Of the sons of Issachar, men who understood the times, with knowledge of what Israel should do, their chiefs were two hundred; and all their kinsmen were at their command — 1 Chronicles 12:32
They say a picture is worth a thousand words. And in this case it’s true: because this one picture describes EVERYTHING you need to know as you vote in the general election after the primary circus is over:
There is actually a political party today – the Democrat Party – that widely believes that viciously punching people in the face merely because they went to a political rally and supported a major political candidate at that rally – are good, decent, tolerant people.
When ONE Donald Trump supporter punched a fascist free-speech hater who decided that Donald Trump didn’t have the right to speak and thousands of supporters didn’t have the right to hear him speak, hundreds if not thousands of “journalists” IMMEDIATELY held Donald Trump personally accountable for the actions of that one man. But THOUSANDS of leftist thugs have been organized and literally bussed in to violently protest free speech political rallies and suddenly nobody is responsible in an amazing act of last-days stunning moral hypocrisy.
“His rhetoric, his demagoguery, his trafficking, his prejudice and paranoia has no place in our political system.” Hillary Clinton, of Donald Trump
Hillary was then asked to elaborate on Donald’s character, and she completely tore Donald apart! “I think it’s un-American. I think what he has promoted is not at all in keeping with American values. I’m going to take every opportunity to criticize him, to raise those issues. I’m not going to engage in the kind of language that he uses,” she explained.
Let me get this straight: YOU’RE NOT GOING TO ENGAGE IN THE KIND OF LANGUAGE HE USES???? WELL WHAT THE HELL KIND OF LANGUAGE ARE YOU USING!!!???
Doesn’t that “hateful rhetoric” inflame the left? Very clearly it DOES: BECAUSE THEY KEEP SHOWING UP AND ACTING VIOLENTLY AT TRUMP RALLIES, DON’T THEY???
This is merely something called “the truth.” This is merely something called “a FACT,” which I know already has the legions of demons inhabiting every single Democrat soul squirming and twitching. How many times has Donald Trump incited his supporters to go to a Hispanic event, or a Muslim event, or a Democrat Party event, etc., etc., and violently disrupt it? The answer is ZERO. And yet DOZENS OF TIMES NOW Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have incited vile, venomous, vicious VIOLENCE against Donald Trump and his supporters at rallies as they demonstrate again and again and again their Stalinist contempt for free speech and the right of the American people to hear all sides of a debate without stormtrooper Nazi THUGS showing up to scream them down and in fact BEAT them down.
I’ve defined this term multiple times, but let us examine again “political correctness” and see how it works:
Political correctness is not just a leftist way to make overly-sensitive people feel better. It was designed by early Marxists in Russia and the left continues to execute the Orwellian tactic today: if you can control words, you can control thought; if you can control thought, you can control actions. “PC” is an enormous, sophisticated and highly-coordinated effort by elitist intellectuals to “fundamentally transform” Western culture as we know it by redefining it – by shaping the “acceptable” language people are allowed to use – and thereby dictating the parameters of cultural arguments. And people with incredibly radical agendas have been exploiting this tactic for decades and it has succeeded.
“Let’s give up on academic freedom in favor of justice,” states the subtitle of her Feb. 18 column, in which she insists Harvard stop guaranteeing students and professors the right to hold controversial views and conduct research putting liberalism in a negative light.
“If our university community opposes racism, sexism, and heterosexism, why should we put up with research that counters our goals?”
“It is tempting to decry frustrating restrictions on academic research as violations of academic freedom. Yet I would encourage student and worker organizers to instead use a framework of justice. After all, if we give up our obsessive reliance on the doctrine of academic freedom, we can consider more thoughtfully what is just.”
WHOSE “justice”???? OURS and ONLY ours. And the ends justifies the means. And my side can scream you down and even BEAT you down. While YOUR side doesn’t even have the right to complain about it.
Basically, all YOUR organizations that say anything I don’t like and I refuse to tolerate are “hateful.” So I can demonize you and even physically attack you merely for supporting something I don’t like. But meanwhile, all MY organizations are totally off limits to you. So if you say anything “conservative” about illegal immigration, if you say anything “Christian” about abortion, if you say anything “pro-national security” about the very real phenomena of Islamic terrorism, I have not only the right but even the duty to demonize you and yes, even physically attack you and the ends justifies the means as I stop you from even exercising the right to speak.
According to the Democrat Party today, free speech ought to be crushed in the gears of leftist political correctness and the Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders big government combine harvester machine.
It’s remarkable. Under the thug dictator regime of Barack Hussein Obama, it is the official position of the “United States,” under the Democrat Party, it is the political position of the Party, under the leftist administrations of most colleges and universities, under Hollywood, it is the doctrinaire propaganda position of virtually every actor and every movie or TV program… to demonize one group of people while simultaneously claiming that even speech directed at your side is “hate.” The last time we saw this was in a place called Nazi Germany, where every single aspect of a depraved culture was directed at one group of people. And every act of violence against that group of people was excused, if not condoned, if not outright celebrated.
And so here we are yet again this time in California as Democrats attack the Constitution and its guarantee of protecting freedom of speech:
COSTA MESA, Calif. (AP) — Raucous protesters of Donald Trump took to the streets in California in violent demonstrations leading to 17 arrests as the Republican presidential contender brought his campaign to conservative Orange County.
While Trump held a rally at a fairgrounds amphitheater, dozens waved anti-Trump signs outside in mostly peaceful protests and traded insults with masses of the candidate’s supporters who had lined up to see him. Later in the evening, however, the protests swelled and grew rowdy and spilled into the streets.
One Trump supporter had his face bloodied in a scuffle as he tried to drive out of the arena. One man jumped on a police car, leaving its front and rear windows smashed and the top dented and other protesters sprayed graffiti on a police car and the Pacific Amphitheatre’s marquee.
Dozens of cars — including those of Trump supporters trying to leave — were stuck in the street as several hundred demonstrators blocked the road, waved Mexican flags and posed for selfies. Some protesters badgered Trump’s fans as they walked to their cars in the parking lot.
Police in riot gear and on horseback pushed the crowd back and away from the venue. There were no major injuries and police did not use any force. The crowd began dispersing about three hours after the speech ended.
Seventeen people were arrested, said Costa Mesa police Sgt. Mike Manson.
Earlier in the evening, a half-dozen anti-Trump protesters taunted those waiting to get into the venue. Trump supporters surrounded one man who waved a Mexican flag and shouted “Build that wall! Build that wall!” — a reference to Trump’s call to create a barrier between the United States and Mexico to stop illegal border crossings.
At one point, seven shirtless women wearing Bernie Sanders stickers over their breasts entered the square outside the amphitheater. They said they were protesting Trump’s lack of engagement on issues of gender equality and women’s rights.
“I feel like he wants to make America great again, but certainly not for women, for the LBGTQ community or for the lower class,” said one of the women, Tiernan Hebron, referencing the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community. “He has, like, done nothing to help with gender equality or women’s rights or reproductive rights or anything.”
Trump has drawn large crowds across the country as he has campaigned for the White House and some of his events have been marred by protests and scuffles. The Pacific Amphitheatre was filled to its capacity of about 8,000 and a couple thousand more were turned away, said Orange County Sheriff’s Lt. Mark Stichter.
Earlier this week, a Trump rally in nearby Anaheim turned contentious when his supporters and protesters clashed, and several people were hit by pepper spray. Trump was not present.
Ly Kou, 47, of Ontario, said she likes Trump because he has vowed to put the country first.
“It’s obvious that America loves Trump,” said Kou, who is from Laos, as she pointed at the waiting throng. “This thing about him being racist? Look around the crowd.”
Trump was traveling from the rally site to the state’s Republican convention in Burlington in the San Francisco Bay area.
Thousands of supporters have turned out for Donald Trump as the Republican presidential brought his campaign to Southern California, predictably sparking shouting matches with counter-demonstrators.
Heated words were exchanged after people wearing expletive-laden anti-Trump shirts began to taunt people waiting in line to attend Trump’s speech in an amphitheater at the Orange County Fairgrounds in Costa Mesa…
9:40 p.m.
Six people are being evaluated by emergency medical crews after an envelope containing a white powdery substance was mailed to a Donald Trump campaign office in New York City.
Emergency crews were called to Trump Tower in Manhattan around 8 p.m. Thursday.
Police say a Trump staffer opened the letter containing the powder and immediately called police. It was unclear if the envelope also contained a letter.
The six people who were isolated and evaluated at the scene included five Trump staffers and a police officer who responded to the call.
In March, an envelope containing a non-hazardous white power and a threatening letter was sent to the Manhattan apartment of Donald Trump’s son, Eric.
One Trump supporter was punched in the back of the head after confronting a group of protesters. After engaging in some heated rhetoric with the group, the man, who was wearing a “Make America great again” hat, turned to walk away when a protester in a black hoodie punched him a few times as other protesters yelled at the assailant to stop. The Trump supporter made his way to a barricade, after a great deal of pushing and shoving, and was escorted by police into the hotel.
I didn’t see or hear “other protestors” yelling at the man to stop. But without any question nobody stopped the thug from beating a man guilty of the First Amendment and therefore worthy of being physically beaten because he believed in the First Amendment. And the Nazi Democrat who conducted that beating was not arrested.
Trump supporters are being physically attacked, having eggs thrown at them, spat upon. by Nazis otherwise known as “Democrats.” Welcome, New Jews, to rabid Democrat Party Nazi-style hate. The “protestors” are also throwing eggs at police who are trying to maintain order as Nazis try to physically and violently stop people from exercising their First Amendment freedoms.
Donald Trump’s Secret Service detail and private bodyguards had the last laugh on Friday as hundreds of protesters swarmed at the front of a San Francisco airport hotel trying to block him from coming in for a speech at the state Republican Party’s annual convention.
Instead of partnering with uniformed police in riot shields trying to push the hordes back, they did a law-enforcement head fake – leading the billionaire across a grass highway median and in a back-door loading dock at the Hyatt Regency hotel in the suburb of Burlingame.
The move left Trump feeling ‘like I was crossing the border, actually.’
When Hillary Clinton has to crawl under a chain-link fence on her belly to get to an event to speak because thug conservatives are determined to stop her using whatever violence is necessary, that will be funny. Right now, it is proof of something truly demonic having taken over the entire Democrat Party and everything the Democrat Party stands for.
There is one political party and ONLY one political party that is truly EVIL.
As Adolf Hitler and his Nazi Party rose to power, he had his Sturmabteilung, his SA, his Brownshirts, who:
would march in Nazi rallies, assault political opponents, and intimidate voters during elections.
And now we’re seeing them again from the thug ranks of the Democrat Party.
And this naked, liquid hate is happening at virtually every Trump event as outright Nazi thugs show up to support their Democrat Party in an open war against the Constitution of the United States of America.
I simply mock liberals because to be a liberal is to be such an appalling, abject moral hypocrite it is beyond UNREAL to the point of padded-cell-straitjacket-hysterical-demented-psychosis.
As a result of the political correctness that I above defined and showed examples of, this culture has become NAZIFIED.
Democrats are demon-possessed people, and all we have to do is examine the fruits of these Nazi Brownshirts, these Stalinist Commissars, who thuggishly attack people for exercising First Amendment rights that until now every American used to deem sacred.
Democrats are demon-possessed people, and all we have to do is examine the fruits of these baby killers who are TEN TIMES MORE MURDEROUS than the Nazis when it comes to denying basic, fundamental humanity and then butchering human life on a scale never before seen in all of human history. Because every child is human by virtue of its parents and a being by virtue of the simple fact that it exists: IT IS A HUMAN BEING. That precious little soul that every single Democrat has personally participated in murdering SIXTY MILLION TIMES OVER since 1973 is according to the taxonomic system that has classified every single living thing that has ever existed: That “fetus” (which is merely Latin for “baby” by the way, if you merely look at the ORIGIN of the word: Origin of Fetus: “Middle English, from Latin, act of bearing young, offspring; akin to Latin fetus newly delivered, fruitful“) is classified as follows: Kingdom-Animal; Phylum-Chordata; Class-Mammalia; Order-Primate; Family-Hominid; Genus-Homo; and Species-Sapiens. Homo Sapiens, just like EVERY human being made in the image of God which every single Democrat Party member on earth is guilty of murdering.
Democrats are demon-possessed people, and all we have to do is examine the fruits of these sodomy-worshiping depraved perverts, sexually twisted perverts who exalt “lifestyles” that are not only immoral and utterly depraved according to every major religious tradition and in fact to all of human history prior to this time the Bible prophetically called “the last days,” but even according to the Darwinian evolution they claim to believe in as “science.” Because Darwinian evolution very clearly tells us that homosexuality is a biological dead-end for a species every bit as much as the Bible tells us it is the most depraved path to hell and eternal destruction.
The Bible that corrupt, dishonest, demonic, heretic Democrats like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama claim to follow couldn’t be more crystal clear about the vile “lifestyles” they have blasphemously enshrined in our soon-to-be-destroyed culture:
The New Testament says that homosexuality is a “shameful lust” (Romans 1:26), a “shameful act,” an abandonment of “natural relations” (Romans 1:27), a “wrongdoing” (1 Corinthians 6:9), and “sexual immorality and perversion” (Jude 1:7). Homosexuality carries a “due penalty” (Romans 1:27), “is contrary to the sound doctrine” (1 Timothy 1:10), and is listed among the sins that bar people from the kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6:9). Despite the attempts of some to downplay these verses, the Bible could not be clearer that homosexuality is a sin against God.
Homosexuality is not the cause of a society’s decline, but it is a symptom of it; it is the result of people making themselves the final authorities. Romans 1 gives the natural digression of a society that has chosen idolatry and sinful pleasure instead of obedience to God. The downward spiral begins with denying that God has absolute authority over His creation (Romans 1:21–23).
The result of a society’s rejection of God’s rule in their lives is that God gives “them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator” (Romans 1:24–25). Verses 26 and 27 say, “Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.” The phrase “God gave them over” means that when we insist on shaking our fists at God, He finally lets us have the perversion we demand. And that is a judgment in itself. Homosexual behavior is the result of ignoring God and trying to create our own truth. When we defy God’s clear instruction, we reap the “due penalty” of our disobedience (2 Thessalonians 1:8–9; Revelation 21:8).
What the wicked, vile Democrats teach is NOT ONLY anathema to Christianity, to Islam, to every major religion on the face of the earth, and to every single culture that ever existed in the entire history of the human race before our end-times, last-days, terminal generation, it is ALSO anathema to the very “science” the left claims to embrace:
Natural selection is the process by which individuals with characteristics that are advantageous for reproduction in a specific environment leave more offspring in the next generation, thereby increasing the proportion of their genes in the population gene pool over time. Natural selection is the principal mechanism of evolutionary change, and is the most important idea in all biology. Natural selection, the unifying concept of life, was first proposed by Charles Darwin, and represents his single greatest contribution to science.
If homosexuality and feminism aren’t Darwinian dead-ends, then “science” is either a monkey or just a naked liberal fool throwing his feces at a wall and declaring “scientific” whatever happens to stick.
Today, we are seeing a Democrat Party that has embraced the worst kind of Nazi Brownshirt tactics. We are seeing the embrace of a Marxist ideological tactic having Nazified our society as Democrats define themselves as pure and their opponents as foul and embrace the ends-justifies-the-means to destroy everything our Constitution enshrined to impose themselves. We see a mainstream media propaganda machine that exemplifies Joseph Goebbels’ Ministry of Propaganda refuse to cover the actual facts.
And I will crawl over broken glass to vote. Even if I have to go through a gauntlet of Democrat Party Nazi thugs to do so.
If I sound furious, it is because I am FURIOUS. We have watched the Party of Lies, the Party of Satan, take over America and it may be too late to change course now from the “God damn America” that Barack Obama and the Democrat Party have “fundamentally transformed America” into.
The essence of fascists is that they must lead the stupid sheep to pasture and they often have to lead the stupid animals by deception.
Democrats are tied with “the most pathologically dishonest people who ever existed.” Because you can be AS dishonest as a Democrat, but it is impossible to be MORE dishonest.
Let us listen to the true voice of fascist liberal arrogance:
The tape, played on Fox News’ “The Kelly File,” showed Gruber speaking at an October 2013 event at Washington University in St. Louis.
Referring to the so-called “Cadillac tax” on high-end health plans, he said: “They proposed it and that passed, because the American people are too stupid to understand the difference.”
Gruber specifically was referring to the way the “Cadillac tax” was designed — he touted their plan to, instead of taxing policy holders, tax the insurance companies that offered them. He suggested that taxing individuals would have been politically unpalatable, but taxing the companies worked because Americans didn’t understand the difference.
And ObamaCare architect Jonathan Gruber in a different speech:
This is similar to remarks he made at a separate event around the same time in 2013. In a clip of that event, Gruber said the “lack of transparency” in the way the law was crafted was critical. “Basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical for the thing to pass,” he said.
Did Gruber do this twice? Nope; he did it at least three times (and probably many more):
A third clip of Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber has emerged, this time of the MIT professor speaking to a University of Rhode Island crowd in 2012 about the health care law’s so-called “Cadillac tax” — and bragging at the utter inability of the American people to comprehend its complexities.
The “Cadillac tax” requires that insurance companies, not individual policy holders, pay the difference between higher- and lower-cost packages — a plan that was pushed into realization by then-Sen. John Kerry, Mr. Gruber said, Fox News reported.
Mr. Gruber then said that a tax on individuals would have been “politically impossible” — but that a tax on companies would prove palatable to voters, mostly because they didn’t understand.
His comments, Fox News reported: “So basically, it’s the same thing. We just tax the insurance companies, they pass on higher prices that offsets the tax break we get, it ends up being the same thing. It’s very clever, you know, basic exploitation of the lack of economic understanding of the American voter.”
These audio comments followed a clip that was played on Fox News’ “The Kelly File” on Tuesday evening that showed Mr. Gruber speaking at Washington University in St. Louis about the same “Cadillac tax” and saying it passed “because the American people are too stupid to understand the difference.”
And before that, another clip made the media rounds of Mr. Gruber saying at a different event in 2013 that Obamacare passed due in large part to its “lack of transparency.”
His widely reported comments: “Basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical for the thing to pass.”
Mr. Gruber has since expressed regret on national television for his comments. But critics of Obamacare say his remarks only prove what many on the left really believe about Americans.
“It confirms people’s greatest fear about the government,” Sen. John Barrasso, Fox News reported. “Remember, it was Nancy Pelosi who said first you have to pass [Obamacare] before you get to find out what’s in it.”
And yes, I know when I said “fascist liberal” I was employing a tautology and saying the same thing twice in a slightly different way. You know, like the heart of liberal Darwinism’s “survival of the fittest,” where the “fittest” are defined as “the ones who survive.” Because “fascism” survived as “liberalism.” And one is as pathologically dishonest as the other.
Democrats are like the people who come up to you with a story to get money. and you give them money because you buy their pathetic story. And they walk away with your money mocking you for a stupid idiot because you were actually stupid enough to believe them.
And Democrats are nothing but liars and horrible demon-possessed people. So you actually MUSTbe truly stupid to believe them.
“Democrat.” It sounds good, right? You know, it sounds like somebody who cares about the will and the voice of the people.
Bullcrap. Democrats have naked CONTEMPT for the will and the voice of the people. The people are obstacles, they are pathetically stupid sheep who must be deceived in order to be hauled off to the slaughtering pen.
After the first tape surfaced — prompting Republican outrage — Gruber went on MSNBC to express regret. On Tuesday, he said: “I was speaking off the cuff and I basically spoke inappropriately, and I regret having made those comments.”
But after Fox News played the second tape, GOP lawmakers said it proves what they’ve been saying all along.
Jonathon Gruber went on MSNBC rather than on Fox News because if he’d gone on the air with Megyn Kelly it would have taken about twenty seconds for everyone to know which one of those two was the “stupid” one. He knows he has to go to the channel that only STUPID PEOPLE WATCH in order to sell his patent lies.
The “stupid people” are Democrats. It’s not Republicans that are idiot enough to watch MSNBC. It’s the Nazi faithful who follow their Führer and await his next message from his bunker (and I don’t give a damn if you call it “the Führerbunker” or “the White House.” Because it’s the same place by a different name under this “president.”
PELOSI: We’re not finished getting all of our reports back from CBO, but we’ll have a side by side to compare. But our bill brings down rates. I don’t know if you have seen Jonathan Gruber of MIT’s analysis of what the comparison is to the status quo versus what will happen in our bill for those who seek insurance within the exchange. And our bill takes down those costs, even some now, and much less preventing the upward spiral.
So again, we’re confident about what we set out to do in the bill: middle class affordability, security for our seniors, and accountability to our children.
Democratic Senate Minority Leader-elect Harry Reid called Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber “one of the most respected economists in the world” on the Senate floor during the 2009 push to pass Obamacare.
Lies and hypocrisy are the essence of Democrats. If you’re not a hypocrite and a liar, you’re not a Democrat. If you are a liar and a hypocrite, you are either a Democrat or a cockroach Nazi fascist by some other name crawling slithering around over some other part of planet earth. All you want is big totalitarian government to be imposed by any means necessary. But whether you’re an ISIS terrorist sawing people’s heads off or Barack Obama, if you are a Democrat you are somebody who views people as an obstacle who must either be exterminated, intimidated or lied to in order to get your way.
“NAZI” stood for “National Socialist German Workers Party.” And for the record, that party was the “German Workers Party” until Hitler got ahold of it. Because Satan is a socialist. It was HITLER who changed it to the National Socialist German Workers Party so that the world could better experience the hell of socialism after the communists gave us the first taste of that wicked, ugly hell. Neither of those two groups were ever honest about their project, either. If there was a “National Socialist American Workers Party,” and you don’t believe that would be the damned DEMOCRAT Party, you are worse than a fool to be that kind of ignorant to be so morally idiotic to believe that it is conservatives and Republicans who want to make America “socialist.”
Who votes Democrat? BAD PEOPLE, that’s who. People who are selfish and greedy and vote to take the stuff that other people worked for by raw government force, just like the damned Nazis did when they looted other people’s wealth from them. And they do it the same way the Nazis did; by pitting groups against groups and arguing for instance that white people are thieves and don’t deserve what they have. Just like the Nazis argued their race-baiting lies that Jews were thieves and didn’t deserve what they have.
Let’s describe the people who vote Democrat:
First there are the welfare turds. We now have in America generations of families who have never worked – unless you define “work” by “making more babies” in order to collect a larger welfare check. We have now more “Americans” on welfare than ever before in history. Which, to put it in Obama campaign-slogan terms means, “Yes we CAN go on welfare and food stamps and join the massively growing Useless Class who do absolutely NOTHING to build America and absolutely EVERYTHING to help collapse it. 100% of this group who can get off their lazy butts long enough to cast a ballot vote “Democrat.” To wit: the Democrat Party literally purchased their vote.
Then there are the “working class.” But let’s define what that REALLY means: the UNION class. The UNION class – because let’s call them what they truly are – survive by “collective bargaining.” Because throughout history, good workers who actually produced a benefit for their employers have never had to worry about their jobs, but only the lazy, bitter, slacker “workers” were in jeopardy. The trick to “collective bargaining” has always been to lie (see this whole damned article as a “for example”) to decent workers and deceive them into supporting the lazy, useless slackers who would have otherwise been FIRED in any honest workplace. And once you get your union in, good luck trying to fire these turds. And yeah, most of them vote “Democrat,” too. Because socialist Democrats impose bureaucracies, laws, regulations and judges that make it impossible for employers to do anything but knuckle under to the blue lie agenda of unions and Democrats who alternately climb over each other’s backs to keep grabbing more and more and more share of the pie.
Then you’ve got your intellectual class who live in the ivory towers of the universities. They actually have a lot in common with the first two groups above; namely, they live off of other people and depend upon government policy for their largesse. The cost of colleges/universities has inflated FAR more than damned near anything else. Do you know why? Because it’s an industry that is subsidized by the government. Government keeps pumping out “student loans” and increasing the amount of student loans as the costs of education skyrocket. And so colleges and universities respond by further raising the costs of education – because the students (another group of “stupid people” fwiw) – backed by more and more loan money that will put them in debt for DECADES – can “afford” higher tuition. And then higher tuition and higher tuition and higher tuition, ad infinitum.
A vote for the Democrat Party is a vote for education costs that you either can’t afford or decide to become a debt-slave to the government for decades to come in order to be able to afford.
And so if you are a “professor” what you really are is a pig with your snout shoved up past your ears into the trough of government socialism.
Your whole way of life depends on it.
And you therefore keep spewing and pumping out propaganda to keep the system flowing so it will keep pouring more of other people’s money into your pig trough. And you vote Democrat, of course. Because the Democrat Party is the Party of Pig Troughs.
What you find is that the Koch Brothers – the face of the evil Filthy Rich Republican – aren’t even ON the list of the top fifty donors. But a whole lot of Filthy Rich LIBERALS sure are.
There’s a passage from Burton Folsom Jr.’s book, New Deal or Raw Deal that comes closer to framing the essence of FDR’s New Deal in a nutshell – and explaining why the Filthy Rich vote Democrat – than anything I can think of:
Let’s start with the New Deal’s effort to promote industrial recovery: the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA), which became law in 1933 and was soon shortened to the NRA. Of that act, Roosevelt said, “History will probably record the National Industrial Recovery Act as the most important and far-reaching legislation ever enacted by the American Congress.” The president was right: the NRA was revolutionary. It allowed American industrialists to collaborate to set the prices of their products, and even the wages and hours that went into making them. Leaders in all industries, from steel and coal to shoulder pads and dog food, were invited to sit down together and write “codes of fair competition” that would be binding on all producers in their industry. — page 41
This identical tactic was employed again and again in various components of the New Deal: the rich and the powerful were able to cozy up to the politicians and write the laws and regulations that enabled THEM to continue but suppressed their smaller competitors from being able to compete. In some ways, the brilliance of the scheme was its counter-intuitiveness: the Filthy Rich imposed regulations on themselves that made the cost of doing business dramatically higher. Because they could afford to pay those higher costs of complying with regulations but their smaller competitors could not.
And thus the Filthy Rich and the Democrat Party became bedfellows: the Democrats got the massive totalitarian fascist control they wanted and the Filthy Rich got to choke out their smaller competitors and retain supremacy.
That tactic is still used to this very day even as the Democrats slanderously demonize the other side as doing what THEY are the ones who do: they keep imposing more and more and more and more sweeping regulations which drive up the cost of doing business. The small business that would have competed with the bigger companies and corporations can’t afford to comply with the burdens; but the Filthy Rich just hire another regulatory compliance officer and keep sailing along, knowing that they can increase their prices and make the people pay because they have no competition to drive their profits down.
Let me tell you a secret the Democrat Party, their mainstream media propagandists and their pseudo-intellectual leftist professor class don’t want you to know:
Economic inequality in the US reaches levels not seen since Great Depression Wealth inequality in the US is reaching its most extreme point since just before the start of the Great Depression in 1929, according to a new economic analysis. Even the 1 percent are lagging behind the 0.01 percent.
Christian Science Monitor
By Henry Gass
November 10, 2014
It’s 2014, but when it comes to wealth inequality in the United States, it’s starting to look a lot like 1929.
In the late 1920s, the top 10 percent of Americans possessed 84 percent of the country’s wealth. Since then, wealth inequality in America has followed a U-shaped trajectory, declining through the Great Depression until the mid-1980s, then steadily increasing since then. Now, the richest Americans have a share of the country’s wealth almost big enough to rival those in the late 1920s, according to a new study
The study, from Emmanuel Saez of the University of California at Berkeley and Gabriel Zucman of the London School of Economics, uses a greater variety of sources to paint its picture of wealth inequality in the US than other recent analyses. […]
According to an analysis of data sourced through 2012 – including detailed data on personal income taxes and property tax – Professors Saez and Zucman found that the richest 0.1 percent of Americans have as much of the country’s wealth as the poorest 90 percent. Both groups control roughly 22 percent of total wealth, but while the average wealth of the bottom 90 percent is $84,000, the top 0.1 percent were comprised of 160,700 families with net assets above $20 million, according to their study.
An even closer look at their data has shown that while the growth of the American middle class has been restricted by modest income growth and soaring debt –thanks in large part to the 2008 mortgage crisis – the super-rich have been making significant gains in income and wealth.
While the bottom 90 percent of Americans and the top 0.1 percent control about 22 percent of the country’s wealth each, the top 0.01 percent of Americans now control 11.2 percent of total wealth. That share of the wealth held by the country’s richest 0.01 percent – a group of roughly 16,000 families with an average net worth of $371 million – is the largest share they’ve had since 1916, the highest on record, according to the study.
I think I’ve already explained why that is.
Keep in mind that for the first two years of Obama Democrats controlled the ENTIRE government. They passed EVERYTHING they wanted to pass and shoved it down the American peoples’ throats – lying as needed, we now know. Since then, they have held lock step control of the White House or the Führerbunker or whatever the hell Obama calls it when he’s not golfing, and the Senate under Democrat Harry Reid has blocked more Republican-House-passed bills and shut down more amendments than all previous Senate Majority Leaders in the entire history of the republic TIMES TWO.
But we’ve got two more giant lies from the party of the devil going on; namely, number one, that it’s somehow the Republican Party that is the “party of obstruction” when it’s the damn DEMOCRAT Party and number two that income inequality is the fault of Republicans when it has been the result of OBAMA’S vile FDR-esqe policies that have created this disaster.
Democrats – liars, remember – will tell you about “corporate welfare” and they’ll tell you about the big banks being given billions by Republicans. Just remember that Barack Obama voted for that deal that gave the banks billions in that bailout, that the Tea Party who are Obama’s primary conservative enemies opposed it fiercely and bitterly. If you’re a Lehman Brothers, or a Morgan Stanley or a JP Morgan or a Citigroup or a Goldman Sachs, well, you know who your Führer is. But, hey, you’re a Democrat, so you can always just LIE and blame what you did on your opponents, right?
Every single Democrat votes to crush the small businesses and therefore exalt the Filthy Rich. That is the malicious fascist evil of the Democrat Party tradition – and it has been thus for over eighty years.
If you don’t like exalting the Filthy Rich, support conservative Tea Party Republicans. Well, or else be a Democrat LIAR and lie about it being the fault of the other side who opposes the very thing you want to do and demonize them for doing.
I could add to these groups the people who despise America, the William Ayers and the Professor Ward Churchills and your Black Panther types. I could add the bitter race-baiters, I could add the people who want to divide America up by gender, or by all the other issues that these people want to divide America with. I could add the illegal immigrants who have no love for America or its ways but only want to come here to be able to exploit what others built. There are a lot of horrible, bad, warped, evil people who form the nucleus of the Democrat Party.
But let’s just stick with the three groups I discussed at greater length above, so you can contemplate the incredibly parasitical nature of the Democrat Party that is the party of leeches.
And realize that the quintessential tactic of this diseased party is to lie and lie and lie and then lie some more.
Because to the extent they aren’t truly “stupid,” they know that the American people are increasingly – since Democrats drove God out of this nation – become a bad people. And it is always the nature of bad people to prefer lies to the truth.
Don’t worry, Democrat. You’re safe. God knows YOU’VE never been one and never will be. The only thing you love more than homosexual sodomy is murdering babies – and you’ve murdered sixty million so far and counting.
When I was preparing for ministry, I had a vision that one day I would end up in prison for being a Christian.
That day is soon coming as several recent stories prove:
City officials in Coeur d’Alene Idaho have told a married couple who are both ordained ministers that they will go to jail if they refuse to perform wedding ceremonies for gay couples.
The Alliance for Defending Freedom has filed suit against the city and asked for a temporary restraining order to prevent officials from carrying out their threat.
Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys filed a federal lawsuit and a motion for a temporary restraining order Friday to stop officials in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, from forcing two ordained Christian ministers to perform wedding ceremonies for same-sex couples.
City officials told Donald Knapp that he and his wife Evelyn, both ordained ministers who run Hitching Post Wedding Chapel, are required to perform such ceremonies or face months in jail and/or thousands of dollars in fines. The city claims its “non-discrimination” ordinance requires the Knapps to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies now that the courts have overridden Idaho’s voter-approved constitutional amendment that affirmed marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
“The government should not force ordained ministers to act contrary to their faith under threat of jail time and criminal fines,” said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Jeremy Tedesco. “Many have denied that pastors would ever be forced to perform ceremonies that are completely at odds with their faith, but that’s what is happening here – and it’s happened this quickly. The city is on seriously flawed legal ground, and our lawsuit intends to ensure that this couple’s freedom to adhere to their own faith as pastors is protected just as the First Amendment intended.”
The couple would face 180 days in jail and up to $1000 in fines per day if they dared to adhere to their religious beliefs.
“The city somehow expects ordained pastors to flip a switch and turn off all faithfulness to their God and their vows,” explained ADF Legal Counsel Jonathan Scruggs. “The U.S. Constitution as well as federal and state law clearly stand against that. The city cannot mandate across-the-board conformity to its interpretation of a city ordinance in utter disregard for the guaranteed freedoms Americans treasure in our society.”
How many other towns and cities have statutes like this? No doubt there are other budding fascists out there who would enjoy putting Christian ministers in jail for not violating the sacred tenets of their faith.
This is a law that manifestly violates the Constitution so I wouldn’t expect any court in America to uphold the city statutue. But the fact that it was passed in the first place should raise the alarm that the assault on religious liberty has entered a new phase. The power of government is being used in the contraceptive controversey and now the gay marriage issue to force acceptance of practices totally at odds with the religious faith of millions of people.
Notice that these wicked cowards aren’t going into mosques and imposing homosexuality on them. I mean, where’s the left in forcing Islam to cater to their perversions? Their cowards and provably cowardly. But it’s open season on Christians, though.
Here’s another one, detailing the left’s demand for all records from church pastors as they conduct one of their Stalinist show trials:
Houston is home to one of NASA’s most sophisticated space centers — but even it would have trouble finding signs of intelligence in the local Mayor’s office. The city’s highest official is blowing past the First Amendment at warp speed — and lighting a political powder keg in the process.
After four years of forcing her extreme agenda on the city, Mayor Annise Parker may have finally picked a fight she’s bound to regret. Five months after bullying her way into a Houston-wide “bathroom bill,” Parker is furious that the city’s voters won’t roll over and accept it. Instead, America’s fourth-largest city fought back, gathering three times the number of signatures needed to put the issue on the ballot. Furious with local pastors for leading the pushback, Parker decided to get her revenge by ordering a Soviet-style crackdown on area churches.
In a story that’s spreading like wildfire, the Mayor had the nerve to subpoena pastors for their sermons, text messages, photographs, electronic files, calendars, and emails — “all communications with members of your congregation” on topics like homosexuality and gender identity. If she thought her religious “inquisition” would scare pastors, she’s got another thing coming. Local Christians are more outraged than ever, igniting a firestorm that could awaken a sleeping giant in churches from coast to coast. “We’re not intimidated at all,” said Rev. Dave Welch. “We’re not going to yield our First Amendment rights,” he warned — even if it ends in fines, confinement, or both.
The Mayor reportedly attempted to douse the flames a bit by saying the subpoena was the work of pro-bono lawyers and that she was not aware of it until yesterday. Then, she doubled down with a tweet: “If the 5 pastors used pulpits for politics, their sermons are fair game.”
In a conversation I had this afternoon with a handful of key pastors, it’s obvious that this is a fight they’re ready for. Pastor Steve Riggle, a friend of FRC’s, sees right through the Mayor’s agenda. “This is an attempt to chill pastors from speaking to the cultural issues of the day,” he told Fox News’s Todd Starnes. And if she doesn’t pull her attack dogs off the city’s churches, the joke will be on her. It just might end up being the most ingenious way of getting liberals into the pews yet! “Political and social commentary is not a crime. It is protected by the First Amendment,” Alliance Defending Freedom pointed out.
This is the “wall of separation” Jefferson talked about: protecting churches from the government (not the other way around). The Left is fond of misrepresenting the third President’s famous letter, but Annise Parker’s intrusion is exactly what the Founders were concerned about. But what did we expect in a country where four little letters — LGBT — are trumping the letter of the law? “Even in Houston,” Erick Erickson writes, “you will be made to care.”
Unfortunately, Houston is learning a hard lesson about the importance of elections. As frustrating as it is, this is what happens in a city where only 16 percent turn out to vote in the mayor’s race. For now, though, local churches have a message for the government: go ahead and monitor our sermons. You obviously need the messages more than most.
You can stand with Houston’s pastors by signing FRC’s petition to Mayor Annise Parker, asking her to support free speech for all people.
Another article points out the outrage that the left – pretty much the damned Democrat Party – is demanding:
Tranny tyranny. Strike that. “LGBT” tyranny. Lesbian, gay, bisexual tyranny. That, generally speaking, is what’s on display in Houston right now. But trust me: Unlike Vegas, what happens in Houston will, most definitely, not stay in Houston – not if Democrats continue to have their way.
Houstonians elected themselves, as mayor, an extremist lesbian Democrat (but I repeat myself). She quickly, and quite naturally, took to doing what extremist lesbian Democrats do. Annise Parker is her name, and spreading political Ebola is her game. That and trampling the U.S. Constitution. As you’ve likely heard, Parker’s office has illegally subpoenaed the sermons and privileged communications of a number of Christian pastors who vocally opposed the city’s ironically branded “Equal Rights Ordinance” (aka, the Houston Bathroom Bill).
More on that later. First, let’s scoot north-leftward for context.
Washington state, dateline 2012: Colleen is just like the girl next door. Well, sort of. Colleen has a penis. So, I guess, unless the girl next door has a penis, Coleen really isn’t much like her at all.
But that’s beside the point. In Washington you must, under penalty of law, pretend, along with Colleen and Democrats that, in the face of both reality and sanity, Colleen really is like the girl next door. This includes letting Colleen, who is actually a 47-year-old dude named Clay Scott Francis, lay naked and “sprawled out in a sauna exposing himself” to girls as young as 6 years old. This really happened in the ladies locker room at Evergreen State College.
It’s only fair, you see, because, as Clay, er, “Colleen,” complained, and as police agreed, this sick bastard was “discriminated against” when he was asked to leave on behalf of a terrorized 17-year-old girl. “This is not 1959 Alabama,” cried Francis. “We don’t call police for drinking from the wrong water fountain.”
Get that, my African-American friends? According to this beneficiary of “white privilege,” a man who, incidentally, identifies as a “transgender lesbian” (meaning he’s sexually attracted to females), to be told that you cannot sprawl naked and intentionally expose your manly bits to 6-year-old girls is no different from being relegated to a “colored only” water fountain.
Mayor Annise Parker and the larger Democratic Party agree. Ian Tuttle reports for National Review:
“Earlier this year Parker, a Democrat, spearheaded the passage of an ‘Equal Rights Ordinance’ (ERO) that added ‘sexual orientation’ and ‘gender identity’ to the city’s non-discrimination provision, which includes, among other things, ‘public accommodations’ – for example, restrooms. Citizens, among them church leaders, balked. They launched a referendum petition that, with the requisite 17,269 signatures, would require the city council to repeal the ERO, or to put the measure up for a vote. They obtained 55,000 signatures.
“The city secretary, who has sole responsibility for certifying such petitions, signed off.
“Enter Houston city attorney David Feldman, who, with no legal authority, disqualified 38,000 signatures. Names that were printed, rather than written in cursive, were discarded; names that were written in cursive were considered illegible – just enough names to get the petition below the 17,000-signature requirement, at which point the city council and Mayor Parker rejected it. And several citizens sued.
“But the city’s shenanigans had only just begun. Unsatisfied with violating the rights of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, the City of Houston has subpoenaed privileged communications of five pastors (none of them party to the lawsuit) who helped to organize the petition drive. Among other information, the city is requesting communications between the pastors and their attorneys pertaining to the ERO lawsuit, communications between the pastors and their congregants, and even the pastors’ sermons. …”
This, of course, is typical Democrat corruption, as well as a gross violation of the First Amendment’s free exercise clause – one of the worst we’ve seen to date. It is, unequivocally, “LGBT” tyranny.
And it’s rooted in madness.
Through the secular-“progressive” looking-glass, the term “sexual orientation” has, in a few short years, evolved to accommodate an ever-expanding fruit basket of carnal appetites. First it was “LGB” – liberal shorthand for “lesbian, gay and bisexual.” Then was added a “T” for “transgender.” That’s gender identity disorder – cross-dressing. You know, perverts like Clay Francis. (Today it’s “LGBTOMGWTFBBQ” or some such.)
Anyway, because it’s now illegal to “discriminate based on the basis of gender identity” in Houston, and since it’s the only “tolerant” thing to do, men who sign up for the ever-persecuted “LGBT” class have secured the hard-fought “civil right” to fully expose themselves to, and otherwise ogle, your daughters in the ladies’ room.
Yay “gay rights”!
But slow down there, Dad. According to the law, if you have a problem with Mr. Francis baring all to your baby girl, then you’re the problem. You’re a “transphobe” (“homophobia’s” evil twin sister, er, brother … whatever). Deck this sicko for terrifying your first-grader and you’re off to jail while “Colleen” is off to the “Human Rights Campaign” for a commendation as the latest victim of an “anti-LGBT hate crime.”
Rosa Parks in drag, I guess.
You can call yourself a “Christian,” Democrat. While you’re at it, why don’t you just go lay down in your garage and call yourself a “car”? You would be every bit as much the latter as you are the former.
Romans chapter one declares that you have NOTHING to do with Christ or Christianity or God. You are under the wrath of God. You DEMAND to be under the wrath of God. And you’re going to get yours because the God who told us that the last days were coming and the Antichrist whose mark you will soon be taking was coming and that the hell He created for the devil and his angels was coming and that you’re going to burn in it forever and ever.
The Democrat Party is the Nazi Party in America. “NAZI” stood for “National Socialist German Workers Party.” It is the truly ignorant fool who doesn’t realize that if there were a “National Socialist American Workers Party,” it would be nothing more than a name-change for the Democrat Party. Although God in heaven knows that there are a great many truly ignorant fools walking around in these last days before the coming of the beast whom they will worship.
And what we’re seeing is that Nazism does what Nazism is and vice versa as we look at the fruits of the Democrat Party and the hard-core homosexual fascism that is beginning to take place in an America I am now ashamed of.
It is as much the nature of the Democrat Party to betray as it is the nature of the Democrat Party to do what is vile in God’s sight.
Take, for example, the elderly and Medicare. It is only a matter of time now before the Democrat Party betrays the elderly and abandons them for the young. It’s actually already begun to happen as ObamaCare strips hundreds of billions of dollars out of Medicare to put into their new sacred cow. Yes, it was the Democrat Party that imposed Medicare and made promises to people who are now elderly that the government would take care of them in their old age. But health care is getting extremely expensive. It is a fact that the overwhelming majority of health care expenses/costs take place in the last few years of life as the health of the elderly begins to break down and it requires more care and more expensive care to treat them and to keep them healthy.
D. James Kennedy prophetically warned, “Watch out, Grandpa! Because the generation that survived abortion will one day come after YOU!”
Leftist Paul Krugman declared the fact that, yes, Democrats were going to turn on the elderly:
Eventually we do have a problem. That the population is getting older, health care costs are rising…there is this question of how we’re going to pay for the programs. The year 2025, the year 2030, something is going to have to give…. …. We’re going to need more revenue…Surely it will require some sort of middle class taxes as well.. We won’t be able to pay for the kind of government the society will want without some increase in taxes… on the middle class, maybe a value added tax…And we’re also going to have to make decisions about health care, doc pay for health care that has no demonstrated medical benefits . So the snarky version…which I shouldn’t even say because it will get me in trouble is death panels and sales taxes is how we do this.
“I urge that the government should indeed focus on life-years rather than lives. A program that saves young people produces more welfare than one that saves old people.”
He wrote:
“Other things being equal, a program that protects young people seems far better than one that protects old people, because it delivers greater benefits.”
The “Complete Lives” program behind ObamaCare kills old people by medical neglect and funds young people.
That’s why liberal intellectual and Obama advisor Robert Reich had this to say:
“Thank you so much for coming this afternoon. I’m so glad to see you and I would like to be president. Let me tell you a few things on health care. Look, we have the only health care system in the world that is designed to avoid sick people. And that’s true and what I’m going to do is that I am going try to reorganize it to be more amenable to treating sick people but that means you, particularly you young people, particularly you young healthy people…you’re going to have to pay more.
“Thank you. And by the way, we’re going to have to, if you’re very old, we’re not going to give you all that technology and all those drugs for the last couple of years of your life to keep you maybe going for another couple of months. It’s too expensive…so we’re going to let you die.”
A previous liberal, George Bernard Shaw, put it quite crystal clearly:
“You must all know half a dozen people at least who are no use in this world; who are more trouble than they are worth. Just put them there, and say, now sir or madam, now will you be kind enough to justify your existence? If you can’t justify your existence; if you’re not pulling your weight in the social boat; if you’re not producing as much as you consume or perhaps a little more, then clearly we cannot use the big organisation of our society for the purpose of keeping you alive, because your life does not benefit us, and it can’t be of very much use to yourself.”
So it’s already a matter of FACT that the Democrat Party is going to betray the elderly after seizing power on their false promises to the previous generation. It’s only a matter of when it is most politically opportune for them to betray that previous generation in favor of dishonest false promises to a younger generation.
The real motto of the Democrat Party is, “We’ll promise you ANYTHING to get your vote. That is, until we stab you in the back so we can promise the voters we want to replace you with anything to get their votes.”
Because the Democrat Party of today is the Party of Lucifer, and neither honesty nor loyalty are the virtues of the devil.
Just like the last Nazis before them.
America is demanding the wrath of God be poured out upon it for its embrace of homosexuality. And we’re getting what we demand and what we deserve.
Its been nearly three years since I wrote a long article titled, “Why I Call Obama A Fascist.” And the man has EXPLODED in fascism since I wrote that with his targeting of nearly 300 conservative groups using his thug IRS as a major recent example. He is a firehose of pure fascist evil and you literally cannot keep up with it unless you stay up 24/7 trying to document it all.
But this article isn’t about Obama per se; it’s about the left that Obama is a creature of. It’s about the left that is quintessentially fascist. Which is all-too easy to prove and to document.
In a nutshell, “NAZI” stood for “National Socialist German Workers Party.” The only difference between fascist “national socialism” and “communism” was the fact that one favored “national” socialism while the other demanded “international socialism.” But socialism is socialism. Socialism is always and in every case big government run amok. Socialism is government dictating to the people what to do and how to live and what to think. If there was a National Socialist American Workers Party, is anyone actually fool enough to believe it would be the Republicans or the conservatives??? Because conservatism stands for the ANTITHESIS of socialism: we stand for LIMITED federal government, for individual liberty rather than governmental control, for laissez-faire free markets rather than government taxation and regulation.
Gene Edward Veith makes this point:
“Part of the problem in recognizing fascism is the assumption that it is conservative. [Zeev] Sternhell has observed how study of the ideology has been obscured by “the official Marxist interpretation of fascism.” Marxism defines fascism as its polar opposite. If Marxism is progressive, fascism is conservative. If Marxism is left wing, fascism is right wing. If Marxism champions the proletariat, fascism champions the bourgeoisie. If Marxism is socialist, fascism is capitalist.
The influence of Marxist scholarship has severely distorted our understanding of fascism. Communism and fascism were rival brands of socialism. Whereas Marxist socialism is predicated on an international class struggle, fascist national socialism promoted a socialism centered in national unity. Both communists and fascists opposed the bourgeoisie. Both attacked the conservatives. Both were mass movements, which had special appeal for the intelligentsia, students, and artists, as well as workers. Both favored strong centralized governments and rejected the free economy and the ideals of individual liberty. Fascists saw themselves as being neither of the right nor the left. They believed that they constituted a third force synthesizing the best of both extremes” [Gene Edward Veith, Jr., Modern Fascism: Liquidating the Judeo-Christian Worldview, p. 26].
Which is to say that you are already a far-leftist socialist – a communist – merely to believe the lie that the communist propaganda put forward about fascism being “right-wing.”
The notion that fascism/and or Nazism is “right-wing” is utter nonsense beyond this: Nazism and fascism are the extreme right of the far, radical LEFT. Socialism is inherently LEFT-WING, not right-wing. The Nazis believed in a fiercely nation-based socialism whereas the communists believed in an international, “workers of the world unite!” brand of socialism. But they BOTH wanted a giant, all-powerful, totalitarian government that is the heart of not the right but the LEFT.
So “fascism” is NOT“right-wing.” The next surprise is that “liberalism” is not “liberal” in any classical understanding of the term.
One of the things the reader must understand is how liberals have perverted the term “liberal” and “liberalism.” Yes, fascism is ideologically the opposite of liberalism; but that is “liberalism” in the CLASSICAL sense of liberalism, rather than what today’s progressive liberals believe and are doing. What is “liberalism” in the classical sense?
In other words, a limited proponent of limited government, free markets, individual liberty. THAT’S a classical liberty. Which is to say that I as a modern conservative am a classical liberal, whereas modern progressive liberals are – you guessed it – fascists. Modern liberals, like the fascists, believe in the OPPOSITE of all these things that classical liberals held and hold the most dear.
As you think about fascism and Nazism (which was merely a particular form of fascist socialism, think about some of the tenants and try to understand how what I am going to document that which is coming from the American left today is genuinely fascist.
Only a couple of months ago there was this gem of rabid fascist intolerance from the left:
A student writer at Harvard University is raising eyebrows after publishing her belief that free speech on campus should be abolished and professors with opposing views be fired.
Sandra Korn, a senior who writes a column for the Harvard Crimson newspaper, thinks radical leftism is the only permissible political philosophy, and the First Amendment only hinders colleges from brainwashing students with her viewpoint.
“Let’s give up on academic freedom in favor of justice,” states the subtitle of her Feb. 18 column, in which she insists Harvard stop guaranteeing students and professors the right to hold controversial views and conduct research putting liberalism in a negative light.
“If our university community opposes racism, sexism, and heterosexism, why should we put up with research that counters our goals?” Korn asks.
“It is tempting to decry frustrating restrictions on academic research as violations of academic freedom. Yet I would encourage student and worker organizers to instead use a framework of justice. After all, if we give up our obsessive reliance on the doctrine of academic freedom, we can consider more thoughtfully what is just.”
Korn’s view grabbed the attention of the nation’s top conservative voice, Rush Limbaugh.
“This is not unique. This is not satire. This is not parody,” Limbaugh said on his nationally broadcast radio program Tuesday. “This woman, Sandra Korn, is real, and she’s serious that free speech needs to be abridged because it is threatening liberalism. It means that liberalism cannot hold up to scrutiny. It cannot withstand a challenge. If liberalism were infallible, if liberalism were so powerful and automatic, they would welcome challenges to it – and they would welcome the attempt to persuade and to convert. But instead they’re threatened by it.”
When asked of he thought her belief was going to become a movement, Limbaugh indicated it already was one.
“This is what the left is,” he explained. “Why do you think they want to get rid of this program? Why do you think they want to get rid of Fox News? Why do they want to silence criticism? What is Obama’s modus operandi? Eliminate the opposition. This is already a movement!”
“This woman has just written a column about it at Harvard with what appears to be an extreme view of eliminating the First Amendment as a way of silencing opposition. But she’s very honest. The First Amendment, free speech, ‘threatens liberalism,’ meaning liberalism cannot thrive in an open society. Liberalism is totalitarianism. Liberalism is statism. It is authoritarianism. It is all of the horrible Isms, and it cannot thrive when there is open debate. It cannot survive challenges.”
“Ah, the ‘community organizer force’ is strong with this one,” I’m sure Darth Obama – who held a similar position writing for Harvard – must have mused when he heard this.
The question, “Is this already a movement?” – and not merely an intellectual bowel movement – has been powerfully answered in the few weeks since this article came out from Harvard (the brains of the cockroach that is the leftist organism).
Just days after taking the job, Brendan Eich has resigned as chief executive of Mozilla, the maker of Firefox, after coming under fire for his 2008 support of Proposition 8, the California constitutional amendment that disallowed the marriage of same-sex couples in the state.
Mozilla announced Eich’s resignation Thursday afternoon in a blog post, saying that his hiring did not reflect the organization’s beliefs.
“While painful, the events of the last week show exactly why we need the Web. So all of us can engage freely in the tough conversations we need to make the world better,” Mozilla Chairwoman Mitchell Baker said in a statement. “We need to put our focus back on protecting that Web. And doing so in a way that will make you proud to support Mozilla.”
The organization named Eich CEO last week after operating under an interim CEO for more than a year. Eich had worked at Mozilla for years and was known as the founder of JavaScript, a popular programming language.
But Eich came under sharp criticism for donating $1,000 to a campaign that supported Poropisition 8, Several Mozilla board members resigned to protest his appointment.
Numerous Mozilla staffers also took to Twitter to call for his resignation. One popular online dating site OKCupid displayed a message on its website asking Firefox users to access the Web using a different browser.
“We took the stand because it seemed like the right thing to do,” a spokesman for OKCupid said.
Mozilla said it is still discussing what comes next for its leadership.
This guy Eich was incredibly well qualified to run this company, which he’d helped found. But liberals hold religious purity tests having nothing to do with corporate performance – and Eich was found to be a heretic and blasphemer.
If you ask the question, “Is Sandra Korn running Mozilla?” the answer is, “She might as well be.” Because fascist leftist who are rabidly intolerant of ANY point of view that differs from their own and cannot emotionally or intellectually handle dissent are what they are whether they’re at Harvard or at Mozilla.
Imagine the fallout had a corporation purged a CEO for the death penalty-worthy crime of having exercised his or her freedom to donate to the No on 8 campaign. And said they were doing it out of a spirit of “inclusiveness” and “diversity” (which they would have as much to claim as the opposite side). But for the most part, the propaganda mill that constitutes “journalism” simply ignored this story.
What is rather fascinating is that one particular paragraph in the print article (on page B2 of the LA Times’ Business section) – was purged from the online article that you see here. It immediately follows the “did not reflect the organization’s beliefs” line of crap. Here it is:
“Our organizational culture reflects diversity and inclusiveness,” Mozilla Chairwoman Michell Baker said in a statement. “Mozilla supports equality for all.”
You can see that statement from Mozilla in broader form here.
What is funny – and I mean laugh-till-you-pee-your-pants-funny – is how these Nazis actually view themselves as “inclusive.” You can understand why the uberleftist LA Times would purge that: it is so obviously self-refuting that it could not stand the light of day and had to be hidden the way ashamed parents would hide a child molesting freak in the basement.
Hell, I still remember when Barack Obama stated the following when he was lying his way to the presidency:
“I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. [big audience applause] For me as a Christian it’s also a sacred union, you know, God’s in the mix….I am not somebody who promotes same-sex marriage.” — Barack Obama, Saddleback Church debate moderated by Rick Warren, August 20, 2008
The ONLYreason the left didn’t go after Obama the way they have rabidly gone after everyone who said the same words is that they understood that – being one of them – Barack Obama was a pathological liar who said one think until it was time to say the opposite of the thing he said.
Pathological dishonesty goes hand in hand with pathological fascism.
When “inclusive” means, “If you don’t think exactly like I do, I will destroy you,” you have arrived at the spirit of Orwellianism. And the soul of the left skinny dips in Orwellian anti-thought.
If you are a Democrat, if you are a liberal, you DON’T think. You double-think. You unthink. You anti-think. Which is why you are such a complete moral idiot. And why you have no shame, no honor, no virtue, no integrity of any kind whatsoever.
Sandra Korn was also apparently running the National Young Feminist Leadership Conference – which was (laughably) all about “inclusiveness” too.
Its “safe space policy” promised the event would be “structured around inclusivity … with a focus on representing various perspectives,”according to the event’s official website(feministcampus.org).
Watch how “inclusive” they are the moment they discover “the other” and tell me about that “safe space policy” again. Tell me how this is what “structured around inclusivity” looks like. Tell me that this is what it looks like to have “a focus on representing various perspectives”:
Campus Reform’s Katherine Timpf attended the National Young Feminist Leadership Conference (NYFLC) — an event which promised to be about “inclusivity” and welcoming everyone — only to be told that “conservative” women were not welcome.
Timpf attempted to ask students’ their opinions on feminism, but conference organizers made an announcement advising participants not to talk to Campus Reform because it was a “conservative” outlet.
“You guys aren’t wanted here.”
The organizers also followed Timpf around the conference to interrupt her conversations with students to tell them the same thing.
“They’re a group that’s conservative, so what we are fighting for is not something…” one organizer told a student who was talking with Timpf, prompting the student to walk away.
“You’re just assuming that based on where I work,” Timpf told the organizer.
“Yeah, we are,” the organizer stated.
“You guys aren’t wanted here,” a participant told the reporter after the warning.
“I thought this was supposed to be an inclusive thing, why am I being excluded because of where I work?” Timpf asked another organizer after another interruption.
“Because the place that you work is not inclusive,” the organizer responded.
“You don’t know that,” Timpf said. “You don’t know anything about me or my personal beliefs, I’m just being labeled and excluded based on a label.”
Its “safe space policy” promised the event would be “structured around inclusivity … with a focus on representing various perspectives,” according to the event’s official website.
“We will not tolerate, allow, or encourage behavior which makes folks feel uncomfortable, threatened, or demoralized,” the policy continued.
The NYFLC conference was held March 29-31 at the DoubleTree by Hilton in Crystal City, VA.
The Nazis couldn’t have done it any better. One female editorialist described it as “Mean Girls with ugly women.”
But hey, I’m not done yet detailing how the left self-refutes themselves and documents their OWN rabid hypocrisy and intolerance.
Try this bit of “Sandra Korn” at other liberal universities like UC Santa Barbara and Oberlin, which are beginning to impose “trigger warnings” that would allow students to opt out of anything that might harm a liberal mind (you know, like reality or the truth):
The latest attack on academic freedom comes not from government authorities or corporate pressure but from students. At UC Santa Barbara, the student Senate recently passed a resolution that calls for mandatory “trigger warnings” — cautions from professors, to be added to their course syllabi, specifying which days’ lectures will include readings or films or discussions that might trigger feelings of emotional or physical distress.
The resolution calls for warnings if course materials will involve depictions and discussions of rape, sexual assault, suicide, pornography or graphic violence, among other things. The professors would excuse students from those classes, with no points deducted, if the students felt the material would distress them; it is left unclear how students would complete assignments or answer test questions based on the work covered in those classes.
The student resolution is only advisory, a recommendation that campus authorities can turn into policy or reject. They should not only choose the latter course but should explain firmly to students why such a policy would be antithetical to all that college is supposed to provide: a rich and diverse body of study that often requires students to confront difficult or uncomfortable material, and encourages them to discuss such topics openly. Trigger warnings are part of a campus culture that is increasingly overprotective and hypersensitive in its efforts to ensure that no student is ever offended or made to feel uncomfortable…
May I please have my liberal reality inoculation please? Because reality really, really upsets me and I have to be protected from it at all cost. That’s why I went to college where I could swim in a protective ocean where only fascist liberalism is allowed.
The police report regarding UC Santa Barbara Professor Mireille Miller-Young has been released. Miller-Young made news after tearing a sign away from an anti-abortion activist in the university’s Free Speech Zone. Here is the PDF, and here is a rather illuminating quote.
It’s worth a reminder that this professor’s areas of study include “Pornography; Sex Work; Black Film, Popular Culture and Art; Feminist & Queer Theory; African American & African Diaspora Studies,” all of which require confronting potentially upsetting material. So what exactly is the limit on what is permissible on university campuses?
Outside of Santa Barbara, this story is receiving the most attention from conservative outlets. I’m curious to know what mainstream left-of-center outlets think about this.
This post was provoked by Donald Douglas, who writes, “America’s college campuses: literally the most f-ked-up places in the nation.”
So if I’m upset by something, I have the right to employ violence? Only if I’m a liberal. If I’m a conservative, I’m going to get hauled away and prosecuted to the very fullest possible extent of the law just for SAYING that a liberal cockroach doesn’t have a right to be somewhere. That’s the kind of double-standard that also went on as “Germany” became “Nazi Germany.” Only the fascist thugs had the right to beat the hell out of somebody they didn’t like.
The amazing thing is that THESE ARE THE PEOPLE WHO CALL ME A NAZI. And they’re so pathologically dishonest and they’ve so completely deceived even themselves that they actually do it with a straight face.
You wonder how their skulls don’t explode from trying to hold so many massive contradictions, but they manage to pull it off. Because they anti-think when un-thinking or double-thinking fails them. And they are the most rabidly intolerant people that there are – and you literally have to be a full-fledged NAZI to be more rabidly intolerant than these liberals. And it is my observation that liberals are “progressives” who are progressing quite rapidly toward being full-fledged Nazis.
Do you want to know what is interesting? It is that when the Nazis came to Germany, it was these same university professor-types who were the FIRST to knuckle under and collaborate with their Nazi masters:
“Within the system of the concentration camp, something very strange took place. The first to give in, the first to collaborate—to save their lives—were the intellectuals, the liberals, the humanists, the professors of sociology, and the like. Because suddenly their whole concept of the universe broke down. They had nothing to lean on.”
Albert Einstein (a Jew who fled before the Nazis could capture him):
“Having always been an ardent partisan of freedom I turned to the Universities, as soon as the revolution broke out in Germany, to find the Universities took refuge in silence. I then turned to the editors of powerful newspapers, who, but lately in flowing articles, had claimed to be the faithful champions of liberty. These men, as well as the Universities, were reduced to silence in a few weeks. I then addressed myself to the authors individually, to those who passed themselves off as the intellectual guides of Germany, and among whom many had frequently discussed the question of freedom and its place in modern life. They are in turn very dumb. Only the church opposed the fight which Hitler was waging against liberty. Till then I had no interest in the church, but now I feel great admiration and am truly attracted to the church which had the persistent courage to fight for spiritual truth and moral freedom. I feel obliged to confess that I now admire what I used to consider of little value.”
Modern liberalism and those who cling to it had no answers or courage against Nazism. And in fact their philosophies, the values they hold today ARE the same as that of the Nazis they bowed down to when their moment to stand heroically came.
Here’s what you need to know about the university liberals who endlessly lecture us:
Soon after the end of World War II, the Jewish scholar Max Weinreich published Hitler’s Professors: The Part of Scholarship in Germany’s Crimes against the Jewish People. This exhaustive study of the complicity of German intellectuals with the Nazi regime documents how the scholarship of the time provided the intellectual justification and the conceptual framework for the Holocaust. This is not to say that these intellectuals necessarily intended the Holocaust, but, argues Weinreich, it would not have been possible without them. “Did the administer the poison?” he asks, “By no means; they only wrote the prescription.” — Veith, Modern Fascism, p. 79-80
Ask yourself if “Professor” Mireille Miller-Young did far more than “write a prescription” justifying violence.
Weinreich establishes that these many academics who supported Hitler were sophisticated thinkers. Their problem was that the “value-free” assumptions with which they pursued their research resulted in a mendacity inherent in any scholarship that overlooks or openly repudiates all moral and spiritual values. Which is THE same cancerous flaw that modern progressive intellectual liberalism suffers from today.
Now that I have documented the fascism in the left’s behavior, allow me to proceed to develop a new point about the fascism central to the left’s philosophy. Jonah Goldberg, in his great work Liberal Fascism makes this point:
For more than sixty years, liberals have insisted that the bacillus of fascism lies semi-dormant in the bloodstream of the political right. And yet with the notable exception and complicated exceptions of Leo Strauss and Allan Bloom, no top-tier American conservative intellectual was a devotee if Nietzsche or a serious admirer of Heidegger. All major conservative schools of thought trace themselves back to the champions of the Enlightenment – John Locke, Adam Smith, Montesquieu, Burke – and none of them have any direct intellectual link to Nazism or Nietzsche, to existentialism, nihilism, or even, for the most part, Pragmatism. Meanwhile, the ranks of left-wing intellectuals are infested with ideas and thinkers squarely in the fascist tradition. And yet all it takes is the abracadabra word “Marxist” to absolve most of them of any affinity with these currents. The rest get off the hook merely by attacking bourgeois morality and American values – even though such attacks are themselves little better than a reprise of fascist arguments. — pg. 175-176
The left now acknowledges that it is “common knowledge” that Martin Heidegger was a Nazi. But it’s funny that they spent most of the last eighty years denying that “common knowledge.”
The same methods—suppression of evidence, evasions and falsifications—were employed by the legions of Heidegger interpreters and apologists. They were, until the publication of Farias epochal book, largely successful in preventing any critical scrutiny of Heidegger’s ideas and their relation to his politics. An ironic chapter in this enterprise was played out by the deconstruction theorist, Paul De Man. De Man did much to publicize Heidegger among the American intelligentsia in the 1960s. Then there came the posthumous revelation in the late 1980s that De Man’s hands had not exactly been clean. He had been a Nazi collaborator in occupied Belgium during World War II and in that capacity had written some anti-Semitic articles for a Nazi-sponsored literary magazine. After De Man’s war-time essays were published there ensued a lively controversy about the relationship between De Man’s war-time activity and his subsequent ideas on deconstruction.[
And my exploration of the above distortion of Marxist scholarship of fascism and Nazism at the beginning of this article is merely part of that intellectual tradition of deceit. The left “suppressed evidence” and employed tactics of “evasions and falsifications” to conceal the “common knowledge” of their intellectual hero for most of the last century until one courageous scholar finally blew the doors off the lie. And of course then the left instantly proceeded to apologize and rationalize the man’s heart and mind of pure evil. And of course it is pointed out that the left did the exact same thing with ANOTHER hard-core Nazi intellectual hero of the left named Paul de Man. You can goose step down the list of numerous leftist intellectual heroes such as Herbert Marcuse, Frantz Fanon, Georges Sorel, Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida, Carl Schmitt, and others to see the same damn thing. And frankly even documented PROOF of the hatefulness of these men and their ideas – and the CONSEQUENCES of their ideas – don’t matter.
The paragraph that follows the one cited above in Liberal Fascism therefore points out that:
In a seminar there may be important distinctions to be made between, say, Foucault’s “enterprise of Unreason,” Derrida’s tyrannical logocentrism, and Hitler’s “revolt against reason.” But such distinctions rarely translate beyond ivy-covered walls – and they are particularly meaningless to a movement that believes action is more important than ideas. Deconstruction, existentialism, postmodernism, Pragmatism, relativism: all of these ideas had the same purpose – to erode the iron chains of tradition, dissolve the concrete foundations of truth, and firebomb the bunkers where the defenders of the ancien regime still fought and persevered. These were ideologies of the “movement.” The late Richard Rorty admitted as much conflating Nietzsche and Heidegger with James and Dewey as part of the same grand project. — Goldberg, Modern Fascism, p. 176
And it is simply a FACT that all of those intellectual traditions and worldviews are at the very heart of the left and in radical rejection of the Classical Enlightenment foundationalism and Judeo-Christian religious worldview of the right. You can ignore it with your constant exploitation of crisis and demand for action all you want, liberal, but hateful ideas have hateful consequences. And it has been the hateful ideas that you CONTINUE to espouse to this very day that had those hateful consequences that resulted in the gas chambers and the Holocaust of Nazism AND the purges and massacres of MILLIONS of communism.
You OWN it. Even though you are too much of a hypocrite and a liar and frankly a coward to ADMIT that you own it.
One of the primary reasons that the left’s “enterprise of Unreason” (remember how I referred to the left’s “un-thinking” and “anti-thinking” and “double-thinking”?) consistently leads to moral horror boils down to this:
David Hirsch, in his study of Holocaust literature, concludes that one of the most striking characteristics of those who have carried out the exterminations was their inability to have empathy with an “other.” Hans Ebeling criticizes Heidegger in similar terms: “the power of acknowledging the other as the other, as essentially equal, is missing, and for that reason it only remains to oppress the other without any leniency.” Since existentialism focuses upon the individual consciousness, “the other” is necessarily minimized. — Veith, Modern Fascism, p. 103
At thus I reintroduce the demonization and purging of Brendan Eich for no other reason than that he gave a small financial contribution to a view of marriage that Barack Obama was HIMSELF hypocritically and dishonestly claiming at the time. Because it is the NATURE of the left – particularly the “intellectual” left – to lie without shame and cover up the truth and to suppress and to evade and to falsify the FACTS.
It ought to go without saying that if a more conservative-friendly corporation’s CEO had been found to have donated $1,000 to the “No on 8” campaign – as I’m frankly sure many have – he would still be there. Because unlike the left we value intellectual freedom.
So when Barack Hussein Obama routinely demonizes “the other” – that is absolutely everybody who doesn’t think exactly like he does – it’s what they call in golf “par for the course.” It’s who he is and what he does because the man is a fascist who has acted like a fascist his entire adult life as a “community agitator” and who very much THINKS like a fascist.
A lot of times folks would prefer the devil they know to the devil they don’t. But this law is doing what it’s supposed to do. It’s working. It’s helping people from coast to coast, all of which makes the lengths to which critics have gone to scare people or undermine the law, or try to repeal the law without offering any plausible alternative so hard to understand. I’ve got to admit, I don’t get it. Why are folks working so hard for people not to have health insurance? Why are they so mad about the idea of folks having health insurance?
The Big Lie is how Obama has governed. It is his ONLY “leadership technique.” And because he kept repeating the same lies his Big Lie governance literally got him elected and re-elected.
Find ONE Republican who would say he or she is opposed to ObamaCare because – and I quote Obama’s lie from hell here – “I don’t want people to have health insurance.” Just find ONE Republican who has said, “I’m mad about the idea of folks having health insurance.”
Obama has ALWAYS hated and demonized “the other” while maintaining the exact same hatred for the truth and willingness to engage in the “suppression of evidence, evasions and falsifications” that I cite as at the heart of the fascist intellectual tradition above.
Tell you what: I challenge any liberal to a “hate contest.” It’s Bush hate vs. Obama hate. If I can find more examples of Obama demonizing Republicans than you can find of Bush demonizing Democrats, I get to use you as proof – with your consent no less – that all Democrats are Nazi liars who participate in Obama’s campaign of hate against “the other.”
Obama does to Republicans what Hitler did to Jews on a nearly a daily basis.
I’ve been saying it and saying it. The beast is coming, the Antichrist from the Bible. He will be the ULTIMATE Democrat in that he will be the ultimate big government totalitarian who creates the State in place of God and demands worship in place of God. He will do what Democrats have tried to do and he will succeed in completely taking over the economy such that no man or woman may buy or sell without his stamp of approval (a.k.a. the mark of the beast).
Nazism didn’t just fly out of nowhere. It took DECADES for the evil in the German spirit to metastasize to the point where they were willing to murder six million Jews and five million other helpless human beings in their government extermination center.
It was from the minds of thinkers whom the American left still adores and follows today – thinkers such as Nietzsche and Heidegger and Derrida – from which the thought process that led to the death camps and the gas chambers and the ovens.
And Obama has taken that liberal descent into true fascism that will ultimately have the ugliest and darkest consequences a giant step forward.
And of course it’s nothing new when a mob of black liberals (blacks voting so overwhelmingly Democrat that to be black IS to vote Democrat) beat a white man into a coma. So it shouldn’t be any surprise whatsoever that blacks – who are fascist because they are liberals – would beat yet another white man into a coma for the crime of being white.
I had my view of Franklin Delano Roosevelt radically changed by my reading of the Burton Folsom Jr. book, New Deal Or Raw Deal? How FDR’s Economic Legacy Has Damaged America. I challenge anyone who adores FDR to read that thoroughly documented work. Another book to read is Amity Schlaes’ The Forgotten Man. You end up being incredibly angry and deeply saddened at the same time as a foolish American people wickedly kept returning to the policies of a wicked man who trapped America into the misery of a terrible depression that lasted fully seven years longer than it should have.
We also find that he may have – at least if you believe in a just and righteous God – kept America trapped in a bloody world war that resulted in the deaths of over 400,000 Americans.
If you believe in God – as I do – I think it is a valid assertion that God would have given America swift victory had we tried to help God’s people the Jews instead of what we did under a despicable and callous FDR.
The question as to why black people have in recent years chosen to celebrate and support the party that put their ancestors in the chains of slavery, fought a vicious Civil War to keep them in those chains, invented the Ku Klux Klan as the terrorist arm of the Democrat Party to keep blacks who had been freed by Republicans in subjugation, resegregated blacks under the tyranny of “the father of the modern progressive movement” also known as the racist white supremacist Woodrow Wilson, was still so racist in 1924 that the Democratic National Convention of that year was called “Klanbake,” allowed black men to go untreated with syphilis so researchers could study the progression of the disease (the Tuskegee Experiment) throughout the entire FDR presidency, was largely THE party of racist discrimination through the 1950s, and then only passed the Civil Rights laws with the overwhelming supporting votes of Republicans, is a mystery that I will not attempt to explain. I have no idea why black people as a culture allowed Democrats who had subjected them to one form of plantation allowed Democrats to bait and switch them into a different form of plantation (the welfare plantation of institutional generational dependency).
I will only point out that after reading about the incredible harm a wicked and cynical president did to the American economy out of bitter partisan ideology, I believed that FDR is burning in hell today.
Now, having read this piece by an expert on the Holocaust, I am certain of it (this piece was originally filed under the LA Times title, “FDR’s troubling view of Jews”):
What FDR said about Jews in private His personal sentiments about Jews may help explain America’s tepid response to the Holocaust.
By Rafael Medoff
April 7, 2013
In May 1943, President Franklin Roosevelt met with British Prime Minister Winston Churchill at the White House. It was 17 months after Pearl Harbor and a little more than a year before D-Day. The two Allied leaders reviewed the war effort to date and exchanged thoughts on their plans for the postwar era. At one point in the discussion, FDR offered what he called “the best way to settle the Jewish question.”
Vice President Henry Wallace, who noted the conversation in his diary, said Roosevelt spoke approvingly of a plan (recommended by geographer and Johns Hopkins University President Isaiah Bowman) “to spread the Jews thin all over the world.” The diary entry adds: “The president said he had tried this out in [Meriwether] County, Georgia [where Roosevelt lived in the 1920s] and at Hyde Park on the basis of adding four or five Jewish families at each place. He claimed that the local population would have no objection if there were no more than that.”
Roosevelt’s “best way” remark is condescending and distasteful, and coming from anyone else it would probably be regarded as anti-Semitism. But more than that, FDR’s support for “spreading the Jews thin” may hold the key to understanding a subject that has been at the center of controversy for decades: the American government’s tepid response to the Holocaust.
Here’s the paradox. The U.S. immigration system severely limited the number of German Jews admitted during the Nazi years to about 26,000 annually — but even that quota was less than 25% filled during most of the Hitler era, because the Roosevelt administration piled on so many extra requirements for would-be immigrants. For example, starting in 1941, merely leaving behind a close relative in Europe would be enough to disqualify an applicant — on the absurd assumption that the Nazis could threaten the relative and thereby force the immigrant into spying for Hitler.
Why did the administration actively seek to discourage and disqualify Jewish refugees from coming to the United States? Why didn’t the president quietly tell his State Department (which administered the immigration system) to fill the quotas for Germany and Axis-occupied countries to the legal limit? That alone could have saved 190,000 lives. It would not have required a fight with Congress or the anti-immigration forces; it would have involved minimal political risk to the president.
Every president’s policy decisions are shaped by a variety of factors, some political, some personal. In Roosevelt’s case, a pattern of private remarks about Jews, some of which I recently discovered at the Central Zionist Archives in Jerusalem and from other sources, may be significant.
In 1923, as a member of the Harvard board of directors, Roosevelt decided there were too many Jewish students at the college and helped institute a quota to limit the number admitted. In 1938, he privately suggested that Jews in Poland were dominating the economy and were therefore to blame for provoking anti-Semitism there. In 1941, he remarked at a Cabinet meeting that there were too many Jews among federal employees in Oregon. In 1943, he told government officials in Allied-liberated North Africa that the number of local Jews in various professions “should be definitely limited” so as to “eliminate the specific and understandable complaints which the Germans bore towards the Jews in Germany.”
There is evidence of other troubling private remarks by FDR too, including dismissing pleas for Jewish refugees as “Jewish wailing” and “sob stuff”; expressing (to a senator ) his pride that “there is no Jewish blood in our veins”; and characterizing a tax maneuver by a Jewish newspaper publisher as “a dirty Jewish trick.” But the most common theme in Roosevelt’s private statements about Jews has to do with his perception that they were “overcrowding” many professions and exercising undue influence.
This attitude dovetails with what is known about FDR’s views regarding immigrants in general and Asian immigrants in particular.
In one 1920 interview, he complained about immigrants “crowding” into the cities and said “the remedy for this should be the distribution of aliens in various parts of the country.” In a series of articles for the Macon (Ga.) Daily Telegraph and for Asia magazine in the 1920s, he warned against granting citizenship to “non-assimilable immigrants” and opposed Japanese immigration on the grounds that “mingling Asiatic blood with European or American blood produces, in nine cases out of ten, the most unfortunate results.” He recommended that future immigration should be limited to those who had “blood of the right sort.”
FDR’s decision to imprison thousands of Japanese Americans in internment camps during World War II was consistent with his perception of Asians as having innate racial characteristics that made them untrustworthy. Likewise, he apparently viewed with disdain what he seemed to regard as the innate characteristics of Jews. Admitting significant numbers of Jewish or Asian immigrants did not fit comfortably in FDR’s vision of America.
Other U.S. presidents have made their share of unfriendly remarks about Jews. A diary kept by Harry Truman included statements such as “The Jews, I find, are very, very selfish.” Richard Nixon’s denunciations of Jews as “very aggressive and obnoxious” were belatedly revealed in tapes of Oval Office conversations.
But the revelation of Franklin Roosevelt’s sentiments will probably shock many people. After all, he led America in the war against Hitler. Moreover, Roosevelt’s public persona is anchored in his image as a liberal humanitarian, his claim to care about “the forgotten man,” the downtrodden, the mistreated. But none of that can change the record of his response to the Holocaust.
The observance of Holocaust Memorial Day begins Sunday night. It is the annual occasion to reflect on the Nazi genocide and the world’s response to it. In the case of the United States, it is sobering to consider that partly because of Roosevelt’s private prejudices, innocent people who could have been saved were instead abandoned.
Rafael Medoff is the founding director of the David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies in Washington. His latest book is “FDR and the Holocaust: A Breach of Faith.”Medoff will speak Sunday at the Holocaust Memorial Day service at the Alpert Jewish Community Center in Long Beach.
I’m sorry. Franklin Delano Roosevelt was different from Adolf Hitler HOW, exactly? Certainly not in their vile racism or their contempt for Jews.
FDR has the documented blood of an ABSOLUTE MINIMUM of 190,000 Jews on his hands. And given that he should have done far, far more than the “absolute minimum” to help desperate people who were condemned to miserable deaths because he wouldn’t lift a finger to help them, that number of Jews whose blood FDR has on his hands soars much the way Obama’s debt has soared.
FDR wanted to “eliminate the specific and understandable complaints which the Germans bore towards the Jews in Germany.” The rat bastard son of a bitch actually AGREED WITH HITLER!!!
That’s one of the reasons every single American should be nauseated by this image that celebrated both the wicked Obama and his wicked predecessor in massive socialism and rabid anti-Semitism:
At the heart of the Democrat Party is a profound hatred for God, for the Judeo-Christian worldview and for the people – both Jew and Christian alike – who follow the Word of God.
This is God damn America. And we’re going to reap the same godless disaster this time around that we faced the last time. Only this time – given the fact that this nation is more depraved than ever before – we are going to lose and lose big and lose everything.
And then Democrats will lead America into the worship of the Antichrist and the acceptance of the mark of the beast. Because that is the hellish abyss they have been pushing America toward for decades.
John Edwards ran a campaign of “two Americas” in 2004 and again in 2008. This particularly disgusting species of vermin could have been our president; he certainly could have been our vice president.
Now decent Americans know they would NEVER want to belong to “John Edwards’ America” if there was any possible other one to belong to. The man is pure slime, as are the “values” he ran on.
John Edwards was right, though: there REALLY ARE “two Americas” being fought over right now. They are the United States of America that our founding fathers fought for and created based on a profound Judeo-Christian view of the world, versus the Union of Soviet Socialist States of America dreamed of by the left. The former has an economic basis of free market capitalism; the latter has an economic basis of a hybrid mixture of crony capitalism (i.e. fascism) and communism. The former is based on individual liberties balanced by duties based on the Judeo-Christian moral tradition; the latter is based on a Marxist/fascist notion of statism balanced by nothing but their own lust for power.
At a rally in New Jersey protesting Republican Gov. Chris Christie’s deal to reform New Jersey’s state pension system, a union leader charged Christie with acting like a Nazi. And not any ordinary Nazi, but Adolf Hitler himself.
“Good afternoon brothers and sisters. Welcome to Nazi Germany,” Communications Workers of America District 1 Vice President Christopher Shelton is seen raving at a Thursday rally in a video posted on YouTube.
“We have Adolf Christie and his two generals trying to make New Jersey Nazi Germany.”
After ranting more about “Adolf Christie,” the YouTube video shows Shelton comparing the pension battle in New Jersey to World War II.
“Brothers and sisters, this is not going to be an easy fight,” he shrieked. “It took World War II to get rid of the last Adolf Hitler. It is going to take World War III to get rid of Adolf Christie. Are you ready for World War III?”
Rally attendees are seen wildly cheering Shelton’s speech in the video.
There’s a couple of major problems with Christopher Shelton’s thesis: one is that Adolf Hitler was a socialist: “NAZI” stood for “National SOCIALIST German WORKERS Party“; and the second is that it was Adolf Hitler and those who thought like him who started that terrible war. Just like the REAL Nazis in Shelton and the leftists who think like him are angling to start the NEXT world war.
When you look at the Nazi Party platform, you see hardened socialism all over it:
The abolition of unearned income;
Nationalization of trusts;
Inclusion into profit-sharing;
Increase in old-age pensions;
Creation and maintenance of a sound middle-class;
Aguarian reform, which included the siezing of land without compensation;
State control of education;
Creation of a “folk” army to supplant or replace the regular army;
State control of the press
Leftwing socialist is in the Nazis’ own words:
– The first obligation of every citizen must be to work both spiritually and physically. The activity of individuals is not to counteract the interests of the universality, but must have its result within the framework of the whole for the benefit of all Consequently we demand:
– Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of rent-slavery.
– In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.
– We demand the nationalization of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).
– We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.
– We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.
– We demand the creation of a healthy middle class and its conservation, immediate communalization of the great warehouses and their being leased at low cost to small firms, the utmost consideration of all small firms in contracts with the State, county or municipality.
– We demand a land reform suitable to our needs, provision of a law for the free expropriation of land for the purposes of public utility, abolition of taxes on land and prevention of all speculation in land.
– We demand struggle without consideration against those whose activity is injurious to the general interest. Common national criminals, usurers, Schieber and so forth are to be punished with death, without consideration of confession or race.
– We demand substitution of a German common law in place of the Roman Law serving a materialistic world-order.
– The state is to be responsible for a fundamental reconstruction of our whole national education program, to enable every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education and subsequently introduction into leading positions. The plans of instruction of all educational institutions are to conform with the experiences of practical life. The comprehension of the concept of the State must be striven for by the school [Staatsbuergerkunde] as early as the beginning of understanding. We demand the education at the expense of the State of outstanding intellectually gifted children of poor parents without consideration of position or profession.
– The State is to care for the elevating national health by protecting the mother and child, by outlawing child-labor, by the encouragement of physical fitness, by means of the legal establishment of a gymnastic and sport obligation, by the utmost support of all organizations concerned with the physical instruction of the young.
– We demand abolition of the mercenary troops and formation of a national army.
– We demand legal opposition to known lies and their promulgation through the press. In order to enable the provision of a German press, we demand, that: a. All writers and employees of the newspapers appearing in the German language be members of the race: b. Non-German newspapers be required to have the express permission of the State to be published. They may not be printed in the German language: c. Non-Germans are forbidden by law any financial interest in German publications, or any influence on them, and as punishment for violations the closing of such a publication as well as the immediate expulsion from the Reich of the non-German concerned. Publications which are counter to the general good are to be forbidden. We demand legal prosecution of artistic and literary forms which exert a destructive influence on our national life, and the closure of organizations opposing the above made demands.
You look at this platform and you explain to me how “the National Socialist American Workers Party” wouldn’t be the DEMOCRATS.
“I am convinced that we cannot possibly dispense with the trades unions. On the contrary, they are among the most important institutions in the economic life of the nation.”
Read up on the German Labor Front (Deutsche Arbeitsfront, DAF): “DAF membership was theoretically voluntary, but any workers in any area of German commerce or industry would have found it hard to get a job without being a member.” That is NOT the “right-to-work” policies of conservatives; IT IS THE UNION AGENDA OF LIBERALS. Read up on the Obama NLRB lawsuit against Boeing for daring to open a plant in a non-union right to work state and explain how we’re not seeing the same story all over again. Obama is dictating (like the dictator he is) to a private company while unions say “if you aint union, then you don’t get no job.”
Nietzsche – a hero of Nazis AND leftists ever since – put it best. He pointed out that the artist was not only the creator of beautiful objects but of values. He pointed out that cultural change requires artistic change: “Change of values – that is a change of creators.” And this change to new values had to involve the breaking of old values. As Nietzsche put it, “Whoever must be a creator always annihilates.” Destroying the old order and giving birth to the new attracted ALL the cutting-edge leftists of the day.
Homosexuals, artists, and all the other leftists and leftist movements of the day joyfully joined Hitler. But once Hitler gained power and forged his own social order, many of these began to encounter brutal censorship. Why? Simply because when these people and movements were attacking the old order, they were useful, but once Hitler began to impose his own order, they who attacked order became a threat to be repressed. To put it in other words, they were hung on their own petard.
To whatever extent that Hitler crushed the trade unions that had eagerly helped him gain power, he crushed many other useful idiots the same way. That participation in their own destruction is part of the ultimate death-wish that is liberalism. We’re seeing it now as liberals routinely support Islamic radicals who would gleefully murder every single one of these tools the moment they gain real power.
That said, there is also a deliberate and fundamental misunderstanding of fascism by the left. If you read leftists, you come away thinking that somehow “fascism” is the takeover of a state by corporations. But stop and think: Hitler, Himmler, Eichmann, Hess and all the other key Nazis WEREN’T corporate CEOs who took over the state; THEY WERE SOCIALIST POLITICIANS WHO TOOK OVER THE CORPORATIONS. They usurped the corporations and FORCED them to perform THEIR agenda. They either performed the Nazis’ will or they were simply taken away from their rightful owners and nationalized.
And to the degree that German crony capitalist corporations helped Hitler in his rise to power, THEY WERE JUST MORE USEFUL IDIOTS.
The same sort of takeover of German corporations by socialists is building in America. Take Maxine Waters, a liberal Democrat, as the perfect example. Whad did she say of the oil companies?
“This liberal will be all about socializing … uh uh … would be about … basically … taking over … and the government running all of your companies.”
THAT’S what Hitler did, too. Hitler got this power through regulations that required corporations to do his bidding, just like Obama has repeatedly done.
Here are some pictures from the latest May Day rally, along with a brief description of what is going on. For the record, this is from an email that was forwarded to me. I did not write it or generate the pictures, but could not provide a “link”:
When I tell people that public political rallies are
more and more being led by communists and socialists, most folks simply don’t
believe me. Aw, come on, you’re just giving decent protesters an extreme
label, they say. No, actually, I’m not: The communists freely and proudly
declare their affiliation.
And the SEIU has no problem marching arm-in-arm
with them.
“Smash Capitalism” is a slogan the SEIU apparently
endorses — or at least doesn’t mind marching behind.
In case you think the
SEIU is some peripheral out-of-the-mainstream organization:
The SEIU devoted $28 million to
Obama’s campaign, making the
SEIU “the organization that
spent the most to help Barack Obama get elected president.” Furthermore, who is Obama’s favorite White House guest and one of his
closest confidants?
The individual who has visited the Obama White House the
most: SEIU President Andy Stern, who has visited
53 times.
Obama is closely linked with the SEIU.
The SEIU is closely
linked with communists.
You do the math.
Did I say communists? Sorry, I meant Communists (with a capital “C”).
Note how the
Communists that day (like the women on the right in this photo) carried solid
red flags symbolizing their ideology. Keep that in mind as you view the next
photo…
One of the SEIU leaders picked up a Communist flag and
led a contingent of rank-and-file SEIU members. Everyone was OK with
that.
The way you can identify the SEIU members in all these
pictures: They’re the ones in purple t-shirts carrying blue-and-yellow
signs.
So, as you can see, the communists and the union
members intermingled as the march progressed.
In case you were wondering what
the SEIU was saying during all of this, here’s a video of the SEIU
chanting “Legalization or REVOLUTION!” Clear enough?
And it wasn’t just the SEIU at the march — other
“normal” unions like the AFL-CIO were on hand as well.
There were plenty of
teachers’ unions attending too, and they brought along many of their public
school students for some good old-fashioned communist indoctrination,.
Most of the idiots in the US who walk around with Che
buttons or Che shirts do so simply because they foolishly think he’s “cool.”
These hardcore communists carry his image not because he’s “cool,” but because
he was one of the most radical revolutionaries who ever lived. Right up there
with Lenin, apparently.
In order to have a more “civil dialogue” with their
political opponents, the marchers made a puppet of a demonic Statue of Liberty
aligned with the “Tea Bag Party.”
OK, I guess Hitler comparisons are off the table for
now — too many people have called it taboo. So what’s second best? The
Devil!
Tell me the honest truth: If the Tea Party had marched in a rally
behind a banner held up by fascists or neo-Nazis, don’t you think it would have
been national news? But the nation’s biggest Obama-supporting political
organization marched behind banners like these, and not a peep about it in the
media. Hmmmm….
Until recently, the average American has regarded
fascists and communists as equally noxious and equally malignant. As well they
should have. But the drive these days by the left side of the spectrum is to
make communism and socialism somewhat less remarkable and more palatable. For
two years they angrily denied the Tea Party accusation that Obama’s policies and
supporters had a socialist bent. But in recent months, as the accusation had
started to gain traction, the new leftist tactic has become: “What’s so bad
about socialism after all? You’re demonizing a very popular and respectable
ideology!”
These are people with no morals beyond the morality of fascism. They want to impose their will on you. They want to take what is yours and give it to themselves. They want to make the state god while THEY run that state; and then force you to come to them and devote yourself to “the state” in order to have a job, health care, food, life itself.
The beast is coming. And when he comes, Democrats will be the Party that cheers him and votes for him.
The Democrat Party has become the party of genuine evil in America. A vote for Democrats has become a vote for hell itself.
Which of these “two Americas” is fascist? The one that wants to kill America and impose a totalitarian system in its place, or the one that is trying to embrace the vision of our founding fathers just short of way too late?
Update, June 20: The overwhelmingly Democrat-controlled New Jersey Senate just agreed with Governor Chris Christie on the reforms that he was called a “Nazi” for proposing. If you want to see the Nazis in the story, look at Christopher Shelton, look at his union and look at the Democrat Party that is controlled by these unions. THAT’S where you’ll find all the Nazis.
I rather routinely call Obama the F-word. No, not that F-word (although the ability to resist doing so is dwindling); the other F-word: Fascist. Barack Obama is a fascist.
I have had quite a few liberals fixate on this word, and – while ignoring the rest of my arguments – proceed to give me a lecture about how my extremism undermines my positions and arguments (which they don’t bother to consider).
I’d like to respond to that. At length.
There are many who would argue that if a politician is not as rabid as Adolf Hitler, that one cannot use this label of “fascist” – at least not unless the target is a Republican (see below). Barack Obama is not a “dictator,” these would argue. He hasn’t launched the world into global war and he hasn’t murdered 6 million Jews (at least, he hasn’t yet). So he can’t be a “fascist.” This argument fails on two parts. First of all, by such a metric, Benito Mussolini wouldn’t be a “fascist” either (except for the “dictator” part). One of the reasons it is hard to have an easy definition of “fascist” is because fascism has taken a different character in every country and culture in which it has been embraced. Hitler is not the norm or standard of fascism; he is merely the most extreme example of its virulence and danger. Secondly, even if we were to take a Hitler as our example, let us realize that Adolf Hitler was a very cunning politician who managed to gain power in a Germany that was THE most sophisticated, educated and scientific nation and culture of its day. What I am asserting is that if an Adolf Hitler were to run for the presidency of the United States in 2012, he would run a platform that we could very easily label as “hope and change,” he would demagogue his adversaries as being the cause for the nation’s plight, he would lie both cynically and outrageously to win votes and he would then proceed to push the country as far as he possibly could toward his agenda. And so here, from the outset, I am claiming that the suggestion that either Barack Obama or anyone else does not qualify as a “fascist” simply because he or she can’t be directly compared to Adolf Hitler is nothing but a straw man.
The question thus becomes, what is fascism, and then it is what is Obama steering us toward?
THE WORD “fascism” is used broadly on the left as a term of abuse. Sometimes it is used to refer to any repressive government, whatever its political form. Most commonly on the left in the U.S., it is used to describe any Republican government–in particular, any Republican government or candidate on the eve of a presidential election.
As an experiment, I typed the words “Bush fascist” and then “Obama fascist” sans quotes. I got 3,280,000 Google hits for Bush fascist (and keep in mind an awful lot of hits would have vanished in the last 11 years as domains purged articles or simply ceased to exist) versus only 2,490,000 for Obama. That means liberals were over 45% more likely to call Bush a fascist than conservatives have been to call Obama one.
And when these liberals express their outrage that I would dare call Obama a fascist and thus lower the discourse, I invariably ask them just where the hell they were when their side was teeing off on Bush for eight unrelenting years of Bush derangement syndrome??? It was rare indeed to see a liberal excoriate his fellow liberals for demonizing the president of the United States.
With all due respect, the left started this form of “discourse.” They turned it into an art form. And how dare these hypocrites dare to tell me not to do unto Obama as they did unto Bush???
That might only be a rhetorical argument, as two wrongs clearly don’t make a right. But it remains a powerful one. Liberals have forfeited any moral right to criticize conservatives for using their own tactics against them.
But I don’t simply call Obama a fascist because liberals called Bush one. I call him one because he has exhibited all kinds of fascistic tendencies, which I shall in time describe.
But fascism has a far more precise definition. Historically, fascism is a far-right movementof the middle classes (shopkeepers, professionals, civil servants) who are economically ruined by severe economic crisis and driven to “frenzy.”
In the brilliant words of Leon Trotsky, fascism brings “to their feet those classes that are immediately above the working class and that are ever in dread of being forced down into its ranks; it organizes and militarizes them…and it directs them to the extirpation of proletarian organizations, from the most revolutionary to the most conservative.”
I have no doubt that the irony of these words were entirely lost to the “Socialist Worker” who wrote the article. But allow me to illuminate it for you: think of the most infamous fascists of all time, the Nazis. What did the word “Nazi” stand for? It was the “acronym for the ‘National Socialist German Workers Party’.” Let me try that again, just in case you missed these precious little details: “National SOCIALIST German WORKERS Party.”
But ask the “Socialist Workers” and they’ll assure you that the “Socialist Workers Party” had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Socialist Workers. Because that would certainly be awkward, wouldn’t it???
It is rather fascinating that “Socialist Worker” would cite as his authority on fascism and who should be labeled as a “fascist” the Marxist thinker . Allow me to provide one counter statement which is based not on the “brilliant words” of a Marxist, but on the plain simple facts:
“Part of the problem in recognizing fascism is the assumption that it is conservative. [Zeev] Sternhell has observed how study of the ideology has been obscured by “the official Marxist interpretation of fascism.” Marxism defines fascism as its polar opposite. If Marxism is progressive, fascism is conservative. If Marxism is left wing, fascism is right wing. If Marxism champions the proletariat, fascism champions the bourgeoisie. If Marxism is socialist, fascism is capitalist.
The influence of Marxist scholarship has severely distorted our understanding of fascism. Communism and fascism were rival brands of socialism. Whereas Marxist socialism is predicated on an international class struggle, fascist national socialism promoted a socialism centered in national unity. Both communists and fascists opposed the bourgeoisie. Both attacked the conservatives. Both were mass movements, which had special appeal for the intelligentsia, students, and artists, as well as workers. Both favored strong centralized governments and rejected the free economy and the ideals of individual liberty. Fascists saw themselves as being neither of the right nor the left. They believed that they constituted a third force synthesizing the best of both extremes” [Gene Edward Veith, Jr., Modern Fascism: Liquidating the Judeo-Christian Worldview, p. 26].
So depending on Leon Trotsky or any other Marxist-inspired academic who merely parrots “the official Marxist interpretation of fascism” has rather serious intellectual drawbacks. And yet that is largely what we get. Far too many American academics wouldn’t be so obvious as to use the phrase, “In the brilliant words of Leon Trotsky,” but they give his ideas, theories and talking points total credence, nonetheless. The term “useful idiots” was literally coined to describe these Western “intellectuals.” And their being “useful idiots” is every bit as true today as it ever was in the past.
Consider the REAL “polar opposite”: American conservatives are capitalists, not socialists. They demand a limited national/federal government, not a massive centrally planned state as does socialism, communism and fascism. They prefer the federalist idea of powerful states’ rights against a weakened federal government, not some all-powerful Führer. And to try to force conservatives into some Nazi mold invariably means either creating straw men arguments or citing irrelevant facts (such as that conservatives favor a large military just like the Nazis did, as though virtually every single communist state does not similarly favor a large military “just like the Nazis did”). If you want an all-powerful national government that gets to decide who wins and who loses, if you want to see a system where you have to come to your government for assistance and resources with all manner of strings attached rather than being allowed to depend on yourself, your family and your community, you should embrace the political left, not the right.
By the way, another favorite idiotic red herring for liberals asserting that “Nazism was right wing” was that the Nazis hated the admittedly left wing communists. But consider the fact that Coke hates Pepsi and Barbie Doll makers hate Bratz Doll makers. Are we supposed to believe that Coke is the opposite of Pepsi as opposed to water, milk or orange juice? The fact of the matter is that Nazis and Soviet Communists hated each other because both movements had a global agenda of totalitarian dominion, and both movements were competing for the same rabidly left wing converts.
Pardon me for the following insult, but the only people who believe garbage arguments like these are ignorant fools who live in a world of straw men. Even if they have the title “PhD.” after their names.
It is for that reason that I can state categorically that Marxism and fascism are not “polar opposites” at all. They are merely two potentially complementary species of socialism. That is why China has been able to easily weave blatantly fascistic (national socialist/corporatist) elements into its Maoist communism. It is also why Joseph Stalin was able to go from being an international socialist (i.e. a communist) and then appeal to nationalism (i.e., national socialism or “fascism”) when he needed to fight Hitler, only to switch back to “international socialism” after the war, as a few lines from Wikipedia on “Russian nationalism” point out:
The newborn communist republic under Vladimir Lenin proclaimed internationalism as its official ideology[4]. Russian nationalism was discouraged, as were any remnants of Imperial patriotism, such as wearing military awards received before Civil War….
The 1930s saw the evolution of the new concept of Soviet nationalism under Joseph Stalin, based on both Russian nationalism and communist internationalism. Official communist ideology always stated that Russia was the most progressive state, because it adopted socialism as its basis (which, according to the writings of Karl Marx, is the inevitable future of world socio-economic systems). Under Lenin, the USSR believed its duty to help other nations to arrange socialist revolutions (the concept of World Revolution), and made close ties with labor movements around the world[4].
[…]
The Soviet Union’s war against Nazi Germany became known as the Great Patriotic War, hearkening back to the previous use of the term in the Napoleonic Wars. The Soviet state called for Soviet citizens to defend the ‘Motherland’, a matrilineal term used to describe Russia in the past.
[…]
In 1944, the Soviet Union abandoned its communist anthem, The International, and adopted a new national anthem which citizens of the Soviet Union could identify with.
And then, with the victory secured over fascism, the Stalinist “national socialism” (a.k.a. “fascism”) suddenly became international socialism again. The Nazis’ very name was Nationalsozialistische.
One can be a “Marxist-fascist” and combine and blend elements of both totalitarian socialist systems quite easily, as both the Russian and then the Chinese communists proved. Communism and fascism have far more in common with one another than they have in opposition; especially when you examine the fact that both political systems invariably end up becoming the same big-government totalitarian police state.
So for my first two points – namely that 1) the left has routinely demagogically labeled the right “fascist” even when 2) it is clearly the left that owes far and away the most to fascistic elements – I am going to continue to shout from the rooftops who are the real fascists in America.
That said, it is still not enough to merely point out the FACT that American liberalism has much in common with fascism. And there is a lot more yet to say.
Before I begin spouting particular examples, I therefore need to further approach just what it is that would constitute a “fascist.” And then see who and how the label fits. From The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics:
The best example of a fascist economy is the regime of Italian dictator Benito Mussolini. Holding that liberalism (by which he meant freedom and free markets) had “reached the end of its historical function,” Mussolini wrote: “To Fascism the world is not this material world, as it appears on the surface, where Man is an individual separated from all others and left to himself…. Fascism affirms the State as the true reality of the individual.”
This collectivism is captured in the word fascism, which comes from the Latin fasces, meaning a bundle of rods with an axe in it. In economics, fascism was seen as a third way between laissez-faire capitalism and communism. Fascist thought acknowledged the roles of private property and the profit motive as legitimate incentives for productivity—provided that they did not conflict with the interests of the state.
[…]
Mussolini’s fascism took another step at this time with the advent of the Corporative State, a supposedly pragmatic arrangement under which economic decisions were made by councils composed of workers and employers who represented trades and industries. By this device the presumed economic rivalry between employers and employees was to be resolved, preventing the class struggle from undermining the national struggle. In the Corporative State, for example, strikes would be illegal and labor disputes would be mediated by a state agency.
Theoretically, the fascist economy was to be guided by a complex network of employer, worker, and jointly run organizations representing crafts and industries at the local, provincial, and national levels. At the summit of this network was the National Council of Corporations. But although syndicalism and corporativism had a place in fascist ideology and were critical to building a consensus in support of the regime, the council did little to steer the economy. The real decisions were made by state agencies such as the Institute for Industrial Reconstruction (Istituto per la Ricosstruzione Industriale, or IRI), mediating among interest groups.
[…]
Mussolini also eliminated the ability of business to make independent decisions: the government controlled all prices and wages, and firms in any industry could be forced into a cartel when the majority voted for it. The well-connected heads of big business had a hand in making policy, but most smaller businessmen were effectively turned into state employees contending with corrupt bureaucracies. They acquiesced, hoping that the restrictions would be temporary. Land being fundamental to the nation, the fascist state regimented agriculture even more fully, dictating crops, breaking up farms, and threatening expropriation to enforce its commands.
Banking also came under extraordinary control. As Italy’s industrial and banking system sank under the weight of depression and regulation, and as unemployment rose, the government set up public works programs and took control over decisions about building and expanding factories. The government created the Istituto Mobiliare in 1931 to control credit, and the IRI later acquired all shares held by banks in industrial, agricultural, and real estate enterprises.
The image of a strong leader taking direct charge of an economy during hard times fascinated observers abroad. Italy was one of the places that Franklin Roosevelt looked to for ideas in 1933…
Fascism is all about the “community,” not the individual. Its message is about the good of the nation, or the people (or the Volk), or the community, rather than the good of a nation’s individual citizens. It is about distributing and then redistributing the wealth and returning it to “its rightful owners” under the guise of an all-powerful state rather than recognizing and rewarding individual achievement. In short, when Hillary Clinton explained that, “It takes a village,” an educated Nazi would have snapped his fingers and excitedly shouted, “Ja! JA! Das ist ES!”
For Obama, the collectivism, community or “village” thing is such a profound part of him that he has literally made it an integral part of his very heretical form of “Christianity,” which very much stresses individual salvation and individual responsibility. Obama has on several occasions put it this way:
For example, in 1995, Obama said, “my individual salvation is not going to come about without a collective salvation for the country…” and again in May of 2008, “our individual salvation depends of collective salvation.”
In the Christian faith, there is no such thing as collective salvation. Salvation is an individual choice. It is personal acceptance of Jesus as savior, Son of the living God.
Obama’s is a wildly perverted view of orthodox Christianity. It so distorts true Christianity at such a fundamental level, in fact, that one literally has to go to Hitler to find a suitable similar parallel from a “Christian” national leader. The great Protestant Reformer Martin Luther – the most famous German prior to Hitler – had written the most monumental text of German culture prior to Hitler’s Mein Kampf. It was called “The Bondage of the Will,” which was considered THE manifesto of the Reformation. According to Luther, the human will was in bondage to sin. The fallen will, if left to itself, will choose what is evil. The human will has been perversely set against the righteous will of God. For sinful human beings, the will is not in a state of liberty but is in bondage to its worst impulses. Luther wrote in this work, “When our liberty is lost we are compelled to serve sin: that is, we will sin and evil, we speak sin and evil, we do sin and evil.” Adolf Hitler infamously turned that key doctrine of Christianity on its head in his “The Triumph of the Will,” in which he exalted depraved human will to an altogether different level of human depravity. Which is to say that Hitler was so profoundly wrong that he proved Luther right.
But getting back to Obama’s profoundly anti-Christian concept of “collective salvation,” the Nazis would have been all over that, enthusiastically shouting their agreement, “Ja! JA! Das ist ES!” Recall the encyclopedia entry on fascism stating that, “Fascism affirms the State as the true reality of the individual,” which was then further defined as “collectivism.” And the Nazis repeatedly called upon loyal Germans to make horrendous sacrifices in the name of that collective.
What the Nazis pursued was a form of anti-capitalist anti-conservative communitarianism encapsulated in the concept of Volksgemeinschaft, or “people’s community.”
From the Nazi Party Platform:
– The first obligation of every citizen must be to work both spiritually and physically. The activity of individuals is not to counteract the interests of the universality, but must have its result within the framework of the whole for the benefit of all Consequently we demand:
– Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of rent-slavery.
– In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.
– We demand the nationalization of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).
– We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.
– We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.
– We demand the creation of a healthy middle class and its conservation, immediate communalization of the great warehouses and their being leased at low cost to small firms, the utmost consideration of all small firms in contracts with the State, county or municipality.
– We demand a land reform suitable to our needs, provision of a law for the free expropriation of land for the purposes of public utility, abolition of taxes on land and prevention of all speculation in land.
– We demand struggle without consideration against those whose activity is injurious to the general interest. Common national criminals, usurers, Schieber and so forth are to be punished with death, without consideration of confession or race.
– We demand substitution of a German common law in place of the Roman Law serving a materialistic world-order.
– The state is to be responsible for a fundamental reconstruction of our whole national education program, to enable every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education and subsequently introduction into leading positions. The plans of instruction of all educational institutions are to conform with the experiences of practical life. The comprehension of the concept of the State must be striven for by the school [Staatsbuergerkunde] as early as the beginning of understanding. We demand the education at the expense of the State of outstanding intellectually gifted children of poor parents without consideration of position or profession.
– The State is to care for the elevating national health by protecting the mother and child, by outlawing child-labor, by the encouragement of physical fitness, by means of the legal establishment of a gymnastic and sport obligation, by the utmost support of all organizations concerned with the physical instruction of the young.
– We demand abolition of the mercenary troops and formation of a national army.
– We demand legal opposition to known lies and their promulgation through the press. In order to enable the provision of a German press, we demand, that: a. All writers and employees of the newspapers appearing in the German language be members of the race: b. Non-German newspapers be required to have the express permission of the State to be published. They may not be printed in the German language: c. Non-Germans are forbidden by law any financial interest in German publications, or any influence on them, and as punishment for violations the closing of such a publication as well as the immediate expulsion from the Reich of the non-German concerned. Publications which are counter to the general good are to be forbidden. We demand legal prosecution of artistic and literary forms which exert a destructive influence on our national life, and the closure of organizations opposing the above made demands.
Ah, yes, the Nazis had their “Fairness Doctrine” long before this current generation of liberals had theirs.
You read that Nazi Party Platform carefully, and you tell me if you see small government conservative Republicans or big government liberal Democrats written all over it.
Now, you read the Nazi Party Platform, and given what American liberals want and what American conservatism opposes, it is so obvious which party is “fascist” that it isn’t even silly. Then you ADD to that the fact that fascism and American progressivism (which is liberalism) were so similar that the great fascists of the age couldn’t tell the damn difference.
Since you point out Nazism was fascist, let’s look at some history as to WHO was recognized as fascist in America.
Fascism sought to eliminate class differences and to destroy/replace capitalism and laissez-faire economics.
H.G. Wells, a great admirer of FDR and an extremely close personal friend of his, was also a great progressive of his day. He summed it up this way in a major speech at Oxford to the YOUNG LIBERALS organization under the banner of “Liberal Fascism”: “I am asking for a Liberal Fascisti, for enlightened Nazis.” He said, “And do not let me leave you in the slightest doubt as to the scope and ambition of what I am putting before you” and then said:
These new organizations are not merely organizations for the spread of defined opinions…the days of that sort of amateurism are over – they are organizations to replace the dilatory indecisiveness of democracy. The world is sick of parliamentary politics…The Fascist Party, to the best of its ability, is Italy now. The Communist Party, to the best of its ability, is Russia. Obviously the Fascists of Liberalism must carry out a parallel ambition on still a vaster scale…They must begin as a disciplined sect, but must end as the sustaining organization of a reconstituted mankind.”
H.G. Wells pronounced FDR “the most effective transmitting instrument possible for the coming of the new world order.” And of course, we easily see that the new world order Wells wanted was a fascist one. In 1941, George Orwell concluded, “Much of what Wells has imagined and worked for is physically there in Nazi Germany.”
It was from the lips of liberal progressive H.G. Wells that Jonah Goldberg got the title of his book, Liberal Fascism. Goldberg didn’t just invent this connection: H.G. Wells flagrantly admitted it and George Orwell called him on it. All Goldberg did was rediscover history that liberals buried and have used every trick imaginable to keep buried.
And as a tie-in to our modern day, who more than Barack Obama has been more associated with said FDR?
But let me move on to some real red meat. In just what specific, concrete ways can I call Obama a fascist?
Well, to begin with, there is the signature achievement of his entire presidency, his national health care system (ObamaCare). For liberals, it is nothing but the most bizarre coincidence that Nazi culture had a national health care system that was quite rightly considered the wonder of its day by socialists in America. It is the most despicable of insults that Sarah Palin excoriated ObamaCare as “death panels” – even though it is more precisely a bureaucratic maze consisting of more like 160 separate death panels:
And the “czar” thing hits a very fascist nerve, too. Obama has appointed 39 czars who are completely outside our Constitutional process. Obama signed a budget bill into law that required him to remove these czars, but why would a fascist trouble himself with outmoded things like “laws”? One of the enraged Republicans responded, “The president knew that the czar amendment was part of the overall budget deal he agreed to, and if he cannot be trusted to keep his word on this, then how can he be trusted as we negotiate on larger issues like federal spending and the economy.” And of course, he’s right.
But why do I say it’s financial fascism in 20/20 hindsight? Because of what we just learned: in spite of all the bogus lying promises and the massive takeover “for our own good,” Obama didn’t fix anything. Instead he made it WORSE:
The financial system poses an even greater risk to taxpayers than before the crisis, according to analysts at Standard & Poor’s. The next rescue could be about a trillion dollars costlier, the credit rating agency warned.
S&P put policymakers on notice, saying there’s “at least a one-in-three” chance that the U.S. government may lose its coveted AAA credit rating. Various risks could lead the agency to downgrade the Treasury’s credit worthiness, including policymakers’ penchant for rescuing bankers and traders from their failures.
“The potential for further extraordinary official assistance to large players in the U.S. financial sector poses a negative risk to the government’s credit rating,” S&P said in its Monday report.
But, the agency’s analysts warned, “we believe the risks from the U.S. financial sector are higher than we considered them to be before 2008.”
Because of the increased risk, S&P forecasts the potential initial cost to taxpayers of the next crisis cleanup to approach 34 percent of the nation’s annual economic output, or gross domestic product. In 2007, the agency’s analysts estimated it could cost 26 percent of GDP.
Last year, U.S. output neared $14.7 trillion, according to the Commerce Department. By S&P’s estimate, that means taxpayers could be hit with $5 trillion in costs in the event of another financial collapse.
Experts said that while the cost estimate seems unusually high, there’s little dispute that when the next crisis hits, it will not be anticipated — and it will likely hurt the economy more than the last financial crisis.
So much for the massive and unprecedented fascist government takeover.
Think last year’s $700 billion Wall Street rescue package was beaucoup bucks to spend bailing out the nation’s floundering financial system? That’s chump change compared to what the overall price tag could be, a government watchdog says.
The inspector general in charge of overseeing the Treasury Department’s bank-bailout program says the massive endeavor could end up costing taxpayers almost $24 trillion in a worst-case scenario. That’s more than six times President Obama’s proposed $3.55 trillion budget for 2010.
Nobody here but us fascists. And we sure aint talking.
Then there are other issues that the left usually uses to attack conservatives, such as racism. Wasn’t Hitler a racist, just like conservatives? The problem is, the liberals are as usual upside-down here. After running as the man to create racial harmony, Barack Obama has instead done more to racially polarize America than any president since other famous progressives such as Woodrow Wilson and FDR. Frankly, if one were to conduct a major study of racial politics, and the setting up in opposition of one racial group against another, just which party has emphasized race and race-baiting more?
Hitler’s Jew-baiting was all about the idea that one race had taken over the culture, had the money and the power, and was using its influence to oppress the people in the banking system and anywhere else that mattered. And Hitler’s constant screed was that Germany needed to confiscate the Jews’ wealth and then redistribute it. With all respect, all the left has done is replace “Jew” with “Caucasian” and making the exact same claims.
And with all this hard-core racist demagoguing, I’m supposed to say that, “Oh, yes, it’s the conservatives who are guilty of demagoguing race”??? Seriously???
Obama has Samantha Powers (the wife of Cass Sunstein, the man who “nudges us”) close to him and advising him on matters of war. According to the very liberal publication The Nation, “She began to see war as an instrument to achieving her liberal, even radical, values.” What if you had an ultra conservative – oh, say a Sarah Palin – openly acknowledged to pursue war and risk American lives to advance her radical values??? What would the left call this if not “fascist”?
But it’s only fascist if Republicans do it, of course.
Also in yesterday’s news is the fact that Obama is the perpetual demagogue– which is a quintessentially fascist tactic. Obama demonized Bush for trying to raise the debt ceiling until he needed to raise it. Now it would be un-American for Republicans to act the same exact way Obama acted. In the same demagogic spirit, Obama personally invited Paul Ryan to a speech just so he could personally demonize him. The same Obama who lectured Republicans that it would be counter-productive to rely on name-calling and accusations in the health care debate launched into a vicious demagogic attack. Ryan correctly said that “What we got yesterday was the opposite of what he said is necessary to fix this problem.” But that is par for the golf course for a fascist. If that wasn’t enough, Obama held a White House conference for “stake holders” in the immigration debate and refused to invite a single governor from a border state.
A Republican equivalent would have had to come out of a deep involvement with some vile racist militia organization to approximate Obama’s background. And liberals would rightly label such a politician a fascist for his past alone.
Here’s a recent Youtube video of Obama’s key union allies on camera saying, “We’re not going to rely on the law,” and, “Forget about the law” as they seek to impose their unions basically whether workers want them or not:
Now, in Wisconsin, that hateful Nazi swastika Hitler crap abounds. But it’s liberals hating a Republican, and so the mainstream media just doesn’t seem to find that very newsworthy:
And did you notice just how WHITE and CAUCASIAN those Wisconsin protestors happen to be with their Nazi Hitler swastika signs???
If you hold your breath waiting for the media to actually be fair and objective and give the left the kind of coverage they give the right every single damn day, you will spend the rest of your life unconscious.
There’s another angle to this: the “human sympathy” story angle. You wait until the government gets shut down in a couple of months, and the media goes over the top making sure that the Republicans get all the blame for a dance that obviously takes two for the tango. What you will get to see at that time will be an avalanche of stories as “journalists” and “reporters” scour the country looking for every single victim of the government shutdown they can possibly find.
But let me ask you: how many stories have you heard about poor single mothers losing their jobs because public schools canceled their classes because liberal government union teachers were out protesting? How many stories have you heard about the terrible difficulty poor parents have had trying to scramble for day care for children who should have been in school?
Zero, you say?
Well, don’t you worry. As soon as the media has some way to frame a story blaming Republicans, they’ll more than make up for that deficiency.
This story is actually worse than first reported, when Capuano made the blood comments to union supporters he was pointing at a small group of Tea Partiers who were brave enough to counter-protest in Boston. Capuano is lucky nobody got hurt.
(Boston Herald) — U.S. Rep. Michael Capuano expressed regret Wednesday for his choice of words at a Tuesday rally to support Wisconsin workers, after national and local Republicans pounced on him for “over-the-top and inflammatory rhetoric.”
“Congressman Mike Capuano must have lost the memo from President Obama and Democratic leaders who were demanding more civility in our political discourse and a toning down of incendiary rhetoric after the massacre in Tucson on January 8,” the Massachusetts Republican Party wrote in a Wednesday statement. “Yesterday, at a rally on Beacon Hill, Capuano couldn’t resist the urge to stir up a crowd of union members with a call for blood in the pursuit and protection of their political agenda.”
During the Tuesday rally — a gathering of more than 1,000 union supporters protesting a proposal by Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker to diminish the collective bargaining rights of public sector workers in that state — Capuano, speaking in front of the State House, fired up the crowd by saying, “I’m proud to be here with people who understand that it’s more than just sending an email to get you going. Every once and awhile you need to get out on the streets and get a little bloody when necessary.”
After Republicans took aim at his rhetoric, Capuano issued a statement expressing regret for his language, although at the time it drew wild applause and cheers from the throngs of union supporters.
Capuano also referred to a vastly outnumbered throng of Tea Party counter-protesters as “a couple of nuts in the background who want to take it all away from you,” waving his hand dismissively in their direction. Throughout the three-hour rally, rank-and-file union members traded heated barbs with the Tea Party backers. Some clashes nearly escalated into violence and resulted in police intervention. In one case, a pro-union rallier spit in the face of one of the counter-protesters, who set up camp near the rally.
Capuano’s comments quickly drew contrasts with the call for a more civil tone in national political rhetoric by President Barack Obama and politicians across the country after a mass shooting in Tucson that injured Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. Capuano was reportedly among those who agreed with Obama’s call, telling the Boston Globe in January, “Everybody knows the last couple of years there’s been an intentional increase in the degree of heat in political discourse . . . If nothing else good comes out of this, I’m hoping it causes people to reconsider how they deal with things.’’
How about the call to violence by the SEIU in its new “fight song”?
SEIU fight song: ‘Take the bastards down’
SEIU posted a fight song on their website called ‘Take ‘Em Down’ and it goes like this: “Ya got take the bastards down. Let them know. We got to smash them to the ground. Let them know. We got to take the bastards down. When the boss comes calling you got to stand your ground. When the boss comes calling let them know.” With lyrics like that, it’s no wonder the violent SEIU took special notice of the song.
Here’s the screenshot of the SEIU posting this song telling the left to take conservatives down and smash them to the ground:
I’ve said this about the left before: what enrages me about them isn’t that they’ve been engaging in hate for the past fifty years, back when they started spitting on American soldiers and throwing dog shit at them. It’s that they’ve done this crap for a full generation and then actually have the chutzpah to demonize the right for doing what they themselves have been doing for fifty years. And then right after they demonize us, they actually go right back to being worse than the very thing they just got through demonizing us for doing. And the thing that infuriates me even more than that is a media machine that – between self-backpatting for what virtues of journalistic objecivity they are – actually deliberately seek out stories of “rightwing hate” and actually refuse to report episodes of leftwing hate.
Let’s look at the deficit history since Clinton was elected with his party in control of both houses of Congress:
1992 290.4 Billion Dollar Deficit – Record
1993 255.1 Billion Dollar Deficit
1994 203.2 Billion Dollar Deficit
(GOP takes control of both houses, watch the deficit decrease)
1995 164 Billion Dollar Deficit
1996 107.5 Billion Dollar Deficit
1997 22 Billion Dollar Deficit
1998 69.2 Billion Dollar Surplus
1999 125.6 Billion Dollar Surplus
2000 236.4 Billion Dollar Surplus
(Bush elected with both houses still in GOP control)
2001 127.3 Billion Dollar Surplus
2002 157.8 Billion Dollar Deficit
(Dems take Senate, post 9-11 bills start piling up)
2003 374 Billion Dollar Deficit – Record
2004 413 Billion Dollar Deficit – Record
(GOP back in control of both houses; deficits going down again)
2005 319 Billion Dollar Deficit
2006 248 Billion Dollar Deficit
(Dems take both houses and retain them through FY 2010)
2007 162 Billion Dollar Deficit
2008 455 Billion Dollar Deficit – Record
(Obama’s first year; both houses have larger Democrat majorities)
2009 1400 Billion Dollar Deficit <<== WTF? Record x 3!!!!!!!
2010 1350 Billion Dollar Deficit
… why do Republicans get blamed for such deficits, when the trend clearly illustrates the reverse is true?
Republicans are always lowering deficits, except when there is a war on — and even then, they keep budgets at lower % of GDP than their Democrat predecessors when they had wars on their watch.
The Republicans last budget that they controlled in FY-2007 had a deficit of $162 billion. The VERY NEXT YEAR, the Democrats very nearly tripled that figure with their FY-2008 budget of $459 billion. And by last year the Democrats were spending so shockingly and so recklessly that they didn’t even bother to pass a budget.
And don’t you forget that even as Arabs get bloody in the streets of Tripoli, it is DEMOCRATS who have called for Americans to get bloody in our streets.
How long did it take for liberals and their media lackeys to blame Republicans and conservatives for Jared Loughner and the “climate of hate” that resulted in the Tucson, Arizona shootings? Probably about two minutes, but New York Slimes columnist Paul Krugman was the first “mainstream” “journalist” to viciously attack the right two hours after the event (evidence not required).
You see, for any of the above to matter, the left would have to have some shred of virtue. And they simply don’t have any virtue at all. They are liars without honesty, shame or integrity. Hypocrisy and deceit are pathological. Take these things away from a liberal, and he or she would vanish. Because it’s all they are.
Even as the left denounced the right for the “climate of hate,” they were frothing at the mouth with their own special climate of hate.
Now, for the record I don’t really mind the left spewing their hate. I think it helps reveal who and what they are. What I DO mind – and what got me into blogging – is the massive hypocrisy in which these people constantly denounce us for hate when they are so full of it themselves. These are people who have practiced hatred and violence for decades, and when we respond to their jackboots in our faces, they denounce us as practicing hate. As if the victim who fights the attacker is every bit as guilty as the attacker for any violence.
But the left is vicious and vile and venomous. So it took them no time at all to show their demonic nature.
Republicans tried to play by the new rules. They called a break (and a truce) for a week and halted their calender in an important time that the opposition party would ordinarily want to use to full advantage prior to a State of the Union speech. And they toned down their language, for example, changing the word “kill” in “job killing” to “crush” or “destroy.” It was a useless gesture, I know, but the Republicans were doing what they could to practice civility according to the long laundry list of words that political-correctness-embracing Democrats had decided was off limits.
But, of course, Democrats paid no attention to the rules they insisted that Republicans follow. Controlling liberal hate is like controlling a rabid dog in full-frothing mode; it just doesn’t happen. So it should be no surprise that Democrats would be unable to control themselves in their hateful dialogue even while Republicans tried to jump through the rhetorical hoops Democrats demanded.
“They say it’s a government takeover of health care, a big lie just like Goebbels,” Cohen said. “You say it enough, you repeat the lie, you repeat the lie, and eventually, people believe it. Like blood libel. That’s the same kind of thing.” And Congressman Cohen didn’t stop there.
“The Germans said enough about the Jews and people believed it–believed it and you have the Holocaust. We heard on this floor, government takeover of health care. Politifact said the biggest lie of 2010 was a government takeover of health care because there is no government takeover,” Cohen said.
Now, keep in mind, Sarah Palin got demonized by the mainstream media for having maps that did the exact same thing that Democrat maps had been doing for years. Did the media come unglued and denounce Cohen for his despicable hate? Nope. They put it in a “broader context,” which means that to the extent that they didn’t simply ignore it altogether, they explained it away.
“Frankly, I would just say to you, this is about saving lives. Jobs are very important; we created jobs,” Jackson Lee said. “But even the title of their legislation, H.R. 2, ‘job-killing’ — this is killing Americans if we take this away, if we repeal this bill.”
Okay. So Republicans are “killing Americans.” But other than that they’re decent people. Really.
There’s your new “civility” for you. It’s Democrats demonizing Republicans for what Democrats have actually done more than Republicans. And heaping hate on top of rabid hate even as they hypocritically denounce Republicans for the climate of hate that Republicans are of course responsible for.
And the media will play that game all day. Because, contrary to Steve Cohen’s remark, the new “Jospeh Goebbels” in this country are journalists.
So we’ve got stuff like this: a leftist radical who acted on his radical leftism tried to murder a politician who wasn’t far leftist enough. He wrote, “How are we the radical(s) (left) to confront the NEW RIGHT, if we avoid confrontation all together?”
This radical leftist slashed the throat of a college dean out of the mistaken belief that he was the governor of Tennessee. It happened last September. And nobody reported it simply because, well, they couldn’t figure out a way to turn this radical leftist into a Republican.
But they sure were on top of the story that Sarah Palin had a map that you needed to know about, didn’t they???
And if Democrats had a stack of maps themselves, well, you just didn’t need to know that, the self-appointed media gate-keepers figured.
Nor did you need to know about that petty little leftist would-be assassin.
Nor do you really need to know anything that contradicts the mainstream – liberal, of course – media message.
As we plunge toward “climate change” legislation and government health care, let us realize that so much is being done in the name of “science.” And let us realize that the ideological perversion of science has been the source of the greatest evil in human history. Particularly when liberal progressives have been involved.
Let us begin with one particularly unpopular group of socialist progressives, the Nazis, and see where the thread leads:
The image of the Nazi doctor is a vivid one — and “Deadly Medicine: Creating the Master Race” doesn’t give it short shrift.
At this traveling exhibit, now on view at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles, visitors can see photos of creepy gadgets like the calipers used by Nazi physicians to quantify racial characteristics. They can watch video of doctors testing how long it takes mental patients to die after inhaling tailpipe exhaust. They can learn about Dr. Julius Hallervorden, a neuropathologist who dissected hundreds of brains harvested from “euthanized” children.
But “Deadly Medicine” also aims to show that doctors’ and scientists’ role in the Holocaust wasn’t limited to measuring noses or conducting gruesome experiments in concentration camps.
The exhibit argues that by advancing the theory of eugenics — and then providing cover for the Nazi regime when it used that theory to buttress its racist and genocidal policies — German scientists helped lay the foundation upon which the Holocaust was built.
“This is important in understanding the context of the Holocaust,” said exhibit curator Susan Bachrach of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C. “Presenting these ideas under the rubric of science made them more palatable.”
“Deadly Medicine” traces the roots of Nazi science back to the early 20th century and the rise of eugenics, an outgrowth of Darwinian thought that argued it was best for society if healthy people — and, some believed, only healthy people — were encouraged to reproduce. Allowing the “unfit” to thrive and multiply, the thinking went, interfered with natural selection and “degenerated” the population.
Some of the eugenics research funded by Germany after World War I actually led to improvements in public health, including an emphasis on prenatal care. (One poster urges pregnant women not to drink or smoke.)
“There’s been a tendency to dismiss everything done under the Nazis as pseudoscience, to distance ourselves,” Bachrach said. “That’s dishonest. A lot of the scientists we feature in this exhibit were legitimate.”
But most of the exhibit’s artifacts illustrate the dark side of Nazi eugenics, in which scientists called for mass sterilization — and eventually “euthanasia” — for people with a variety of sometimes haphazardly defined physical and mental illnesses.
It wasn’t a terribly long leap, the exhibit suggests, from the (comparatively limited, though still horrifying) task of sterilizing or killing the ill to coordinating the mass murder of ethnic groups that the Nazis — and their scientists — deemed defective, including Jews. “The euthanasia program provided a model for the much larger project that was to come,” Bachrach said.
“Deadly Medicine” offers some surprises. Germany wasn’t the only country to dabble in eugenics — one photograph shows a crowd at a Pasadena exhibit that extolled the “social benefits of sterilization.”
Another display reports that “doctors joined the Nazi party earlier and in higher numbers than any other professional group,” some driven by the hope that forcing Jewish physicians out of German hospitals would create job opportunities.
The exhibit raises thought-provoking questions about how good science — and good scientists — turn bad, said Kristine Brancolini, dean of university libraries at Loyola Marymount.
“At what point does something become unethical?” she said.
For Bachrach, another question is how far scientists might be willing to go to study their ideas — and how to stop them when they go too far.
“As a society, we’ve gone a long way toward establishing safeguards that didn’t exist,” she said. “But this exhibit continues to underscore the importance of informed leadership.”
The exhibit will be on display at the university until Nov. 24.
The reporter says, “‘Deadly Medicine’ offers some surprises. Germany wasn’t the only country to dabble in eugenics.” And of course, it might be a surprise to Ms. Brown, but it certainly isn’t a surprise to – oh, I don’t know, Glenn Beck – or to anyone who has actually made an effort to actually learn history.
Where else did we see eugenics? And where did this monstrously evil form of science begin? From CBS:
The Fernald School, and others like it, was part of a popular American movement in the early 20th century called the Eugenics movement. The idea was to separate people considered to be genetically inferior from the rest of society, to prevent them from reproducing.
Eugenics is usually associated with Nazi Germany, but in fact, it started in America. Not only that, it continued here long after Hitler’s Germany was in ruins.
At the height of the movement – in the ‘20s and ‘30s – exhibits were set up at fairs to teach people about eugenics. It was good for America, and good for the human race. That was the message.
But author Michael D’Antonio says it wasn’t just a movement. It was government policy. “People were told, we can be rid of all disease, we can lower the crime rate, we can increase the wealth of our nation, if we only keep certain people from having babies,” says D’Antonio.
But surely it came from conservative Republicans, someone might say. Something so evil could never come from Democrat progressives.
Wrong.
Margaret Sanger, hero of liberalism and feminism, and founder of Planned Parenthood, was an ardent eugenicist. You can see it in her own words.
“We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population. and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.” Margaret Sanger’s December 19, 1939 letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble, 255 Adams Street, Milton, Massachusetts. Original source: Sophia Smith Collection, Smith College, North Hampton, Massachusetts. Also described in Linda Gordon’s Woman’s Body, Woman’s Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America. New York: Grossman Publishers, 1976.
Don’t worry, Margaret. Your secret is safe with the mainstream media. They’ll never betray the secret that abortion is morally evil, that it is the murder of an innocent human being, and that liberal Democrats to this very day are trying to destroy the black population.
I also notice that Margaret Sanger also wanted to do this in the name of a “religious appeal.” Let me say this: Don’t you DARE call yourself a Christian if you support “a woman’s right to choose” to kill her baby. Because by obvious extension you also then support the Virgin Mary’s “right” to choose to kill Baby Jesus in her womb. And so Jesus can’t save such a liberal progressive “Christian” from his or her sins, because the Jesus of liberal progressive “Christianity” is dead in an abortion mill. And so hell awaits you for your part in the murder of nearly 50 million innocent unborn babies in America alone.
LOS ANGELES, February 28, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) – UCLA’s pro-life student magazine, The Advocate, has revealed an undercover investigation in which representatives of Planned Parenthood enthusiastically accepted a financial donation targeting the abortion of an unborn black baby for racist motives.
And what does the “great” liberal Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg have to say about that?
“Frankly I had thought that at that time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of” — 7/2/09 Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
The article detailing the apology over American scientists deliberately infecting Guatemalan men with syphilis pointed out that our fascination with eugenics and the ugliest forms of “science” continued long after Hitler was defeated and Nazism destroyed. And it did.
WASHINGTON (AP) — American scientists deliberately infected prisoners and patients in a mental hospital in Guatemala with syphilis 60 years ago, a recently unearthed experiment that prompted U.S. officials to apologize Friday and declare outrage over “such reprehensible research.”
The U.S. government-funded experiment, which ran from 1946 to 1948, was discovered by a Wellesley College medical historian. It apparently was conducted to test if penicillin, then relatively new, could prevent infection with sexually transmitted diseases. The study came up with no useful information and was hidden for decades.
Liberal progressives haven’t changed their spots. They arrogantly claimed that they represented the movement of “progress” and “science” when they were leading the way for Adolf Hitler and the most genuinely evil human depravity ever seen in human history. And they’re saying the same things now.
And, yes, the same Hitler who embraced the Darwinian eugenics movement devised and championed by 20th century American progressive liberal Democrats also embraced the government health care and embraced the environmental movement championed today by 21st century American progressive liberal Democrats.
Same moral garbage. Same Democrat Party.
Science in and of itself is morally neutral. There is no conflict between good science and good Christianity. In fact, science flowed from the universities that themselves emerged directly from the great Christian monasteries. The man who formulated the scientific method was a publicly confessing Christian, as were the discoverers of every single major branch of modern science.
Obama is no guardian of scientific legitimacy. He is its leading perverter.
I have mentioned abortion several times in this article. What does science really say about abortion?
To put it simply, science properly understood tells us that human embryos are human by virtue of their parents, and beings by virtue of the fact that they are living things (they grow, feed,respire,excrete,respond to stimuli, and reproduce): they are human beings. Science further tells us that human embryos are NOT part of their mother’s bodies; rather, they are clearly unique genetic individuals, with their own unique human DNA. Moreover, scientifically, every single living thing is rigorously classified by the science of taxonomy into the categories of: Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species. And a human embryo – an unborn baby – is of the kingdom Animalia, of the phylum Chordata, of the class Mammalia, of the order Primates, of the family Hominidae, of the genus Homo, and of the species sapiens. Same as you, same as me, and same as any human being who has spent a lifetime living outside of his or her mother’s womb.
Any attempt to claim that “science” legitimizes abortion is totally false and totally perverted science. And yet science is falsified and perverted on a daily basis today.
Democrats have for years characterized themselves as the party of “science,” while demonizing Republicans as the party that stands in the way of science or progress. But they long ago forfeited any legitimate credibility that they had to make such a claim.
Update, October 18: It didn’t take long for Obama to prove me right again.
“Part of the reason that our politics seems so tough right now, and facts and science and argument do not seem to be winning the day all the time, is because we’re hard-wired not to always think clearly when we’re scared,” Obama told the assembled Democrats, who paid $15,200 a person to attend. “And the country is scared.”
This from the man who said as he justified the culture of abortion:
“It is about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda — and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology,”
Let me leave you with an alternate “scientific” examination of what is going on today: Americans are “hard wired” to survive, and they are growing increasingly fearful as they realize their president is destroying their and their children’s country.
That answer not only is equally “scientific,” but it has the virtue of NOT basically calling the American people a bunch of non-rational meat puppets.
Barack Obama was quite fine with the “scared” American people “not thinking clearly” when they voted for him two years ago. And the reason it bothers him so much that his demagoguery is now backfiring on him has nothing whatsoever to do with “facts and science and argument.”
Unless you think Obama saying “They’re fighting back. The empire is striking back” was somehow about “science,” when, given the Star Wars analogy, no one better qualifies as the evil emperor bent on ruling the universe than Barack Obama himself.
It’s bad enough that Barack Obama is a demonizing demagogue to the very core of his political, if not his moral, being. But when he wraps his demonizing and demagoguery in the mantle of “science” as so many “progressives” have before him, you should step back and see how this movie has played out in the past.
Start Thinking Right 