Cold War and the rise of Jihad has ripped the lid off that leaky old pressure cooker. The EU is defenseless without the U.S., and the Obama administration has systematically pulled down all the West’s strategic defenses.

This story will not end well.

Historians still argue why WW I ever started, because they can’t figure out any sane motivation. The assassination of Archduke Ferdinand in Sarajevo in 1914 was the act of a madman, but it never posed a strategic danger. Nobody benefited from war; instead, Europe ruined itself. The French had cheered on generations of anti-German propaganda, and the Germans hated the French just as much, while the Brits tried to pit the other powers against each other.

But even today nobody knows why the two opposing alliances suddenly went to all-out war, leading to millions of deaths. WW I followed the usual mass propaganda campaign, nationalistic scapegoating, and revanchisme (revenge campaigns), repeating all the old Franco-German wars. But that is not a rational reason for a world war.

The world wars followed a purely neurotic compulsion to do what was never done before, covered up with delusional propaganda slogans. Just like today.

Why is this neurotic history relevant today? Because Merkel’s collapse before the “Syrian rapefugee” invasion is simply not explainable on sane and rational grounds. Recent news reports say that 90% of the phony “Syrian” refugees were men, mostly of military age. We hear that news now, but Merkel has an intelligence apparatus to tell her long before the invasion happened. And yet -- she acted completely shocked, helpless, and self-destructive.

This is not rational.

Jihadists are not just after trendy sex. They are doctrinaire killers, slave-takers, torturers and terrorists, who will quickly impose brutal Shari’a slavery on as many women as possible. The police in Germany, Norway, and Sweden are acting helpless. In Norway the cops retreated before a mob engaged in mass rape of a ten-year-old boy, the most shameful European surrender to sadistic barbarism since you-know-who.

The Jihad invasion is an obvious return to the psychology of the Hitler Jugend, who were also young, easily indoctrinated males, happy to die for Der Fuehrer. Jihadists kill and die for Allah, but the mindset is similar. Jihadists are stuck in pre-modern times, in the glorious war theology of the 7th century desert. 

If Angela Merkel doesn’t know that, she is grossly ignorant.

Turkey was probably a major power behind the overwhelming wave of jihadist immigrants. But there is reason to think that the EU, which has been trying to dilute its own native populations by mixing in some of the least adaptable immigrants, was also behind the biggest Trojan Horse in history.

The European Union, which generates constant peace-and-love propaganda, is a complete and utter fraud. Nobody in the Eurocracy is actually elected by voters. European voters are completely helpless, and national parliaments are constantly yielding power to the appointed bureaucracy in Brussels. All EU propaganda consists of barefaced lies. This is a mass psychiatric problem -- self-delusion being the biggest sign of neurosis.

Reality distortion is always the key. Narcissistic grandiosity is simply the boastful lie that such people tell themselves to compensate for nagging feelings of inferiority. Badly depressed people have the opposite problem: They are cruelly self-critical. True psychotics suffer from extremely disturbing auditory hallucinations, and paranoids suffer from a host of delusional suspicions. But they all suffer from a distorted sense of reality.

T.S. Eliot wrote that “Humankind cannot bear too much reality.” But how can you help more than 300 million people who are constantly indoctrinated in the newest grandiose-narcissistic-imperialistic dream of the ruling class? Narcissists only improve when they finally realize that they keep running into the same brick wall, over and over again. It’s very hard to change individual narcissists, and when a whole media culture turns into a narcissistic cult…

Massive delusion via the media is always the first sign of a European disaster in the making. The musical Cabaret takes place in the Weimar Republic before Hitler, when Europe went through the same kind of self-loathing and self-sabotage that we saw in “multiculturalism.” But the disease goes back before the French Revolution, which was also preceded by a cultural breakdown. Marquis de Sade wrote several of his books around the time of the French Revolution.

When Europe sneezes, America catches cold. Our university campuses are full of Eurosocialist propaganda artists pretending to be professors. Barack Obama and his fellow leftists are just as deeply indoctrinated: Eurosocialists verging on old-style Leninists. Obama has never really known any normal people, which is why he still believes exactly what he believed eight years ago.

Our media are mental plague carriers. While journalists used to learn their craft by doing it, today they first have to go through cult indoctrination at Columbia or Harvard. Which is why we have actors wearing trenchcoats instead of television news anchors, and a grandiose narcissist in the White House.

The European Union was founded by French bureaucrat Jean Monnet. It began as a free trade area, becoming a great economic success.

But prosperity was never good enough for the bureaucracy. In some half-hidden way the EU has charted a path to a new European Empire, the old, delusional dream of making Europe a great power again.

All for the sake of world peace, of course.

After the Hitler and Stalin disasters, Europeans swore “Never Again!” over and over again. Never Again to the Holocaust and Stalin massacres, but also to the many occasions of mass bloodshed that began with the wars of the Reformation.

And yet, today we can see Europe’s boastful old narcissism again.

It is a troubling and ominous sight.

I don’t mean to pick on Europe -- there are plenty of mad political movements in the world. But Europe has been the source of all major international wars for centuries. Maybe it was only the Industrial Revolution that made Europe so destructive. But its neurotic repetition compulsion goes back at least to the invention of the printing press, which made mass political movements possible.

“Whom the gods would destroy they first make mad,” said the Greeks, and they were right. The very same signs of severe mental pathology seem to show up before every major bloodletting in history. If you look for historical patterns, you can see the signs long before mass violence breaks out again. Today, the most stunning example of pathology is visible in the suicidal policies of the European Union, a grossly dysfunctional family if ever there was one.

Many historians consider World War I to be the greatest disaster of the 20th century, because it killed a whole generation of highly educated men, who could have given constructive political and cultural leadership for decades to come. World War I itself was triggered by a century of tit-for-tat Franco-German wars, and it led directly to Hitler and the Cold War.

The war brought Lenin to power in Russia, followed by the first Marxist Terror. Hitler’s rise was driven by a desire to take revenge for WW I. Without WW I the world would have been spared much suffering.

Every European disaster echoes the previous one, which is why the historical pattern looks so neurotic. Europe’s propaganda line changes, but it always comes down to the same old narcissistic grandiosity, the same glorious rhetoric of Empire. Today the European Union is seriously intent on taking over the world via bureaucratic imperialism, using a network of international “laws” that nobody has ever voted for. Euro-imperialism is the reason behind the global climate fraud.

Not surprisingly, in the end the Eurocracy serves no one but itself. The elite helped to ruin viable economies on its own Mediterranean shores, simply in pursuit of a glorious new euro currency; the EU has knowingly imported 50 million easily radicalized Muslims; and Euromedia have fallen back into their bad old habits of viciously scapegoating anybody who stands in the way of their fantasy life. Europrop is no different from the imperial propaganda of Kaiser Wilhelm, Hitler, or Stalin. Only the designated scapegoats change.

(See this website for excellent coverage of the German media).

America and Israel are Europe’s favorite scapegoats today -- putting Germany into that old mood of arrogant superiority -- but scapegoating is a primitive emotional defense mechanism, which can be directed at any target. The psychology of scapegoating empowers demagogues -- it’s practically the definition of demagogy. Which what makes Europolitics so neurotic today.)

For 70 years American power helped to hold back Europe’s mood swings, by protecting the Continent from Soviet aggression. Europe responded to Uncle Sam’s free ride by cannibalizing its own defense capabilities, to buy more welfare votes to keep the Left in power.

As a direct result, today the EU is utterly helpless in the face of Putin’s new imperialism. The end of the Cold War and the rise of Jihad has ripped the lid off that leaky old pressure cooker. The EU is defenseless without the U.S., and the Obama administration has systematically pulled down all the West’s strategic defenses.

This story will not end well.

Historians still argue why WW I ever started, because they can’t figure out any sane motivation. The assassination of Archduke Ferdinand in Sarajevo in 1914 was the act of a madman, but it never posed a strategic danger. Nobody benefited from war; instead, Europe ruined itself. The French had cheered on generations of anti-German propaganda, and the Germans hated the French just as much, while the Brits tried to pit the other powers against each other.

But even today nobody knows why the two opposing alliances suddenly went to all-out war, leading to millions of deaths. WW I followed the usual mass propaganda campaign, nationalistic scapegoating, and revanchisme (revenge campaigns), repeating all the old Franco-German wars. But that is not a rational reason for a world war.

The world wars followed a purely neurotic compulsion to do what was never done before, covered up with delusional propaganda slogans. Just like today.

Why is this neurotic history relevant today? Because Merkel’s collapse before the “Syrian rapefugee” invasion is simply not explainable on sane and rational grounds. Recent news reports say that 90% of the phony “Syrian” refugees were men, mostly of military age. We hear that news now, but Merkel has an intelligence apparatus to tell her long before the invasion happened. And yet -- she acted completely shocked, helpless, and self-destructive.

This is not rational.

Jihadists are not just after trendy sex. They are doctrinaire killers, slave-takers, torturers and terrorists, who will quickly impose brutal Shari’a slavery on as many women as possible. The police in Germany, Norway, and Sweden are acting helpless. In Norway the cops retreated before a mob engaged in mass rape of a ten-year-old boy, the most shameful European surrender to sadistic barbarism since you-know-who.

The Jihad invasion is an obvious return to the psychology of the Hitler Jugend, who were also young, easily indoctrinated males, happy to die for Der Fuehrer. Jihadists kill and die for Allah, but the mindset is similar. Jihadists are stuck in pre-modern times, in the glorious war theology of the 7th century desert. 

If Angela Merkel doesn’t know that, she is grossly ignorant.

Turkey was probably a major power behind the overwhelming wave of jihadist immigrants. But there is reason to think that the EU, which has been trying to dilute its own native populations by mixing in some of the least adaptable immigrants, was also behind the biggest Trojan Horse in history.

The European Union, which generates constant peace-and-love propaganda, is a complete and utter fraud. Nobody in the Eurocracy is actually elected by voters. European voters are completely helpless, and national parliaments are constantly yielding power to the appointed bureaucracy in Brussels. All EU propaganda consists of barefaced lies. This is a mass psychiatric problem -- self-delusion being the biggest sign of neurosis.

Reality distortion is always the key. Narcissistic grandiosity is simply the boastful lie that such people tell themselves to compensate for nagging feelings of inferiority. Badly depressed people have the opposite problem: They are cruelly self-critical. True psychotics suffer from extremely disturbing auditory hallucinations, and paranoids suffer from a host of delusional suspicions. But they all suffer from a distorted sense of reality.

T.S. Eliot wrote that “Humankind cannot bear too much reality.” But how can you help more than 300 million people who are constantly indoctrinated in the newest grandiose-narcissistic-imperialistic dream of the ruling class? Narcissists only improve when they finally realize that they keep running into the same brick wall, over and over again. It’s very hard to change individual narcissists, and when a whole media culture turns into a narcissistic cult…

Massive delusion via the media is always the first sign of a European disaster in the making. The musical Cabaret takes place in the Weimar Republic before Hitler, when Europe went through the same kind of self-loathing and self-sabotage that we saw in “multiculturalism.” But the disease goes back before the French Revolution, which was also preceded by a cultural breakdown. Marquis de Sade wrote several of his books around the time of the French Revolution.

When Europe sneezes, America catches cold. Our university campuses are full of Eurosocialist propaganda artists pretending to be professors. Barack Obama and his fellow leftists are just as deeply indoctrinated: Eurosocialists verging on old-style Leninists. Obama has never really known any normal people, which is why he still believes exactly what he believed eight years ago.

Our media are mental plague carriers. While journalists used to learn their craft by doing it, today they first have to go through cult indoctrination at Columbia or Harvard. Which is why we have actors wearing trenchcoats instead of television news anchors, and a grandiose narcissist in the White House.

The European Union was founded by French bureaucrat Jean Monnet. It began as a free trade area, becoming a great economic success.

But prosperity was never good enough for the bureaucracy. In some half-hidden way the EU has charted a path to a new European Empire, the old, delusional dream of making Europe a great power again.

All for the sake of world peace, of course.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/01/european_pathology_hasnt_changed.html#ixzz3yzuWlZCP
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Is Solar Really Renewable-and Free? - Master Resource

Is Solar Really Renewable-and Free? - Master Resource

Is Solar Really Renewable–and Free?

By Roy Cordato -- January 5, 2016

“It is time to stop referring to solar power as ‘renewable’ or ‘free.’ The reality is that these descriptions have no practical meaning and only serve to obfuscate the true nature of solar energy as a source of electricity. Ultimately these are propaganda words invoked by special interests in the renewable energy industry whose purpose is to color the political debate about energy policy in favor of subsidies and special privileges foisted upon taxpayers and utility customers.”

“… it is solar power’s lack of renewability when actually needed that makes it so expensive as compared to [fossil fuels].”

The answers to the two title questions are, except in the most trivial sense, no and no.

Renewable?

Solar energy is said to be renewable because, as one source puts it, it is “naturally replenished.” Or as another source states slightly differently, solar power is renewable because “there is an endless supply.” But the truth of the matter is that in any meaningful technological, economic, or practical sense, solar is anything but renewable.

For any BTU of usable energy generated by the sun, it is highly unlikely that, as it is used, it will be, or even can be renewed by another BTU of energy also generated by the sun. This is because (unlike the claim above that “there is an endless supply” of solar power), on any given day there is a very finite supply and, on some days, no supply at all of sunlight that is usable for conversion to electricity.

The extent to which a megawatt of electricity that is generated by solar power can be actually renewed by another megawatt of electricity that is also generated by solar power is completely dependent on the time of day that the electricity is used to light a lamp, run an air conditioner, or heat a hot water tank. If I generate electricity from the solar panels on the roof of my house at 2:00 in the afternoon to run my air conditioner, to renew that used electricity at 6:00 PM to cook my dinner would be impossible.

In fact, I would have to turn to an entirely different source of energy, one whose renewability does not depend on whether or not the sun is shining, like coal, natural gas, or nuclear power.  It is meaningless to refer to an energy source as “renewable” if it can’t be renewed as needed. If my solar energy does not allow me to renew the electricity that I use at 4:00 pm until 10:00 am the following morning, in what practical sense can that energy source be called renewable?  The answer is none.

Of course this is not only true for the household with panels on its roof but also of solar generated electricity being put onto the electrical grid, and for all the same reasons. It seems to be a dead give away that there is not “an endless supply” of an energy source or that it is not “naturally replenished” if for most hours of any given day it needs back up generation from a supposedly non-renewable conventional energy source.

Indeed, in a practical or even meaningful technological sense, which is the truly renewable energy source (i.e. that which is renewable on command for the purpose of generating electricity) the sun or coal or natural gas?  Clearly it must be the latter two. In fact it is solar power’s lack of renewability when actually needed that makes it so expensive as compared to these other sources.

A “Free” Source of Electricity?

So what does this imply for the claim that the sun is a “free” source of energy? If the word free refers to price in the economic sense then the claim is misleading at best. The price of the sun as an energy source is completely bifurcated. Energy from the sun has two prices, zero and infinity. On a clear day at noon it’s free, and on that same day at midnight it’s infinite.

That is, it cannot be obtained at any price. The same is true for sunny vs cloudy days. It is typically argued that on average, given that many days will be cloudy with no “usable sun” at all, a solar-based power plant can generate electricity for about five hours. This means that for an average of 19 hours out of every day the price of solar as a usable energy source is infinity.

Of course it’s also important to note that we’re only talking about the price of the fuel source, i.e. sunlight as opposed to “non renewables” like coal or gas. But the entire apparatus that gets us to the point where we can use sunlight as a fuel source to generate electricity is itself quite expensive.

The fact that the sun isn’t around a whole lot to take advantage of that apparatus means that the very high fixed costs of solar installations can be considered productive over a relatively small percentage of any given day and therefore have to be “levelized” over an equally small amount of actual electricity output. This is why there is a very highlevelized cost of electricity from solar power compared to other sources. Usable solar power is never “free” even during the short periods when the fuel source is.

Conclusion

It is time to stop referring to solar power as “renewable” or “free.” The reality is that these descriptions have no practical meaning and only serve to obfuscate the true nature of solar energy as a source of electricity. Ultimately these are propaganda words invoked by special interests in the renewable energy industry whose purpose is to color the political debate about energy policy in favor of subsidies and special privileges are foisted upon tax payers and utility customers.

———

Roy Cordato (Ph.D, economics: George Mason University) is vice president for research and resident scholar at the John Locke Foundation in Raleigh, North Carolina.

Is Solar Really Renewable-and Free? - Master Resource

Is Solar Really Renewable-and Free? - Master Resource

Is Solar Really Renewable–and Free?

By Roy Cordato -- January 5, 2016

“It is time to stop referring to solar power as ‘renewable’ or ‘free.’ The reality is that these descriptions have no practical meaning and only serve to obfuscate the true nature of solar energy as a source of electricity. Ultimately these are propaganda words invoked by special interests in the renewable energy industry whose purpose is to color the political debate about energy policy in favor of subsidies and special privileges foisted upon taxpayers and utility customers.”

“… it is solar power’s lack of renewability when actually needed that makes it so expensive as compared to [fossil fuels].”

The answers to the two title questions are, except in the most trivial sense, no and no.

Renewable?

Solar energy is said to be renewable because, as one source puts it, it is “naturally replenished.” Or as another source states slightly differently, solar power is renewable because “there is an endless supply.” But the truth of the matter is that in any meaningful technological, economic, or practical sense, solar is anything but renewable.

For any BTU of usable energy generated by the sun, it is highly unlikely that, as it is used, it will be, or even can be renewed by another BTU of energy also generated by the sun. This is because (unlike the claim above that “there is an endless supply” of solar power), on any given day there is a very finite supply and, on some days, no supply at all of sunlight that is usable for conversion to electricity.

The extent to which a megawatt of electricity that is generated by solar power can be actually renewed by another megawatt of electricity that is also generated by solar power is completely dependent on the time of day that the electricity is used to light a lamp, run an air conditioner, or heat a hot water tank. If I generate electricity from the solar panels on the roof of my house at 2:00 in the afternoon to run my air conditioner, to renew that used electricity at 6:00 PM to cook my dinner would be impossible.

In fact, I would have to turn to an entirely different source of energy, one whose renewability does not depend on whether or not the sun is shining, like coal, natural gas, or nuclear power.  It is meaningless to refer to an energy source as “renewable” if it can’t be renewed as needed. If my solar energy does not allow me to renew the electricity that I use at 4:00 pm until 10:00 am the following morning, in what practical sense can that energy source be called renewable?  The answer is none.

Of course this is not only true for the household with panels on its roof but also of solar generated electricity being put onto the electrical grid, and for all the same reasons. It seems to be a dead give away that there is not “an endless supply” of an energy source or that it is not “naturally replenished” if for most hours of any given day it needs back up generation from a supposedly non-renewable conventional energy source.

Indeed, in a practical or even meaningful technological sense, which is the truly renewable energy source (i.e. that which is renewable on command for the purpose of generating electricity) the sun or coal or natural gas?  Clearly it must be the latter two. In fact it is solar power’s lack of renewability when actually needed that makes it so expensive as compared to these other sources.

A “Free” Source of Electricity?

So what does this imply for the claim that the sun is a “free” source of energy? If the word free refers to price in the economic sense then the claim is misleading at best. The price of the sun as an energy source is completely bifurcated. Energy from the sun has two prices, zero and infinity. On a clear day at noon it’s free, and on that same day at midnight it’s infinite.

That is, it cannot be obtained at any price. The same is true for sunny vs cloudy days. It is typically argued that on average, given that many days will be cloudy with no “usable sun” at all, a solar-based power plant can generate electricity for about five hours. This means that for an average of 19 hours out of every day the price of solar as a usable energy source is infinity.

Of course it’s also important to note that we’re only talking about the price of the fuel source, i.e. sunlight as opposed to “non renewables” like coal or gas. But the entire apparatus that gets us to the point where we can use sunlight as a fuel source to generate electricity is itself quite expensive.

The fact that the sun isn’t around a whole lot to take advantage of that apparatus means that the very high fixed costs of solar installations can be considered productive over a relatively small percentage of any given day and therefore have to be “levelized” over an equally small amount of actual electricity output. This is why there is a very highlevelized cost of electricity from solar power compared to other sources. Usable solar power is never “free” even during the short periods when the fuel source is.

Conclusion

It is time to stop referring to solar power as “renewable” or “free.” The reality is that these descriptions have no practical meaning and only serve to obfuscate the true nature of solar energy as a source of electricity. Ultimately these are propaganda words invoked by special interests in the renewable energy industry whose purpose is to color the political debate about energy policy in favor of subsidies and special privileges are foisted upon tax payers and utility customers.

———

Roy Cordato (Ph.D, economics: George Mason University) is vice president for research and resident scholar at the John Locke Foundation in Raleigh, North Carolina.

Articles: The Purpose of Government

Articles: The Purpose of Government

January 2, 2016

The Purpose of Government

By Bruce Walker

In the midst of a rancorous presidential nominating season, when we are bombarded every day with promises by politicians about how they will create jobs or educate our children better or get the economy rolling again, few if any candidates seem to grasp the purpose of government in America.  The purpose of government is to preserve liberty. 

That would include protecting us from foreign enemies who seek to take our freedom and from people who come into our nation illegally, either as illegal immigrants or as terrorists.  Protecting the legal integrity of our borders and our citizenship is an aspect of protecting American liberty.  Nothing matters, though, if liberty first is not preserved.

Listen, then, to the next Republican debate.  What are the candidates talking about?  Who will create the most jobs, who will jump-start the economy, who will improve our educational system.  We do not need government, especially the federal government, for any of that.  The economy hums along just fine without politicians.  Jobs are created when people work and not when the Bureau of Labor Statistics captures data for dreary and dull reports.

Do we need government to educate us?  We need government less than at any time in human history to educate us.  There are a hundred different ways for children these days to learn to read and write, and once children are literate, there is a limitless universe of knowledge that eager and willing minds can pump to become truly and magnificently educated.  Indeed, it is incomparably better for de-institutionalized willing minds to learn to keep learning than to earn a diploma, which implies entitlement or merit when often it means nothing at all.

Liberty, though, is quite different.  It is the very air free minds need to survive.  It is the soil in which wealth grows.  There is no substitute for liberty, no government program that can simulate liberty, no regulation that can mandate liberty.  It cannot be bought, and it ought not be sold. 

When our Declaration of Independence states that it is to preserve liberty that governments are formed by men, and when the Preamble to our Constitution states that the reason for this experiment in federalism is "to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and to our posterity," that is the heart of what America is, or what it was founded to be.

Expanding liberty would a worthwhile goal for discussion in a presidential election year.  Devolving power to individuals and to state governments, which lack the sort of monopoly the federal government possesses in its continental reach, is surely worth talking about.  What might be some practical ways of accomplishing this goal?

Restore to individuals and to businesses that are not inextricably linked to government the right to discriminate.  The right to discriminate is at the heart of freedom.  What if a particular variety of discrimination seems wrong to us?  Then we, personally, should not do it.  We might also tell businesses that if they want our trade, we will consider when and how they discriminate.  But stop making federal judges and government bureaucrats the arbitrators of good and bad discrimination.  Let markets and individual consciences do that.

Abolish as many federal offices and agencies as possible.  This does not mean that the function performed by that agency is not a proper role of government, but rather that it is not the proper role of a national government.  Government operations close to the people, that compete within states or among states for taxpayers, businesses, and homeowners, cannot trample liberties recklessly. 

Finally, consider giving teeth to the Bill of Rights, which is, of course, all about liberty.  It is from beginning to end a statement of what the federal government may not do, to us or to the governments of the states.  The Second Amendment, for example, is about preserving our individual right of self-protection.  We need to stop apologizing for exercising that right. 

The Ninth Amendment is not about allowing abortion on demand.  Hear the words of that amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."  The italicized words show an intention to limit federal judicial power, which was also seen as a threat to liberty.

The sad fact, of course, is that we live in a land full of people more afraid of the responsibilities of freedom than the blessings of freedom.  Until we re-learn the purpose of government in our land, the problems we have in politics will remain intractable and politics largely an exercise in futility.

America is about liberty, and with liberty, despite the dolts who hold or seek elective office, our nation will do just fine.

In the midst of a rancorous presidential nominating season, when we are bombarded every day with promises by politicians about how they will create jobs or educate our children better or get the economy rolling again, few if any candidates seem to grasp the purpose of government in America.  The purpose of government is to preserve liberty. 

That would include protecting us from foreign enemies who seek to take our freedom and from people who come into our nation illegally, either as illegal immigrants or as terrorists.  Protecting the legal integrity of our borders and our citizenship is an aspect of protecting American liberty.  Nothing matters, though, if liberty first is not preserved.

Listen, then, to the next Republican debate.  What are the candidates talking about?  Who will create the most jobs, who will jump-start the economy, who will improve our educational system.  We do not need government, especially the federal government, for any of that.  The economy hums along just fine without politicians.  Jobs are created when people work and not when the Bureau of Labor Statistics captures data for dreary and dull reports.

Do we need government to educate us?  We need government less than at any time in human history to educate us.  There are a hundred different ways for children these days to learn to read and write, and once children are literate, there is a limitless universe of knowledge that eager and willing minds can pump to become truly and magnificently educated.  Indeed, it is incomparably better for de-institutionalized willing minds to learn to keep learning than to earn a diploma, which implies entitlement or merit when often it means nothing at all.

Liberty, though, is quite different.  It is the very air free minds need to survive.  It is the soil in which wealth grows.  There is no substitute for liberty, no government program that can simulate liberty, no regulation that can mandate liberty.  It cannot be bought, and it ought not be sold. 

When our Declaration of Independence states that it is to preserve liberty that governments are formed by men, and when the Preamble to our Constitution states that the reason for this experiment in federalism is "to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and to our posterity," that is the heart of what America is, or what it was founded to be.

Expanding liberty would a worthwhile goal for discussion in a presidential election year.  Devolving power to individuals and to state governments, which lack the sort of monopoly the federal government possesses in its continental reach, is surely worth talking about.  What might be some practical ways of accomplishing this goal?

Restore to individuals and to businesses that are not inextricably linked to government the right to discriminate.  The right to discriminate is at the heart of freedom.  What if a particular variety of discrimination seems wrong to us?  Then we, personally, should not do it.  We might also tell businesses that if they want our trade, we will consider when and how they discriminate.  But stop making federal judges and government bureaucrats the arbitrators of good and bad discrimination.  Let markets and individual consciences do that.

Abolish as many federal offices and agencies as possible.  This does not mean that the function performed by that agency is not a proper role of government, but rather that it is not the proper role of a national government.  Government operations close to the people, that compete within states or among states for taxpayers, businesses, and homeowners, cannot trample liberties recklessly. 

Finally, consider giving teeth to the Bill of Rights, which is, of course, all about liberty.  It is from beginning to end a statement of what the federal government may not do, to us or to the governments of the states.  The Second Amendment, for example, is about preserving our individual right of self-protection.  We need to stop apologizing for exercising that right. 

The Ninth Amendment is not about allowing abortion on demand.  Hear the words of that amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."  The italicized words show an intention to limit federal judicial power, which was also seen as a threat to liberty.

The sad fact, of course, is that we live in a land full of people more afraid of the responsibilities of freedom than the blessings of freedom.  Until we re-learn the purpose of government in our land, the problems we have in politics will remain intractable and politics largely an exercise in futility.

America is about liberty, and with liberty, despite the dolts who hold or seek elective office, our nation will do just fine.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/01/the_purpose_of_government.html#ixzz3w7NwEoA8
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Articles: Psychological Warfare for Consevatives

Articles: Psychological Warfare for Consevatives

December 24, 2015

Psychological Warfare for Consevatives

By William A. Levinson

How do grossly unqualified individuals like Barack Obama become President of the United States? Why is the Second Amendment under continual attack? The root cause is, in both cases, conservatives’ failure to understand psychological warfare and failure to understand the concept of the Propaganda Man.

Colonel Paul M. A. Linebarger's classic, Psychological Warfare, defined the Propaganda Man as the "lowest-common-denominator of a man who can be reached by enemy propaganda and by yours." Linebarger then adds the need to understand the Propaganda Man's mentality, fears, and aspirations.

Make up the prewar life of the Propaganda Man. …What kinds of things did he like? What prejudices was he apt to have? What kind of gossip did he receive and pass along? What kind of words disgusted him? What kind of patriotic appeal made him do things? What did he think of your country before the war?

The Republican Party and the National Rifle Association both seem to omit this basic and vital first step of successful public relations. Consider for example the numerous responses to my American Thinker article, “The Felon in the White House.” Examples include:

• "Who would prosecute the president for any crimes? The Department of Justice. Who owns the Department of Justice? President Obama."
• "No one will ever care about this, ever" (in all caps).
• "His worshippers wouldn't care if he was caught robbing a Brinks' truck."

What all fail to understand is that the article was not directed to:

1. The Justice Department
2. The big city urban Democrats who would probably vote for the head of ISIS if he ran for office with a D after his name. We will not, as the commentator said, change their minds.
3. Rural, Southern, and Mountain State Republicans who will vote for whomever the Republicans nominate. We do not need to change their minds.

The article's Propaganda Man is the swing voter, the independent voter who holds the balance of power in almost every national election. We won't convince the Obama Democrats and we don't need to convince the solid Republicans, but if we can persuade the independent voters, we win. The independent voter is proud of thinking for himself or herself, and generally takes the time to gather the facts. If the facts show, as they do, that Barack Obama gained his position through the commission of a felony, and was apparently given the kind of pass that an ordinary citizen could never expect, these voters will turn against him and anybody associated with him.

The Propaganda Man is Our Friend

It is absolutely vital, though, that we be sure of our facts before we present them to the Propaganda Man. Trust is the foundation of effective psychological warfare and, the instant we lie to the Propaganda Man, we will rightfully lose his trust. Consider for example these potential attacks on Obama.

1. The fact that the Obama Administration did not allow consideration of pro-ISIS social media postings makes Obama the "third San Bernardino shooter."
   • I was actually preparing side by side photos of Tashfeen Malik, Syed Farook, and Barack Obama for this purpose when I discovered that, contrary to the original story, Malik had not posted publicly visible pro-ISIS messages on Facebook. We cannot therefore blame the Obama Administration for failure to act on Malik's social media activities, although the act of Islamist violence still says a lot about the DHS vetting process as a whole.
2. The rumor that Obama is not a U.S. citizen is at best not provable, and has in fact been discredited. "In 1961, birth notices for Barack Obama were published in both the Honolulu Advertiser and the Honolulu Star-Bulletin on August 13 and 14, 1961, respectively, listing the home address of Obama's parents as 6085 Kalanianaole Highway in Honolulu."
3. "Obama is a Muslim."
   • There is nothing wrong with being a Muslim as long one does not belong to the subset of Muslims (aka Islamists) who believe they have an Allah-given right to hurt infidels, including the wrong kinds of Muslims. This argument does little more than reinforce the other side's denunciation of our side as Islamophobic, as in prejudiced against all Muslims rather than those who engage in easily identifiable problem behaviors.
   • A Muslim would have probably not worshiped in a Trinity United Church of Christ. We can however cite repeatedly Jeremiah Wright's racist sermons, and his blood libel of Israel and the United States for purportedly developing an "ethnic bomb" and the AIDS virus respectively. To this we can add the racist quotes (with page numbers) from Obama's Dreams From My Father, and Michelle Obama's racist thesis from Princeton. The racist content of the latter can be verified from the original, and it shows clearly that Michelle Obama cannot be First Lady for all Americans. The inarguable truth is on our side, so why tout a dubious rumor?

A Weak Argument is Worse than No Argument

The latest rumor that Michelle Obama is actually a man is totally counterproductive, and General Patton made that clear more than 70 years ago. Patton said that it is worse than useless to fire a rifle at a tank because (1) it wastes ammunition and (2) it tells the tank crew that you don't have an antitank weapon because you would have otherwise used it. A weak argument is therefore worse than no argument. There are enough things genuinely wrong with Barack and Michelle Obama that we don't need the kind of material that might come from the Jeff Rense Show.

We can also win the Propaganda Man's support by proving that the enemy has lied to him. The anti-Second Amendment Million Mom March, for example, engaged in fraudulent fundraising practices by (1) lying to its donors about firearm misuse killing 12 or 13 children a day, and (2) concealing from its donors its plans to divert 501(c)(3) tax exempt money to Democratic political campaigns.

The Second Amendment's Propaganda Man (or Woman)

Second Amendment advocates make the similar mistake of talking about "our Second Amendment rights." The nation's 100 million or so law-abiding firearm owners should already be on our side. If they are not, we need to prove to them with the enemy's own words that the enemy is indeed after their sporting firearms as well as so-called "assault weapons."

The swing voter who does not own firearms does not, however, care about "our" Second Amendment rights. A woman who has been indoctrinated by Michael Bloomberg's lies via Everytown for Gun Safety is quite likely to take the position, "Your rights end where my safety and that of my children begins." This Bloomberg video, for example, shows a domestic abuser breaking in a woman's door to take her child, and then shooting her when she tries to resist. We need to address our arguments to the Propaganda Woman whom this Yellow Press-style video may have terrified into voting Obama Democrat, and not to people who are already on our side.

If the video is not copyrighted, or if "fair use" could include modification for educational purposes, I would do the following. When the abuser kicks the door in, stop the video and point out that this is the video's sole useful learning opportunity. I learned at a defensive gun class at Luzerne County Community College (LCCC) that a home invader can kick your door in more rapidly than he can open it with a key, let alone a lock pick. I therefore installed a strike plate that screws into the wall studs, and also a Nightlock security device. This protects the prospective home invader too because, if he doesn't get into the house, the person inside is probably not justified in using deadly force on him. If he continues to try to break in, the police can read him his rights when they arrive.

Next we deal with the home invader's gun by pointing out that, unless he is attacking somebody like Cynthia Rothrock or Ronda Rousey, his superior weight and upper body strength create a disparity of force situation in which he is a deadly threat even without a weapon. This means he can beat her to death or strangle her with his empty hands, and then abduct or kill her children after she is dead or too badly hurt to protect them. Disparity of force justifies her use of a firearm against him but, if Obama Democrats like Hillary Clinton, Andrew Cuomo, Michael Bloomberg, and Dannel Malloy get their way, she won't have a firearm. Underscore the issue of "authority without responsibility or accountability" because crime victims cannot sue government officials the way a victim of gross medical malpractice can sue a quack -- and make no mistake, Clinton, Bloomberg, Cuomo, and Malloy are quacks when it comes to public safety.

Then we support this position with real-world examples such as this one from FrontSight. Both involve home security videos of actual home invasion crimes. In the first part at about 1:10, a mother is beaten almost to death (by an unarmed male assailant) in her own home. In the second, three home invaders, one with a handgun, kick in the door of another woman's home. They get an unpleasant surprise in the form of a rifle, and a warning shot convinces them to flee. This is the only part with which I disagree. First, if you are not justified in shooting your assailant (as this woman was clearly justified), you are not justified in shooting at all. Second, a warning shot wastes a cartridge and gives the aggressor time to kill you. The incident still ended well for the homeowner, though, as it would not have done had she lived in a gun-free paradise like Cuomoland or Bloombergland.

Here is yet another genuine news story in which a mother tried to hide her child and herself from a home invader, but he found them anyway. That was when she emptied a 5-round .38 revolver at him, but did not hurt him badly enough to prevent him from fleeing (or, had he chosen to do so, killing her anyway). This says plenty about proposals to limit magazine capacities; unless you are using a caliber that starts with .4, you may well have to hit your assailant 10 or more times to stop him. Thomas Lifson's Go ahead #BlackLivesMatter: Make my Day features a video of a man who could have been Barack Obama's brother (re: Obama's statement that Trayvon Martin could have been his son) punching a police officer in the face and then shooting him with a .357 Magnum. The officer's return fire with 14 rounds of 45-caliber ACP failed to drop the aggressor, which underscores the fact that Andrew Cuomo is simply not competent to tell anybody what kind of firearm he or she "needs" for self-protection.

In any event, though, when we give the Propaganda Woman enough real world examples of defensive gun use, as well as information on where she can learn to use firearms safely and effectively, she is likely to take the position, "Your snake oil gun control ideology ends where my safety and that of my children begins."

William A. Levinson is the author of several books on business management including content on organizational psychology, as well as manufacturing productivity and quality.

How do grossly unqualified individuals like Barack Obama become President of the United States? Why is the Second Amendment under continual attack? The root cause is, in both cases, conservatives’ failure to understand psychological warfare and failure to understand the concept of the Propaganda Man.

Colonel Paul M. A. Linebarger's classic, Psychological Warfare, defined the Propaganda Man as the "lowest-common-denominator of a man who can be reached by enemy propaganda and by yours." Linebarger then adds the need to understand the Propaganda Man's mentality, fears, and aspirations.

Make up the prewar life of the Propaganda Man. …What kinds of things did he like? What prejudices was he apt to have? What kind of gossip did he receive and pass along? What kind of words disgusted him? What kind of patriotic appeal made him do things? What did he think of your country before the war?

The Republican Party and the National Rifle Association both seem to omit this basic and vital first step of successful public relations. Consider for example the numerous responses to my American Thinker article, “The Felon in the White House.” Examples include:

• "Who would prosecute the president for any crimes? The Department of Justice. Who owns the Department of Justice? President Obama."
• "No one will ever care about this, ever" (in all caps).
• "His worshippers wouldn't care if he was caught robbing a Brinks' truck."

What all fail to understand is that the article was not directed to:

1. The Justice Department
2. The big city urban Democrats who would probably vote for the head of ISIS if he ran for office with a D after his name. We will not, as the commentator said, change their minds.
3. Rural, Southern, and Mountain State Republicans who will vote for whomever the Republicans nominate. We do not need to change their minds.

The article's Propaganda Man is the swing voter, the independent voter who holds the balance of power in almost every national election. We won't convince the Obama Democrats and we don't need to convince the solid Republicans, but if we can persuade the independent voters, we win. The independent voter is proud of thinking for himself or herself, and generally takes the time to gather the facts. If the facts show, as they do, that Barack Obama gained his position through the commission of a felony, and was apparently given the kind of pass that an ordinary citizen could never expect, these voters will turn against him and anybody associated with him.

The Propaganda Man is Our Friend

It is absolutely vital, though, that we be sure of our facts before we present them to the Propaganda Man. Trust is the foundation of effective psychological warfare and, the instant we lie to the Propaganda Man, we will rightfully lose his trust. Consider for example these potential attacks on Obama.

1. The fact that the Obama Administration did not allow consideration of pro-ISIS social media postings makes Obama the "third San Bernardino shooter."
   • I was actually preparing side by side photos of Tashfeen Malik, Syed Farook, and Barack Obama for this purpose when I discovered that, contrary to the original story, Malik had not posted publicly visible pro-ISIS messages on Facebook. We cannot therefore blame the Obama Administration for failure to act on Malik's social media activities, although the act of Islamist violence still says a lot about the DHS vetting process as a whole.
2. The rumor that Obama is not a U.S. citizen is at best not provable, and has in fact been discredited. "In 1961, birth notices for Barack Obama were published in both the Honolulu Advertiser and the Honolulu Star-Bulletin on August 13 and 14, 1961, respectively, listing the home address of Obama's parents as 6085 Kalanianaole Highway in Honolulu."
3. "Obama is a Muslim."
   • There is nothing wrong with being a Muslim as long one does not belong to the subset of Muslims (aka Islamists) who believe they have an Allah-given right to hurt infidels, including the wrong kinds of Muslims. This argument does little more than reinforce the other side's denunciation of our side as Islamophobic, as in prejudiced against all Muslims rather than those who engage in easily identifiable problem behaviors.
   • A Muslim would have probably not worshiped in a Trinity United Church of Christ. We can however cite repeatedly Jeremiah Wright's racist sermons, and his blood libel of Israel and the United States for purportedly developing an "ethnic bomb" and the AIDS virus respectively. To this we can add the racist quotes (with page numbers) from Obama's Dreams From My Father, and Michelle Obama's racist thesis from Princeton. The racist content of the latter can be verified from the original, and it shows clearly that Michelle Obama cannot be First Lady for all Americans. The inarguable truth is on our side, so why tout a dubious rumor?

A Weak Argument is Worse than No Argument

The latest rumor that Michelle Obama is actually a man is totally counterproductive, and General Patton made that clear more than 70 years ago. Patton said that it is worse than useless to fire a rifle at a tank because (1) it wastes ammunition and (2) it tells the tank crew that you don't have an antitank weapon because you would have otherwise used it. A weak argument is therefore worse than no argument. There are enough things genuinely wrong with Barack and Michelle Obama that we don't need the kind of material that might come from the Jeff Rense Show.

We can also win the Propaganda Man's support by proving that the enemy has lied to him. The anti-Second Amendment Million Mom March, for example, engaged in fraudulent fundraising practices by (1) lying to its donors about firearm misuse killing 12 or 13 children a day, and (2) concealing from its donors its plans to divert 501(c)(3) tax exempt money to Democratic political campaigns.

The Second Amendment's Propaganda Man (or Woman)

Second Amendment advocates make the similar mistake of talking about "our Second Amendment rights." The nation's 100 million or so law-abiding firearm owners should already be on our side. If they are not, we need to prove to them with the enemy's own words that the enemy is indeed after their sporting firearms as well as so-called "assault weapons."

The swing voter who does not own firearms does not, however, care about "our" Second Amendment rights. A woman who has been indoctrinated by Michael Bloomberg's lies via Everytown for Gun Safety is quite likely to take the position, "Your rights end where my safety and that of my children begins." This Bloomberg video, for example, shows a domestic abuser breaking in a woman's door to take her child, and then shooting her when she tries to resist. We need to address our arguments to the Propaganda Woman whom this Yellow Press-style video may have terrified into voting Obama Democrat, and not to people who are already on our side.

If the video is not copyrighted, or if "fair use" could include modification for educational purposes, I would do the following. When the abuser kicks the door in, stop the video and point out that this is the video's sole useful learning opportunity. I learned at a defensive gun class at Luzerne County Community College (LCCC) that a home invader can kick your door in more rapidly than he can open it with a key, let alone a lock pick. I therefore installed a strike plate that screws into the wall studs, and also a Nightlock security device. This protects the prospective home invader too because, if he doesn't get into the house, the person inside is probably not justified in using deadly force on him. If he continues to try to break in, the police can read him his rights when they arrive.

Next we deal with the home invader's gun by pointing out that, unless he is attacking somebody like Cynthia Rothrock or Ronda Rousey, his superior weight and upper body strength create a disparity of force situation in which he is a deadly threat even without a weapon. This means he can beat her to death or strangle her with his empty hands, and then abduct or kill her children after she is dead or too badly hurt to protect them. Disparity of force justifies her use of a firearm against him but, if Obama Democrats like Hillary Clinton, Andrew Cuomo, Michael Bloomberg, and Dannel Malloy get their way, she won't have a firearm. Underscore the issue of "authority without responsibility or accountability" because crime victims cannot sue government officials the way a victim of gross medical malpractice can sue a quack -- and make no mistake, Clinton, Bloomberg, Cuomo, and Malloy are quacks when it comes to public safety.

Then we support this position with real-world examples such as this one from FrontSight. Both involve home security videos of actual home invasion crimes. In the first part at about 1:10, a mother is beaten almost to death (by an unarmed male assailant) in her own home. In the second, three home invaders, one with a handgun, kick in the door of another woman's home. They get an unpleasant surprise in the form of a rifle, and a warning shot convinces them to flee. This is the only part with which I disagree. First, if you are not justified in shooting your assailant (as this woman was clearly justified), you are not justified in shooting at all. Second, a warning shot wastes a cartridge and gives the aggressor time to kill you. The incident still ended well for the homeowner, though, as it would not have done had she lived in a gun-free paradise like Cuomoland or Bloombergland.

Here is yet another genuine news story in which a mother tried to hide her child and herself from a home invader, but he found them anyway. That was when she emptied a 5-round .38 revolver at him, but did not hurt him badly enough to prevent him from fleeing (or, had he chosen to do so, killing her anyway). This says plenty about proposals to limit magazine capacities; unless you are using a caliber that starts with .4, you may well have to hit your assailant 10 or more times to stop him. Thomas Lifson's Go ahead #BlackLivesMatter: Make my Day features a video of a man who could have been Barack Obama's brother (re: Obama's statement that Trayvon Martin could have been his son) punching a police officer in the face and then shooting him with a .357 Magnum. The officer's return fire with 14 rounds of 45-caliber ACP failed to drop the aggressor, which underscores the fact that Andrew Cuomo is simply not competent to tell anybody what kind of firearm he or she "needs" for self-protection.

In any event, though, when we give the Propaganda Woman enough real world examples of defensive gun use, as well as information on where she can learn to use firearms safely and effectively, she is likely to take the position, "Your snake oil gun control ideology ends where my safety and that of my children begins."

William A. Levinson is the author of several books on business management including content on organizational psychology, as well as manufacturing productivity and quality.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/12/psychological_warfare_for_consevatives.html#ixzz3vE1LIQFV
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook