If You Were REALLY A Liberal, You’d Vote Straight-Ticked Republican. Here’s Why.

There are a lot of people – and I’m one of them – who find it distasteful to have to describe my opponents as “liberals.”  They AREN’T “liberal” in the political sense.

Liberalism in the classical sense – and I’M a liberal in that sense – has nothing whatsoever to do with modern American “liberals.”

Note the definition of classical liberalism:

Classical liberalism is a political philosophy and ideology belonging to liberalism in which primary emphasis is placed on securing the freedom of the individual by limiting the power of the government. The philosophy emerged as a response to the Industrial Revolution and urbanization in the 19th century in Europe and the United States.[1] It advocates civil liberties with a limited government under the rule of law, private property rights, and belief in laissez-faire economic liberalism.[2][3][4] Classical liberalism is built on ideas that had already arisen by the end of the 18th century, including ideas of Adam Smith, John Locke, Jean-Baptiste Say, Thomas Malthus, and David Ricardo. It drew on a psychological understanding of individual liberty, natural law, utilitarianism, and a belief in progress.[5]

Do modern American “liberals” want limited government?  No, they want the opposite; they are the OPPOSITE of liberals.  Do they want to emphasize private property rights?  Do they believe in laissez-faire free markets?  Do they believe in individual liberty and natural law?  Absolutely not.  Do Democrats believe in “progress” in this classical sense?  No.  In fact they demonize it as evil:

This painting (circa 1872) by John Gast called American Progress, is an allegorical representation of the modernization of the new west. Here Columbia, a personification of the United States, leads civilization westward with American settlers, stringing telegraph wire as she sweeps west; she holds a school book as well. The different stages of economic activity of the pioneers are highlighted and, especially, the changing forms of transportation.[1]

So-called “liberals” don’t want ANY of the things that actual, real liberalism embraces.

What modern American “liberals” actually are is “fascist.”

The only component of “fascism” that is NOT directly embraced by the modern American left is the doctrine of racism, which of course these leftists exploit to demonize their opponents.  I submit that yes, in face, modern American “liberals” ARE racist and exploit race and race-baiting and racial politics at every turn to document their racism.  And I submit that “fascism” and “racism” do not need to be connected in any way.  As an example, while Nazi fascism was fundamentally racist, Italian fascism was NOT.

So, while I submit that modern American “liberals” are in fact even fascist in the NAZI sense – and if there were a “National Socialist American Workers Party” you’re d damn FOOL if you don’t believe it would be the Democrat Party in America today – let’s exclude that from our calculus.  Because when it comes to all the other criteria for membership as a fascist – belief in a leader with dictatorial powers, belief in the exaltation of the state, belief in the right of the state to dictate to corporations what should be produced and at what price produced goods should be sold, belief in “corporatism” in which people organize into groups a la unions that then negotiate with other groups within the dominance of the state to make “progress” in the fascist sense of “progress,” belief in the power of the state to extend its influence into every sphere of society – modern American liberals are not only fascist but enthusiastically fascist.

Let me quote a remark the Hollywood liberal actress Gwyneth Paltrow recently made at a fundraiser she hosted for our so-called “Democrat” president:

“It would be wonderful if we were able to give this man all of the power that he needs to pass the things that he needs to pass.”

That’s right.  If the Führer only had more power, he’d be a much better Führer.  And think how wonderful the world would be.

The only problem is that’s actually been tried as socialists banded together in Germany under a man to whom they gave all of the power that he needed to pass the things that he needed to pass.

Now, some liberal is going to come here and say that it’s unfair to associate liberals with this big-time major liberal who just hosted a major fundraiser for Obama.  Kind of like all the Democrats running for re-election saying its unfair to associate them with Obama after they spent the last six years voting with Obama an average of 95% of the damn time.  But in fact Gwyneth Paltrow is not some idiot bimbo here, but an informed leftist describing the mindset of intellectual leftism here.  Let me quote a great liberal of a former era – in fact the Godfather of American liberalism – H.G. Wells:

In a talk at Oxford provocatively titled “Liberal Fascism,” he called for liberalism to be “born again.” After his customary denunciation of parliamentary politics as an anachronism, he let out his frustrations, calling for fascist means to serve liberal ends by way of a liberal elite as “conceited” and as power-hungry as its rivals. “I suggest that you study the reinvigoration of Catholicism by Loyola,” Wells said. “I am asking for a Liberal Fascisti.” It was also to Communism that “we shall have to turn—we outsiders, that is, the young people with foresight for enlightened Nazis; I am proposing that you consider the formation for a greater Communist Party; a western response to Russia.”

Wells thought he had found that Western response in 1934, when he met with President Franklin D. Roosevelt and with key members of FDR’s Brains Trust. “My impression of both him and Mrs. Roosevelt,” he wrote, “is that they are unlimited people, entirely modern in the openness of their minds and the logic of their actions.” Here, for a time at least, was another political hero with whom he could identify wholeheartedly. FDR was “continually revolutionary in the new way without ever provoking a stark revolutionary crisis,” wrote the ever-certain Wells. “I do not say that the President has these revolutionary ideas in so elaborate and comprehensive a form as they have come to me, [but] unless I misjudge him, they will presently possess him altogether.” Indeed, FDR was “the most effective transmitting instrument possible for the coming of the new world order,” and in Brains Trusters Raymond Moley, Felix Frankfurter, and Rex Tugwell, Wells found the nucleus of the new elite, those who were destined to take full power in time.

Consider another of the great fathers of modern American liberalism, Woodrow Wilson:

“If any trait bubbles up in all one reads about Wilson,” rites the historian Walter McDougall, “it is this: he loved, craved, and in a sense glorified power.”

Wilson’s fascination with power is the leitmotif of his whole career.  It informed his understanding of theology and politics, and their intersection.  Power was God’s instrument on earth and therefore was always to be revered.  In Congressional Government he admitted, “I cannot imagine power as a thing negative and not positive.”  Such love of power can be found in many systems and men outside the orbit of fascism, but few ideologies or aesthetics are more directly concerned with the glory of might, will, strength, and action.  — Modern Fascism, by Jonah Goldberg, p. 84

Gwynet Paltrow simply stated what is necessarily true about what modern American “liberals” believe and HAVE believed.

Now with that awareness of ACTUAL American “liberal” history, consider Obama.  Consider the massive, sweeping executive orders that the man has passed by dictatorial fiat.

This is a president who has been smacked down by UNANIMOUS Supreme Court rulings condemning his totalitarian power grabs THIRTEEN TIMES.  That has NEVER happened in the entire history of our republic.

Just as a Senate Majority leader seizing more power to block amendments than all the previous Senate Majority Leaders COMBINED TIMES TWO has never happened before.

We live in an age of raw, distilled FASCISM that is coming out of the Democrat Party.

As we speak, Obama is waiting until after the election – because otherwise he would be held accountable for his raw, naked fascist power-grab – to give amnesty to as many as 34 million “future Democrat voters.”

Fascist.

I was nearing the end of my long walk two nights ago and was walking in the parking lot of a gym that I belonged to.  I was four-tenths of a mile from my home in a public place.  A police officer flashed me with his lights and demanded I show my ID.

As I gave the officer my information I gave him a piece of my mind, pointing out that I don’t have the right to walk near my house in a public area in the parking lot of an establishment that I am a member of without being required to produce identification.  But I can vote for the God damned president of the God damned United States – and I used that then as now as a technical term to denote the damnation of this president and the country he represents by the God of the Bible – without being required to produce any identification whatsoever.  And that this is a patently immoral and fascist system.

I mentioned the shenanigans that were taking place as we speak in Colorado and other states by fascists who have bought and rigged the system.

The officer said he completely agreed with me.  “What can we do?” He asked me.

I didn’t have an answer.  Democracy has been perverted by perverted, fascist people with a perverted, fascist end and a perverted, fascist means to achieve that perverted, fascist end.  Because these are the last days and the beast is coming.

As much as the left demonizes the Koch brothers, they are not even ON the list of the top fifty political donors with said list leaning overwhelmingly DEMOCRAT.

Right now, with Obama so far down in the polls and so unpopular with Democrats running for office that Chris Matthews was forced to state on MSNBC:

“It’s like Obama has ebola.”

Obama has “moral Ebola.”  He is a wicked man with a wicked ideology and a wicked means to attain his wicked ends.

But filthy rich leftist who demonize the other side for giving any money to support their values have pumped MILLIONS into the Democrat Party attack machine to try to buy elections.  The money is coming almost entirely from the uber rich because every poll is demonstrating that the Republican base is FAR more energized than the Democrat base.  So where the hell else is the damn money coming from?  Because it sure as hell isn’t coming from the rank and file.

Obama was the first major candidate in history to refuse federal matching funds as he raised over a billion dollars.  It was Barack Obama and the Democrat Party who fundamentally perverted and broke the campaign finance system.

Democrats KNOW they’re liars as they demonize Republicans as being responsible for elections being bought when THEY’RE THE ONES WHO INVENTED IT AND THEY’RE THE ONES WHO ARE DOING IT TO THE TUNE OF TWENTY-TO-ONE.  Look again at the damn list of donors, the numbers, the amounts.

You liberals say you want money out of politics.  Because you are incredibly cynical hypocrites and liars and frauds.

And if these hypocrites and  liars and frauds can’t buy their elections, they’ll do it with fraud.  Because they will stop at nothing to impose their fascist agenda on America any more than Obama will let Congress or the Constitution stop him from imposing his fascist agenda on the American people with the most sweeping and far-reaching and illegal executive order power-grabs in history.

That is why they so rabidly and so militantly oppose ANY ATTEMPT WHATSOEVER NO MATTER HOW REASONABLE IT IS to have any kind of voter identification whatsoever.

I keep hearing Democrats saying there’s no evidence of voter fraud.  WHEN YOU CAN’T CHECK IDs, HOW THE HELL CAN YOU EVER PROVE ANY KIND OF VOTER FRAUD???

Remember refusing to say whether she voted for Obama?  Remember how she punted to some higher principle of being allowed to cast your vote privately rather than admit something that would hurt her as she runs for an office in which all of her votes would necessarily be public when she herself proudly declared that she had voted for Hillary in the primary???  Democrats do the same thing when they punt to some higher principle of voting and that it is immoral to in any way suppress voter turnout.  BECAUSE THEY ARE DOING EVERYTHING THEY CAN TO SUPPRESS THE REPUBLICAN VOTE.

Democrats are on the record desperately searching for “effective messaging to degrade Republican enthusiasm” and thus keep Republicans out of the voting boothsThat from the TOP donor in American politics who by himself contributed more than the top 31 Republican donors COMBINED.

Get off your damned high-horse when you talk about voter suppression, you so-called “liberal.”

So allow me to simply state it as a bald FACT: if you want money out of politics, you vote straight-ticket REPUBLICAN.  Or you’re a hypocrite and a liar like the fascist party you support is a bunch of hypocrites and liars.

Here’s another one.  Do you want “transparency”???

Then don’t you DARE vote for a single damn Democrat.

First of all, let’s talk about the Obama administration’s “transparency.”

Oh, wait.  There ISN’T any.  As even leftist writers in “Democracy Now!” openly admit.  Barack Obama is “the least transparent president in American history.”

An Associated Press analysis called the Obama administration “the least transparent in 2013.”  You get to 2o14 and the change of year was just “One more reason why the Obama administration is the least transparent EVER.”

But let’s move beyond the fact that the Democrat Party machine is the party of opaque fascism.

Let’s move to expose “liberalism” itself as an ideology as being inherently non-transparent.

As a blogger who is openly partisan, I know what it’s like to encounter facts that are either unpleasant to me or hostile to my point-of-view.  And the tendency is to simply ignore it and refuse to talk about it.  And the more rabidly partisan you are, the more you will refuse to deal with facts that you don’t like.

Which is what the mainstream media is doing with the mid-term elections.

When Bush was unpopular, the “news” covered Bush’s unpopularity with glee.  Now that Obama’s every bit as unpopular, all we hear is the crickets chirping.

When Republicans were in danger, the media rushed in to cover the story massively in hopes of finishing Republicans off.  Now that its Democrats in trouble, SILENCE.  ABC ran 36 stories on the 2006 mid-term elections.  How many have they ran now that Democrats are in danger?  ZERO.

You find that a decidedly liberal partisan political agenda outstrips and outweighs any objective reporting of the news by a SIX-TO-ONE MARGIN – 159 stories then when Democrats were ascendant to 15 stories now when Republicans are ascendant.

The mainstream media is nothing short of a Democrat fascist propaganda machine that reports what the Democrat Party wants them to report the way the Democrat Party wants them to report it.

History overwhelmingly proves that if you want a media that will investigate and report on the activities of a presidency and a political party, you will vote to ensure that that president and those politicians are REPUBLICAN.  Because otherwise the fascist so-called “liberal” media will NOT investigate and will NOT report the facts.

So if you’re in any way an honest person and you want openness and transparency, you will NEVER vote Democrat.

Of course, the fact of the matter is that Democrats DO NOT want openness or transparency.  They most certainly do NOT want money out of politics.  They do NOT want any of the things that actual “liberals” would want and in fact they want what only FASCISTS want.  Which is why they vote the way they do for the people who do what the Democrat Party machine does.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

5 Responses to “If You Were REALLY A Liberal, You’d Vote Straight-Ticked Republican. Here’s Why.”

  1. FMC Says:

    Michael,

    You didn’t have to show the officer any identification unless you were a suspect or acting suspiciously and an officer can’t just randomly walk up to people and demand them to produce an ID. Suspicious persons reports are usually phoned in and, as a result, an officer has to respond. In your case, you probably weren’t reported by a civilian but just seen walking at night by the officer. Were you acting suspiciously? I am sure you weren’t and this is subject to the officer’s interpretation, though.

    I had a similar situation and I refused to give my ID, even though I wasn’t carrying one at the time and I never told him that . I asked the officer what was the nature of his investigation. He kind of gave me a strange look. I then asked him if I was being detained or arrested for anything. He said no. I then said am I free to go. I could tell that the officer knew the law and rights and that he knew I knew the law and my rights and let me go on my way. Most people don’t know their rights and just comply to anything.

    Actually, the only time you are required to carry an ID in the form of a driver’s license is while operating a motor vehicle. So if pulled over, for instance, you are required to produce one regardless.

    Of course, in your case, there probably was no harm in showing your ID and that was your choice, but I wouldn’t have.

    Some people say, ‘well I am a law-abiding citizen and have nothing to hide.’ When I was a young man, I go pulled over and the officer asked to search my car. I agreed and the officer searched the car. The car was a mess and I kind of got a laugh from watching the officer rummage through the mess of tools and fast food containers. I thought that I had nothing to hide and the officer found nothing.

    Various people have ridden and even driven my vehicle and what if one of them had left something in it by accident! When I agreed to LET the officer search my car, it would have been discovered and I would have been charged even though it was not mine. It wasn’t until later that I learned that I could have refused. Of course one can refuse only if there is no search warrant or probable cause. In this case, there were neither.

  2. dog walker Says:

    Transparency … public sector union negotiations… so we had that going on in my city a month or so back. Unions got in a huff that information pertinent to the negotiation was becoming public knowledge. But it is the public that is on the hook for whatever is negotiated. Some of these guys figure that they are underpaid by a factor of two. How do the come up with that? They look at wages in cities like Sacramento and Chicago that are on the brink … and suppose that should be their wage and retirement package. Go figure.

  3. truthunites Says:

    Resistance to tyranny is obedience to God.

    Resistance to liberal fascism is loving obedience to God.

  4. dog walker Says:

    Stockton… I keep messing up and saying Sacramento. Say Stockton ten times. Stockton… Stockton …

  5. Michael Eden Says:

    FMC,

    Here’s an article on that from my neck of the woods:

    http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-daniele-watts-lapd-show-id-20140915-story.html

    I’m one who will provide my identification because, you know what? I don’t see as a general principle why people should be afraid to identify themselves.

    Also, even in California where you do not have to produce ID upon request, the police CAN detain you if they suspect you committed a crime. So let’s just call it the better part of valor that I didn’t want ten officers showing up and looking for anything that I may have done in that parking lot…

    But I DO stop at searches. If a police officer asks if he can search my person or my vehicle, and I am NOT under arrest, that is when I stand by the principles of liberty. You’re right, somebody could have left something or planted something or the officer himself could plant something. But when it comes to my ID, there’s no “somebody changed my ID while I was sleeping.”

    That’s one of the reasons why I am so appalled at the pseudo-outrage over voter ID laws. I mean, dang, if I have to show ID for all the ten thousand other reasons that I’m required to show ID, why not to vote???

    In my own case, my point is that the officer at least has the right to ask you to provide ID. Unless you’re about to VOTE. In which case, how dare you ask, you racist?

    We DON’T have a constitutional right to vote in America. Unless we are property-owning men, anyway (I actually see the founding father’s wisdom for those provisions now, given the Democrat Party’s ownership of women and people who want to vote themselves other people’s property and money). We DO have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms which is not to be infringed.

    If we shouldn’t produce ID to vote, we shouldn’t have to bother to produce ID to buy a damn gun, either. Because voting is more dangerous than guns. Unless you don’t think the Nazi Party was in any way dangerous, anyway. They first got to power through an election, you know.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: