Recently, the Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, outraged the Left by claiming people of low IQ need people of high IQ to carry them on in life.  Mr. Johnson has thus sparked a recent burst of interest in IQ, that despite the Left's apoplexy has been encouraging in one sense.

As Robert Plomin, probably the world's leading expert on the genetics of intelligence, put it to me, there used to be a kneejerk reaction along the lines of "you can't measure intelligence," or "it couldn't possibly be genetic." This time the tone is more like: "Of course, there is some genetic influence on intelligence but . . ."

The evidence from twin studies, adoption studies and even from DNA evidence is relentlessly consistent: in children, in Western society, the heritability of IQ scores is about 50 per cent. The other half comes equally from family (shared environment) and from unshared individual experiences: luck, teachers, friends.

This numerical precision easily misleads us into thinking genes and environment struggle against each other. In fact, they are like two pillars supporting an arch: nature makes you seek out nurture, which brings out your nature. But here is where things get interesting.

The acceptance of genetic influence on intelligence leads to some surprising, even paradoxical implications, some of which turn the assumptions of both the Right and the Left upside down.  Particularly to those of Mr. Obama, who is totally clueless in this regard.

A "think tank" is an organization where scholars and specialists seek to find solutions to problems and then promote their findings. Some think tanks deal with many public policy issues, and others concentrate on one or a few, such as medical care, defense, foreign policy or economic policy.

Both the number and size of think tanks has grown exponentially in the past several decades. One reason is the growth of governments, which has created a need for organizations to feed government policymakers with ideas and information -- and, more importantly, to fulfill the need for independent research to critique the many bad ideas emanating from policymakers, politicians and the media.

For instance, a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, Peter Wallison, a former general counsel of the U.S. Treasury, has just written a book explaining, with all the supporting evidence, how a politically inspired, false narrative about the financial crisis led to the destructive Dodd-Frank Act and what corrective action is needed.

It's: Bad History, Worse Policy: How a False Narrative About the Financial Crisis Led to the Dodd-Frank Act.

How can you drink water from a gushing firehose?  Trying to assimilate and get a fix on what's going on this week will be like that.

Let's get out of the weeds, step back and do some dot-connecting.  With scandals being piled on scandals - two massive ones breaking in just the last 24 hours - do they have anything in common?

The overall theme characterizing all of this is:  fascist arrogance.  Zero's boss, the Wicked Witch of the West Wing, Valerie Jarrett, epitomized this yesterday (6/06) when she announced on HuffPo TV that there was no way Eric Holder was going to resign.  He will, she promised, "be in his position for quite a while."

Benghazi exemplifies the brazenness of Zero's lying.  Sibelius exemplifies Zero's gangsterism.  Let's focus more specifically on the remaining four:  IRS, DOJ, Verizon and PRISM.  They go beyond arrogance.  They are unmistakable evidence of the conversion of America into a fascist police state.

We also need to connect the dots between the creation of Police State America and a decision of the Supreme Court this week.  That would be...

The current debate about the debt vote is minor league compared to what will happen when the government literally cannot spend more than it is taking in. That time may be nearer than you think.

It is true that the U.S. government can always "print" money to pay its bills, but at some point, printing more money becomes self-defeating because the resulting increase in the government bond interest rate and required interest payment will spiral out of control. At that point, the government will be forced to operate on a pay-as-you-go basis, as any individual or business is forced to do when they can no longer get credit. Several California cities are now in this situation.

The U.S. government now receives about $200 billion a month in revenue and spends about $320 billion a month. Any responsible business or individual faced with a situation where receipts are only 60 percent of expenditures would make changes before their credit was cut off or, at the very minimum, have a plan for which bills to pay first -- but not the U.S. government.

It appears that President Obama is once again going to produce a budget that assumes very high levels of deficit spending can go on forever. It also appears that Senate Democrats will continue to not bother to pass a budget.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is the ultimate spoiled child, accusing the taxpayers of engaging in child abuse by not giving him an unlimited allowance.