Posts Tagged ‘free speech’

Secular Humanism The Source Behind Education’s Ills Across The Board As We Decline In Knowledge, In Tolerance And In Morality

May 19, 2014

Secular humanism – in religious terms you can label it “atheism” and in political terms you can label it “progressive liberalism” – is a shell game that tries to hide the existence of the human soul.

The soul is there, of course.  It simply HAS to be there for humans to be in any meaningful way categorically different than the beasts, or for human justice to be anything other than a morbid joke as “beasts” judge one another for acting like beasts.  But the project of secular humanism is to only allow as much “soul” as is absolutely necessary to allow society to function while at the same time denying it’s reality lest the people reject the atheism and the progressive liberalism that are based on the denial of the soul.

The problem is that the soul is NOT a degreed property.  “Size” and “weight” are a degreed properties; a thing can have more of it or less of it and still be the thing itself.  But in this case the soul must be the kind of thing (a substance) that HAS properties rather than a property that has degrees.  We therefore either have souls – in which case the secular humanists are entirely wrong about the nature of humanity, the nature of religion, the nature of morality, the nature of science and the very  nature of the universe – or we do NOT have souls and therefore we do NOT have “free will” in which case human society, human justice and basically everything worthwhile about “humanity” is an entirely manufactured lie.

Look, I am either a soul – created in the image of God – that has a body, or else I am nothing more than a body – and frankly a meat puppet – which was the result of random DNA conditioned by my environment.  It’s one or the other; there is no middle ground.  Free will becomes a logical as well as biological impossibility for the latter view – which is why secular humanist scientists and philosophers are increasingly rejecting the very possibility of free will.

The problem is that if you were to actually assume the latter was actually true, then how could you hold anybody responsible for anything?  It’s really a frightening thought.  After all, if I commit a brutal murder, but there really is no “me” inside of me to truly hold accountable, but rather I was conditioned by genes I didn’t choose and an environment I didn’t choose, why should I be held accountable?  How is this not like holding a child responsible for what his parents did?  But of course, on this view, you can’t hold the parents responsible any more than the child, because they suffer the same complete lack of moral free will that their child does.  And the final result of this view is that we should no more hold a human being – who is NOTHING but an evolved monkey, after all – any more morally responsible for his or her “crimes” than we would hold a tiger responsible for killing a goat.   Because in both cases, you merely do what you “evolved” to do.

Therefore, the people who claim the latter (no God, ergo sum no imago dei ergo sum no free will) is reality have to pretend for the most part that it is most definitely NOT reality in order to have any kind of functioning human society.  What they have done is determined that humans are in fact “animals” (or beasts); and that, more specifically, we are “herd animals.”  Mind you, we are also clearly – judging by human experience – “predator animals” who prey on herd animals.  And so the secular humanists have construed for themselves a “foundation for their description of reality” in which they have appointed themselves the outside role of “the bureaucrats” and “the professors” and “the journalists” (etc.) who shape and control the behavior of the herd and attempt to keep the herd animals relatively safe from the predator animals.

And of course liberalism only becomes consistent in their anthropology when they refuse to execute murderers (after all, THAT would be holding someone accountable for their moral crimes when that man is merely a beast who merely did what his brain had evolved to do); so we house them, keep them locked up in cages.  Just like animals.  Because they ARE animals and nothing more than animals conditioned by DNA plus environment.  Just like YOU’RE nothing more than a mindless animal purely conditioned by DNA plus environment.

I suggest that the increasing breakdown of society under the control of secular humanism is itself a refutation of their system.  We are skyrocketing out of control as a species because when you treat men like beasts, like beasts men shall increasingly become.  As the Bible puts it, “As a man thinks in his heart, so is he” (Proverbs 23:7).  But we can offer a great deal more of an analysis than merely pointing out that “by their fruits shall ye know them” (Matthew 7:16-20).

One of the things you need to realize is the bait and switch you have received regarding science and the nature of science.  You have been fed a pile of lies in the form of a narrative that science is incompatible with religion and that “science” produces open-mindedness and tolerance for new ideas whereas “religion” produces close-mindedness and hostility to new ideas.  But that is simply a lie: as a matter of factual history, “science” is uniquely a product of Judeo-Christianity.  It arose ONLY in Christendom as the result of belief in a Personal, Transcendent Creator God rather than anywhere else on earth.  Belief in God was a necessary condition for the rise of science as not only the discoverer of the scientific method itself (Francis Bacon) but the discoverer of every single branch of science was a publicly confessing Christian who “sought appreciate the beauty of God’s handiwork” and who “wanted to think God’s thoughts after Him.”

J.P. Moreland (Source: The Creation Hypothesis: Scientific Evidence for an Intelligent Designer, p. 17) listed some of the philosophical presuppositions – based on the Judeo-Christian worldview – that were necessary for the foundation of science:

1. the existence of a theory-independent, external world

2. the orderly nature of the external world

3. the knowability of the external world

4. the existence of truth

5. the laws of logic

6. the reliability of human cognitive and sensory faculties to serve as -truth-gatherers and as a source of justified beliefs in our intellectual environment

7. the adequacy of language to describe the world

8. the existence of values used in science (e.g., “test theories fairly and report test results honestly”)

9. the uniformity of nature and induction

10. the existence of numbers

Good luck in starting science without all of these assumptions – of which the assumption of God according to the Judeo-Christian worldview was necessary to provide.  Science could not verify or validate any of the list above for the reason that they already needed to be accepted in order for science to ever get off the ground in the first place.

To put it crassly, if it were up to secular humanists, we would still be living in caves and afraid of fire.  And if it left up to secular humanists, we will ultimately be living in caves and afraid of fire again.  And all you have to do to realize that society is not advancing under their standard, but degenerating, to know that.

God created the world as a habitation for the capstone of His creation, man.  And then God created man in His own image and therefore able to see and fathom the world which He had created for humanity.  That is the basis for science.

Gleason Archer framed an insurmountable intellectual contradiction for the “scientific atheist”:

“But it should be pointed out that consistent atheism, which represents itself to be the most rational and logical of all approaches to reality, is in actuality completely self defeating and incapable of logical defense. That is to say, if indeed all matter has combined by mere chance, unguided by any Higher Power of Transcendental Intelligence, then it necessarily follows that the molecules of the human brain are also the product of mere chance. In other words, we think the way we do simply because the atoms and molecules of our brain tissue happen to have combined in the way they have, totally without transcendental guidance or control. So then even the philosophies of men, their system of logic and all their approaches to reality are the result of mere fortuity. There is no absolute validity to any argument advanced by the atheist against the position of theism.

On the basis of his won presuppositions, the atheist completely cancels himself out, for on his own premises his arguments are without any absolute validity. By his own confession he thinks the way he does simply because the atoms in his brain happen to combine the way they do. If this is so, he cannot honestly say that his view is any more valid than the contrary view of his opponent. His basic postulates are self contradictory and self defeating; for when he asserts that there are no absolutes, he thereby is asserting a very dogmatic absolute. Nor can he logically disprove the existence of God without resorting to a logic that depends on the existence of God for its validity. Apart from such a transcendent guarantor of the validity of logic, any attempts at logic or argumentation are simply manifestations of the behavior of the collocation of molecules that make up the thinker’s brain.”  — Gleason Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, 1982, pp. 55-56

Basically, if the atheist is right, then “human reason” becomes a contradiction in terms and let’s just live like the beasts they say we are and be done pretending we’re something we’re not.

What secular humanists have been trying to do – frankly for generations – is to perpetuate a fraud.  It would be akin to me intercepting a great thinker’s work and trying to pass it off as my own.

But imagine – for the sake of argument – what would have happened had I done such a thing with the work of Albert Einstein.  Imagine I had enough of a vocabulary to pass myself off as a great scientific mind.  What would have happened to science as a result of my limiting it?

And that is what’s essentially being described in the R. Scott Smith article below.  Education – the teaching of science and of how to do science, for example – would suffer more and more as fools who are “always learning and never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth” (2 Timothy 3:7) hijacked the agenda.

I would like to begin this discussion with an article on the logically-entailed implications of Darwinism in crucial human pursuits by beginning with an article detailing the ramifications of Darwinism on education:

Winter 2014
Does Darwinian Evolution Actually Undermine Education?
By R. Scott Smith

Low standard test scores, serious budget crunches and more — our public schools face daunting challenges. But perhaps they face a deeper issue, one not being mentioned in recent public discussions: What if they aren’t really teaching our youth knowledge?

Today’s education is based upon the assumption that science gives us knowledge. But other disciplines give us (at best) “inferior knowledge,” or just preferences and opinions.

And today’s scientific orthodoxy is Darwinian and naturalistic, meaning all that’s real is natural, or material; there isn’t anything real that’s supernatural or immaterial. There’s no God, souls or minds, and so no real “mental states” — thoughts, beliefs, experiences, intentions, etc.

If that seems overstated, notice what Daniel Dennett, a leading philosopher of neuroscience at Tufts University, says. He admits that according to naturalistic evolution, the dominant scientific theory, brains and physical patterns of physical forces exist. Physical stuff (matter) is real, but things like mental states aren’t.

Yet when we do science, pay our taxes or watch a football game, it seems we really think, have beliefs and experience things. So, how can that be?

According to Dennett, all that’s going on is the interpretation of the behavior of “intentional systems,” like sophisticated chess-playing computers and people. While observing them, we try to interpret and predict their behavior. For instance, we might interpret a computer’s move in a game as “intending” to checkmate its opponent, whereas the human player “thinks” or “believes” she can escape by making a certain move. We just interpret their behaviors by how we conceive of (or talk about) their behaviors as mental states — but that’s all there’s to it. There are no real beliefs, thoughts or observations.

However, suppose a person comes here from a fourth-world country. She’ll need to get a concept of what a traffic light is and that she can cross the street on a green light, not red. To learn that, she’ll need experiences and thoughts of what these things are, and then form a concept of when it’s safe to cross a street.

So, for Darwinian evolution and naturalism, there’s a crucial problem here: How could anyone make observations and form concepts and interpretations? To do these seems to require we use the very mental things we’re told don’t exist.

Yet without real observations, we don’t seem able to do any scientific experiments. Without concepts, thoughts and beliefs, how could we even form, test and accept scientific theories?

Worse, how could we have knowledge if there aren’t real beliefs we can accept as true? We also need adequate evidence for our beliefs to count as knowledge. But with Darwinian, naturalistic science, evidence from experience seems impossible.

Now, maybe Michael Tye (a philosopher at the University of Texas at Austin) could reply that we do have mental states, yet these really are just something physical, like brain states, being conceived of as being mental. But, that won’t work — to even have concepts, we need real mental states to work with.

So, it seems the assumption upon which our education system is founded — that Darwinian evolutionary, naturalistic science uniquely gives us knowledge of the facts — cannot be true. And, Darwinian evolution also is mistaken, for on it we couldn’t know anything. Yet we do know many things — for instance, that we’re alive.

Therefore, real, immaterial mental states must exist. While this essay doesn’t prove it, it suggests something very important — supernaturalism isn’t far-fetched after all. Indeed, we can infer even more. If we can have real immaterial thoughts, experiences, beliefs and more, then it seems that there must be something immaterial that is real which can have and use them. That suggests that we have minds, even souls, that are real and non-physical. So, how then do we best explain their existence? Surely not from Darwinian evolution. Instead, it seems that this short study highly suggests that God exists and has made us in a way that we can have knowledge. I am reminded of what Solomon said: “To have knowledge, you must first have reverence for the Lord” (Prov. 1:7, GNT).

Thus, fixing our education system seems to involve, in part, a  repudiation of naturalism and Darwinian, naturalistic science. For on it, we lose all knowledge whatsoever. But since we do know many things, that fact strongly suggests that God exists.


R. Scott Smith (M.A. ’95) is an associate professor of ethics and Christian apologetics in Biola’s master’s program in Christian
apologetics. He holds a Ph.D. in religion and social ethics from the University of Southern California.

Science isn’t “discovering” very much.  We put a man on the moon in the 1960s and we literally aren’t capable of repeating that feat today.  The first computer was invented by a Christian, of course.  We keep making them smaller and faster, but we haven’t had any major leaps for decades.  We’ve been following Moore’s Law rather than any “scientific advance.”  We’ve been very successful at “technology,” and at reducing the size of previously designed devices or at creatively marketing/engineering a device based on the success of a previous device.  But contrary to your secular humanist, we’re not making giant leaps and bounds on the frontiers of science.

And that is most definitely true of education – and especially education in America relative to other nations as we plunge ever more deeply into the philosophy of secular humanism that had NOTHING to do with the origin of science or the origin of ANY OTHER MEANINGFUL THING.

I look at education and I see what many parents as well as many educators see: kids that are getting dumber and dumber.

And you have to ask yourself, why is that, given that we’re spending more per pupil than ever???  Why do we keep falling behind?  And why do Christian schools run circles around the government (secular humanist education center) schools???  Because it is simply a FACT that they do:

If you want a flourishing education system – you know, the kind of system that put a man on the moon – you need to demand a return to a religion-friendly education system rather than the one that has replaced the system that made America great.

It is a fact of history that American public education began as a RELIGIOUS ENDEAVOROf the first 108 universities founded in America, 106 were distinctly Christian.  As a native Californian, I also marveled to learn that Christianity and churches EXCLUSIVELY bore the burden of education for basically the first hundred years of westward expansion.

I’ve written about what happened as government invited itself in to take over education:

Then what turned out to be a Faustian bargain was struck.  Government took over the education system, ostensibly allowing the churches and denominations to pursue other noble work such as the mission fields.  It didn’t take long for the same government that had protected human slavery and created the Trail of Tears to begin systematically removing Scripture, God and prayer from the classrooms and thus from the children of each successive generation’s minds.

Christians stepped away from the work of education that they had historically devoted themselves to and began to put the overwhelming majority of their funds into their churches and their missionaries.  Meanwhile, liberals began to place virtually all of their funds into the universities and thus began to increasingly shape the curricula.

Ultimately, as a result, the Christians who began the universities and schools found themselves completely shut out of their own progeny.

Look what’s happened.  Liberals have purged out conservatives.  The snootiest, most hoity toity, most sanctimonious lecturers about “tolerance” are THE most intolerant people of all:

College faculties, long assumed to be a liberal bastion, lean further to the left than even the most conspiratorial conservatives might have imagined, a new study says.

By their own description, 72 percent of those teaching at American universities and colleges are liberal and 15 percent are conservative, says the study being published this week. The imbalance is almost as striking in partisan terms, with 50 percent of the faculty members surveyed identifying themselves as Democrats and 11 percent as Republicans.

The disparity is even more pronounced at the most elite schools, where, according to the study, 87 percent of faculty are liberal and 13 percent are conservative.

“What’s most striking is how few conservatives there are in any field,” said Robert Lichter, a professor at George Mason University and a co-author of the study. “There was no field we studied in which there were more conservatives than liberals or more Republicans than Democrats. It’s a very homogenous environment, not just in the places you’d expect to be dominated by liberals.” […]

Rothman sees the findings as evidence of “possible discrimination” against conservatives in hiring and promotion. Even after factoring in levels of achievement, as measured by published work and organization memberships, “the most likely conclusion” is that “being conservative counts against you,” he said. “It doesn’t surprise me, because I’ve observed it happening.” The study, however, describes this finding as “preliminary.”

By the way, I’m “possibly” liberal by that standard of measurement.  Yeah, being conservative or being a Christian (and recall that it was the Democrat Party that voted to remove “God” from its party platform until God was illegally put back into the platform amid a chorus of boos) most definitely “counts against you” in the stacked deck that liberalism has created to benefit itself and punish its enemies.  As Professor Guillermo Gonzalez found out the hard way when liberals denied him tenure because he had the gall to write a book expressing his belief in an intelligent designer of the universe.  And after denying him tenure because he believed in God and they are fascists, they fired a professor who should by all rights have been celebrated.

Because liberals are in fact the most intolerant people.  Once they took over the universities, they made very certain that they would never lose that control by making certain that conservative faculty would be systematically denied tenure and purged out.

That was our strike two for us [note: I write about three strikes in the article].  Liberals got into the education system and then barricaded the door behind them.

By the way, the two fields of academia liberals most hijacked were the fields of education and law.  They trained up the teachers and the lawyers who would be able to indoctrinate their students and more lawyers who would be able to basically make the Constitution an infinitely malleable document that basically means whatever liberals think it means.  By taking over education, liberals were able to introduce increasingly and frankly wildly failed teaching methodologies that brainwashed kids into liberalism without bothering to teach them reading, writing, arithmetic and history.  Our government school system has completely broken down and failed because liberals turned education into indoctrination.  And what is even worse, the more liberal teaching methodologies fail, the more liberals exploit their failure to usher in even WORSE methodologies.  It has become a vicious circle.

Today we have an “education system” ladened with secular humanist theories which don’t teach children because as secular humanists they have understanding of “humanity” or the little souls whom they seek more to indoctrinate than to educate.

Johnny can’t read, at least he can’t read very well.  But that’s okay; he doesn’t need to be able to read very well in order to serve the future State or the crony capitalist corporations in the progressive liberals’ fascist system in order to be a good drone worker bee.  When your child is toiling away at his or her menial job, feel good in the knowledge that your child will do so believing that being a good citizen and taking your place as one of myriad cogs in the machine will keep him or her moving mindlessly forward.

In a way, I’ve already also described the rabid intolerance that is the quintessence of secular humanism in describing above the purging of conservatives by liberals.  But believe me, there is way, way more than that.

One of the frightening things about the Holocaust was that only one who closely followed the theories presented in the German universities could see it coming.  But those who DID follow what was being taught in the elite German universities could see it coming very clearly.  Many of those who did follow what was being taught were terrified and tried to warn the free nations about what was happening.  But of course nobody listened.  And so it all played out exactly as the most strident voices warned it would play out unless something was done.  That “play” was World War II and the death camps that accompanied it.

The lesson of history is that ideas have consequences.  And terrible ideas have terrible consequences, indeed.

So with that introduction, allow me to replay a recent article written by a student of one of the most – if not THE most – prestigious of universities in America reflecting a new rabid intolerance of free speech in academia:

 In its oft-cited Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure, the American Association of University Professors declares that “Teachers are entitled to full freedom in research and in the publication of the results.” In principle, this policy seems sound: It would not do for academics to have their research restricted by the political whims of the moment.

Yet the liberal obsession with “academic freedom” seems a bit misplaced to me. After all, no one ever has “full freedom” in research and publication. Which research proposals receive funding and what papers are accepted for publication are always contingent on political priorities. The words used to articulate a research question can have implications for its outcome. No academic question is ever “free” from political realities. If our university community opposes racism, sexism, and heterosexism, why should we put up with research that counters our goals simply in the name of “academic freedom”?

Instead, I would like to propose a more rigorous standard: one of “academic justice.” When an academic community observes research promoting or justifying oppression, it should ensure that this research does not continue. […]

It is tempting to decry frustrating restrictions on academic research as violations of academic freedom. Yet I would encourage student and worker organizers to instead use a framework of justice. After all, if we give up our obsessive reliance on the doctrine of academic freedom, we can consider more thoughtfully what is just.

Basically, she says that free speech on campus should be abolished and professors with opposing views be fired.

Here as in so many other ways, secular humanist “liberalism” is Nazism.  Period.

I want you to consider the bastion of bias and intolerance that academia has truly become:

AN ANTONIO — Some of the world’s pre-eminent experts on bias discovered an unexpected form of it at their annual meeting.

Discrimination is always high on the agenda at the Society for Personality and Social Psychology’s conference, where psychologists discuss their research on racial prejudice, homophobia, sexism, stereotype threat and unconscious bias against minorities. But the most talked-about speech at this year’s meeting, which ended Jan. 30, involved a new “outgroup.”

It was identified by Jonathan Haidt, a social psychologist at the University of Virginia who studies the intuitive foundations of morality and ideology. He polled his audience at the San Antonio Convention Center, starting by asking how many considered themselves politically liberal. A sea of hands appeared, and Dr. Haidt estimated that liberals made up 80 percent of the 1,000 psychologists in the ballroom. When he asked for centrists and libertarians, he spotted fewer than three dozen hands. And then, when he asked for conservatives, he counted a grand total of three.

“This is a statistically impossible lack of diversity,” Dr. Haidt concluded, noting polls showing that 40 percent of Americans are conservative and 20 percent are liberal. In his speech and in an interview, Dr. Haidt argued that social psychologists are a “tribal-moral community” united by “sacred values” that hinder research and damage their credibility — and blind them to the hostile climate they’ve created for non-liberals.

“Anywhere in the world that social psychologists see women or minorities underrepresented by a factor of two or three, our minds jump to discrimination as the explanation,” said Dr. Haidt, who called himself a longtime liberal turned centrist. “But when we find out that conservatives are underrepresented among us by a factor of more than 100, suddenly everyone finds it quite easy to generate alternate explanations.”

We are now seeing a massive effort on the part of students who have been brain-washed by the above secular humanist dictatorship of academia in which they simply refuse to tolerate or even listen to any ideas that disagree with their dogma.

Students are now shouting down anyone with whom they disagree.  It doesn’t matter how many other students want to hear a speaker: secular humanist liberal students and faculty are fascists who impose their will and dictate their agenda on others (even when they are in the very tiny minority):  And so:

At least three prominent leaders — former U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, International Monetary Fund Managing Director Christine Lagarde, and former UC Berkeley Chancellor Robert Birgeneau — cancelled their commencement speeches this spring after a typhoon of campus activism.

Consider what happened this week with Birgeneau, who had been scheduled to speak at Haverford College, a close-knit liberal arts school just outside Philadelphia.

By some measures, Birgeneau is the perfect person to give a graduation speech: Successful, civic-minded and notable, not least for guiding Berkeley as it became the first American public university to offer comprehensive financial aid to students in the country illegally. But Birgeneau was actually far from ideal, some Haverford students and faculty decided.

Despite his left-friendly work on immigration, they said they wanted Birgeneau to apologize for how campus police brutalized Occupy Wall Street demonstrators in 2011 — or else they would protest his graduation speech.

In response, Birgeneau decided not to attend the graduation. His cancellation, the most recent of the three, is raising concerns in some quarters that campus leftist groups are putting so much emphasis on social justice issues that they’re squashing the spirit of open debate. […]

But some observers say the recent campus blow back belongs in its own category, which political writer Michelle Goldberg, in a column for The Nation, called “left-wing anti-liberalism” – the idea that some speech and some people are so politically disagreeable that their views don’t need to be heard.

Lukianoff, of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, pointed to a 2013 dust-up at Brown University in which former New York police head Ray Kelly’s speech to students had to be canceled after he was shouted down and unable to speak.

Kelly has long been despised by the left for his defense of stop-and-frisk policies and how the NYPD cracked down on Occupy Wall Street protesters. His embarrassment at Brown became a YouTube moment that other officials would likely hope to avoid. [….]

For centuries, universities – which again were started by Christians out of the monasticism movement (as in America, where 106 of the first 108 universities in America including ALL the Ivy League schools were began by Christians; and of the first 126 colleges, 123 were Christian) have celebrated their institutions as bastions of free expression and the interchange of ideas.  That is a lie today.  You don’t GET to learn “ideas” any more; you get to learn THE idea of secular humanist liberalism and nothing else.  Because whether you are a student or a professor or an administrator, these secular humanist liberals will come after you if you commit the sin of heresy in their rabid eyes.

Therefore, what has happened in the colleges and universities is analogous to a wayward girl who began to date a monster and ultimately helped murder her own parents in the night.  That’s what secular humanism did in purging the universities and colleges from the Christian tradition that gave BIRTH to those universities and colleges.

I compare what I’m seeing today to the French Revolution.  It, like what we’re seeing today, was the result of secular humanism.  And like what we’re seeing today, the French Revolution quickly degenerated from a bunch of hoity-toity pronouncements to hell on earth as the French Revolution rapidly degenerated into the Reign of Terror.

It is an easy thing to prove that rabid intolerance is a defining feature of the (secular humanist “liberal”) left today.  We are seeing the left declare open war on free speech and on the exercise of First Amendment rights as this nation has never seen before.  Executives are being forced out of companies they helped found because they had the audacity to exercise their free speech rights as AmericansJournalists are getting purged for daring to speak the truth.   And just consider the vicious, rabid leftist Occupy Movement compared to the conservative Tea Party that was so demonized by the leftist press:

Occupy Movement Costs America UNTOLD MILLIONS ($2.3 Milion In L.A. ALONE) Versus Tea Party Movement Which MADE Cities Money

Liberalism = Marxism. See The Occupy Movement Shutting Down Ports, Capitalism, Jobs To Get Their Way (Communist Russian Revolution Part Deux)

After Obama Deceitfully Demonized GOP For ‘Dirtier Air And Dirtier Water,’ His Occupy Movement Leaves Behind 30 TONS Of Diseased Filfth At Just ONE Site

Vile Liberal Occupy Movement Killed The Grass At L.A. City Hall – What Should Be Done Now?

Occupy Movement Officially A Terrorist Group Now

The American Left Personified By Occupy Movement: Vile, Violent Fascist Thugs

Occupy Movement Is Destroying Jobs And Hurting Little People

Consider The Fundamental Incoherence And Hypocrisy Of The Left And The Occupy Movement

Occupy Wall Street Movement Ranks Have Criminals, Rioters, Rapists, Terrorists And Now Murderers

There have been 7,765 documented arrests of leftist Occupy Movement fascists.  Versus ZERO for the Tea Party.

Occupy – as a symbol and a symptom of the left – believed it had the right to “occupy” private property, to destroy property, to destroy jobs, to pretty much take over.  And in the case of UC Berkeley Chancellor Robert Birgeneau, we discover that it is a sin punishable by the maximum penalty to apply law and order to the left.  Better to just let them occupy and riot and vandalize, I suppose.

Liberalism is fascist intolerance when “liberalism” has been hijacked by secular humanist progressive liberalism.  Liberals are simply pathologically intolerant people across the board as expressed in pretty much any way you can measure it.

I come at last to sexual assaults.  They’ve either absolutely skyrocketed in Obama’s military and in liberalism’s universities or Obama has – incredibly cynically – manufactured a political crisis to demagogue.  Let’s just assume the data we have is correct and Obama ISN’T an incredibly evil man and go with it.  Sexual assaults have skyrocketed on his watch during his administration.

Secular humanists have no answer for why this would be.  After all, they’ve been talking about it and requiring more enforcement – including universities which clearly aren’t able to deal with the crisis – and punishing it more than ever.  So why is it growing out of control on a liberal president’s watch?

The answer is easy.  On my Judeo-Christian view, rape is wrong, wrong, WRONG.  Because contrary to secular humanism, we’re NOT just DNA-plus-environment-plus nothing meat puppets; we are human beings created by God in His image.  And to sexually assault another human being is to ignore, degrade and pervert the image of God in another soul.

On a secular humanist, not so much.

Oh, your liberal feminist asserts it’s wrong.  But when you stop and consider the tenets of Darwinian evolution, on what grounds do they assert such a thing?

Evolutionists have long talked about rape in terms of advancing evolution.  We’re equipped for fleeing, fighting and fornicating, we’re told.  There’s such a thing as a “rape gene,” we’re told.  And since Darwinism is all about “survival of the fittest,” and since the fittest survive precisely by passing on their DNA, well, rape is merely one of many possible pathways for an organism to strive to be the fittest in Darwinan terms.  And of course the animal world abounds with examples in which humans would call it “rape” but animals would call it “reproducing.”

Why do we as individuals rape, murder and sleep around?  Because as evolutionists explain:

“rape is (in the vernacular of evolutionary biology) an adaptation, a trait encoded by genes that confers an advantage on anyone who possesses them. Back in the late Pleistocene epoch 100,000 years ago, men who carried rape genes had a reproductive and evolutionary edge over men who did not: they sired children not only with willing mates, but also with unwilling ones, allowing them to leave more offspring (also carrying rape genes) who were similarly more likely to survive and reproduce, unto the nth generation. That would be us. And that is why we carry rape genes today. The family trees of prehistoric men lacking rape genes petered out.”

Darwinism is “a scientific idea that, if true, consigns traditions of self-restraint, loyalty, the very basis of family life, to the shredder.”  Now go ye and do likewise.  Unless something inside of you screams “NO!  I will NOT live in accordance with that terrible, wicked, demonic theory of Darwinian evolution!”

Rape isn’t wrong because secular humanists say it is.  That’s not a good enough reason.  Certainly not for the increasing numbers of humans committing sexual assaults it isn’t, anyway.

Why is rape wrong?  Frankly, in our new system of “morality,” rape is wrong because Obama says it is wrong.  That’s certainly the “logic” Obama used to first say that homosexual marriage was wrong when it was politically convenient to do so and that it somehow became right when it was politically convenient for him to say it was right.  I mean, literally, gay marriage was wrong until Obama said it was right.  And now it’s right.  But anyone who thinks that this is the way morality works is quite literally morally insane.

And so we have insane sexual assault statistics to go with it.

If secular humanist liberalism is in any way, shape or form true, THERE IS NO REASON TO BE TOLERANT.  In fact, we ought to be as vicious, as ruthless, as determined to win in our struggle for ideology – which of course is merely the result of how our brains happened to be randomly wired versus having any “truth” to them if secular humanism is true – as is necessary to prevail.

If secular humanist liberalism is true, then the struggle for “ideas” today is no different between rival packs of baboons fighting over the same turf.

And the reason the beast is coming is because God foreknew 2,000 years ago and beyond that in the last days, the most vicious pack of baboons (the secular humanist liberals) would prevail in a world in which rational argument and debate had been expunged by “liberalism.”

 

Advertisements

Just In Case You Want To Know Why Progressive Liberalism Is In Bed With Islamic Fascism. Because Basically, They’re One And The Same

May 15, 2014

It’s really an amazing thing to see: the love affair between Islamic fascist jihadism and the progressive left.

I long ago documented Barack Obama’s LONG association with radical Islam.

You start throwing out radical names of dangerous people that Obama has been associated with and a pattern emerges:  the aforementioned Davis, Jeremiah Wright (see also here and here and here), Khalid al-Mansour (more here), Rashid Khalidi, Tony Rezko, Bill Ayers.  And you realize that Obama has been steeped in a profoundly Marxist worldview.  Obama isn’t stupid; he knows that the American people don’t want that ideology.  But no one can conceal his worldview completely.  Critical observers saw it clearly.

Khalid al-Monsour and Rashid Khalidi are bad, bad news if you AREN’T a radical Muslim who is very, very comfortable with terrorism in the name of your ideology.

And the left’s intimate love-affair with radical extremist (violent as hell) Islam run deep, deep, DEEP.  Just recently the uberleftist Brandeis University “disinvited” a female Muslim who has refused to shut her mouth about the viciousness of Islam toward women.  And the soon-to-open 9/11 Museum is taking a lot of flack because it has words such as “Islamic extremism” and “jihadism.”

This brave Muslim woman wanted to tell the truth about what is going on in the lives of these poor, oppressed women who are forced to undergo genital mutilation, endure rapes without having the right to report crimes against them, not be able to drive, not able to even leave the house without an escort, wear a giant tent called a hijab that covers everything but their veiled eyes and the tips of their feet, etc.

And how DARE she do that!  It’s an OUTRAGE!  And liberal Democrats are FURIOUS.  Furious enough to attack her for the cardinal sin of being “intolerant.”

Hint: it sure aint Republicans getting behind these Muslim whitewashers of truth and reason.

So there’s a good question for discussion: why the hell would liberals (well, PROGRESSIVE liberals given the fact that these cockroaches have nothing to do with ACTUAL liberalism) would be such ardent supporters of the people who quite possibly despise them even more than I do.

The answer is actually very simple.

The most fundamental reason is the fact that progressive “liberalism” is based on racism and the fabrication of various racial minority groups into a voting bloc.  Basically, if you recognize and affirm what a truly inferior and pathetic human being you are, and therefore see yourself as a victim of everybody and everything you disagree with, you too can be a “liberal.”

And radical Muslims – yes, terrorists like Osama bin Laden – very much and in the exact same “liberal” tradition view themselves as “victims” of the same “capitalism” and “Christendom” that progressive liberals so ardently despise.

Given that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend,” and given that jihadist Islamic fascists hate most of the same things that progressive liberals hate, they are bedfellows.  Even though these Muslim fanatics would love nothing more than to slit the throats of every progressive liberal on the planet when they’re through using them as useful idiots and ideological human shields.

It boils down to this: if you’re a black Muslim in America today, which party and which president do you vote for?

I’ll leave it to Nation of Islam founder Lois Farrakhan to put that one to bed for me:

“You are the instruments that God is gonna use to bring about universal change, and that is why Barack has captured the youth. And he has involved young people in a political process that they didn’t care anything about. That’s a sign. When the Messiah speaks, the youth will hear, and the Messiah is absolutely speaking.”

Oh, yes, when Obama campaign chief David Axelrod called Obama “black Jesus” and when liberal Newsweek editor Evan Thomas said Obama is “sort of God” and when liberal idiot Spike Lee said you can divide history into BB before Barack and AB After Barack; when Obama literally has such a God-complex that he made the whole nation and the flag which symbolizes that nation about himself, when senior Obama White House advisors literally go to churches to preach Obama; and most definitely when liberals are selling “artwork” that pictures Obama’s face and phrases such as “prophecy fulfilled,” they are mouthing Louis Farrakhan.

But you’ve got to ask, why do liberals love Islamic radicals so much?  Why are the two ideologies bedfellows?

Because they’ve got an awful (and I emphasize these people are truly “awful”) lot in common besides the fact that Muslims tend to be racial minorities and therefore are held sacrosanct by the Democrat Party no matter how utterly wicked and violent and rabid they are.  Not that being wicked, violent or rabid in any way, shape or form is a barrier to being a Democrat, mind you.

Other than the racial minority thing, which is frankly enough to solidify the connection between liberal Democrats and the radical jihadist fascist left all by its lonesome, Islamic fascist have three other things that progressive liberals hold dear:

The second thing that binds Islamic fascists and liberalism together is a love of fascism and the exaltation of the State as God.  That is a cornerstone of both fanatic Islam and fanatic progressive liberalism alike.

Muslims refer to the concept of Khilafah.  Basically, think of the world as one Muslim Caliphate.  And you have the dream of Muslims.

Liberals want the same damn thing: they want one-world government.  They want a mega-socialist all-powerful totalitarian State.

Now, progressive liberals might argue that Muslims want to rule in the name of God and liberals want a godlike all-powerful State that has absolute authority over human lives entirely apart from God.  But in point of fact, the two become the same thing.

In North Korea, dictator Kim Il-Sung, then Kim Jong Il and now Kim Jong-Un are worshiped as GOD in their atheist state.

In the atheist state of the People’s Republic of China, Chairman Mao was likewise worshiped as GOD.

Leftists cannot help themselves.  In order to BE a leftist, you have to have the insanely arrogant belief that YOU should be the one to pull or push up or down all the levers and YOU should be the one who pushes or doesn’t push all of the buttons of state.  Liberals don’t believe that individuals ought to have the freedom to govern their own lives and their own affairs; rather, they feel that THEY ought to have the power to FORCE individuals to comply with what THEY want.  Or else face the power of their State.

The most rabid Muslims really aren’t very different.

Put another way, both the Ayatollah AND Barack Obama love to dictate government by use of “executive orders.”  See here and here for just two of myriad examples of our Thug-in-Chief’s abuse of power, of the separation of powers and of the Constitution.

The third thing both the progressive liberal left and radical Islamic jihadist fascism have in common is an utter contempt for and hostility to Christianity.

Piss Christ was the result of a liberal “artist” being paid government dollars from a VERY liberal National Endowment for the Arts program created by DEMOCRATS.

I wonder how Democrats would have voted for “Piss Mohammed.”  I think all reasonable people know what these cowardly liberal cockroaches would have done.

Progressive liberal Democrats are doing everything they possibly can to advance an anti-Christian agenda to overthrow Judeo-Christianity as the moral framework for society.  Because they think they’ve got a far better framework.

The fourth thing that progressive liberal Democrats and their jihadist Islamic fascists both have in common is a rabid intolerance of free speech.  You need to understand why both come to the same exact perspective from opposite ends of the spectrum: for Muslims, the suppression of free speech and individual freedom and liberty is all about the fact that in Islam the individual is nothing and the Islamic State is EVERYTHING.  And thus you have the right to shut up in Islam if you disagree with Sharia or the Khilafah Caliphate State.  In progressive liberalism, the suppression of free speech and individual liberty is based on the opposite of Christianity: in Christianity, you are created in the image of God and you have God-given rights, including the right of free speech and individual freedom and liberty.  Under progressive liberalism, you are nothing but DNA (i.e. chemicals) conditioned by your environment; you have no free will; you are merely a herd animal.  And liberals view themselves as your masters who reserve for themselves the right to make all of your herd decisions for you.  And so under progressive liberalism, you have the right to shut up if you disagree with political correctness or the Socialist Welfare State.

What the left has done is as fascinating as it is dishonest and hypocritical.  Think of 1978 and the ACLU-backed ruling that Nazis had the right to march through a town (Skokie, Illinois) that was heavily populated by Jewish death camp survivors.

This was, of course, racism at its worst and its ugliest, given the history of 6 million Jews murdered like insects during the Nazi Holocaust.

But, under the guise of liberalism, free speech was so sacred, so sacrosanct, that even the very ugliest speech needed to be protected at all possible costs.

Now, fast forward a few decades to Donald Sterling, a man whom the left wants to strip a one-billion-PLUS dollar franchise from against his will because he said a bunch of ugly racist garbage over what he thought was a private phone line.

Let me explain what happened: liberals took advantage of free speech to get their feet and their ideology in the door and then they slammed that door shut.  They don’t need it any more.  You have the right to shut up.  Or lose your property (like Donald Sterling) or your career (like the Mozilla CEO who committed the unpardonable sin of believing he had the freedom to donate to a political cause liberals don’t support).

Don’t tell me that the precedent of going after a racist like Sterling won’t soon be exploited to go after Christians like me who believe God rather than Obama when it comes to homosexual marriage.

Think of the bastions of liberal progressivism otherwise known as “universities.”  Think of what recently came out of a liberal progressive student who basically has the same job that Obama had when HE was a liberal fanatic at Harvard:

Sandra Korn, a senior who writes a column for the Harvard Crimson newspaper, thinks radical leftism is the only permissible political philosophy, and the First Amendment only hinders colleges from brainwashing students with her viewpoint.

Stop and think (liberals being incapable of either being that as fascists they love to rush to exploit the emergency of “crisis”): liberals love the idea of destroying a Donald Sterling because, racist (LIBERAL) roach that he is, they know that they can exploit the legitimate moral revulsion against racism to “progressively” demonize OTHER areas – such as opposition to homosexuality or opposition to big government, or support for voter IDs, etc., etc. ad nauseum – to their heart’s content.

Progressive liberals, if anything, are even MORE rabidly intolerant against free speech than the most fanatic Islamic fascists.

So you see, on numerous fronts, to be a radical terrorist Muslim jihadist fascist is to be a radical totalitarian liberal progressive fascist.  The two have the same basic worldview and it is therefore no surprise at all that one protects the other.

If you get in the way of the machinery of either one, they will crush you.

 

 

 

The Inherent, Pathological Fascism Of The Left. It Took Nazism Decades To Fester In Germany And American Liberals Are Ahead Of Schedule.

April 7, 2014

Back in 2008 I wrote a three part series of articles entitled, “How Postmodernism Leads To Fascism.”  Guess what?  It still does.

Its been nearly three years since I wrote a long article titled, “Why I Call Obama A Fascist.”  And the man has EXPLODED in fascism since I wrote that with his targeting of nearly 300 conservative groups using his thug IRS as a major recent example.  He is a firehose of pure fascist evil and you literally cannot keep up with it unless you stay up 24/7 trying to document it all.

But this article isn’t about Obama per se; it’s about the left that Obama is a creature of.  It’s about the left that is quintessentially fascist.  Which is all-too easy to prove and to document.

In a nutshell, “NAZI” stood for “National Socialist German Workers Party.”  The only difference between fascist “national socialism” and “communism” was the fact that one favored “national” socialism while the other demanded “international socialism.”  But socialism is socialism.  Socialism is always and in every case big government run amok.  Socialism is government dictating to the people what to do and how to live and what to think.  If there was a National Socialist American Workers Party, is anyone actually fool enough to believe it would be the Republicans or the conservatives???  Because conservatism stands for the ANTITHESIS of socialism: we stand for LIMITED federal government, for individual liberty rather than governmental control, for laissez-faire free markets rather than government taxation and regulation.

Gene Edward Veith makes this point:

“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].

Which is to say that you are already a far-leftist socialist – a communist – merely to believe the lie that the communist propaganda put forward about fascism being “right-wing.”

The notion that fascism/and or Nazism is “right-wing” is utter nonsense beyond this: Nazism and fascism are the extreme right of the far, radical LEFT.  Socialism is inherently LEFT-WING, not right-wing.  The Nazis believed in a fiercely nation-based socialism whereas the communists believed in an international, “workers of the world unite!” brand of socialism.  But they BOTH wanted a giant, all-powerful, totalitarian government that is the heart of not the right but the LEFT.

So “fascism” is NOT “right-wing.”  The next surprise is that “liberalism” is not “liberal” in any classical understanding of the term.

One of the things the reader must understand is how liberals have perverted the term “liberal” and “liberalism.”  Yes, fascism is ideologically the opposite of liberalism; but that is “liberalism” in the CLASSICAL sense of liberalism, rather than what today’s progressive liberals believe and are doing.  What is “liberalism” in the classical sense?

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, and belief in laissez-faire economic liberalism.[2][3][4]

In other words, a limited proponent of limited government, free markets, individual liberty.  THAT’S a classical liberty.  Which is to say that I as a modern conservative am a classical liberal, whereas modern progressive liberals are – you guessed it – fascists.  Modern liberals, like the fascists, believe in the OPPOSITE of all these things that classical liberals held and hold the most dear.

As you think about fascism and Nazism (which was merely a particular form of fascist socialism, think about some of the tenants and try to understand how what I am going to document that which is coming from the American left today is genuinely fascist.

Only a couple of months ago there was this gem of rabid fascist intolerance from the left:

Harvard writer: Abolish free speech
Woman claims First Amendment threatens liberalism
Published: 1 day ago

A student writer at Harvard University is raising eyebrows after publishing her belief that free speech on campus should be abolished and professors with opposing views be fired.

Sandra Korn, a senior who writes a column for the Harvard Crimson newspaper, thinks radical leftism is the only permissible political philosophy, and the First Amendment only hinders colleges from brainwashing students with her viewpoint.

“Let’s give up on academic freedom in favor of justice,” states the subtitle of her Feb. 18 column, in which she insists Harvard stop guaranteeing students and professors the right to hold controversial views and conduct research putting liberalism in a negative light.

“If our university community opposes racism, sexism, and heterosexism, why should we put up with research that counters our goals?” Korn asks.

“It is tempting to decry frustrating restrictions on academic research as violations of academic freedom. Yet I would encourage student and worker organizers to instead use a framework of justice. After all, if we give up our obsessive reliance on the doctrine of academic freedom, we can consider more thoughtfully what is just.”

Korn’s view grabbed the attention of the nation’s top conservative voice, Rush Limbaugh.

“This is not unique. This is not satire. This is not parody,” Limbaugh said on his nationally broadcast radio program Tuesday. “This woman, Sandra Korn, is real, and she’s serious that free speech needs to be abridged because it is threatening liberalism. It means that liberalism cannot hold up to scrutiny. It cannot withstand a challenge.  If liberalism were infallible, if liberalism were so powerful and automatic, they would welcome challenges to it – and they would welcome the attempt to persuade and to convert. But instead they’re threatened by it.”

When asked of he thought her belief was going to become a movement, Limbaugh indicated it already was one.

“This is what the left is,” he explained. “Why do you think they want to get rid of this program? Why do you think they want to get rid of Fox News? Why do they want to silence criticism? What is Obama’s modus operandi? Eliminate the opposition. This is already a movement!”

“This woman has just written a column about it at Harvard with what appears to be an extreme view of eliminating the First Amendment as a way of silencing opposition. But she’s very honest. The First Amendment, free speech, ‘threatens liberalism,’ meaning liberalism cannot thrive in an open society. Liberalism is totalitarianism. Liberalism is statism. It is authoritarianism. It is all of the horrible Isms, and it cannot thrive when there is open debate. It cannot survive challenges.”

“Ah, the ‘community organizer force’ is strong with this one,” I’m sure Darth Obama – who held a similar position writing for Harvard – must have mused when he heard this.

The question, “Is this already a movement?” – and not merely an intellectual bowel movement – has been powerfully answered in the few weeks since this article came out from Harvard (the brains of the cockroach that is the leftist organism).

This from yesterday at the leftist Mozilla:

Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich resigns under fire for supporting Prop. 8
By Salvador Rodriguez
April 3, 2014, 2:32 p.m.

Just days after taking the job, Brendan Eich has resigned as chief executive of Mozilla, the maker of Firefox, after coming under fire for his 2008 support of Proposition 8, the California constitutional amendment that disallowed the marriage of same-sex couples in the state.

Mozilla announced Eich’s resignation Thursday afternoon in a blog post, saying that his hiring did not reflect the organization’s beliefs.

“While painful, the events of the last week show exactly why we need the Web. So all of us can engage freely in the tough conversations we need to make the world better,” Mozilla Chairwoman Mitchell Baker said in a statement. “We need to put our focus back on protecting that Web. And doing so in a way that will make you proud to support Mozilla.”

The organization named Eich CEO last week after operating under an interim CEO for more than a year. Eich had worked at Mozilla for years and was known as the founder of JavaScript, a popular programming language.

But Eich came under sharp criticism for donating $1,000 to a campaign that supported Poropisition 8, Several Mozilla board members resigned to protest his appointment.

Numerous Mozilla staffers also took to Twitter to call for his resignation. One popular online dating site OKCupid displayed a message on its website asking Firefox users to access the Web using a different browser.

“We took the stand because it seemed like the right thing to do,” a spokesman for OKCupid said.

Mozilla said it is still discussing what comes next for its leadership.

This guy Eich was incredibly well qualified to run this company, which he’d helped found.  But liberals hold religious purity tests having nothing to do with corporate performance – and Eich was found to be a heretic and blasphemer.

If you ask the question, “Is Sandra Korn running Mozilla?” the answer is, “She might as well be.”  Because fascist leftist who are rabidly intolerant of ANY point of view that differs from their own and cannot emotionally or intellectually handle dissent are what they are whether they’re at Harvard or at Mozilla.

Imagine the fallout had a corporation purged a CEO for the death penalty-worthy crime of having exercised his or her freedom to donate to the No on 8 campaign.  And said they were doing it out of a spirit of “inclusiveness” and “diversity” (which they would have as much to claim as the opposite side).  But for the most part, the propaganda mill that constitutes “journalism” simply ignored this story.

What is rather fascinating is that one particular paragraph in the print article (on page B2 of the LA Times’ Business section) – was purged from the online article that you see here.  It immediately follows the “did not reflect the organization’s beliefs” line of crap.  Here it is:

“Our organizational culture reflects diversity and inclusiveness,” Mozilla Chairwoman Michell Baker said in a statement.  “Mozilla supports equality for all.”

You can see that statement from Mozilla in broader form here.

What is funny – and I mean laugh-till-you-pee-your-pants-funny – is how these Nazis actually view themselves as “inclusive.”  You can understand why the uberleftist LA Times would purge that: it is so obviously self-refuting that it could not stand the light of day and had to be hidden the way ashamed parents would hide a child molesting freak in the basement.

Hell, I still remember when Barack Obama stated the following when he was lying his way to the presidency:

“I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. [big audience applause] For me as a Christian it’s also a sacred union, you know, God’s in the mix….I am not somebody who promotes same-sex marriage.” — Barack Obama, Saddleback Church debate moderated by Rick Warren, August 20, 2008 

The ONLY reason the left didn’t go after Obama the way they have rabidly gone after everyone who said the same words is that they understood that – being one of them – Barack Obama was a pathological liar who said one think until it was time to say the opposite of the thing he said.

Pathological dishonesty goes hand in hand with pathological fascism.

When “inclusive” means, “If you don’t think exactly like I do, I will destroy you,” you have arrived at the spirit of Orwellianism.  And the soul of the left skinny dips in Orwellian anti-thought.

If you are a Democrat, if you are a liberal, you DON’T think.  You double-think.  You unthink.  You anti-think.  Which is why you are such a complete moral idiot.  And why you have no shame, no honor, no virtue, no integrity of any kind whatsoever.

Sandra Korn was also apparently running the National Young Feminist Leadership Conference – which was (laughably) all about “inclusiveness” too.

Stormfront – from where I found the Youtube video below – also found this beauty of self-contradicting liberalism:

Its “safe space policy” promised the event would be “structured around inclusivity … with a focus on representing various perspectives,” according to the event’s official website (feministcampus.org).

Watch how “inclusive” they are the moment they discover “the other” and tell me about that “safe space policy” again.  Tell me how this is what “structured around inclusivity” looks like.  Tell me that this is what it looks like to have “a focus on representing various perspectives”:

Here’s a write-up from Campus Reform, which sent the reporter to be treated like a leper by “the tolerant and inclusive” people:

Campus Reform’s Katherine Timpf attended the National Young Feminist Leadership Conference (NYFLC) — an event which promised to be about “inclusivity” and welcoming everyone — only to be told that “conservative” women were not welcome.

Timpf attempted to ask students’ their opinions on feminism, but conference organizers made an announcement advising participants not to talk to Campus Reform because it was a “conservative” outlet.

“You guys aren’t wanted here.”

The organizers also followed Timpf around the conference to interrupt her conversations with students to tell them the same thing.

“They’re a group that’s conservative, so what we are fighting for is not something…” one organizer told a student who was talking with Timpf, prompting the student to walk away.

“You’re just assuming that based on where I work,” Timpf told the organizer.

“Yeah, we are,” the organizer stated.

“You guys aren’t wanted here,” a participant told the reporter after the warning.

“I thought this was supposed to be an inclusive thing, why am I being excluded because of where I work?” Timpf asked another organizer after another interruption.

“Because the place that you work is not inclusive,” the organizer responded.

“You don’t know that,” Timpf said. “You don’t know anything about me or my personal beliefs, I’m just being labeled and excluded based on a label.”

Its “safe space policy” promised the event would be “structured around inclusivity … with a focus on representing various perspectives,” according to the event’s official website.

“We will not tolerate, allow, or encourage behavior which makes folks feel uncomfortable, threatened, or demoralized,” the policy continued.

The NYFLC conference was held March 29-31 at the DoubleTree by Hilton in Crystal City, VA.

The Nazis couldn’t have done it any better.  One female editorialist described it as “Mean Girls with ugly women.”

But hey, I’m not done yet detailing how the left self-refutes themselves and documents their OWN rabid hypocrisy and intolerance.

Try this bit of “Sandra Korn” at other liberal universities like UC Santa Barbara and Oberlin, which are beginning to impose “trigger warnings” that would allow students to opt out of anything that might harm a liberal mind (you know, like reality or the truth):

‘Trigger Warnings’ Are Antithetical to College Life

You can’t bubble wrap students against any and all possible moments of discomfiture.At the Los Angeles Times, a rare outstanding editorial, “Warning: College students, this editorial may upset you“:

The latest attack on academic freedom comes not from government authorities or corporate pressure but from students. At UC Santa Barbara, the student Senate recently passed a resolution that calls for mandatory “trigger warnings” — cautions from professors, to be added to their course syllabi, specifying which days’ lectures will include readings or films or discussions that might trigger feelings of emotional or physical distress.

The resolution calls for warnings if course materials will involve depictions and discussions of rape, sexual assault, suicide, pornography or graphic violence, among other things. The professors would excuse students from those classes, with no points deducted, if the students felt the material would distress them; it is left unclear how students would complete assignments or answer test questions based on the work covered in those classes.

The student resolution is only advisory, a recommendation that campus authorities can turn into policy or reject. They should not only choose the latter course but should explain firmly to students why such a policy would be antithetical to all that college is supposed to provide: a rich and diverse body of study that often requires students to confront difficult or uncomfortable material, and encourages them to discuss such topics openly. Trigger warnings are part of a campus culture that is increasingly overprotective and hypersensitive in its efforts to ensure that no student is ever offended or made to feel uncomfortable…

More.

Keep in mind that this development is something that derives entirely from the radical feminist left.

For more on that, see Robert Stacy McCain, “‘Fat Justice’ Feminists Blame Reagan, Praise ‘Communism and Socialism’.”

May I please have my liberal reality inoculation please?  Because reality really, really upsets me and I have to be protected from it at all cost.  That’s why I went to college where I could swim in a protective ocean where only fascist liberalism is allowed.

Accompanying this at UC Santa Barbara is a leftist professor who came unglued because somebody thought they had the right to be opposed to abortion and grabbed the sign away as her inner Nazi erupted:

The police report regarding UC Santa Barbara Professor Mireille Miller-Young has been released. Miller-Young made news after tearing a sign away from an anti-abortion activist in the university’s Free Speech Zone. Here is the PDF, and here is a rather illuminating quote.

Mireille Miller-Young

It’s worth a reminder that this professor’s areas of study include “Pornography; Sex Work; Black Film, Popular Culture and Art; Feminist & Queer Theory; African American & African Diaspora Studies,” all of which require confronting potentially upsetting material. So what exactly is the limit on what is permissible on university campuses?

Outside of Santa Barbara, this story is receiving the most attention from conservative outlets. I’m curious to know what mainstream left-of-center outlets think about this.

This post was provoked by Donald Douglas, who writes, “America’s college campuses: literally the most f-ked-up places in the nation.”

Read more at the Santa Barbara Independent.

Instapundit and Jim Treacher also have some choice words.

So if I’m upset by something, I have the right to employ violence?  Only if I’m a liberal.  If I’m a conservative, I’m going to get hauled away and prosecuted to the very fullest possible extent of the law just for SAYING that a liberal cockroach doesn’t have a right to be somewhere.  That’s the kind of double-standard that also went on as “Germany” became “Nazi Germany.”  Only the fascist thugs had the right to beat the hell out of somebody they didn’t like.

Understand: college and university faculties are THE most intolerant establishments in America, bar none.  If you are a conservative, you won’t be hired.  If you’ve already been hired and you’re a conservative, you’ll get the “Mozilla treatment” and lose promotions if not your positionProfessors openly ADMIT they discriminate against conservatives.  They take the amazing position that it is literally discriminatory for them to hire anyone who does not think exactly like they do.  If you so much as try to speak as a conservative at a college or university, you will be shouted down by rabidly intolerant “tolerance” hypocrites.

And don’t tell me that university faculty and students are some “fringe” element within the Democrat Party or the liberal movement.  Don’t tell me the violent and vicious Occupy movement fascists – and yes I truly do mean “violent and vicious” – that violated and just plain polluted the property rights of damn near everybody not long ago are some “fringe” element.  Don’t tell me that the union thugs who either beat people up or shake people down aren’t at the heart of the liberal bowel movement.  These people are all IT – whether you mean “Democrat,” “liberal” or “fascist.”  They’re all part of the fascist army of liberal goose-steppers.  Don’t tell me that the black people who make up the heart of the Democrat Party to the tune of voting 95% Democrat aren’t anything other than vicious.  When they aren’t murdering their own babies or murdering one another, they are beating the fascist hell out of innocent white people in unprovoked racist attacks.

And if white kids had a game called “black bear hunting” in which they sucker punched little old black ladies, I have a damn feeling that the media and the courts would treat these racist young punks differently and call it for what it clearly is.  But it’s black thugs, and Eric Holder says, “Never bring a lawsuit against a black” on my watchSo we’ve got this “knock out game” a.k.a. “polar bear hunting” going on all over America, and of course it can’t be “racist” for a black thug to sucker punch a white person.

The amazing thing is that THESE ARE THE PEOPLE WHO CALL ME A NAZI.  And they’re so pathologically dishonest and they’ve so completely deceived even themselves that they actually do it with a straight face.

You wonder how their skulls don’t explode from trying to hold so many massive contradictions, but they manage to pull it off.  Because they anti-think when un-thinking or double-thinking fails them.  And they are the most rabidly intolerant people that there are – and you literally have to be a full-fledged NAZI to be more rabidly intolerant than these liberals.  And it is my observation that liberals are “progressives” who are progressing quite rapidly toward being full-fledged Nazis.

Do you want to know what is interesting?  It is that when the Nazis came to Germany, it was these same university professor-types who were the FIRST to knuckle under and collaborate with their Nazi masters:

Holocaust survivor Eli Wiesel:

“Within the system of the concentration camp, something very strange took place. The first to give in, the first to collaborate—to save their lives—were the intellectuals, the liberals, the humanists, the professors of sociology, and the like. Because suddenly their whole concept of the universe broke down. They had nothing to lean on.”

Albert Einstein (a Jew who fled before the Nazis could capture him):

“Having always been an ardent partisan of freedom I turned to the Universities, as soon as the revolution broke out in Germany, to find the Universities took refuge in silence. I then turned to the editors of powerful newspapers, who, but lately in flowing articles, had claimed to be the faithful champions of liberty. These men, as well as the Universities, were reduced to silence in a few weeks. I then addressed myself to the authors individually, to those who passed themselves off as the intellectual guides of Germany, and among whom many had frequently discussed the question of freedom and its place in modern life. They are in turn very dumb. Only the church opposed the fight which Hitler was waging against liberty. Till then I had no interest in the church, but now I feel great admiration and am truly attracted to the church which had the persistent courage to fight for spiritual truth and moral freedom. I feel obliged to confess that I now admire what I used to consider of little value.”

Modern liberalism and those who cling to it had no answers or courage against Nazism.  And in fact their philosophies, the values they hold today ARE the same as that of the Nazis they bowed down to when their moment to stand heroically came.

Here’s what you need to know about the university liberals who endlessly lecture us:

Soon after the end of World War II, the Jewish scholar Max Weinreich published Hitler’s Professors: The Part of Scholarship in Germany’s Crimes against the Jewish People.  This exhaustive study of the complicity of German intellectuals with the Nazi regime documents how the scholarship of the time provided the intellectual justification and the conceptual framework for the Holocaust.  This is not to say that these intellectuals necessarily intended the Holocaust, but, argues Weinreich, it would not have been possible without them.  “Did the administer the poison?” he asks, “By no means; they only wrote the prescription.” — Veith, Modern Fascism, p. 79-80

Ask yourself if “Professor” Mireille Miller-Young did far more than “write a prescription” justifying violence.

Weinreich establishes that these many academics who supported Hitler were sophisticated thinkers.  Their problem was that the “value-free” assumptions with which they pursued their research resulted in a mendacity inherent in any scholarship that overlooks or openly repudiates all moral and spiritual values.  Which is THE same cancerous flaw that modern progressive intellectual liberalism suffers from today.

Now that I have documented the fascism in the left’s behavior, allow me to proceed to develop a new point about the fascism central to the left’s philosophy.  Jonah Goldberg, in his great work Liberal Fascism makes this point:

For more than sixty years, liberals have insisted that the bacillus of fascism lies semi-dormant in the bloodstream of the political right.  And yet with the notable exception and complicated exceptions of Leo Strauss and Allan Bloom, no top-tier American conservative intellectual was a devotee if Nietzsche or a serious admirer of Heidegger.  All major conservative schools of thought trace themselves back to the champions of the Enlightenment – John Locke, Adam Smith, Montesquieu, Burke – and none of them have any direct intellectual link to Nazism or Nietzsche, to existentialism, nihilism, or even, for the most part, Pragmatism.  Meanwhile, the ranks of left-wing intellectuals are infested with ideas and thinkers squarely in the fascist tradition.  And yet all it takes is the abracadabra word “Marxist” to absolve most of them of any affinity with these currents.  The rest get off the hook merely by attacking bourgeois morality and American values – even though such attacks are themselves little better than a reprise of fascist arguments. — pg. 175-176

The solidly left-leaning (as acknowledged even by the leftist BBC) Prospect Magazine published an article titled, “In Defense of Heidegger.”  If you want more proof that it is leftist, consider that it considered the EXTREME leftist Noam Chomsky as its greatest of its 100 Greatest Intellectuals.  Most of the other 99 were quite leftist too, by the way.

The left now acknowledges that it is “common knowledge” that Martin Heidegger was a Nazi.  But it’s funny that they spent most of the last eighty years denying that “common knowledge.”

Even a socialist publication admits out the following:

The same methods—suppression of evidence, evasions and falsifications—were employed by the legions of Heidegger interpreters and apologists. They were, until the publication of Farias epochal book, largely successful in preventing any critical scrutiny of Heidegger’s ideas and their relation to his politics. An ironic chapter in this enterprise was played out by the deconstruction theorist, Paul De Man. De Man did much to publicize Heidegger among the American intelligentsia in the 1960s. Then there came the posthumous revelation in the late 1980s that De Man’s hands had not exactly been clean. He had been a Nazi collaborator in occupied Belgium during World War II and in that capacity had written some anti-Semitic articles for a Nazi-sponsored literary magazine. After De Man’s war-time essays were published there ensued a lively controversy about the relationship between De Man’s war-time activity and his subsequent ideas on deconstruction.[

And my exploration of the above distortion of Marxist scholarship of fascism and Nazism at the beginning of this article is merely part of that intellectual tradition of deceit.  The left “suppressed evidence” and employed tactics of “evasions and falsifications” to conceal the “common knowledge” of their intellectual hero for most of the last century until one courageous scholar finally blew the doors off the lie.  And of course then the left instantly proceeded to apologize and rationalize the man’s heart and mind of pure evil.  And of course it is pointed out that the left did the exact same thing with ANOTHER hard-core Nazi intellectual hero of the left named Paul de Man.  You can goose step down the list of numerous leftist intellectual heroes such as Herbert Marcuse, Frantz Fanon, Georges Sorel, Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida, Carl Schmitt, and others to see the same damn thing.  And frankly even documented PROOF of the hatefulness of these men and their ideas – and the CONSEQUENCES of their ideas – don’t matter.

The paragraph that follows the one cited above in Liberal Fascism therefore points out that:

In a seminar there may be important distinctions to be made between, say, Foucault’s “enterprise of Unreason,” Derrida’s tyrannical logocentrism, and Hitler’s “revolt against reason.”  But such distinctions rarely translate beyond ivy-covered walls – and they are particularly meaningless to a movement that believes action is more important than ideas.  Deconstruction, existentialism, postmodernism, Pragmatism, relativism: all of these ideas had the same purpose – to erode the iron chains of tradition, dissolve the concrete foundations of truth, and firebomb the bunkers where the defenders of the ancien regime still fought and persevered.  These were ideologies of the “movement.”  The late Richard Rorty admitted as much conflating Nietzsche and Heidegger with James and Dewey as part of the same grand project. — Goldberg, Modern Fascism, p. 176

And it is simply a FACT that all of those intellectual traditions and worldviews are at the very heart of the left and in radical rejection of the Classical Enlightenment foundationalism and Judeo-Christian religious worldview of the right.  You can ignore it with your constant exploitation of crisis and demand for action all you want, liberal, but hateful ideas have hateful consequences.  And it has been the hateful ideas that you CONTINUE to espouse to this very day that had those hateful consequences that resulted in the gas chambers and the Holocaust of Nazism AND the purges and massacres of MILLIONS of communism.

You OWN it.  Even though you are too much of a hypocrite and a liar and frankly a coward to ADMIT that you own it.

One of the primary reasons that the left’s “enterprise of Unreason” (remember how I referred to the left’s “un-thinking” and “anti-thinking” and “double-thinking”?) consistently leads to moral horror boils down to this:

David Hirsch, in his study of Holocaust literature, concludes that one of the most striking characteristics of those who have carried out the exterminations was their inability to have empathy with an “other.”  Hans Ebeling criticizes Heidegger in similar terms: “the power of acknowledging the other as the other, as essentially equal, is missing, and for that reason it only remains to oppress the other without any leniency.”  Since existentialism focuses upon the individual consciousness, “the other” is necessarily minimized. — Veith, Modern Fascism, p. 103

At thus I reintroduce the demonization and purging of Brendan Eich for no other reason than that he gave a small financial contribution to a view of marriage that Barack Obama was HIMSELF hypocritically and dishonestly claiming at the time.  Because it is the NATURE of the left – particularly the “intellectual” left – to lie without shame and cover up the truth and to suppress and to evade and to falsify the FACTS.

It ought to go without saying that if a more conservative-friendly corporation’s CEO had been found to have donated $1,000 to the “No on 8” campaign – as I’m frankly sure many have – he would still be there.  Because unlike the left we value intellectual freedom.

So when Barack Hussein Obama routinely demonizes “the other” – that is absolutely everybody who doesn’t think exactly like he does – it’s what they call in golf “par for the course.”  It’s who he is and what he does because the man is a fascist who has acted like a fascist his entire adult life as a “community agitator” and who very much THINKS like a fascist.

Just a few days ago, Obama said this incredibly demagogic and frankly hateful thing as his Republican straw man/bogey man:

A lot of times folks would prefer the devil they know to the devil they don’t. But this law is doing what it’s supposed to do. It’s working. It’s helping people from coast to coast, all of which makes the lengths to which critics have gone to scare people or undermine the law, or try to repeal the law without offering any plausible alternative so hard to understand. I’ve got to admit, I don’t get it. Why are folks working so hard for people not to have health insurance? Why are they so mad about the idea of folks having health insurance?

Everything Obama says is a lie, so why should this be any different?  Republicans DO have an alternative to ObamaCare.  They’ve been talking about their alternatives for years now.  Hell, I wrote a post in 2009 describing the Republicans’ alternative and pointed out that even at that early date they had already offered THREE alternative bills to ObamaCare.  So Obama just lies like the devil and then demonizes his enemies.

He has repeated his lie about Republicans offering no alternative to his fascist health care hijack act even more times than he lied about people being able to keep their doctors and their health plans.  And he lied about those things a LOT.  But Obama believes in the Big Lie just like Hitler believed in it – which is why he fascistically and rabidly keeps sticking to his lies even when it is beyond obvious that they are lies.

The Big Lie is how Obama has governed.  It is his ONLY “leadership technique.”  And because he kept repeating the same lies his Big Lie governance literally got him elected and re-elected.

Find ONE Republican who would say he or she is opposed to ObamaCare because – and I quote Obama’s lie from hell here – “I don’t want people to have health insurance.”  Just find ONE Republican who has said, “I’m mad about the idea of folks having health insurance.”

Obama has ALWAYS hated and demonized “the other” while maintaining the exact same hatred for the truth and willingness to engage in the “suppression of evidence, evasions and falsifications” that I cite as at the heart of the fascist intellectual tradition above.

Obama is the man who has so much rabid hate for “the other” in his heart that as far as he is concerned, Republicans are people who want dirtier air, dirtier water and children born with Autism and Down Syndrome.

Tell you what: I challenge any liberal to a “hate contest.”  It’s Bush hate vs. Obama hate.  If I can find more examples of Obama demonizing Republicans than you can find of Bush demonizing Democrats, I get to use you as proof – with your consent no less – that all Democrats are Nazi liars who participate in Obama’s campaign of hate against “the other.”

Obama does to Republicans what Hitler did to Jews on a nearly a daily basis.

And again, Obama is the worst kind of self-righteous liar without shame who says one thing and then proves that he’s a hater according to his own dishonest standard with the next thing that comes out of his mouth.  And again – that is part and parcel of the leftist tradition.

I’ve been saying it and saying it.  The beast is coming, the Antichrist from the Bible.  He will be the ULTIMATE Democrat in that he will be the ultimate big government totalitarian who creates the State in place of God and demands worship in place of God.  He will do what Democrats have tried to do and he will succeed in completely taking over the economy such that no man or woman may buy or sell without his stamp of approval (a.k.a. the mark of the beast).

Nazism didn’t just fly out of nowhere.  It took DECADES for the evil in the German spirit to metastasize to the point where they were willing to murder six million Jews and five million other helpless human beings in their government extermination center.

It was from the minds of thinkers whom the American left still adores and follows today – thinkers such as Nietzsche and Heidegger and Derrida – from which the thought process that led to the death camps and the gas chambers and the ovens.

And Obama has taken that liberal descent into true fascism that will ultimately have the ugliest and darkest consequences a giant step forward.

Update, 4/7/14: Well, it doesn’t take very long for liberals to prove even further that they are true fascists, does it.  Yes, we just had a liberal UC Santa Barbara professor described above inciting violence against someone for the crime of peacefully holding a viewpoint different from hers.  We just had the same uberliberal UC Santa Barbara student body demonstrate that under the leadership of such “professors,” they are rabidly intolerant of any ideas that they don’t like and demand that they should never have to listen to anything that disagrees with their preconceived liberal fascism.  And being liberals and being fascist, they just got through documenting that they are as violent as hell: 100 young liberal fascists were arrested for rioting.

And of course it’s nothing new when a mob of black liberals (blacks voting so overwhelmingly Democrat that to be black IS to vote Democrat) beat a white man into a coma.  So it shouldn’t be any surprise whatsoever that blacks – who are fascist because they are liberals – would beat yet another white man into a coma for the crime of being white.

 

 

 

 

AL Gore: Raising Questions About Global Warming Is Tantamount To Racism

August 30, 2011

Watch the video:

An example of what Al Gore said:

“There came a time when people said, ‘Hey man, why do you talk that way? That’s wrong, I don’t go for that so don’t talk that way around me. I just don’t believe that.’ That happened in millions of conversations, and slowly the conversation was won.  And we still have racism, God knows, but it’s so different now and so much better. And we have to win the conversation on climate.”

Al Gore’s direct comparison with global warming and civil rights ushers in all of the craziest aspects to the whole global warming insanity.  Are we violating earth’s “civil rights”???  Is planet earth a person whom we’re discriminating against?  Should we be invoking demonic Mayan goddesses to help us redistribute the world’s wealth in our Marxist cause the way the “highly respected” United Nations IPCC does?

Apparently so. It’s all part of “science” these days.

It also is truly amazing just how fascist these fascist leftist are.

Almost-President John Kerry recently came out and said:

And I have to tell you, I say this to you politely. The media in America has a bigger responsibility than it’s exercising today. The media has got to begin to not give equal time or equal balance to an absolutely absurd notion just because somebody asserts it or simply because somebody says something which everybody knows is not factual.

It doesn’t deserve the same credit as a legitimate idea about what you do. And the problem is everything is put into this tit-for-tat equal battle and America is losing any sense of what’s real, of who’s accountable, of who is not accountable, of who’s real, who isn’t, who’s serious, who isn’t?

Liberals have degenerated to the point that to even allow a debate is intolerable.  They must be allowed to have the only microphone.

How can people not understand that this is naked, naked fascism?

Now you’ve got Al Gore claiming that to even question why liberals were forced to use a new term to describe “global warming” because such claims as –

Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.”

which turned out to be such a tremendous load of baloney is tantamount to racism.

Climate Change “scientists”admitted that they purged their raw data so only their altered models were available.  They have literally altered their argument  to get through the winter before switching back to their warming, warming, warming argument for the summer.

In their own words they said things like, ““I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”  But then you find out that the “trick” of “hiding the decline” was even more insidious than merely camouflaging the fact that it’s not getting warmer, but rather the very heart of their case in terms of proxy reconstructions of data.

And then there is the fact that the CO2 they demand the conversation remain rigidly fixated upon only accounts for one-tenth of one percent of the total global warming gasses.

Another blatant lie on the part of Al Gore is to compare “climate change deniers” to Bull Connor.  This is a leftwing talking point that is so self-refuting it is positively unreal: BULL CONNOR WAS A DEMOCRAT!!!  Just how far did truth have to miserably die in the collective mind of the left that they now think it is okay to say that Republicans are so evil they are DEMOCRATS?!?!

At the very heart of science is the ability to raise questions.  Which is to say liberals don’t care about “science”; they despise science!  What liberals like Al Gore want is pseudo-science that masquerades as science and enables the left to dictate their agenda the way that the Nazis dictated their agenda.  And in the same way, liberals don’t care about free speech; they despise free speech!  What liberals like John Kerry want is “pseudo-free-speech” that masquerades as fre speech and enables the left to dictate their agenda the way that the Nazis dictated their agenda.

On The So-Called Link Between ‘Rightwing’ Political Rhetoric And Violence

January 1, 2011

See my previous article, “On the Malicious Connection Between Conservatives And Hate.”

Having documented that the left’s demonization of conservative “rhetoric” was nothing more than a hypocritical and immoral attempt to politically exploit a tragedy, I would like to go a little further and examine whether the 1st Amendment right to freedom of speech should be denounced – as the Democrats have clearly tried to do in the aftermath of the Tucson shooting.

Should angry political rhetoric be suppressed?  Our founding fathers clearly didn’t think so.  And, truth be told, they freely let a fair amount of “rhetoric” fly themselves, during their day.  Furthermore, they codified that belief in the Bill of Rights.

But that isn’t the question I intend to examine.  Rather, I want to go further and ask, “Does angry political speech – call it ‘rhetoric’ if you want – lead to violence in a democracy?”

Let me repeat what I wrote when I first learned of this tragedy on Saturday, January 8:

Whoever did this terrible thing, and for whatever reason he did it, we have to be able to disagree in America without resorting to violence.  Or our entire system of government will collapse.  There can be no democratic republic in a police state.

Pray for Gabrielle Giffords.  Pray for her staff, some of whom were terribly wounded or even killed.  Pray for the safety of every single politician in America.  And especially pray for the safety of those politicians with whom you most disagree.

And later in that same article:

This event is something that should transcend the political arguments and the debate over which party should run America that constantly goes on.  Because ANY act of violence which accompanies a political statement of any kind undermines our freedom and liberty.

Because, like I said above, you cannot have a democratic republic in a police state.  And the more politically violent any group or individuals become, the more police powers become necessary to impose order.

All that to point out that I, as someone who can easily be identified by the pejorative “right winger,” would in fact NEVER call for acts of violence.  And I do not oppose political violence in spite of the fact that I am a conservative, but rather BECAUSE I am a conservative.

The fundamental tenant of political conservatism is the belief in limited government.  Conservatives are not “anti-government” any more than are leftists.  The far-leftist communists overthrew the current government in Russia in 1917; American liberals were opposed to the government of the Bush administration just a short time ago.  Conservatives don’t want NO government, but rather they want a federal government which is limited in size, sphere and power.  The debate isn’t between “pro-government” versus “anti-government,” but rather small government versus expansive government.  And my point is that as a conservative I don’t want a Big Brother state.  I don’t want the police on every corner.  I don’t want myriad laws restricting my freedoms.  I don’t want government imposing its will on me in order to “restore order” or impose “social justice.”  And frankly, if any political ideology in this country wants those things, it is the left.

I would further point out that the reason we do not need to resort to violence in our American democratic system is because we have the ability to use persuasion in place of and instead of violence.  But if you take away the ability to use persuasion to change society, all that is left is violence.

For the record, it is not conservatives, but liberals such as former SEIU president Andy Stern (among many others) – who have repeatedly said things like, “If we can’t use the power of persuasion, we will use the persuasion of power” – who have an unfortunate record of conflating persuasion with the raw exercise of “power.”

But let me go even further than that.  Let me take the most visceral political issue of all – abortion – and examine that issue in light of the possibility of rightwing violence.

Let me state my position on abortion clearly: it is nothing short of murder.  It is the unjustified killing of an innocent human being.

When President Obama gave his speech at the memorial service in Tucson, which shooting victim did he single out for the greatest attention?  It wasn’t Rep. Gabrielle Giffords; it was the youngest victim, nine year-old Christina Taylor.  What did Obama say?  “I want America to be as good as she imagined it.”

For someone who is pro-life, it is no surprise that the president would have focused on the youngest victim.  Because 9 year-old Christina had so much unrealized potential, so many dreams that would never be fulfilled, so much life that was taken away from her.  And it is precisely that deprivation of potential that makes her death so much more tragic and heart-wrenching than the 79 year-old victim – whose murder was obviously also a tragedy.

Allow me to consider the fifty-three MILLION innocent human beings who likewise should have had their entire lives ahead of them but instead had their lives violently and ruthlessly snuffed out.  Entire lifetimes of limitless human potential were ripped and dissolved away with surgical scissors and saline solutions.

Let me say even more: Adolf Hitler treated six million Jews as being “less than human” and ruthlessly exterminated them.  One of the greatest monsters in human history, and he is only one-NINTH as murderous as the Democrat Party in the United States of America.  There’s a term the Nazis used – Lebensunwertes Leben (“a life unworthy to be lived”) – that with all due respect is every bit as much an ideology of the Democrat Party as it was of the Nazi Party.

I think of Democrats who call themselves “Christians” celebrating Mary the Mother of Jesus’ “right to choose” to kill “the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29) in her womb, and I want to puke.  Your theology would murder Jesus in His mother’s womb; your “god” is abortion.

And I believe that one day Democrats will stand before a just and holy God, Who will send them to burn in hell for voting in election after election for untold millions of the most innocent of all human beings to be slaughtered for the sake of convenience.

I agree.  These are pretty strong words.  And yeah, they’re harsh.  Truth isn’t always warm and fuzzy.

And yet I’ve never killed anyone, or ever even once advocated the killing of anyone, who was pro-abortion.

Do you want to know why?

I earlier mentioned Adolf Hitler.  Let me return to him now for a thought experiment that will help me make my point.

Suppose that I could go back in time and assassinate Adolf Hitler.  Would I do it?

Well, first let me ask, would you do it?  Take a moment and think about it before reading any further.

My answer is yes, I believe I would do so.  I believe that I would kill Adolf Hitler.  Not for sake of revenge; but for the sake of all living things.  I would kill Adolf Hitler to save millions of human lives and prevent human misery and suffering beyond imagination.

Ah, you say.  So why not apply that reasoning to abortion doctors, and prevent the murders of untold babies?  Wouldn’t that be consistent?

And I would answer no, it isn’t.  Because in the case of Adolf Hitler, we have the benefit of 100%, 20/2o hindsight.  We have the record of Hitler’s entire life.  We know what he did, and we know what he intended to continue to do.

Now consider abortion doctor George Tiller, aka “Tiller the baby killer.”  He was murdered – in a church, no less – by someone who said that “preborn children’s lives were in imminent danger.”  And yet it is important to recognize that the pro-life movement immediately denounced the murder.

Let me tell you what I don’t know about George Tiller’s life that I did know about Adolf Hitler’s life.

Just like every single one of those fifty-three million innocent human beings who were murdered in abortion mills, I don’t know what George Tiller’s future would have been.

Would George Tiller have changed his beliefs on abortion if he hadn’t been murdered?  It certainly isn’t impossible that he would have.  Take the case of former head abortion nurse and former active member of N.O.W. Joan Appleton.

What would have happened if had I killed Joan Appleton while she was still performing abortions?

Think of the potential for good that she has since done with her life that would have been snuffed out.

And, neither I or the murderer of George Tiller or anyone else knows what would have happened in George Tiller’s life had he not been murdered.  Imagine the testimony that the world could have heard had the most notorious abortion doctor in the country come out condemning abortion.

In point of fact, the man who murdered George Tiller in his moral ignorance committed the very same crime that abortionists commit which makes abortion so evil; he failed to consider the very essence of what he professed to stand for.

In effect, George Tiller’s murderer committed a retroactive abortion.  He put aside Tiller’s humanity, personhood and Imago Dei; he dismissed Tiller’s “right to life”; he ignored Tiller’s “potential.”  And he killed him.

Paradoxially, all the murderer of George Tiller did – condemned as he was by the pro-abortion movement – was use the exact same mindset that the abortion movement employs every single day.

I point out in a previous article:

And there really is no doubt, once we truly consider the issues. Ever hear the argument that fetuses aren’t human beings, so it’s okay to kill them? Think again. Both science and logic assure us that – from the moment of conception – that thing in the womb of a human mother is fully a human being. Take a moment and consider the taxonomic system by which every living thing is rigorously categorized and classified. By that system a human embryo is of the kingdom Anamalia, of the phylum Chordata, of the class Mammalia, of the order Primate, of the family Pongidae, of the genus Homo, and of the species Sapiens – same as any other human being. Put even more simply, that embryo is a human by virtue of its parents, and a being by the fact that it is a living thing: it is a human being.

I’ve heard the Nazi argument that Jews weren’t human beings.  I’ve heard the argument that unborn babies aren’t human beings.  Wrong, and wrong.

I’ve heard the declaration that conservatives such as Dick Cheney and Michelle Bauchmann don’t deserve to live.  I’ve heard the declaration that babies growing up in their mothers’ wombs don’t deserve to live.  Wrong, and wrong.

So, yes, I will be a voice crying out in the wilderness about the vicious evil of abortion.  I will cry out in despair about the tragedy of millions upon millions of little Christina Taylors who were eradicated as if they were diseases before they got any chance to live out the potential that they should have had.  But I won’t kill.  Because I believe in human life.

Governments have what St. Paul described as the power of the sword to carry out justice (see Romans 13:1-4).  But I, acting on my own authority, don’t have the right of either vengeance or vigilantism.  Because vengeance is not mine; and because justice for criminals is not mine to carry out.  It is for God and for the governments which He has ordained on this earth to carry out those tasks.

Let me now also say that there is no connection in a healthy mind, in a healthy society, between rhetoric and violence.  None whatsoever.

And what of an unhealthy mind?

I made the point in a previous article that I once had a mentally ill woman literally come unglued on me as I held a sign that merely said, “YARD SALE.”  And I concluded then what I point out here: that if we’re going to ban or condemn “angry political rhetoric” for its possible effects upon sick minds, we’re going to have to condemn far more than just political speech.  Because literally anything can set off a sick mind.  Even a yard sale becomes dangerous.

If we banish everything that could set off a diseased mind, we necessarily must become the Big Brother totalitarian state which I earlier described fearing.  Because what couldn’t set off such a mind, which would then mean what sphere of life would the government not need to control?

I believe that I have explained why a consistent conservative would never employ violence to advance a political cause.  I also believe I have done so by employing a worldview and an argument that Democrats not only don’t acknowledge, but frankly don’t even understand.

Which is why it is the political left – and not the political right – which has been responsible for the overwhelming majority of global political violence.  Whether it be Marxist or Maoist communist socialist violence or Nazi fascist socialist violence, whether it be union violence, or whether it be radical group violence (in the 1960s the FBI nearly exclusively identified leftwing groups as being violent even throughout Democrat administrations).  The political hatred and violence that we have seen has almost invariably been leftwing.

[For those who would like to see more regarding the relationship between Nazism and the political left, see my article on the connection between leftist thought and fascism; please see my comment on the connection between “fascism” and American liberalism, and see my articles on the connection between postmodernism and fascism here and see also here, especially before you post a comment trying to argue with me].

So it is long past time for liberals to stop denouncing conservatives and finally turn their examination upon themselves.

Why They Are Dangerous: Liberal Justices Make Case Against The Constitution

July 2, 2010

The liberal justices pretty much say, “Screw the Constitution, except for the nonexistent “penumbra and emanations” parts of it that we can make up.”

The nonexistent right to murder your own baby that exists nowhere in the Constitution?  Check.  The clearly stated 2nd Amendment “right of the people to keep and bear arms (which) shall not be infringed”?  Well, the liberals say they don’t like it, they don’t want it to be there, so screw that right.

The Declaration of Independence makes it crystal clear: rights come from our being created in the image of God.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights

These are natural rights.  The Constitution doesn’t grant them to us; we have them naturally from God, regardless of where we live or what government we have.  And if a government doesn’t allow these natural rights to be expressed, the people have the right to remove that government.

Elena Kagan doesn’t give a damn about natural rights.  For her, they are meaningless.  Government is god; rights come at the whim of Big Brother.

That philospophy flies in the face of Abraham Lincoln’s view.  He believed that the Declaration of Independence DECLARED the foundation of and purpose for the Constitution, saying:

“I should like to know if taking this old Declaration of Independence, which declares that all men are equal upon principle and making exceptions to it where will it stop. If one man says it does not mean a Negro, why not another say it does not mean some other man?”

Our most fundamental rights derive from God.  They most certainly DON’T derive from government, or from the ideological whims of a bunch of half-wit morally idiotic liberal judges.

The fact that Kagan doesn’t believe that the Constitution itself derives from a more fundamental and more powerful authority, that there is no foundational moral law which itself stands above the Constitution, is why she believes that the government should have no power outside of it.  Which is why she believes that the government may have the power to dictate that you must eat your fruits and vegetables.

Another question which is emerging is exactly what constitutes judicial activism?  Is it violating the Constitution and imposing ones’ will upon it, or is it reversing a terrible decision that had violated the Constitution?

To Democrats, it is the latter:

Democratic Sen. Richard Durbin of Illinois, his voice dripping with sarcasm, said that for Republicans accusing Democrats of judicial activism, “I have two words for you: Citizens United,” the shorthand name of the campaign-finance case.

Democrats point to what they claim is a nearly century old Supreme Court principle limiting corporations from rights that American citizens clearly have, such as the right of free speech.  And that stare decisis makes overturning that ruling sacrosanct.

But their problem is that those who view corporations as having the same free speech rights as persons under the law has a nearly TWO century precedent supporting it:

In the United States, corporations were recognized as having rights to contract, and to have those contracts honored the same as contracts entered into by natural persons, in Dartmouth College v. Woodward, decided in 1819. In the 1886 case Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, 118 U.S. 394, the Supreme Court recognized that corporations were recognized as persons for purposes of the 14th Amendment.[1][2]

From the railroad case:

In an 1886 tax dispute between the Southern Pacific Railroad and the state of California, the court reporter quoted Chief Justice Morrison Waite telling attorneys to skip arguments over whether the 14th Amendment’s equal-protection clause applied to corporations, because “we are all of opinion that it does.”

Why does violating “sacrosanct” stare decisis for “a nearly century old” precedent qualify as “judicial activism,” but violating a nearly TWO HUNDRED YEAR-OLD precedent not count as judicial activism?

Let’s set aside that we on the right have the oldest precedent on our side, such that the stare decisis argument becomes utterly null and void.  Let’s consider the merits of the case itself.  Heritage responds to that by pointing out:

However, those criticisms ignore the fact that the Austin decision on independent expenditures and the part of the McConnell decision on electioneering communications were outliers in the Court’s First Amendment jurisprudence. The majority’s actions in Citizens United did not constitute judicial activism, but rather upheld basic First Amendment protections against unlawful encroachments by Congress. It is not judicial activism when a judge overturns two relatively recent decisions that were wrongly decided and that are in conflict with a long line of other precedents—particularly if the decision corrects constitutional errors. If this were not true, then the same critics of the Citizens United decision must believe that Plessy v. Ferguson[15] should still be the law of the land today and racial segregation should still be considered “constitutional” since under their slanted and sophomoric definition, the justices of the Supreme Court engaged in judicial “activism” in Brown v. Board of Education.[16] After all, the justices in Brown overturned Plessy and repudiated the “separate but equal” doctrine as unconstitutional—and arguably did so when they decided subsequent cases striking down similar policies by recalcitrant jurisdictions that acted contrary to Brown and its progeny.

Which is to say that the Citizens United case wasn’t a case of judicial activism, in which judges literally invented out of their own warped minds by “penumbras and emanations” a right that had never existed.  It was, rather, a case of constitutional strict constructionists restoring the constitutional principles that had existed prior to a bad law (Austin) being enacted by a group of judicial activists.

You want REAL judicial activism?  How about the liberal justices who voted to overturn the 2nd Amendment guarantee of the individual right to keep and bear arms simply because they don’t like it?

Let’s look to see the vapid legal arguments “justifying” these four moral idiots’ votes:

Gun Shy: Four Supreme Court Justices Make Case Against Constitutional Rights
Jacob Sullum

On Monday, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment applies to states and cities as well as the federal government. Judging from their objections, the four dissenters were still reeling from the court’s landmark 2008 decision recognizing that the amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms.

In their dissenting opinions, Justices John Paul Stevens and Stephen Breyer (joined by Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor) worry that overturning gun control laws undermines democracy. If “the people” want to ban handguns, they say, “the people” should be allowed to implement that desire through their elected representatives.

What if the people want to ban books that offend them, establish an official church or authorize police to conduct warrantless searches at will? Those options are also foreclosed by constitutional provisions that apply to the states by way of the 14th Amendment. The crucial difference between a pure democracy and a constitutional democracy like ours is that sometimes the majority does not decide.

Likewise, Stevens defends “state and local legislatures’ right to experiment,” while Breyer is loath to interfere with “the ability of states to reflect local preferences and conditions — both key virtues of federalism.” Coming from justices who think Congress can disregard state decisions about the medical use of marijuana because a plant on the windowsill of a cancer patient qualifies as interstate commerce, this sudden concern about federalism is hard to take seriously.

Another reason to doubt the dissenters’ sincerity: They would never accept federalism as a rationale for letting states “experiment” with freedom of speech, freedom of religion or due process protections. Much of their job, as they themselves see it, involves overriding “local preferences” that give short shrift to constitutional rights.

Second Amendment rights are different, Breyer says, because “determining the constitutionality of a particular state gun law requires finding answers to complex empirically based questions.” So does weighing the claims in favor of banning child pornography or depictions of animal cruelty, relaxing the Miranda rule, admitting illegally obtained evidence or allowing warrantless pat-downs, dog sniffs or infrared surveillance.

When they decide whether a law or practice violates a constitutional right, courts cannot avoid empirical questions. In cases involving racial discrimination or content-based speech restrictions, for example, they ask whether the challenged law is “narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest” and is the “least restrictive means” of doing so.

But unlike equal protection or freedom of speech, Stevens says, “firearms have a fundamentally ambivalent relationship to liberty.” How so? “Just as they can help homeowners defend their families and property from intruders,” he explains, “they can help thugs and insurrectionists murder innocent victims.”

Every right can be abused, with results that are immoral, illegal or both. Freedom of speech can be used to spread hateful ideas, promote pernicious political philosophies, slander the innocent or engage in criminal conspiracies. If there were no potential for harm from exercising a right, there would be no need to protect it, because no one would try to restrict it.

The dissenters’ most frivolous objection is that making states obey the Second Amendment “invites an avalanche of litigation,” as Stevens puts it. Every day we hear about cases in which people argue that the government has violated their rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth or Eighth amendment. Neither Stevens nor Breyer wants to stop this “avalanche.” Only when the Second Amendment is added to the mix do they recoil in horror at the prospect that Americans will use the courts to vindicate their rights.

I have to laugh that the author of the above piece recoils in horror at the prospect of the Supreme Court voting to ban books because, if they do [read ‘when’], they’ve got a “book banning” advocate in Elena Kagan.

Justice Stevens does not have to worry that his home would be broken into by “home invasion” attackers who storm into a house and terrorize and murder the occupants in the home.  If he did, do you think he would still argue that the ability of a homeowner to protect himself and his family with a gun was somehow nullified by the fact that the criminals could have a gun, too?

Elena Kagan’s mentor was Justice Thurgood Marshall, who once famously said, “You do what you think is right and let the law catch up” (see Deborah L. Rhode, “A Tribute to Justice Thurgood Marshall: Letting the Law Catch Up,” in the 44 Stanford Law Review 1259 (1992).

WHAT IF WHAT THE JUSTICE THINK IS RIGHT IS REALLY DEAD WRONG?!?!?!

Activist judges have repeatedly throughout history justified slavery, segregation, and racism, abandoning the plain sense of the Constitution in order to impose their views upon the text.  Let’s not forget that it was Democrats who fought to impose slavery, and it was judicial activists who bound the country up with laws that took the bloodiest war in American history to overcome.

What did Thomas Jefferson say about the threat of Supreme Court Justices imposing their own will upon the Constitution and imposing laws on the nation based on nothing but their own wills?

“This member of the Government was at first considered as the most harmless and helpless of all its organs. But it has proved that the power of declaring what the law is, ad libitum, by sapping and mining slyly and without alarm the foundations of the Constitution, can do what open force would not dare to attempt.”
—Thomas Jefferson to Edward Livingston, 1825. ME 16:114

“The Constitution . . . meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other.  But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch.”
—Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1804. ME 11:51

“To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.  Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.”
—Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:277

I don’t hear Jefferson praising “you do what you think is right and let the law catch up” as defining the role of our Supreme Court Justices.  In fact, I hear him turning in his grave over the abomination that Barack Obama’s and Elena Kagan’s philosophy is inflicting upon the nation.

[Note: I used the same quotes above in responding to the LAST abomination to the Supreme Court that Obama appointed].

Our Constitution is being poisoned by the left.  One day it will die, and they will be able to erect the Marxist-fascist state they’ve always dreamed of.

How long it will be before that evil day comes – which will undoubtedly occur in a 5-4 decision – is entirely up to you.

Liberal Supreme Court Justices Support Material Support To Foreign Terrorist Organizations

June 21, 2010

Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Obama-installed Sonia Sotomayor gazed into the Constitution like gypsies gazing into the murky depths of a crystal ball, and somehow discovered the penumbras and emanations justifying allowing material support to foreign terrorist organizations.

Supreme Court Affirms Ban on Aiding Groups Tied to Terror
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: June 21, 2010

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court has upheld a federal law that bars ”material support” to foreign terrorist organizations, rejecting a free speech challenge from humanitarian aid groups.

The court ruled 6-3 Monday that the government may prohibit all forms of aid to designated terrorist groups, even if the support consists of training and advice about entirely peaceful and legal activities.

Material support intended even for benign purposes can help a terrorist group in other ways, Chief Justice John Roberts said in his majority opinion.

”Such support frees up other resources within the organization that may be put to violent ends,” Roberts said.

Justice Stephen Breyer took the unusual step of reading his dissent aloud in the courtroom. Breyer said he rejects the majority’s conclusion ”that the Constitution permits the government to prosecute the plaintiffs criminally” for providing instruction and advice about the terror groups’ lawful political objectives. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor joined the dissent.

The law allows medicine and religious materials to go to groups on the State Department’s list of terrorist organizations.

The Obama administration said the ”material support” law is one of its most important terror-fighting tools. It has been used about 150 times since Sept. 11, resulting in 75 convictions. Most of those cases involved money and other substantial support for terror groups.

One of the funny things is that the “humanitarian aid group” that is behind this case is ITSELF tied to terrorism.  But American liberals are determined to serve as the useful idiots for Islamic jihadists.

Better that every single American die a horrible death of radiation poisoning from the next major terror attack than that a single terrorist be deprived of a single “right” as championed by morally idiotic liberal justices on the US Supreme Court.

Even Barack Obama and his insanely leftist administration realizes the sheer craziness of these three morally idiotic whackjob justices.  Which begs the question why Obama would have appointed one of said morally idiotic whackkob justices.

Obama is saying he opposes Sonia Sotomayor’s stupid ruling.  But the dumbass disgrace supported it and hundreds of idiotic rulings just like it when he appointed this racist and sexist “wise Latina” to the bench in the first place.  It’s like shooting yourself in the foot, and then opposing the gunshot wound in your foot.

Leftist ideas cannot possibly work in the real world.  Governing by leftist ideology is akin to playing Russian Roulette with all six cylinders loaded.

Obama is about to appoint yet another moral idiot whackjob to the Supreme Court, who will curse this country with her despicable lunacy for decades to come.

You can’t really blame Obama, or his Supreme Court appointees, though.  They are merely working to enact the vision of “God damn America!” that Obama’s reverend for 23 years planted in the mind of the Manchurian President.

Here’s why we have such contemptible justices who are trying to destroy America one asinine and self-destructive decision at a time:

“The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president.”

“The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America . Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince.

The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president.”

Obama campaigned on a platform of complete moral idiocy.  At some remote level, he is beginning to realize that his ideology is utterly useless and inherently self-destructive as a basis from which to actually govern.  But moral idiocy is all he has to offer.  So he’s paralyzed, stuck somewhere between being utterly useless and being inherently self-destructive.

All he’s got is the perennial campaign; the ability to actually govern or lead has been purged from the White House until this president is himself purged from the office.

Obama supports the lunatic environmental movement, and then flounders in the Gulf as every solution to contain the damage of the oil leak is opposed by the very environmentalists he appeals to.  Obama supports the pro-illegal immigration movement even as he falsely promises to somehow reduce illegal immigration.   Obama supports the lunatic liberal judicial approach, and then flounders in the war on terror (renamed the “overseas contingency operation” to satiate the left) as the very liberal judicial approach he so favors gets in the way of actually winning or even just not losing.

The sad thing is that you can count on Obama to keep appointing fools – and then being forced to resist the very rulings that his fools dictate.

That’s just what fools do.

Amazing: Liberals Show They Are Even MORE Intolerant And Violent Than Neo-Nazis

April 20, 2010

This is a really amazing story.  As loathsome as Neo-Nazis are, and as hateful as they are, they are actually surpassed by garden variety American liberals.

Do you remember mostly Hispanic protesters marching to demand amnesty for illegal immigrants (and also see here)?  Well, Neo-Nazis think they have a right to protest too.  And, of course, American liberals thought that Neo-Nazis had every right to march when they were marching through a town filled with Jewish death camp survivors.

The same First Amendment free speech rights that gave the one group the right to protest give the other group the right to protest, too.  At least, that has always been how it was supposed to work.  And that was what leftist protesters proclaimed when they were out protesting a message that many others didn’t like.

Not that liberals give a damn about genuine fundamental rights that apply equally to all citizens.  They want total power and total control, and to hell with anyone who opposes any part of their agenda.  They launch protest after protest until they gain power, and then they move to squelch the right to protest.

The thing I want to emphasize today is – when we consider Neo-Nazis and American liberals qua protesters – which side is actually more fundamentally intolerant and reactionary?

Apr 17, 2010 11:45 pm US/Eastern
Neo-Nazis, Counter-Demonstrators Square Off In LA
White Supremacists’ Rally Against Immigration Meets Resistance From Hundreds Of Demonstrators

LOS ANGELES (AP)

Police block an angry crowd of counter-protesters after the neo-Nazi group, The American National Socialist Movement, held a rally in front of the Los Angeles City Hall, on April 17, 2010.

Let me interrupt this article with a very important message:

Note that this isn’t the right wing versus the left wing.  This is, rather, the left wing versus another group of the left wing.  You might say that it is the right wing of the extreme left versus the left wing of the extreme left.

I would also point out that Nazism is and always HAS BEEN a leftwing movement.  The primary difference between Nazis (i.e., the “National Socialist German Workers Party”) and Marxists (e.g., the “Union of Soviet Socialist Republics”) was that the former group wanted socialism in a nationalist manner, and the latter wanted socialism in an internationalist manner.

The Marxists said, “Workers of the world unite!“, which was just what Andy Stern of the SEIU – who visited Barack Obama in the White House more than ANYONE – said.

Which is to say that, currently, Marxism is the form of radical socialism most in vogue with the American left.  It is the form of socialism that the current occupant of the White House clearly favors.

The last thing I’d point out is that the Neo-Nazis of “The American National Socialist Movement” want socialism for white nationalist Aryans; conservatives don’t want socialism for ANYBODY in America.  We want the socialism that the Nazis, fascists, Marxist and communists wanted the hell out.

Sorry for interrupting.  Let’s continue.

A white supremacist group rallied against illegal immigration in downtown Los Angeles Saturday as hundreds of counter-protestors gathered to shout them down in a tense standoff that included several arrests, thrown rocks and police in riot gear.

Oops.  Have to stop again.  And not just to point out that the Associated Press should have people who at least know how to spell “protesters” to write about protests.

Are the Neo-Nazis a white supremacist group?  Of course they are; only a fool would argue that they aren’t.  Then again, there ARE a great many fools in the country.  So, yeah, while many of these Neo-Nazis would deny being “white supremacists” and pontificate and filibuster about other issues ad nauseum, let’s just agree that they are white supremacists.  But what about the other side?

What we have on the other side are “Latino supremacists.”  There’s the powerful Latino group “La Raza,” which means “the race.” Can you even imagine how a racial group that calls itself “The Race” isn’t racist?  There’s the term “reconquista” being dragged out again, which means “reconquest” of Southwestern America by Mexicans.” There’s thousands of Mexican protesters marching on American soil and demanding rights and privileges and concessions be granted to them by “white” Americans.  Among other things, they argue that the Mexican government has a right to diligently protect ITS southern boarder from illegal immigrants, but that the American government has no right to similarly protect ITS southern boarder from illegal immigrants.  They argue that Mexico and other Latin American countries have a right to be sovereign nations, but that America must become an “open borders” non-country.  There’s the waving the Mexican flag above an American flag which they hang upside down in mockery.

I don’t mind for a second the media calling Neo-Nazis “white supremacists.”  Just be honest and call BOTH SIDES what they are.

And let’s also realize that the theme of one group of leftists opposing another comes up again.  The so-called “pro-immigration” events were organized by COMMUNISTS.

Sorry to interrupt again.  Moving on:

Police officers stood between the white supremacists and counter-demonstrators on the south lawn of Los Angeles’ City Hall, where about 50 members of the National Socialist Movement waved American flags and swastika banners for about an hour.

The white supremacists, many of them wearing flack helmets and black military fatigue uniforms, shouted “Sieg Heil” before each of their speakers took the podium to taunt counter-protestors with racial, anti-Semitic and misogynistic epithets.

“We will meet you head on,” one of the white supremacists, whose name could not be made out over the fuzzy public address system, warned the crowd from behind several phalanxes of police in riot gear.

Members of the Detroit-based group said they picked the location for their rally because of Los Angeles’ large immigrant population. They accused some of the immigrants of stealing jobs and committing crimes.

Group members also said they were reacting to the recent number of street marches across the country encouraging legislators to enact reform that includes amnesty for some illegal immigrants.

Oh, oh.  Have to stop again.  Just long enough to point out that all the pro-immigration and pro-amnesty street marches are apparently fine.  It’s just the any street march that in any way opposes the leftwing agenda that must be attacked and vilified.  Whether it’s Neo-Nazis advancing their favorite form of socialism or whether it’s little old ladies who want to advocate limited government.

Moving on.

National Socialist Movement regional director Jeffrey Russell Hall announced that the group would begin backing political candidates who agreed with their anti-immigrant message.

But much of the white supremacists’ words were drowned out by such chants as “Hey hey, ho ho, Nazi scum have got to go” from the larger crowd of about 500 counter-protestors who held signs that read “Nazis: Get Out of Los Angeles” and “Racists Are Ignorant.”

There was a brief flare-up of violence before the speakers arrived. A shirtless man was seen being escorted to safety behind police lines by a plainclothes officer as counter-protesters punched and grabbed at him. Blood could be seen at the base of the man’s neck.

National Lawyers Guild executive director James Lafferty, who attended both as a legal observer and counter-protestor, said he saw the man get into a fight with crowd members who saw his Nazi lightning bolt tattoos.

Police Commander David Doan said a second man who crowd members believed was sympathetic with the white supremacists was also assaulted during the rally. Both men were treated for minor injuries at a hospital and released.

As the rally ended, counter-protestors hurled rocks, branches and other items over the police line and into a parking lot where the white supremacists’ had left their cars.

Some members of the group had trouble starting a black Ford Mustang and attempted to hook up jumper cables to their engine. They protected themselves from the flying debris by holding up swastika-emblazoned shields.

The white supremacists eventually gave up and pushed their car away so they could jump-start it out of range of the projectiles
.

Doan said three or four counter-protestors were arrested for throwing items.

Yes, that’s right.  The group that peacefully protested, the group that followed the rules, was the Neo-Nazis.  The group that was violent and intolerant were the liberals.

This sentence is particularly heartbreaking:

“They protected themselves from the flying debris by holding up swastika-emblazoned shields.”

Can you even imagine that swastikas actually became the superior moral symbol during the day in that it was employed as a protective shield against a group who was using employing a violent symbol of rocks designed to attack and create injury?

Who ever would have thought that there was a group more loathsome than Neo-Nazis?  Personally, I never would have dreamed such a thing could ever happen in America.

But it happened.  And it happened even as peaceful Tea Party protesters are routinely targeted as somehow being tied to “violence.”

Doctor Cassell: ‘If You Voted For Obama, Seek Urologic Care Elsewhere’

April 2, 2010

A doctor in Mount Dora, Florida just became my very favorite urologist.  And I will bet his practice expands as a result of the courageously outspoken stand he recently took.

Let me begin with the rather-obviously politically-biased Orlando Sentinel account of Dr. Cassell:

Doctor tells Obama supporters: Go elsewhere for health care
A Mount Dora doctor posted a sign telling Obama health care supporters to go elsewhere.
By Stephen Hudak, Orlando Sentinel

8:22 a.m. EDT, April 2, 2010

MOUNT DORA — A doctor who considers the national health-care overhaul to be bad medicine for the country posted a sign on his office door telling patients who voted for President Barack Obama to seek care “elsewhere.”

I’m not turning anybody away — that would be unethical,” Dr. Jack Cassell, 56, a Mount Dora urologist and a registered Republican opposed to the health plan, told the Orlando Sentinel on Thursday. “But if they read the sign and turn the other way, so be it.”

The sign reads: “If you voted for Obama … seek urologic care elsewhere. Changes to your healthcare begin right now, not in four years.”

Estella Chatman, 67, of Eustis, whose daughter snapped a photo of the typewritten sign, sent the picture to U.S. Rep. Alan Grayson, the Orlando Democrat who riled Republicans last year when he characterized the GOP’s idea of health care as, “If you get sick, America … Die quickly.”

Chatman said she heard about the sign from a friend referred to Cassell after his physician recently died. She said her friend did not want to speak to a reporter but was dismayed by Cassell’s sign.

“He’s going to find another doctor,” she said.

Cassell may be walking a thin line between his right to free speech and his professional obligation, said William Allen, professor of bioethics, law and medical professionalism at the University of Florida‘s College of Medicine.

Allen said doctors cannot refuse patients on the basis of race, gender, religion, sexual orientation or disability, but political preference is not one of the legally protected categories specified in civil-rights law. By insisting he does not quiz his patients about their politics and has not turned away patients based on their vote, the doctor is “trying to hold onto the nub of his ethical obligation,” Allen said.

“But this is pushing the limit,” he said.

Cassell, who has practiced medicine in GOP-dominated Lake County since 1988, said he doesn’t quiz his patients about their politics, but he also won’t hide his disdain for the bill Obama signed and the lawmakers who passed it.

In his waiting room, Cassell also has provided his patients with photocopies of a health-care timeline produced by Republican leaders that outlines “major provisions” in the health-care package. The doctor put a sign above the stack of copies that reads: “This is what the morons in Washington have done to your health care. Take one, read it and vote out anyone who voted for it.”

Cassell, whose lawyer wife, Leslie Campione, has declared herself a Republican candidate for Lake County commissioner, said three patients have complained, but most have been “overwhelmingly supportive” of his position.

“They know it’s not good for them,” he said.

Cassell, who previously served as chief of surgery at Florida Hospital Waterman in Tavares, said a patient’s politics would not affect his care for them, although he said he would prefer not to treat people who support the president.

“I can at least make a point,” he said.

The notice on Cassell’s office door could cause some patients to question his judgment or fret about the care they might receive if they don’t share his political views, Allen said. He said doctors are wise to avoid public expressions that can affect the physician-patient relationship.

Erin VanSickle, spokeswoman for the Florida Medical Association, would not comment specifically.

But she noted in an e-mail to the Sentinel that “physicians are extended the same rights to free speech as every other citizen in the United States.”

The outspoken Grayson described Cassell’s sign as “ridiculous.”

“I’m disgusted,” he said. “Maybe he thinks the Hippocratic Oath says, ‘Do no good.’ If this is the face of the right wing in America, it’s the face of cruelty. … Why don’t they change the name of the Republican Party to the Sore Loser Party?”

How about changing the name of the Democrat Party to the Demagogue Party?  Or maybe the Depravity Party?

As to Alan Grayson, just remember that this is same the hater who thought demonizing Republicans as hoping people would die was not one iota over the top.

For the record, I didn’t add any of those html links to the story; they are part of the article.  Do you see which link is missing if this was to be an even halfway fair article?

Where’s the link to the timeline???

No link to that.  Half a dozen links to other stuff, but no link to the timeline the doctor referred to.  The only thing the Orlando Sentinel does is dismiss it as “Republican.”  Nothing to see there, folks.

I don’t care if the timeline came from Republican leaders.  I only care whether it accurately reflects the facts of the bill, and whether those facts are bad.

I heard about this story via Neil Cavuto’s program on Fox News.  Dr. Jack Cassell very clearly indicates on the program that the reason for the sign that he’s being demonized about was that timeline.  It was the what and the why of the five questions journalists are supposed to ask: Why did you do what you did?

Oh, we can point out the bias in the fact that Dr. Cassell says that 98% of his patients have responded favorably to the sign, whereas the Orlando Sentinel wants to make sure the only patient who gets to speak is one of the 2%.  We can point out that the liberal blogoshphere is trying to depict Dr. Cassell as turning away patients because they voted for Obama (and isn’t that hateful?!?!), when Dr. Cassell repeatedly says he isn’t turning patients away.

Dr. Cassell is making a statement, which he has every right to do.  And on Neil Cavuto’s program, the doctor says he came to the decision to do so as a result of coming across the timeline to ObamaCare.  He says that timeline angered him so much when he looked into it that he chose to take a risk and make a stand.

SOMEBODY SHOULD TELL US WHAT’S IN THAT TIMELINE THAT GOT DR. CASSELL SO RILED UP IF THEY’RE GOING TO DENOUNCE HIM, SHOULDN’T THEY???

Here’s the timeline:

Timeline of Major Provisions in the Democrats’ Health Care Package

2009
• 2-year tax credit (total cap of $1B) for new chronic disease therapy investments
• Medicare cuts to hospitals begin (long-term care (7/1/09) and inpatient and rehabilitation facilities (FY10))

2010
• States and Federal officials review premium increases
• FDA authorized to approve “follow-on” biologics
• Increase brand name pharmaceutical Medicaid rebate (from 15.1% to 23.1%)
• Medicare payments to physicians in primarily rural areas increase (2 years)
• Deny “black liquor” eligibility for cellulosic biofuel producers credit
• Tax credits provided to certain small employers for health care-related expenses
• Increase adoption tax incentives for 2 years
• Codify economic substance doctrine and impose penalties for underpayments
(transactions on/after 3/23/10)
• Provide income exclusion for specified Indian tribe health benefits provided after 3/23/10
• Temporary high-risk pool and high-cost union retiree reinsurance ($5 B each for 3.5
years) (6/23/10)
• Impose 10% tax on indoor UV tanning (7/1/10)
• Medicare cuts to inpatient psych hospitals (7/1/10)
• Prohibits lifetime and annual benefit spending limits (plan years beginning 9/23/10)
• Prohibits non-group plans from canceling coverage (rescissions) (plan years
beginning 9/23/10)
• Requires plans to cover, at no charge, most preventive care (plan years beginning 9/23/10)
• Allows dependents to stay on parents’ policies through age 26 (plan years beginning 9/23/10)
• Provides limited protections to children with pre-existing conditions (plan years beginning 9/23/10)
• Hospitals in “Frontier States” (ND, MT, WY, SD, UT ) receive higher Medicare payments (FY11)
• Hospitals in “low-cost” areas receive higher Medicare payments for 2 yrs ($400 million, FY11)

2011
• Medicare Advantage cuts begin
• No longer allowed to use FSA, HSA, HRA, Archer MSA distributions for over-the-counter medicines
• Medicare cuts to home health begin
• Wealthier seniors ($85k/$170k) begin paying higher Part D premiums (not indexed for inflation in Parts B/D)
• Medicare reimbursement cuts when seniors use diagnostic imaging like MRIs, CT scans, etc.
• Medicare cuts begin to ambulance services, ASCs, diagnostic labs, and durable medical equipment
• Impose new annual tax on brand name pharmaceutical companies
• Americans begin paying premiums for federal long-term care insurance (CLASS Act)
• Health plans required to spend a minimum of 80% of premiums on medical claims
• Physicians in “Frontier States” (ND, MT, WY, SD, UT ) receive higher Medicare payments
• Prohibition on Medicare payments to new physician-owned hospitals
• Penalties for non-qualified HSA and Archer MSA distributions double (to 20%)
• Seniors prohibited from purchasing power wheelchairs unless they first rent for 13 months
• Brand name drug companies begin providing 50% discount in the Part D “donut hole”
• 10% Medicare bonus payment for primary care and general surgery (5 years)
• Employers required to report value of health benefits on W-2
• Steps towards health insurance administrative simplification (reduced paperwork, etc) begins (5 yr process)
• Additional funding for community health centers (5 years)
• Seniors who hit Part D “donut hole “in 2010 receive $250 check (3/15/11)
• New Medicare cuts to long-term care hospitals begin (7/1/11)
• Additional Medicare cuts to hospitals and cuts to nursing homes and inpatient rehab facilities begin (FY12)
• New tax on all private health insurance policies to pay for comp. eff. research (plan years beginning FY12)

2012
• Medicare cuts to dialysis treatment begins
• Require information reporting on payments to corporations
• Medicare to reduce spending by using an HMO-like coordinated care model (Accountable Care Organizations)
• Medicare Advantage plans with a 4 or 5 star rating receive a quality bonus payment
• New Medicare cuts to inpatient psych hospitals (7/1/12)
• Hospital pay-for-quality program begins (FY13)
• Medicare cuts to hospitals with high readmission rates begin (FY13)
• Medicare cuts to hospice begin (FY13)

2013
• Impose $2,500 annual cap on FSA contributions (indexed to CPI)
• Increase Medicare wage tax by 0.9% and impose a new 3.8% tax on unearned , non-active business income for those earning over $200k/$250k (not indexed to inflation)
• Generally increases (7.5% to 10%) threshold at which medical expenses, as a % of income, can be deductible
• Eliminate deduction for Part D retiree drug subsidy employers receive
• Impose 2.3% excise tax on medical devices
• Medicare cuts to hospitals who treat low-income seniors begin
• Post-acute pay for quality reporting begins
• CO-OP Program: Secretary awards loans and grants for establishing nonprofit health insurers
• $500,000 deduction cap on compensation paid to insurance company employees and officers
• Part D “donut hole” reduction begins, reaching a 25% reduction by 2020

2014
• Individuals without gov’t-approved coverage are subject to a tax of the greater of $695 or 2.5% of income
• Employers who fail to offer “affordable” coverage would pay a $3,000 penalty for every employee that receives a subsidy through the Exchange
• Employers who do not offer insurance must pay a tax penalty of $2,000 for every full-time employee
• More Medicare cuts to home health begin
• States must have established Exchanges
• Employers with more than 200 employees can auto-enroll employees in health coverage, with opt-out
• All non-grandfathered and Exchange health plans required to meet federally-mandated levels of coverage
• States must cover parents /childless adults up to 138% of poverty on Medicaid, receive increased FMAP
• Tax credits available for Exchange-based coverage, amount varies by income up to 400% of poverty
• Insurers cannot impose any coverage restrictions on pre-existing conditions (guaranteed issue/renewability)
• Modified community rating: individual or family coverage; geography; 3:1 ratio for age; 1.5 :1 for smoking
• Insurers must offer coverage to anyone wanting a policy and every policy has to be renewed
• Limits out-of-pocket cost-sharing (tied to limits in HSAs, currently $5,950/$11,900 indexed to COLA)
• Insurance plans must include government-defined “essential benefits ” and coverage levels
• OPM must offer at least two multi-state plans in every state
• Employers can offer some employees free choice vouchers for health insurance in the Exchange
• Government board (IPAB) begins submitting proposals to cut Medicare
• Impose tax on nearly all private health insurance plans
• Medicare payment cuts for hospital-acquired infections begin (FY15)

2015
• More Medicare cuts to home health begin

2016
• States can form interstate insurance compacts if the coverage with HHS approval (2016)

2017
• Physician pay-for-quality program begins for all physicians
• States may allow large employers and multi-employer health plans to purchase coverage in the Exchange.
• States may apply to the Secretary for a limited waiver from certain federal requirements

2018
• Impose “Cadillac tax on “high cost” plans, 40% tax on the benefit value above a certain
threshold: ($10,200 individual coverage, $27,500 family or self-only union multi-employer coverage)

Now, maybe you love what ObamaCare does.  But Dr. Jack Cassell most certainly does not.  He sees the destruction of medicine, and the destruction of his medical practice contained in this timeline that just keeps imposing more and more and more.

Dr. Jack Cassell sees what’s coming.  And you should see it too.

And he wants to poke people in the eyeballs and wake them the heck up before it’s too late.

Dr. Jack Cassell.  My very favorite urologist.

Obama Continues To Demonize: This Time The U.S. Supreme Court

January 28, 2010

Since I wrote this (but before I posted it) we have a Supreme Court Justice responding to Obama’s continued demagoguery of SCOTUS.

Obama was saying:

With all due deference to separation of powers, last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections.

(APPLAUSE)

I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests or, worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people. And I urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps correct some of these problems.

And Samuel Alito shook his head and mouthed, “That’s not true.”  In deference to the separation of powers, and all that:

Our Demagogue-in-Chief has now turned his demonizing away from George Bush (for just a brief moment, mind you) and toward the Supreme Court:

WASHINGTON — President Obama took aim at the Supreme Court on Saturday, saying the justices had “handed a huge victory to the special interests and their lobbyists” with last week’s 5-to-4 decision to lift restrictions on campaign spending by corporations and unions.

The decision will have major political implications for this year’s midterm elections. After it was announced, Mr. Obama immediately instructed his advisers to work with Congress on legislation that would restore some of the limits the court lifted. But in his weekly address on Saturday, he sharply stepped up his criticism of the high court.

“This ruling strikes at our democracy itself,” Mr. Obama said, adding: “I can’t think of anything more devastating to the public interest. The last thing we need to do is hand more influence to the lobbyists in Washington, or more power to the special interests to tip the outcome of elections.”

Barack Obama is a demagouge, and nothing but a demagogue.  You are either with him, or he is bitterly against you.  He has been a fearmongerer and a demagogue from the beginning:

ABC’s Jake Tapper notes the “Helter-Skelter cultish qualities” of “Obama worshipers,” what Joel Stein of the Los Angeles Times calls “the Cult of Obama.” Obama’s Super Tuesday victory speech was a classic of the genre. Its effect was electric, eliciting a rhythmic fervor in the audience — to such rhetorical nonsense as “We are the ones we’ve been waiting for. (Cheers, applause.) We are the change that we seek.”

That was too much for Time’s Joe Klein. “There was something just a wee bit creepy about the mass messianism … ,” he wrote. “The message is becoming dangerously self-referential. The Obama campaign all too often is about how wonderful the Obama campaign is.”You might dismiss the New York Times’ Paul Krugman’s complaint that “the Obama campaign seems dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality” as hyperbole.

And what happens if you contradict such a “cult of personality”?  You become the enemy of the religion.  And you must be attacked with the zeal of the fanatic.

Did the five justices of the U.S. Supreme Court want to “strike at our democracy itself”?  Hardly:

The five justices who sided with the majority characterized it as a victory for the First Amendment and freedom of speech.

Boy, is THAT ever striking against democracy.  Damn free speech!  Damn First Amendment!  Let’s get rid of them both and have Obama instead!

Let’s agree with Barry Hussein’s chief of staff Rahm Emanuel’s take on it instead (see the embedded video):

“When you think about the First Amendment…you think it’s highly overrated.”

That joke dismissing the First Amendment was about as funny as Josef Stalin’s kneeslapper:

“The death of one man is a tragedy. The death of millions is a statistic.”

Here’s an important question: Just why is our demagogic president and his lackeys so unhinged over this decision?

It comes back to the idea of his racist, Marxist, anti-American reverend’s words about “chickens coming home to roost“:

From the previously cited New York Times article:

But the decision could also have a significant effect on Mr. Obama’s expansive domestic agenda. The president has angered many of the big-money industries — like banks and insurers — that would be inclined to dig deep into their pockets to influence the outcome of the president’s legislative proposals.

I’m reminded of the sci-fi movies that feature an evil scientist finally having his own monsters turn on him while he screams.

It’s poetic justice that the industries and businesses that Obama demonized should finally get a chance to have their crack at him.

And only a profoundly anti-American ideologue would say that people shouldn’t have a right to publicly confront their accuser.  When Obama attacks them in public, they should have a right to speak out themselves in public.

An excellent summary of the grounds for the Supreme Court’s decision can be found here.  Basically, the Court recognized that there are two types of corporations: media corporations and non-media corporations.  One had the full rights of free speech, and the other had its free speech rights attacked.  Why should General Electric-owned NBC have complete access to free speech, while other corporations are banned from free speech?

As Justice Kennedy (who is hardly “right wing”) pointed out in his decision:

Media corporations are now exempt from §441b’s ban on corporate expenditures. Yet media corporations accumulate wealth with the help of the corporate form, the largest media corporations have “immense aggregations of wealth,” and the views expressed by media corporations often “have little or no correlation to the public’s support” for those views.

Why is it “striking at our democracy itself” to finally allow corporations to have a voice against a president who has given one sweetheart deal after another to labor unions, while working toward giving labor unions the right to force unions on businesses without a legitimate private vote via card check?

Here’s another example: one of the top bankruptcy attorneys in the country has stated that the Obama White House threatened to destroy his firm using the mainstream media if it continued to oppose Obama’s “Take my offer or else” offer for Chrysler investors.

Here’s another one: Humana was attacked, demonized, and handed an illegal gag order for trying to correct the record as the White House levied lies against it.

You can frankly understand why Obama and the far left want to have the ability to keep attacking businesses and people who depend upon businesses for their livelihood without their opponents being able to respond.  They want to be able to impose their agenda and crush any and all opposition.  By any means necessary.

Fortunately the Supreme Court has allowed corporations to answer back to this demagoguery.

This is an important fact:

Our United States Supreme Court has defined a corporation in the following language: “An association of individuals, acting as a single person …. united for some common purpose …. and permitted by the law to use a common name and to change its members without a dissolution of the Association.”

But liberals don’t like these “people.”  They don’t like businesses.  And they believe they should have the right to attack the people they don’t like, and that the people they attack should have no right to defend themselves.

Corporations are legally recognized to act as a “person.”  Obama has attacked such “persons” too many times to count.  And now that “person” finally is getting the right to respond.