Of the sons of Issachar, men who understood the times, with knowledge of what Israel should do, their chiefs were two hundred; and all their kinsmen were at their command — 1 Chronicles 12:32
What is this class going to be about? It’s going to be about Jesus according to His words in John 14:6: “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.” This class is going to be about Jesus as the only possible fulfillment of desperate human need.
I titled this, “Jesus, Son of Man, Son of God.” Let me try to explain why. The Scriptures clearly teach that Jesus was fully human in every way, human in every way that it is essential to be human, and fully God. Passages such as Philippians 2:6-8 teach “the kenosis,” the emptying of Jesus as He laid aside aspects of His deity – WHILE REMAINING IN HIS NATURE GOD – in order to become fully human and experience the essence and the angst of human limitation. How was He able to do this? The short and simple answer is the Virgin Birth in fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14 and 9:6. Jesus, according to John 1:1-3, was the Word who was with God and was God. We’re taught that ALL THINGS CAME INTO BEING BY CHRIST. And so when we read Genesis 1:1, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,” we now know that “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being by Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.” And so when we read Genesis 1:27 which says, “God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.”
God created man. But we can be even MORE specific: The Son of God created man. Christ created man. Christ, who would assume human image, created that very human image that He knew He would one day assume. How could Christ assume human image? Because Christ created man in His image, and more precisely because Christ created man in an image that He could one day assume Himself.
There’s a beautiful, simple poem: He came to die on a cross of wood, but made the hill on which it stood.”
Consider again John 14:6. No one comes to the Father except through Jesus. Jesus is the unique answer to the human condition, the only antidote to the fatal disease of sin. He is THE way, THE truth and THE life.
So the title: Jesus as the Son of Man, in His humanity, shows you what is necessary to live a life that is pleasing to God. Jesus as a human being showed us what kind of life – THE ONLY LIFE EVER LIVED – can earn/merit/deserve the reward of heaven rather than the judgment of hell. If anyone thinks he or she is good enough to deserve to go to heaven on their own merit, all he or she has to do is live as perfect a human life as Jesus did. What we find in studying Jesus’ life is that if you ever had so much as a single sinful THOUGHT, let alone act, you don’t measure up to God’s standard of a righteous life. Everything Jesus thought and said and did were in perfect alignment with the will of the Father. YOU try living up to that. But Jesus in His humanity, in coming to seek and to save us, lived a perfect human life on earth because He knew we could not in our fallen state live the sinless lives a perfect holy God demanded. As the Son of Man, Jesus lived a perfect human life in our place – the same way that Adam as the first man stood in our place and represented us (but led mankind into sin). And Jesus in His deity, Jesus as Son of God, showed us what kind of life – AGAIN THE ONLY LIFE EVER LIVED – can gain heaven for any other human being. In His deity as the Son of God, Jesus was able as GOD ALONE IS ABLE to save the entire human race by uniting in Himself as the Son of Man and the Son of God.
But having said that by way of introduction, let’s step back and consider the alternative to Jesus as “Son of Man, Son of God.” Let’s suppose that the human race were left to its own devices, and that we were the answer to our own salvation, as secular humanists and atheists claim. Let’s present the alternative scenario that the human race is the byproduct of meaningless, purposeless, random evolution and take some time to see where this scenario leads mankind in the question, “Where does morality come from?” I want to argue for God on the basis of the simple fact of moral laws and our resulting moral intuitions .
When I got out of the army my knee was ruined and I was broken more than merely physically. I was like many who couldn’t understand why God would have allowed me to go through such an ordeal or why He hadn’t healed me. Frankly, had I had a better grounding in the Scripture, I would have known that God never said that bad things would never happen to His people. I would have known that God has a plan that weaves things that we consider bad at the time to create an ultimately much greater good for us. But I was young in years and young in my faith. And I became bitter. I went from wondering where God was, to wondering if He cared, to wondering if He was even there at all.
It’s interesting that the Bible never really seriously addresses the objections raised by atheists, other than to say it is fools who say that there is no God.
Here’s a great quote about “intellectuals” and “fools” from George Orwell: “Some ideas are so stupid that only intellectuals believe them.” It is amazing to contemplate how utterly divorced from reality many – if not most – intellectuals are.
Basically, God is simply presented as a fact of reality in the Bible. And if you want to know why you should believe in God, all you have to do is look around you and see the purpose and beauty and design of creation (e.g. Romans chapter one). God is an obvious brute fact, and it is fools who entertain foolish speculations to suppress the truth in their wickedness. They can’t believe because they won’t believe. All the evidence in the world won’t change what amounts to a bitter, cynical, poisonous attitude. I think this is true, and as an example I think that the field of psychology backs it up: you can’t change a heart or mind that doesn’t want to be changed. Until someone is ready to change, all the logic, all the reason, all the facts in the world simply won’t matter. And I present myself and my weight as an example. Until I was ready to do what I had to do, NOBODY was going to be able to argue me into doing what I had to do to lose weight and get healthy.
There’s an appropriate line of dialogue that was said many times in Three Stooges episodes: “I can’t see, I can’t see!” “You’ve got your eyes closed.” “oh.” When you are finally ready to open your eyes, you can see all the light you want to. I was NEVER an atheist, but I had been spiritually traumatized into closing my eyes to God. And I simply couldn’t see all the reasons I had to believe because I wasn’t looking. Now I can see so many; but atheists won’t look at all those reasons. Their eyes are closed. 2 Cor 4:4 takes it even further, pointing out that Satan as “The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel.” Open your eyes.
Last night on my walk, it occurred to me at a certain point as I walked in the dark that I’d better check for coyotes. Once a coyote had tried to come up from behind and ambush my dog at this point. So I turned on my flashlight and my blood pressure shot up as I saw a coyote moving toward us. Only it wasn’t a coyote; it was a plastic bag caught in a shrub at just the right height to fool me. We tend to see what we expect to see, don’t we?
But let me take you to a realization that I had during my quest for light (while like a “stooge” I was wandering around with my eyes shut). I realized something important: it occurred to me that if in fact there were no God, and if evolution were true, that there was no real, objective morality – and that I could literally do whatever I wanted no matter how “evil” society claimed it was. Murder, rape, you name it: there is no ultimate penalty for these things if there is no God who rewards or punishes.
I knew enough about the natural world at that point to understand that it is impossible to look at nature and find any grounds apart from God or religion for morality. As an example, many matings in the insect and even mammalian world would for us constitute acts of rape. And in the case of praying mantises or black widows, the females often get even by killing and eating the father of their children as soon as the mating is completed. I watched a documentary about higher primates that showed a dominant female chimpanzee’s baby dying because she couldn’t produce milk. As dominant female, what did she do? She seized the baby of a less-dominant female. And what happened? That baby died because the dominant female couldn’t produce milk. Is that wrong? That’s NATURE, baby. In the world of nature, do we arrest lions for crimes: “You murdered that zebra. We’re going to have to put you in prison for your crime.” It would be idiotic. Anyone who understands the nature that humans ostensibly come from according to evolution understands that nature is utterly cold, utterly cruel and utterly amoral.
You can’t give what you don’t got. Nature can’t “evolve” morality in humans because it never had it to give to begin with. And the entire history of the natural world screams that cold hard brutal fact.
Does morality come from nature? Not. Would you like to depend on the amorality of nature to save you from anything? I sure wouldn’t. What about “herd morality”??? Does morality depend on what society says? When we stand before God, will he turn to an opinion poll to judge us for our sins???
Where does morality come from, then? Does it come from human government? We can look at THE two most totalitarian forms of human government in history – communism and fascism – and see that theory get blown apart. Surely if morality comes from government, then the more control exercised by government the better, right? It turns out that the more government the WORSE. Communism is identical with “state atheism”; every officially state atheist government with the exception of the French Revolution has been communist, and every single communist regime has been officially state atheist. And no form of government has crushed the human spirit with more brutality than communism – which is responsible for the murder of more than 100 million of its own citizens just during peacetime alone. Communism is the closest thing humans can come to “a boot stomping on a human face – forever.” We can also consider the Darwinian and atheist project of Nazi fascism. One of the greatest scholars of fascism, Ernst Nolte, defined fascism as “the practical and violent resistance to transcendence.” I.e. a transcendent God and an objective, transcendent moral law. The great French thinker George Steiner noted that “By killing the Jews, Western culture could eradicate those who had ‘invented’ God.”
Proto-Nazi 19th century German scholars such as Julian Wellhausen and Friedrich Delitzsch began in the 19th century with the theological project to undermine God, undermine the Bible and undermine the Jews who wrote the Bible. Proto-Nazi 19th century German philosophers, such as Friedrich Nietzsche and then Martin Heidegger, savagely undermined any grounds for God, for Christianity, or for any kind of objective moral values.
Nazism was inseparable with the “Gottglaubiger,” the Nazi Party member who declared that he had officially rejected Christianity. The men closest to Adolf Hitler noted in their personal journals that Hitler was an atheist. Consider Joseph Goebbels, who in a 1939 diary entry noted a conversation in which Hitler had “expressed his revulsion against Christianity. He wished that the time were ripe for him to be able to openly express that. Christianity had corrupted and infected the entire world of antiquity.” Hitler said, “Our epoch will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.” And just as Hitler wanted to solve “the Jewish problem,” we find that he also intended to solve “the Christian problem.” In 1941 Hitler declared: “The war is going to be over. The last great task of our age will be to solve the church problem. It is only then that the nation will be wholly secure.”
Adolf Hitler summed up the ultimate Darwinian philosophy, saying, “If the German Volk is not strong enough and is not sufficiently prepared to offer its own blood for its existence, it should cease to exist and be destroyed by a stronger power.”
What else is Darwinism if not the struggle for survival in which the stronger kill or replace the weaker???
Does morality flow from the power of human government? Adolf Hitler certainly believed it did. He said, “We do not want any other god than Germany itself. It is essential to have fanatical faith and hope and love in and for Germany.” Chairman Mao certainly believed that it did. He said, “Our God is none other than the masses of the Chinese people. If they stand up and dig together with us, why can’t these two mountains be cleared away?” God is the State. The State is God. And whatever the State decides is moral is moral and whatever the State decides is immoral is immoral. Does that work for you???
The Bible reveals a big problem with “human morality” from the LAST TIME God judged man’s sins: “The LORD saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time” (Gen 6:5). I see this as something that neither nature nor governance can solve.
One of my problems with morality coming from government or human culture is the way morality “evolves.” I think of the United States and homosexuality. On April 17, 2008, as epitomized in Barack Obama, morality was the view that: “I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian — for me — for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God’s in the mix.” But that view is no longer “moral”: now a person holding to that view is intolerant, bigoted, narrow-minded and cruel. Now the moral thing to believe according to our culture and recognize that homosexuals’ relationships are every bit as valid as those relationships between a man and a woman and that the moral person must respect the full and equal rights of gay citizens.
I mentioned Nazism’s project to destroy objective, transcendent morality: such morality holds that objective moral laws apply to all times, to all cultures, period. It is wrong to torture a baby for fun. It has always been wrong. It has always been wrong no matter what any culture or any group of people thought about it. And it will always be wrong even if the whole world says otherwise. That view of morality has largely been destroyed as much in our world as it was in the world of Nazi Germany. And it has been replaced with the secular humanist/atheist concept that morality (like everything else) “evolves.”
What makes something “right” or “wrong”? What makes something “moral” or “immoral”??? If something isn’t moral just because Adolf Hitler or Joseph Stalin said so, why would it be different if Barack Obama – or ANY leader ANYWHERE – said so??? Who makes human rules for humanity? If it’s some group of humans, just what is it that makes them so superior to the rest of us that they get to make the rules for the rest of us? And if there is no group of humans that gets to make the rules, then where else would any true moral laws come from???
Is it human nature to merely be a herd animal, which chews its cud and does what the rest of the herd does? That doesn’t seem to be the way we are, given all the arguing and discussion rather than all the cud-chewing and mindlessly following.
In my own case, to return to my realization as an adrift young man, if there is no God, there ARE no moral rules. I could do anything I wanted. No one had the right to tell me that something was right or that something was wrong. They were merely imposing their own values on me and they didn’t have any more right to make the rules than anybody else. The Bible described such thinking: “every man did what was right in his own eyes” (Judges 21:25).
What kind of world do we invariably end up with when it is up to human minds to decide what is right and what is wrong??? I think history has already declared that it is a very ugly world.
Is mass human death a tragedy? Not according to the leaders of big government, who don’t care how many of their own people die as long as they have enough others to continue to do their bidding:
Chairman Mao:
“The atom bomb is nothing to be afraid of,” Mao told Nehru, “China has many people. . . . The deaths of ten or twenty million people is nothing to be afraid of.” A witness said Nehru showed shock. Later, speaking in Moscow, Mao displayed yet more generosity: he boasted that he was willing to lose 300 million people, half of China’s population.”
Chairman Mao:
LEE EDWARDS, CHAIRMAN, VICTIMS OF COMMUNISM MEMORIAL FOUNDATION: In 1959 to 1961 was the so-called “great leap forward” which was actually a gigantic leap backwards in which he tried to collectivize and communize agriculture.
And they came to him after the first year and they said, “Chairman, five million people have died of famine.” He said, “No matter, keep going.” In the second year, they came back and they said, “Ten million Chinese have died.” He said, “No matter, continue.” The third year, 20 million Chinese have died. And he said finally, “Well, perhaps this is not the best idea that I’ve ever had.”
CHANG: When he was told that, you know, his people were dying of starvation, Mao said, “Educate the peasants to eat less. Thus they can benefit – they can fertilize the land.”
I submit to you that we’re seeing the exact same demonically ideological disregard for the lives of one’s own people in Barack Obama with his ObamaCare rollout. There was no question that the website was not ready, that it would crash, that it was unsafe and that people who trusted its use would be subject to widespread identity theft and hacking. Obama didn’t care; he cared only about getting the turkey to fly whether it was ready to fly or not out of pure political considerations rather than any concern for the American people.
Obama: “No matter, keep going.” And none of the catastrophe he’s created matters because like Mao Obama is a rabid ideologue who demands his “signature legislation” be implemented now matter how awful it is or how terrible its consequences will be on America and its people.
What I’m trying to tell you is that when it comes to looking to your government for morality, you can’t look at the communists and the fascists – who ought to have THE most moral governments if morality in any way, shape or form comes from government – and say, “that’s just them.” No government is moral, and morality comes from no government. Least of all our own as we have now nearly completely abandoned the Judeo-Christian worldview that gave the United States a chance at becoming a moral city on a hill. No nation that has mindlessly spent itself into well over $200 trillion in unsustainable and unpayable debt has any right to call itself “moral.”
I previously told you how bloody and dark and amoral and indifferent “the world of nature” apart from God was. Does the morality of human government seem any better? It has been frequently pointed out that any government that can give rights can just as easily take them away. Now we are living in a time when what was right has become wrong and what was wrong has become right.
I think of some of Jesus’ most powerful words: “For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost” (Luke 19:10). What did He mean? Is He referring to people that nature lost? Is He referring to people who aren’t yet eligible for some government program to help them? Or is He referring to a far deeper and more fundamental problem with human nature that can’t be transformed by Nature and can’t be transformed by Nurture (i.e. a government nanny state)???
The Bible reveals something that we should all know from our self-introspection: “ He has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also set eternity in the human heart; yet no one can fathom what God has done from beginning to end” (Ecc 3:11). That is that we have eternal souls. No temporary fix will work for beings that live on forever long after our bodies are dust. The only solution is an eternal solution; and therefore the only one who can save us is an eternal God.
Nature cannot save us because amoral nature cannot give us what it never had to begin with. Herd morality, society says morality, or government morality can’t save us because human beings are individuals and not herd animals and because governments are THE most immoral entities on earth rather than the most moral. And human beings cannot save us because no matter how they present themselves as messiahs, the fact of the matter is that they are fallen human beings tainted by sin and they are merely liars and charlatans and demagogues.
We are a world in desperate need of salvation. My generation was literally born into a world that had become capable of utterly destroying itself within a matter of minutes with nuclear annihilation. And that threat continues to hang over this world that common sense assures will one day erupt into WW3. We need a Savior. We need a Messiah. And no human government and no human leader can take the place of the true Savior of the world that the world needs – Jesus of Nazareth.
Here’s a few things that stand out: the most important ones mention the rights of “the people.”
4th Amendment: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated”
2nd Amendment: “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
And you see, the same liberal big government worshipers who feel like they are justified in infringing on a right that shall not be infringed will ultimately feel every scintilla as justified in violating rights that shall not be violated.
The right to vote is FAR more dangerous than the right for law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms. And you are a moral idiot to the extreme not to understand that.
Moral idiots are far worse and far more dangerous than intellectual idiots. Because moral idiots are people with dishonest minds and dishonest minds prefer lies to the truth. Moral idiots such as those who run our culture today devote their intelligence to advancing lies. And they are the first to justify extreme policies with the notion that the ends justify the means.
Let me point out that the very biggest moral idiots of all are the so-called “intellectuals” who dominate our universities and our political think tanks. Thomas Sowell interacted with George Orwell to produce this gem:
“George Orwell said that some ideas are so foolish that only an intellectual could believe them, for no ordinary man could be such a fool. The record of twentieth century intellectuals was especially appalling in this regard. Scarcely a mass-murdering dictator of the twentieth century was without his intellectual supporters, not simply in his own country, but also in foreign democracies, where people were free to say whatever they wished. Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Hitler all had their admirers, defenders, and apologists among the intelligentsia in Western democratic nations, despite the fact that these dictators ended up killing people of their own country on a scale unprecedented even by despotic regimes that preceded them” – Thomas Sowell, Intellectuals and Society, p. 2.
And a lot of the people who are such beyond-belief fools are the very same people who continue to be for banning guns “despite the fact that these dictators ended up killing people of their own country on a scale unprecedented even by despotic regimes that preceded them.” They are consistent only in that they are so consistently morally stupid.
The nature of the big government socialist left was, is and will always be fascism. And the nature of fascism has always been to deprive human dignity and freedom – starting with the right to self-defense.
Because herd animals shouldn’t have a right to defend themselves. We don’t want our hamburgers getting guns any more than fascists want their people to resist their policies (such as Hitler’s Final Solution, such as Stalin’s Collectivization, such as Mao’s Great Leap Forward).
Which is why they’re going after our guns first just like Hitler and Stalin and Mao and Castro and Pol Pot and Kim Il-sung did before they brought the Horror against unarmed and defenseless people. Considerably more than 100 million people were brutally murdered by leftist big government dictatorships during peacetime alone. And the one thing all these governmental philosophies had in common besides big government totalitarian control was the initial disarming of the people they were about to impose horror against. This is a fact of history.
What has the left done with the 2nd Amendment? First of all, they have defined the right as belonging only to a militia. Okay. Then the 4th Amendment (and other important amendments such as the First Amendment) needs to be only for militias, because the same amendment which says the right of the people to bear arms says the right of the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures. And if “the people” in the 2nd Amendment refers only to “militia,” then ALL of the rights accorded to the people only pertain for those belonging to a militia. Because a right recognized for “the people” either applies to “the people” or it doesn’t. And which is it? Which do you want? “The people” either refers to a militia or to the actual “people.” Just because the right to arms are also granted to well-organized militias does not in any way, shape or form abrogate the right of “the people” to keep and bear arms any more than the mention of the right of the press somehow abrogates the right of the people to freedom of speech and to peaceable assembly as guaranteed in the First Amendment.
Fascism and government tyranny has started with the confiscation of guns from the people, to disarm them in order to control them. Big government is ALWAYS about controlling people.
If you value ANYof the other rights of the Bill of Rights, then you’d damned well better protect the 2nd Amendment.
I keep telling anyone who will read me, over and over again: the beast is coming. And he most certainly is. And soon.
The thing you need to realize is that by the time he gets here, the Democrat Party will have given the once-great and mighty United States of America into his hands by disarming the people. And it will be Democrats who worship this ultimate big government leader and take his mark on their foreheads or their right hands as a sign of that worship.
We just went through a disgusting act of propaganda via incredibly deceitful editing of video by the leftwing MSNBC. Neil Heslin – the father of a slain Sandy Hook shooting victim – said, “I ask if there’s anybody in this room that can give me one reason or challenge this question … why anybody in this room needs to have one of these assault-style weapons or military weapons or high-capacity clips.” And then he categorically stated, “Not one person can answer that question.”
Yeah, Neil. We CAN answer that question. We have a right to be able to protect ourselves with the same sorts of weapons that either predatory criminals or an even more predatory criminal thug government possess. Our founding fathers gave us that right, and our ancestors died to preserve that right for us. Here’s a question for YOU, though: can you answer to the hundreds of millions of families who saw their governments brutally murder their parents, their children, their brothers and sisters, their grandparents, their cousins, etc. etc., just why it was that they didn’t deserve the right to be able to defend themselves??? Can you explain why you believe government ought to have the right to slaughter us like farm animals by the hundreds of millions???
That’s my question.
Consider smoking. First the left forced restaurants to divide their buildings, airplanes, etc. into smoking and non-smoking sections. But the nature of the left is to keep taking, keep building more regulations with more penalites. Now you can’t smoke at all in any government place – whether the owner of that place likes it or not – and many people are not lawbreakers even for smoking in their own homes. If that isn’t bad enough, you’ve got liberals saying that now that the left has taken over and socialized health care, it is too expensive to give the smokers the Medicare and health services they paid into. And so they should die. And I mean literally be killed by denial of medical treatment.
You’re only one government regulation away from being treated like Hitler treated the Jews or Stalin treated the Ukrainians or Mao treated, well, pretty much all of his people.
I rather routinely call Obama the F-word. No, not that F-word (although the ability to resist doing so is dwindling); the other F-word: Fascist. Barack Obama is a fascist.
I have had quite a few liberals fixate on this word, and – while ignoring the rest of my arguments – proceed to give me a lecture about how my extremism undermines my positions and arguments (which they don’t bother to consider).
I’d like to respond to that. At length.
There are many who would argue that if a politician is not as rabid as Adolf Hitler, that one cannot use this label of “fascist” – at least not unless the target is a Republican (see below). Barack Obama is not a “dictator,” these would argue. He hasn’t launched the world into global war and he hasn’t murdered 6 million Jews (at least, he hasn’t yet). So he can’t be a “fascist.” This argument fails on two parts. First of all, by such a metric, Benito Mussolini wouldn’t be a “fascist” either (except for the “dictator” part). One of the reasons it is hard to have an easy definition of “fascist” is because fascism has taken a different character in every country and culture in which it has been embraced. Hitler is not the norm or standard of fascism; he is merely the most extreme example of its virulence and danger. Secondly, even if we were to take a Hitler as our example, let us realize that Adolf Hitler was a very cunning politician who managed to gain power in a Germany that was THE most sophisticated, educated and scientific nation and culture of its day. What I am asserting is that if an Adolf Hitler were to run for the presidency of the United States in 2012, he would run a platform that we could very easily label as “hope and change,” he would demagogue his adversaries as being the cause for the nation’s plight, he would lie both cynically and outrageously to win votes and he would then proceed to push the country as far as he possibly could toward his agenda. And so here, from the outset, I am claiming that the suggestion that either Barack Obama or anyone else does not qualify as a “fascist” simply because he or she can’t be directly compared to Adolf Hitler is nothing but a straw man.
The question thus becomes, what is fascism, and then it is what is Obama steering us toward?
THE WORD “fascism” is used broadly on the left as a term of abuse. Sometimes it is used to refer to any repressive government, whatever its political form. Most commonly on the left in the U.S., it is used to describe any Republican government–in particular, any Republican government or candidate on the eve of a presidential election.
As an experiment, I typed the words “Bush fascist” and then “Obama fascist” sans quotes. I got 3,280,000 Google hits for Bush fascist (and keep in mind an awful lot of hits would have vanished in the last 11 years as domains purged articles or simply ceased to exist) versus only 2,490,000 for Obama. That means liberals were over 45% more likely to call Bush a fascist than conservatives have been to call Obama one.
And when these liberals express their outrage that I would dare call Obama a fascist and thus lower the discourse, I invariably ask them just where the hell they were when their side was teeing off on Bush for eight unrelenting years of Bush derangement syndrome??? It was rare indeed to see a liberal excoriate his fellow liberals for demonizing the president of the United States.
With all due respect, the left started this form of “discourse.” They turned it into an art form. And how dare these hypocrites dare to tell me not to do unto Obama as they did unto Bush???
That might only be a rhetorical argument, as two wrongs clearly don’t make a right. But it remains a powerful one. Liberals have forfeited any moral right to criticize conservatives for using their own tactics against them.
But I don’t simply call Obama a fascist because liberals called Bush one. I call him one because he has exhibited all kinds of fascistic tendencies, which I shall in time describe.
But fascism has a far more precise definition. Historically, fascism is a far-right movementof the middle classes (shopkeepers, professionals, civil servants) who are economically ruined by severe economic crisis and driven to “frenzy.”
In the brilliant words of Leon Trotsky, fascism brings “to their feet those classes that are immediately above the working class and that are ever in dread of being forced down into its ranks; it organizes and militarizes them…and it directs them to the extirpation of proletarian organizations, from the most revolutionary to the most conservative.”
I have no doubt that the irony of these words were entirely lost to the “Socialist Worker” who wrote the article. But allow me to illuminate it for you: think of the most infamous fascists of all time, the Nazis. What did the word “Nazi” stand for? It was the “acronym for the ‘National Socialist German Workers Party’.” Let me try that again, just in case you missed these precious little details: “National SOCIALIST German WORKERS Party.”
But ask the “Socialist Workers” and they’ll assure you that the “Socialist Workers Party” had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Socialist Workers. Because that would certainly be awkward, wouldn’t it???
It is rather fascinating that “Socialist Worker” would cite as his authority on fascism and who should be labeled as a “fascist” the Marxist thinker . Allow me to provide one counter statement which is based not on the “brilliant words” of a Marxist, but on the plain simple facts:
“Part of the problem in recognizing fascism is the assumption that it is conservative. [Zeev] Sternhell has observed how study of the ideology has been obscured by “the official Marxist interpretation of fascism.” Marxism defines fascism as its polar opposite. If Marxism is progressive, fascism is conservative. If Marxism is left wing, fascism is right wing. If Marxism champions the proletariat, fascism champions the bourgeoisie. If Marxism is socialist, fascism is capitalist.
The influence of Marxist scholarship has severely distorted our understanding of fascism. Communism and fascism were rival brands of socialism. Whereas Marxist socialism is predicated on an international class struggle, fascist national socialism promoted a socialism centered in national unity. Both communists and fascists opposed the bourgeoisie. Both attacked the conservatives. Both were mass movements, which had special appeal for the intelligentsia, students, and artists, as well as workers. Both favored strong centralized governments and rejected the free economy and the ideals of individual liberty. Fascists saw themselves as being neither of the right nor the left. They believed that they constituted a third force synthesizing the best of both extremes” [Gene Edward Veith, Jr., Modern Fascism: Liquidating the Judeo-Christian Worldview, p. 26].
So depending on Leon Trotsky or any other Marxist-inspired academic who merely parrots “the official Marxist interpretation of fascism” has rather serious intellectual drawbacks. And yet that is largely what we get. Far too many American academics wouldn’t be so obvious as to use the phrase, “In the brilliant words of Leon Trotsky,” but they give his ideas, theories and talking points total credence, nonetheless. The term “useful idiots” was literally coined to describe these Western “intellectuals.” And their being “useful idiots” is every bit as true today as it ever was in the past.
Consider the REAL “polar opposite”: American conservatives are capitalists, not socialists. They demand a limited national/federal government, not a massive centrally planned state as does socialism, communism and fascism. They prefer the federalist idea of powerful states’ rights against a weakened federal government, not some all-powerful Führer. And to try to force conservatives into some Nazi mold invariably means either creating straw men arguments or citing irrelevant facts (such as that conservatives favor a large military just like the Nazis did, as though virtually every single communist state does not similarly favor a large military “just like the Nazis did”). If you want an all-powerful national government that gets to decide who wins and who loses, if you want to see a system where you have to come to your government for assistance and resources with all manner of strings attached rather than being allowed to depend on yourself, your family and your community, you should embrace the political left, not the right.
By the way, another favorite idiotic red herring for liberals asserting that “Nazism was right wing” was that the Nazis hated the admittedly left wing communists. But consider the fact that Coke hates Pepsi and Barbie Doll makers hate Bratz Doll makers. Are we supposed to believe that Coke is the opposite of Pepsi as opposed to water, milk or orange juice? The fact of the matter is that Nazis and Soviet Communists hated each other because both movements had a global agenda of totalitarian dominion, and both movements were competing for the same rabidly left wing converts.
Pardon me for the following insult, but the only people who believe garbage arguments like these are ignorant fools who live in a world of straw men. Even if they have the title “PhD.” after their names.
It is for that reason that I can state categorically that Marxism and fascism are not “polar opposites” at all. They are merely two potentially complementary species of socialism. That is why China has been able to easily weave blatantly fascistic (national socialist/corporatist) elements into its Maoist communism. It is also why Joseph Stalin was able to go from being an international socialist (i.e. a communist) and then appeal to nationalism (i.e., national socialism or “fascism”) when he needed to fight Hitler, only to switch back to “international socialism” after the war, as a few lines from Wikipedia on “Russian nationalism” point out:
The newborn communist republic under Vladimir Lenin proclaimed internationalism as its official ideology[4]. Russian nationalism was discouraged, as were any remnants of Imperial patriotism, such as wearing military awards received before Civil War….
The 1930s saw the evolution of the new concept of Soviet nationalism under Joseph Stalin, based on both Russian nationalism and communist internationalism. Official communist ideology always stated that Russia was the most progressive state, because it adopted socialism as its basis (which, according to the writings of Karl Marx, is the inevitable future of world socio-economic systems). Under Lenin, the USSR believed its duty to help other nations to arrange socialist revolutions (the concept of World Revolution), and made close ties with labor movements around the world[4].
[…]
The Soviet Union’s war against Nazi Germany became known as the Great Patriotic War, hearkening back to the previous use of the term in the Napoleonic Wars. The Soviet state called for Soviet citizens to defend the ‘Motherland’, a matrilineal term used to describe Russia in the past.
[…]
In 1944, the Soviet Union abandoned its communist anthem, The International, and adopted a new national anthem which citizens of the Soviet Union could identify with.
And then, with the victory secured over fascism, the Stalinist “national socialism” (a.k.a. “fascism”) suddenly became international socialism again. The Nazis’ very name was Nationalsozialistische.
One can be a “Marxist-fascist” and combine and blend elements of both totalitarian socialist systems quite easily, as both the Russian and then the Chinese communists proved. Communism and fascism have far more in common with one another than they have in opposition; especially when you examine the fact that both political systems invariably end up becoming the same big-government totalitarian police state.
So for my first two points – namely that 1) the left has routinely demagogically labeled the right “fascist” even when 2) it is clearly the left that owes far and away the most to fascistic elements – I am going to continue to shout from the rooftops who are the real fascists in America.
That said, it is still not enough to merely point out the FACT that American liberalism has much in common with fascism. And there is a lot more yet to say.
Before I begin spouting particular examples, I therefore need to further approach just what it is that would constitute a “fascist.” And then see who and how the label fits. From The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics:
The best example of a fascist economy is the regime of Italian dictator Benito Mussolini. Holding that liberalism (by which he meant freedom and free markets) had “reached the end of its historical function,” Mussolini wrote: “To Fascism the world is not this material world, as it appears on the surface, where Man is an individual separated from all others and left to himself…. Fascism affirms the State as the true reality of the individual.”
This collectivism is captured in the word fascism, which comes from the Latin fasces, meaning a bundle of rods with an axe in it. In economics, fascism was seen as a third way between laissez-faire capitalism and communism. Fascist thought acknowledged the roles of private property and the profit motive as legitimate incentives for productivity—provided that they did not conflict with the interests of the state.
[…]
Mussolini’s fascism took another step at this time with the advent of the Corporative State, a supposedly pragmatic arrangement under which economic decisions were made by councils composed of workers and employers who represented trades and industries. By this device the presumed economic rivalry between employers and employees was to be resolved, preventing the class struggle from undermining the national struggle. In the Corporative State, for example, strikes would be illegal and labor disputes would be mediated by a state agency.
Theoretically, the fascist economy was to be guided by a complex network of employer, worker, and jointly run organizations representing crafts and industries at the local, provincial, and national levels. At the summit of this network was the National Council of Corporations. But although syndicalism and corporativism had a place in fascist ideology and were critical to building a consensus in support of the regime, the council did little to steer the economy. The real decisions were made by state agencies such as the Institute for Industrial Reconstruction (Istituto per la Ricosstruzione Industriale, or IRI), mediating among interest groups.
[…]
Mussolini also eliminated the ability of business to make independent decisions: the government controlled all prices and wages, and firms in any industry could be forced into a cartel when the majority voted for it. The well-connected heads of big business had a hand in making policy, but most smaller businessmen were effectively turned into state employees contending with corrupt bureaucracies. They acquiesced, hoping that the restrictions would be temporary. Land being fundamental to the nation, the fascist state regimented agriculture even more fully, dictating crops, breaking up farms, and threatening expropriation to enforce its commands.
Banking also came under extraordinary control. As Italy’s industrial and banking system sank under the weight of depression and regulation, and as unemployment rose, the government set up public works programs and took control over decisions about building and expanding factories. The government created the Istituto Mobiliare in 1931 to control credit, and the IRI later acquired all shares held by banks in industrial, agricultural, and real estate enterprises.
The image of a strong leader taking direct charge of an economy during hard times fascinated observers abroad. Italy was one of the places that Franklin Roosevelt looked to for ideas in 1933…
Fascism is all about the “community,” not the individual. Its message is about the good of the nation, or the people (or the Volk), or the community, rather than the good of a nation’s individual citizens. It is about distributing and then redistributing the wealth and returning it to “its rightful owners” under the guise of an all-powerful state rather than recognizing and rewarding individual achievement. In short, when Hillary Clinton explained that, “It takes a village,” an educated Nazi would have snapped his fingers and excitedly shouted, “Ja! JA! Das ist ES!”
For Obama, the collectivism, community or “village” thing is such a profound part of him that he has literally made it an integral part of his very heretical form of “Christianity,” which very much stresses individual salvation and individual responsibility. Obama has on several occasions put it this way:
For example, in 1995, Obama said, “my individual salvation is not going to come about without a collective salvation for the country…” and again in May of 2008, “our individual salvation depends of collective salvation.”
In the Christian faith, there is no such thing as collective salvation. Salvation is an individual choice. It is personal acceptance of Jesus as savior, Son of the living God.
Obama’s is a wildly perverted view of orthodox Christianity. It so distorts true Christianity at such a fundamental level, in fact, that one literally has to go to Hitler to find a suitable similar parallel from a “Christian” national leader. The great Protestant Reformer Martin Luther – the most famous German prior to Hitler – had written the most monumental text of German culture prior to Hitler’s Mein Kampf. It was called “The Bondage of the Will,” which was considered THE manifesto of the Reformation. According to Luther, the human will was in bondage to sin. The fallen will, if left to itself, will choose what is evil. The human will has been perversely set against the righteous will of God. For sinful human beings, the will is not in a state of liberty but is in bondage to its worst impulses. Luther wrote in this work, “When our liberty is lost we are compelled to serve sin: that is, we will sin and evil, we speak sin and evil, we do sin and evil.” Adolf Hitler infamously turned that key doctrine of Christianity on its head in his “The Triumph of the Will,” in which he exalted depraved human will to an altogether different level of human depravity. Which is to say that Hitler was so profoundly wrong that he proved Luther right.
But getting back to Obama’s profoundly anti-Christian concept of “collective salvation,” the Nazis would have been all over that, enthusiastically shouting their agreement, “Ja! JA! Das ist ES!” Recall the encyclopedia entry on fascism stating that, “Fascism affirms the State as the true reality of the individual,” which was then further defined as “collectivism.” And the Nazis repeatedly called upon loyal Germans to make horrendous sacrifices in the name of that collective.
What the Nazis pursued was a form of anti-capitalist anti-conservative communitarianism encapsulated in the concept of Volksgemeinschaft, or “people’s community.”
From the Nazi Party Platform:
– The first obligation of every citizen must be to work both spiritually and physically. The activity of individuals is not to counteract the interests of the universality, but must have its result within the framework of the whole for the benefit of all Consequently we demand:
– Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of rent-slavery.
– In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.
– We demand the nationalization of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).
– We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.
– We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.
– We demand the creation of a healthy middle class and its conservation, immediate communalization of the great warehouses and their being leased at low cost to small firms, the utmost consideration of all small firms in contracts with the State, county or municipality.
– We demand a land reform suitable to our needs, provision of a law for the free expropriation of land for the purposes of public utility, abolition of taxes on land and prevention of all speculation in land.
– We demand struggle without consideration against those whose activity is injurious to the general interest. Common national criminals, usurers, Schieber and so forth are to be punished with death, without consideration of confession or race.
– We demand substitution of a German common law in place of the Roman Law serving a materialistic world-order.
– The state is to be responsible for a fundamental reconstruction of our whole national education program, to enable every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education and subsequently introduction into leading positions. The plans of instruction of all educational institutions are to conform with the experiences of practical life. The comprehension of the concept of the State must be striven for by the school [Staatsbuergerkunde] as early as the beginning of understanding. We demand the education at the expense of the State of outstanding intellectually gifted children of poor parents without consideration of position or profession.
– The State is to care for the elevating national health by protecting the mother and child, by outlawing child-labor, by the encouragement of physical fitness, by means of the legal establishment of a gymnastic and sport obligation, by the utmost support of all organizations concerned with the physical instruction of the young.
– We demand abolition of the mercenary troops and formation of a national army.
– We demand legal opposition to known lies and their promulgation through the press. In order to enable the provision of a German press, we demand, that: a. All writers and employees of the newspapers appearing in the German language be members of the race: b. Non-German newspapers be required to have the express permission of the State to be published. They may not be printed in the German language: c. Non-Germans are forbidden by law any financial interest in German publications, or any influence on them, and as punishment for violations the closing of such a publication as well as the immediate expulsion from the Reich of the non-German concerned. Publications which are counter to the general good are to be forbidden. We demand legal prosecution of artistic and literary forms which exert a destructive influence on our national life, and the closure of organizations opposing the above made demands.
Ah, yes, the Nazis had their “Fairness Doctrine” long before this current generation of liberals had theirs.
You read that Nazi Party Platform carefully, and you tell me if you see small government conservative Republicans or big government liberal Democrats written all over it.
Now, you read the Nazi Party Platform, and given what American liberals want and what American conservatism opposes, it is so obvious which party is “fascist” that it isn’t even silly. Then you ADD to that the fact that fascism and American progressivism (which is liberalism) were so similar that the great fascists of the age couldn’t tell the damn difference.
Since you point out Nazism was fascist, let’s look at some history as to WHO was recognized as fascist in America.
Fascism sought to eliminate class differences and to destroy/replace capitalism and laissez-faire economics.
H.G. Wells, a great admirer of FDR and an extremely close personal friend of his, was also a great progressive of his day. He summed it up this way in a major speech at Oxford to the YOUNG LIBERALS organization under the banner of “Liberal Fascism”: “I am asking for a Liberal Fascisti, for enlightened Nazis.” He said, “And do not let me leave you in the slightest doubt as to the scope and ambition of what I am putting before you” and then said:
These new organizations are not merely organizations for the spread of defined opinions…the days of that sort of amateurism are over – they are organizations to replace the dilatory indecisiveness of democracy. The world is sick of parliamentary politics…The Fascist Party, to the best of its ability, is Italy now. The Communist Party, to the best of its ability, is Russia. Obviously the Fascists of Liberalism must carry out a parallel ambition on still a vaster scale…They must begin as a disciplined sect, but must end as the sustaining organization of a reconstituted mankind.”
H.G. Wells pronounced FDR “the most effective transmitting instrument possible for the coming of the new world order.” And of course, we easily see that the new world order Wells wanted was a fascist one. In 1941, George Orwell concluded, “Much of what Wells has imagined and worked for is physically there in Nazi Germany.”
It was from the lips of liberal progressive H.G. Wells that Jonah Goldberg got the title of his book, Liberal Fascism. Goldberg didn’t just invent this connection: H.G. Wells flagrantly admitted it and George Orwell called him on it. All Goldberg did was rediscover history that liberals buried and have used every trick imaginable to keep buried.
And as a tie-in to our modern day, who more than Barack Obama has been more associated with said FDR?
But let me move on to some real red meat. In just what specific, concrete ways can I call Obama a fascist?
Well, to begin with, there is the signature achievement of his entire presidency, his national health care system (ObamaCare). For liberals, it is nothing but the most bizarre coincidence that Nazi culture had a national health care system that was quite rightly considered the wonder of its day by socialists in America. It is the most despicable of insults that Sarah Palin excoriated ObamaCare as “death panels” – even though it is more precisely a bureaucratic maze consisting of more like 160 separate death panels:
And the “czar” thing hits a very fascist nerve, too. Obama has appointed 39 czars who are completely outside our Constitutional process. Obama signed a budget bill into law that required him to remove these czars, but why would a fascist trouble himself with outmoded things like “laws”? One of the enraged Republicans responded, “The president knew that the czar amendment was part of the overall budget deal he agreed to, and if he cannot be trusted to keep his word on this, then how can he be trusted as we negotiate on larger issues like federal spending and the economy.” And of course, he’s right.
But why do I say it’s financial fascism in 20/20 hindsight? Because of what we just learned: in spite of all the bogus lying promises and the massive takeover “for our own good,” Obama didn’t fix anything. Instead he made it WORSE:
The financial system poses an even greater risk to taxpayers than before the crisis, according to analysts at Standard & Poor’s. The next rescue could be about a trillion dollars costlier, the credit rating agency warned.
S&P put policymakers on notice, saying there’s “at least a one-in-three” chance that the U.S. government may lose its coveted AAA credit rating. Various risks could lead the agency to downgrade the Treasury’s credit worthiness, including policymakers’ penchant for rescuing bankers and traders from their failures.
“The potential for further extraordinary official assistance to large players in the U.S. financial sector poses a negative risk to the government’s credit rating,” S&P said in its Monday report.
But, the agency’s analysts warned, “we believe the risks from the U.S. financial sector are higher than we considered them to be before 2008.”
Because of the increased risk, S&P forecasts the potential initial cost to taxpayers of the next crisis cleanup to approach 34 percent of the nation’s annual economic output, or gross domestic product. In 2007, the agency’s analysts estimated it could cost 26 percent of GDP.
Last year, U.S. output neared $14.7 trillion, according to the Commerce Department. By S&P’s estimate, that means taxpayers could be hit with $5 trillion in costs in the event of another financial collapse.
Experts said that while the cost estimate seems unusually high, there’s little dispute that when the next crisis hits, it will not be anticipated — and it will likely hurt the economy more than the last financial crisis.
So much for the massive and unprecedented fascist government takeover.
Think last year’s $700 billion Wall Street rescue package was beaucoup bucks to spend bailing out the nation’s floundering financial system? That’s chump change compared to what the overall price tag could be, a government watchdog says.
The inspector general in charge of overseeing the Treasury Department’s bank-bailout program says the massive endeavor could end up costing taxpayers almost $24 trillion in a worst-case scenario. That’s more than six times President Obama’s proposed $3.55 trillion budget for 2010.
Nobody here but us fascists. And we sure aint talking.
Then there are other issues that the left usually uses to attack conservatives, such as racism. Wasn’t Hitler a racist, just like conservatives? The problem is, the liberals are as usual upside-down here. After running as the man to create racial harmony, Barack Obama has instead done more to racially polarize America than any president since other famous progressives such as Woodrow Wilson and FDR. Frankly, if one were to conduct a major study of racial politics, and the setting up in opposition of one racial group against another, just which party has emphasized race and race-baiting more?
Hitler’s Jew-baiting was all about the idea that one race had taken over the culture, had the money and the power, and was using its influence to oppress the people in the banking system and anywhere else that mattered. And Hitler’s constant screed was that Germany needed to confiscate the Jews’ wealth and then redistribute it. With all respect, all the left has done is replace “Jew” with “Caucasian” and making the exact same claims.
And with all this hard-core racist demagoguing, I’m supposed to say that, “Oh, yes, it’s the conservatives who are guilty of demagoguing race”??? Seriously???
Obama has Samantha Powers (the wife of Cass Sunstein, the man who “nudges us”) close to him and advising him on matters of war. According to the very liberal publication The Nation, “She began to see war as an instrument to achieving her liberal, even radical, values.” What if you had an ultra conservative – oh, say a Sarah Palin – openly acknowledged to pursue war and risk American lives to advance her radical values??? What would the left call this if not “fascist”?
But it’s only fascist if Republicans do it, of course.
Also in yesterday’s news is the fact that Obama is the perpetual demagogue– which is a quintessentially fascist tactic. Obama demonized Bush for trying to raise the debt ceiling until he needed to raise it. Now it would be un-American for Republicans to act the same exact way Obama acted. In the same demagogic spirit, Obama personally invited Paul Ryan to a speech just so he could personally demonize him. The same Obama who lectured Republicans that it would be counter-productive to rely on name-calling and accusations in the health care debate launched into a vicious demagogic attack. Ryan correctly said that “What we got yesterday was the opposite of what he said is necessary to fix this problem.” But that is par for the golf course for a fascist. If that wasn’t enough, Obama held a White House conference for “stake holders” in the immigration debate and refused to invite a single governor from a border state.
A Republican equivalent would have had to come out of a deep involvement with some vile racist militia organization to approximate Obama’s background. And liberals would rightly label such a politician a fascist for his past alone.
Here’s a recent Youtube video of Obama’s key union allies on camera saying, “We’re not going to rely on the law,” and, “Forget about the law” as they seek to impose their unions basically whether workers want them or not:
There is a mainstream media fire brigade that is prepared to fight any potential Sarah Palin blaze with so many buckets of leftwing hate that she simply doesn’t have a chance.
It is coordinated and it extends to the highest levels of the Big Lie machine we call “journalism”:
It was said that Joseph Stalin use to bring foreign journalists and correspondents to his famous “show trials” of his enemies as essential to the success of them. When arguments that public opinion of Western Europe must be considered during these show trials, Stalin replied “Never mind, they’ll swallow it”
Stalin was right, many indeed swallowed it…
Conservatives everywhere for the most part understand that most Major news organizations in the United States is nothing more than a propaganda machine for left wing ideology and special interest groups. But more than just knowing who they are, it is also imperative to know how they do their dirty deed less we fall into the trap eyes-wide open.
Since Sarah Palin came out on the national scene in August of 2008, the big media guns in print, web and television have been going on the offensive against Palin, her family and all that she has accomplish with great fervor filled with gossip, lies and propaganda hit-pieces. The greatest weapon used against Palin is the use of FEAR, UNCERTAINTY and DOUBT to cast a pall over supporters and potential supporters of the former Governor if she ever has an desire to pursue higher office.
This is an attempt to influence public perception by disseminating negative and dubious information designed only to undermine the credibility of their beliefs; the belief that Sarah Palin is a strong candidate that can defeat Barrack Obama in the 2012 election.
Case in point…
Enter India Today Conclave 2011 Saturday, March 19 – A prestigious forum for world leaders to discuss the challenges facing the New World. Previous speakers for this conference have included Benazir Bhutto, Bill Clinton, Colin Powell and the Dalai Lama. The Prime Minister of India is schedule to give the opening remarks to the conference. The former vice-presidential nominee of the Republican Party and Governor of Alaska from 2006-09 will exclusively attend the 10th India Today Conclave on Saturday, March 19th and give the key note speech title: “My Vision of America”.
Enter the media –
On Sunday March 13: The New York Magazine publish a ‘UNSOURCED’ gossip article that Palin and Fox News chairman Roger Aile were at odds against each other and that Palin was brazen and contemptuous in her actions to Ailes over advice given to her about the Tucson shooting – something that happened almost two months ago that suddenly reappeared this week for some strange reason.
On Monday March 14: The Politico ran a story Titled: “Palin becoming Al Sharpton?” In the hit-piece they attempt to make Palin politics to be about “grievances and group identity” according to her critics, which is a betrayal of conservative principle and tie her to the likes of Democrat Al Sharpton who is considered a joke, race-baiter and hustler among conservatives.
On Tuesday March 15: Mitt Romney received an another piece of hardware for his Republican-In-Name-Only mantle, the most coveted seal of approval from Meagan McCain (I just threw this bit in just to break the ice a little, it wasn’t all bad for Palin)
On Wednesday March 16: Low and behold, a brand new smacking poll from ABC/Washington Post showing that fewer GOP-leaning independents see Palin in a favorable light – they pointed out that these poll numbers show “a potentially troubling sign for the former Alaska governor as she weighs…” whether to run or not in the 2012 election. Of course many media sources picked up on the new poll and compared Sarah to the likes of Nancy Pelosi low poll numbers and other liberals that conservatives don’t care much for.
(By the way do you actually think that if Palin indeed does run that ABC/Washington Post will ever have a favorable poll numbers for Palin?)
Well, we have two more days to consider what other hit-piece, gossip or polling data telling us who Sarah Palin is or is not, however way you may see it. Some conservatives and independents will indeed lap it up by getting discouraged and buy it no matter how well Palin may do in India which is on the weekend so if Sarah Palin does well you won’t hear much from it but if she was to make a tiny gaffe or something out of the ordinary happened, of course it will be blared across the World.
That’s the World of propaganda and we must learn to see it with eyes wide open what it is before we ‘swallow it’ without even realizing it.
I personally hope Sarah Palin does not try to run for president, as much as I admire her. The reason is simply that the media collectively have too much power and too much blatant irrational hatred for her.
They will continue to dump more and more toxic stories about her – and who gives a damn if they are all baseless and false? – until they achieve their desired result of poisoning 50-plus percent of the minds against her.
Adolf Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf (James Murphy translation, page 134):
“All this was inspired by the principle – which is quite true in itself – that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying. These people know only too well how to use falsehood for the basest purposes.”
Hitler’s minister of propaganda, Joseph Goebbels, summarized Hitler’s “big lie” theory, saying that if a lie is repeated enough times it would become widely accepted as truth.
This is exactly what the leftwing mainstream media (both in the “news” and in the opinion-shaping late night programs) have repeatedly been doing all along.
As icon of leftwing journalists Walter Lippmann put it:
“News and truth are not the same thing.”
Which of course allows the mainstream media to misrepresent the truth in the guise of reporting “the news.”
As Walter Lippmann also put it:
“The common interests very largely elude public opinion entirely and can be managed only by a specialized class whose personal interests reach beyond the locality.”
Which gives the mainstream media the right to serve as “gatekeepers,” and prevent the people from learning anything that might otherwise cause them to discover that conservatives have it right and liberals have it dead wrong.
And as fellow member of the leftwing journalist hall of fame Edward Bernays put it:
“The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.”
Because what is power if you can’t even manipulate the truth and shape it to serve your agenda? And if you’re a leftwing liberal progressive journalist – as basically 90 percent of journalists are today – what could be better than being one of the people “who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society” so you can “constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country”???
In describing the origin of the term Public Relations, Bernays commented, “When I came back to the United States [from the war], I decided that if you could use propaganda for war, you could certainly use it for peace. And propaganda got to be a bad word because of the Germans … using it. So what I did was to try to find some other words, so we found the words Counsel on Public Relations”.
Even people who can’t imagine themselves being affected by this ARE affected. And in fact it’s the fact that they don’t think they can be fooled that serves as the principle reason that they are so easily fooled. They hear an avalanche of negative coverage, day in and day out, and the inevitable result in their subconscious minds is that they say to themselves, “Something must be wrong with that woman.”
When of course the only thing that’s “wrong” with Sarah Palin is that a completely wicked, dishonest and depraved media machine utterly despise her.
I don’t think Sarah Palin can overcome this. When you add the ignorant people to the bad people today, you’ve got a clear majority. And Sarah – as talented as she is – will not be able to compensate for nonstop negative coverage.
What she needs to do is keep doing what she’s been doing since 2009. She needs to keep getting her message out, getting under the skin of liberals, serving as a lightening rod and playing king- and queenmaker.
“I don’t think it does anybody any good when public employees are denigrated or vilified or their rights are infringed upon,” said totally-in-da-pocket-of-da-unions Barry Hussein.
Okay, so it’s bad to denigrate or vilify public employees.
Except the governor of the state, who is a public employee whom the public UNION employees have damned as Adolf Hitler and as a Nazi. Barry could care less about vilifying the governor as Hitler. Because if he had one more particle of hypocrite inside of him it would explode right out of his thin skin.
Barry Hussein’s on the side of chief AFL-CIO thug Richard Trumka, you see. And since Scott Walker is a public employee who ISN’T in the union’s pocket, it’s FINE to tee off on him in the most hateful way imaginable:
The head of one of the nation’s most powerful labor unions did not condemn the violent rhetoric in placards and signs held by union supporters demonstrating in Wisconsin despite two direct attempts Sunday to get him on the record declaring them inappropriate.
On several occasions over the past two weeks of demonstrations in the Wisconsin capital of Madison news media have zeroed in on signs that liken Republican Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker to Nazi leader Adolf Hitler and recently ousted Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak.
Appearing Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka was twice asked whether he found the tone at the nearly two-week long demonstrations “wrong” or “inappropriate.”
Trumka did not answer […]
Apparently it is PERFECTLY okay to denigrate public employees. At least by Barry Hussein’s twisted standards. That’s the way scumbags like Trumka and Obama roll.
That’s one lie from Barry Hussein. Another one is that he gives a damn about jobs. Because his rigid union ideology is about to cost at least a thousand of them tomorrow:
MADISON, Wisc. (Reuters) – Republican Gov. Scott Walker on Monday gave absent Democratic lawmakers an ultimatum to return to Wisconsin within 24 hours and vote on a proposal to reduce the power of public sector unions or the state would miss out on a debt restructuring.
Walker stepped up the pressure on 14 Senate Democrats who fled the state to avoid a vote on the bill as he prepared to unveil on Tuesday a two-year state budget that he said cuts $1 billion from funding to local governments and schools.
What began as one small state trying to rewrite the rules of labor relations has blown up into what could be the biggest confrontation with American labor unions since then President Ronald Reagan fired striking air traffic controllers in 1981.
For the second time since the controversy erupted, President Barack Obama weighed into the debate on Monday criticizing the Wisconsin plan without mentioning it by name.
“I don’t think it does anybody any good when public employees are denigrated or vilified or their rights are infringed upon,” Obama told the nation’s governors gathered in Washington.
Wisconsin’s Walker immediately issued a response, saying: “I’m sure that President Obama simply misunderstands the issues in Wisconsin.”
Pro-union demonstrators continued to occupy the State Capitol building on Monday after some of them refused to leave on Sunday night. Capitol police, who had allowed the protesters to stay in the building for more than a week, on Monday prevented more from entering even though it was a week day.
So far the police have been tolerant of the protesters and no arrests have been made.
Walker’s budget proposal brought out the biggest protest crowd since the Vietnam War in Madison over the weekend.
A new poll released on Monday suggested that if the 2010 election could be replayed the Wisconsin governor might lose. The Public Policy Polling survey found that if the election were repeated the result would flip with Walker’s Democratic opponent Tom Barrett getting 52 percent and Walker 45 percent. Walker won with 52 percent in November. The shift came mainly from union households.
The Wisconsin proposal would require public sector employees to pay more for pensions and health care, strip some of their unions of bargaining rights except for wages up to the rate of inflation and require yearly recertification votes.
The proposal was approved by the state Assembly last week but is stalled in the Senate because the 14 Democrats have fled the state to avoid a vote.
The proposal includes a restructuring of the state’s debt that Walker said would save $165 million. Walker said this restructuring deal was in doubt if the Democrats did not return.
“Failure to return to work and cast their votes will lead to more painful and aggressive spending cuts in the very near future,” Walker’s said in a statement.
Under Walker’s proposal, Wisconsin’s general obligation bonds would be restructured and that would push debt service payments due by March 15 into future years.
Democrats differed from Walker’s estimate, quoting on Monday a report from state fiscal analyst Al Runde saying that the restructuring Walker wants would add more than $42 million of interest payments over the long term.
In an interview broadcast on Sunday, Walker said he hoped to delay sending layoff notices to state workers if the legislature makes progress on fixing the budget deficit, according to website wispolitics.com.
But to postpone the layoffs, Walker said it will be necessary that his budget repair bill, including the move to end collective bargaining, go into effect by April 1.
There has been speculation that Walker would send out layoff notices to more than 1,000 state workers if no progress was made soon on the budget.
(Additional reporting by Stefanie Carano in Madison and Wendell Marsh in Washington; Editing by Greg McCune)
For what it’s worth, “Public Policy Polling” is rather like asking what Media Matters thinks about something. It is very left leaning with Democrat connections. Try most accurate Rasmussen and you get a dramatically different result.
I mean, everyone I talked to says Walker is right-on. And the fact that I only talked to Republicans really doesn’t have anything to do with anything.
The most important thing for the moment is tomorrow’s deadline for Democrats to return. We can take the first two and last two sentences of the Reuters article to cut to the chase:
MADISON, Wisc. (Reuters) – Republican Gov. Scott Walker on Monday gave absent Democratic lawmakers an ultimatum to return to Wisconsin within 24 hours and vote on a proposal to reduce the power of public sector unions or the state would miss out on a debt restructuring.
Walker stepped up the pressure on 14 Senate Democrats who fled the state to avoid a vote on the bill as he prepared to unveil on Tuesday a two-year state budget that he said cuts $1 billion from funding to local governments and schools. […]
But to postpone the layoffs, Walker said it will be necessary that his budget repair bill, including the move to end collective bargaining, go into effect by April 1.
There has been speculation that Walker would send out layoff notices to more than 1,000 state workers if no progress was made soon on the budget.
The fact of the matter is that Walker may have to end up laying off 6,000 workers, not just 1,000:
Wisconsin is broke. The current budget is already $137 million in the red. The 2011–2013 biennial budget faces a $3.6 billion hole. So Governor Walker has called the legislature into special session and presented them with an emergency budget. His plan closes the deficit without raising taxes.
Government employees in Wisconsin get amazing benefits. They get a generous defined-benefit pension with minimal contributions on their part. They also only pay 6 percent of the cost of their health-care premiums. Few taxpayers enjoy anything this generous.
Government employees get these benefits because of the special privileges government unions enjoy. Government workers in many states — including Wisconsin — must pay union dues or lose their jobs. The state subsidizes their fundraising by using its payroll system to collect these forced dues.
This gives the union movement billions of dollars, which it uses to elect favored candidates. The American Federation of State and County Municipal Employees (AFSCME) spent more than any other outside group in the last election. Government unions have used this political clout to hijack state government to serve their interests.
Governor Walker could have raised taxes or fired 6,000 state employees. Instead, like Governor Christie, he decided to actually fix the problems that brought Wisconsin to this point. His budget limits government collective bargaining to just wages, taking benefits and work rules off the bargaining table. He would also require voters to approve any raises above inflation. Walker would prevent government unions from forcing taxpayers to cough up for their gold-plated benefits.
Democrats don’t give a damn about creating jobs. They only care about UNION jobs.
Democrats and the Democrat Party they form have become truly despicable.
I can cite former Democrats such as Dennis Prager who has frequently called himself “a Kennedy liberal.” He has pointed out, “I didn’t leave the Democrat Party; the Democrat Party left me.”
Reagan began his political career as a liberal Democrat, admirer of Franklin D. Roosevelt, and active supporter of New Deal policies, but in the early 1950s he shifted to the right and, while remaining a Democrat, endorsed the presidential candidacies of Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1952 and 1956 as well as Richard Nixon in 1960.[54] His many GE speeches—which he wrote himself—were non-partisan but carried a conservative, pro-business message; he was influenced by Lemuel Boulware, a senior GE executive. Boulware, known for his tough stance against unions and his innovative strategies to win over workers, championed the core tenets of modern American conservatism: free markets, anticommunism, lower taxes, and limited government.[55] Eventually, the ratings for Reagan’s show fell off and GE dropped Reagan in 1962.[56] That year Reagan formally switched to the Republican Party, stating, “I didn’t leave the Democratic Party. The party left me.”[57]
One of the things that undoubtedly resulted in these two brilliant political thinkers’ sense of abandonment was the fact that they clearly HAD BEEN abandoned by the Democrat Party as it continued to “evolve” (liberals love that word, worshiping it in place of a God who stays the same) into a degenerate spiral. And it was that profound abandonment of key Democrat liberal views – the abandonment of classical liberalism into something that can only be described today as a hybrid of Marxism and fascism – that then led these men to question their entire political presuppositions that had resulted in their being Democrats in the first place.
So, what exactly is it that makes Nazism “right wing”? Well, maybe the left would say that the Nazis were “Christian” and left wing ideologies are secular. But that is hardly true, either. I document in a previous article (“Hitler Wasn’t ‘Right Wing’, Wasn’t ‘Christian’; And Nazism Was Applied Darwinism“) that Nazism and Christianity had virtually nothing to do with one another, and that in fact Hitler was an acknowledged atheist.
In Pivot of Civilization, Sanger referred to immigrants and poor folks as “human weeds,” “reckless breeders,” “spawning … human beings who never should have been born.”
“We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population,” she said, “if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.” (Woman’s Body, Woman’s Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America, by Linda Gordon)
In her “Plan for Peace,” Sanger outlined her strategy for eradication of those she deemed “feebleminded.” Among the steps included in her evil scheme were immigration restrictions; compulsory sterilization; segregation to a lifetime of farm work; etc. (Birth Control Review, April 1932, p. 107)
And I also show in a comment to that article that Nazism was far, FAR more in line with Democrat Party liberalism than it ever could be Republican Party conservatism when it came to big government and big government policies.
Jonah Goldberg points out that Nazism was in fact “far right.” But only in the sense that the Nazi Party, i.e. the National Socialist German Workers Party, was the far right of the extreme left.
American conservatism calls for a strong military defense, yes. But as we shall see, so also did FDR. And in every other aspect, consistent conservatism calls for limited and small national government. Which was the diametric opposite of Adolf Hitler’s Nazi project, which controlled every sphere of life the same way the Democrat Party tried to do during the last two years when they had power.
If you think for so much as an instant that Adolf Hitler wanted less centralized power for himself and more control in the hands of the states/districts and the individual people – as Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh and conservatives constantly talk about – you simply couldn’t be any more ignorant.
That said, just what are the two fundamental issues I claim in my title that FDR would have denounced in the Democrat Party of today?
They are military power and the willingness to use it (i.e., the heart of any foreign policy) and government or public employee unions (i.e., the heart of Democrat’s domestic agenda).
These are no small matters: the former is central to any rational foreign policy and the latter has become central to Democrat domestic policy.
I describe FDR’s fundamental opposition to government unions and the reasons he was opposed to them here. And I provide FDR’s very own words and his very own reasoning. Suffice it to say that as pro-union as FDR was, he was profoundly opposed to government/public sector employees having the very sort of collective bargaining rights that Democrats today routinely demand for the public sector unions which constitute the bulk of union power today, and which massively contributes almost exclusively to the Democrat Party machine. FDR realized that these employees were employees not of some unfair private company, but of the American people. He also recognized that the government becomes a monopoly unto itself, and that government unions striking 1) exploited that monopoly power in an unfair and un-American way, and 2) was a defacto attack against the American people.
Please read the article above for more.
That leaves the other issue, the foreign policy issue of military power and the willingness to use it to deal with threats to the nation.
A speech by British Prime Minister Winston Churchill could have been given today to expose the American liberal views of Democrats basically since Lyndon Baines Johnson refused to seek re-election after liberals turned on him. It certainly powerfully applies to the Democrat positions in the war on terror – that Obama once refused to even acknowledge – of today. Churchill began:
I have but a short time to deal with this enormous subject and I beg you therefore to weigh my words with the attention and thought which I have given to them.
As we go to and fro in this peaceful country with its decent, orderly people going about their business under free institutions and with so much tolerance and fair play in their laws and customs, it is startling and fearful to realize that we are no longer safe in our island home.
For nearly a thousand years England has not seen the campfires of an invader. The stormy sea and our royal navy have been our sure defense. Not only have we preserved our life and freedom through the centuries, but gradually we have come to be the heart and center of an empire which surrounds the globe.
It is indeed with a pang of stabbing pain that we see all this in mortal danger. A thousand years has served to form a state; an hour may lay it in dust.
What shall we do? Many people think that the best way to escape war is to dwell upon its horrors and to imprint them vividly upon the minds of the younger generation. They flaunt the grisly photograph before their eyes. They fill their ears with tales of carnage. They dilate upon the ineptitude of generals and admirals. They denounce the crime as insensate folly of human strife. Now, all this teaching ought to be very useful in preventing us from attacking or invading any other country, if anyone outside a madhouse wished to do so, but how would it help us if we were attacked or invaded ourselves that is the question we have to ask.
Would the invaders consent to hear Lord Beaverbrook’s exposition, or listen to the impassioned appeals of Mr. Lloyd George? Would they agree to meet that famous South African, General Smuts, and have their inferiority complex removed in friendly, reasonable debate? I doubt it. I have borne responsibility for the safety of this country in grievous times. I gravely doubt it.
But even if they did, I am not so sure we should convince them, and persuade them to go back quietly home. They might say, it seems to me, “you are rich; we are poor. You seem well fed; we are hungry. You have been victorious; we have been defeated. You have valuable colonies; we have none. You have your navy; where is ours? You have had the past; let us have the future.” Above all, I fear they would say, “you are weak and we are strong.”
Churchill gave that speech back in 1934. Just imagine how much unparalleled human suffering would never have happened if only the weak and appeasing policies of the leftist bleeding hearts had not triumphed! The left wrongly claim to stand for peace and compassion and every good thing. But the exact opposite is true, as they have in fact murdered millions and millions of innocent human beings with their naive and morally stupid policies. And to whatever extent liberals have good intentions, the road to hell is paved with liberal intentions.
I could go on all day about Democrats taking on the views that Churchill condemned; that our enemies really aren’t that evil and how we can talk to them and reach some kind of accord short of fighting them. It is as naive and morally idiotic today as it was in the era of Churchill and – yes – Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
I did not realize this until I watched a program I viewed on the Military History Channel called “Decisions That Shook the World.” But FDR rapidly became what we would today call a neo-conservative.
In the late 1930s, FDR began to watch with growing horror as the Nazis began to take over Europe. In secret letters to Winston Churchill, he offered his moral support to the Allies. FDR knew that if the people – who did NOT want to become entangled in what they saw as a European war – were to find out about these letters, they would turn against him in outrage. The American people in the 1930s and early 1940s were crystal clear that they did not want to become involved in another world war in Europe. As it was, at the very time that the American people were the most worried about FDR secretly getting involved in the war behind their backs, FDR was in fact secretly corresponding with Churchill to do that very thing. FDR also – again secretly – ordered his military commanders to devise a secret military plan with Great Britain for when FDR was able to involve America in the war against Hitler in Europe.
Now, today, it would be very easy to condemn FDR as duplicitous. And he WAS incredibly duplicitous. FDR was a man – we find out in the words of the historians who narrated the “Decisions” program – who had no problem saying and doing things in private that he very much did not want to be known in public. As an example, FDR, in direct defiance of the United States Supreme Court – directed his Attorney General to wiretap suspected spies. That was literally an impeachable offense. FDR was breaking the law to deal with what he saw as a growing threat against America.
Rep. Wendell Wilkie, the Republican candidate for president in the 1940 election – warned the American people, “If you elect FDR, he will get you into a war you don’t want.” And FDR, deceitfully, in a speech, said, “That charge is contrary to every fact, every purpose of the past eight years.” It was, as history documents, a complete lie.
One of the points the historians made clear is that, “If all of Roosevelt’s acts were publicly known, he likely would have been impeached.” He most certainly would NOT have been re-elected in 1940.
FDR was reelected on the promise that he would not do what in fact he was determined to do.
In 1940, the “anti-war” candidate was the Republican, Wendell Wilkie. He had the virtue of being honest, but likely on the wrong side of history (we can’t know for sure what would have happened had the United States not become involved in World War II, but it doesn’t look pretty). Democrat FDR may have had the virtue of being right, but he was certainly profoundly dishonest.
Now, I could write how FDR was quite constant with other modern liberal presidents who say one thing and do the exact opposite (I’m speaking directly about Barack Obama, the examples of which are now already legion). But that isn’t my project here. My project is to point out that, when it came to being prepared for war and then fighting that war, FDR was fundamentally in opposition to the modern Democrat Party agenda.
That briefly stated, it was the Republican Party which ultimately came to realize that FDR was correct in his views of the military and the need to vigorously defend American national security. And it was the Democrats who came to turn on FDR’s realization and abandon his views.
They didn’t do so all at once, or right away. As much as modern liberals tried to attack Ronald Reagan as putting the world on the brink of nuclear war in his Cold War stand against the powerful Soviet Union, one President John F. Kennedy was every bit the cold warrior that Reagan ever was. And, again, any liberal who doubts this is simply a fundamentally ignorant human being. That said, it was during the Kennedy presidency that JFK cynically – and by executive fiat rather than any vote by Congress – allowed the government unions that came to own the Democrat Party lock, stock and barrel to collectively bargain as a means to help the Democrat Party. And the moral collapse of the Democrat Party was incredibly precipitous after that.
At this point in time, anyone who doubts that radical Islam is easily capable of not only destabilizing the world, but plunging it into economic depression and global war is delusional. The mere prospect of a collapse of the Libyan government alone could spell enormous problems in the likely event of a civil war in that country. Oil prices could literally more than double, which would simply obliterate any potential global economic recovery. If Iran is able to obtain the bomb – which is most assuredly will if it hasn’t already – we will see a rise in Islamic fundamentalism, jihadism and terrorism such that the world has never seen as the Iranian regime rightly sees itself as impervious to any meaningful international action against it. If that isn’t bad enough, we would also see a nuclear arms race quickly escalate in the craziest region in the history of the planet as Sunni Muslim regimes tried to protect themselves against the Shiite Iranian threat.
For what it’s worth, even as mainstream liberals celebrate and rejoice in the overthrow of one Arab leader after another, it is IRAN which is most benefitting from the chaos. From the New York Times:
MANAMA, Bahrain — The popular revolts shaking the Arab world have begun to shift the balance of power in the region, bolstering Iran’s position while weakening and unnerving its rival, Saudi Arabia, regional experts said.
But in light of Obama’s policy of appeasement, of asking for meetings of minds with no preconditions, allow me to rephrase Churchill’s words to suit our modern-day situation:
Would the invaders consent to hear Barack Obama’s exposition, or listen to the impassioned appeals of Hillary Clinton? Would they agree to meet that famous African, Kofi Annan, and have their inferiority complex removed in friendly, reasonable debate? I doubt it.
Allow me to share with you the consensus view of liberalism today at one of its elite headquarters of Columbia University:
Columbia University is holding a series of public hearings on whether or not to allow ROTC back on campus now that DADT has been repealed. A wounded Iraq veteran who recently enrolled at Columbia took to the microphone and asked fellow students to support ROTC. He was booed, jeered, and called a racist.
Columbia University students heckled a war hero during a town-hall meeting on whether ROTC should be allowed back on campus.
“Racist!” some students yelled at Anthony Maschek, a Columbia freshman and former Army staff sergeant awarded the Purple Heart after being shot 11 times in a firefight in northern Iraq in February 2008. Others hissed and booed the veteran.
The former soldier responded to the jeers with this awesome statement:
“It doesn’t matter how you feel about the war. It doesn’t matter how you feel about fighting,” said Maschek. “There are bad men out there plotting to kill you.”
The despicable so-called “Americans” in the audience only laughed and jeered more.
Anthony Maschek was a staff sergeant with the Army’s 10th Mountain Division. He was shot 11 times and spent two years recovering at Walter Reed. He’s an American hero and those thugs at Columbia are a disgrace. This is no different than those pieces of crap who spit on veterans coming back from Vietnam. It’s disgusting that in 2011 our veterans should have to be heckled by cowards.
FDR would have turned his back on this Democrat Party as a bunch of contemptible and despicable traitors to the United States of America. He would have looked at the government unions that today are the sine qua non – the “that without which” – of the Democrat Party machine. And he would have been disgusted that the entire Democrat Party rests today upon an inherently un-American foundation. Then this president who risked so much to keep America and the world safe from tyranny would have looked upon the modern Democrat Party and its repeated denunciation of those who would fight America’s most terrifying enemies even as those enemies grew stronger and stronger while we have grown weaker and weaker, and he would have vomited in contempt for the party that he had such a profound role in shaping.
By the very standards of the figures that you cite as your greatest heroes, I denounce you as the pathetic, vile, un-American fools that you truly are, Democrats.
I would say that you should be ashamed of yourselves, but I doubt that you are capable of that virtue in this house-of-card world that you are building now. And the problem with houses of cards is not merely that they fall; it is also that they tend to burn furiously when a match is struck.
And when the Antichrist warned of by the Scriptures for more than 2,600 years comes (as described in the Books of Daniel and Revelation), it will be Democrats, the quintessential fools, who welcome him with cheers and adoration.
Now, in Wisconsin, that hateful Nazi swastika Hitler crap abounds. But it’s liberals hating a Republican, and so the mainstream media just doesn’t seem to find that very newsworthy:
And did you notice just how WHITE and CAUCASIAN those Wisconsin protestors happen to be with their Nazi Hitler swastika signs???
If you hold your breath waiting for the media to actually be fair and objective and give the left the kind of coverage they give the right every single damn day, you will spend the rest of your life unconscious.
There’s another angle to this: the “human sympathy” story angle. You wait until the government gets shut down in a couple of months, and the media goes over the top making sure that the Republicans get all the blame for a dance that obviously takes two for the tango. What you will get to see at that time will be an avalanche of stories as “journalists” and “reporters” scour the country looking for every single victim of the government shutdown they can possibly find.
But let me ask you: how many stories have you heard about poor single mothers losing their jobs because public schools canceled their classes because liberal government union teachers were out protesting? How many stories have you heard about the terrible difficulty poor parents have had trying to scramble for day care for children who should have been in school?
Zero, you say?
Well, don’t you worry. As soon as the media has some way to frame a story blaming Republicans, they’ll more than make up for that deficiency.
This story is actually worse than first reported, when Capuano made the blood comments to union supporters he was pointing at a small group of Tea Partiers who were brave enough to counter-protest in Boston. Capuano is lucky nobody got hurt.
(Boston Herald) — U.S. Rep. Michael Capuano expressed regret Wednesday for his choice of words at a Tuesday rally to support Wisconsin workers, after national and local Republicans pounced on him for “over-the-top and inflammatory rhetoric.”
“Congressman Mike Capuano must have lost the memo from President Obama and Democratic leaders who were demanding more civility in our political discourse and a toning down of incendiary rhetoric after the massacre in Tucson on January 8,” the Massachusetts Republican Party wrote in a Wednesday statement. “Yesterday, at a rally on Beacon Hill, Capuano couldn’t resist the urge to stir up a crowd of union members with a call for blood in the pursuit and protection of their political agenda.”
During the Tuesday rally — a gathering of more than 1,000 union supporters protesting a proposal by Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker to diminish the collective bargaining rights of public sector workers in that state — Capuano, speaking in front of the State House, fired up the crowd by saying, “I’m proud to be here with people who understand that it’s more than just sending an email to get you going. Every once and awhile you need to get out on the streets and get a little bloody when necessary.”
After Republicans took aim at his rhetoric, Capuano issued a statement expressing regret for his language, although at the time it drew wild applause and cheers from the throngs of union supporters.
Capuano also referred to a vastly outnumbered throng of Tea Party counter-protesters as “a couple of nuts in the background who want to take it all away from you,” waving his hand dismissively in their direction. Throughout the three-hour rally, rank-and-file union members traded heated barbs with the Tea Party backers. Some clashes nearly escalated into violence and resulted in police intervention. In one case, a pro-union rallier spit in the face of one of the counter-protesters, who set up camp near the rally.
Capuano’s comments quickly drew contrasts with the call for a more civil tone in national political rhetoric by President Barack Obama and politicians across the country after a mass shooting in Tucson that injured Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. Capuano was reportedly among those who agreed with Obama’s call, telling the Boston Globe in January, “Everybody knows the last couple of years there’s been an intentional increase in the degree of heat in political discourse . . . If nothing else good comes out of this, I’m hoping it causes people to reconsider how they deal with things.’’
How about the call to violence by the SEIU in its new “fight song”?
SEIU fight song: ‘Take the bastards down’
SEIU posted a fight song on their website called ‘Take ‘Em Down’ and it goes like this: “Ya got take the bastards down. Let them know. We got to smash them to the ground. Let them know. We got to take the bastards down. When the boss comes calling you got to stand your ground. When the boss comes calling let them know.” With lyrics like that, it’s no wonder the violent SEIU took special notice of the song.
Here’s the screenshot of the SEIU posting this song telling the left to take conservatives down and smash them to the ground:
I’ve said this about the left before: what enrages me about them isn’t that they’ve been engaging in hate for the past fifty years, back when they started spitting on American soldiers and throwing dog shit at them. It’s that they’ve done this crap for a full generation and then actually have the chutzpah to demonize the right for doing what they themselves have been doing for fifty years. And then right after they demonize us, they actually go right back to being worse than the very thing they just got through demonizing us for doing. And the thing that infuriates me even more than that is a media machine that – between self-backpatting for what virtues of journalistic objecivity they are – actually deliberately seek out stories of “rightwing hate” and actually refuse to report episodes of leftwing hate.
Let’s look at the deficit history since Clinton was elected with his party in control of both houses of Congress:
1992 290.4 Billion Dollar Deficit – Record
1993 255.1 Billion Dollar Deficit
1994 203.2 Billion Dollar Deficit
(GOP takes control of both houses, watch the deficit decrease)
1995 164 Billion Dollar Deficit
1996 107.5 Billion Dollar Deficit
1997 22 Billion Dollar Deficit
1998 69.2 Billion Dollar Surplus
1999 125.6 Billion Dollar Surplus
2000 236.4 Billion Dollar Surplus
(Bush elected with both houses still in GOP control)
2001 127.3 Billion Dollar Surplus
2002 157.8 Billion Dollar Deficit
(Dems take Senate, post 9-11 bills start piling up)
2003 374 Billion Dollar Deficit – Record
2004 413 Billion Dollar Deficit – Record
(GOP back in control of both houses; deficits going down again)
2005 319 Billion Dollar Deficit
2006 248 Billion Dollar Deficit
(Dems take both houses and retain them through FY 2010)
2007 162 Billion Dollar Deficit
2008 455 Billion Dollar Deficit – Record
(Obama’s first year; both houses have larger Democrat majorities)
2009 1400 Billion Dollar Deficit <<== WTF? Record x 3!!!!!!!
2010 1350 Billion Dollar Deficit
… why do Republicans get blamed for such deficits, when the trend clearly illustrates the reverse is true?
Republicans are always lowering deficits, except when there is a war on — and even then, they keep budgets at lower % of GDP than their Democrat predecessors when they had wars on their watch.
The Republicans last budget that they controlled in FY-2007 had a deficit of $162 billion. The VERY NEXT YEAR, the Democrats very nearly tripled that figure with their FY-2008 budget of $459 billion. And by last year the Democrats were spending so shockingly and so recklessly that they didn’t even bother to pass a budget.
And don’t you forget that even as Arabs get bloody in the streets of Tripoli, it is DEMOCRATS who have called for Americans to get bloody in our streets.
The chaos of Cairo has come to America. Brought by liberals, of course. The motto of fascism is, “Never let a crisis go to waste.” Compare and contrast:
“The utility of terror was multifaceted, but among its chief benefits was its tendency to maintain a permanent sense of crisis. Crisis is routinely identified as a core mechanism of fascism because it short-circuits debate and democratic deliberation. Hence all fascistic movements commit considerable energy to prolonging a heightened state of emergency.” — Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg, pp. 42-43. Copyright 2007.
I know what you’re thinking, liberal: “That bastard Jonah Goldberg got his hands on a time machine so he could summarize the Obama administration philosophy and label it as “fascist” before they said it back in 2007.”
There’s always a crisis with fascists. And fascists are always saying “Carpe diem.” And there’s also always a scapegoat. Big Brother had Emmanuel Goldstein. Adolf Hitler had the Jews. Barack Obama has George W. Bush. Heck, Soviet big government totalitarians even managed to blame seventy years of bad weather after their policies resulted in perpetual famine, having executed all the other viable scapegoats.
And now the tens of thousands of mostly bussed in unions have their new crisis and their new scapegoat in newly elected Republican Governor Scott Walker: Via Yahoo News:
So much for toning down the hate-filled, partisan-inspired, Nazi-comparing that has been going on in the United States for the past decade. County, state, and anti-budget protests have erupted into 25,000-strong rallies in Wisconsin against the governor’s plans to eliminate collective bargaining while increasing pension fund and health care payments. This week a heated debate over the Wisconsin state budget is raging non-stop, complete with signs sporting the Nazi swastika and bearing slogans comparing Wisconsin governor Scott Walker to Adolf Hitler have made appearances, according to CNN.
I’ve pointed out before in comments that I don’t care if liberals depict conservatives as Nazis and Hitler. What I despise about them is how they attack conservatives as vile for doing things that they for the most part didn’t do (and see here and here and here and here and here) and then relish in doing again and again the very thing they demonized as being evil. Liberals spent eight savage Bush derangement syndrome years comparing Bush to Hitler (example and example). And then managed the chutzpah to react in hysterical outrage when a few conservatives did the same thing to Obama that they had done a billion times more to Bush.
And, just for the record, that control of the mainstream media to use propaganda to define the conservatives who DON’T want the “hope and change” that radical socialists have always offered is yet another defining element of fascism.
Well, there really IS a crisis, of course, but it’s not what lying liberal fascists say it is. And if they want to see who the real Hitlers and the real Nazis are, they have only to stop screaming and put down their signs long enough to look in a mirror.
For example, the crisis is most certainly not that Governor Walker called out the National Guard to use as strikebreaking thugs to attack unions. That’s a lie by lying liberals and lying liberal unions. The reason Walker called the Guard is to staff the prisons while liberal union prison guards abandon their jobs and the public safety to go strike. And in trying to create a crisis by denouncing that effort, apparently liberals actually WANT murderers and rapists to be allowed to escape and start murdering and raping again.
It also isn’t the tax cuts for businesses that liberals are blaming for the tax shortfall. Unless, of course, businesses large and small alike should have all their assets seized so the money can go into the pockets of big unions and then pour into the Democrat Party machine.
You want a crisis to ogranize around and scream about? Try that one.
Not that liberals would ever honestly face the real problems even once in their lives, or look at themselves long enough to see the Hitler in their own eyes.
Incredibly, many Democrats actually boycotted the House floor yesterday as Republicans read the U.S. Constitution aloud. Not all of them – Nancy Pelosi was one who joined the Republicans in reading a section of the Constitution – but enough to make it clear that Democrats have a problem with the foundational document of the United States of America.
You would have thought that Republicans were reading child pornography rather than the document upon which our entire political system is based, and which every elected official – and which every soldier, airman, sailor and Marine – takes a sacred oath to defend.
Unlike Democrats, when I raised my hand and swore that –
“I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same” –
I actually meant it.
Charles Krauthammer, brilliant as usual, had this to say on Fox News Special Report on January 5th:
KRAUTHAMMER: “It is truly astonishing. One member of Congress called it a long, dull document. The New York Times editorial reading of the Constitution in the House is presumptuous. Liberals got in trouble in the 60s and 70s for being on the wrong side of the flag and the anti-war demonstrations and now three decades later, they want to be on the wrong side of the Constitution.
The Constitution, after all – when these members were sworn in today, that they did not swear to defend the country or the army or the people; it was to defend the Constitution. That is the essence of America, and it is what makes us unique and why we are a country not of blood or race but ideas. For liberals to think that there is actually an advantage in dismissing reading the Constitution and the requirement of having a constitutional reason to introduce a bill is real bad politics.”
And, of course, it’s not just “bad politics.” Krauthammer underscores that better than anyone. It is contemptible citizenship. It is the act of unAmerican people.
Too many Democrats despicably wanted nothing to do with this document that made America the greatest and freest nation in the history of the human race. They have a very different vision for this landmass known as “North America” than the great men who wrote the United States Constitution had.
It is beyond official at this point. We can separate the population of the United States of America into two groups: the American people and the unAmerican people. And the Democrat Party has become the party of the unAmericans.
UnAmericans don’t give a damn about America. They want to change it, pervert it, warp it, distort it. They want to make it into something that it never was and never should have been. And they call their effort “hope and change.”
Mind you, that’s “hope and change” for Karl Marx; never for George Washington.
I think this is a good time to reprint an article I wrote last year:
Do Democrats respect the Constitution, or recognize any constitutional limits on their power? You decide.
Speaker of the House of Representatives, Rep. Nancy Pelosi:
(CNSNews.com) – When CNSNews.com asked House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Thursday where the Constitution authorized Congress to order Americans to buy health insurance–a mandate included in both the House and Senate versions of the health care bill–Pelosi dismissed the question by saying: “Are you serious? Are you serious?”
Youtube audio of Nancy Pelosi dismissing constitutionality:
Yeah, people who actually care about the Constitution, and care about the fact that our lawmakers – who take an oath to uphold the Constitution – actually consider it.
Rep. Pete Stark, responding to a question on health care:
Questioner: “If this legislation is constitutional, what limitations are there on the federal government’s ability to tell us how to run our private lives?”
Rep. Stark: “I think that there are very few constitutional limits that would prevent the federal government from rules that could affect your private life. now the basis for that would be how does that affect other people.”
Questioner: “The constitution specially enumerates certain powers to the federal government, and leaves all other authority to the states. The constitution is very limited as to what it can do…. if they can do this, what can’t they do?”
Rep. Stark: “The federal government, yes, can do almost anything in this country.”
Watch the Youtube video of this question and answer:
Liberal Supreme Court justices imposed abortion on the grounds of a fundamental right to privacy – which is actually nowhere to be found in the Constitution – based on nothing more than “penumbras and emanations” discerned from gazing into the Constitution like a crystal ball rather than like a historical document. Now they are saying there IS no right to privacy of any kind, whatsoever in order to impose government health care and all the violations of rights and liberties that go hand-in-hand with that imposition.
If the federal government can do almost anything in this country, how then do you stop the next dictatorship? How do you stop tyranny? How do you stop totalitarian big government?
And let’s consider a corresponding Democrat’s statement on the same subject of government health care:
“The harsh fact of the matter is when you’re passing legislation that will cover 300 million American people in different ways, it takes a long time to do the necessary administrative steps that have to be taken to put the legislation together to control the people.”
And, of course, Dingell is right: it takes time and effort to abandon the Constitution – which places limits on federal power – and then impose controls on the people that utterly abandon any scintilla of any meaningful form of constitutional government.
Democrat Robin Carnahan, Missouri Secretary of State and candidate for the United States Senate:
Carnahan: “We’re going to also have a libertarian and a Constitution Party candidate running. And I will tell you no one’s going to know who they are, but it’s not going to matter, because Glenn Beck says you’re supposed to be for the Constitution, and there is some percentage of people who will go vote for them. And in our internal polling about six or seven percent goes like that to the Libertarian and Constitution Party. So I’m quite sure that whoever wins is going to do it with less than fifty percent of the vote.” […]
Donor: “You just don’t sound like those Constitution Party votes are going to come out of your account.”
Carnahan: “What do you think?” (Audience laughter)
Stop and think about that: it is a matter of mocking derision that no one who actually cares about the integrity of the Constitution is going to vote for the Democrats. And in fact Robin Carnahan – who is serving as a Democrat in the office of Secretary of State – cynically intends to exploit the fact that she can divide those who care about the Constitution and win by attrition.
And they mock the fact that no one who votes Democrat gives a leaping damn about the Constitution.
Take Democrat Rep. Jan Schakowsky on “The Stephanie Miller Show” on 9/30/2010:
“Actually, I think really what it was was an effort to get the Tea Partiers to think that they really have some sort of revolutionary plan, because at the beginning they quote a lot from the Constitution, the idea that free people can govern themselves, that the government powers are derived from the consent of the governed.
All that stuff that I think that, that that’s an effort to try to appeal to those people, the Tea Party.
They embrace the Tenth Amendment – ‘tenthers,’ you know?”
That Tenth Amendment is a real load of crap, right?
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Let’s just go ahead and abolish it so we can have the kind of totalitarian big government that Democrats yearn for. Because Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Fidel Castro, Kim Jong Il, and all these other leftist dictators were just such groovy people, and we need their ilk here in red, white and blue America.
Yeah, that’s right. Ridicule me, Rep. Schakowsky. Call me a “tenther” like I’m a “birther” or a “truther” or some sort of nutjob because – unlike Democrats – I actually honor our Constitution and our Bill of Rights.
“A public option will put the private insurance industry out of business and lead to single-payer” – Rep. Jan Schakowsky (to wild applause).
Marxism and communism is not extreme. Nope. It’s not extreme to use ObamaCare as a vehicle to put the private sector out of business so you can sneak in a government-planned economy. What’s “extreme” is believing in the Constitution that Democrats such as Jan Schakowsky once deceitfully swore an oath to uphold.
Take a moment and contemplate the massive gulf in respect for the Constitution and willingness to place oneself under in in two remarks by Chief Justice John Roberts and now President Barack Obama:
“I had someone ask me in this process — I don’t remember who it was, but somebody asked me, you know, ‘Are you going to be on the side of the little guy?’ And you obviously want to give an immediate answer, but as you reflect on it, if the Constitution says that the little guy should win, the little guy is going to win in court before me.But if the Constitution says that the big guy should win, well, then, the big guy is going to win, because my obligation is to the Constitution. That’s the oath.”
I think that we can say that the Constitution reflected the enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on until this day and that the framers had that same blind spot. I don’t think the two views are contradictory to say that it was a remarkable political document that paved the way for where we are now and to say that it also reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day.
Now, Obama says he doesn’t think it’s contradictory to say that the Constitution was a remarkable political document, but to simultaneously argue that it was fundamentally flawed and had an enormous blind spot. But he couldn’t be more wrong: because he is arguing that the Constitution is a document that is fundamentally flawed, and which can and should be changed. And rather than actually try to change it, he merely ignores it, ignores the spirit of it, and proceeds to impose his own “superior” and “more enlightened” will upon it.
“But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent as radical as people tried to characterize the Warren court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution...”
And that’s what Obama wants: he wants to be that radical who finally breaks free from those “essential constraints” that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution. And how does he want to do that? By “reinterpreting” the Constitution in a radically different way that enables liberals to virtually bypass the Constitution altogether and impose their superior, more enlightened, more modern will upon the nation and the people.
Obama acknowledges that the Constitution doesn’t permit the “redistribution of wealth.” But that trivial, meaningless little detail doesn’t stop him from doing it. Constitution schmonstitution. Who really gives a damn about it?
Liberal-progressive Supreme Court icon Thurgood Marshall expressed the quintessential liberal judicial activist view toward the Constitution in his statement:
“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).
But to put it bluntly, that’s exactly what Hitler did. Hitler thought it was “right” to kill every single Jew on the planet. And any law and anything whatsoever that got in his way be damned. He thought history would catch up with him in the aftermath of his glorious Reich and judge him wise.
Contrast what John Roberts believed with the liberal judicial activist view: one is under the Constitution, and rules in accordance with it’s strict, historical interpretation. The other rules however the hell they want, based on what they “think is right,” regardless of what the law says.
And what is frightening is that Barack Obama appointed a new Supreme Court Justice – Elena Kagan – whose most profound mentor was none other than Thurgood Marshall.
It’s easy to be “constitutional” when you have a “living, breathing document” view that necessarily forces the Constitution to mean whatever the hell you want it to mean at any given moment.
I simply want to point out to you that the liberal progressives who now form the backbone of the Democrat Party despise the founding fathers, despise the Constitution, despise individual human freedom, and frankly despise anything and anyone that gets in the way between them and absolute power.
Please remember that fact when you vote this November.
And, thank God, most Americans DID remember that fact. And Constitution-hating unAmerican Democrats experienced the worst defeat of any political party in over 70 years.
Let me ask a question: why did the incoming Republicans make it their first act to read the Constitution on the floor of the House, when it has never before been done? The answer is because the Democrats in dictatorial control of the government spent the last two years crapping all over that Constitution. And, yes, it is time we brought that great document back and started treating it like it was something sacred. Because our futures depend on it.
John Adams wrote, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” Clearly, Democrats are neither moral nor religious, and therefore the Constitution of the United States is now “inadequate” for them.
These people and everything they stand for must be rejected and repudiated. It is either the Constitution or the Democrats, because the two have become fundamentally incompatible with one another.
“For You created my inmost being; You knit me together in my mother’s womb.
I praise You because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Your works are wonderful, I know that full well” — Psalm 139:13-14
Does human life begin as worthless “byproducts of conception”? Does human life only have value if someone is working and producing? (watch out, liberals! Because most of the Democrat base would be exterminated on a ‘yes’ response!). Or is human life of incommensurably precious value?
Please watch this six minute Youtube video. I strongly suggest you turn down the volume level!
If your life began as something that is so valueless that your own mother can destroy you like a disease while the defied State smiles down benevolently, then why do you think that your life has any value whatsoever now?
You were once an embryo. And if your mother had aborted you, you would have died.
My life has value not because of what I have done, but because of what I am: because I am a human being. My human dignity is not utilitarian; it is ontological. Which is why Jews, people on welfare and senior citizens shouldn’t be marched off to the gas chamber. Nor am I any more “human” today than I ever was as an embryo, as an infant, as a teenager. When I was in my mother’s womb, I was “human” by virtue of my parents, and a “being” by virtue of the fact that I was a living thing. Now and from the moment of conception, I am and have been a human being.
Had Samuel’s mother chosen to abort him rather than choosing surgery to cure his spina bifida in utero, Samuel would have died. He never would have had a chance to live and play and win medals for swimming:
Celebrate life. Cherish life. Celebrate and cherish the dignity of the human spirit. Stand with me against the culture of death otherwise known as abortion.
Start Thinking Right 