Posts Tagged ‘extremism’

The Demonic Hypocrisy Of Democrats Who Invoke Reagan With The Words, “Why, Even Ronald Reagan [Fill In The Blank].”

November 5, 2015

I don’t know how many times I’ve heard “even Reagan” attacks on Republicans from liberals such as, “Even Reagan raised taxes,” or “Even Reagan granted amnesty to illegal immigrants.”

I mean, Reagan cut the damn taxes, okay?  Can we please stop the bullcrap?  The top rate went from 70% to 28% under the Reagan tax cut which ignited the economy like nothing ever has before or since.  You’ve got to be not only a fool but a DAMNFOOL – which unfortunately is a synonym for “Democrat” – to try to argue that Reagan “raised taxes.”  If some taxes went up, while most taxes went down and the overall tax rate went WAY down, it’s pretty pathetic to cling to the couple of times that Reagan raised some minor tax to try to argue against the FACT that Reagan cut taxes.  And yet the left does it all the time.

I googled the phrase (with quotes) “even Reagan” and got 27,700 hits, including the first one from the New York Slimes titled, “ObamaCare and Reagan.”  The author’s thesis is apparently that Reagan was a confused man who didn’t understand socialism (you know, because he only understood it enough to defeat the Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics against the steadfast resistance of the Democrat Party whose mantra had become, “If you can’t beat ’em, join ’em”).  If you search for “Even Ronald Reagan” you get another 33,800 results, with the first one being titled, “Even Ronald Reagan Agrees With Bernie Sanders.”  Oh yes, Ronnie would be a wild-eyed socialist today, wouldn’t he, you deluded liberals?

This actually isn’t about Reagan, although if any group of people on earth would refuse to allow a dead man to rest in peace, it would most assuredly be liberals.  This is about the current conservative view on policy issues and the left’s rhetorical game to take down those conservatives.

First of all, it’s kind of interesting for the left to play the “Even Reagan” game.  If you actually believe that what Reagan believed wasn’t right, why on earth would you ask someone to hold to the views of a guy you say is ignorant?  Isn’t that kind of crazy of you to do?  I mean, do you want to say “Even Hitler…” in a way intended to make one side hold more closely to Adolf Hitler’s policies?  It’s like virtually all other leftist talking points: it’s a word game.  It’s actually a pretty stupid one.

Let me explain what is so desperately wrong with this attack and why the left keeps advancing it by a parallel argument: “Even Jimmy Carter was opposed to abortion.”  As president, Jimmy Carter said, “I am convinced that every abortion is an unplanned tragedy, brought about by a combination of human errors and this has been one of the most difficult moral and political issues I have had to face. As president, I accepted my obligation to enforce the “Roe v. Wade” Supreme Court ruling, and at the same time attempted in every way possible to minimize the number of abortions.”  Hardly a triumphant shout of “women have the right to choose to kill as many of their babies as they want to and let the fathers of those babies rights be damned!” statement; it was a regretful, “This is wrong, but I have no choice” statement.  So even Jimmy Carter believed abortion was a “tragedy.”  And why shouldn’t you be flash-frozen to that view the way you want to flash-freeze me to Regan’s views?

Here’s another one: “Even President Jimmy Carter didn’t believe in same-sex marriage.”

Even Jimmy Carter didn’t believe in …” and you name it, you could certainly advance that thesis if you want to compare Carter’s stated views and policies to Obama’s.

But on the left’s incredibly disingenuous and profoundly hypocritical narrative, only Democrats have the right to have any evolution of their views.  Democrats have “evolved” a damn MILE, but let Republicans evolve an INCH and they are therefore on this incredibly hypocritical narrative without any question a bunch of extremists.

I mean, even REAGAN!

Let’s put aside the fact that EVEN JFK believed that reducing taxes caused increased opportunity and incentivized economic growth.  That is a FACT of history, and anyone who isn’t an idiot knows it.  But hell, Republicans are “extremists” for wanting a little more than what Reagan wanted, whereas Democrats are WHAT for doing a COMPLETE U-TURN AND WANTING SOMETHING FUNDAMENTALLY AND PROFOUNDLY DIFFERENT FROM WHAT THEIR GREATEST PRESIDENT WANTED????

Which party has actually wildly veered into extremism???  It sure couldn’t be the damn party that urinated on the entire history of the human civilization in imposing homosexual marriage, let alone their precious Darwinian evolution and it’s edict of “survival of the fittest” defined as “Survival of the form that will leave the most copies of itself in successive generations.”  Good luck fertilizing an egg by all the sodomy in the world, queers.  And if you’re a lesbian, keep licking furiously; but if you’ve got a functioning brain cell in your head, you ought to know naught will come from it beyond the hairballs you cough up.

One party not only utterly abandoned the history of civilization, not only abandoned the history of every major religion, but also abandoned the very pretense of science they claimed they held the mantle of.  But it’s not like they went “extremist” or anything.

I think we should “fundamentally transform” our calendars and start with BS: “Before Sodomy.”  Because one rabidly extremist political party wildly transformed the universe (in a shockingly depraved way).

If you’re a Democrat, you are at this point by definition a hypocrite to the last cell of your vile little cockroach brain, so there is absolutely NOTHING WRONG with MASSIVE SHIFTS in policy; if you are a Republican, however, any change is somehow defined as a “radical” and as an “extremist” shift toward some demagogic monster.

Since Democrats love the mantra “even Ronald Reagan…” let’s punch them in the mouth with a little bit of “Even Bill Clinton…”

Let’s look at what an actual QUESTION would have looked like had the one Democrat debate not been an example of the Democrat Party’s most powerful super PAC rather than legitimate journalism:

Mrs. Clinton, back in the 1990s your husband concluded the North American Free Trade Agreement, signed legislation repealing the Glass-Steagall restrictions on affiliations between banks and securities firms, and embraced welfare reform and cuts in capital gains taxes. In 1996, he famously declared “the era of big government is over.”

Today you are running on a pro-tax, pro-regulation, pro-spending platform that is almost the opposite of your husband’s economic record. If his policies worked so well in the 1990s, why are you running against them today?

I mean, EVEN BILL CLINTON…  not that Democrats give a flying damn about their wild swing into the most extremist policies imaginable even compared to their last Democrat president.

There is a constant, unwavering attempt by the mainstream media and the Democrat Party and in particular the most demagogic president in the entire history of the republic, Obama, to demonize and slander the Republican Party has having become “extremist.”  And their most darling argument to that bogus end is the “even Reagan” mantra.  Reagan was a great president.  But he was last president very nearly thirty years ago.

Ronald Reagan massively changed the social, political and economic landscape with policies that were fundamentally different from what had been done before.  He fought very hard for his core beliefs and was willing to do something that Barack Obama has proven to be pathologically incapable of doing: reaching out to the other side.  Reagan REGULARLY met with his Democrat Party opposites and worked out deals.  You tell me the number of times that Obama ever sought to meet with Republican leaders.  He was either arrogantly stating to them, “Elections have consequences, and at the end of the day, I won” or neither he nor anyone on his damn STAFF even had the Republican leaders’ phone numbers to reach them.

How about this one, “Even Reagan” leftist lecturers: how about “EVEN OBAMA”

On the debt:

Obama: The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion for the first 42 presidents – #43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back — $30,000 for every man, woman and child. That’s irresponsible. It’s unpatriotic. — July 3, 2008

What’s the damn debt again, you demon-possessed HYPOCRITE???  It’s $18.5 trillion and skyrocketing by the nanosecond.  You’ve added NINE TRILLION by your lonesome and you aint even DONE yet!

Or how about this one:

“I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. For me, as a Christian, it’s also a sacred union. God’s in the mix.”

Oops.  So much for gay marriage.  “Even Obama!”  I mean, holy crap, what about THAT “even Obama” compared to your current precise opposite “even Obama”!!!???!!!???

How about this “even Hillary” from Hillary, who now is actually trying to claim that her installation of a secretive private server giving her sole control over her emails so that she could purge tens of thousands of them without ANYONE being allowed to examine them even after her secret server and all of her emails on it had been lawfully subpoenaed by Congress?   Consider what Hillary said about the Bush White House that did NOT use secretive private servers:

HILLARY CLINTON: You know our Constitution is being shredded. We know about the secret wiretaps, about the secret military tribunals, we know about the secret White House email accounts.

So Hillary Clinton needs to be thoroughly investigated and convicted for her shredding the Constitution.  EVEN HILLARY agrees.  At least when she’s not being an abject cockroach hypocrite.

We’re not talking about a party “evolving” over thirty years; we’re talking about a party that swung wildly and radically extremist in ONE CANCEROUS PRESIDENCY that now seeks to further infest and infect America with THE NEXT CANCEROUS PRESIDENCY.

Every single Democrat or “journalist” who has ever used any phrase containing the words “even” and “Reagan” is simply demon-possessed.  There is no other way to explain such massive hypocrisy and such massive dishonesty and such massive depravity.

Barack Obama has just as massively “fundamentally transformed” the political landscape by his tyrannical determination to either get his way exactly the way he wants it or do what he wants through executive order without bothering to deal with the inconveniences of the House and Senate or the Constitution.  And Reagan’s way of doing things won’t work with that level of fascist hate for everything our republic stands for that the Democrat Party has degenerated into since Reagan left office.

This was frankly proven even in Reagan’s own time.  Consider what the Associated Press tried to do to Republicans by invoking Reagan’s “amnesty” for illegal immigrants in a manner that attempted to frame them as hypocrites for opposing Obama’s amnesty.  It’s just another example of “even Reagan..”  Hey, let’s ignore some major differences, such as the fact that Reagan signed a bill into law that had been duly passed by the House and Senate; whereas Obama IMPOSED an amnesty that had been explicitly voted down by Congress by act of sheer executive tyranny.  AFTER having repeatedly stated that he didn’t have the authority to do what he did, that it would violate democracy, that he would be an emperor, etc.  HOW ABOUT THAT EXAMPLE OF “EVEN OBAMA…”???  Let’s also consider the fact that Reagan’s amnesty FAILED by all accounts – so why the hell do more of what already has been proven not to work???  And let’s also consider the flat-out LIAR that Democrats proved to be given a condition for Reagan’s signing that law in the first place:

Rising levels of illegal immigration [led to] the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA).  It provided amnesty for 3 million illegal immigrants, in return for increased border security and penalties for companies “knowingly” hiring illegal immigrants.

Democrats dishonestly proved to be liars who refused to make good on either one of those two conditions.  They proved that they are utterly illegitimate negotiating partners.  And they have been dishonest negotiating partners ever since.

Even Reagan can’t be “even Reagan” when he could literally trust the pathologically dishonest Soviet Union more than he could trust the Democrat Party.

Again, this is just another example of “even Reagan,” so if Republicans oppose Obama doing what he did, it’s only because they’re “extremist.”  Because you see, it’s only fascist when Republicans evolve, at least it is if you’ve got enough legions of demons screaming in your insane brain.

To hold one party to a standard that old even as your own party has swung wildly and massively to the left is quite literally clinically insane both in terms of schizophrenic (by believing “facts” that are blatantly false) and sociopathic (by manifesting profound deceit and insincerity and an appalling absence of remorse or shame).

I am so sick of these sneering pseudo-intellectual HYPOCRITES creating “facts” by the despicable manipulation of rhetoric otherwise known as “political correctness.”

We now live in a time when liberals are so hypocritical and frankly so blatantly morally depraved that liberals believe that it is okay for their members to label police as “murderers” and that “law enforcement” is tantamount to “white supremacy” but it is somehow intolerable for a Republican to talk about the ACTUAL MURDERERS and criminals who are flooding into our nation via illegal immigration.

Liberal Hollywood tycoon Quentin Tarantino appeared on liberal MSNBC and doubled-down after calling police murders.  He said (“whined” being a more accurate term):

That’s the way they attack me …  for standing up for the rights of unarmed citizens who have been killed by the police.

They want to demonize me.  They want to slander me and imply that I said things I didn’t say.  And the reason is because they want me to shut up and they want to make sure that no other people like me, prominent citizens, will stand up for that side.

First of all, you turd, WHY ARE THE CITIZENS UNARMED AGAIN???  Oh, that’s right; because of liberals like YOU dedicated to denying us our 2nd Amendment freedom in spite of the fact that basically every single movie you ever made glorified gun violence – because, yeah, to be a damn liberal is to be a damn hypocrite.  And second, what about the left trying to destroy Donald Trump for pointing out the fact that “unarmed citizens” are rather routinely getting MURDERED by illegal immigrants that this administration refuses to deal with?  What about the far MORE fascist tactics that the left routinely uses to demonize any debate???

You can’t reason with or argue with a hypocrite.  Democrats constantly shift in their double-standards.  As I believe I’ve amply demonstrated above, the goal posts move on every single play with them while they demonize us for not PERFECTLY holding to the ideals of a man from three decades ago.

It is literally Satanic for the Democrat Party that has swung further to extremism than any political party has in American history to label the Republican Party as “extremists.”  Just as it is literally Satanic for the mainstream media to act as that extremist party’s most powerful super PAC by backing their demagoguery.

Advertisements

Why Islamic Extremists Support Democrats and Obama

October 12, 2008

There is a direct relationship between American liberals and Islamic fascism.  At first glance, someone might say, “This can’t possibly be.  Islamic extremists commit all these acts of violence in the name of Islam, and liberals profess peace and secularism.  How can the one have any relationship with the other?”  Read on.

It’s one thing to realize who has most most aggressively opposed the war on terror, where even the term “terrorist” – along with “war on terror” itself – gets purged in a politically correct manner to be replaced by the more neutral term “insurgents.”  In the words of one New York Times writer:

The war over words and definitions is not a new one. The current administration has fought to maintain custody of the Iraqi conflict by defining insurgents as “terrorists” and prisoners of war as “unlawful combatants.” During Vietnam, the administration defined civilian casualties as “collateral damage.”

What Democrats and liberals have done to oppose the “war on terror” is largely a matter of history.  They opposed the Patriot Act; they opposed the monitoring of calls to the United States from identified terrorists; they opposed the ability of the United States to detain combatants fighting against United States troops; they tried to force time tables that would have resulted in the United States withdrawing in defeat; they literally proclaimed – in the case of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid – that the United States had lost. They voted for the war before they voted against it.  In large part, they have claimed that it has been American imperialism, rather than growing Islamic fascism, which caused the upsurge of violence.  In short, the view is that they are attacking us because we are killing them.  We’re the bad guys.  We’re the force for evil in the world.

The following audio quote comes from Democrat Parker Griffith via Redstate.com:

I think America’s greatest enemy is America and its imperialism.

And I think that . . . uh . . . we have nothing to fear from radical Islam. We have nothing to fear from any other religion if we are strong on our own beliefs. I don’t fear radical Islam.

It’s hard to fight and win any kind of conflict when half the country questions whether the war should even be fought in the first place and believes that we are the bad guys.

Hence we have Michael Moore – a hugely popular liberal filmmaker (though I prefer the more accurate label of “propagandist”) saying:

The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not “insurgents” or “terrorists” or “The Enemy.” They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow — and they will win.

The people Bush and his “neocons” (whatever that means) calls “terrorist murderers” who are killing American soldiers with land mines liberals like Michael Moore and many others compare to our Minutemen who won American freedom in the Revolutionary War.

For this reason alone, there is a direct relationship between the Islamic fascists and American liberals: they both agree that we shouldn’t be fighting them, and that the United States is the greater evil.

But the relationship is actually much deeper than that.  The liberal’s opposition  to the war on terror, and their de facto support for the “insurgents,” is a result of a common belief system directly linking American liberals to Islamic fascists.

One writer put it this way:

Through a Marxist lens, the world is divided into rich and poor, owner and worker, exploiter and exploited. Therefore, if a person or a nation is poor, it is always due to the oppression of the richer person or the richer nation. This simplistic view of the world is the main reason for leftist support of Palestinian terrorism… Israel is perceived to be Western and rich, while the Arabs are perceived to be poor and downtrodden; therefore the Arabs are right. Never mind that the Palestinian Arab Muslims treat women like property, use intimidation and violence against religious minorities, openly call for the rule of Sharia religious law, severely persecute gays, and generally conduct themselves in a way that liberals would find abhorrent if it were being done in their backyard. The Palestinians are poor, therefore they are justified in anything they do, including murder of “Zionist” children.

Those nasty elements that routinely characterize Islam in so much of the world are conveniently ignored in the name of “multiculturalism,” “pluralism,” and “global harmony.”  And since traditional Christianity is the real boogeyman of secular humanist liberalism, anything that is hostile to the Christian world view is regarded positively.  Bush is the real terrorist; al Qaeda and the Taliban are “insurgents,” “freedom fighters,” or even “Minutemen”-type heroes.  The forces of global jihadism are depicted as forces that we can negotiate with if only Bush were out of the picture.

Liberals, who routinely demonize the rich as evil in a clearly Marxist-inspired version of the proletariat versus the bourgeoisie, use almost the exact same language and the same arguments to attack their “neocon” opposition as the Islamic fascists use to justify their violence.  It makes it hard to disagree with their arguments and justifications when you are essentially using the identical arguments yourself.

The only real difference, then, is the use of violence as a political tool.  And it is a fact that liberal groups – such as the Weathermen, and such as one William Ayers who bombed the Pentagon and killed policemen –  have employed precisely the same sort of violence as the “insurgents” – a.k.a. the Islamic fascists – have used.  Liberals who employed violence as a political weapon went too far; but liberals who refuse to make the distinction between force and violence and embrace the weakness and non-action catastrophically championed by Neville Chamberlain go too far as well.

As Robert Heinlein once put it, the sad fact of reality is that:

“Anyone who clings to the historically untrue — and — thoroughly immoral doctrine that violence never solves anything I would advise to conjure up the ghosts of Napoleon Bonaparte and the Duke of Wellington and let them debate it. The ghost of Hitler would referee. Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor; and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and their freedoms.”

It is vital that we realize that the refusal to fight evil is itself evil.

Democrats initially supported the war on terror and the Iraq War.  But they turned against the war the moment that it was in their cynical political interests to do so.  Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid declared American defeat; Barack Obama still refuses to support the surge strategy even when it is clear that the surge was the only path to victory.

Many liberals and Democrats claim that the war on terror has only strengthened the terrorists.  That claim is tantamount to the argument that Hitler would have preferred a Winston Churchill to a Neville Chamberlain.  It is both contemptible and irrational.  But that is where we are.

And the fact that Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama wasn’t sufficiently troubled by the violent terrorist actions of such a man as to refuse to serve on a board with him – a board that carried out Ayer’s radical educational vision (which is frankly nearly as radical as was his violent political vision) – ought to be more than troubling itself.  Similarly he likewise isn’t so troubled with the vile actions of rogue regimes such as Iran and North Korea that he isn’t willing to boos their international profile by directly negotiating with them as President.

There is also a direct relationship between Barack Obama and pro-Muslim sources.  Barack Obama doesn’t actively embrace their support because of the political liabilities, but Muslims clearly believe that a Barack Obama presidency will be a pro-Muslim presidency.  Further, millions of dollars have poured into the Obama campaign from overseas – and been laundered by breaking it into less-than-$200 increments to avoid detection – and there is no question that a great deal of that money is coming from Islamic sources.  This, also, ought to be extremely troubling.

But most troubling of all should be the nuclear weapon-bound Iran.  Iran is clearly determined to puruse a full-fledge nuclear capability, and in spite of Barack Obama’s campaign rhetoric, it is difficult to imagine how he could possibly be willing to take his pledge of preventing the regime from developing such weapons to the point of forceful confrontation (which is clearly the only way that Iran will blink).  Obama couldn’t even bring himself to vote for a bill that labeled Iran as a terrorist organization, and in fact publicly opposed it as “excessively provocative.”  Given his grounds for opposing the Iraq War, how can he possibly support an Iran War?  We won’t be ever be certain that Iran has developed the bomb until we see the first mushroom cloud.

The only way we will be able to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons is to state categorically that we will go to war with them if they continue in their present course.  Iran suspended its nuclear weapons program in 2003 only because we had invaded Iraq and they thought they would be next.  They began it again when they saw the U.S. effort bog down both militarily and politically.  They began it again when they saw Democrats treacherously turn against a war they had once supported the moment it was in their political advantage to do so.

If Barack Obama believes he will be able to inspire Europe to unite with America in a war against Iran, he is naive to the point of criminality.  Most of Europe depends on Russian and Iranian oil, and Russia and Iran are key allies.  And the fact of the matter is that Russia is using its UN veto to block any United Nations measure condemning Iran.  If the United States acts, it will basically be on its own – again.

The financial crisis and the massive bailout package will also force the next President to make very tough spending decisions.  John McCain promised to build the military and freeze other spending programs; Barack Obama could not identify one of his huge social spending initiatives he would actually cut.  We will not be able to confront Iran without building our military to make it even stronger than it is today.

If Iran develops nuclear weapons, along with ballistic missile delivery systems that they are likewise working on, they will be immune from any direct attack.  A regime that has called the United States “the Great Satan” and Israel “a rotting corpse” will literally be able to mount 9/11 style terrorist attacks (or should I say “insurgent” like the mainstream media?) with impunity.  It will be able to launch direct or indirect attacks against Israel with impunity unless we are willing to risk a nuclear war that could easily become global.  A nuclear-armed Iran is a looming reality too terrifying to fully contemplate – but contemplate it we must.

Another reason that terrorists regimes would want to see a Barack Obama Presidency is because he has stated that he would reduce the size, sophistication, and power of our military at the very time that we need it the most.

Mark my words: if Barack Obama is elected President, Iran WILL have nuclear weapons during his administration.  Obama supports the philosophy that links American liberalism with the justifications of Islamic fascists.  He has spoken of American soldiers as “air raiding villages and killing civilians.”  His opposition to the war in Iraq – which was based on the identical rationale that any war against Iran would have to be based upon – virtually precludes direct military confrontation.  And his belief that he will be able to persuade Western nations to join a “Gulf War”-style coalition (which his running mate Joe Biden still refused to support) is simply naive beyond belief.

A vote for Obama will become a de facto vote for a nuclear Iran.  Muslim extremists may want that, but Americans certainly shouldn’t.