Michelle Obama Teams Up with Richard Sherman for New ‘Let’s Move’ Video

While the Seattle Seahawks joined President Obama at the White House, First Lady Michelle Obama teamed up with the outspoken cornerback Richard Sherman for a video to promote her “Let’s Move” campaign.

In the video, Sherman is shown preparing a “healthy school lunch” in the White House kitchen of salmon and succotash.

First Lady Michelle Obama plays the role of a sideline reporter as she interviews Sherman in the kitchen.

“Let me tell you, we the best chefs in the game!” Sherman says, reminding kids to “eat right” and “put the right fuel in your body.”

“I couldn’t agree more Richard,” the First Lady replies.




Source: Breitbart Feed

Miliband’s Favourite News Source is Owned by a U.S. Republican

Labour leader Ed Miliband has gone to further lengths to prove how out of touch he is with the British voting public – this time by declaring that he doesn’t read much British news.

In a bizarre statement reported by Buzzfeed UK, Mr Miliband claimed: “I don’t read much British news. You get a lot of advice in the newspapers about what you should do. It’s much more important to follow your own path and stick to your own path. I’ve made that a rule in the last three and a half years.”

He’s trying to sound like a leader, but Miliband is putting more distance between himself and ordinary Britons, 82 percent of which claim to read a newspaper. 

Instead, Mr Miliband said he favourite news website was RealClearPolitics, a Chicago-based U.S. news aggregator which is 51 percent owned by Forbes, whose owner and CEO is Steve Forbes. 

Forbes, a former Republican Party Presidential candidate, is said to support smaller government and the death penalty. He, like UKIP leader Nigel Farage, opposes gun control and environmental regulation. Wikipedia notes that he opposes as well as drug legalisation and same-sex marriage.

An interesting choice for Miliband then, though it should be said that RealClearPolitics does not adopt a partisan position in its aggregation. It is also not a very popular website in Britain, with Alexa.com ranking it as the 15,681st most popular website in the UK.

By contrast, the Guardian is the 14th highest rated, the Guido Fawkes political blog is 829th, the Spectator 1083rd, and Breitbart.com is 1138th. Party-affiliated site LabourList is ranked around 20,000, while ConservativeHome is around 5000th.

All in all a pretty strange comment for the leader of a major political party to make. He’s either admitting to be drastically out of touch with what is going on in Britain… or he knows something the rest of us don’t. I’m willing to hazard a guess it is not the latter.




Source: Breitbart Feed

The Real Problem with Liberals: They’re Lower down the Evolutionary Scale

On this week’s Radio Free Delingpole podcast I discuss with Peter Foster of Canada’s Financial Post an issue which has long puzzled me: the liberal-left’s extraordinary capacity for cognitive dissonance. Or, if you want to put it more bluntly, for epic self-delusion.

I’m thinking, for example, of Ed Miliband’s proposals to introduce rent controls, despite copious historical evidence that this measure always and inevitably has exactly the opposite effect of the one intended: creating more housing scarcity; hurting the poor.

I would include in the same category several of the measures introduced by the Cameron administration: the 0.7 per cent of GDP ring-fenced for foreign aid, despite all the evidence that the billions of dollars bombarded on Africa have had the unintended consequence of leaving some countries in Sub-Saharan Africa as poor (sometimes poorer) than they were 50 years ago; the minimum wage which – as any sane economist can tell you – is a tax on jobs and therefore a disincentive to employers to hire labour; the “green jobs” the Coalition’s drive for renewables has allegedly created, even though they are in fact nothing more than Potemkin jobs, entirely dependent on taxpayer subsidy, and therefore a grotesque misallocation of scare resources which would otherwise by directed towards real, lasting jobs in areas of the economy which create genuine value.

All this, as Thomas Sowell would put it, is Basic Economics. So why do so many politicians – from the Obama left to the Cameron faux-right – not get it? And why, for that matter, do all those voters who applaud their statist measures and urge still more government intervention not get it either?

This is the question asked by Foster in his superb new book Why We Bite The Invisible Hand: The Psychology of Anti-Capitalism (Pleasaunce Press). And he comes up with some fascinating answers.

My favourite is his suggestion – though he puts more politely than I do – that people on the liberal-left are insufficiently evolved; they are too much in thrall to their “monkey brains” – monkey brains which of course those of us on the right possess too but with one crucial difference: we’re clever enough and advanced enough to allow the logical part of our brains override them.

Yes, I know. It sounds like a glib reversal of the kind of theory you see advanced at places like the HuffPo and Slate and the Guardian’s Komment Macht Frei. You know the sort of thing: “scientists” have shown that conservatives behave the way they do because their brains are wired to be more selfish/greedy/fearful/aggressive/insert appropriate pejorative here.

But Foster’s theory makes a lot of sense to me. (And if you want to pick holes in it, fine: another of the key differences between conservatives and liberal-lefties is that we on the right aren’t scared of debate).

It’s rooted in the fact that most of our mental evolution – perhaps as much as 99 per cent of it – took place in the long period when we were hunter-gatherers. This began in the Pleistocene era 1.6 million years ago and ended roughly 10,000 years ago when we made the leap from living in small, closely related tribal groups (“whose existence revolved around hunting, food gathering, sex, fighting and “local politics”‘) to the larger settlements which marked the birth of civilisation.

How does this bear on the left-liberal “mind”?

Let me give an example. One of the fundamental misconceptions of the liberal-left is that you can’t get richer without others getting poorer. This is the root cause of the widespread belief that capitalism is unfair and that government intervention is essential in order to create “social justice.” But it’s a fallacy, based on the delusion that the economy is like a pizza pie where the more one person has the less there is available for everyone else. What this popular leftist delusion ignores is that – at least in advanced capitalist nations – economies tend towards growth, which means the pizza pie gets bigger and bigger, meaning everyone (not just the One Per Cent) gets better and better off. There are mountains of evidence to show that this is so (read eg Matt Ridley’s The Rational Optimist). Why, then do even quite educated people on the liberal-left choose to ignore it?

Because mentally they’re still stuck in the Pleistocene era, is why. Subconsciously they’re living in the days when the hunting party has come back with, say, a scrawny warthog, or a large rat, and that’s all there is to go round their community. The economic world has grown a great deal more sophisticated since then, but the left-liberal brain – or at least the most dominant part of it – hasn’t. In the left’s head, the size of the economy is as fixed as the amount of meat on that large rat is fixed: that’s why, for them, fairness is such a life and death issue. Because in the prehistoric era their brains inhabit, it really was.




Source: Breitbart Feed

Ben Carson Hammers Former Dem Gov on Dangers of Stifled Speech

On CNN’s Wednesday broadcast of “Crossfire,” Dr. Ben Carson, author of “One Nation” went toe-to-toe with former Gov. Ted Strickland (D-OH) and former Obama campaign adviser Stephanie Cutter over remarks he made back in March likening the communication of public discourse to Nazi Germany.

Partial transcript as follows:

STRICKLAND: You know, the good doctor here compared our country to Nazi Germany, and — and that’s the kind of rhetoric that is divisive and really tears our country apart at a time — when it comes to foreign policy, we ought to be one nation and we ought to be pulling together.

GINGRICH: Do you want to explain that?

CARSON: Yes, let me address that, because what I said is that most of the people in Nazi Germany did not believe in what Hitler was doing. But did they speak up? Did they say anything? And making the analogy that that could happen anywhere where people don’t speak up, particularly when they disagree with what’s going on, No. 1 —

STRICKLAND: Doctor, you speak up —

CARSON: No. No. 2, you said that what I had said previously, all of those things occurred under George Bush. The uprising in Iran occurred in 2009. The last time I checked, Barack Obama was president in 2009. And the invasion of Georgia occurred during the transitional period. So, how can you say that those are George Bush’s fault?

CUTTER: It actually didn’t. But let me just clarify one thing.

CARSON: During the political season when we were in the process —

CUTTER: Right, we had a current president at that time. It was George W. Bush.

But let me just clarify. Are you saying that America is like Nazi Germany? I’m confused by that comment.

CARSON: No, what I am saying, and to me it doesn’t sound like a conflict statement at all. I said that people in Nazi Germany did not, most of them, believe in what Hitler was doing. But instead of protesting, instead of registering their displeasure, they simply decided to go along to get along. That is a very dangerous thing to do.

CUTTER: And is it happening —

CARSON: And I was using that as an example of how dangerous that can be. And I’m making a point to the American people that if, in fact, you feel differently about what’s going on, you should not be shut up. You need to talk about —

STRICKLAND: Doctor, no one is being shut up in America. You’re on FOX News. You write books. Newt talks, Stephanie talks, I talk.

CARSON: What is that?

STRICKLAND: I don’t engage in political correctness. Maybe you do. But, Doctor, these are your quotes. You said, “We live in a Gestapo age, and we’re” — this is a quote — “we’re very much like Nazi Germany.” And then you write a book about America the beautiful. That seems to be such a contradiction. CARSON: Did you read the book?

STRICKLAND: I have not read the book, no.

CARSON: I rest my case.

STRICKLAND: Why?

CARSON: You don’t even know what the book is about.

STRICKLAND: The fact that I haven’t read your book?

CARSON: Because you’re making these claims and then using the fact that I write a book to back up your claims and you haven’t even read the book.

STRICKLAND: I’m using the title of your book, “America the Beautiful,” and that’s a beautiful phrase.

CARSON: Did you ever hear the phrase that you can’t judge a book by its cover? Do you know why people say that? Maybe because you need to read the book.

STRICKLAND: Then maybe you can’t judge a book by the title. I don’t know.

Follow Jeff Poor on Twitter @jeff_poor




Source: Breitbart Feed

Obama at West Point: The Psychology of Surrender

From the vantage point of the just-about-to-graduate cadets at West Point, it must be very cool to have the Commander-in-Chief be your commencement speaker. Perhaps the ‘wow-factor’ is diminished when the speech is one that underlines why America isn’t important and how the biggest war of the last decade is about to be lost.

For those who really must go to the source the full text is here. For those with shorter attention spans see the excellent and almost instantaneous analyses by my Breitbart colleagues Joel Pollak and Charlie Spiering​.

Here is another take.

What can I say? Bluntly: as a professor of irregular warfare and international security I cannot recall ever reading a more confused speech by a head of state, nor one that is so utterly detached from reality. From the opening passages that speak of how the world automatically looks to America when “schoolgirls are kidnapped in Nigeria, or masked men occupy a building in Ukraine,” to the president later taking credit for the fact that “more people live under elected governments today than at any time in human history” it feels as if the President is living in an alternate reality.

Please don’t misunderstand me. I agree that the world does look to us when there is a crisis or a vicious wrong to be righted. But when we respond with hashtag “assaults” via Twitter instead of actual commando raids to rescue the Christian girls captured by the jihadists of Boko Haram, or when we deploy 600 troops to Poland and the Baltic states as Russia moves 30,000 troops in their APCs and tanks to the border of Ukraine, I am at a loss at to what there is to be proud of.

Then we see the idea that an administration which sees “Climate Change” as one of the greatest threats to the nation – if not the greatest – and which labels the deaths in Benghazi as a “fake scandal” is in fact the reason that more people live in freedom today than ever, and it seems as if we are Neo from the Matrix and have popped the blue pill.

The President’s speech is full of these surreal assertions that bear no resemblance to the actual world we live in. He spoke of an America that will not allow regional aggression to go unchecked, whether “in southern Ukraine of the South China Sea, or anywhere else in the world,[!]” and then that we cannot live in a world where people are “slaughtered because of tribe or faith or political belief.” This on the same day as more than 30 people were massacred in a Catholic church in the Central African Republic.

Then there is the schizophrenic logic of the address.

The Commander-in-Chief said Wednesday, “Here’s my bottom-line: America must always lead on the world stage.” We can ignore whether this is what the administration has embodied for the last five years, because the speech itself is clear that we are not meant to understand “lead” in any classical or conventional way. For the rest of the address President Obama was clear; his definition of leading means that we should avoid the use of force or military assets. Instead it is our “partners” that will respond. Perhaps we could call this the doctrine of America Leading by Proxy. For “invading every country that harbors a terrorist network is naive” and because what this administration wants is “collective action” because it works. 

The proof the President provides that this leading without leading works? Ukraine and Iran. 

No, I am not joking.

According to President Obama, the fact that Ukraine elected a new President this weekend “without us firing a shot” is proof that the international system and America’s leadership of it works. The facts that Crimea is now part of Russia, that Tuesday saw the heaviest death-toll since the crisis began, and that now Putin seems to be making a move against Georgia are somehow not indicators of failure.

Then there is the success of Iran. The President actually stated today that his version of leadership has been vindicated by our decision to “extend the hand of diplomacy” to the mullahs. This just three days after the Supreme Leader in Iran declared that the United States must be destroyed through Jihad. (No, I am not making this up. The details are here.)

After all of the above – and more – the President calls this approach “the right way to lead.”

Most disturbing of all is the decision to leave Afghanistan. Despite closing his speech by referring to a West Pointer who lost a leg in that god-forsaken war zone, the president does not explain how what he used to call the “good war” has finally been won and why we can go home.

War is not about institutions, battle-plans, or even hardware. It is ultimately defined by the will to defeat your enemy. The enemy that killed 3,000 people in Manhattan, Washington, D.C., and Pennsylvania thirteen years ago now has followers fighting in Yemen, Syria, Egypt, Mali, Nigeria, Libya, to name just a few of the jihadi-infested lands around the world. How will our leaving Afghanistan be received by al Qaeda and its allies? Will they feel as if America has imposed its will upon them?

President Reagan once famously said to his future National Security Adviser, Dick Allen, that his vision of the Cold War was that “We win, they lose.” If Ayman al Zawahiri, the current leader of al Qaeda, is listening to President Obama’s speech somewhere in South Asia – and I know he is – I am sure he does not think our withdrawal from Afghanistan means that we have won and he has lost.

Sebastian Gorka PhD has recently been appointed the Major General Horner Chair of Military Theory at the Marine Corps University and is the editor of national security affairs for Breitbart.com.




Source: Breitbart Feed