Connect with us


The Pyramids, the President and the De-Evolution of Intelligence



I’ve long since come to realize that I ask too many questions. That seems to be the consensus. Too many questions for the comfort of other people. Too many questions probably for my own good.
Of late, I’ve been thinking about evolution theory. It’s far from proven in my reckoning. The gist of course is that humans have developed — evolved — from lesser life forms to become the intelligent species that we are today. With that idea comes the notion that we should be getting smarter by Darwinian rules.
But it seems more likely that the opposite is true. Instead of becoming smarter, I think we’re becoming stupider — we’re de-evolving. The way of the world seems to be that things wind down and fall apart. Why should it be any different with human intelligence?
Come back with me now in your mind to a time when children played outside, television was called “books,” and hamburgers tasted like meat.
Surprisingly, it wasn’t that long ago. And since the aforementioned changes occurred just within my own lifetime, I can’t help but marvel at what must be a vast and ever-widening gulf between our current generation and those in the far past.
I can recall when I was a child still in elementary school and, purely for the sake of some mental stimulation, I would ransack my father’s library and inevitably find myself curling up on the living room couch with a book by some author like Chaucer, Doyle, Poe or even the occasional Greek such as Homer.
Sometimes, inspired by books we had read on the subject, my friends and I would go hunting for “dinosaur bones,” which invariably involved what today would be unthinkable amounts of digging in the sunshine. Such activities were encouraged by our parents (except for the time we threatened to undermine the corner of my house) — and we actually dug out most of what eventually became a koi fish pond with the help of some additions from the adult “management.”
The insides of our various clubhouses (designated Bases Alpha, Beta and Gamma and used to fend off many foreign invasions) were decorated with pictures of airplanes, cars, monsters, scientists both mad and sane, and some mysterious equations generated from our many discussions of space, time travel and high-energy physics as we understood them at the ripe ages of 5 to 10.
I even recall having intense debates over whether Lancelot du Lac or Gawaine was the better knight and whether either of them could have bested the Viking Sigurd.
The point of all this isn’t merely to reminisce, nor to assert that we were any sort of geniuses. We were just normal kids for the time who liked to read, ask questions and indulge our curiosity, and it’s stood all of us from the old ‘hood  in good stead throughout our lives.
Flash forward to a couple of years ago, when I was teaching comic book drawing to a group of homeschooled kids, who are invariably brighter than average. Just to demonstrate that the skills they were learning needn’t be limited to comic books, I showed them various pieces of artwork, including one book cover for an old fantasy roleplaying game about Robin Hood.
To my surprise, the children did a double take. They were confused that what I was holding in my hand was a game. Did it have a disk inside? they asked. I replied no. One of the kids nodded knowingly, “Oh, you mean it’s a computer manual.”
Again I replied no, and I explained that it was a book with information about the legend of Robin Hood and some rules about how to portray one of the Merry Men in a Nottingham adventure. I added that to play, you didn’t use a computer, just the book, some dice and your imagination.
You could have knocked the kids over with a feather at that point. The idea of using a book and imagination as a game had never occurred to them, as they were so used to video games as their primary form of play.
By that point, I was afraid to ask but just had to know how many of them even knew who Robin Hood was. Only one out of a dozen or so could give me an answer.
Then I took a leap and asked if anyone would be interested in learning how to play the game. The response was underwhelming to say the least. Near-zero curiosity.
Cut to today. In the current political season, we have a president who is manufacturing the most blatant lies about his opponent, and whose own past meanwhile is shrouded in secrecy.
Yet, the media and liberal voters are so completely incurious about this man that they can’t be bothered to ask the most basic questions about where he comes from or whether his allegations against Mitt Romney are fabricated.
Instead, there is a broad segment of society that will swallow anything President Obama or his lackeys say without hesitation, like fish gulping flakes of food showered on their heads.
This attitude manifests itself not only as a lack of curiosity, but also as outright disdain for anything beyond the bounds of what is already believed by these people. Just try challenging a liberal and time how long it is before they’re calling you Hitler.
The odd thing is, I’m not certain this love of ignorance is confined to our own country. In fact, it seems to be manifesting itself on a global scale.
Take the current example of Egypt. With the help of Obama, the Muslim Brotherhood has successfully elected one of their own to the presidency — another matter Obama’s followers won’t ask questions about.
Barely in power, the Brotherhood is already entertaining suggestions that it should destroy the pyramids.
Everyone knows the pyramids, symbols of the most ancient of times. Although they’ve been studied for centuries, they and other Egyptian monuments still have their secrets, and they have much to teach us.
The ancient Egyptians at the very least knew techniques of construction that are lost to us modern “geniuses,” so full of ourselves. Their medical knowledge was advanced, and their culture was intricate, highly artistic and sophisticated. And though disputed by “mainstream” scholars, there is evidence that suggests the ancient Egyptians may have even known something of science such as about aerodynamics and electricity.
Compared to the ancients, the modern Egyptians are little more than yammering barbarians, who thoughtlessly burned museums and plundered or smashed countless artifacts at the drop of a hat.
To destroy the pyramids would be the crowning achievement of such ignorant savages. And it’s all been encouraged up to this point by the man currently residing in the White House.
I don’t know how Obama’s followers can not question their leader, his skills, his worthiness, even his sanity in allying us with the Muslim Brotherhood, because it all raises many questions in my mind.
Something seems to have gone horribly wrong in our ability to think clearly.
I can’t determine whether this sort of willful ignorance is something new, a sign of human decay, or whether it’s always been there under the surface of civilization throughout history.
But I do know that those of us who respect learning and rational thought need to demand answers to the many questions surrounding the man seeking to be president for four more years lest we, like the pyramids, find ourselves targeted for obliteration.

Don't forget to Like The Washington Sentinel on Facebook and Twitter, and visit our friends at The Republican Legion.

Become an insider!

Sign up for the free Washington Sentinel email newsletter, and we'll make sure to keep you in the loop.

Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Ocasio-Cortez: “No One Ever Makes a Billion Dollars” — Billionaires Steal It



Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: ‘No one ever makes a billion dollars. You take a billion dollars.’

“No one ever makes a billion dollars. You take a billion dollars. I’m not here to villainize and to say billionaires are inherently morally corrupt. … It’s to say that this system that we live in, life in capitalism always ends in billionaires.”

‘You sat on a couch while thousands of people were paid modern-day slave wages’

Fox News:

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., said that “no one ever makes a billion dollars. You take a billion dollars” during a Martin Luther King Jr. Day discussion with author Ta-Nehisi Coates on Monday.

“No one ever makes a billion dollars. You take a billion dollars,” Ocasio-Cortez said, receiving applause. “I’m not here to villainize and to say billionaires are inherently morally corrupt. … It’s to say that this system that we live in, life in capitalism always ends in billionaires.”

Ocasio-Cortez said billionaires make their money “off the backs” of “undocumented people,” “black and brown people being paid under a living wage” and “single mothers.”

She addressed a hypothetical “widget” billionaire in her remarks.

“You didn’t make those widgets, did you? Because you employed thousands of people and paid them less than a living wage to make those widgets for you,” Ocasio-Cortez said. “You didn’t make those widgets. You sat on a couch while thousands of people were paid modern-day slave wages, and in some cases real modern-day slavery.” More

AOC joined in on presidential candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s criticism of JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon in November by saying he’s a billionaire “asking for a safe space” amid Democrats’ desire for economic disruption.

Someone should point out to AOC that socialism just shifts those billions from the hands of the people who did something to create that wealth to politicians like herself.

History has repeatedly shown that when politicians are put in charge of dispersing money the only people that benefit are the politicians themselves. When will people learn that socialism never works?

Continue Reading


Trump Weighs in on Impeachment Witness Fight with Surprising Stance

Trump certainly isn’t making Mitch McConnell’s job any easier here.



Day two of the Senate impeachment trial has begun, and, as of yet, there have been few surprises.

For much of the nation, the end to this national nightmare has long been known:  The GOP-controlled Senate will vote to acquit the President thanks to the unending work of Mitch McConnell and the Trump loyalists within this higher chamber of Congress.

Still, the Democrats continue to push for new documents and new witnesses in the case – something that McConnell has roundly rejected on the basis that the House of Representatives was tasked with the “fact finding” portion of the process, with the Senate left to simply adjudicate based on those findings.

The President, for what it’s worth, has previously suggested that he prefers the idea of a “show trial” that wouldn’t exonerate him based solely on process, but on exculpatory testimony by new witnesses.   He reiterated this belief this week.

The U.S. Senate plunged into President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial with Republicans abruptly abandoning plans to cram opening arguments into two days but solidly rejecting for now Democratic demands for more witnesses to expose what they deem Trump’s “trifecta” of offenses.

Trump himself said Wednesday he wants top aides to testify, but qualified that by suggesting there were “national security” concerns to allowing their testimony.

“We have a great case,” Trump said at a global economic forum in Davos, Switzerland. In a press conference before returning to Washington, Trump said his legal team was doing a “very good job.”

This certainly isn’t the consensus, however.

He appeared to break with Republicans efforts to block Democratic motions to immediately call witnesses and subpoena documents. Instead, Trump said he’d like to see aides, including former national security adviser John Bolton, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, testify as witnesses.

Democrats have considered some of these same witnesses named by the President to be of the utmost significance in the UkraineGate matter, and will likely seize on Trump’s affirmation to make their case before the Senate.



Continue Reading


Stephen Colbert Blasted by White House After Off-Color MLK, Melania Joke

Whatever happened to classy comedy?



Late night television used to be one of the only places in the nation where we would see anyone speaking openly about politics.  This is because there was a time, believe it or not, where the political malarky of our nation’s capital wasn’t so intertwined with our daily lives.

This was, of course, back when our public servants acted like public servants and not like the ruling class congressional monarchy we see today.  In the 21st century We The People need to be very involved, lest we wish for these cretins to snatch ever more power away from us.  But I digress…

Late night’s comedy kings also used to use a much different approach when speaking on the subject of politics; one that was less about offending the “other side”, and more about calling attention to the things that make us all Americans.  It was less about getting a laugh and more about tickling your psyche back then.

Stephen Colbert’s latest jab at the West Wing certainly wasn’t on that level of tact, and conjured a rare retort from the White House itself.

“Here we go again – an irrelevant late-night talk show host mocking the First Lady, when her main focus is serving the American people,” White House Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham said in a comment to the Daily Caller. “His comments were disgraceful, and certainly not original, but that doesn’t seem to matter when you’re hurting for ratings.”

What did Colbert say?

During the show, Stephen Colbert mocked the first lady’s accent and ridiculed for her short message on Twitter honoring Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

“She really relates to Dr. King’s message, especially the part about wanting to be ‘free at last.’” Colbert said, referring to Melania Trump’s marriage to President Donald Trump as the crowd laughed. “It’s what I heard. It’s what I heard.”

The much-maligned Melania has been a near-constant target for the leftist media, with many comedians making similar jokes about her allegedly unhappy marriage.

Continue Reading


Adam Schiff Describes GOP-Requested Impeachment Witness as ‘Illegitimate’

Talk about lopsided.



The political battle surrounding the impeachment of President Donald Trump has been a dual-fronted skirmish, with the Republicans not only fighting the allegations being made by the their Democratic colleagues, but also the process by which the progressive party hopes to tarnish Trump ahead of the 2020 election.

In this latest round of procedural fisticuffs, the two parties are fighting over who, if anyone, should testify in the now-begun impeachment trial of Donald J. Trump.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Trump loyalist from Kentucky, has repeatedly asserted that he prefers the no-witness, speedier route.  On the left, folks like House Intel Committee Chairman Adam Schiff are hoping to hear from current and former White House insiders.

Of course, if the left will be allowed to call witnesses, so too will the GOP.  And on top of their list is Hunter Biden, son of former Vice President Joe Biden, and a central figure in the corruption investigation scandal at the heart of the impeachment matter.

Democrats have been deafening in their opposition to this.

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA) claims it would be an “abuse” of the Senate’s impeachment trial against President Donald Trump if Hunter Biden is called to testify as a witness.

“It would certainly be fair for the president and his team to be able to call witnesses that can provide material information on the charges,” Schiff, the House Democrats’ lead impeachment managers, said in an interview scheduled for a Tuesday release with CBS Evening News. “It would not be appropriate for the president to seek to call witnesses merely to try to perpetuate the same smear campaign that was foiled when his plot was discovered.”

Should Hunter Biden be deposed, questions regarding his business dealings within Ukraine would be a top priority for Republicans, as any perceived wrongdoing on his part would lend credence to the President’s defense that he was simply working to root out systemic corruption in the tiny European nation – a stipulation of the military aid agreement between the two allied countries. This would, in turn, neuter the accusations made by Schiff and his associates.

Continue Reading


New Poll Demonstrates Americans’ Thoughts on Impeachment Witnesses as Trial Begins

Mitch McConnell may have caught a big of a snag here.



Today’s historic Senate session is more akin to the beginning of the end than it is to a simple beginning.

That’s because, no matter what the Democrats believe, there are not enough votes to further punish President Trump for what they accuse him of doing, and we’ve known it for months.  Trump will not be removed from office, and he will tweet from on high that his coming acquittal was a “total exoneration”, and that the entire debacle merely cheapened the very idea of impeachment.

This assuredness stems from the work of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who has managed to keep his flock in his pocket throughout the process.  McConnell is pushing for a swift trial, with no witnesses and very little additional evidence.  His assertion is that the House was responsible for the fact-finding portion of the process, and that his Senate will stick to the adjudication of the case before them.

A new poll seems to indicate that Americans aren’t quite sold on this plan, however.

McConnell is calling for a condensed, two-day calendar for each side to give opening statements, at 12 hours per day. After that, senators would be able to question the Democratic prosecution and the White House defense team. Only then would witnesses be allowed, if they are approved by a majority vote of the Senate.

More than three in four Americans questioned in a Monmouth Poll released Tuesday said that Trump administration officials, as well as the president, should be invited to testify. And just over half — 51 percent — said that members of the Trump administration who refused to appear before last year’s House impeachment inquiry should be compelled to testify in the Senate trial.

At least one of those White House insiders, former national security adviser John Bolton, has already indicated that he would be willing to testify, should he be subpoenaed by the Senate.

The poll also revealed that 40% of Americans believe that President Trump himself should appear before the Senate – a spectacle that would almost certainly take this circus over the top.

Continue Reading


Jeff Flake Tries Childish Reverse Psychology on Congressional Trump Loyalists

This didn’t work in fifth grade, and it’s not going to work now.



Political discourse in America certainly isn’t what it used to be.  Gone are the stately soliloquies, discarded not long after social media’s meteoric impact on our American psyche.

We trade in quips and soundbites now more than ever.  Even what we know of the past has been distilled into a few choice words; “I am not a crook”, and “”It depends upon what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is”.

So now, as yet another impeachment breathes down our national neck, we are seeing a reduced effort by our elected officials in explaining, arguing, or otherwise demonstrating their stance on a subject.  It’s more a race to the end than it is a conversation, and it has taken us back to the fifth grade…at least in terms of tact and tactics.

Now one former Senator is attempting to use reverse psychology on the current Republican legislature.

During Monday’s broadcast of CBS’s “This Morning,” former Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) sounded off on his outspokenness against President Donald Trump ahead of the upcoming Senate impeachment trial.

Flake, who was never shy about his distrust of Trump, said it is “difficult” for Republican lawmakers to speak out against Trump because they do not want to lose their jobs.

“It’s difficult because they want to keep their jobs, and the president is extremely popular among Republican primary voters,” Flake explained. “That is a subset of a subset of a subset. They are are those who decide who represent the party and the general election.”

Flake is essentially calling the GOP chicken, saying they are too afraid of the voters to do what Flake himself believes is the right thing.  The only way to prove him wrong would be to abandon this loyal-to-Trump position, revealing just how childish Flake’s statement truly is.


Continue Reading


Trump’s High-Powered Legal Team Puts Kibosh on Senate Trial Witnesses in Scathing Statement

Mitch McConnell may get his swift impeachment trial yet.



The Senate will begin deliberating on President Trump’s impeachment on Tuesday this week, with one of the most pressing questions about the process lingering unanswered.

We still don’t know whether or not witnesses will be heard in the trial, let alone who could possibly find their derrieres on that stand.

The left would love to subpoena or otherwise convince White House insiders such as Mick Mulvaney and John Bolton to sit for depositions, but the Senate is controlled by the GOP, and Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has thus far rebuked his Democratic colleagues at every turn.

But, should the Democrats succeed, there is little doubt that the door would then be open for Republicans to call Joe and/or Hunter Biden to the stand in order to further pontificate on their business dealings in Ukraine – something that wouldn’t play too well with an already skeptical 2020 electorate.

The likelihood of such an expansive trial devolving into a circus is high, and that’s why the Trump legal team is pushing to put a kibosh on the idea of witnesses altogether.

Former federal prosecutor Robert Ray, a member of President Trump’s impeachment defense team, said on “Fox & Friends” on Monday that witnesses would not be “appropriate” at the Senate trial.

“I expect that the House managers will go forward probably for the better part of two days and then the president’s defense team will have the case for an equal amount of time to present their case, essentially by way of opening,” Ray said, laying out what he anticipates will take place during the Senate impeachment trial, which is expected to begin in earnest on Tuesday. “And then I imagine, you know, what the country is interested in finding out thereafter will be whether or not there will be witnesses in this case.

“The president’s job is to be president. That’s why he is doing what he’s doing,” Ray continued. “Our job as part of the president’s defense team is to show why and how the House managers do not have a case, and also I think in part that will reveal why we don’t think that witnesses are appropriate and that the Senate can proceed to the task ultimately in the country’s best interest and the president’s interest, that a judgment of acquittal is appropriate here.”

Mitch McConnell has already promised the President a swift and exonerating process in the Senate, and this assertion by Trump’s legal team should be enough to walk the President back from his previous inclination toward a “show trial”.

Continue Reading

Latest Articles

Become an insider

Best of the Month

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!

Send this to a friend