What Goes Around Comes Around, Democrats: And If You Had Any Decency Or Wisdom, You’d Already Have Learned That By Now

How are Democrats fascist?  Let me count the ways:

During the campaign we had violent Democrat Brownshirt-style thugs (and see here) with ties to both Obama and to Obama’s White House and to Hillary Clinton (and see here and here) physically attacking and beating Republicans who came to a free-speech rally to support the candidate that our Constitution enshrines as their right.  Not that Democrats have any more respect for the Constitution than roaches have for it.  Democrats then literally violently rioted, with more than 200 people charged with RIOTING in Washington D.C. on inauguration day because Donald Trump was elected president and butthurt Democrats didn’t like it.  You had Democrats saying they didn’t regard President Trump as “legitimate” and seventy elected Democrats – well over a third of their number in the House – refused to acknowledge the peaceful transfer of power and instead boycotted the inauguration.  Then Democrats took the unprecedented and incredibly childish step of boycotting hearings – refusing to show up and do their damn jobs – as a butthurt tactic to prevent government from functioning when they used to tell us that anything that kept government from functioning was “terrorist.”  We had leftist women who wanted to murder their own children and who rabidly hated Donald Trump march on Washington the very next day.  We’ve had vicious riots in cities and in universities such as leftist Berkeley where Democrats – and pardon me for just calling them rabidly intolerant fascists because that’s exactly what they are – couldn’t handle the right of someone to speak who thought differently from the Stalinists who violently screamed him down.

And Democrats are rabidly, hatefully, viciously boycotting ANY business that believes it has any freedom of speech or the right to creativity whatsoever: not only if you support Donald Trump, but if you simply don’t adequately demonize Donald Trump, Democrats will start hatefully boycotting you and trying to take American workers’ jobs away from them by shutting down or for that matter burning down the business that hired them.  So just the other day we had a brand new “firestorm” of hate and vicious, treasonous job-destruction in the form of a boycott of Under Armour because the CEO likes the business climate he’s seeing.

And ANY business that is like the vast majority of investors – pushing the DOW to historic highs never before seen during Obama’s regime – who appreciates a good business climate will be the target of rabid leftist hate.  The employees of those businesses, their families, their children, will all be the targets of rabid leftist hate.

This is vindictively in-American, anti-American, fascist.  Until the time when the Elizabeth Warrens and the Barack Obamas took over the Democrat Party, we could agree to disagree and the best business model at the best price won.  But there is a spirit of hate that basically says “Death to America!” and that spirit is the spirit of the Democrat Party today.

Three weeks after Trump was sworn in – you know, as fascists also known as “Democrats” rioted – the shrinking Democrat Senate has done everything possible in its fascist collectivist butthurt to do everything imaginable and unimaginable to stall Trump’s cabinet  from being allowed to take office and do their jobs in a manner that can only be described as “historic.”  Among the recent vile Democrat Party tactics, far leftist darling Elizabeth Warren – a dishonest woman who falsely claimed that she was an American Indian in order to falsely receive benefits from her false status – violated forever all pretense of Senate decorum that allows respectful debate by launching a firestorm of hate invective until she was rightly shut the hell up.  She tried to attack a sitting Senator by reading a letter in spite of a rule that reads:

Rule 19 states the following: “No Senator in debate shall, directly or indirectly, by any form of words impute to another Senator or to other Senators any conduct or motive unworthy or unbecoming a Senator.”

It’s a pretty crystal-clear rule.  Don’t talk ugly about your fellow Senator so we can keep a collegial climate and work together.  And yes, you fake, dishonest Pocahontas, the rule even applies when the hateful words impugning the motive of a Senator come from somebody with the last name of “King” who wrote a fundraising letter for the DNC.  It frankly doesn’t MATTER who wrote the damn letter, you cannot read it on the Senate floor if it “directly or indirectly” ascribes any motive or conduct unworthy of a Senator.  Which that fundraising letter from that leftist widow very clearly does.

The Senate has that rule unless we instead want to have fistfights and chairs thrown on the Senate floor like the socialist banana republics that we sometimes see on TV.  I’ve got an idea: why not have Republicans read from the Bible proving that everything Democrats do is godless and vile and wicked and an abomination and a detestable act and that Democrats are demanding the full wrath of God on this nation?  Did Republicans do that when they were destroyed by Obama’s victory?  No.  Did they EVER do ANY of the above?  No.

Amazingly, Democrats depict themselves as the “victims” of “intolerance” and “hate” when they are by far and away THE most hateful bugs in America today.

And so, amazingly, fake Pocahontas is now a “victim” because she tried to viciously attack the character of somebody else in a manner that ought to have her disbarred from the Senate and mean meanies who don’t want the Senate to degenerate into total chaos and anarchy stopped her from doing it.

Democrats in the Senate and in the House DO want the Senate floor to become a fight pit.  And I can state that as a categorical fact simply because that is precisely what they have intentionally “fundamentally transformed” America into through their community organizing tactics to unleash demonstration after demonstration, boycott after boycott, riot after riot.

I’ve pointed out more than once that I actually PREDICTED the rise of a candidate like Donald Trump and accurately explained the reasons why there would be so much anger in response to the truly fascist Barack Obama presidency:

Obama’s strategy is to set aside and flatly ignore the law for his own political benefit.  Every American who is not deeply troubled by that – troubled enough to not vote for this fascist – is UN-American.

What Obama has done is provide an example of out-and-out lawlessness on the part of the president of the United States.  And when we get a hard-core right wing president the way Obama has been a hard-core left wing president, Obama and the Democrat Party and all of those who voted for Obama and the Democrat Party will be entirely to blame for that president and his extremist actions.  You mark my words.  Because what goes around comes around, and if a Democrat can set aside the law the way Obama has now repeatedly done, well, guess who’s going to be stomping on your necks under your own president’s prior justification???  Conservatives are rising up in a spirit of righteous outrage.  You have repeatedly slapped us in the face through your messiah Obama, and the time is coming when we’re going to punch you hard in the nose and then keep on punching.  And when that day comes, liberals, look to yourselves for blame. — My words on June 18, 2012

Don’t blame anyone but YOURSELVES and YOUR OWN DEMOCRATIC PARTY for the rise of Donald Trump, Democrats.  YOU did this.  YOU poisoned the well.  You ALONE and NO ONE BUT YOU.

We do we have President Trump?  Because you fascists allowed a fascist to act like a damn fascist for eight miserable years.  And people like me kept warning people like you that there would be CONSEQUENCES for what you were doing.  And then people like me promised you how you would get yours for what you had done before this election that was so damn surprising to you.

You should have learned that what comes around, goes around, fascists.  But you clearly didn’t.

Now you’re hanging yourselves on your own damn petards over and over and over again.  Such as when you fascists who illegitimately call yourselves “Democrats” as if you give one flying DAMN about “democracy” imposed the nuclear option to shove whatever the hell you fascists wanted down our throats.

The Senate is now firmly in Republican hands (after disgraceful Democrats were caught being evil maybe a million times too often).  But when Democrats owned the Senate, they shoved their crap right down the Republicans’ throats and changed the damn Senate rules to do it with a process that was so toxic to the Constitution that it was called “the nuclear option.”

On November 21, 2013, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid declared that “unbelievable, unprecedented obstruction” by Republican filibusters had made the confirmation process “completely unworkable.”^[1] As a result, he said, Democrats were forced to eliminate virtually all nomination filibusters. […]

For nearly all of its history, proceeding to a final vote on a matter before the Senate required a supermajority.

The nuclear option is every bit as good for the goose as it is for the gander, demon-possessed ones.

And so guess who gets to use it now?

There are consequences for what you did.  There OUGHT to be consequences for what you did.

You should have learned that what comes around goes around, you fascists.

Oh, there’s more than that, such as prominent Democrats in our society dreaming out loud of bombing the [Trump] White House and calling for a military coup.  I actually remember when Democrats literally called Republicans “terrorists” because we didn’t vote the way Democrats wanted them to vote.

Here’s what Hillary Clinton said about Republicans daring to do anything whatsoever when Obama was president and Democrats held the House and Senate:

“We cannot let a minority of people, and that’s what it is, it is a minority of people, hold a viewpoint that terrorizes the majority of people.”

They called us “terrorists” a whole bunch of times when it’s ridiculously easy to prove we didn’t do a tiny FRACTION of what they are doing now.  Now we start to see what actual “terrorists” really look like: just look in a damn mirror, Democrat.

And only now do I get to our judges: read the actual text of the law that Donald Trump lawfully and legally acted upon:

Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 states: “Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”

Oh, and there’s this:

Here is the pertinent law, Title 8, Chapter 12, US Code 1182, courtesy of Cornell University Law’s website:

(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.

Now how hard is that to understand?

It’s not just that the law is on Trump’s side; IT’S THAT THE LAW IS TOTALLY AND COMPLETELY ON TRUMP’S SIDE.

And so we have the most leftist District Court in the United States now deciding whether to uphold the injunction who are acting NOT AS JUDGES but as political ideologues imposing their own political agenda and calling it “the law.”  This law has been around since my 80 year-old parents were teen-agers.  Obama invoked this identical same policy with Iraqi refugees and again only recently to do to Cuban refugees – and did hypocrite Democrats riot with ‘Stop the hate’ signs THEN? – what Trump wants to temporarily do to seven countries that the Obama administration itself identified as having the most out-of-control and impossible-to-vet status of all countries on earth.

Is this a “Muslim ban” as our leftist newspapers and media keep claiming?  According even to the Trump-haters, fully 85% of all Muslims can freely come into the United States because the vast majority of Muslims on planet earth do not live in those seven countries.

The “judge” that imposed his stay on the Trump policy was FACTUALLY WRONG about the most major element of his ruling: not that Democrats give one flying damn about the fact that they are factually wrong and full of lies.

WASHINGTON — “The federal judge who halted President Donald Trump’s travel ban was wrong in stating that no one from the seven countries targeted in Trump’s order has been arrested for extremism in the United States since the 2001 terrorist attacks.

Just last October, an Iraqi refugee living in Texas pleaded guilty to attempting to provide support to the Islamic State group, accused of taking tactical training and wanting to blow himself up in an act of martyrdom. In November, a Somali refugee injured 11 in a car-and-knife attack at Ohio State University, and he surely would have been arrested had he not been killed by an officer.”

You moral roaches have NO RIGHT to do what your judges are doing.  In Arizona we settled that, like it or not, it is the President of the United States who gets to determine the shape of our immigration system.  the only difference there was that Arizona was actually only calling on Obama to enforce the laws of the United States and Obama was refusing to do so; here Donald Trump is lawfully using the authority that the laws of the United States give him.  But the same Democrats who told us that immigration was up to the President now say the opposite.

Lawyer and journalist Gregg Jarrett says that the law is very clearly entirely on Trump’s side and that ultimately Trump will prevail as this reaches a court capable of voting on the actual merits of the law rather than imposing their rabid judicial ideology onto the law rather than any legitimate interpretation of the law, the separation of powers, or the Constitution that these liberal judges falsely and deceitfully took an oath to uphold.

I am so beyond sick of this two-standards approach to the Constitution and to “judges”: when Obama imposed his ObamaCare, Justice Roberts literally re-wrote the damn ObamaCare law to make it “constitutional,” steadfastly and studiously ignoring what Obama had actually said prior to the passage of the law that clearly made it rabidly UNconstitutional.  And now we have these leftist pseudo-judges doing the precise-damn-OPPOSITE and citing campaign rhetoric that has virtually NOTHING to do with the actual policy that Trump imposed as president as the grounds for striking down the commander-in-chief.

What I am saying here is what Justice Antonin Scalia warned a leftist pseudo-intellectual once:

He added that the role of a Supreme Court justice should be interpreting the law, not inventing it.

“Whether it’s good or bad is not my job. My job is simply to say if those things you find desirable are contained in the Constitution,” he said.

Discussing pro-abortion judges who created a right to abortion, Scalia warned her, “Someday, you’re going to get a very conservative Supreme Court and regret that approach.”

You are about to get precisely what Scalia warned you about, Democrat.  You are about to get the hell you have tried to impose on us for DECADES now: right wing judges who read their own intent into the law without giving a flying damn what our Constitution says or what our founding fathers meant when they said it.  You are going to get judges whose reasoning process is “I’m a judge, and therefore whatever the hell I want to do must be the law.”  And they’re going to impose “law” on you the way you “living, breathing document” ideologues imposed pseudo “law” on US regardless of what the law or the Constitution actually was.

If YOU get to play games with the Constitution and impose your policy as law, then WE get to play games with the Constitution and impose OUR policy as “law.”  And if YOU are allowed to nominate judges who will “interpret” the law however the hell they want to, then WE get to nominate judges who will interpret the law however the hell THEY want to.

You’re going to be hung on your own petards.  Because what comes around ultimately goes around, you fascists.

The equivalent of what the left has done by allowing “judges” to hold a “living, breathing document” view of the Constitution that enables them to read their own “penumbras and emanations” into the law and impose their political goals and policy agendas as if they were “constitutional” is this: suppose we have a football game, and my side gets to use fully automatic assault weapons against your side.  You use your football skills and I’ll use my weapons and let’s play ball and see who wins.  If we win, we get a reprieve from fascist judicial activism; if you win you get to impose your rabid ideology upon us as if it were “the law.”

I noted an op-ed in the Los Angeles Times today talking about how both sides engage in hypocrisy.  And that’s true, much the way it is true that during World War II both sides engaged in killing.  But one side was so over the top evil with killing that it was dishonest to create a false moral equivalence; and in the same way one side (the Democrats) are so over the top HYPOCRITE that it is immoral to say that both sides do it.  The editorial itself – hypocritically entitled “Beyond hypocrisy” in the print edition – is a pile of leftist drivel and from my point of view isn’t worth reading because the author focuses on the evils of the right while steadfastly refusing to acknowledge his ideology’s own role in creating “nihilism” that he is so fearful of.  But it does come to a conclusion that I as a last days, evangelical, Bible-believing fundamentalist Christian, completely affirm: we’re heading toward total nihilism as a nation and that will guarantee our bitter, painful end.

Let me explain what is going on right now, as we speak: we cannot possibly endure as a society or a civilization because there are these people called “Democrats” who cannot abide either civil society or civilization itself.  Nihilism is our only possible option if Democrats are allowed to exist.

It’s a simple thesis to prove: what if REPUBLICANS had rioted the day Obama was inaugurated?  What if seventy REPUBLICANS had boycotted the inauguration – the peaceful transition of power – of Obama?  What if a million Republican right wingers had demonstrated the day after Obama was inaugurated and loudly demanded that Obama not be allowed to do what he had just won election campaigning to do?  What if REPUBLICANS hijacked journalism and the university system the way the left has done and started allowing students to violently riot whenever a pro-Democrat speaker came to the school?  What if Arizona REPUBLICANS had defied Obama and went forward with their own immigration solution in a militant way the way most Democrat-governed states are doing now???

We would have collapsed into a bloodbath of rioting.  I mean, we never did anything even CLOSE to what you did and your side is collapsing into a bloodbath of rioting anyway.  Just imagine if we acted the way you’re acting.  We would have pitched, vicious battles in the streets.

Let me use another analogy I’ve used a couple times before: World War I.  The wicked WWI Axis powers from which Nazism ultimately spawned from were the first to use total war and bomb civilian population centers and they were the first to use poison gas on Allied soldiers.  Do you know what stopped them?  The Allies fought back the same damn way until the Axis asked for a return to more civilized warfare.

The ONLY way to defeat your enemy is to be willing to fight with that enemy on that enemy’s terms.  Had the Allies not responded in kind when their cities were being bombed by Zeppelins and their soldiers were being hideously killed and disfigured by poison gas attacks they would have surely lost the war.  But they fought back using the same tactics.

And they continued to do so until their wicked German enemies asked for a truce on those fronts.

If Republicans aren’t willing to resort to violent riots and mass demonstrations and a rabid refusal to recognize the legitimacy of the next Democrat to become president, we will lose.  Because this is a bitter war to the end, now.  That is beyond obvious.  If we don’t start shoving the most rabid right wingers down the collectivist throats of the Democrats who haven’t nominated a single judge who actually believed in the Constitution as our founding fathers envisioned it for nearly a hundred years, we will lose.  And we will ultimately lose everything – including our very lives – because the “Constitution” only means whatever is convenient for Democrats to believe at any given moment according to their own view of it.  And I believe I have demonstrated that Democrats today are rabid, vile, vicious, violent fascists today.  And if we don’t punch them so hard in the face it is beyond unreal, we won’t get another chance.  Because they are already showing right now, today, that they are going to come at us with a spirit of rabid, hysterical viciousness when the very first chance they get.  And Republicans had better be willing to fight back with everything they have if they value their children’s lives.  I’m telling you.

If you have ever voted Republican in your life, you need to join in EVERY SINGLE BOYCOTT of EVERY business that has EVER said anything critical of Trump or of conservative pro-growth policies.  You need to fight back, or you need to die.  Because die you will.

But we won’t do it.  Because we have something Democrats don’t have: we have morality, integrity, restraint.  The Democrats who rabidly hate God and believe in the religion of evolution have no restraint simply because just what the hell morally disqualifies somebody from being an atheist?  And the answer is ‘NOTHING’.

And so as much of a piece of crap as Jacob T. Levy’s “Beyond hypocrisy” editorial is, I agree with him that what he is saying is exactly what is going to happen in the United States.  Only it’s going to happen because enraged Republicans are finally ultimately going to remember every vile Democrat roach trick and perform it themselves when the tables turn again.  WE’RE going to be the ones who will steadfastly refuse to recognize the “legitimacy” of a Democrat president; WE’RE going to be the ones violently rioting and showing up in giant mass demonstrations.  WE’RE going to be the ones using every single procedural gimmick of government to shut down the president’s and the ruling party’s ability to govern.  Why will we do that?  BECAUSE DEMOCRATS DID IT AND WHAT GOES AROUND COMES AROUND.

Only by then it will be truly too late.  And our nation collapsed.  Jesus said that race would rise against race in the last days.  He also said the end would come upon us like birth pangs upon a woman, getting worse and worse until “the end” is born and devours us by the billions.  We’re seeing the birth pangs of it now.  Just as we’re seeing the “terrible times” that 2 Timothy chapter 3 said were coming as a truly toxic and vile last generation arose.  And we’re seeing that generation now.  The Antichrist of Revelation is just around the corner.

It’s amazing how the godless left and the religious right both agree: the end is coming.  And it’s coming on us FAST.  Welcome to what my fundamentalist Christian friends and I have been predicting for quite a while now as a result of our literal interpretation of what Jesus and the Bible said was coming.

And when it hits it will hit with the force of a sledge-hammer swung by a giant on an exposed and unsuspecting human face.

The funny thing is that, when the Antichrist comes, Democrats will be adoringly singing the man’s praises.  Because they desperately yearn for the poison the ultimate Government-as-God human leader will offer.

Just like eight years ago when Obama was spouting sewage like, “I won, and elections have consequences,” you Democrats have a right and a responsibility and a damn DUTY to put an END to the vile crap your party that you keep voting for is dumping on our culture and our nation right now.

But you won’t do it.

Which is why the beast is coming.

 

 

It Has Already Been Proven: We Cannot Trust Judges To Approve Security Decisions In The Age Of Obama

The embarrassing NSA leaks that revealed that pretty much every American is being treated as a terrorist confirm a few things about liberalism and Obama: you can’t trust either one any more than you could trust Stalinism.

Allow me to go back to something I said way, way back in 2010 as we were greeted with the outrage of Obama’s way of administering “security” by refusing to focus on actual terrorists and instead treat EVERYBODY like a terrorist:

Common sense is like rocket science to moral idiots.  And Barry Hussein, Eric Holder, Janet Napolitano and everyone else he’s brought on board is a genuine moral idiot.

Liberals self-righteously tell us that profiling Muslims by race would be un-American.  Because “American” to them means that we must instead treat EVERYONE like a terrorist.  A flight attendant with a prosthetic breast is as much a security threat as a 23 year-old Muslim male just arriving from Yemen.  To single anyone out for scrutiny would make sense, and we won’t have that as long as Barry Hussein is our emperor.  Because in Obama’s liberal America we stand like sheep in front of porno-scanners that take naked pictures of us, and then we stand like sheep while we’re groped by professional government gropers.

They don’t want to violate anybody’s rights.  Far better to violate EVERYBODY’S rights instead.

Remember the ecstatic Newsweek headline, “We Are All Socialists Now”???  Socialism invariably ends up treating the people like the enemy.  Think Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, with their Berlin Wall and all the machine gun emplacements to gun down anyone trying to get out.

If you don’t think it’s bad enough now as it is, the Tits and Ass Agency wants to unionize, which would make them even more intrusive and impervious than they already are.

“You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor and you will have war” — Winston Churchill, commenting on Neville Chamberlain’s “peace in our time” signing of the Munich Agreement with Hitler

That’s what we did when we voted for Obama: we chose dishonor and we chose a war we could not win because we are too stupid to even fight the real enemy.

So, here we are, a few years later.  And what is Obama doing?  He’s treating every single American like a terrorist and eavesdropping on over a billion American conversations every single day.

When I’m right, you can always count on me to be right.

The NSA leaks merely prove that everything I said about Obama’s policy of refusing to profile the people and groups most likely to be terrorists necessitated treating every single American like a terrorist instead.

Don’t be angry.  You voted for it, you dumbass.  You voted for Obama.  You voted to be treated like a terrorist and have all of your calls and internet traffic monitored.  You wouldn’t have it any other way.

Now that we’ve dealt with this NSA crap in general, let’s focus on an important specific that Obama loves to assure us: don’t worry, your rights are being protected, because, after all, judges have to approve every single one of these gross violations of your 4th Amendment rights.

Well, there are a couple of things wrong with that.  First of all, there’s this from a former FISA court judge:

Robertson told a federal oversight board that Congress’ 2008 reform meant that “the court is now approving programmatic surveillance,” offering that “I don’t think that is a judicial function.”

Robertson also questioned whether the NSA’s global surveillance programs court should be given its legal basis by a court that “has turned into something like an administrative agency,” adding that the secret court is flawed because only the government’s side is heard. […]

Robertson said he was ‘‘frankly stunned’’ by a recent Times report that FISA court rulings had created a new body of law broadening the ability of the NSA to use its surveillance programs to target not only terrorists but suspects in cases involving espionage, cyberattacks and weapons of mass destruction.

Liberals LOVE big “government programs,” and they are ALL ABOUT “programmatic” crap.  I mean, if they didn’t we never would have had the unmitigated disaster that ObamaCare has turned out to be (just like we SAID it would be, btw).

But this leaves out something even more fundamental.  It leaves out how treacherous, how blatantly dishonest Barack Obama and his thug administration has turned out to be.

Let’s remember Eric Holder, Obama’s “Injustice Department” lawthug was when he found a way to violate the 1st Amendment and go after a Fox News journalist.

What did Holder do?  He went to a judge to get a warrant to snoop on James Rosen.  The first judge said, “You can’t do that.  That would be fascist and unconstitutional.”  So Holder went to a second judge.  And the second judge said, “You can’t do that.  You’d be a Nazi to do something like that.”  And so Holder went to a third judge.

The third judge approved it.

Let’s say that he refused to.  Do you honestly think Holder would have said, “Well, three strikes and I’m out”???  No way, Jose.  He would have kept on judge-shopping until he found a judge who would sign off for him.

Now, the warrant that that judge signed off on was FILLED with lies that alleged that Rosen was basically a terrorist who was just about to flee the country and there was abundant evidence of his crimes.  None of that was true.  Basically, Holder lied like the rabid weasel that he is to get a warrant approved.  And then he cited the fact that he had lied to the judge as his rationale for why he was not lying to Congress when he said, “In regard to potential prosecution of the press for the disclosure of material. This is not something I’ve ever been involved in, heard of, or would think would be wise policy.”  He literally cited the fact that he had lied to a federal judge (the warrant Holder signed off on very much indicated that the FBI planned to prosecute James Rosen) as his grounds for arguing that he had not lied to Congress.

Therein lies your problem with the whole “judge” thing.  An awful lot of judges are, to put it politely, turds.  And finding a judge who will do what you want is kind of like walking blindfolded through a small yard inhabited by a dozen Rottweilers.  It won’t take you very long before you miraculously end up “finding” a big giant turd.  Only Eric Holder wasn’t blindfolded: he was actively TRYING to find a turd.

So pardon me for not being very reassured that Obama has to go before a judge (or a second judge, or a third judge) to get his fascism approved.

We now know for a FACT that Obama has recklessly and tyrannically abused government power.  He has used the IRS, the FBI, the EPA and other out-of-control government agencies to punish his political opponents.  And in fact, he’s done it way, WAY beyond the level to which the last president to try that kind of crap (that would be Nixon) ever came CLOSE to trying.

Obama is a power-mad child with a massive bureaucracy to use as toys and an entire nation to punish if he doesn’t get his way.  And this crap is out of control.

Hypocrite liberals would have been hysterically screaming in the streets if it had been revealed that Bush had been pulling a TENTH of this crap.  But Obama is doing it, so it’s okay.

It aint okay.

Why Do We Go Through The Useless Pretense Of Bothering To Have Elections When Fascist Black-Robed Judges Are Really Our Masters?

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

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

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

Ah, the hell with it: Let’s just let Judge Adolf P. Fuehrer decide everything.  I mean, people sheople.

Why do we bother to go through the sham of voting and having elections?  We really might as well just have one of those tyrant-regime-style “elections” where everybody gets to vote as long as they only vote for their “president for life.”  Because that’s what we’ve got here now:

Judge strikes down Wisconsin law restricting union rights
By NBC News staff and news services
September 14, 2012

A Wisconsin judge on Friday struck down the state law championed by Gov. Scott Walker that effectively ended collective bargaining rights for most public workers.

Dane County Circuit Judge Juan Colas ruled Friday that the law violates the state and U.S. constitutions and is null and void.

The law took away nearly all collective bargaining rights from most workers and has been in effect for more than a year.

Colas’ ruling comes after a lawsuit brought by the Madison teachers union and a union for Milwaukee city employees.

For city, county and school workers, the ruling returns the law to its previous status, before it was changed in March 2011, the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel reported. However, Walker’s law remains largely in force for state workers, it reported.

Walker’s law prohibited state and local governments from bargaining over anything except cost of living adjustments to salaries. Haggling over issues such as health benefits, pensions and workplace safety was barred.

Gov. Walker said in a statement Friday that he expected the ruling will be overturned on appeal.

“The people of Wisconsin clearly spoke on June 5th,” he said in the statement posted on his Facebook page. “Now, they are ready to move on. Sadly a liberal activist judge in Dane County wants to go backwards and take away the lawmaking responsibilities of the legislature and the governor. We are confident that the state will ultimately prevail in the appeals process.”

“We believe the law is constitutional,” said Wisconsin Department of Justice spokeswoman Dana Brueck.

The proposal was introduced shortly after Walker took office in February last year. It sparked a firestorm of opposition and huge protests at the state Capitol that lasted for weeks. All 14 Democratic state senators fled to Illinois for three weeks in an ultimately failed attempt to stop the law’s passage by the Republican-controlled Legislature.

The law’s passage led to a mass movement to recall Walker from office, but he survived the recall election, becoming the first governor in U.S. history to do so.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

I didn’t know that “collective bargaining” was enshrined in our Constitution.  Could somebody point out where?  I guess I must have slept through that lecture in that Civics class I took or something.

It’s probably in the same damn penumbras and emanations that the right to murder your baby is in, I suppose.

I’m all for workers having the right to form a union and I’m all for the right of that union to be able to “collectively bargain.”  As long as any employer – be that employer a small business owner, a CEO, a governor or a president – to be able to fire the ass of everybody who collectively bargained.

Again, where is it in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights that an employer loses the right to be able to fire workers?  Where is it stated that if workers want more money, and they “collectivize,” that he or she can’t fire them and get better workers who are willing to work for the wages that the employer is willing to pay???  Where the hell is it stated that an unemployed worker who would very damn much love to have a job cannot have the right to be able to work for that wage that the employer is willing to pay???  Where is it in our Constitution that only UNION workers ought to have the right to a job?

That’s what makes “collective bargaining” so evil; it arbitrarily gives a “right” to a union and takes away the rights of every single business and every single worker who would be thrilled to work for the pay that the union worker snubs his nose at.

And I want to know where that judge found that – other than by looking rather far up his own butt.

Damn I’m sick of these judges.  Just like I was sick of them not once but TWICE as a damn judge who believed himself above the will of the people overturned first Proposition 22 (which passed by 61% of the people’s vote) and then Proposition 8 (which passed by the same majority that gave Obama the damn presidency).

That’s what we need now – and will need even more if Obama gets reelected; we need a judge to look far enough up his own ass to “find” whatever penumbra or emanation and declare that Obama’s election is unconstitutional and throw his butt out of office.

This nation is no longer a democracy, a republic, a democratic republic, or anything remotely like any of the above.  It is an oligarchy of judicial activists and that is all that it is now.

A few other wise words of warning by Thomas Jefferson:

• “Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms (of government) those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.”
• “A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will lose both, and deserve neither.”
• “All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.”
• “I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.”
• “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”

We are to the point where that last one has become an important reality: our country has been stolen from us by black-robed usurpers, and we need to take it back from them.

Marriage Amendment Wins BIG In North Carolina While Obama ‘Wins’ Really, REALLY Small In NC’s And WV’s Democrat Primaries

To frame what follows into proper perspective, North Carolina is a state that Obama won in 2008.

As Joe Biden told America that he and basically his boss couldn’t tell the difference between a mother and father and their children and a pair of gay guys holding hands, this is what just happened in North Carolina (as of the most recent count, the amendment passed by a 61-39% vote).

I’m posting the MSNBC version because you can almost hear the whining tone:

North Carolina marriage amendment could impact gay and straight couples
By Miranda Leitsinger, msnbc.com

Updated at 10:30 p.m. ET: North Carolina voters approved a constitutional amendment Tuesday night banning gay marriage and – going a step further than most other states with an anti-gay marriage amendment – scrapping civil unions for gay and straight couples.

The state becomes the last southern state to approve an anti-gay marriage amendment and joins 30 others with similar measures. Incomplete returns Tuesday night showed the amendment passing by 60 percent of the vote.

The amendment, also known as Amendment 1, would make marriage the only legal domestic union that would be valid in the state. But opponents say the measure is unnecessary because a state statute has banned gay marriage in North Carolina since 1996. They say domestic partners – both straight and gay – and their children could lose health benefits.

Making this a constitutional amendment was important, said Rachel Lee, a spokeswoman for Vote For Marriage NC, because “those statutes are vulnerable to the will of an activist judge or future legislature who could overturn the law with a single court ruling or by a single vote of the legislature.”

Lee watched the election results at a party in Raleigh with grassroots coordinators and coalition members. When it became clear the amendment had passed, they cut a vanilla wedding cake topped with a figurine of a bride and groom.

“If you looked at a map of our country, you saw North Carolina as the only one in the southeast without an amendment preserving marriage between a man and a woman,” Lee said after the results had come in. “North Carolina had a target on her back.”

Half of Americans support gay marriage in new Gallup Poll

To overturn the amendment approved Tuesday night, the legislature would have to overrule the amendment by a three-fifths vote and get voter approval. Before the amendment passed, a judge or legislative majority could have overturned the statute.

“This puts up a bigger barrier,” said John Dinan, a political science professor at Wake Forest University.

Dinan said the amendment was introduced after Republicans won a majority in both houses of the state legislature in 2010.

“It’s been a pretty easy win in every southern state,” Dinan said. “It never got to the ballot in North Carolina because Democratic legislatures never let it get there.”

Dinan said the amendment’s impacts would not be immediate.

“The one place it could make a difference is in eight or nine cities in North Carolina that give out insurance benefits to same-sex couples,” Dinan said. “Lawyers might have to start taking a real close look at those insurance benefits that are given out and they might have to change those.”

Melissa and Libby Hodges of Durham could be among those affected by the amendment. They worry their 5-year-old daughter may lose her health benefits, as she is covered by Libby, who cannot legally adopt her. By Tuesday afternoon, the moms had filled out paperwork for private insurance.

Jeremy Kennedy, campaign manager for Protect All NC Families said he worries that the eight or nine cities that currently offer domestic partnership benefits to public employees may drop those benefits if the amendment passes.

“We know the consequences that we’re listing, but there’s a whole bunch of unintended consequences that we probably haven’t even thought of yet that will come up in the courts after this,” Kennedy said.

Thomas Peters, cultural director of the National Organization for Marriage, which supports the amendment, said children of gay parents in other states where similar amendments have passed have not lost their health insurance. He said he doubts that would happen in North Carolina.

Lee said the amendment would “in no way impact domestic violence protections, child custody or end of life desires.” 

Voting began early Tuesday on the marriage amendment and candidate races in the 2012 primary, but 512,000 people – or 8 percent of registered voters – already have participated through absentee ballot, according to the State Board of Elections. That record turnout surpassed even the 2008 primary, which included Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton on the ballot, according to Democracy North Carolina.

Several high-profile figures – from former President Bill Clinton to evangelist Billy Graham – and national advocacy groups have weighed in on the amendment.

“We’re having a great debate about marriage in this country, and it’s not at all settled about which way we’re going to go,” said Thomas Peters, cultural director of the National Organization for Marriage, which supports the amendment.

In only one of the 30 states is the constitutional amendment facing a challenge: In California, where a federal judge’s decision to overturn it was set aside pending appellate review. The last state to approve a constitutional amendment was in 2008. Eight states and the District of Columbia allow same-sex marriage.

But the Human Rights Campaign, which works on equal rights for the LGBT community, said that backing for anti-gay marriage measures was falling over time, citing statistics that showed the percentage of defeat at the ballot box dropping from 2004 to 2008.

Back in Durham, Libby and Melissa Hodges are debating whether to move to another state, where gay marriage would be legal.

They moved to North Carolina from Georgia in part because at the time, North Carolina allowed gay partners to adopt their children. That is no longer legal.

“My brother said, ‘If the amendment passes, North Carolina will be more backward than Georgia, will you move back to Georgia then?’” Melissa Hodges said. “I said, ‘You’re so wonderfully sweet, but no.’”

But leaving North Carolina would be hard. Both are city planners close to being vested in the state’s pension plan. Selling their home would be difficult, Melissa Hodges added, and their daughter was accepted into their first-choice kindergarten. Plus, another move would take her away from her brother, with whom she is close.

On Tuesday night, the Hodges watched the results online after putting their daughter to bed.

“She asked us before we put her to bed to make sure to tell her in the morning that we won,” Melissa Hodges said. “She doesn’t get the stuff with health insurance, but we told her that we’ll always take care of her, not to worry about that.”

Msnbc.com’s Isolde Raftery contributed to this report.

It’s rather funny that the people who were dedicated to overturning anything SHORT OF a constitutional amendment are crying about how this measure was unnecessary.

Of course no it’s not; I live in a state – California – which passed a measure defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman TWICE only to be overturned by fascist judges who frankly couldn’t give a rodent’s hindquarters about the will of the people.  In 2000 Californian’s overwhelmingly passed Prop 22 with 61.4% of the voters approving the one sentence definition of a valid marriage.  Fascist judges said screw you; it is our very essence as fascist judges to impose our will on the people.  And then we passed Prop 22 and of course a homosexual judge did the same damn thing and overturned it.  And then he resigned so he could enjoy the rest of his life collecting benefits paid for by the people whose will he just pissed all over.

In Iowa, judges who decided that their feelings mattered far more than what the rest of the state believed just got honored for pissing on voters:

May 7, 2012 11:40 AM 
Iowa judges ousted after legalizing same-sex marriage to receive Profiles in Courage Award

(CBS/AP) BOSTON – President John F. Kennedy’s only surviving child is celebrating what would have been his 95th birthday this month by honoring three Iowa judges who were ousted after the court unanimously decided to legalize same-sex marriages.

Caroline Kennedy will also recognize the U.S. ambassador to Syria who risked his life to support opponents of President Basher Assad’s regime.

Kennedy heads the John F. Kennedy Library Foundation, which promotes the late president’s memory and legacy. She is set to present the John F. Kennedy Profile in Courage Award on Monday to former Iowa Chief Justice Marsha Ternus and justices David Baker and Michael Streit, all of whom were pushed off the bench in a 2010 retention vote that capped a contentious campaign.

The three judges will receive a sterling silver ship’s lantern symbolizing a beacon of hope. The award, which was designed by Kennedy’s husband, Edwin Schlossberg, and crafted by Tiffany & Co., resembles one belonging to the U.S. Navy’s oldest commissioned warship, the USS Constitution, or “Old Ironsides.”

Ternus, Baker and Streit were among seven justices who unanimously decided in 2009 that an Iowa law restricting marriage to a man and a woman violated the state’s constitution. Conservative groups and other gay marriage foes spent about $1 million on a political campaign to oust the judges, who chose not to raise money or campaign themselves to avoid dragging the judiciary into politics.

“The three judges are interesting and courageous on many levels,” Kennedy told The Associated Press. “… Like many of the people who get this award, they don’t consider that they are doing anything particularly courageous, they just feel they’re doing what’s right, they’re doing their job.”

Kennedy, who is a lawyer, said the three “knew when they were writing this decision that it was gonna be a pioneering decision and a landmark decision and would face a lot of popular opposition. They also were following very carefully the Iowa constitution and the rights that it gives to its citizens.”

Just imagine it being the other way around: the voters of a state overwhelmingly want gay marriage by a nearly 3 to 1 margin – and a conservative judge says to hell with all of you, only MY vote matters, and I vote to say to hell with the will of the people.  Is that judge going to be honored for his “courage,” do ya think???

Joe Biden says that the “marriage” of two men or two women is EVERY BIT as “valid” as the holy union under God between a man and a woman, and that married men and women and the families they create are no better or more positive for society than homosexual “matrimonies,” and North Carolina just responded with a great big giant “Up YOURS!”

That may have something to do with what over twenty percent of North Carolina DEMOCRATS said to Obama in the state’s Democrat primary for president:

“No preference” is another way of saying “no confidence” in the ONLY candidate on the ballot.

In West Virginia, it got even worse, with 42% of Democrat voters choosing an INCARCERATED FELON over Obama (who SHOULD be a convicted felon).  Obama has been a holocaust for that state, pure and simple.

And in Wisconsin, the hated conservative Governor Scott Walker easily won a larger percentage of the vote than BOTH of his Democrat challengers COMBINED and nearly as many as EVERY DEMOCRAT VOTE COMBINED.  With Wisconsin Republicans easily maintaining control of the state Senate.  Oh, and it’s also now known that the rabid Democrat recall effort has an unpaid debt of $17 million in back taxes.  Because to be a Democrat is to be a fascist who wants OTHERS to work and pay for what THEY then get to “redistribute” to their unions and their special interests.

Stuff like that helps me understand the dismal opening Obama got to the official opening of a re-election campaign that really never ended from 2008.

I see the potential for a major conservative ass-kicking coming.  And the ONLY thing standing in the way of that ass-kicking is the fact that Barack Obama – the worst and most cynical political whore who EVER walked the earth – has attended more fundraisers than the previous FIVE presidents COMBINED.  It won’t be easy to throw out our Crony Capitalist Fascist Whore in Chief given his enormous money-grubbing advantage.  Particularly since he has repeatedly used the American people’s taxpayer money as his own political slush fund.

Meanwhile, the same Obama who is too much of a weasel to tell us what he’s going to do with the ballistic missile shield he essentially turned traitor over, or the same Obama who is punting the Keystone pipeline until after the election so he can kill it once and for all, is the same weasel who doesn’t have the courage to look at the American people and tell them that he is going to “fundamentally transform” the institution of marriage on them.

He is a small, weak, skinny little runt in every way imaginable.  That is the essence of a weasel.

Congratulations on standing up for the sacred definition of marriage and for standing against the weasel who wants to undermine this nation’s greatest institutions, North Carolina.

Radical Obama Smacked Down Even By ÜberLiberal 9th Circuit Court Over Arizona Voter Law

For a “constitutional law professor,” Barack Obama sure doesn’t seem to have the first freaking clue about the Constitution.  Maybe his expertise is in shariah law or something???

When even the most liberal court in the entire nation (conservatives don’t call it the 9th Circus Court for nothing) tells a liberal president and his attorney general he doesn’t have a leg to stand on, I’d call that a smackdown.

BREAKING: Federal Appeals Court Upholds Most of Arizona Voter ID Law
By John Hill on April 17, 2012in Blog, News

In a ruling which demonstrated just how radical is the Obama Administration’s opposition to Voter ID laws, the very liberal U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld Arizona’s voter-approved 2004 law requiring voters to show proof of citizenship before receiving a ballot – a big victory in the battle against voter fraud in the runup to the November elections.

The Appeals Court mostly shot down the challenges to the law, which had itself been upheld in Arizona U.S. District Court. Arizona can demand to see certain forms of identification that proves citizenship, the court ruled.

And if someone doesn’t have those forms of ID, paying the fees to obtain the ID isn’t the same as a “poll tax.”

However, the court also ruled that Arizona must not refuse federal voter registration forms, which work on the honor system by asking applicants to check a box indicating whether they’re U.S. citizens. Arizona can’t replace that form with its form that requires proof of citizenship, the court ruled. This is a remnant of the ultra-flawed National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (“Motor Voter Act”), which SWA has urged Congress to modify in future legislation.

But overall, the ruling is a major victory for Arizona voters, who overwhelmingly approved the law, and for Americans who support Voter ID laws with 73% support, according to a poll published just yesterday. And it may also be a preview of defeats yet to come for the Obama Administration’s block of state Voter Id laws. including in Texas and South Carolina. Obama and his Attorney General Eric Holder have tried to pretend that the Supreme Court never ruled in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board (2008) , which upheld photo ID requirements for voting. But they are destined to lose big when the Texas and S.C. challenges get to the Federal courts.

Left-wing groups, including Chicanos Por la Causa, League of Women Voters, ACLU and Arizona’s patron saint of illegal aliens, Sen. Steve Gallardo had all filed suit, among others. The plaintiffs in the case “did not prove that the ability of Hispanics to participate in the political process was lessened somehow because of the law”, the Ninth found.

Judge Johnnie Rawlinson dissented, finding that Arizona could reject federal voter registration forms in place of its own form. Judge Harry Pregerson also dissented, but for a different reason. He believes the polling-place ID provision discriminates against Hispanics. The plaintiffs may appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

For the official damn record, MEXICO REQUIRES VOTER ID!!!

Mexico’s national voter IDs part of culture
By David Agren, Special for USA TODAYUpdated 1/25/2012 1:18 AM

MEXICO CITY – Office worker Ana Martínez lined up at 7 a.m. on a recent Sunday to renew her voter credential, a document required at a polling station to vote.

But voting was not the main reason she was getting it. The free photo ID issued by the Federal Electoral Institute had become the accepted way to prove one’s identity — and is a one-card way to open a bank account, board an airplane and buy beer.

Voting was almost an afterthought to Martínez.

“They ask for it everywhere,” she said. “It’s very difficult to live without it.”

National IDs for voting, or proving citizenship, is an idea that is being floated in the United States to crack down on voter fraud, illegal immigration and foreign terrorists.

Proponents, such as the Federation for American Immigration Reform, say it is an efficient way to verify identities and prevent crime. Opponents, such as the American Civil Liberties Union, describe it as an invasion of privacy. Minority advocacy groups have even alleged that the cards would frighten minorities going to the polls.

But Mexico has not seen many problems with its card, and national identity cards have been issued for years in France, Poland, Singapore, Brazil, to prove citizenship.

Because so many Americans drive, we actually have something rather similar; it’s called a “driver’s license.”  And I get asked for mine all the time.  Except when I vote when it’s apparently immoral to have to show one.

If the Hispanics that liberals are alledgedly bitching on behalf of returned to their native countries, their countries and the Hispanics who govern them would require them to produce ID in order to vote.  The people who oppose this law do so for no other reason than that they know that if they can’t cheat they can’t win.  And to label those who simply want integrity in the voting system “racists” is the act of a bunch of rat bastards.

It’s like I keep saying: Democrats are bad people who want to have a free hand in lying and cheating.

Congratulations, Arizona.  You stuck up to a tyrant and you won.

All the dang things I’ve got to show my ID for – particularly given the fact that according to the law we are supposed to carry our IDs with us wherever we go – and it’s really quite a mystery why one shouldn’t have ID in order to do something as important and as easy to commit fraud in as voting.

Meanwhile Wisconsin has a bunch of little rodents for judges so they can play games with the SAME DAMN BASIC VOTER ID LAW that even the 9th Court of Appeals said is fine.  Just so they can do everything possible to cheat Governor Scott Walker out of re-election.  Because THIS is the kind of judges who are doing everything they can to use the law as a liberal-fascist weapon against conservatives.

Do You Truly Love Your Country? It’s Now Official: That Means You’re A Right-Wing Republican

I’ve been saying DemonCrats (that’s “Demonic Bureaucrats,” which is what “Democrat” truly stands for) despise their country.  Now I’ve got über-liberal Harvard to back me up.  Which is to say that this isn’t a case of Sarah Palin blasting away at Democrats and claiming Democrats don’t love their country; it’s an example of the liberal intelligentsia itself claiming that Democrats don’t love their country:

Harvard: July 4th Parades Are Right-Wing
By Paul Bedard
Posted: June 30, 2011

Democratic political candidates can skip this weekend’s July 4th parades.  A new Harvard University study finds that July 4th parades energize only Republicans, turn kids into Republicans, and help to boost the GOP turnout of adults on Election Day.

“Fourth of July celebrations in the United States shape the nation’s  political landscape by forming beliefs and increasing participation,  primarily in favor of the Republican Party,” said the report from  Harvard.

“The political right has been more successful in appropriating American patriotism and its symbols during the 20th century. Survey evidence also confirms that Republicans consider themselves more patriotic than Democrats. According to this interpretation, there is a political congruence between the patriotism promoted on Fourth of July and the values associated with the Republican party. Fourth of July celebrations in Republican dominated counties may thus be more politically biased events that socialize children into Republicans,” write Harvard Kennedy School Assistant Professor David Yanagizawa-Drott and Bocconi University Assistant Professor Andreas Madestam.

Their findings also suggest that Democrats gain nothing from July 4th parades, likely a shocking result for all the Democratic politicians who march in them.

“There is no evidence of an increased likelihood of identifying as a Democrat, indicating that Fourth of July shifts preferences to the right rather than increasing political polarization,” the two wrote.

The three key findings of those attending July 4th celebrations:

• When done before the age of 18, it increases the likelihood of a youth identifying as a Republican by at least 2 percent.
• It raises the likelihood that parade watchers will vote for a Republican candidate by 4 percent.
• It boosts the likelihood a reveler will vote by about 1 percent and increases the chances they’ll make a political contribution by 3 percent.

What’s more, the impact isn’t fleeting. “Surprisingly, the estimates show that the impact on political preferences is permanent, with no evidence of the effects depreciating as individuals become older,”said the Harvard report.

Finally, the report suggests that if people are looking for a super-patriotic July 4th, though should head to Republican towns. “Republican adults celebrate Fourth of July more intensively in the first place.”

Conservatives have American Indendence Day, which we celebrate on July 4th in honor of our Declaration of Independence.  Democrats hate the Declaration of Independence because it bases our separation from Great Britain on GOD and establishes the new nation that would consequently be born as a Judeo-Christian one.  Liberals have Marxist May Day, i.e. DEpendence Day, instead.

It’s rather interesting, actually.  I think of the analogy of the “Naksa”, or Israel’s defeat of Arab armies in the 1967 Six-Day War.  It’s a day of celebration for Israelis, and a day of mourning for Palestinians.  It’s a shame that Independence Day is nothing worthy of celebrating for Democrats.  But when you realize that the independence and liberty the founding fathers created was independence and liberty from big government totalitarianism, and that Democrats yearn for the very thing that our founding fathers delivered us from, it starts to make perfect sense.  Ben Franklin said, “Any people that would give up liberty for a little temporary safety deserves neither liberty nor safety.”  And Democrats who dream of a big government nanny state say, “Amen!  Where can see sign up for that?”

Liberals have always despised the Constitution, because it gets in their way of imposing their will on society.  A couple of very recent examples:

Time Magazine: “We can pat ourselves on the back about the past 223 years, but we cannot let the Constitution become an obstacle to the U.S.’s moving into the future with a sensible health care system, a globalized economy, an evolving sense of civil and political rights.”

[…]

The Constitution does not protect our spirit of liberty; our spirit of liberty protects the Constitution. The Constitution serves the nation; the nation does not serve the Constitution.”

And let’s not forget Fareed Zakaria, who recently said America should be more like Iceland – which ripped its Constitution up and is now writing a new one on Facebook.

We can go back to Woodrow Wilson, “the father of the progressive movement,” and see how Democrats have always felt about the Constitution:

President Woodrow Wilson was an early progressive who actively rejected what the founding fathers said and intended. He argued that the meaning of the Constitution should be interpreted by judges, and not based on its words.

In his book, Constitutional Government in the United States, Wilson wrote: “We can say without the least disparagement or even criticism of the Supreme Court of the United States that at its hands the Constitution has received an adaptation and an elaboration which would fill its framers of the simple days of 1787 with nothing less than amazement. The explicitly granted powers of the Constitution are what they always were; but the powers drawn from it by implication have grown and multiplied beyond all expectation, and each generation of statesmen looks to the Supreme Court to supply the interpretation which will serve the needs of the day.”

Wilson and other progressives have failed to understand the consequence of rewriting the Constitution’s meaning and ignoring the intentions of the founding fathers. If this generation is not bound by yesterday’s law, then future generations will not be bound by today’s law.

If law is not a body of rules and can be arbitrarily manipulated, then the rule of man trumps the rule of law. And the founding principle that “all men are created equal” is replaced by “some men are more equal than others.” When people are governed by self-anointed rulers instead of elected representatives, they cannot be free.

When the Constitution was written, it was a radical departure from the despotic governments of its time. While Europeans were being ruled by the arbitrary edicts of kings, Americans revolted so they could become a self-governing people.

Because the founding fathers understood human nature, they structured the Constitution to permanently protect the people from the human shortcomings of their leaders. Human nature has not changed since America’s founding. So the need still exists for the protection provided by the Constitution.

And as Mark Levin points out, we can actually go back before that to see how liberals undermined America and undermined the Constitution by finding judges who would “interpret” it rather than just read it.  Consider slavery, and consider the fact that the Democrat Party was the party of slavery and that the Ku Klux Klan was the terrorist arm of the Democrat Party.  And what justified slavery in the face of our founding documents which clearly condemned slavery?  Liberal activist judges:

Levin: Activist Supreme Courts are not new. The Dred Scott decision in 1856, imposing slavery in free territories; the Plessy decision in 1896, imposing segregation on a private railroad company; the Korematsu decision in 1944, upholding Franklin Roosevelt’s internment of American citizens, mostly Japanese Americans; and the Roe decision in 1973, imposing abortion on the entire nation; are examples of the consequences of activist Courts and justices. Far from being imbued with special insight, these decisions have had dire consequences for our governmental system and for society.

And we can go back well before that, too.  We can go all the way back to Thomas Jefferson, who warned us of the horror of judicial activism:

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

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

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

Democrats don’t love America.  They haven’t for a long time.  For my entire life, in fact.

America is based on the idea that man can govern himself, and that man can govern himself and should govern himself, within the just parameters of the Constitution they so painstakingly crafted for us:

The form of government secured by the Declaration of Independence, the American Revolution, and the Constitution is unique in history and reflects the strongly held beliefs of the American Revolutionaries.

At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs. Powell anxiously awaited the results, and as Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task now finished, asked him directly: “Well Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” “A republic if you can keep it” responded Franklin.

The term republic had a significant meaning for both of them and all early Americans. It meant a lot more than just representative government and was a form of government in stark contrast to pure democracy where the majority dictated laws and rights. And getting rid of the English monarchy was what the Revolution was all about, so a monarchy was out of the question.

The American Republic required strict limitation of government power. Those powers permitted would be precisely defined and delegated by the people, with all public officials being bound by their oath of office to uphold the Constitution. The democratic process would be limited to the election of our leaders and not used for granting special privileges to any group or individual nor for defining rights.

But Democrats have always despised our founding fathers and the republic they gave us.  Thomas Jefferson said:

“A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.”

I think of Jefferson’s words when I hear the union mobs that shout down others and riot while mindlessly chanting, “THIS is what Democracy looks like!” (See also here).

And Democrats are at the core of this anti-American garbage.  See here.  And here.  And here. And here.  And here.  Democrats were completely at home voting for a president who believes:

“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.”

And when you read our founding fathers, and understand their arguments and their worldview, you can readily understand why Obama has to characterize the founding fathers and the Constitution they wrote as “blind.”

Because Thomas Jefferson also said things like:

“A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have.”

And:

“I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.”

And:

“The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.”

And:

“If people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny.”

And:

“To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.”

And:

“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government”

But these notions are fundamentally incompatible with the vision of “America” Democrats have for this country.  Which is why the founding fathers must be destroyed; their integrity demolished; their wisdom undermined.

Don’t tell me you love America, Democrats.  You hate it.  You’ve hated it for a long time.  That’s why you embrace the following vision of this founding father:

“From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”

The problem is that yours isn’t a founding father of America, but rather the founding father of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.  That quote that Democrats all affirm came from Karl Marx (see Obama’s paraphrase: “I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”)  And if you are a Democrat who doesn’t affirm that statement, than explain to me as a Democrat why this central defining statement of communism – which flies in the face of what America’s founding fathers said – is in fact demonic and evil.  And then explain to me how that statement has no part with the Democrat Party.  Please.

Update, July 2: Someone sent me the link to this excellent piece by Ellis Washington which raises some of the same issues I raise above.  It’s worth a read.

Why I Blame Democrats For Gun Laws That Allow Crazies To Kill

This is in response to the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, the nineteen shooting victims, and the six murdered citizens, in Tuscon, Arizona on Saturday at the hands of someone who is clearly mentally ill.

It sounds rather crazy to have such a title to many, I’m sure.  After all, isn’t it Democrats who are constantly trying to criminalize gun ownership?  And isn’t it Republicans who are constantly trying to keep guns legal?

Yes.  Which is exactly why I blame Democrats every single iota as much as the most liberal Democrat blames Republicans for criminals or crazies with guns.

First of all, we have a constitutional RIGHT to keep and bear arms.  The 2nd Amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Now, Democrats for years and years have argued that the 2nd Amendment essentially contains a typo, that “militia” should have appeared twice, but somehow the phrase “the people” got stuck in.

But “the people” really means “militia.”

So when you see “the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances,” it really doesn’t apply to citizens.  It only really applies to militias.  Militias have the right to assemble and redress the government.  You “people” just stay shut in your homes and leave the government alone.

And go through your Constitution and make the necessary corrections.  Replace every occurrence of the phrase “the people” with “militia.”  And see how many freedoms you would lose and just what an absurdly laughable interpretation the Democrats have for the 2nd Amendment.

The 2nd Amendment clearly and obviously provides militias AND the people (i.e., the citizens of the United States, you and me) with the right to keep and bear arms.  And then it all but tells the Democrats to keep their paws off our guns (“… shall not be infringed”).

But the Democrats DO infringe.  And infringe, and infringe some more.

So we run into a problem: every time Republicans – who actually care about their Constitution – do anything to restrict gun rights or gun ownership, it ends up being a net-loss for guns and for the 2nd Amendment.  And every significant act involving a gun becomes the next cause to take away guns, as the following Newsweek article exudes:

“You never want a serious crisis to go to waste,” Rahm Emanuel famously said in 2008. The same goes for a shooting spree that gravely wounds a beloved congresswoman. Congress won’t enact gun control, as it did in the wake of the assassinations of Martin Luther King and Robert F. Kennedy in 1968, but perhaps something positive can come from this.

If Republicans try to make it tougher for criminals or crazies to get their hands on guns, Democrats will use that measure to shut the door all the tighter on every single law-abiding citizen to exercise their constitutional guarantees.  As I will show later in this article.

So because of Democrat refusal to recognize the clear and obvious meaning of the 2nd Amendment, we have an impasse.  We have an impasse which prevents common-sense laws from being passed.

This is what should happen: Democrats should now and for all time recognize that every single law-abiding American in every single state and in every single town has the right to keep and bear arms.  And Republicans should in response begin to help make it tougher to get guns, so that criminals and the mentally ill do not fall through the gaping holes that the intransigence has imposed.

Unless and until that day happens, Republicans will have no choice but to fight every gun law, because they will continue to correctly see that Democrats and liberal judicial activists will continue to use every law passed to prevent “the people” from possessing guns.

Here’s the bottom line: liberals often repeat the principle stated by William Blackstone, “Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.”  Benjamin Franklin took it even further, and stated “that it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer.”

And here here.  Even though it creates a system in which the innocent too often are denied justice as the guilty go free.

But lets ALSO acknowledge that the same Constitution also clearly affirms that it is better that ten, or a hundred criminals and psychos get their hands on guns than that just one innocent Person should be deprived.

If you liberals like the first principle, quit being a hypocrite and like the second one, too.

For me, I do not want to be forced to wait helplessly for the police to maybe never show up as vicious criminals terrorize – or do worse – to my family.  Rather, if you try to enter my home, scumbags, I’ve got something for you.

It is every bit as evil for any society to deny a person (the singular form of “the people”, by the way) to be able to defend himself, or herself, or his or her family, from violence, as it would be to convict innocent people to make sure the guilty don’t go free.

Nor let me fail to mention that the founding fathers clearly intended an armed citizenry to be a powerful obstacle against government tyranny.  That the founding fathers would want a tyrannous American government overthrown as much as they would want a tyrannous British government overthrown.

Any good gun law that truly has a chance of preventing criminals or crazies like Jared Loughner from obtaining guns necessarily would depend on a strict registration and licensing of every single gun.  And Republicans will RIGHTLY refuse any such registration and licensing until Democrats codify it into the law of the land that such a registry can NEVER EVER be used to take away our guns.

What we need to see is this: a powerful understanding of the 2nd Amendment guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms such that, if any elected official, officer of the court, sworn law enforcement officer, or government employee undermines that law, they will immediately be recognized to have violated their constitutional oath and thereby disqualify themselves for their duties as politicians, judges, lawyers, law enforcement officers, or bureaucrats.  And let the anti-gun policies which include heavy taxation and burdensome regulation be expunged.

And when that occurs, then let every gun be registered.  Let there be a listing of every individual who owns a gun(s), with every serial number and even with every ballistic sample from every gun, be taken.

If someone is convicted of a felony, or if someone’s mental condition deteriorates beyond a legal threshhold, then immediately the list is checked: ‘does this individual have a gun?’  And if so that gun is removed.

That’s the kind of system we need.  And it is the system we cannot have as long as the future question of the constitutional guarantee of gun ownership is in any way, shape or form an open question.

We’ve seen the sorts of laws Democrats have proposed being used against “the people” before in many other parts of the world.  We have seen it in tyrannous, totalitarian regimes throughout history.  First they demanded the registration of weapons; then they came and confiscated those weapons.  And no one could stand up against them, because only they had the guns.

The other thing it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out is that if we pass laws taking away the right to keep guns, only the law-abiding would follow the law.  Criminals would not follow the law;  I mean, dang, just look up the definition of “criminal.”

Therefore, until our law is clearly and completely understood to guarantee the right of gun ownership by every single law-abiding and mentally sane citizen, you will never see the kind of gun control laws that our society obviously needs.

Which is why I rightly blame Democrats for the lack of gun control laws that would prevent crazies like Jared Loughner from getting their hands on guns.

Democrats, the “living, breathing document, open to interpretation” theory of the Constitution needs to go down the drain once and for all in order for meaningful gun regulations to ever succeed.

Because this is America.

Leftist Thought Led To Fascism – And Is Doing So Again

Liberals think that the title of Jonah Goldberg’s book Liberal Fascism is an oxymoron.  They’re wrong.  Goldberg himself writes:

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

“Foucault’s “enterprise of Unreason,” Derrida’s tyrannical logocentrism, Hitler’s “revolt against reason.”  All fed into a movement that believes action is more important than ideas.  Deconstructionism, existentialism, postmodernism, Pragmatism, relativism: all these ideas had the same purpose–to erode the iron chains of tradition, dissolve the concrete foundations of truth, and firebomb the bunkers where the defenders of the ancient regime still fought and persevered.  These were ideologies of the “movement.”  The late Richard Rorty admitted as much, conflating Nietzsche and Heidegger with James and Dewey as part of the same grand project” [Goldberg, Liberal Fascism, page 176].

It turns out that most of the moral and philosophical assumptions of liberalism have been shared by not only the Marxists, but the Nazis as well.  NAZI stood for “National Socialist German Workers Party,” and was merely a rival brand of the clearly leftist political ideology of socialism.  And given the fact that Marxism was in fact every bit as totalitarian and murderous as Nazism, in hindsight it seems rather bizarre that “Marxist” was ever an abracadabra word that the American left was willing to bear to begin with.

The purpose of this article is to explore how the foundational ideas that liberals uphold as being the opposite of fascism in fact actually fed the monster of fascist Nazism, and how the modern American left continue to fall prey to fascist premises and outcomes to this very day.

It is particularly interesting that the supposedly highly individualistic and influential school of thought known as “existentialism” became so ensnared by fascism and Nazism.  On the surface, existentialism would seem to be the very polar opposite of fascism and Nazism.  After all, a philosophy of radical freedom centered in the individual would surely be incompatible with a totalitarian social system that denies political liberty in the name of the community.  One would assume that existentialism would be a philosophy of rebellion against all such external authority.  And yet the Nazis quoted Frederich Nietzsche at great length in support of their ideology (see also here).  Martin Heidegger, one of the foremost existentialist thinkers in history, turned out to have been a proud member of the Nazi Party.  And even famed existentialist Jean-Paul Sartre – who fought to resist fascism in his Nazi-occupied France during WWII – ultimately merely chose another totalitarian ideology in its place (Sartre identified himself as a Marxist and a Maoist).

Georg Lukács observed (in The Destruction of Reason, 1954, page 5) that tracing a path to Hitler involved the name of nearly every major German philosopher since Hegel: Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Dilthy, Simmel, Scheler, Heidegger, Jaspers, Weber.  Rather than merely being amoral monsters, the Nazis emerged out of a distinguished liberal secular humanist intellectual tradition.

Max Weinreich documented in Hitler’s Professors: The Part of Scholarship in Germany’s Crimes against the Jewish People, an exhaustive study of the complicity of German intellectuals with the Nazi regime.  Far from opposing the Nazi regime, we find that German academia actively provided the intellectual justification for Nazi fascism as well as the conceptual framework for the Holocaust.  Weinreich does not claim that German scholars intended the Holocaust, but he argues that the Holocaust would not have been possible without them.

He asks, “Did they administer the poison?  By no means; they only wrote the prescription.”

How could such a thing happen?

Very easily, it turns out.

The existentialists (along with the secular humanists and the liberals), deny the transcendent, deny objective truth, and deny the objective morality that derive from transcendence and objective truth.  Rather than any preordained system – whether moral or theological – existentialist anchored meaning not to any ideals or abstractions, but in the individual’s personal existence.  Life has no ultimate meaning; meaning is personal; and human beings must therefore create their own meaning for themselves.

One should already begin to see the problem: since existentialism, by its very nature, refuses to give objective answers to moral or ideological questions, a particular existentialist might choose to follow either a democrat or totalitarian ideology – and it frankly doesn’t matter which.  All that matters is that the choice be a genuine choice.

Existentialists didn’t merely acknowledge this abandonment of transcendent morality, they positively reveled in it.  In his book St. Genet, Jean-Paul Sartre celebrated the life of a criminal.  Genet was a robber, a drug dealer, and a sexual deviant.  By all conventional moral standards, Genet was an evil man.  But for Sartre, even ostensibly evil actions could be moral if they were performed in “good faith.”  And since Sartre’s Genet consciously chose to do what he did, and took responsibility for his choices and his actions, he was a saint in existentialist terms.

And the problem becomes even worse: by rejecting the concepts of transcendence, objective meaning, truth, and moral law, and by investing ultimate authority in the human will (i.e. Nietzsche’s “will to power”, Hitler’s “triumph of the will”), existentialism played directly into the hands of fascism — which preached the SAME doctrines.  If fascism can be defined as “violent and practical resistance against the process of transcendence,” as Ernst Nolte defined it, then it’s affinities with existentialism are crystal clear.  The two movements became part of the same stream of thought.

Modern Nietzsche followers argue that Nietzsche was not a racial anti-Semite.  For the sake of argument maybe he wasn’t; but he was without any question an intellectual anti-Semite, who attacked the Jews for their ideas and their ethics — particularly as they contributed to Western civilization and to Christianity (which he also actively despised).  And in addition to Nietzsche’s intellectual anti-Semitism was his utter contempt for any form of abstractions — particularly as they related to the transcendental categories of morality and reason.  Nietzsche maintained that abstraction of life resulted from abstraction of thought.  And he blamed Christianity – which he rightly blamed as a creation of the Jews – for the denial of life manifested in Christian morality.

And, unlike most pseudo-intellectuals of today, Nietzsche was consistent: in his attack against Christianity, he attacked Judeo-Christian morality.  He attacked the Christian value of other-centered love, and argued that notions of compassion and mercy favored the weak and the unfit, thereby breeding more weakness.  Don’t you dare think for a single nanosecond that Hitler didn’t take the arguments of this beloved-by-liberals philosopher and run down the field with them toward the death camps.

The Nazis aligned themselves not only against the Jews but against the the Judeo-Christian God and the Judeo-Christian morality the Jews represented.  A transcendent lawgiving God, who reveals His moral law on real tablets of stone for mankind to follow, was anathema to the fascists.  They argued that such transcendence alienates human beings from nature and from themselves (i.e., from their own genuine choices).  The fascist intellectuals sought to forge a new spirituality of immanence, focused upon nature, on human emotions, and on the community.  The fascists sought to restore the ancient pre-Christian consciousness, the ancient mythic sensibility in the form of the land and the blood, in which individuals experience unity with nature, with each other, and with their own deepest impulses.

Gene Edward Veith in his book Modern Fascism: Liquidating the Judeo-Christian worldview writes:

The fascist rebellion against transcendence restored the ancient pagan consciousness.  With it came barbarism, a barbarism armed with modern technology and intellectual sophistication.  The liquidation of the transcendent moral law and “Jewish” conscience allowed the resurgence of the most primitive and destructive emotions, the unleashing of original sin (page 14).

Nietzsche argued that God is dead, and Hitler tried to finish Him off by eradicating the Jews.  What is less known is that he also planned to solve the “church problem” after the war.  Hitler himself  said:

“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” [From Hitler’s Tabletalk (December 1941), quoted in The Nazi Years: A Documentary History, ed. Joachim Remak, 1990, page 105].

Hitler boasted that “I have six divisions of SS composed of men absolutely indifferent in matters of religion.  It doesn’t prevent them from going to their deaths with serenity in their souls.”  And Himmler said, “Men who can’t divest themselves of manners of previous centuries, and scoff and sling mud at things which are ‘holy’ and matters of belief to others, once and for all do not belong in the SS.”

With the creed “God is dead” and the resulting “death of God,” Nietzsche predicted that energizing conflict and revolution would reemerge in a great wave of nihilism.  Human beings would continue to evolve, he said, nodding to Darwinism.  And man would ultimately give way to Superman.  And Nietzsche said that this Superman would not accept the anachronistic abstract, transcendental meanings imposed by disembodied Judeo-Christian rationalism or by a life-denying religion.  Rather, this Superman would CREATE meaning for himself and for the world as a whole.

The Superman, according to Nietzsche, would be an artist who could shape the human race – no longer bound by putrefying and stultifying and stupefying transcendence – to his will.  “Man is for him an un-form, a material, an ugly stone that needs a sculptor,” he wrote.  Such a statement did not merely anticipate the Darwinist-based Nazi eugenics movement.  It demonstrated how the exaltation of the human will could and would lead not to general liberty, as one might have expected, but to the control of the many by the elite — with those of the weaker in will being subjugated to the will of the Supermen.

Nietzsche’s new ethic became the rationale for all the Nazi atrocities that would follow.  As Nietzsche himself put it, “The weak and the failures shall perish: the first principle of OUR love of man.  And they shall even be given every possible assistance.  What is more harmful than any vice? Active pity for all the failures and the weak: Christianity” (in “The Anti-Christ” in Portable Nietzsche, p. 570).  We see here also the exemplification of yet another legacy left behind by Nietzsche that was picked up by the Nazi and afterward by secular humanist atheists today: the Nietzschean attitude of flippant, sarcastic contempt for all the ordinary human values that had resulted from Judeo-Christianity.

One of the ordinary human values that had resulted from Judeo-Christianity was the fundamental sanctity of human life.  But the Nazis had their own concept – Lebensunwertes Leben (“life unworthy of life”).  And nearly fifty million of the most innocent and helpless human beings have perished as a result of an existentialist philosophy that survived the fall of the Nazis in liberal thought, which celebrates pro-existentialist “pro-choice” above human life.

Nietzsche’s philosophy underlies the thought of all the later existentialists, and the darker implications of his thought proved impossible to ignore.

And Martin Heidegger, in his own personal choice to commit himself to National Socialism, did not ignore them.

There is more that needs to be understood.

Martin Heidegger invoked Nietzsche in his 1933 Rectoral Address, in his speech entitled, “The Self-Assertion of the German University,” in which he articulated his commitment to the integration of academia with National Socialism.  He began by asking, if Nietzsche is correct in saying that God is dead, what are the implications for knowledge?

As Heidegger explained, if God is dead, there is no longer a transcendent authority or reference point for objective truth.  Whereas classical thought, exemplified by the Greeks, could confidently search for objective truth, today, after the death of God, truth becomes intrinsically “hidden and uncertain.”  Today the process of questioning is “no longer a preliminary step that is surmounted on the way to the answer and thus to knowing; rather, questioning itself becomes the highest form of knowing.”

Heidegger’s conclusion became accepted to the point of becoming a commonplace of contemporary liberal thought: that knowledge is a matter of process, not content.  With the death of God, there is no longer any set of absolutes or abstract ideals by which existence must be ordered.  Such “essentialism” is an illusion; and knowledge in the sense of objective, absolute truth must be challenged.  The scholar is not one who knows or searches for some absolute truth, but the one who questions everything that pretends to be true.

Again, one would think that such a skeptical methodology would be highly incompatible with fascism, with its practice of subjecting people to an absolute human authority.  And yet this betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of fascism.  In fact, Heidegger’s Rectoral Address was warmly endorsed by the National Socialists for a very good reason: the fascists saw themselves as iconoclasts, interrogating the old order and boldly challenging all transcendent absolutes.

We find that in this same address in which Heidegger asserts that “questioning itself becomes the highest form of knowing,” Heidegger went on to advocate expelling academic freedom from the university:

“To give oneself the law is the highest freedom.  The much-lauded ‘academic freedom’ will be expelled from the university.”

Heidegger argued that the traditional canons of academic freedom were not genuine but only negative, encouraging “lack of concern” and “arbitrariness.”  Scholars must become unified with each other and devote themselves to service.  In doing so, he stated, “the concept of the freedom of German students is now brought back to it’s truth.”

Now, the claim that freedom would somehow emerge when academic freedom is eliminated might be sophistry of the worst kind, but it is not mere rhetorical doublespeak.  Why?  Because Heidegger was speaking existentially, calling not for blind obedience, but for a genuine commitment of the will.  Freedom was preserved because “to give oneself the law” was a voluntary, freely chosen commitment.  Academic freedom as the disinterested pursuit of truth shows “arbitrariness,” parking of the old essentialist view that truth is objective and transcendent.  The essentialist scholar is detached and disengaged, showing “lack of concern,” missing the sense in which truth is ultimately personal, a matter of the will, demanding personal responsibility and choice.  In the new order, the scholar will be fully engaged in service to the community.  Academic freedom is alienating, a function of the old commitment to moral and intellectual absolutes.

And what this meant in practice could be seen in the Bavarian Minister of Culture’s directive to professors in Munich, that they were no longer to determine whether something “is true, but whether it is in keeping with the direction of the National Socialist revolution” (Hans Schemm, quoted in Hermann Glaser, The Cultural Roots of National Socialism, tr. Ernest A. Menze, 1978, p. 99).

I point all of the above out to now say that it is happening all over again, by intellectuals who unknowingly share most of the same tenets that made the horror possible the last time.

We live in a time and in a country in which the all-too modern left has virtually purged the university of conservatives and conservative thought.  This is simply a fact that is routinely confirmed.  And as a mater of routine, conservative speakers need not apply at universities.  If they are actually invited to speak, they are frequently shouted down by a relative few liberal activists.  And leftwing censorship is commonplace.  Free speech is largely gone, in a process that simply quashes unwanted views.  We have a process today in which a professor who is himself employing fascist tactics calls a student “a fascist bastard.”  And why did he do so?  Because the student gave a speech in a speech class choosing a side on a topic that the professor did not like.

We live in a society in which too many of our judges have despised a system of objective laws from an objective Constitution and have imposed their own will upon both.  Judicial activist judges have largely driven transcendent religion and the transcendent God who gives objective moral laws out of the public sphere.

Today, we live in a society that will not post the Ten Commandments – the epitome of transcendent divinely-ordained moral law – in public schools.  And why not?  Because judges ruled that:

“If the posted copies of the Ten Commandments are to have any effect at all, it will be to induce the schoolchildren to read, meditate upon, perhaps to venerate and obey, the Commandments,” which, the Court said, is “not a permissible state objective under the Establishment Clause.”

One can only marvel that such justices so cynically debauched the thought of the founding fathers whose ideas they professed to be upholding.

Justices of the Supreme Court agreed with this fallacious ruling even as the figure of Moses holding the Ten Commandments rules atop the very building in which they betrayed our nation’s founding principles.

And thus the left has stripped the United States of America bare of transcendent moral law, just as their intellectual forebears did prior to WWII in Nazi Germany.   And thus the intellectual left has largely stripped the United States of America from free debate within academia largely by pursuing the same line of reasoning that Nazi philosopher Martin Heidegger employed to do the same in Nazi Germany.  We saw this very feature evidenced by leftist scientists who threw aside their scientific ethics in order to purge climatologists who came to a different conclusion.

The climate that led to fascism and to Nazism in Germany did not occur overnight, even though the final plunge may have appeared to be such to an uninformed observer.  It occurred over a period of a half a dozen decades or so, with the transcendent and objective moral foundations having been systematically torn away.  And after that degree of cancer had been reached, it only took the right leader or the right event to plunge the world into madness.

Philadelphia: Liberal Judge Removes GOP Poll Watchers While lack Black Panthers Intimidate Voters

Philadelphia was the birthplace of freedom in this nation, given that the Declaration of Independence was signed there.  But things have a way of coming full circle when one reads history, and it is happening again:  the birthplace of freedom is proving to be the dying place, as well.

We can start with a liberal judge removing GOP Election Board members from “at least” half a dozen polling locations.  As Amanda Carpenter reports, “A Pennsylvania judge previously ruled that court-appointed poll watchers could be NOT removed from their boards by an on-site election judge, but that is exactly what is happening, according to sources on the ground.”

Denying access to the minority (in this case Republican) poll watchers and inspectors is a violation of Pennsylvania state law. Those who violate the law can be punished with a misdemeanor and subjected to a fine of $1,000 and sent to prison between one month and two years.

But in this case, that would only happen if one liberal judge put another one in jail.  Don’t hold your breath.

What is most frightening of all was the judge’s justification for removing Republicans:

A liberal judge previously ruled that court-appointed Republican poll watchers could be removed from their boards by an on-site election judge, citing their “minority” status as cause.

This along with the fact that the Democratic Ohio Secretary of State had to be ordered to verify voter registrations after huge numbers of falsified registrations turned up in the process.  Rather than do her duty, and basically do her job, Jennifer Brunner instead found a “better judge” to overturn the ruling of the first.

The official corruption, the court orders that enable voter fraud, the looking the other so the mice can play, is truly frightening.

ACORN (which is deemed “non partisan” when it comes to getting $126 MILLION in government funding but is as partisan as hell when it comes to putting itself behind Democrats) is being investigated for voter fraud in at least 22 states.  And, strangely, all the states in which fraud keeps being found are all battleground states, where a few thousand votes (or even just a few votes) could decide the election.

Our judges are corrupt.  They are using their power to open the field for Democratic corruption.  That is a truly terrifying thing.  Given the corruption of our judges and of our media, it is “GAME OVER” for our democracy.

Meanwhile, while all this corruption is going on, while judges allow liberals to commandeer the premises in vital polling places so that Democrats can start running bogus ballots through the machines, we’ve also got this:

BLACK PANTHERS WITH NIGHT STICKS BLOCK POLLING PLACE IN PHILLY

Two black panthers were blocking the doorway at a polling place in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Rick Levanthal of Fox News is reporting live.

One of the panthers said “the black man was going to win the White House no matter what.”

Brandishing a night stick, and swinging it menacingly, the police were called – one of the black panthers and his night stick were moved.

Do you think little old white ladies would want to walk past the black panther with a night stick?

That story continues:

Leventhal interviewed a Republican poll observer who offered details of how he approached the entrance to the polling location — what appeared to be a multi-family apartment building — only to see the men “close ranks” in an attempt to stop him from entering.  Describing himself as an Army veteran, he said he was not afraid of the nightstick-wielding men and proceeded to walk between them and into the polling place to talk with officials inside.

A few minutes later, he said, he exited through the same doorway, was confronted by the men with the nightsticks and told them he wasn’t going to get into a fist fight with them.  After walking away, he called police and they ordered the most aggressive man to leave the polling location.

It’s at least getting a little bit of legitimate news coverage (youtube video).  A man with a camera and a couple of questions confronted the uniformed, billy-club weilding black panthers (youtube video).

In this world-turned-upside-down, it’s okay to be a member of a radical leftist organization with a violent past standing in front of a polling location intimidating voters; it is NOT okay to be a Republican poll watcher conducting lawful obversation and trying to keep the process honest.

This nation is heading for a disaster.  It is only a matter of time.

Of Homosexual Marriage And Teachers Unions

Proposition 8 is a big deal in the State of California.  The only political issue getting more campaign funding than Proposition 8 is the Presidential election itself.  If passed, it would re-impose the view of marriage overwhelmingly passed by California voters with 61% of the vote in 2000.  If it fails, homosexual marriage – which was imposed by judges ignoring the landslide result of Proposition 22 – would pass by a vote of the people.

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom started the homosexual marriage ball rolling when – flouting the law he was supposed to uphold – he began to perform homosexual marriages.  Frankly Mayor Newsom should have been arrested and prosecuted.  And he would have been in any society that holds elected officials accountable to laws that other citizens are held accountable to.  Courts finally ordered him to stop, but homosexual couples waved their marriage licenses and sued.  And activist judges made homosexual marriage the law of the land by judicial fiat.

Proposition 8 – although currently slightly ahead in some polls – has faced an uphill battle, primarily because ultra-liberal Attorney General Jerry Brown re-worded the proposition to make it seem as intolerant and unpopular as he possibly could.  Rather than the statement,”only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California,” Brown imposed the harsher-sounding wording, “eliminates the right of same-sex couples to marry.”  People are far more in favor of “defining marriage” than they are “eliminating rights.”

One of the key issues is whether schools would begin teaching homosexual marriage to children.  The supporters of Prop 8 say YES; the opponents say it’s a flat lie.

An NPR article title has the right question: “If Gay Marriage Is Allowed, Will Schools Promote It?”

Other than the documented FACT that it has already happened in Massachusetts, where kids ARE indoctrinated into homosexual marriage and the courts have ruled, “public schools are not obliged to shield students from ideas which are potentially offensive to their parents,” there is another little issue to consider that should serve to prove that schools would promote homosexual marriage: namely, the fact that the California Teachers Union is the NUMBER ONE financial supporter against the Proposition 8 ban on gay marriage.

Ask yourself one question: if teachers don’t intend to teach homosexual marriage in California schools, then why in the hell do we have this:

California’s largest teacher’s union has given another $1 million to defeat a Nov. 4 ballot initiative that would ban same-sex marriage in the state.

The contribution recorded Tuesday makes the California Teachers Association the largest institutional donor to the No on 8 campaign. CTA also gave $250,000 in August to Equality for All, a coalition of gay advocacy and civil rights groups opposing Proposition 8.

They can’t WAIT to indoctrinate your little darlings into homosexual marriage.  They have proven complete failures at teaching children how to read, or solve simple math problems, but teaching your little boy that there’s nothing wrong with him being bent over and sodomized is another issue entirely.  They think they’d actually be pretty doggone good at teaching that.

The education “professionals” who say that California schools would not be required to teach homosexual marriage are incredibly deceptive.  In fact, schools wouldn’t have to teach homosexual marriage if and only if schools didn’t teach sex education.  It is technically true that sex education is a curriculum choice for local schools (Cal. Ed. Code 51933).  But the simple fact of the matter is that almost EVERY school teaches sex education.  And IF a local school district teaches sex education, THEN it falls under the rule that “instruction and materials shall teach respect for marriage and committed relationships” (Cal Ed. Code 51933(a)(7)).  And that would mean teaching homosexual marriages if homosexual marriage is legal.

AND OH MY GAWD, THEY’RE ALREADY DOING IT!!!

If you DON’T think teachers are rubbing their hands in glee at the prospect of teaching sodomy to your children, then you get to explain why they are so massively funding the political campaign.

The second thing I keep hearing is, this is a human rights issue.  Well, no it isn’t.  Marriage is a privilege, not a right.  If marriage WERE a fundamental human right, then the government – which has the duty of guaranteeing human rights – would have to find me a marriage partner if I couldn’t find one myself.  After all, I have a right to be married! And if I have the right to marry who I choose, then I choose Teri Hatcher (whom I’ve always thought is real pretty).

Getting serious, if a person has a right to marry whoever he or she chooses, then how is a pedophile not having his right deprived if he wants to marry that little boy the schools got hold of and taught that it was okay to bend over and be sodomized?  What about the right of pedophiles to marry who they choose?  Isn’t age as subjective a criteria as gender?  The North American Man/Boy Love Association says they should have that right, and the same ACLU that supports gay marriage has supported NAMBLA.  NAMBLA has resolved to “end the oppression of men and boys who have freely chosen mutually consenting relationships.”  The Man/Boy Love Association belonged to the International Lesbian and Gay Association until the latter achieved United Nations status and had to dissociate itself from NAMBLA.   But the UN-approved ILGA had itself resolved that “young people have the right to sexual and social self-determination and that age of consent laws often operate to oppress and not to protect.”  How do you allow homosexual marriage and ban man/boy marriage?  What about that weird woman who wants to marry her German Shepherd that keeps trying to hump peoples’ legs?  What about that religious cult that wants to marry off a whole bunch of young girls to some 50 year old dude? What about that swinging group of 15 men and women who want to marry one another and move next door to you?

Teachers unions and schools have sided firmly with teachers and against children when sexual abuse has been alleged.  Schools routinely protect pedophile teachers by transferring them to other school districts.  The head of the National Education Association presided over the annual Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network conference which sought to push homosexual activism to kindergarten classrooms.

How do you decide to redefine the “one man, one woman” view of marriage that’s been around since Adam and Eve and hold the line at homosexual couples?  Legalizing homosexual marriage is just the tip of the iceberg, and justifying it will provide justification for all the rest.

The fact of the matter is, declaring that “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California” doesn’t take away homosexual’s right to marriage: a homosexual man can marry any woman who would have him.  Same as me.  Homosexuals’ rights aren’t being “taken away”; rather, they do not wish to have normal sexual relations with a member of the opposite sex, rather like the pedophiles who do not wish to have normal sexual relations with an adult of the opposite sex.  That’s hardly my fault.  So don’t force me to sanctify this “Adam and Steve” thing.

I now understand why teachers are so pathetic at actually teaching children how to learn: they are moral idiots.  They don’t understand fundamental human realities.  They are ideologues who don’t even know how to think themselves, and therefore cannot possibly teach children how to think for themselves.  Obviously this frank damnation of teachers doesn’t extend to every individual teacher; but the fact remains that there are enough ideologues in the field of teaching to instill radical union leadership.

Sadly,  I’m really not exaggerating: teachers are being trained as “agents of change” who “question the legitimacy of a flawed social order.”