Ferguson looters break glass, burn their own community down; Bastiat laughs from the grave 22

Ferguson FireIt’s probably a safe bet to say that the Ferguson, Mo. residents who looted liquor stores and McDonalds restaurants while essentially burning their own community to the ground late Monday, Nov. 24 have never read Frederic Bastiat. That’s a shame, because then they would know that while their actions may make glaziers happy in the short run, they have only done themselves long-term economic damage.

Ferguson McDonalds vandalismA grand jury decided Monday night that the evidence presented to them regarding the shooting death of Michael Brown did not warrant an indictment of police officer Darren Wilson. That evidence was combed through and analyzed by the federal government — The Department of Justice under Eric Holder’s leadership — as well as an independent forensics expert hired by the Brown family. Sworn statements by multiple eye witnesses backed what the forensic evidence was telling investigators — but that sort of thing doesn’t matter when you’re the kind of person who really, really wants an excuse to rob liquor stores.

Liquor Looter FergusonThere is something paradoxically sad, hilarious and frightening about watching men in “Scream” masks and black hoodies robbing liquor stores adorned with “Hands up, Don’t Shoot” posters.

Ferguson Scream MaskMany Ferguson looters erroneously believe that justice was not served by the grand jury’s decision. (Some know the truth but just want an excuse to steal.) However, they should be thankful that there are still enough members of their own community who are capable of letting evidence instead of emotion guide their thinking.

Ironically, the Ferguson, Mo. authorities will probably not be taken to task for turning a blind eye to the wanton destruction of their own community.

As Bastiat says in “The Law”:

“Man can live and satisfy his wants only by ceaseless labor; by the ceaseless application of his faculties to natural resources. This process is the origin of property.

But it is also true that a man may live and satisfy his wants by seizing and consuming the products of the labor of others. This process is the origin of plunder.

Now since man is naturally inclined to avoid pain — and since labor is pain in itself — it follows that men will resort to plunder whenever plunder is easier than work. History shows this quite clearly. And under these conditions, neither religion nor morality can stop it.

When, then, does plunder stop? It stops when it becomes more painful and more dangerous than labor.

It is evident, then, that the proper purpose of law is to use the power of its collective force to stop this fatal tendency to plunder instead of work. All the measures of the law should protect property and punish plunder,” — (Bastiat, The Law).

How many law-abiding business owners — who had absolutely nothing to do with Michael Brown’s death — will never recover from the destruction of personal property because of the misplaced notion that racial sensitivity trumps the law?

How many businesses — and the jobs that come with them — will now stay far, far away from Ferguson, Mo. because officials made the conscious decision to allow citizens to plunder from one another and raze portions of the city to the ground?

Enjoy your liquor, Ferguson looters. The rubble will still remain after your hangovers subside.

About these ads

Dan Slott’s Spider-Verse: Peter Parker sadly gives off ‘Where’s Waldo?’ vibe in his own book 22

There’s a line from 2004’s “The Incredibles” where the villain Syndrome says, “When everyone’s super, no one will be.” Dan Slott’s “Spider-Verse” tale operates on many of the same levels — when the Marvel Universe is filled within an infinite amount of “Spider-Men,” it becomes much harder to distinguish why Peter Parker is special.

Spiderverse 1Those who have read The Amazing Spider-Man since its relaunch have seen Peter Parker take a back seat in his own title for much of the lead-up to Spider-Verse, and now that it’s here the trend continues. Readers are told he’s some sort of Harry Potter-ish “Chosen One,” but the evidence as presented — up to this point — doesn’t support the claims. Peter comes across as just one of many heroic “spiders” throughout multiple dimensions, each doing his or her own part to protect the “spider-totem” from falling to “The Inheritors” — a dysfunctional family of beings that like to dine on “spiders.” When Peter Parker gives off a “Where’s Waldo” vibe in his own book, something is wrong.

Spiderverse 3Dan Slott’s “Spider-Verse” generally reads like a convoluted mess from the mind of a man who still goes to fast food restaurants and fills his glass with a little bit of each kind of soda without realizing that the end result isn’t all that special and usually tastes gross.

Spiderverse 4Spider-Verse’s saving grace appears to be the artwork by Olivier Coipel — it really is quite beautiful, and he’s able to organize Dan Slott’s clutter like a mother who picks up after her son when he’s old enough to know better.

To make matters worse, the commanding presence of Doctor Octopus (aka: “The Superior Spider-Man”) provides another example of just how diminished Peter Parker is in his own book. Readers know that as “The Chosen One” Peter will play a crucial role in defeating The Inheritors, but up until this point — ten issues into the relaunch of The Amazing Spider-Man — one has to imagine that many Peter Parker fans are asking: “Why?”

Spiderverse 2Peter Parker should be a shining star in his own book, but these days he is little more than a polished cog in Marvel’s “Spider-Verse” machinery.

Beyoncé’s 7/11 vs. Bach’s Jesu, meine Freude — listen to Western Civilization’s decline 4

Beyonce 711“Feminist” Beyoncé has a new single out, 7/11, which means that her legions of fans have already flocked to it. Nothing screams “female empowerment” like rolling dice off a woman’s butt and mugging for the camera in your underwear, but this post isn’t about that. It’s about listening to the decline of Western Civilization in action. All you have to do is listen to about 30 seconds of “7/11″ and, say, Bach’s rendition of “Jesu, meine Freude” to actually hear what the death spiral of a civilization sounds like.

BachCompare the two works. First, Beyoncé:

Contemplate the lyrics:

Legs movin’ side to side, smack it in the air
Legs movin’ side to side, smack you in the air
Shoulders sideways, smack it, smack it in the air
Smack it, smack it in the air
Legs movin’ side to side, smack it, smack it in the air
Smack it, smack it in the air

Then, Bach:

Contemplate the lyrics:

Jesu, meine Freude (Jesus, my joy)
Unter deinem Schirmen (Beneath your protection)
Trotz dem alten Drachen (I defy the old dragon)
Weg mit allen Schätzen (Away with all treasures)
Gute Nacht, o Wesen (Good night, existence)
Weicht, ihr Trauergeister (Go away, mournful spirits)

How can anyone close their eyes, listen to both pieces of music, think about Beyoncé’s popularity, and not objectively conclude that it is one small bit of evidence that we are collectively spinning down a cultural drain?

Beyonce 711 DiceThis is not me bashing all contemporary music. There is plenty of good music out there. This is me saying that if you consider Beyoncé’s record sales, her $115 million payday for 2014, and the millions of fans who are ecstatic over “smack it, smack it in the air,” then it is hard not to conclude that strange days lie ahead.

This is not me saying that only music worth listening to is classical. This is me asking you to listen to where we once were and listen to where we are now. This is me asking if you can listen to both creative efforts and honestly deny that Beyoncé’s degrades and debases the soul into an embarrassing spectacle while Bach’s stirs it to strive for greatness.

Beyonce 711 smack itWe sit around and wonder why women like Kim Kardashian are famous for exposing themselves while we listen to songs like Beyonce’s 7/11. We incredulously wonder how it is that a woman can easily tape herself getting cat calls while walking through the streets of New York, while we collectively cheer Beyoncé’s objectification of herself and others — to the tune of millions of YouTube downloads.

That, “meine freude,” is classic.

Gruber Memory Hole: Penn, University of Rhode Island go full Orwell to protect Obama 3

Jonathan Gruber ObamacareJonthan Gruber made over $400,000 by the Obama administration for his contribution to crafting Obamacare, and millions of dollars advising others after its passage. Now that the news is out that he’s gone around the country bragging about how the Democrats deceived their “stupid” voters into giving them political cover to pass the bill, one would think the universities he spoke to would encourage intellectually curious Americans to view their videos. Instead, U.S. they have decided to go full-Orwell.

The National Review reported Nov. 19:

Universities that hosted Jonathan Gruber are now removing videos of the MIT professor from their websites after a series of candid admissions from the Obamacare architect ignited a firestorm against the health-care law. …

At least two colleges who hosted the professor have tried to scrub Gruber from the internet. The University of Pennsylvania removed Gruber’s October 2013 panel appearance — in which he laughed about “the stupidity of the American voter” — on November 10, but quickly reposted the video after withering criticism.

On Monday the University of Rhode Island took a page out of Penn’s book, removing a 2012 discussion where Gruber explains how the law was passed to “exploit” the American voters’ “lack of economic understanding.” URI offered no explanation on its webpage as to why the video was pulled.

Imagine an situation where a Republican administration is able to jam through a flat-tax in the middle of a chilly March night. Years later, countless tapes of an MIT analyst named Jonathan Gruber turn up bragging about how the administration, which paid him $400,000, duped the American people by exploiting their “economic ignorance.” What would happen?

Universities that originally hosted Mr. Gruber would schedule debates on campus along the lines of: “Gruber: Can Republicans be trusted ever again?” or “Gruber: What did the president know and when did he know it?” Instructors would give extra credit for attendance. Books would be written about the scandal by college professors across the country, who would then make them required reading. A single new chapter would be added each year, and students would be forced to buy the new edition instead of paying a quarter of the price for the used version. When students complained about their debt, those same tenured professors with six-figure salaries would blame Republicans.

But alas, Jonathan Gruber worked for Mr. Obama. The president will pretend like he didn’t really know the man, Nancy Pelosi will pretend like she didn’t know the man, John Kerry will pretend he didn’t know the man, and their friends in academia will do their best to send evidence to the contrary to the deepest, darkest depths of the digital ocean.

The American people are not stupid — hence, the need to deceive them on behalf of the Obama administration.

Moms and dads do have a lot on their minds, however, which is why Penn attempted to delete its video and the University of Rhode Island actually carried through with the decision. In time, memories get fuzzy or fade all together. If enough people forget the lies, then it’s easier to keep the charade going.

I can not ask this question enough: Do you trust these people to create a “fair” and “free” internet with “Net Neutrality”? If so, then watch American Commitment’s “All of Gruber Gate in Two Minutes” and ask again.

Related: Pelosi proves she thinks just like Jonathan Gruber by saying she doesn’t know of him
Related: Listen to Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber and then think about Obama’s call for Net Neutrality

Time sorry for using ‘feminist’ in poll after feminists rage, thereby vindicating original editorial decision 6

Time magazine recently held a fun poll to see which words should be “banned” in 2015. Its readers decided by an overwhelming margin that the word ‘feminist’ has become toxic. Feminists went into full totalitarian mode, and soon afterward Time’s Nancy Gibbs was apologizing to them — thereby proving the point of every single person who voted in favor of banning the word.

Time poll results feminismHere’s what Time had to say before attempting to scrub its poll results down the Memory Hole:

“TIME apologizes for the execution of this poll; the word ‘feminist’ should not have been included in a list of words to ban. While we meant to invite debate about some ways the word was used this year, that nuance was lost, and we regret that its inclusion has become a distraction from the important debate over equality and justice,” (Nancy Gibbs).

Time couldn’t stand up to the likes of Planned Parenthood, which ironically has a big problem with aborting words, but not a problem with aborting millions of future feminists.

Planned ParenthoodFeminists stand up for the “right” to kill little girls and boys in the womb and they tweet about killing “all men,” but if you want to kill a word during a playful online poll, then you’re apparently a horrible person.

Helena Horton GamerGateFeminists may have gotten Time to walk back its original editorial decision, but in the process they once again have demonstrated to large swathes of the American public that they are out of ideas. When American feminists are forced to go after men who are busy sending rockets into the far reaches of space, the time has come where they are largely irrelevant. When American feminists find themselves trying to ban victims of female genital mutilation from speaking on college campuses, it is clear that intellectual bankruptcy is close at hand.

Time magazine may be able to erase most of the evidence of its poll results, but feminists can not easily erase the reputation they’ve built for themselves in recent years. The louder they screech irrational diatribes into the digital marketplace of ideas, the less influence they will wield.

Obama amnesty response? 5 million Americans should march on the White House 3

White HouseIt’s been said that President Obama is going to do his best Venezuelan dictator impression and issue a far-reaching decree to undermine the rule of law. Newspapers all around the country are asking “What will the GOP do?” if Mr. Obama grants amnesty to 1-5 million illegal immigrants in the absence of any bill passed by Congress. At this point, it’s not what the Republicans should do — it’s what Americans should do. Millions of them should march on the White House.

Fact: Mr. Obama said himself that what he now threatens the country with is a direct assault on the U.S. Constitution. He said so himself.

Hotair nicely consolidated a few choice quotes by the constitutional lawyer who now plans to completely disregard the U.S. Constitution:

“I believe such an indiscriminate approach would be both unwise and unfair. This could lead to a surge in more illegal immigration. (President Obama, July, 2010).

“With respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that’s just not the case.” (President Obama, March 2011).

“I just have to continue to say this notion that somehow I can just change the laws unilaterally is not true. We are doing everything we can administratively,” (President Obama, Sept. 2011).

“Until Congress passes a new law, then I am constrained in terms of what I am able to do. (President Obama, March 2014).

There must be millions of Democrats out there who know that what the president plans to do would set an incredibly dangerous precedent. The constitutional crisis that will result from attempting to use an executive order to do something of such magnitude for millions upon millions of Americans is unconscionable. It is short-sighted, but it is also something out of a tyrant’s handbook.

The media is doing its best not to talk about the constitutional implications of such an action, and instead focusing on the politics. That is an abdication of its important role in keeping those with their hands on the levers of power honest, but at this juncture all that matters is that the American people — not just politicians in Washington — must stand up to the utter lawlessness of such a move.

Impeachment? Budgetary tricks? Republican-led government shutdown? It’s beyond that. If 5 million Americans marched on up to the White House, then it would give members of Congress — of any party — the political cover they need to check a U.S. president who takes cues from the ghost of Hugo Chavez.

Atheists attack easy targets to distract you from men like Hubert Van Zeller 17

A recent YouTube video that went viral shows a woman who claims Monster Energy Drinks are the work of the devil. Atheists and their allies in the media ran with it. An atheist friend of mine even passed it along with the message, “One of your people.”

I love my friend on many levels, but like most atheists these days he tends to reflexively go after the low-hanging fruit while ignoring the works of serious Christians.

The reason why many websites are keen to find the Christian equivalent of 9/11 Truthers or the next Westboro Baptist Church is because the mind that can be convinced early on that men and women of faith are all intellectually bankrupt kooks is the mind that is much more likely to avoid picking up books by C.S. Lewis, G.K. Chesterton, and Hubert Van Zeller.

To an atheist, men like Mr. Zeller are terrifying. Picking almost any random page out of Mr. Zeller’s “Suffering: The Cross of Christ and Its Meaning For You,” gives insight as to why Christians — particularly intelligent Christians — come across as frightening to unbelievers:

“A man is discouraged either because he looks back at the past and sees a sequence of misfortunes that has shaped for him a mold of failure, or because he looks into the the future and can see no security, happiness, or prospects of success. His experience of life has given him these findings, so he feels, understandably, that life is insupportable.

But if he knew more of Christ, he would know that he had misinterpreted his experience, and that life is not at all insupportable. He would neither shy away from the thought of the past, nor stand dismayed by the thought of the future. The immediate present would not daunt him either: he would know that it could be related, together with the failures that have been and the horrors that are in store, to the Passion.

That is not to say that deliverance from disillusion, discouragement, and despair can be effected by a mere trick of the mind — the knack of referring our desolations  automatically to God — but that, in the gradual and painful conversion of the soul from self-centeredness to God-centeredness, there will be a growing tendency toward confidence. No longer brought low by the sight of so much evil in ourselves, in others, and in the world, we rise by the slow deepening of detachment to the sight of a possible good in ourselves, in others, and in the world. The vision extends to a probable good, and then to a certain good. Together with this widening horizon, which reveals the positive where before only the negative was expected, goes the knowledge that the only good is God’s good, and that it exists on earth — as those who receive the Word made flesh exist on earth — not of the will of man, but of God,” (57-58).

A man who believes in God is confident. He sees pain and suffering as a path to overcoming pain and suffering. There is nothing that the world can throw at him — nothing — that will deter him from steadily marching towards his objective. He finds strength in weakness. He is calm. He sees God everywhere and in everything — grace can come from even the most unexpected of places.

Put another way:

“The man of faith has reserves; he surrenders to nothing but the will of God. His desire is united to the desire that was in the mind of Christ when He fell on the road to Calvary. His failure is Christ’s failure; the waste of his talents is the waste of Christ’s. There is no question here of desperation, panic, self-pity, rebellion; no talk of accident or bad luck,” (25).

Put yourself in the shoes of an atheist Huffington Post editor, whose deepest desire is to have 400 million Americans dependent on an ever-expansive federal government. If you wanted the civilian population to dutifully bow to 535 bureaucratic overlords in Washington, D.C., would you want them watching Christian conspiracy theorists who see the devil in caffeinated beverages, or reading the works of men who believe “When I am weak, then I am strong”?

If you want to see just how powerful you really are, then I highly suggest reading “Suffering, The Cross of Christ and Its Meaning For You.” If you want to put yourself on a moral pedestal while denying the existence of God, then stick to The Huffington Post.

Rossetta scientist cries over feminist outrage at his shirt: It’s been fun, Western Civilization 20

B2P1UPJCMAAVpBX

Imagine a situation where a scientist works on a project and then he and his team manage to land a spacecraft on a comet traveling 41,000 mph hour. Imagine that the comet is 311 million miles away from the earth. Imagine that during celebratory interviews after the mission’s success that a bunch of feminists freak out over said scientist’s shirt — made for him by a female friend — and soon afterward he cries into his own hands and apologizes for ever daring to wear the “sexist” piece of cloth. Now imagine that all of these things take place on the same day Kim Kardashian’s butt and breasts are plastered all over the internet.

Imagine no more, because it all happened — and you, my friend, are officially in The Twilight Zone.

The Washington Examiner reported Friday:

One of the scientists responsible for successfully landing the Rossetta probe on a comet millions of miles away on Friday responded to outrage directed at a shirt he wore earlier this week during the televised landing.

“I made a big mistake and I offended many people and I am very sorry about this,” the scientist, Dr. Matt Taylor, said during a press briefing, choking back tears and struggling to speak.

As news of the probe’s successful landing shot around the world, so did outrage directed at Taylor’s shirt, which featured images of provocatively dressed women with guns.

“No no women are toooootally welcome in our community, just ask the dude in this shirt,” The Atlantic’s Rose Eveleth complained in a tweet.

Ask yourself what has become of Western Civilization when a grown man who just helped land a spacecraft on a comet allows himself to break down into tears because a bunch of irrational women are upset over the kind of clothes he likes to wear when he makes history.

Shirtstorm feministNow imagine a world where feminist rage wasn’t directed at physicists who unlock the secrets of the cosmos because of so-called “micro-aggressions,” but at women who capture world-wide attention by constantly finding new and creative ways to objectify themselves.

Kim KardashianA man who likes cartoon drawings of busty cyborg-women in skimpy outfits wielding guns becomes Public Enemy Number One for feminists just moments after he makes a key contribution to all of humankind, but Kim Kardashian’s Photoshopped butt and boobs and waistline garners a collective, “That’s Kim for you.” Telling.

Matt TaylorEuropean Space Agency’s Rosetta mission and its ability to land a robotic probe on 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko will likely pay scientific dividends for years to come. It won’t be long before most people forget all about the “shirt storm” over Matt Taylor’s attire, but the selective feminist moral outrage displayed — and his reaction to it — is worth remembering.

Western Civilization is spinning out of control like a malfunctioning rocket lost in space. The reason is because “mission control” is housed with modern day feminists, moral relativists, and the kind of individuals who get excited any time a celebrity like Ms. Kardashian lowers the cultural bar already hovering just above our toes.

Hopefully this incident will be a wake-up call for a number of people, just like Gamer Gate was for those who grew up thinking Stephen Colbert, The Huffington Post, Jon Stewart, and MSNBC were actually unbiased sources of news.

Pelosi proves she thinks just like Jonathan Gruber by saying she doesn’t know of him 1

Nancy Pelosi Jonathan Gruber ObamacareIt seems like every day there is a new Jonathan Gruber quote proving the utter contempt that the architects of The Affordable Care Act hold for voters. The other day he was grinning as he talked about the “stupidity” of Americans, and now his comments from the Honors Colloquium 2012 at the University of Rhode Island are making the rounds: “It’s a very clever, you know, basic exploitation of the lack of economic understanding of the American voter.” It’s all very telling, but not as telling as Nancy Pelosi proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that she thinks just like him.

On Thursday, Ms. Pelosi denied she knew of Mr. Gruber.

“I don’t know who he is. He didn’t help write our bill. And, so, with all due respect to your question, you have a person who wasn’t writing our bill commenting on what was going on when we were writing the bill.” — Nancy Pelosi on Jonathan Gruber, Nov. 13, 2014.

The Washington Post, however, points out that in 2009 she most certainly knew of Mr. Gruber and his work.

“Our bill brings down rates. I don’t know if you have seen Jonathan Gruber of MIT’s analysis of what the comparison is to the status quo versus what will happen in our bill for those who seek insurance within the exchange. Our bill takes down those cuts, even from now, and much less preventing the upward spiral.” — Nancy Pelosi on Jonathan Gruber, Nov 5, 2009.

Ms. Pelosi thinks you are stupid. There is no other explanation for someone who acts as if the Internet does not exist. Only a woman with little to no respect for the American public would tell a blatant lie on camera in 2014 when she knows — she must know — that the power of the Internet will expose her shortly thereafter.

Her chutzpah knows no bounds. She even touts Mr. Gruber’s work on her own website:

Pelosi GruberAs I said before, these are the people who want more control of the Internet in their hands. These are the people who will make sure “Net Neutrality” provides a “free” and “fair” Internet. The same woman who obviously thinks her lies disappear down Orwellian Memory Holes wants to control the Internet like a public utility.

Wake up, Millennials. “Hope and Change” was never about “We are the ones we’ve been waiting for.” It was about you being the ones that shameless liars were waiting for.

They admit behind closed doors that they think you are stupid. They admit behind closed doors that they seek to exploit your “lack of economic understanding.” And they will continue to lie and deceive until you send them home and deny them of the power and influence they so desperately crave.

Listen to Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber and then think about Obama’s call for Net Neutrality 2

Jonathan Gruber Obamacare

Most people by now have seen one of Obamacare’s key architects, Jonathan Gruber, admitting on video that the bill was written with as little transparency as possible so that the “stupidity of the American voter” would produce the political cover necessary to pass it (late at night on Sunday, March 21, 2010).

“This bill was written in a tortured way to make sure CBO did not score the mandate as taxes. If CBO scored the mandate as taxes, the bill dies. So it’s written to do that. In terms of risk-rated subsidies, if you had a law which said healthy people are going to pay in — it made explicit the healthy pay in and the and sick people get money — it would not have passed. Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical for the thing to pass.”

Watch the sick smile on his face as Mr. Gruber discusses the way the Obama administration and its Democratic allies in Congress were able to force a bill upon the American people (with the help of the media) that would have never passed had they actually been honest about its contents. Look at the zeal with which he talks of the deception employed and the Democrats’ contempt for their own voters.

Now, take a step back and think about Mr. Obama’s desire for these very same people — unscrupulous liars — to have more control over the Internet.

CNet reported November 10:

In a statement released Monday, Obama called on the Federal Communications Commission to enforce the principle of treating all Internet traffic the same way, known in shorthand as Net neutrality. That means treating broadband services like utilities, the president said, so that Internet service providers would be unable “to restrict the best access or to pick winners and losers in the online marketplace for services and ideas.” …

Proponents argue that Title II regulation would ensure the free and fair flow of traffic across the Internet. Opponents, however, believe the reorientation would mean onerous rules that would limit investment in the infrastructure and in new services, and that toll roads of sorts would provide better service to companies that can support their higher traffic volumes.

Plenty of talking heads on television are already doing their part to sell Net Neutrality to the American people just like they did with Obamacare. It remains to be seen whether or not Millennials have learned their lesson, or whether they will continue to trust the same sort of people who mock them behind closed doors.

Do you remember the old “If you like your healthcare you can keep it” promise? Perhaps this time around Mr. Obama will come out with, “If you like your Internet, you can keep it.”

Most Americans are not stupid. Mr. Gruber’s comments make clear that an overwhelming majority of Americans would not have been in favor of Obamacare if the administration was honest with them. Town hall meetings were packed with conservatives and libertarians who knew exactly what was happening.

It is actually quite amazing that America has been able to survive a modern education system that seeks to create Statist drones, an entertainment industry that encourages the population to place more attention on Kim Kardashian’s butt instead of the erosion of civil liberties, and media personalities who seek to win favor with politicians instead of holding them accountable for their misdeeds.

Net Neutrality Peoples CubeDear Millennials: There are many Jonathan Grubers in Hollywood, on cable news, in Congress, on college campuses, and in the White House. They all think that you are stupid. Will you prove them right, or will you adopt a worldview that seeks to limit their power? The choice is yours.