Of the sons of Issachar, men who understood the times, with knowledge of what Israel should do, their chiefs were two hundred; and all their kinsmen were at their command — 1 Chronicles 12:32
The number of hurricanes that develop each year has more than doubled over the past century, an increase tied to global warming, according to a study released Sunday.
“We’re seeing a quite substantial increase in hurricanes over the last century, very closely related to increases in sea-surface temperatures in the tropical Atlantic Ocean,” says study author Greg Holland of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Colorado.
Working with hurricane researcher Peter Webster of Georgia Institute of Technology, Holland looked at sea records from 1855 to 2005 in a study published in the British journal Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A.
The researchers found that average hurricane numbers jumped sharply during the 20th century, from 3.5 per year in the first 30 years to 8.4 in the earliest years of the 21st century. Over that time, Atlantic Ocean surface temperatures increased .65 degrees, which experts call a significant increase.
Now the same global warming alarmist industry that said that the reason it was so cold last year was because it is really so hot are saying that the global warming they said meant more hurricanes now means that there will be less hurricanes.
It’s that old story: This is liberalism. This is your brain on liberalism:
But hey, global warming is just a fact. Every rabid, frothing-at-the-mouth liberal and every mainstream-media-propagandist and every government-payrolled-“scientist” will tell you that.
We need to gut our economy and redistribute our wealth and create a Marxist-fascist global tyrant state to solve our global warming agenda. We need to kill our babies so the global warming bogeyman doesn’t kill the earth. We need four more years of Obama so he can heal the planet and lower the level of the oceans.
Global warming and Darwinism have a lot in common. Both have routinely been endlessly adapted to explain everything, and therefore actually can’t legitimately explain anything. Both have been routinely held up as being beyond the need for proof. Both would have been thoroughly disproven if “proof” were ever actually an issue. Adherents of both Darwinism and global warming (and they are to a large extent the same people) have resorted to literally fascist tactics to ridicule, demonize and destroy scientists who have disagreed. Both are no longer scientific theories as much as they are all-encompassing worldivews, if not religions. As such, both are seized upon by the left as a guise toward even worse ideologies as they seek to take over society. The similarities are really quite remarkable.
I can find a thousand pull quotes from “journalists” who serve as the court eunuchs for the Democrat Party, but I’ll just stick with one from Bob Schieffer:
“I want to go on to what Donald Trump said after he said ‘this is out’ and everything. He said, ‘we need to look at his grades and see if he was a good enough student to get into Harvard Law School.’ That’s just code for saying he got into law school because he’s black. This is an ugly strain of racism that’s running through this whole thing. We can hope that that kinda comes to an end too.”
I mean, obviously, Schieffer is 100% correct. I mean, the left would NEVER suggest that Republican president might be stupid, right? And so for conservatives to suggest that Obama might not be the sharpest tack in the box can only be a code for “racism.” Right?
With his truthfulness under fire and his opponent gaining in the polls, Al Gore’s surrogates are openly questioning George W. Bush’s intelligence.
Since this weekend, the Gore team has been ratcheting up its efforts to paint Bush as “confused,” “bumbling,” “babbling” and “ignorant.”
“George W. Bush seems incapable of talking about the important issues in this campaign in a coherent way,” Gore spokesman Mark Fabiani said today, just one in a series of statements from the Democratic candidate’s team drawing attention to the Texas governor’s mispronunciations and misstatements on the campaign trail.
“George Bush is routinely unable to string together a coherent sentence to explain his own proposals,” another Gore spokesman, Douglas Hattaway, said in an earlier statement this weekend. “Americans will decide whether Bush’s uncertain command of the facts and his garbled language bear on his ability to be an effective leader.”
Could that argument only be applied to Bush? Let’s put that ugly little critter to bed:
“It is wonderful to be back in Oregon,” Obama said. “Over the last 15 months, we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go. Alaska and Hawaii, I was not allowed to go to even though I really wanted to visit, but my staff would not justify it.”
But how dare you acknowledge the obvious, no matter how obvious it is. It’s RACIST to recognize the obvious.
Because, you see, liberals souls swim in a deep racist ocean, and the unadulterated hypocrisy which quintessentially defines them means that you can tee off on a white man, demonize him for his stupidity, his values, his greed, etc., but you must grovel in the sackcloth and ashes of white guilt at the feet of the black man.
Well, as long as that black man is a liberal. Becuase if he’s a conservative, liberals are allowed – encouraged, even – to allow the racism that also defines them full-throttled expression:
Liberals often respond by pointing out that it isn’t just black liberals or Hispanic liberals who constantly demonize white men; white liberals demonize white men, too. So it clearly can’t be racist.
“The Jews of Poland are the smeariest of all races.” (Neue Rheinische Zeitung, April 29, 1849)
“Ramsgate is full of Jews and fleas.” (MEKOR IV, 490, August 25, 1879)
“What is the Jew’s foundation in our world? Material necessity, private advantage.
“What is the object of the Jew’s worship in this world? Usury. What is his worldly god? Money.
“Very well then; emancipation from usury and money, that is, from practical, real Judaism, would constitute the emancipation of our time.” (“A World Without Jews,” p. 37)
“What was the essential foundation of the Jewish religion? Practical needs, egotism.” (Ibid, p. 40)
“Money is the zealous one God of Israel, beside which no other God may stand. Money degrades all the gods of mankind and turns them into commodities. Money is the universal and self-constituted value set upon all things. It has therefore robbed the whole world, of both nature and man, of its original value. Money is the essence of man’s life and work, which have become alienated from him. This alien monster rules him and he worships it.
“The God of the Jews has become secularized and is now a worldly God. The bill of exchange is the Jew’s real God. His God is the illusory bill of exchange.” (“A World Without Jews,” p. 41)
And what about the most rabid anti-Semite of all time?
Saliva samples taken from 39 relatives of the Nazi leader show he may have had biological links to the “subhuman” races that he tried to exterminate during the Holocaust.
Jean-Paul Mulders, a Belgian journalist, and Marc Vermeeren, a historian, tracked down the Fuhrer’s relatives, including an Austrian farmer who was his cousin, earlier this year.
A chromosome called Haplogroup E1b1b1 which showed up in their samples is rare in Western Europe and is most commonly found in the Berbers of Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia, as well as among Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews.
“One can from this postulate that Hitler was related to people whom he despised,” Mr Mulders wrote in the Belgian magazine, Knack.
Can you be of a certain race and yet actively despise that race? I think we’ve established that you most certainly can, if you’re vile enough.
And it doesn’t surprise me at all that rabid leftwing socialists like Marx and Hitler would be the models for radical leftwing socialists right here and right now in America.
What did Frederick Douglass, one of the great moral intellectuals of any race, have to say about what is THE policy of the Democrat Party back when “stupid” white men were literally dying by the hundreds of thousands to free the slaves?
Frederick Douglass ridiculed the idea of racial quotas, as suggested by Martin Delany, as “absurd as a matter of practice,” noting that it implied blacks “should constitute one-eighth of the poets, statesmen, scholars, authors and philosophers.” Douglass emphasized that “natural equality is a very different thing from practical equality; and…though men may be potentially equal, circumstances may for a time cause the most striking inequalities.” On another occasion, in opposing “special efforts” for the black freedmen, Douglass argued that they “might ‘serve to keep up very prejudices, which it is so desirable to banish’ by promoting an image of blacks as privileged wards of the state.”
Liberals are people who project and mirror their own hate. And they reduce human beings to the absolute lowest common denominator, rather than try to lift people up and help them become better. Bottom line.
Racism and race-baiting isn’t the last resort of the left; it is their first knee-jerk response. And that is because THEY are the racists. Racism defines them; it is the essence of their beings. Whereas Martin Luther King dreamed of a society in which his “four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” But liberals angrily refuse to do that, and demand that color is everything, and that everything must be viewed through the lenses of race and racism.
I couldn’t be more disgusted with the vileness that characterizes the left. I have as much right to call Barack Obama a stupid man as any liberal had to call George Bush a stupid man. And you can easily identify as a racist the person who shouts that I don’t have that right.
And I don’t give a flying fig what color your skin is, and what color the skin of the person you’re defending or denouncing is. If you play that game, you are a racist. And a nasty hypocrite racist at that.
Then I heard what sounded like a voice among the four living creatures, saying, “A quart of wheat for a day’s wages, and three quarts of barley for a day’s wages, and do not damage the oil and the wine!” (Revelation 6:6).
Messiah Obama wisely understands that we need sky high energy prices to force us to abandon lifestyles that are bad for the world. That way he can keep the promise he made to the earth: “this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.” The earth is much bigger than your little children, so Obama can break his competing promises to you and your family. In fact, your evil if you want him to keep his promises that would prevent him from his messianic duties of healing the whole world.
A gallon of gas was $1.79 when Obama took over from that terrible George Bush. Unfortunately, it has gone up about 110% under Obama, to $3.88 this week. Damn that Bush devil! Can you believe the way he actually wanted to keep the cost of our energy low, so people could do awful stuff like drive to work? The half of us who sponge off the other half don’t need work, so why should the half we sponge off of?
We already voted for the “hope and change” of $9 a gallon gas in the wonderful fundamentally transformative election of 2008. And how dare people get angry about that now!!!
Because Obama in his blessed wisdom knows that most Americans are far, far too stupid to understand anything that happens gradually, such as gas rising to the $8 a gallon levels like they are in Europe. And it doesn’t really matter how much the American people suffer. Not compared to healing earth and lowering the seas like Moses. Obama will be better than Moses; he’ll make the level of the whole ocean change!!!!
And food? So what if the price of food is going through the roof? Michelle Obama will tell you that you’re too fat anyway. You need to lose a whole lot of weight, and her husband’s policies will give you the help you need. You shouldn’t be allowed to eat half as much food as you eat, anyway. They don’t get to eat in North Korea, and it’s a socialist worker’s Utopia. So why should it be any different in the worker’s Utopia your Dear Leader is trying to create for you here? North Koreans are 5.3 inches (13.5 cm) shorter and 30 pounds (13.5 kg) lighter than those fat overfed capitalist South Korean bastards. And American kids should be as short and gaunt as their fellow socialist travellers.
I sure hope I’m not putting too much crap in the sandwich I’m feeding you. Because excrement is a precious commodity in North Korea. And it should be just as precious here.
But just in case you think the hope and change of Obama’s fundamental transformation is already more than you can bear, it gets even better. The cost of having a roof over your head is skyrocketing, too. Which might help you not worry so much about the price of food and the price of fuel.
Record numbers of Americans are paying more than half of their pretax income for rental housing, according to a new study.
The study, by the Harvard University Joint Center for Housing Studies, found that the recession’s toll on incomes had increased more families’ housing-cost burdens. Almost 26% of renters spend more than half of their income on rent and utilities. Another 26.2% spend 30% to 50% of their incomes.
The study’s findings are similar to the findings of the Center for Housing Policy, which found that working families, both renters and homeowners, were spending a larger proportion of their income on housing. [..]
Lower-income renters have historically struggled to find affordable housing and have paid a disproportionate share of their income in rent. But, according to the study, that problem is moving up the income ladder with more lower-middle-income renters and middle-income renters paying 30% to 50% of their incomes for rent and utilities. […]
The study offers the latest in a series of grim statistics about the scarcity of rental housing, especially for the working poor. The supply has not kept up with demand in part because of a shortage of apartments, a key source of new rentals. Developers cut back on such projects when the economy deteriorated in 2009, which drove down vacancies and boosted rents. Analysts say they expect rents to keep climbing as developers try to ramp up new projects and catch up with demand.
In many areas, the demand is driven by families who lost their homes to foreclosure during the housing bust and ended up searching for rentals. Meanwhile, as the job market recovers, more newly employed young adults appear to be seeking their own apartments instead of living with their parents, putting even more upward pressure on rental rates, according to one of the study’s researchers.
But don’t worry. Pretty soon, thanks to Obama’s financial policies, you’ll have cash. Lots and lots of cash. Wheelbarrows full of it, in fact.
“I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal… This was the moment — this was the time — when we came together to remake this great nation …”
– hasn’t seemed to work out very well in the real world. I mean who talks like that but a fascist demagogue promising a false Utopia, anyway? Not that most liberals have any clue whatsoever about the real world, mind you.
The evidence is crystal clear that Obama is a fascist and a demagogue. But the mainstream media is every bit as unlikely to tell the truth about Obama as Joseph Goebbels’ Ministry of Propaganda was likely to tell the truth about their Fuhrer.
The New York Times once said – as part of the irrational fascistic hype surrounding Obama – that:
WASHINGTON — At the core of Senator Barack Obama’s presidential campaign is a promise that he can transcend the starkly red-and-blue politics of the last 15 years, end the partisan and ideological wars and build a new governing majority.
Did Obama ever once come close to actually fulfilling that “core presidential promise”???
President Barack Obama has turned fearmongering into an art form. He has repeatedly raised the specter of another Great Depression. First, he did so to win votes in the November election. He has done so again recently to sway congressional votes for his stimulus package
When [Republican Rep. Eric] Cantor tried to justify his own position, Obama responded: “Elections have consequences, and at the end of the day, I won.”
Were those really the words that would “transcend the starkly red-and-blue politics of the last 15 years”??? In taking that stand, was there actually any chance whatsoever that Obama would “end the partisan and ideological wars”??? Is anyone frankly so morally and intellectually stupid to see these tactics as they way to “build a new governing majority”???
And of course, shortly after the American people rejected Obama in the largest shallacking in modern American history and voted against the Democrat Party in droves, Nancy Pelosi began to further degenerate into fascism (where elections shouldn’t matter unless the fascists win them), saying: “elections shouldn’t matter as much as they do.”
I think of the fact that Hitler never won more than 37% of the vote. But the moment he seized power, “elections didn’t matter as much as they should have.”
As I said, Obama is a fascist bully and a cynical demagogue. And yet the mainstream media has the unmitigated chutzpah to continue to insanely depict this cynical, lying, hypocrite demagogue as an inspirational figure.
The American people and the mushroom have something in common: both are kept in the dark and fed manure.
So you can understand why the American people – for all the information available to them – are so terribly ignorant about just what the hell is going on in our political system.
But as misinformed and lied-to as Americans are when it comes to the sea of lies they are presented with as “news,” they are still aware that fewer of them have jobs, fewer of them have homes, their food cost more, their fuel cost more and that the quality of their lives are rapidly slipping away under the policies of a failed president and his failed party.
America’s Best Days Those Confident That America’s Best Days Lie Ahead Down to 31%
Monday, April 25, 2011
Voter confidence that the nation’s best days are still to come has fallen to its lowest level ever.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of Likely Voters shows that just 31% believe America’s best days are in the future. That’s down three points from last month and is the lowest result found in polling since late 2006.
Fifty-three percent (53%) believe America’s best days are in the past, also the highest measurement in over four years. Sixteen percent (16%) are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
Separate polling finds that only 22% of Likely Voters believe the United States is now heading in the right direction. That ties the lowest level found during Barack Obama’s presidency.
While majorities of Republicans (68%) and voters not affiliated with either major political party (52%) believe America’s best days are in the past, a plurality of Democrats (45%) thinks its best days still lie ahead.
Fifty-eight percent (58%) of white voters believe America’s best days have come and gone, but the same number of black voters (58%) feel the opposite is true.
[…]
And of course, it is true: America’s days truly ARE behind us as long as Barack Hussein Obama and as long as Democrats are able to continue to lead. Either Democrats will go down, or America will go down.
But, liberals say, it was BUSH who made the economy fail. Two things: 1) how many years should that line of garbage continue to succeed? And 2) it was never true to begin with (also see here).
Do you know that Democrats had total control of both the House and the Senate from 2006 until 2010???
George Bush tried SEVENTEEN TIMES to warn Congress that unless we got control of the out-of-control Democrat-controlled Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the out-of-control housing and housing mortgage market that it was poisoning with piles of bad debt, our economy would go under. The problem had festered because Bush had reappointed the first black Fannie Mae CEO because of political correctness. Franklin Raines was a failure and a corrupt fraud who disguised massive debt. Further, fearing the same political correctness, Republicans had allowed themselves to be repeatedly stymied in their attempts to reform the Government Sponsored Enterprises Fannie and Freddie as Democrats screamd “racism.” John McCain was if anything even more clear in 2006 when there was still time to fix the developing crisis. McCain wrote (in 2006):
Congress chartered Fannie and Freddie to provide access to home financing by maintaining liquidity in the secondary mortgage market. Today, almost half of all mortgages in the U.S. are owned or guaranteed by these GSEs. They are mammoth financial institutions with almost $1.5 Trillion of debt outstanding between them. With the fiscal challenges facing us today (deficits, entitlements, pensions and flood insurance), Congress must ask itself who would actually pay this debt if Fannie or Freddie could not?
McCain asked, “Who would actually pay this massive debt for these incredibly risky liberal policies if Fannie or Freddie could not?’ And we now have the answer to that question, don’t we???
In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980′s.
”From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,” said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ”If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.”
”These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ”The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”
REP. BARNEY FRANK, D-MASS.: “I think this is a case where Fannie and Freddie are fundamentally sound, that they are not in danger of going under. They’re not the best investments these days from the long-term standpoint going back. I think they are in good shape going forward.
They’re in a housing market. I do think their prospects going forward are very solid.”
John McCain correctly predicted a disaster. Barney Frank was still spouting outrageous lies just one month before the bottom fell out of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and then caused the bottom to fall out of the entire economy. Republicans were right and Democrats were disasterously wrong. And the American people responded by electing Democrats and purging Republicans. Because we were lied to, and because we have become a bad people who believe lies.
Democrats blocked every single move by both the Republicans and by George Bush. They actually threatened filibusters to prevent Bush from fixing the broken system that failed and it was DEMOCRATS who took our economy down the drain.
Only a nation of fools would have voted for this inexperienced Marxist fool to run our nation. But a nation of fools believed the worst media propaganda campaign since Joseph Goebbels plied his trade.
Even fools feel pain when they keep getting burned, though. And Obama is burning America alive.
BEIJING: The Chinese economy will surpass that of the US by 2016, the International Monetary Fund ( IMF )) has predicted.According to the IMF’s forecast, based on “purchasing power parities”, China’s gross domestic product (GDP) will rise from $11.2 trillion in 2011 to $19 trillion in 2016, while the American economy will increase from $15.2 trillion to $18.8 trillion.
China’s share of the global economy will ascend from 14 percent to 18 percent, while the US’ share will descend to 17.7 percent, China Daily reported.
The Economist had predicted in December 2010 that China would overtake the US in terms of nominal GDP in 2019.
At the same time all of the other growing disasters is taking place, we have a crisis in the price of oil. And Obama has done nothing but exacerbate that crisis with energy policies that are even more destructive than Jimmy Carter’s.
Do you feel your nation growing smaller and smaller and weaker and weaker? That is the hope and change you voted for.
In the time that Obama has been president, we’ve gone from predicting China would overtake us by 2030, to 2019, to just five years away. And mark my words, it will be moved up yet again, before they overtake Obama’s ignorant stupidity even faster than that.
Under Obama, and due to his immoral and criminally reckless policies, we are spending like fools and at the same time insanely inflating our money supply (under the euphamism of “qantitative easing” or QE2. And here are the results:
The U.S. dollar’s downward slide is accelerating as low interest rates, inflation concerns and the massive federal budget deficit undermine the currency.
With no relief in sight for the dollar on any of those fronts, the downward pressure on the dollar is widely expected to continue.
The dollar fell nearly 1% against a broad basket of currencies this week, following a drop of similar size last week. The ICE U.S. Dollar Index closed at its lowest level since August 2008, before the financial crisis intensified.
“The dollar just hasn’t had anything positive going for it,” said Alessio de Longis, who oversees the Oppenheimer Currency Opportunities Fund.
The United States of America is dangerously close to complete collapse. One wrong move, one piece of bad news, just one thing, could send us into a collapse that will be impossible to stop.
And we are either being led by a total fool, or even worse, we are being led by a man who is actively plotting to collapse America to impose a radical leftwing ideology, and who doesn’t care one iota more about the American people than Adolf Hitler cared about the German people.
I’m sure you have probably picked up on my angry tone. I am angry; I’m beyond angry. Why? Because I see the beast foretold by the book of Daniel and the book of Revelation coming. I see the collapse coming, and the Antichrist riding in on his white horse to save the day. And I see that the same liberals, the same progressives, the same Democrats who caused this collapse will be the ones to welcome this coming world dictator. And it will be these same Democrats who call for the American people to take his mark on their hands or on their foreheads so that they can join the rest of the world and buy and sell.
Barack Obama is a false messiah. The Democrat Partyis the party of hell. And they are leading us to hell on earth right now. Today.
And we are voting for hell.
You mark my words. It won’t be long now. The beast is coming. And if you vote Democrat, you have already voted for him by paving the way for his soon-arrival.
University leftist ideologue doctors finally are starting to get their comeupance for their role in perpetuating the fraud known as “liberal protest.”
To whatever extent medical doctors are the noblest of our citizens, this simply goes to provide proof positive that even the most noble liberals are liars and frauds:
UW Health doctors who wrote sick notes for protesters at the Capitol in February face penalties up to a loss of pay and leadership positions, the UW School of Medicine and Public Health said Tuesday.
The medical school reviewed 22 UW Health doctors said to have been involved in writing medical excuses for protesters attending rallies over Gov. Scott Walker’s budget proposals, according to a medical school statement.
“Several” of the doctors were found not to have participated, and among those who were involved “the nature and extent of involvement varied widely,” the statement said.
“Personnel action will be based on the specific nature of the offense and the level of the physician’s involvement,” the statement said. “The consequences range from written reprimand to loss of pay and leadership position.”
The statement didn’t identify the doctors, citing public employee records laws, and said “the school will not comment on individual cases.”
Lisa Brunette, UW Health spokeswoman, wouldn’t say how many doctors were found to be involved.
The Wisconsin Department of Regulation and Licensing and the Medical Examining Board are investigating eight people who allegedly wrote notes, the agencies said last week.
The Wisconsin Medical Society criticized the doctors’ actions, saying they threatened the public’s trust in the medical profession.
The Madison School District told teachers who turned in fraudulent sick notes to rescind them by last month or face discipline. The district received more than 1,000 notes from teachers during the protests.
Dr. Lou Sanner, a family medicine physician at UW Health, told the Associated Press he wrote hundreds of medical excuses from work for protesters because they were suffering from stress.
“Some people think it’s a nod-and-wink thing, but it’s not,” he said.
These doctors should not only lose some pay or position; they should be fired, and then the state government should sue them for the total amount of wages that the state government falsely paid out under fraudulent pretenses for “sick” teachers and other state workers who were not in fact really sick. How many state employees actually got paid for rioting thanks to these fraud quacks???
Of course, liberals ARE sick, in the sense that they are depraved, and that liberalism itself is a serious mental illness. But you know what I mean.
This vile crap from doctors who are supposed to put the accurate and honest treatment of patients ahead of rabid political ideologies is just one example that liberals are utterly vile and despicable liars and frauds when contrasted to the Tea Party protestors who are the superiors to liberals in every way they possibly could BE superior.
It’s just worth remembering how truly contemptible even the “best” of liberals are.
But these government university doctors don’t give a damn about truth, or about the patients who will die deaths of medical neglect if the liberalism they worship is allowed to take over.
“… expose white entitlement. And supremacy, wherever it raises its head. I said before, I really don’t want ot make this political, because you know I’m really very unpolitical.
When Hillary was crying, and people said that was put on, I really don’t believe it was put on. I really believe that she just always thought, ‘this is mine. I’m Bill’s wife. I’m white, and this is mine. I just gotta get up and step into the plate.’
Then out of nowhere, ‘I’m Barack Obama!’
Imitating Hillary’s response, screaming at the top of his lungs again, he continues, ‘Ah, damn! Where did you come from? I’m white! I’m entitled! There’s a black man stealing my show!’
(mocks crying)
She wasn’t the only one crying, there was a whole lot of white people crying!”
And then we had Reverend James Meeks:
Described in a 2004 Chicago Sun Times article as someone Barack Obama regularly seeks out for “spiritual counsel”, James Meeks, who will serve as an Obama delegate at the 2008 Democratic convention in Denver, is a long-time political ally to the democratic frontrunner.
When Obama ran for the U.S. Senate in 2003, he frequently campaigned at Salem Baptist Church while Rev. Meeks appeared in television ads supporting the Illinois senator’s campaign…
Since that time, not only has Meeks himself served on Obama’s exploratory committee for the presidency and been listed on the Obama’s campaign website as one of the senator’s ‘influential black supporters’, but his church choir was called on to raise their voices in praise at a rally the night Obama announced his run for the White House back in 2007.
Interestingly, the Chicago Sun Times has also reported that both Meeks and Obama share a history of substantial campaign contributions from indicted real estate magnate Tony Rezko.
[JAMES MEEKS, REVEREND] “We don’t have slave masters. We got mayors. But they still the same white people who are presiding over systems where black people are not able, or to be educated. You got some preachers that are house niggers. You got some elected officials that are house niggers. And rather than them trying to break this up, they gonna fight you to protect this white man.”
This man appeared in Obama campaign commercials. He served on Obama campaign committees. Obama campaigned at his church. Obama sought him out for “spiritual counsel” and political support.
The United States of America was established as a white society, founded upon the genocide of another race and then the enslavement of yet another. […]
What has not changed is the systematic and pervasive character of racism in the United States and the condition of life for the majority of African Americans. In fact, those conditions have gotten worse.
James Parker at WRNO-FM in New Orleans did some digging yesterday about Shiloh Baptist’s pastor, Dr. Wallace Charles Smith. Not only did he find that Smith loves to preach on race, but he noticed Smith even infused race into yesterday’s Easter sermon:
One has to dig into the blog notes from various reporters to piece together the content from the sermon. Aside from the First Couple being honored guests, Pastor Wallace Charles Smith also announces that his 4 week old grandson is attending church for the first time, and a pool reporter noted an interesting perspective on the infant:
“[Pastor Smith] talked about how his baby grandson’s gurgling is actually “talking” because he is saying ‘I am here … they tried to write me off as 3/5 a person in the Constitution, but I am here right now … and is saying I am not going to let anybody from stopping me from being what God wants me to be.’”
Parker asks the obvious questions:
The pastor hears American institutional racism in a baby’s gurgle? Do most people with infants hear Constitutional bigotry in their baby’s gibberish? Did any mention of the 3/5 clause or racism in general make it into the Easter service you attended? Is this pastor’s amazing leap from a baby bark to white oppression another coincidence to add to the list, or has he established a pattern of race baiting and white bashing in the past?
And Parker posts a sermon posted on Youtube to document that this was (to paraphrase liberally biased PBS), a “seriously racist, racist preacher” that Obama should have known to avoid like a particularly contagious leper.
Let me begin with his “three-fifths” screed. It is a lie that this was intended as a racist statement or to promote racism. The simple fact of the matter was that this was inserted into the Constitution to prevent the United States from having slavery forever, and if men like Wallace Charles Smith are in any way glad that they are not STILL slaves today, they should thank God that our founding fathers came up with that “three-fifths” compromise.
Take a moment to do something that no pseudo-liberal intellectual will never do: learn history. The “three-fifths” compromise was intended to LIMIT the political power of slave states. Slave-owning states wanted their slaves FULLY counted in order to maximize their political clout and so protect themselves from ever having slavery banned. States that did NOT want slavery at ALL wanted to not count slaves at ALL. The “three-fifths” thing had everything to do with representation and the number of racist pro-slavery congressional representatives a pro-slavery state could get on the basis of its slave population, and nothing whatsoever to do with the ontology of black peole as “human beings.”
If you want to argue that it was about ontolological status, then you are in the rather miserable position of saying that people who wanted blacks to be slaves are the good guys, and that people who wanted to abolish slavery are the bad guys. It turns you into a moral idiot of the worst possible stripe.
But that is precisely the point: Wallace Charles Smith, Reverend Pfleger, Jeremiah Wright, Jim Wallace, James Meeks, and most definitely Barack Obama who keeps intentionally surrounding himself with these vile people are seething racists who hate and despise America and everything this nation stands for.
It is an amazing thing to have a president who hates me personally on account of my race, and who hates the nation that he was elected to lead and to represent. But that is precisely what we have in Barack Obama. That much ought to be blatantly obvious by now.
Finally, although what is above ought to be proof positive enough, Barack Obama is very definitely no Christian on any legitimate understanding of Christianity. Allow me to simply quote myself from yesterday:
in 1995, Obama said, “my individual salvation is not going to come about without a collective salvation for the country…” and again in May of 2008, “our individual salvation depends of collective salvation.”
What does Jesus say? Consider Matthew 16:24-25:
Then Jesus said to His disciples, “If any one (individual) wishes to come after Me, he (individual) must deny himself (individual), and take up his (individual) cross and follow Me. For whoever wishes to save his (individual) life will lose it; but whoever loses his (individual) life for My sake will find it.
Consider 2 Corinthians 5:10 for the thoughts of St. Paul:
For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one (individual) may be recompensed for his (individual) deeds in the body, according to what he (individual) has done, whether good or bad.
And again, St. Paul in Romans 14:12:
So then each one of us (individual) will give an account of himself (individual) to God.
Or consider Galatians 2:20:
“I (individual) have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I (individual) who live, but Christ lives in me (individual); and the life which I (individual) now live in the flesh I (individual) live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me (individual), and delibered Himself up for me (individual).”
And, again, in the words of Jesus as recorded in Revelation 3:20:
“Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If any one (individual) hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him (individual) and will dine with him (individual), and he (individual) with Me.”
Barack Obama is most certainly not a Christian to so miserably misunderstand that we are EACH INDIVIDUALLY saved by our PERSONAL faith in Jesus Christ through what He did for us on the cross. This is not some esoteric “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?” sort of question; it is a core fundamental of the Christian faith.
We are in God damn America. And as bad as things are now, they will continue to get worse and worse until Obama is finally no longer able to hurt America with his ruinous worldview and the ruinous policies that derive from that worldview.
File this one under the category “Stupid liberal tricks.”
It is pulled out all the time, because liberals are people who have no possibility of debating on the level of ideas, and can therefore only demonize and race-bait.
But here we go again, another liberal ideologue who assumes that just because she can’t get over her own personal issues of racism, neither can her opponents whom she projects upon:
ABC devoted its entire “This Week” on Easter Sunday to “God and Government,” and not surprisingly the question of President Obama’s faith prominently entered the discussion.
When it did, Cokie Roberts said, “The bad part about this is that it’s acceptable to say that he’s a Muslim because the same people won’t say, ‘I don’t like him cause he’s black'” (video follows with transcript and commentary):
STEVE ROBERTS: The word Muslim is a code word, and it’s a metaphor. It’s a metaphor for racism. It’s a metaphor for he’s different from us, he’s not like us, he’s got this funny name, which he says all the time. And it is – and he’s an alien on some level. But this goes back to our earlier discussion, that there has always been a strain of America that wants to exclude the other. Exclude someone who’s different…
(CROSSTALK)
COKIE ROBERTS: But – but – but the bad part about this…
(CROSSTALK)
ROBERTS, S.: But in the long run, the forces of…
(CROSSTALK)
ROBERTS, C.: Right. But – but…
(CROSSTALK)
RICHARD LAND, SOUTHERN BAPTIST CONVENTION: Forty seven percent of white people voted for him.
Actually, it’s 43 percent, but still a spectacular point by Land that most on the panel missed and most in the country ignore. They also forget that shortly after his inauguration, Obama’s favorability rating was around 75 percent. That includes a lot of white people as well.
What the media just can’t get their hands around is that disapproval of Obama today isn’t because he’s black – it’s because of his policies. Or do the 70 percent of the country that now believe the nation is on the wrong track also feel this way because the President is black?
ROBERTS, C.: But – but the bad part about this is that he – that – that it’s acceptable to say that he’s a Muslim…
EBOO PATEL, INTERFAITH YOUTH CORE: That’s right.
ROBERTS, C.: …because the same people won’t – won’t say, “I don’t like him cause he’s black.” So it’s – it’s – and – and the fact that it’s acceptable to dislike him because he’s a Muslim is the problem that you were talking about.
Calling Americans racist, despite there being an African-American in the White House, is acceptable on Easter Sunday.
I doubt I’m the only one that felt this was highly inappropriate on such a holy day.
So why is it that I think you’re a total disgrace, Cokie? I mean, you’re white and everything. Why is it, based on your racist theories, that I think that an obviously quite-caucasian-person like you is utterly morally depraved???
I would rather appreciate it if liberals would search through my blog for liberals like Jimmy Carter, or Nancy Pelosi, or Barbara Boxer, or Harry Reid, or Alan Grayson. And maybe you can do a pull-quote where I say, “I can’t agree with __________’s politics, but he/she happens to be white, so I like him/her.”
I could care less about Obama’s melatonin level. It’s the color of his ideology I can’t stand. Same as with you, Ms. Roberts.
Cokie Roberts and this Steve Roberts are racists. They are racial demagogues. They falsely use the issue of race to attack their opponents. They are among the very worst human beings in America. Because if you don’t agree with them in their politics, they will stoop to the lowest and most loathsome tactics to paint you in the most hateful way they know how.
I like Clarence Thomas, when I know you can’t stand him, Cokie. Same goes for tremendous (and black) men like Herman Cain and Allen West. You can’t stand these black men. And they are actually considerably “blacker” than Barack Obama. And going by your own “logic,” I can only conclude that it must be because you are a racist.
You are poisonous, vile people. Frankly, it never would have even OCCURRED to me to think that disliking a politician from the “other party” was due to racism, but you racist bigoted people just keep forcing me to apply your own twisted and perverted standards back at you.
It is crap like this that explains why I don’t bother to watch ABC unless they have something like the NBA playoffs on (which somehow I love to watch even though there seem to be an awful lot of black people). I mean, how much is it worth to hear Cokie Roberts look into my mind from the other side of the television camera and attempt to diagnose my mental states? You know, when I know that a) she hates me; and b) that she is a fundamentally dishonest and venemous person??? You know, even in spite of the fact that she’s white and all.
I like black people just fine, Cokie. It’s people who think and speak like you I can’t stand. And I don’t care what color your skin happens to be.
For the record, I have never said Oama is a Muslim. If anything, I think Barack Obama’s god is Barack Obama.
in 1995, Obama said, “my individual salvation is not going to come about without a collective salvation for the country…” and again in May of 2008, “our individual salvation depends of collective salvation.”
What does Jesus say? Consider Matthew 16:24-25:
Then Jesus said to His disciples, “If any one (individual) wishes to come after Me, he (individual) must deny himself (individual), and take up his (individual) cross and follow Me. For whoever wishes to save his (individual) life will lose it; but whoever loses his (individual) life for My sake will find it.
Consider 2 Corinthians 5:10 for the thoughts of St. Paul:
For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one (individual) may be recompensed for his (individual) deeds in the body, according to what he (individual) has done, whether good or bad.
And again, St. Paul in Romans 14:12:
So then each one of us (individual) will give an account of himself (individual) to God.
Or consider Galatians 2:20:
“I (individual) have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I (individual) who live, but Christ lives in me (individual); and the life which I (individual) now live in the flesh I (individual) live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me (individual), and delibered Himself up for me (individual).”
And, again, in the words of Jesus as recorded in Revelation 3:20:
“Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If any one (individual) hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him (individual) and will dine with him (individual), and he (individual) with Me.”
Barack Obama is most certainly not a Christian to so miserably misunderstand that we are EACH INDIVIDUALLY saved by our PERSONAL faith in Jesus Christ through what He did for us on the cross. This is not some esoteric “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?” sort of question; it is a core fundamental of the Christian faith.
The “Muslim” thing is a red herring. To the extent that some “conservative” is wrong to call Obama a “Muslim,” liberals are every bit as factually incorrect to call Obama a “Christian.”
OBAMA: And what was the first thing the McCain?s campaign went out and did? They said, look, these liberal blogs that support Obama are out there attacking Governor Palin.
Let’s not play games. What I was suggesting — you’re absolutely right that John McCain has not talked about my Muslim faith. And you’re absolutely right that that has not come–
STEPHANOPOULOS: Christian faith.
OBAMA: — my Christian faith.
You see, I’ve made a lot of gaffes in my day. But I have never even once in my entire life inadvertainly called myself a Muslim. That doesn’t necessarily mean that he’s a Muslim, but it definitely at least means that he doesn’t hold his “Christian faith” very firmly.
Just this past Sunday (which was Easter for you liberals who don’t give a damn about the day we celebrate the bodily Resurrection of Christ from the dead), Obama amazingly refused to give an Easter statement. By contrast, Obama has released plenty of statements honoring Muslim holy days:
Barack Obama released statements for the Muslims holidays of Ramadan, Eid-ul-Fitr, the Hajj, and Eid-ul-Adha last year. Just last month he released a statement for the Persian Nowruz holiday
So it’s like when it comes to being accused of being a Muslim, Obama – at the very least – puts a great big giant “PLEASE KICK ME!” sign on his own pants, and then cries in outrage and shock every time somebody dares to kick him in the pants. And then there’s all these mainstream media propagandists just following Obama around hoping that somebody kicks him in the pants so they can cry foul.
In the end, I never cease to be shocked at just how unrelentingly biased and hostile these “objective” journalists are to conservatives. And frakly, if so-called “journalists” like Cokie Roberts simply had the integrity to come out and say, “I am a rabid leftwing ideologue, and I’d like to tell you what I think,” they would be far more interesting.
There’s just one problem with Obama’s demagoguery.
If you think the rich are evil and greedy, then why do you not think that if they get their taxes raised, they won’t just pass those taxes onto you in the form of higher prices?
Here’s the thing about taxes on the rich: all the rich would have to pay them, and all the rich would have their taxes increased by the same percentage, and they would all have their taxes increased at the same time.
If you raise the taxes of the rich (who own and run all the businesses), you wouldn’t get everyone raising their prices right away, nor would they all raise their prices by the same amount. But every single owner and chief executive is going to face the same increase of cost in doing business. And over time – if there is anything in the universe called “equilibrium” – they will raise their prices for their products to compensate for that higher cost of doing business.
And given that the 2nd law of thermodynamics – which is ALL ABOUT a system’s tendency to reach equilibrium – is one of the best attested principles of science, I would argue that voting to raise taxes on the people who run the businesses is pretty much a 100% guarantee that you will be raising taxes on yourself via higher prices.
The only businesses that will suffer, and the only “rich people” who will lose their “riches,” will be the smaller small businesses who don’t have the resources to last through the transition period which will ultimately end with the customers paying the higher prices and thus the higher taxes. Businesses will pass their higher taxes onto the consumers who buy their products.
Think of automotive tires. Let’s say you increase the taxes of every single tire producer and dealer by 10%. Do you seriously not think that, over time, you won’t end up paying the lion’s share of that 10% increase in higher prices for tires? And it frankly doesn’t matter what product or service we’re talking about. If you want the lowest prices, keep taxes down and the government off the backs of the producers, distributors and sellers, and allow them to have a fair fight with each other to compete for your business.
In 1980, the top 1 percent of earners paid 19 percent of income taxes, and the bottom half of earners paid 7.1 percent. A decade later, with a lower maximum rate, the top 1 percent paid 25 percent of taxes, while the bottom earners paid just 5.8 percent. By 2008, top earners paid 38 percent of taxes, the bottom half 2.7 percent.
The rich are now paying more than they would have paid, not less, after the Bush investment tax cuts. For example, the Treasury’s estimate was that the top 1 percent of earners would pay 31 percent of taxes if the Bush cuts did not go into effect; with the cuts, they actually paid 37 percent. Similarly, the share of the top 10 percent of earners was estimated at 63 percent without the cuts; they actually paid 68 percent.
Which is to say that if I really hated people who weren’t rich, I would show my hate by raising the tax rates of the rich.
It’s a Charlie Brown thing. As long as that bald fool keeps thinking he’s going to kick the football with Lucy holding it, he’s going to keep ending up flat on his back in pain.
In a war, in a game of strategy, or in many sports, the very best and most ruthless way to win is to make your opponent think that if he does X he will gain an advantage. But the moment he does X, you seize the advantage and destroy him. And as long as the poorer classes keep falling for this Marxist demagogic class warfare trick, they’re going to keep screwing themselves.
There are a number of reasons for why keeping low tax rates for the rich results in their paying a higher percentage of taxes paid. Most basically, if you allow the rich to keep more of their profits, they will invest more and take more risks. And the result is more opportunity and more jobs for all. If you demagogue the rich and try to seize more of their profits, they will shelter their money and act in ways that hurt the overall economy and most definitely hurt the poor.
That is the short of a much longer article I wrote entitled, “Tax Cuts Increase Revenues; They Have ALWAYS Increased Revenues.” And there’s only about a hundred years worth of data (which you will see in the article) that proves the basic statement of that article is true.
So, if you allow Barack Obama to be your Lucy and trick you into trying to kick the rich, all you’re going to end up doing is hurting yourself and hurting the economy. You’re going to end up flat on your back just like Charlie Brown, and Obama as Lucy will keep playing the same trick on you over and over again.
I rather routinely call Obama the F-word. No, not that F-word (although the ability to resist doing so is dwindling); the other F-word: Fascist. Barack Obama is a fascist.
I have had quite a few liberals fixate on this word, and – while ignoring the rest of my arguments – proceed to give me a lecture about how my extremism undermines my positions and arguments (which they don’t bother to consider).
I’d like to respond to that. At length.
There are many who would argue that if a politician is not as rabid as Adolf Hitler, that one cannot use this label of “fascist” – at least not unless the target is a Republican (see below). Barack Obama is not a “dictator,” these would argue. He hasn’t launched the world into global war and he hasn’t murdered 6 million Jews (at least, he hasn’t yet). So he can’t be a “fascist.” This argument fails on two parts. First of all, by such a metric, Benito Mussolini wouldn’t be a “fascist” either (except for the “dictator” part). One of the reasons it is hard to have an easy definition of “fascist” is because fascism has taken a different character in every country and culture in which it has been embraced. Hitler is not the norm or standard of fascism; he is merely the most extreme example of its virulence and danger. Secondly, even if we were to take a Hitler as our example, let us realize that Adolf Hitler was a very cunning politician who managed to gain power in a Germany that was THE most sophisticated, educated and scientific nation and culture of its day. What I am asserting is that if an Adolf Hitler were to run for the presidency of the United States in 2012, he would run a platform that we could very easily label as “hope and change,” he would demagogue his adversaries as being the cause for the nation’s plight, he would lie both cynically and outrageously to win votes and he would then proceed to push the country as far as he possibly could toward his agenda. And so here, from the outset, I am claiming that the suggestion that either Barack Obama or anyone else does not qualify as a “fascist” simply because he or she can’t be directly compared to Adolf Hitler is nothing but a straw man.
The question thus becomes, what is fascism, and then it is what is Obama steering us toward?
THE WORD “fascism” is used broadly on the left as a term of abuse. Sometimes it is used to refer to any repressive government, whatever its political form. Most commonly on the left in the U.S., it is used to describe any Republican government–in particular, any Republican government or candidate on the eve of a presidential election.
As an experiment, I typed the words “Bush fascist” and then “Obama fascist” sans quotes. I got 3,280,000 Google hits for Bush fascist (and keep in mind an awful lot of hits would have vanished in the last 11 years as domains purged articles or simply ceased to exist) versus only 2,490,000 for Obama. That means liberals were over 45% more likely to call Bush a fascist than conservatives have been to call Obama one.
And when these liberals express their outrage that I would dare call Obama a fascist and thus lower the discourse, I invariably ask them just where the hell they were when their side was teeing off on Bush for eight unrelenting years of Bush derangement syndrome??? It was rare indeed to see a liberal excoriate his fellow liberals for demonizing the president of the United States.
With all due respect, the left started this form of “discourse.” They turned it into an art form. And how dare these hypocrites dare to tell me not to do unto Obama as they did unto Bush???
That might only be a rhetorical argument, as two wrongs clearly don’t make a right. But it remains a powerful one. Liberals have forfeited any moral right to criticize conservatives for using their own tactics against them.
But I don’t simply call Obama a fascist because liberals called Bush one. I call him one because he has exhibited all kinds of fascistic tendencies, which I shall in time describe.
But fascism has a far more precise definition. Historically, fascism is a far-right movementof the middle classes (shopkeepers, professionals, civil servants) who are economically ruined by severe economic crisis and driven to “frenzy.”
In the brilliant words of Leon Trotsky, fascism brings “to their feet those classes that are immediately above the working class and that are ever in dread of being forced down into its ranks; it organizes and militarizes them…and it directs them to the extirpation of proletarian organizations, from the most revolutionary to the most conservative.”
I have no doubt that the irony of these words were entirely lost to the “Socialist Worker” who wrote the article. But allow me to illuminate it for you: think of the most infamous fascists of all time, the Nazis. What did the word “Nazi” stand for? It was the “acronym for the ‘National Socialist German Workers Party’.” Let me try that again, just in case you missed these precious little details: “National SOCIALIST German WORKERS Party.”
But ask the “Socialist Workers” and they’ll assure you that the “Socialist Workers Party” had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Socialist Workers. Because that would certainly be awkward, wouldn’t it???
It is rather fascinating that “Socialist Worker” would cite as his authority on fascism and who should be labeled as a “fascist” the Marxist thinker . Allow me to provide one counter statement which is based not on the “brilliant words” of a Marxist, but on the plain simple facts:
“Part of the problem in recognizing fascism is the assumption that it is conservative. [Zeev] Sternhell has observed how study of the ideology has been obscured by “the official Marxist interpretation of fascism.” Marxism defines fascism as its polar opposite. If Marxism is progressive, fascism is conservative. If Marxism is left wing, fascism is right wing. If Marxism champions the proletariat, fascism champions the bourgeoisie. If Marxism is socialist, fascism is capitalist.
The influence of Marxist scholarship has severely distorted our understanding of fascism. Communism and fascism were rival brands of socialism. Whereas Marxist socialism is predicated on an international class struggle, fascist national socialism promoted a socialism centered in national unity. Both communists and fascists opposed the bourgeoisie. Both attacked the conservatives. Both were mass movements, which had special appeal for the intelligentsia, students, and artists, as well as workers. Both favored strong centralized governments and rejected the free economy and the ideals of individual liberty. Fascists saw themselves as being neither of the right nor the left. They believed that they constituted a third force synthesizing the best of both extremes” [Gene Edward Veith, Jr., Modern Fascism: Liquidating the Judeo-Christian Worldview, p. 26].
So depending on Leon Trotsky or any other Marxist-inspired academic who merely parrots “the official Marxist interpretation of fascism” has rather serious intellectual drawbacks. And yet that is largely what we get. Far too many American academics wouldn’t be so obvious as to use the phrase, “In the brilliant words of Leon Trotsky,” but they give his ideas, theories and talking points total credence, nonetheless. The term “useful idiots” was literally coined to describe these Western “intellectuals.” And their being “useful idiots” is every bit as true today as it ever was in the past.
Consider the REAL “polar opposite”: American conservatives are capitalists, not socialists. They demand a limited national/federal government, not a massive centrally planned state as does socialism, communism and fascism. They prefer the federalist idea of powerful states’ rights against a weakened federal government, not some all-powerful Führer. And to try to force conservatives into some Nazi mold invariably means either creating straw men arguments or citing irrelevant facts (such as that conservatives favor a large military just like the Nazis did, as though virtually every single communist state does not similarly favor a large military “just like the Nazis did”). If you want an all-powerful national government that gets to decide who wins and who loses, if you want to see a system where you have to come to your government for assistance and resources with all manner of strings attached rather than being allowed to depend on yourself, your family and your community, you should embrace the political left, not the right.
By the way, another favorite idiotic red herring for liberals asserting that “Nazism was right wing” was that the Nazis hated the admittedly left wing communists. But consider the fact that Coke hates Pepsi and Barbie Doll makers hate Bratz Doll makers. Are we supposed to believe that Coke is the opposite of Pepsi as opposed to water, milk or orange juice? The fact of the matter is that Nazis and Soviet Communists hated each other because both movements had a global agenda of totalitarian dominion, and both movements were competing for the same rabidly left wing converts.
Pardon me for the following insult, but the only people who believe garbage arguments like these are ignorant fools who live in a world of straw men. Even if they have the title “PhD.” after their names.
It is for that reason that I can state categorically that Marxism and fascism are not “polar opposites” at all. They are merely two potentially complementary species of socialism. That is why China has been able to easily weave blatantly fascistic (national socialist/corporatist) elements into its Maoist communism. It is also why Joseph Stalin was able to go from being an international socialist (i.e. a communist) and then appeal to nationalism (i.e., national socialism or “fascism”) when he needed to fight Hitler, only to switch back to “international socialism” after the war, as a few lines from Wikipedia on “Russian nationalism” point out:
The newborn communist republic under Vladimir Lenin proclaimed internationalism as its official ideology[4]. Russian nationalism was discouraged, as were any remnants of Imperial patriotism, such as wearing military awards received before Civil War….
The 1930s saw the evolution of the new concept of Soviet nationalism under Joseph Stalin, based on both Russian nationalism and communist internationalism. Official communist ideology always stated that Russia was the most progressive state, because it adopted socialism as its basis (which, according to the writings of Karl Marx, is the inevitable future of world socio-economic systems). Under Lenin, the USSR believed its duty to help other nations to arrange socialist revolutions (the concept of World Revolution), and made close ties with labor movements around the world[4].
[…]
The Soviet Union’s war against Nazi Germany became known as the Great Patriotic War, hearkening back to the previous use of the term in the Napoleonic Wars. The Soviet state called for Soviet citizens to defend the ‘Motherland’, a matrilineal term used to describe Russia in the past.
[…]
In 1944, the Soviet Union abandoned its communist anthem, The International, and adopted a new national anthem which citizens of the Soviet Union could identify with.
And then, with the victory secured over fascism, the Stalinist “national socialism” (a.k.a. “fascism”) suddenly became international socialism again. The Nazis’ very name was Nationalsozialistische.
One can be a “Marxist-fascist” and combine and blend elements of both totalitarian socialist systems quite easily, as both the Russian and then the Chinese communists proved. Communism and fascism have far more in common with one another than they have in opposition; especially when you examine the fact that both political systems invariably end up becoming the same big-government totalitarian police state.
So for my first two points – namely that 1) the left has routinely demagogically labeled the right “fascist” even when 2) it is clearly the left that owes far and away the most to fascistic elements – I am going to continue to shout from the rooftops who are the real fascists in America.
That said, it is still not enough to merely point out the FACT that American liberalism has much in common with fascism. And there is a lot more yet to say.
Before I begin spouting particular examples, I therefore need to further approach just what it is that would constitute a “fascist.” And then see who and how the label fits. From The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics:
The best example of a fascist economy is the regime of Italian dictator Benito Mussolini. Holding that liberalism (by which he meant freedom and free markets) had “reached the end of its historical function,” Mussolini wrote: “To Fascism the world is not this material world, as it appears on the surface, where Man is an individual separated from all others and left to himself…. Fascism affirms the State as the true reality of the individual.”
This collectivism is captured in the word fascism, which comes from the Latin fasces, meaning a bundle of rods with an axe in it. In economics, fascism was seen as a third way between laissez-faire capitalism and communism. Fascist thought acknowledged the roles of private property and the profit motive as legitimate incentives for productivity—provided that they did not conflict with the interests of the state.
[…]
Mussolini’s fascism took another step at this time with the advent of the Corporative State, a supposedly pragmatic arrangement under which economic decisions were made by councils composed of workers and employers who represented trades and industries. By this device the presumed economic rivalry between employers and employees was to be resolved, preventing the class struggle from undermining the national struggle. In the Corporative State, for example, strikes would be illegal and labor disputes would be mediated by a state agency.
Theoretically, the fascist economy was to be guided by a complex network of employer, worker, and jointly run organizations representing crafts and industries at the local, provincial, and national levels. At the summit of this network was the National Council of Corporations. But although syndicalism and corporativism had a place in fascist ideology and were critical to building a consensus in support of the regime, the council did little to steer the economy. The real decisions were made by state agencies such as the Institute for Industrial Reconstruction (Istituto per la Ricosstruzione Industriale, or IRI), mediating among interest groups.
[…]
Mussolini also eliminated the ability of business to make independent decisions: the government controlled all prices and wages, and firms in any industry could be forced into a cartel when the majority voted for it. The well-connected heads of big business had a hand in making policy, but most smaller businessmen were effectively turned into state employees contending with corrupt bureaucracies. They acquiesced, hoping that the restrictions would be temporary. Land being fundamental to the nation, the fascist state regimented agriculture even more fully, dictating crops, breaking up farms, and threatening expropriation to enforce its commands.
Banking also came under extraordinary control. As Italy’s industrial and banking system sank under the weight of depression and regulation, and as unemployment rose, the government set up public works programs and took control over decisions about building and expanding factories. The government created the Istituto Mobiliare in 1931 to control credit, and the IRI later acquired all shares held by banks in industrial, agricultural, and real estate enterprises.
The image of a strong leader taking direct charge of an economy during hard times fascinated observers abroad. Italy was one of the places that Franklin Roosevelt looked to for ideas in 1933…
Fascism is all about the “community,” not the individual. Its message is about the good of the nation, or the people (or the Volk), or the community, rather than the good of a nation’s individual citizens. It is about distributing and then redistributing the wealth and returning it to “its rightful owners” under the guise of an all-powerful state rather than recognizing and rewarding individual achievement. In short, when Hillary Clinton explained that, “It takes a village,” an educated Nazi would have snapped his fingers and excitedly shouted, “Ja! JA! Das ist ES!”
For Obama, the collectivism, community or “village” thing is such a profound part of him that he has literally made it an integral part of his very heretical form of “Christianity,” which very much stresses individual salvation and individual responsibility. Obama has on several occasions put it this way:
For example, in 1995, Obama said, “my individual salvation is not going to come about without a collective salvation for the country…” and again in May of 2008, “our individual salvation depends of collective salvation.”
In the Christian faith, there is no such thing as collective salvation. Salvation is an individual choice. It is personal acceptance of Jesus as savior, Son of the living God.
Obama’s is a wildly perverted view of orthodox Christianity. It so distorts true Christianity at such a fundamental level, in fact, that one literally has to go to Hitler to find a suitable similar parallel from a “Christian” national leader. The great Protestant Reformer Martin Luther – the most famous German prior to Hitler – had written the most monumental text of German culture prior to Hitler’s Mein Kampf. It was called “The Bondage of the Will,” which was considered THE manifesto of the Reformation. According to Luther, the human will was in bondage to sin. The fallen will, if left to itself, will choose what is evil. The human will has been perversely set against the righteous will of God. For sinful human beings, the will is not in a state of liberty but is in bondage to its worst impulses. Luther wrote in this work, “When our liberty is lost we are compelled to serve sin: that is, we will sin and evil, we speak sin and evil, we do sin and evil.” Adolf Hitler infamously turned that key doctrine of Christianity on its head in his “The Triumph of the Will,” in which he exalted depraved human will to an altogether different level of human depravity. Which is to say that Hitler was so profoundly wrong that he proved Luther right.
But getting back to Obama’s profoundly anti-Christian concept of “collective salvation,” the Nazis would have been all over that, enthusiastically shouting their agreement, “Ja! JA! Das ist ES!” Recall the encyclopedia entry on fascism stating that, “Fascism affirms the State as the true reality of the individual,” which was then further defined as “collectivism.” And the Nazis repeatedly called upon loyal Germans to make horrendous sacrifices in the name of that collective.
What the Nazis pursued was a form of anti-capitalist anti-conservative communitarianism encapsulated in the concept of Volksgemeinschaft, or “people’s community.”
From the Nazi Party Platform:
– The first obligation of every citizen must be to work both spiritually and physically. The activity of individuals is not to counteract the interests of the universality, but must have its result within the framework of the whole for the benefit of all Consequently we demand:
– Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of rent-slavery.
– In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.
– We demand the nationalization of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).
– We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.
– We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.
– We demand the creation of a healthy middle class and its conservation, immediate communalization of the great warehouses and their being leased at low cost to small firms, the utmost consideration of all small firms in contracts with the State, county or municipality.
– We demand a land reform suitable to our needs, provision of a law for the free expropriation of land for the purposes of public utility, abolition of taxes on land and prevention of all speculation in land.
– We demand struggle without consideration against those whose activity is injurious to the general interest. Common national criminals, usurers, Schieber and so forth are to be punished with death, without consideration of confession or race.
– We demand substitution of a German common law in place of the Roman Law serving a materialistic world-order.
– The state is to be responsible for a fundamental reconstruction of our whole national education program, to enable every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education and subsequently introduction into leading positions. The plans of instruction of all educational institutions are to conform with the experiences of practical life. The comprehension of the concept of the State must be striven for by the school [Staatsbuergerkunde] as early as the beginning of understanding. We demand the education at the expense of the State of outstanding intellectually gifted children of poor parents without consideration of position or profession.
– The State is to care for the elevating national health by protecting the mother and child, by outlawing child-labor, by the encouragement of physical fitness, by means of the legal establishment of a gymnastic and sport obligation, by the utmost support of all organizations concerned with the physical instruction of the young.
– We demand abolition of the mercenary troops and formation of a national army.
– We demand legal opposition to known lies and their promulgation through the press. In order to enable the provision of a German press, we demand, that: a. All writers and employees of the newspapers appearing in the German language be members of the race: b. Non-German newspapers be required to have the express permission of the State to be published. They may not be printed in the German language: c. Non-Germans are forbidden by law any financial interest in German publications, or any influence on them, and as punishment for violations the closing of such a publication as well as the immediate expulsion from the Reich of the non-German concerned. Publications which are counter to the general good are to be forbidden. We demand legal prosecution of artistic and literary forms which exert a destructive influence on our national life, and the closure of organizations opposing the above made demands.
Ah, yes, the Nazis had their “Fairness Doctrine” long before this current generation of liberals had theirs.
You read that Nazi Party Platform carefully, and you tell me if you see small government conservative Republicans or big government liberal Democrats written all over it.
Now, you read the Nazi Party Platform, and given what American liberals want and what American conservatism opposes, it is so obvious which party is “fascist” that it isn’t even silly. Then you ADD to that the fact that fascism and American progressivism (which is liberalism) were so similar that the great fascists of the age couldn’t tell the damn difference.
Since you point out Nazism was fascist, let’s look at some history as to WHO was recognized as fascist in America.
Fascism sought to eliminate class differences and to destroy/replace capitalism and laissez-faire economics.
H.G. Wells, a great admirer of FDR and an extremely close personal friend of his, was also a great progressive of his day. He summed it up this way in a major speech at Oxford to the YOUNG LIBERALS organization under the banner of “Liberal Fascism”: “I am asking for a Liberal Fascisti, for enlightened Nazis.” He said, “And do not let me leave you in the slightest doubt as to the scope and ambition of what I am putting before you” and then said:
These new organizations are not merely organizations for the spread of defined opinions…the days of that sort of amateurism are over – they are organizations to replace the dilatory indecisiveness of democracy. The world is sick of parliamentary politics…The Fascist Party, to the best of its ability, is Italy now. The Communist Party, to the best of its ability, is Russia. Obviously the Fascists of Liberalism must carry out a parallel ambition on still a vaster scale…They must begin as a disciplined sect, but must end as the sustaining organization of a reconstituted mankind.”
H.G. Wells pronounced FDR “the most effective transmitting instrument possible for the coming of the new world order.” And of course, we easily see that the new world order Wells wanted was a fascist one. In 1941, George Orwell concluded, “Much of what Wells has imagined and worked for is physically there in Nazi Germany.”
It was from the lips of liberal progressive H.G. Wells that Jonah Goldberg got the title of his book, Liberal Fascism. Goldberg didn’t just invent this connection: H.G. Wells flagrantly admitted it and George Orwell called him on it. All Goldberg did was rediscover history that liberals buried and have used every trick imaginable to keep buried.
And as a tie-in to our modern day, who more than Barack Obama has been more associated with said FDR?
But let me move on to some real red meat. In just what specific, concrete ways can I call Obama a fascist?
Well, to begin with, there is the signature achievement of his entire presidency, his national health care system (ObamaCare). For liberals, it is nothing but the most bizarre coincidence that Nazi culture had a national health care system that was quite rightly considered the wonder of its day by socialists in America. It is the most despicable of insults that Sarah Palin excoriated ObamaCare as “death panels” – even though it is more precisely a bureaucratic maze consisting of more like 160 separate death panels:
And the “czar” thing hits a very fascist nerve, too. Obama has appointed 39 czars who are completely outside our Constitutional process. Obama signed a budget bill into law that required him to remove these czars, but why would a fascist trouble himself with outmoded things like “laws”? One of the enraged Republicans responded, “The president knew that the czar amendment was part of the overall budget deal he agreed to, and if he cannot be trusted to keep his word on this, then how can he be trusted as we negotiate on larger issues like federal spending and the economy.” And of course, he’s right.
But why do I say it’s financial fascism in 20/20 hindsight? Because of what we just learned: in spite of all the bogus lying promises and the massive takeover “for our own good,” Obama didn’t fix anything. Instead he made it WORSE:
The financial system poses an even greater risk to taxpayers than before the crisis, according to analysts at Standard & Poor’s. The next rescue could be about a trillion dollars costlier, the credit rating agency warned.
S&P put policymakers on notice, saying there’s “at least a one-in-three” chance that the U.S. government may lose its coveted AAA credit rating. Various risks could lead the agency to downgrade the Treasury’s credit worthiness, including policymakers’ penchant for rescuing bankers and traders from their failures.
“The potential for further extraordinary official assistance to large players in the U.S. financial sector poses a negative risk to the government’s credit rating,” S&P said in its Monday report.
But, the agency’s analysts warned, “we believe the risks from the U.S. financial sector are higher than we considered them to be before 2008.”
Because of the increased risk, S&P forecasts the potential initial cost to taxpayers of the next crisis cleanup to approach 34 percent of the nation’s annual economic output, or gross domestic product. In 2007, the agency’s analysts estimated it could cost 26 percent of GDP.
Last year, U.S. output neared $14.7 trillion, according to the Commerce Department. By S&P’s estimate, that means taxpayers could be hit with $5 trillion in costs in the event of another financial collapse.
Experts said that while the cost estimate seems unusually high, there’s little dispute that when the next crisis hits, it will not be anticipated — and it will likely hurt the economy more than the last financial crisis.
So much for the massive and unprecedented fascist government takeover.
Think last year’s $700 billion Wall Street rescue package was beaucoup bucks to spend bailing out the nation’s floundering financial system? That’s chump change compared to what the overall price tag could be, a government watchdog says.
The inspector general in charge of overseeing the Treasury Department’s bank-bailout program says the massive endeavor could end up costing taxpayers almost $24 trillion in a worst-case scenario. That’s more than six times President Obama’s proposed $3.55 trillion budget for 2010.
Nobody here but us fascists. And we sure aint talking.
Then there are other issues that the left usually uses to attack conservatives, such as racism. Wasn’t Hitler a racist, just like conservatives? The problem is, the liberals are as usual upside-down here. After running as the man to create racial harmony, Barack Obama has instead done more to racially polarize America than any president since other famous progressives such as Woodrow Wilson and FDR. Frankly, if one were to conduct a major study of racial politics, and the setting up in opposition of one racial group against another, just which party has emphasized race and race-baiting more?
Hitler’s Jew-baiting was all about the idea that one race had taken over the culture, had the money and the power, and was using its influence to oppress the people in the banking system and anywhere else that mattered. And Hitler’s constant screed was that Germany needed to confiscate the Jews’ wealth and then redistribute it. With all respect, all the left has done is replace “Jew” with “Caucasian” and making the exact same claims.
And with all this hard-core racist demagoguing, I’m supposed to say that, “Oh, yes, it’s the conservatives who are guilty of demagoguing race”??? Seriously???
Obama has Samantha Powers (the wife of Cass Sunstein, the man who “nudges us”) close to him and advising him on matters of war. According to the very liberal publication The Nation, “She began to see war as an instrument to achieving her liberal, even radical, values.” What if you had an ultra conservative – oh, say a Sarah Palin – openly acknowledged to pursue war and risk American lives to advance her radical values??? What would the left call this if not “fascist”?
But it’s only fascist if Republicans do it, of course.
Also in yesterday’s news is the fact that Obama is the perpetual demagogue– which is a quintessentially fascist tactic. Obama demonized Bush for trying to raise the debt ceiling until he needed to raise it. Now it would be un-American for Republicans to act the same exact way Obama acted. In the same demagogic spirit, Obama personally invited Paul Ryan to a speech just so he could personally demonize him. The same Obama who lectured Republicans that it would be counter-productive to rely on name-calling and accusations in the health care debate launched into a vicious demagogic attack. Ryan correctly said that “What we got yesterday was the opposite of what he said is necessary to fix this problem.” But that is par for the golf course for a fascist. If that wasn’t enough, Obama held a White House conference for “stake holders” in the immigration debate and refused to invite a single governor from a border state.
A Republican equivalent would have had to come out of a deep involvement with some vile racist militia organization to approximate Obama’s background. And liberals would rightly label such a politician a fascist for his past alone.
Here’s a recent Youtube video of Obama’s key union allies on camera saying, “We’re not going to rely on the law,” and, “Forget about the law” as they seek to impose their unions basically whether workers want them or not:
ROBERTS, C.: But – but the bad part about this is that he – that – that it’s acceptable to say that he’s a Muslim…
Start Thinking Right 